Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Hillary Clinton- archives, comments, and opposition research
various FR links and stories and posters | 12-07-03 | The Heavy Equipment Guy

Posted on 12/07/2003 3:44:56 PM PST by backhoe

The purpose of this post is to begin providing links, tools, and tactics which we can all use to educate the public, fellow citizens, and neighbors about Hillary Clinton.

It is a work in progress- I have provided a starting point, but want others to chime in with more links, stories, and information.

It is the product of conversations with a number of other members, from which several salient tactical points emerged:

1- keep it as contemporary as possible- the old Whitewater and similar items are stale and dead to the public.
2- keep it civil, please- within the board guidelines, or better. We are trying to convert the mushy middle, and stridency puts them off. Badly.
3- source or reference everything. Authenticity is critical to such an effort.

Here's where it started:


Links from this post:
Sunday Morning Talk Show Thread 7 Dec 2003
Various big media television networks ^ | 7 Dec 2003 | Various Self-Serving Politicians and Big Media Screaming Faces
Follows:
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/forum/a3923fdd07554.htm
Hillary's delegates spit on and taunt Police Honor Guard at her Convention
Politics/Elections News Keywords: HILLARY'S RADICAL SUPPORTERS
Source: Albany Times Union Posted on 05/18/2000 07:27:28 PDT by 1Old Pro

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1032083/posts
Bagram G.I.: Troops Waited While Hillary Chowed Down
NewsMax.com ^ | 12/02/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

http://www.Freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1022571/posts
..HILLARY & TERRORISM's plan to regain the White House..
J.R. NYQUIST Website ^ | 11/09/2003 | RICHARD ROBERTS

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003138/posts
PETER PAUL SUES BILL AND HILLARY CLINTON FOR FRAUD, CONSPIRACY, UNJUST ENRICHMENT
Judicial Watch ^ | Oct 16, 2003 | Press Office

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1008003/posts
Hillary Stonewalls AP's Questions on Peter Paul Lawsuit
NewsMax.com ^ | 10/25/03 | Carl Limbacher and NewsMax.com Staff

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/962304/posts
Hillary Clinton's Biggest Cover-ups

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/926091/posts
Hilary – great cartoons

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/940060/posts
Hillary history
487 posted on 12/07/2003 12:06:47 PM EST by mathluv
 
HAL9000 has a great source; he works continually to keep it updated--
http://www.freerepublic.com/~hal9000/
 
 
THE DOWNSIDE LEGACY ARCHIVES
http://www.alamo-girl.com/
 
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1003911/posts
Hillary Clinton 10-16-03 Senate Speech
http://thomas.loc.gov/home/thomas.html ^ | 10-16-03 | HILLARY CLINTON

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/834207/posts
HLLLARY RODHAM, U.S. Senate Armed Services Committee = Future Disasters
Posted on 02/01/2003 8:13 PM PST by ALOHA RONNIE
 
Paul takes the fall?
Insight on the News, Oct 1, 2002, by Paul M. Rodriguez
http://216.239.39.104/search?q=cache:TWF-4MeGNM0J:www.findarticles.com/cf_dls/m1571/37_18/92589574/p1/article.jhtml+Tonken,+clinton&hl=en&ie=UTF-8



TOPICS: Crime/Corruption; Extended News; News/Current Events
KEYWORDS: 2008; 2016election; alexisherman; backhoe; baopeide; bernardschwartz; billburton; billkennedy; binliu; brucelindsey; changlintien; charlietrie; chenqingchang; chushulong; clinton; clintonterm3; collui; conspiringclintons; craiglivingstone; davidchang; davidwang; dossier; dwightholton; election2016; elections; ericholder; fbifiles; generalchihaotian; generalfuquanyou; generalwuquanxu; genjishengde; haroldickes; hazeloleary; hill; hillary; hillaryarchive; hillaryclinton; hillaryscandals; hoytzia; illusionist; irasockowitz; irenewu; jamesriady; jamesrubin; jamiegorelick; janehuang; jeffeller; jenniferoconnor; jezebel; jiangsuyongli; jingweili; johndeutch; johnhuang; johnnychung; johnpodesta; josecabrera; josephlandon; kenhsui; keshizhan; lando; lannydavis; liaominglong; lippobank; lippogroup; lippopacific; loral; lynncutler; mackmclarty; manlinfoung; mariahsia; markgearan; markjimenez; markmiddleton; marvinrosen; mochtarriady; nancyhernreich; nannanxu; nealainley; neilegglseston; nglapseng; noralum; obama; obamaresearch; opporesearch; panyongming; patsythomasson; peterpaul; projecthillary; rickiseidman; robertmeyerhoff; rogertamraz; ronbrown; saveamerica; shaoxingsheng; shenrongjun; shijinyu; shizengchen; sidneyblumenthal; sisterping; stephanopoulos; stophillary; suenyankwong; susietompkinsbuell; tedsioeng; terrymcaullife; tianyi; tinear; tongsunpark; wahlim; wangjun; wangliheng; wangmeitrie; williammeddoff; williampeh; xiaoyang; xipingwang; zoujiahua
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 1,761-1,780 next last
To: All
OBAMA IS really hurting Hillary.
 

MORE ON OBAMA AND RACE, from Brendan Loy:

He is, it turns out, perfectly willing to let this racial stew fester, so long as he thinks it will work to his advantage -- even though the controversy is totally baseless, and he knows it. That suggests to me that, as president, he would let any racial controversy fester if he deems it politically advantageous.

The last thing we need is a President who encourages festering racial controversies.

You know, I've noted before that if Hillary attacks Obama too hard she risks losing black supporters -- and others who've invested in Obama. But it works both ways -- if Obama looks too much like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even like he's too close to those two politically, he'll lose a lot of people who've rallied to him precisely because he promised "a new kind of politics." You can't run as a uniter, and engage in racial politicking at the same time. Well, you can -- but it won't work very well.

Here are some sort-of-related thoughts from Reihan Salam.


1,101 posted on 01/14/2008 1:49:52 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
UH OH: Clinton booed at MLK rally in New York. (Via Gateway Pundit).
 

Gag-worthy quote of the day

January 14, 2008 09:27 PM by Michelle Malkin44 Comments | 1 Trackback

Dancin’ with Sistah Hillary.

 
OBAMA IS really hurting Hillary.
 

What Hillary supporter Robert L. Johnson, founder of Black Entertainment Television, said

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 14, 2008 07:02 AM

Update: Hill gets a less-than-enthusiastic reception at the MLK event in NYC today.Over the weekend, Black Entertainment Television founder Robert L. Johnson took the stage next to Hillary Clinton and smeared Barack Obama twice. (Video of Johnson’s comment here.) The Clintons–she and The Big He–and their operatives have been under fire for their race-baiting tactics and suggestive remarks about Obama’s admitted drug use.

Condescending She of Forked Tongue:

Where is Hillary headed today? An MLK birthday celebration.

Here’s the Obama campaign’s memo on the Clinton race card strategy.

Michelle Obama strikes back.

Question: What will Oprah do?

***

The latest pollVictor Davis Hanson weighs in on Hillary’s LBJ/MLK race ploy:Obama and the old civil rights guard: No love.

In the midst of this whiney scree about victimhood, my favorite line is

this is our first black President. Blacker than any actual black person who could ever be elected in our children’s lifetime

because America is just too darn racist to elect an actual black man.

How deliciously ironic...

comments (93) 

Hillary’s year in review. Not so pretty.
http://deathby1000papercuts.blogspot.com/2008/01/year-of-hillary-clintons-campaign.html#links

Dems 2008: Today in Identity Politics [Karl]

Today, Sen. Barack Obama, having let a racial stew fester on a slow boil for a couple of days to demonstrate the impotency of the Clintons’ aspirations to alpha victimhood in the Democratic presidential campaign, deftly stepped back into his role as Uniter, officially proclaiming that he, former Sen. John Edwards, and Sen. Hillary Clinton all share the same goals when it comes to civil rights and equal justice issues.  He then mounted his campaign’s unicorn mascot and rode off through a field of buttercups into the Nevada sunset.

Clinton remains likely to win the nomination if her political machine can turn out her vote in each state.  But Obama showed that he is currently in control of The Narrative.™

This has been “Today in Identity Politics.”

MORE ON OBAMA AND RACE, from Brendan Loy:

He is, it turns out, perfectly willing to let this racial stew fester, so long as he thinks it will work to his advantage -- even though the controversy is totally baseless, and he knows it. That suggests to me that, as president, he would let any racial controversy fester if he deems it politically advantageous.

The last thing we need is a President who encourages festering racial controversies.

You know, I've noted before that if Hillary attacks Obama too hard she risks losing black supporters -- and others who've invested in Obama. But it works both ways -- if Obama looks too much like Al Sharpton or Jesse Jackson, or even like he's too close to those two politically, he'll lose a lot of people who've rallied to him precisely because he promised "a new kind of politics." You can't run as a uniter, and engage in racial politicking at the same time. Well, you can -- but it won't work very well.

Here are some sort-of-related thoughts from Reihan Salam.


1,102 posted on 01/15/2008 3:45:45 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Where is Hillary headed today? An MLK birthday celebration.

Here’s the Obama campaign’s memo on the Clinton race card strategy.

Michelle Obama strikes back.

Question: What will Oprah do?

***

The latest poll

The first contests of the 2008 presidential campaign have led to a dramatic shake-up in public opinion nationally, with Sen. John McCain now leading the Republican field and Sen. Barack Obama all but erasing Sen. Hillary Clinton’s once-overwhelming advantage among Democrats, according to a new Washington Post-ABC News poll published Monday.

Clinton had dominated in national polls from the outset, holding a 30- point advantage as recently as a month ago, but the competitiveness of the first two contests appears to have reverberated among Democrats across the country.

In the new poll, 42 percent of likely Democratic voters support Clinton (New York), and 37 percent back Obama (Illinois). Clinton’s support is down 11 percentage points from a month ago, with Obama’s up 14. Former senator John Edwards (North Carolina) held third place with 11 percent.

Victor Davis Hanson weighs in on Hillary’s LBJ/MLK race ploy:

She and Bill obviously think that they’ve so cemented the issue of the Clintons as our first Black Presidents that their racial fides is above suspicion. It isn’t; and the Obama the soul speaker vs. Hillary the brainy insider is a lose / lose / lose /lose proposition. I’m surprised that her handlers haven’t muzzled altogether the Clintoni on this issue.

Obama and the old civil rights guard: No love.

The most amazing thing about the 2008 presidential race is not that a black man is a bona fide contender, but the lukewarm response he has received from the luminaries whose sacrifices made this run possible. With the notable exception of Joseph Lowry, the Southern Christian Leadership Conference veteran who gave a stirring invocation at Obama’s Atlanta campaign rally in June and subsequently endorsed him, Obama has been running without much support from many of the most recognizable black figures in the political landscape.

That’s because, positioned as he is between the black boomers and the hip-hop generation, Obama is indebted, but not beholden, to the civil rights gerontocracy. A successful Obama candidacy would simultaneously represent a huge leap forward for black America and the death knell for the reign of the civil rights-era leadership — or at least the illusion of their influence.

The most recent example of the old guard’s apparent aversion to Obama was Andrew Young’s febrile YouTube ramblings about Bill Clinton being “every bit as black as Barack Obama” and his armchair speculation that Clinton had probably bedded more black women during his lifetime than the senator from Illinois — as if racial identity could be transmitted like an STD. This could be dismissed as a random instance of a politician speaking out of turn were it not part of an ongoing pattern.

Last spring, Al Sharpton cautioned Obama “not to take the black vote for granted.” Presumably he meant that the senator had not won over the supposed gatekeepers of the black electorate. Asked why he had not endorsed Obama, Sharpton replied that he would “not be cajoled or intimidated by any candidate.” More recently Sharpton claimed on his radio show that the candidates’ recent attention to issues of civil rights was a product of pressure from him.

Although Jackson is not entirely unfamiliar with the kind of thing that’s happening to Obama — Coretta Scott King endorsed Walter Mondale over him in 1984 — he also got into the act. He criticized Obama for not championing the “Jena Six” cause — the case of six young black men in Louisiana charged with beating a white classmate — vigorously enough. After Obama’s Iowa victory, Jackson demanded that the senator bolster “hope with substance.”

Posted in: 2008 campaign, Hillary Clinton
Send to a Friend
Printer Friendly
comments (86) 
 

Why is it always “progressives” who act as if they’re still living in 1962?

This doesn’t surprise me. Hillary will do and say anything - and I mean anything - to accomplish what she sees as her “manifest destiny.”

I would have no problem with a black president or voting for a black politician if his platform and ideologies were ones I believed in and supported.

Unfortunately, Obama - the supposed “great uniter” - votes 100% down the Democrat party line and I cannot, will not vote for someone who votes that way.

It has nothing to do with his race.

But don’t expect Hillary to rise to that same level of civil discourse.

Diebold Again: Did Hillary Really Win New Hampshire? --I don’t think the machines were rigged, but neither do I have any particular affection for them. What I AM sick and tired of is democrat conspiracy-mongers beating up on Republicans about Diebold. The big push for the new machines came from the dims themselves...

HILARIOUS RUSH LIMBAUGH VIDEO ON DEMOCRAT CIVIL WAR

Primary Colors 

 IBD ^ |


1,103 posted on 01/15/2008 3:47:27 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
Voter/Petition Signer Intimidation at Grand Rapids Polls (MI)
 
The Influence On Barack Hussein Obama
 
What Obama delivers to the nation's couch is human Prozac [Kathleen Parker]
 
Wonderful new Hillary Clinton advertisement
 
Poll: What turned around Hillary Clinton's campaign in New Hampshire?
 
Is Hillary Clinton a Closet Sexist?
 
Fred Thompson Is the Real Deal--Here is Fred's Iowa speech, linked from his web site.

1,104 posted on 01/15/2008 3:25:44 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
DAVID BROOKS on what some of us are enjoying about the Clinton / Obama contest: "The problem is that both the feminist movement Clinton rides and the civil rights rhetoric Obama uses were constructed at a time when the enemy was the reactionary white male establishment. Today, they are not facing the white male establishment. They are facing each other."
 
Obama’s Church, the Nation of Islam and more Identity Politics [Karl]

Richard Cohen’s piece in the WaPo on Sen. Barack Obama’s spiritual advisor — the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. — effectively giving an award to Louis Farrakhan is getting the big blog buzz right now, after the story was flagged by Slate’s Mickey Kaus  and Burt Prelutsky at PJM over the weekend.  At Just One Minute, Tom Maguire links to a Farrakhan interview from the church’s magazine under the title “Mickey Kaus Gets results!”, when he should be noting that Kaus was first alerted Obama’s Afro-centric church by Maguire.

Cohen’s piece, however, emphasizes the element of Farrakhan’s anti-Semitism:

It’s important to state right off that nothing in Obama’s record suggests he harbors anti-Semitic views or agrees with Wright when it comes to Farrakhan. Instead, as Obama’s top campaign aide, David Axelrod, points out, Obama often has said that he and his minister sometimes disagree. Farrakhan, Axelrod told me, is one of those instances.

Fine. But where I differ with Axelrod and, I assume, Obama is that praise for an anti-Semitic demagogue is not a minor difference or an intrachurch issue. The Obama camp takes the view that its candidate, now that he has been told about the award, is under no obligation to speak out on the Farrakhan matter. It was not Obama’s church that made the award but a magazine. This is a distinction without much of a difference. And given who the parishioner is, the obligation to speak out is all the greater. He could be the next American president. Where is his sense of outrage?

Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. For good reasons and bad, he is already admired in portions of the black community, sometimes for his efforts to rehabilitate criminals. His anti-Semitism is either not considered relevant or is shared, particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans.

In this, Farrakhan stands history on its head. It was Jews who disproportionately marched for civil rights and, in Mississippi, died for that cause. Farrakhan and, in effect, Wright, despoil the graves of Michael Schwerner, Andrew Goodman and, of course, their black colleague James Chaney.

Cohen then mentions the fight between the Obama and Clinton campaigns over the legacy of Martin Luther King Jr. vis-a-vis LBJ.

Thus, for those of you keeping track at home, the identity politics raging in the Democratic campaign now involve not only black vs. white and men vs. women, but also black vs. brown and black vs. Jew.

The quest for the presidency is increasingly resembling the mildly-nsfw fight scene from Anchorman.  If only the Democrats had their own Mitt Romney to set the ground rules.


1,105 posted on 01/15/2008 3:54:56 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1104 | View Replies]

To: All
You are going to love $7.00 a gallon gasoline...
Congressional commission recommends 25-cent gas tax hike
 
Michigan's Ominous Message for Hillary Clinton [The 'uncommitted' vote against Hillary]
 
Why Obamamania? Because He Runs as The Great White Hope.
 
Some Great Info on the Clintons -- Her subordinates - who called her "The Big Girl" or later "Big Mama" and wore badges saying "Hillaryland" - had a starry-eyed devotion that was almost cult-like.
 
Potentially troubling news for Clinton in Michigan 'win' (3/4s of black voters rejected Hillary)

1,106 posted on 01/16/2008 4:03:17 AM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Sunshine, Lollipops And Rainbows

Published by Gaius under Economy, Taxes

Ah, the classics. Ok, it isn't a classic, just a treacly pop song by Lesley Gore. But Robert Samuelson is calling the "economic stimulus" talk by politicians nothing more than lollipop politics. Because the ugly fact is that there is literally nothing that can - or should - be done to the economy that would actually work. But the politicians are arguing about what flavor lollipop to hand out with great earnestness.

Hillary and MLK--Hillary has managed to pull the race card on herself.
 
Barack's The Man, Keeping Hillary Down
 
On illegals, Hillary adapts for audience
 
http://www.alphecca.com/?p=609...So what Hillary and Barack are saying is that while they support licensing and registering all guns, they don’t think they can get it done but if they could, they would.

Hillary is flat out wrong when she states that police deaths are going up around the country “in large measure because the bad guys have assault weapons.” As the Miami Times (which I quoted on Monday) stated a few days ago, of the 69 police officers murdered with firearms last year, only one was killed by an “assault weapon.”

All three of them want the “assault weapons ban” act back in place with Edwards saying he doesn’t think we need an AK-47 to hunt. Well thank you very much but I think I have the right to decide for myself what I’ll hunt or sport shoot with. He goes on to state that he’ll do everything in his power to get the AWB reinstated. So does Clinton.

Compared to them, Obama almost sounded moderate, yet, he is on record as supporting a complete ban on semi-automatics by civilians.

Alphecca is, obviously, a “one issue” blog but that issue is gun rights and I think we can safely rule out any of these three (I know, you’re shocked — shocked!) as becoming our candidate of choice.

That leaves the Republicans, but only two of them: Fred Thompson and Ron Paul. Thompson needs a big win in South Carolina because while the race is wide open, Giuliani and Romney could pick up a lot of states on Super Tuesday. Paul? I just don’t see it happening, much as I like many of his ideas and a call to live strictly by the Constitution.

...family ties for Obama:

http://news.bbc.co.uk./2/hi/africa/7176683.stm

Barack Obama’s Race Problem: White Liberals

Obama's spiritual mentor - Powerhouse Chicago preacher draws attention, and plenty of controversy

Countering Kerry’s Orwellian History: FReeper Review of To Set the Record Straight

Which is Broken, the Government or the People? by J.R. Dieckmann-- On the Democrat side there are three candidates who can only be described as rank amateurs with no qualifications at all for the job of president and a lot of Democrats recognize this. We have a do-nothing Senator and wife of a former president, a black inspirational speaker in his first Senate term, and a trial lawyer adept at extorting money from big business and the healthcare system. Not one of them has any management or executive experience but think they can somehow run America.

Governor Set On Universal Care (NM-Richardson health plan, blasts greedy Doctors)--Fisked:

* Health care is a basic human right.

No it is not. Health care is about choices. Choices that will be restricted or taken away by government mandated health care.

* Universal health care is doable this year and it won't break the bank.

Of course it will break your bank. It has everywhere else it is tried.

* Physicians are too greedy and need to give a little.

Wage and price controls destroy the market place and quality. KMart health care is quackery.

* A so-called single-payer system is out of the question.

Which means that I have to grease the palms of my buddies in large health care coporations to ram this through.

Expert Says $150 Billion Stimulus Needed--Honestly, the more these people talk about fixes, the more they scare me. Frankly, I think they are shortsighted idiots who will do anything, regardles of the consequences, to push the day of reckoning off just one more election cycle.

I will probably get flamed for this, but lately I’ve been thinking that maybe a long, deep recession is just what this country needs. Not that I relish economic misery, but I suspect decades of economic prosperity has made us lazy, spoiled, foolish, and (yes) increasingly liberal. We need some pain to wake us out of our stupor. 9/11 did it for a while, but then we backslid with a vengence.

Not to mention that I think the financial genuises on Wall Street have been/are doing tremendous economic harm to this country. The subprime crisis is the first harbinger of many others. For the last three decades we have sat back as we have exported jobs, technology, and wealth. Now our competitors have all our $$ and most of us (not to mention the Government) are in debt up to our eyeballs.

Liberal Fascism Explained


1,107 posted on 01/16/2008 1:29:17 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Liz; calcowgirl; Mr Apple; LucyT

BTTT


1,108 posted on 01/16/2008 1:30:40 PM PST by Calpernia (Hunters Rangers - Raising the Bar of Integrity http://www.barofintegrity.us)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1107 | View Replies]

To: All

Hillary disenfranchising? Press does not care.

In Michigan yesterday, Hillary “won” by having her opponents basically thrown off the ballot (a move Barack Obama - it must be said - had used to his advantage earlier in his career).

Seems to me Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama are “of a piece” in their willingness to do anything, no matter how underhanded, to get what they want. It would not surprise me at all to see a Hillary/Obama ticket being talked up down the road, and my that would be interesting to watch. Can you imagine these two campaigning together and hiding spring-loaded stiletto’s up their sleeves? Everytime they put their arms around each other the threat of violence would be palpable.

Make no mistake - Mrs. Clinton intends to sit those ill-gotten Michigan delegates, if she can get away with it. And of course, she will. Mrs. Clinton gets away with anything she wants. It’s astonishing to me.

So, now, in Nevada, Bill Clinton, former president - whose minions are firmly entrenched in all media as journalists, talk-show hosts, filmmakers and non-stop panel guests - tries to (incredibly) paint Barack Obama as the establishment candidate (Bill has never lacked for pure chutzpah) and says:

“I know how hard it is going to be to provide health care to every American. … to fix our schools or reduce poverty. I know because I fought these fights,” the former civil rights lawyer said.

If this team was so brilliant the first time up, how come this “former civil rights lawyer” and his wife did nothing to “fix” schools beyond throwing money at them and rejecting vouchers - real choice for poor people trapped in bad schools - out-of-hand? How come they did nothing about Social Security, Senior Prescription Plans or, um, smacking down AlQaeda when they were attacking our interests every 18 months or so?

Sorry, got sidetracked. Anyway, while he’s painting himself and his wife as the “insurgents” (he uses that word) in the race against “establishment” candidate Obama, his wife is going to get away with doing the most reprehensible thing a “public servant” can do; she is going to simply not allow some votes that are not meant for her. Yes, she’s apparently going to get away with disenfranchising voters.

Of course, Mrs. Clinton is not actually doing this - her supporters are. But she’s going along with it, isn’t she? Her husband says he “supports” this move. But Mrs. Clinton is not (winkwink) doing this.

And she’s not going to break her pledge about campaigning in Florida, too.

She’s an unstoppable little Sherman tank, is our Hillary. And she is lucky that the late-night-show writers are still on strike…and that the press is so selective about what it reports.

Fer instance, did you know that Louisiana has sworn in as Governor the 36-year-old son of Indian immigrants who happens to be a Republican and a Catholic?

I mean, for heaven’s sake, Gov. Bobby Jindal has hit the ground running, and the press…well, they’re trying to ignore him, but if they must report on him, you’ll note, they don’t mention is party affiliation.

And if they must report on Mrs. Clinton, apparently, they don’t mention the voters her “anti-establishment supporters” are working to suppress.

WELCOME: Ed Morrissey readers! Thanks, Cap’n for the link! While you’re here, please look around. We’re also talking about freedom of speech in Canada (and here) and we’re remembering a moment.


Captain's Quarters tracked back with Barack's The Man, Keeping Hillary Down...


1,109 posted on 01/16/2008 4:23:49 PM PST by backhoe
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Rove on Clinton: She 'Barely Beat Nobody Else'
 
Obama, Hillary and Alinsky's Tactics--Hillary's thesis was on Saul Alinsky. Background on it.

Read thesis here.

Obama's spiritual mentor plays the Monica Card

It's getting down and dirty in the Democratic nomination contest, and racial politics seems to be taking over the race. Leave to Afro-centric Obama pastor Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. to lift us up by bringing Monica Lewinsky back into play . . . as reported in the Baltimore Sun, via Steve Gilbert at Sweetness & Light: Read it all at the link above. Yep, that's the way to "bring us together," all right - a trip down memory lane with Monica as the Hostess with Mostess.

Hillary’s First Speech Attacked Liberal Black

January 16th, 2008

As we have noted previously, Mrs. Clinton began her political career with her commencement speech at Wellesley College. (Her well-connected roommate having threatened a student strike if Hillary was not allowed to speak.)

But, lest we forget, the most memorable aspect of young Hillary’s speech was her rude and bizarre attack upon the invited speaker, Senator Edward Brooke, the first black American to have been elected to the US Senate.

From “American Evita: Hillary Clinton’s Path to Power,” by Christopher Andersen, pp 16-17:

CHAPTER 2

… Hillary was following the day’s main commencement speaker, Massachusetts Senator Edward Brooke. Only two years before, Hillary had campaigned for Brooke, a liberal Republican and an African-American, as president of Wellesley’s Young Republicans.

But Hillary had changed. Dropping her prepared text, she wasted no time lambasting her predecessor at the podium. “Senator Brooke,” she began, “part of the problem for empathy with professed goals is that empathy doesn’t do anything.” What her generation wanted now, she said, was action. She ended with a classmate’s poem that damned “The Hollow Men of anger and bitterness.”

Brooke, obviously singled out as one of the “Hollow Men,” was stunned, hurt—and convinced that this was no extemporaneous speech. “As far as I could tell, she was not responding to anything I was saying,” he later observed. “She came that day with an agenda, pure and simple.”

But Hillary claimed she was reacting viscerally to what Brooke had said. He had mentioned the Vietnam War and growing racial tensions only obliquely; for the most part, Hillary said, his was just another “onward-and-upward” graduation speech. But what really rankled Hillary was her perception that the senator’s remarks were somehow pro-Richard Nixon – a call to arms for any self-respecting campus activist in the 1960s.

In response, Hillary offered nothing more than the muddled, sophomoric peace-and-love dogma that was so prevalent on campuses at the time. And, predictably, when it was over, Hillary’s mesmerized classmates leaped up to their feet and cheered.

A sizable number of people in the audience were incensed—including short, sullen Hugh Rodham, a dyed-in-the-wool Republican who admitted that at that moment he wanted to “lie on the ground and crawl away.” Hillary’s father stiffened when he approached her after the ceremony. His reaction hardly surprised her. Even if she had not ambushed the distinguished senator from Massachusetts, Hillary knew her father—unlike the other dads at Wellesley that day–would never throw his arms around his daughter and tell her he was proud of her…

No matter. Once her father departed for home, she ran to Wellesley’s Lake Waban, doffed her graduation gown to reveal a bathing suit underneath, and—in violation of the college’s strict against swimming in the lake—dived in. When she emerged, her clothes were gone. Wellesley’s president, Ruth Adams, had spotted Hillary swimming and, seething over the sneak attack on Senator Brooke, ordered security to confiscate them.

Adams was not alone. Hugh Rodham fumed about his daughter’s impertinent remarks all the way back to Park Ridge…

Some things never change.

3 Comments »
 
The Great American Ponzi Scheme: Moody's Worries Problematic for Hillary's Stimulus Package

1,110 posted on 01/17/2008 2:29:02 AM PST by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
Misstep in a Liberal Minefield
 
Why the Clintons Play the Race Card
 
Bill Clinton in Purple Rage at reporter (bony finger-pointing, too!)

1,111 posted on 01/17/2008 1:08:11 PM PST by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

The statistical proof of liberal intolerance

By Michelle Malkin  •  January 17, 2008 10:55 AM

bushbeheaded.jpg

When I was on the book tour for Unhinged: Exposing Liberals Gone Wild, critics predictably countered by playing the moral equivalence card. Show them how intolerant, racist, sexist, hateful, conspiratorial-minded, and violent the Left can be, and they sputter “B-b-b-b-b-ut the Right is just as bad.”

Spend anytime in the blogosphere and it’s clear that the two sides of the political galaxy are not created equal. One side burns effigies of American soldiers and craps on the American flag. The other does not. One side wraps itself in assassination chic. The other does not. One side indulges in vicious Sambo photoshops, rank religious bigotry, death wishes, gloating over the illnesses of public figures, and fill-in-the-blank derangement syndrome. The other does not.

Now comes fascinating statistical evidence that the Left is indeed more hateful than the Right. Syracuse University professor Arthur Brooks writes in the WSJ today about annual surveys that shed light on just how unhinged liberals really are:

Do the data support the claim that conservatives are haters, while liberals are tolerant of others? A handy way to answer this question is with what political analysts call “feeling thermometers,” in which people are asked on a survey to rate others on a scale of 0-100. A zero is complete hatred, while 100 means adoration. In general, when presented with people or groups about which they have neutral feelings, respondents give temperatures of about 70. Forty is a cold temperature, and 20 is absolutely freezing.

In 2004, the University of Michigan’s American National Election Studies (ANES) survey asked about 1,200 American adults to give their thermometer scores of various groups. People in this survey who called themselves “conservative” or “very conservative” did have a fairly low opinion of liberals — they gave them an average thermometer score of 39. The score that liberals give conservatives: 38. Looking only at people who said they are “extremely conservative” or “extremely liberal,” the right gave the left a score of 27; the left gives the right an icy 23. So much for the liberal tolerance edge.

Some might argue that this is simply a reflection of the current political climate, which is influenced by strong feelings about the current occupants of the White House. And sure enough, those on the extreme left give President Bush an average temperature of 15 and Vice President Cheney a 16. Sixty percent of this group gives both men the absolute lowest score: zero.

To put this into perspective, note that even Saddam Hussein (when he was still among the living) got an average score of eight from Americans. The data tell us that, for six in ten on the hard left in America today, literally nobody in the entire world can be worse than George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.

The BDS crowd often points to conservative Clinton-haters in the 1990s to argue that the Right was just as hateful as the Left is now. That, too, is not supported by statistical evidence. Brooks notes:

In 1998, Bill Clinton and Al Gore were hardly popular among conservatives. Still, in the 1998 ANES survey, Messrs. Clinton and Gore both received a perfectly-respectable average temperature of 45 from those who called themselves extremely conservative. While 28% of the far right gave Clinton a temperature of zero, Gore got a zero from just 10%. The bottom line is that there is simply no comparison between the current hatred the extreme left has for Messrs. Bush and Cheney, and the hostility the extreme right had for Messrs. Clinton and Gore in the late 1990s.

“Simply no comparison.”

Put that on a bumper sticker.

Posted in: Unhinged

1,112 posted on 01/17/2008 3:56:16 PM PST by backhoe (Just a Merry-Hearted Keyboard PirateBoy, plunderin’ his way across the WWW…)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The "tolerant, Inclusive Left" strikes again:

Nothing like the occassion of a wedding … [Darleen Click]

… especially Jenna Bush’s to generate some hearty, loving congrats and best wishes

…can’t wait for the sex tape! i bet she’s a pig in the sack, squealing loud enough to wake the neighbors…

…I see ugly offspring in the future…

…Of course they’re going to hate each other after 5 months, but they’ll be forced to stay married forever, just like George and Laura…

… As soon as they get the wedding out of the way they can go, hand in hand, to sign up with the Marines. Time to go fight the “good” war in Iraq. Sad that they will be celebrating and living high off the hog while others their age are dying needlessly in the war her father chose to start. …

…I think a tropical honeymoon would be perfect.I’ll be happy to donate two one-way tickets to Gitmo …

…I hear Henry is already cheating on her with many young men …

…The “Green Zone” in Iraq would make a great honeymoon. If you can’t enlist Jenna then you should visit Iraq. I hear the body stench and carnage is wonderful in May. …

…lets see if we can get the dumb little bitch a military uniform. …

…Only repugs care about anything the war criminal Bush family does. The Hague has a cell just waiting for him…

…we’re all scared shitless that they’re going to breed. …

…Jenna will be stepford wife version 2 modeled after version 1, Laura bush …

…she’s a bush and has never condemed the actions of her father. If she had any soul or sense of honor, she would have done this long ago. So in a sense, she is a war collaborator by not saying anything …

…After years of antics that would make Paris Hilton blush, the drunken slut gets to reclaim her maidenhood and marry the GOP prince. How quaint….

…They look like brother and sister. Who’s surprised? …

…Hopefully she will change her name. I’d hate to have that mark of satan on my for the rest of my life…

…Is there a Cabbage Patch in Washington where they grow all republicans? They’re all pasty,squishy & bland. …

…I am looking forward to his impending scandal. I wonder if it will involve an underage boy or foot tapping in the Union Station men’s room. …

…As long as she doesn’t wear white I am happy she is getting married. Maybe a better color for her would be wine red, or Jim Beam black. …

Ah yes, the tolerant, respectful of women and gays, true supporters of the American military, Progressives!

Rock ON!

Posted by Darleen @ 12:08 am
Comments (5)
 

Selective Vetting

Published by Gaius under Politics

Robert Novak, who has been doing this sort of thing for a very long time, thinks that the Clinton campaign's use of the word 'vetted' repeatedly has a special, coded meaning regarding Barack Obama. So do his sources within the Democratic party... this really isn't anything new. Most people with an intelligence level higher than that of a clam can see what Clinton has been doing, over and over again. Nothing to see here, move along. Except the real - and lasting - damage may have been done to more than Barack Obama. The Clintons are angry at this upstart who raised an obstacle to their planned, 'inevitable' return to the White House and are indulging in their trademark politics of personal destruction to level the obstacle. The difference this time is that even the party faithful see what they are doing. The blinders are off and the Clintons are revealed in all their destructive glory.

Mission Accomplished?

Published by Gaius under Politics

Margaret Carlson, writing over at Bloomberg, thinks that the Hillary Clinton campaign has accomplished their goal of playing the race card on Barack Obama...Carlson thinks the Clinton machine has crippled Obama, despite the love fest at the latest debate. She may be right about that, but I think there may be bigger implications in that "victory". I honestly think there may be real and lasting damage done by Clinton to some key voting blocs in the Democratic party by all of this. This could very well be a Pyrrhic victory for the Clintons.

Hillary Plays Stewardess For Press Minions

January 17th, 2008

Yet another campaign in her latest “charm offensive,” from the Associated Press, via YouTube:

Political Play of the Day: on ‘Hill Force One’

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton welcomed her traveling press corps aboard her campaign plane Wednesday with a humorous riff on the standard flight attendant speech familiar to commercial air travelers.

Notice that even when she is trying to be funny Hillary cannot refrain from sticking in her hate-filled, class envying, anti-US agit-prop.

So will she now claim to have been a stewardess, like she was a nurse — in addition to having actually been President during Bill’s term?

 

Besides, isn’t the official name for Hillary’s private eco-unfriendly jet the “Broomstick One”?

6 Comments »  " Once we all get a load of what she plans for this country most of us will need airsickness bags."
 

The First Look At Hillary Documents

Judicial Watch has tried to gain access to the records from Hillary Clinton's task force on revamping the American health-care system, and has been met with considerable resistance. After seeing the first batch released by the Clinton library, one can certainly understand why. In a press release from Judicial Watch earlier this evening, they excerpted some explosive passages within the documents, passages which will create some uncomfortable questions for Hillary on the campaign trail.

First, an internal critique of Hillary's plan marveled at the unprecedented scope of government control over a private industry -- at least in peacetime:

A June 18, 1993 internal Memorandum entitled, “A Critique of Our Plan,” authored by someone with the initials “P.S.,” makes the startling admission that critics of Hillary’s health care reform plan were correct: “I can think of parallels in wartime, but I have trouble coming up with a precedent in our peacetime history for such broad and centralized control over a sector of the economy…Is the public really ready for this?... none of us knows whether we can make it work well or at all…”

The other two excerpts paint the effort in an entirely new and darker light. First, Senator Jay Rockefeller proposed that the federal government conduct smear campaigns against the opponents of the plan:

A “Confidential” May 26, 1993 Memorandum from Senator Jay Rockefeller (D-WV) to Hillary Clinton entitled, “Health Care Reform Communications,” which criticizes the Task Force as a “secret cabal of Washington policy ‘wonks’” that has engaged in “choking off information” from the public regarding health care reform. The memorandum suggests that Hillary Clinton “use classic opposition research” to attack those who were excluded by the Clinton Administration from Task Force deliberations and to “expose lifestyles, tactics and motives of lobbyists” in order to deflect criticism.

Rockefeller had allies in mind for this effort:

Senator Rockefeller also suggested news organizations “are anxious and willing to receive guidance [from the Clinton Administration] on how to time and shape their [news] coverage.”

Wow. Media Matters should contact Rockefeller to disabuse him of the myth of the liberal-biased press!

Some might wonder about the notion of the White House digging up dirt on its critics in order to shut them up. Of course, this memo came from Rockefeller to Hillary, and no one can say whether she responded affirmatively or scolded Rockefeller for his dangerous suggestion. We can say that the suggestion came up earlier:

A February 5, 1993 Draft Memorandum from Alexis Herman and Mike Lux detailing the Office of Public Liaison’s plan for the health care reform campaign. The memorandum notes the development of an “interest group data base” detailing whether or not organizations “support(ed) us in the election.” The database would also track personal information about interest group leaders, such as their home phone numbers, addresses, “biographies, analysis of credibility in the media, and known relationships with Congresspeople.”

Anyone remember Craig Livingstone and the 700 FBI raw-data files that the White House obtained illegally? The story broke in 1996, but the files got accessed in 1993 by the former director of the White House Office of Personnel Security. Judicial Watch sued over the case, attempting to uncover the reason the highly-confidential files were requested by the Clinton White House.

Even without that, the idea that the government should essentially spy on its critics as a means to extort their silence or to discredit them publicly is completely noxious. If nothing else, Rockefeller should have to answer for his proposal, and Hillary should produce her response to it. Voters should pay particularly close attention to this and remember how the Clintons worked and how they would undoubtedly work again if allowed back into the White House.

NOTE: Judicial Watch's website is down for some reason at the moment. I'll link to the specific documents when the site comes back up.

Democrats On Nuclear Power

Posted by: Curt @ 7:22 pm in Politics |

If you did not watch the Democrat debate a few nights ago you may not have heard about the remarks by the big 3, Hillary, Edwards, and Obama, about the Yucca Mountain Repository which is supposed to store up to 77,000 tons of nuclear waste for thousands of years.

Their response to the question posed by the moderator, “would you kill the Yucca Mountain project?”, was a resounding yes.

Obama’s answer:

I will end the notion of Yucca Mountain because it has not been based on the sort of sound science that can assure the people in Nevada that they’re going to be safe.

Not based on sound science aye? Well, you were a elected official of the State of Illinois, one that currently has the Zion nuclear facility in storage, along with thousands of tons of nuclear waste just sitting there waiting for storage. Think this could pose a health risk?

No worries about that but instead he panders to the voters and says he doesn’t believe a site built specifically to store this waste and prevent any health risks to the population is based on sound science.

Hillary is against it also and:

We do have to figure out what to do with nuclear waste.

How about doing what the French are doing? Making themselves much less dependent on oil and the countries that supply that oil by using nuclear power AND reprocessing that used nuclear fuel:

Over the past four decades, America’s reactors have produced about 56,000 tons of used fuel. Jack Spencer, research fellow for nuclear energy policy at the Thomas A. Rowe Institute for Economic Policy Studies, says this “waste” has enough energy to power every U.S. household for a dozen years.

As we’ve noted, France long ago achieved energy independence by relying on nuclear energy for most of its power needs. But it also leads the world in processing this waste to create even more energy.

The French have reprocessed spent nuclear fuel for 30 years without incident. There have been no accidental explosions, no terrorist attacks, no contribution to nuclear proliferation. Their facility in La Hague has safely processed more than 23,000 tons of spent fuel, or enough to power the entire country for 14 years.

Our country pioneered the technology to reprocess it but banned the process in the late 70’s because every time its reprocessed it increases the plutonium content. Our country was scared it could fall into the wrong hands. But France, Russia, and Japan have been reprocessing for decades with no problems which alleviates the problem of what to do with the waste.

Why not offer this up, with increased security measures to ensure the safety of the reprocessed fuel rather then banning nuclear power altogether as Edwards suggested here:

I am against building more nuclear power plants, because I do not think we have a safe way to dispose of the waste. I think they’re dangerous, they’re great terrorist targets and they’re extraordinarily expensive.

They are not, in my judgment, the way to green this — to get us off our dependence on oil.

Amazing. The only technology with the ability to replace fossil fuels known to man, that does not emit CO2, and Democrats are against it. 2 Comments  "Yet Another thing we can thank Carter for."

WSJ Editorial: We're All Keynesians Now


1,113 posted on 01/18/2008 2:40:36 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
 
 
Putting the Brakes on the Politics of Change
 
'Hillary Clinton does not respect our people'(Obama Does-Something Republicans Don't Get)--Sen. Obama’s campaign slogan is “Si Se Puede” (“Yes We Can”)

Do the sheeple realize that “Si Se Puede” is the offical slogan of the Aztlan/MECha illegal crowd? As in "Yes we can come here and get amnesty and free everything. Yes we can establish Aztlan".


1,114 posted on 01/18/2008 6:18:44 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

1,115 posted on 01/18/2008 3:19:32 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
List of Powerful Presidential Donors in '08 Race

Identity Politics Is Chauvinism Under Another Name

Reportedly, Christopher Hitchens has just given up smoking. Apparently, this has had no effect on his curmudgeonly tone, but then again, Hitchens could hardly get more pointed in his criticisms. Today he rightly sets his sights on identity politics and exposes it as a trade for one bigotry over another (via Real Clear Politics):

People who think with their epidermis or their genitalia or their clan are the problem to begin with. One does not banish this specter by invoking it. If I would not vote against someone on the grounds of "race" or "gender" alone, then by the exact same token I would not cast a vote in his or her favor for the identical reason. Yet see how this obvious question makes fairly intelligent people say the most alarmingly stupid things.

Madeleine Albright has said that there is "a special place in hell for women who don't help each other." What are the implications of this statement? Would it be an argument in favor of the candidacy of Mrs. Clinton? Would this mean that Elizabeth Edwards and Michelle Obama don't deserve the help of fellow females? If the Republicans nominated a woman would Ms. Albright instantly switch parties out of sheer sisterhood? Of course not. (And this wearisome tripe from someone who was once our secretary of state . . .) ...

I shall not vote for Sen. Obama and it will not be because he -- like me and like all of us -- carries African genes. And I shall not be voting for Mrs. Clinton, who has the gall to inform me after a career of overweening entitlement that there is "a double standard" at work for women in politics; and I assure you now that this decision of mine has only to do with the content of her character. We will know that we have put this behind us when -- as with the vowel -- we have outgrown and forgotten the original prejudice.

At the heart of Hitchen's argument is this fact: it is just as chauvinistic to vote for someone on the basis of their gender or ethnicity as it is to vote against them for the same reason. It's reflexively a form of bigotry, the notion that a candidate is superior for these superficial reasons, or that different groups should get "turns" at holding power. The latter especially represents the antithesis of individual liberty and equality and instead vaults identity politics into a system in which elites make determinations of power distribution.

In that system, the real power remains with the elites, not with the symbolic representation of the groups -- and the elites know it.


1,116 posted on 01/19/2008 5:23:49 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
Why Tax Rate Reductions Are More Stimulative Than Rebates: Lessons from 2001 and 2003
 
Media Nearly Unanimous: 'Recession' Inevitable--It's what we call a self-fulfilling prophesy. Check out the news reports from 4 years ago. They are basically reprinting the same stories to try to undermine republicans.
 
Identity Politics Is Chauvinism Under Another Name (Hitchens Hits It Out of the Park - MUST READ!)
 
Hillary: She was for Reagan before she was against him…and so was John Edwards
 
 Democratic Candidates Call for Severe Restrictions on Second Amendment Rights (video)--they said they would like to require gun licensing on a national scale...

1,117 posted on 01/19/2008 12:45:36 PM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
How Long Does the USA have?
 
A Thompson Supporter Looks Back, Ahead

 
 

1,118 posted on 01/20/2008 3:09:32 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All
The American Debate: (Are Blacks) Bailing on Clinton?

Why Hillary Changed Her MLK Story Last Week On MTP

Look for lots more of this:

After Linking New Strain of Staph to Gay Men, University Scrambles to Clarify

...once Hillary! is coronated...

1,119 posted on 01/20/2008 8:20:58 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: All

 

Mark Steyn: It's all very odd, 'that's for sure'. [Canadian Human Rights Commission inquisition]

Zimbabwe bank issues $10million bill - but it won't even buy you a hamburger in Harare

Asia markets sink amid pessimism over US(HK -5.49, Shanghai -5.14%, Japan -3.86%, SK -2.95%)

Clinton promises end to economic excess-- Yeah, like your paycheck...

A Shift Toward Obama Is Seen Among Blacks

The Raw Deal (The Forgotten Man: A New History of the Great Depression)

Moderate Democrat's Open Letter to Republicans(Orson Scott Card)--Illegal immigration is the only issue Orson Scott Card is absolutely dead wrong on. I have so much respect for him otherwise...


1,120 posted on 01/21/2008 4:07:53 AM PST by backhoe (-30-)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20 ... 1,081-1,1001,101-1,1201,121-1,140 ... 1,761-1,780 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson