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

To: CHARLITE

What could possibly be dug up about Hillary that would make a difference in an election?

John Kerry was proven to be a traitor, should have been tried and convicted of treason and yet 47% of the voters still voted for him.


2 posted on 06/11/2005 2:48:28 PM PDT by Graybeard58 (Remember and pray for Spec.4 Matt Maupin - MIA/POW- Iraq since 04/09/04)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies ]


To: Graybeard58
John Kerry was proven to be a traitor, should have been tried and convicted of treason and yet 47% of the voters still voted for him.

Yes, the people of this nation are the problem, more so than scum like the Clintons.

As you point out, 47% of voters, felons and illegal aliens voted for a known traitor, the three-time fake Purple Heart. Stalin or Hitler, if alive and a RAT today, and running for the RAT ticket, would get a very high percent of voters today, simply because the letter "D" would follow their name.

We spend much time bashing RAT politicians (deservedly so), but it is the ignorant people of this nation where we should direct our wrath. With public education sliding down further, and a birthrate boom in nontaxpayers and illegal aliens, the demographics are working against us.

An ugly, traitorious, lying RAT slimeball --Hil_LIAR-y Clinton, will probably get elected in 2008, and the blame should go squarely on the ignorant people of this nation, and the traitorous RATs and RAT-like Republicans who allowed the school system to be dumbed down, allowed the social welfare system to have hypergrowth, allowed open borders which all of this allowed the national IQ sink to third-world like status, abd thus morons,, illegal aliens and felons voting (twice or three times) for traitors an scum.

5 posted on 06/11/2005 3:03:07 PM PDT by Dont_Tread_On_Me_888 (The Republican party is in bed with, and having sex with, the Democratic party.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
What could possibly be dug up about Hillary that would make a difference in an election?

The surfacing of her college thesis. It's supposed to be a real doosey. She lauds socialism & communism. It exposes the real Hillary. Rush has seen it and said it is a real eye opener.
7 posted on 06/11/2005 3:09:00 PM PDT by demkicker (It's clear that Frist cannot heard those Senate cats!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
47% of the voters still voted for him.

Yes, but he didn't win, thank God. My opinion is that the Swift Vets made the difference.

Good exposes might not keep her from running, but hopefully they will keep her from winning.

8 posted on 06/11/2005 3:09:22 PM PDT by what's up
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

To: Graybeard58
What could possibly be dug up about Hillary that would make a difference in an election?

This sounds like a book sale to me.... Already marked down from $24.95 to $19.95....... The following is a rebuttal of the book.. [excerpt only, click link for complete response]

Strike two: Excerpt of new anti-Hillary book filled with factual errors, misleading claims, very little context

The July 2005 issue of Vanity Fair contains an excerpt from the forthcoming The Truth About Hillary: What She Knew, When She Knew It, and How Far She'll Go to Become President (Sentinel, June 2005), a book-length attack on Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY) written by Edward Klein with the stated intent of inflicting electoral damage on her. But a review of the error-ridden excerpt in Vanity Fair suggests the book may inflict more damage on its author, publisher, Vanity Fair, and other news organizations that take it seriously than on Clinton. The first verifiable claim reportedly from the book turned out to be false; a Mail on Sunday article showed that Klein is peddling gay-baiting sexual innuendo and gossip; now, the Vanity Fair excerpt reveals the book to be a sloppily researched, factually challenged hit piece that merely recycles long-debunked and dismissed criticism of Clinton.

Perhaps the most sensational allegation against Clinton in the Vanity Fair excerpt is Klein's claim that she "suddenly turned up a long-lost" Jewish relative in response to furor over her controversial embrace of Suha Arafat. Klein portrayed the incident as an example of Clinton's supposed opportunism and pandering:

When Hillary made the obligatory trip to Israel to win Jewish votes back home, she went to the Palestinian-controlled city of Ramallah. There she appeared onstage with Yasser Arafat's wife, Suha, who made the outrageous charge that Israel was poisoning Palestinian women and children with toxic gas. At the end of Mrs. Arafat's speech, Hillary marched to the podium and gave Suha Arafat a big hug and kiss. The photo of the two women kissing, which was played around the world, sowed serious doubts about Hillary in the minds of many Jewish voters.

When Hillary realized that she had gotten herself in a jam with Jewish voters, she suddenly turned up a long-lost Jewish step grandfather -- an announcement that was dismissed by many cynical New York voters as an example of her pandering.

But Klein, trying to portray Clinton as a political opportunist, got the facts completely wrong: News of Clinton's Jewish step-grandfather came long before the Suha Arafat incident, as even a cursory check of the facts would have quickly revealed. The story about Clinton's Jewish family members received extensive media coverage in August 1999, three months before the November 1999 incident with Arafat:

End Excerpt......


35 posted on 06/12/2005 9:38:21 AM PDT by deport (Save a horse...... ride a cowgirl)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies ]

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