To: Howlin; Peach; cajungirl; Mo1; thesummerwind; kcvl; cyncooper; Miss Marple; maica; Wait4Truth; ...
Here are some tactical points, observations, and general commentary from the top link which I believe are very helpful:
The tactics in my opinion have to include humor, making her an object
of laughing at, and cerebral. If we keep harking back to old stuff,
whitewater, fbi files, etc, I don't think it will work. I think we need
to unmask her. She has tempers, she has a tin ear and poor judgement at
times. With the right kind of pressure she will show her colors but
only if the person unmasking her does it in such a way that he or she
is not the object of vilification ala Ric Lazio.
271 posted on 12/07/2003 10:39:44 AM EST by cajungirl
But the truth is, she is a formidable candidate and it will take far
more work on our part to see her downed by defeat.
And if we really want to defeat her, along with a good book to give
out, make a number of copies of THIS and hand it out, and explain it to
all friends and neighbors on the fence in election season, 2004!!!This
is IMPORTANT.
If Hillary throws herself into the race next year, the following
paragraphs may go a long way to explain to your neighbors and friends
who she really is and keep her out of office. Make some copies of it
please, or bookmark it for the future, because it goes right to her
very inapropriate, controlling, socialist personality and plans. If she
ever dives in, the lamestream media will go along and paint a very
positive picture of the "woman". Look for instance how Viacom removed
the thunderous boos of the police and the fireman and their families at
the 9/11 Concert in New York. This type of thing goes on every day to
her benefit and at the same time to the injury to the country.
In the event she gets in, you and I owe it to the country to hand this
out to our friends and neighbors who are on the election fence in 2004,
and help explain to them who Hillary Clinton really is. She will
continue to be a real threat as long as a substantial proportion of the
media is quite willing to protect her and promote her as in the past.
Educating your friends and neighbors is ultimately important, and it
will work if it is done in each neighborhood and town in this country.
****** In the early 70s Hillary, through Marian Edelman was hired as a
research assistant by the Carnegie Council on Children, a blue ribbon
panel of eleven experts assembled by the Carnegie Corporation. Its
mandate, in part, was to respond to the concerns of sociologist Uri
Bronfenbrenner, who had compared child rearing in the Soviet Union and
the United States, and found the United States wanting. The Councils
book-length report, 'All Our Children', is MUST reading for anyone who
seeks to understand Hillary Rodhams plan for the future of American
families.
The Carnegie panelists started with the assumption that the triumph of
the universal entitlement state was an inevitability, and the best
thing Americans could do for their children was to hasten its arrival.
Just as families in an earlier era turned their childrens education
over to the public schools, the report argued, so in the future should
government assume responsibilities for many other areas of childrens
lives. This being so, there was no reason to feel guilty about or
harbor concern for the rising rate of divorce. The decline of the
nuclear family need not be worrisome, because schools, doctors, and
counselors and social workers provide their support whether the family
is intact or not. One loses less by divorce today because marriage
provides fewer kinds of sustenance and satisfaction.
More significantly, 'All Our Children' offers a blueprint for
undermining the authority of parents whose values the authors consider
outmoded. The chapter entitled, Protection of Children Rights, the
section on which Hillary worked, observes that it has become necessary
for society to make some piecemeal accommodations to prevent parents
from denying children certain privileges that society wants them to
have. The report goes on to advocate laws allowing children to consult
doctors on matters involving drug use and pregnancy without parental
notification, and preventing schools from unilaterally suspending or
expelling disruptive students.
But this is just the beginning. The Carnegie panel further calls for
developing a new class of public advocates who will speak for
childrens interests on a whole range of issues, from the environment
to race relations: In a simpler world, parents were the only advocates
for children. This is no longer true. In a complex society both
children and parents need canny advocates."
The report goes on to suggest that child ombudsmen be placed in
public institutions and some sort of insurance be introduced to enable
individual children to hire decently paid private attorneys to
represent their interests. The possibilities for child advocacy would
seem to be endless. For example the report says, attorneys could bring
class-action lawsuits to hold corporations liable for FUTURE damages
their businesses might cause to TODAYS children.
This is the voice of people who think they know all the answers and
want to use children as a tool to impose their will on others. Is it
really time for the government to take even more control and
responsibility for your children? I don't think so, and I don't think
the majority of you, your friends, and your neighbors feel that way
either. That is why it might be good to make this available to them if
Hillary jumps in.
In 1972 Hillary spoke at a Democrat platform meeting in Boston. Hillary
Rodham testified in favor of a platform that would extend civil and
political rights to children. Her position went even beyond that of the
Childrens Defense Fund or the Carnegie Council. In an article
published in November 1973 in the Harvard Educational Review, she
advocated liberating our child citizens from the empire of the
father. This was good feminist reasoning for which the rationale can
be found in the writings of Simone de Beauvoir and Jean-Paul Sartre.
(There is no good father, thats the rule, Sartre said. Dont lay
the blame on men but on the bond of paternity, which is rotten.)
In Hillarys own words, The basic rationale for depriving people of
their rights in a dependency relationship is that certain individuals
are incapable or undeserving of the right to take care of themselves
and consequently need social institutions to safeguard their
position
.. Along with the family, past and present examples of such
arrangements include marriage, slavery, and the Indian reservation
system.******
This It Takes a Village Idiot, Hillary Rodham Clinton, belongs
NOWHERE remotely near the Presidency!
244 posted on 12/07/2003 10:27:40 AM EST by thesummerwind
And that solution is?
In post # 244.
I know she can be beaten, and I feel she is running. I believe she can
be stopped, if those on the election-fence really got to know her.
It will take a grassroots effort all over the country. But it CAN be
done. If each person, all over the country who really cares, takes the
TIME to influence 20 or 30 folks in their neighborhoods, at their work,
or in their families, etc., we could stop her. It just takes an effort
by all of us. It's not difficult or complicated, but it must be done,
and it will take all of us.
Let's face it, most Americans don't know Hillary at all. And, they're
not goint to be taught about her by the mainsream media! Therefore it
is up to us. The information just in post # 244 is enough to persuade
most decent Americans that she belongs nowhere near the Presidency.
I have to go now, but I'd like to talk about this later with anyone who
wishes. It's more important than nearly anything.
410 posted on 12/07/2003 11:26:03 AM EST by thesummerwind
Donate Barbara Olsen's Hell to Pay to your local library. Give it to
friends for Christmas.
227 posted on 12/07/2003 10:12:53 AM EST by Peach
a Hillary file would be great. I agree with the idea that to defeat her
we cannot make ourselves look like crackpots, woman haters, etc. We
have to unmask her and make her comments known. I think her calling
herself the affluent intelligentsia just might hurt her. But if she
loses control in public or private and the details get out,,,that would
be a good thing.
426 posted on 12/07/2003 11:33:41 AM EST by cajungirl
You are correct in your analysis and your call that we adopt a smart
strategy to defeat her.
The fact is, she is viewed more benignly by the average person than
those of us who follow her slimy trail would like to believe.
Case in point: My sister works so catches a bit of The Today Show in
the morning and then Tom Brokaw at night to get an idea of what's going
on in the world. She'll ask me for the inside scoop if some story
catches her attention and she senses there's more to it.
When HRC returned from Iraq and appeared with Katie Couric the
appearance was roundly mocked and dissected here on FR, but when I
mentioned Couric's biased approach to the questioning, my sister agreed
that Katie did appear to favor Hillary, BUT, she thought HRC was NICE
about George W. Bush! My sister is not a Clinton fan and would not vote
for her, but that was the impression she was left with.
457 posted on 12/07/2003 11:46:39 AM EST by cyncooper
Interview with Tonken's attorney. Covering the Rich pardons. Fox asks
if the money went through Tonken from Rich to Clinton. Attorney won't
comment but says he leaves it to reporters to speculate. (I found that
answer quite interesting.) Also there is talk of the big name stars,
who they won't name today, who profited from charitable fundraisers,
but names will come out next week. Also, politicians profited from
these charitable fundraisers.
Apparently stars and politicos were skimming from the money collected.
470 posted on 12/07/2003 11:51:25 AM EST by Miss Marple
I simply could not believe that when she referred to Kosovo and Bosnia
as the correct way to run a war, not one person asked her why we are
still there, despite being assured by the former administration that
the troops would be sent home in a matter of months.
Not one reporter asked her where all the mass graves were that the
former administration assured us would be found. Thus far, I believe
approx. 4,000 bodies have been found.
476 posted on 12/07/2003 11:55:13 AM EST by Peach
Hillary is viewed quite benignly. I just spoke to my Democrat brother,
who admits that he doesn't "like" Hillary but thinks she would make a
great President because he says nice guys don't always make good
presidents.
I have listened at my son's gymnastics class and at poolside in Hawaii
as people who were reading her book discussed her. They feel for her
and identify with her about "what her husband did to her." They think
she is a great woman. I am not joking. There are a LOT of people out
there who would vote for her.
Plus, Hillary has a secret. She KNOWS that the women's magazine and TV
media have primed the pump for her. Women and girls, for the past 35
years, have been forcefed this cheerleading over women's achievements
in industry and politics. Most uninformed women (and that means most
women) have learned that the right answer is to want a woman President.
Hillary's secret is that she knows she will get the votes of millions
of women just by being a woman running for President. She will.
Don't kid yourselves. She is a formidable candidate, according to MANY.
MANY.
Who thought she could WIN NEW YORK?
The only way to stop her would be serious proof of misdeeds. And she
can spin all but a video of her shooting Vince. She is already
chattering about the vast right wing conspiracy again. She's trying to
cover everything in advance. She is very shrewd. Unelectable? When you
spin right, no one is unelectable. We need to work very hard, should
she become nominated at the convention, to produce clear facts that
will awaken the unwashed masses to the real Hillary.
498 posted on 12/07/2003 12:18:50 PM EST by Yaelle
A suggestion for any conversation that includes the 'qualities' of HRC
- to those who get their info from Katy, Tom, Diane Rehm, etc (a LOT of
women!) -
HRC is a classic example of Projection - she accuses others of the very
things that SHE is doing. Usually they are things no Republican has
even thought of doing!
When a two year old child bumps into a table and says "Mommy, the table
hurt me," it is a normal two-year old thought process. When a 57 year
old politician says it, she is trying to manipulate the listener.
I think that kind of logical explanation can work with some women.
506 posted on 12/07/2003 12:26:27 PM EST by maica
My point is that Dean is not as anti-clinton as some here would like to
believe. And as far as hillary running in 04, those that think she
can't win are delusional. The sooner people wake up and realize the
danger she poses, the better off we will all be. This woman would have
everybody in the print and TV media working for her election against
the "evil" Bush. Wait until we all see the made-up scandals that will
be spread about Bush and his entire administration in the months to
come. People need to be aware and understand that these "scandals" will
be repeated as Gospel by the media. Hillary IS electable because the
media will lie for her and cover for her while they make the President
look like an untrustworthy man, a Hitler, a man that lied to the
public, took all of our liberties away, lied about casualties and
deaths, has secret ties to bin Laden, knew about 9-11 and let it
happen...I could go on and on..get ready..it's going to get a lot
uglier than it is now.
533 posted on 12/07/2003 12:44:58 PM EST by Wait4Truth
Hillary polls 43% without even being an announced candidate. Per a late
FoxNews poll, GWB is polling at 43% re-electibility. 43% to 43%. And
she can read the figures too.
2004 could be as tight a race as 2000 was. Plus, Hillary has all the
elements of the Clinton political machine, which has been working
steadily and unceasingly since 1992.
547 posted on 12/07/2003 12:57:50 PM EST by TomGuy
She doesn't HAVE to do anything. Haven't you noticed? She didn't submit
to any difficult interviews when she ran for the Senate, and no one
asked her difficult questions at the very few press opportunities she
offered. There was no criticism of this during her campaign (unlike how
the press would have skewered a Republican candidate).
I personally think the best thing is to make her "un-cool," a
yesterday's news type.
I also thnk we need to think about how to deflate Hollywood's love
affair with this couple.
567 posted on 12/07/2003 1:28:47 PM EST by Miss Marple
I work with a bunch of 'em. They get their opinions from the lamestream
media soundbites and talk shows. They actually don't differentiate
Hillary from any other politician...
...We stand alone, with Fox News, Rush, Sean, sometimes O'Reilly,
sometimes Neal Boortz, the credible conservative commentators and
journalists between the American voting public and the sheer
cataclysmic disaster that Shrillery's election would mean. THIS IS A
WAR!!! We're fighting two wars on terror -- with the enemies from
without and the enemies within...
I know that anything I say to my co-workers about this issue is shot
down with "you're just defending Bush," reactions. People are cynical,
indifferent and just mouth the latest spin from the alphabet idiots or
Yahoo headlines. They are totally spoonfed their opinions .. AND ...
they will be voting in 2004.
Prayer .. lots of it, for wisdom for President Bush and his team,
prayers for all that will boost Pres. Bush's standing with the sheeple
.. that they grasp his innate decency and integrity .. supporting the
Pubbies .. keeping the lamestream media in check with emails, faxes,
etc., emailing your state politicians. They've been able to get away
with treating their constituents' opinions like so much dirt for years
.. but that was before the power of the internet. We have power now
that has to be employed.
577 posted on 12/07/2003 1:33:57 PM EST by STARWISE
Tonken, now deep in debt and legal trouble, is being investigated by at
least six state and federal agencies, including the FBI and the IRS.
Although Vanity Fair shows pictures of him schmoozing with Hillary
and/or Bill Clinton at four gala Hollywood fund-raisers, the Clintons
-- understandably -- have distanced themselves as far away from him as
they can. Tonken's name isn't even in the index of Hillary's new book,
"Living History."
636 posted on 12/07/2003 3:29:32 PM EST by kcvl
You and I will never have the time or opportunity to point out the
numerous skeletons in her closet, and all the small details of the
various situations to enough people to make a difference. We cannot
saturate the ariwaves with ads about these things without appearing
unduly negative on the first woman to have a chance to win the
presidency.
Yes. This is why the education of the public about Hillary MUST be done
on a neighborhood by neighborhood basis. Neighbor to neighbor. Everyone
who knows the details MUST go out before the election and convince a
number of those on the fence of the reality of this woman. I refer you
to Post #244 for instance.
It can be done. It's really very simple, but it will take an effort by
alot of people. And, there are enough.
680 posted on 12/07/2003 5:22:39 PM EST by thesummerwind
Here are some rules for dealing with the media during the election
season (or at any other time, for that matter):
1. Believe no stories based on unatributed sources. "High Republican
officials," "members of the administration," or "officials" are NOT to
be believed. For all we know the reporter made the whole thing up.
2. Pay attention to the fact that liberal press outlets, like the New
York Times, are actively attempting to divide Republicans. Stories that
push hot buttons for the right (especially if they contain unattributed
sources) should be looked at as Tokyo Rose-type propognda.
3. Do not let the leftists make a single issue the make or break item
for support of the president. We will see plenty of stories about how
"the Christian right is disappointed in Bush because...." Ignore these
stories.
4. Interviews with "men on the street" should be taken with a grain of
salt. The media picks people who will say what they want. Some
attention-seekers know this and conduct themselves accordingly. Quotes
from these people are suspect.
5. Watch out for slanted descriptions in sories. Often, the media will
choose negative descriptions for a benign event.
It is up to us to pay attention and refute the spin!
656 posted on 12/07/2003 4:29:41 PM EST by Miss Marple
2 posted on
12/07/2003 3:47:26 PM PST by
backhoe
(Just an old Keyboard Cowboy, ridin' the TrackBall into the Sunset...)
To: All
Finally, here are some links from our friend doug from upland-- some old stories, some newer ones:
THE REAL HILLARY CLINTON: Episode #30 - Billy Dale, Get the H*ll Out of Here Right Now!dfu | 2-23-03 | dfu#1 - FJB
#2 - Children in Hospital
#3 - She Throws Coffee in Marine's Face
#4 - Dissing Health Care Execs Who Offered Solution
#5 - Hillary, the Commies, and the Black Panthers
#6 - Defiling the White House Christmas Tree
#7 - Hillary Calls the Police Murderers
#8 - How Did She Get Her Name?
#9 - Sister Frigidaire
#10 - Troopers and Secret Service as Servants
#11 - Beep, Beep, Get Out of My #$%&@&$ Way
#12 - Hillary Lied to Zeifman, Rigged Nixon Impeachment Protocols
#13 - It Takes a Village To Stiff a Waitress
#14 - Rape, Part 1
#15 - Rape, Part 2
#16 - Rape, Part 3
#17 - Hillary Doesn't Really Have a Goon Squad, Does She?
#18 - Algore Learns Lesson on Inauguration Day 1993
#19 - Strom Thurmond Meets the Hillary Express
#21 - Why Cops and Firemen Hate Hillary
#22 - The Wind Up, Here Comes the Pitch
#23 - Psssssst
Hey, Can You Watch My Husband?
#24 - Witches Who Live in Glass Houses Shouldn't Throw Race-Baiting Stones
#25 - Nightmare on Pennsylvania Avenue (Healthcare)
#26 - Madison Dies, Hillary Lies, What a Surprise (Part 1)
#27 - Madison Dies, Hillary Lies, What a Surprise
#28 - Semper Fido
#29 - Filegate; Who Hired Craig Livingstone?
3 posted on
12/07/2003 3:49:31 PM PST by
backhoe
To: backhoe; Howlin; Doctor Raoul; Lazamataz; Nick Danger; Sabertooth
You have to be careful with opposition research. For one thing, Hillary knows that she's tainted and has engaged in several proactive strategies based on that fact.
To wit: one of the things that Hillary has done in the past is to seed her opposition with wildly unfavorable stories against her...stories that turn out to be nonsense just in time to make her look like a victim while making her opposition look like liars. The "vast right wing conspiracy" never existed, for instance. She never spat on a White House staffer. Bill Clinton never sacrificed babies in Haitian voodoo rituals, either.
So full frontal attacks on her are problematic.
Nonetheless, she does have legitimate weaknesses.
Number one amongst her weaknesses would be Issues. Policy wise, Americans deserve better than to elect a pro-abortion woman. Likewise, we want Medicare reform, not fully nationalized Hillarycare. Nor do we want her anti-gun nonsense much less her enviro-radicalism. We don't need our next American President to be kissing Yasser Arafat's wives, either.
Next we have policy mistakes. Why did she want us to go into Bosnia and Kosovo without the UN, and why are we still there? Why did she want a "quick end" to the Branch Davidian siege in Waco? Why did she want to duplicate Canada and Europe's failed health care systems where tens of thousands of elderly perish at the first sign of a Summer heatwave? Why was she against building new logging roads to serve as firebreaks in our national forests?
And then we have legitimate, proven, non tin-foil scandals:
Who hired Craig Livingstone? Who fired the White House Travel Office staff, and why? How did her federally subpoenaed Rose Law Firm billing records turn up only *after* various time limits had expired...in her White House living room? What's the real story behind her $100,000 cattle futures trade, and why has she never again tried to make such trades?
There's also at least one irrefutable federal crime. She violated the federal Open Meetings Act with her closed door meeting with Ira Magaziner.
And that's enough. We don't need anything else on her. The goal isn't to throw so much mud at her that she starts to look dirty, after all. The goal is to promote freedom by besting our adversaries, and we don't want to start looking for every little scam or rumor that comes our way about her because IF we do, she'll burn us by hooking us up with a fake scandal that will wind up making her look like a victim while simultaneously discrediting *ALL* of us who are against her.
You can look at the posts on FRee Republic and already see some of the tin-foil nonsense about Hillary coming out of the woodwork like termites and cockroaches in a bad B horror movie.
We're smarter than that, people.
35 posted on
12/07/2003 8:59:16 PM PST by
Southack
(Media bias means that Castro won't be punished for Cuban war crimes against Black Angolans in Africa)
To: backhoe
Excellent! I am e-mailing this to all friends.
103 posted on
12/24/2003 9:41:42 AM PST by
jetson
To: backhoe
Excellent points.
Thanks.
637 posted on
09/08/2007 1:52:15 AM PDT by
Quix
(GOD ALONE IS GOD; WORTHY; PAID THE PRICE; IS COMING AGAIN; KNOWS ALL; IS LOVING; IS ALTOGETHER GOOD)
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson