PDA

View Full Version : Hillary Clinton



Drop1
06-01-2007, 09:58 AM
First let me say,Im talking out of gut feeling,and no specific knowledge. I want to know with Hillary,is there a there there. How much of the woman that speaks,is original to her,and how much is composed on what she is told the people want to hear? With Bush,its easy,the people want to hear "goodbye",but with Hillary,I keep asking who is she really. Chances are very good she will be Madam President for eight years,while Bill is playing in Canada,and I want reasons to vote for her. She voted for the War,based on lies,and I can forgive that,but why didn't she come out with the papers in the White House? Please tell me what you think,and back it up. Is she another rich piece of plastic,or is she for real.

eg8r
06-01-2007, 10:12 AM
[ QUOTE ]
First let me say,Im talking out of gut feeling,and no specific knowledge. <hr /></blockquote> Thank you for being honest. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif [ QUOTE ]
Please tell me what you think,and back it up. <hr /></blockquote> I say, if you are going to wing it we should be afforded the same. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif I say you should vote for Hillary so all the furniture she stole will be returned. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif Or, is she just coming back for more?

Maybe you could vote for her because her socialized healthcare plan will be updated since the last one failed so miserably. I say vote for her because she is such a strong woman who can stand up to her husband. Oops, scratch that, she just gave him a longer leash.

Who knows who the real Hillary is? Her daughter sure could not wait to get out of the house and her husband sleeps with everyone BUT his wife. Maybe early inclinations about the intentions of her immeadiate family are not enough, but if everyone close to her can't wait to get away there must be some underlying reason. I am sure she is a great peachy fun-loving woman, she just chooses to show her cold-hearted side when in public. I have noticed that she has a great knack of changing the way she speaks. You know that great southern drawl she puts on for those outside of NY.

So many reasons to vote for/against, I guess you will have to once again lean on your gut feeling. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-01-2007, 11:23 AM
Hi Drop,
You know, I've read a lot about her, but I am still researching Hillary, myself.

What I know about her is that she is extremely energetic, great work ethic, has never committed a crime, or been indicted for a crime, has never been known for drugs, or alcohol, is very well liked, and respected by her fellow Representatives, on the Hill, Republicans and Democrats, and even the blue collar Gov. employees who work there.

She handled herself, I thought, beautifully, in the face of, at the very least, one of the most embarrassing situations a First Lady has ever had to face, publicly, about a very private marital matter, and is obviously, still with her husband.

She certainly made a name for herself, on the hill, regarding her work ethic, from her very early years, long before anyone had ever heard of Bill Clinton.

She has raised one of the most poised of any children to ever have parents who were first Lady, and President, and her daughter did certainly shown incredible grace, and has conducted herself admirably throughout, and been a White House plus, as far as kids of president's go, and in fact, I can't think of any others which have outshown Chelsey in that Department, although, I could certainly say the same about both of Nixon's daughters, and his wife, and a few others, in that department, social embarrassment, that is, but what Chelsey faced, IMO, was even worse.

She was from a middle class family, and has risen to be a Senator, with huge support from her constituency in New York, and is now running for President Of The United States Of America. I'm sure she has a great deal of ambition, which, of course, is necessary, if one is to serve in public office, but often unforgiven, by certain kinds of men, and women, when also found in a woman.

Of course, many on the right, hate her, illogically, IMO, but then, I don't understand much about the thinking processes of the right, particularly the radical right. Clinton would never have been elected, if Bush Senior, hadn't been such a flop, and I think that was when the right moved from standard dirty politics, to irrational hatred for anything which smacked of Clinton, Liberalism, or Democratic, and began to use such slanderous dishonesty as a campaign strategy, unlike anything I've witnessed since Nixon couldn't get past his irrational fear of Ted Kennedy, and everybody else in the political arena.

I will say one thing, for sure, and without any hesitancy, I'd have much preferred Hillary had been calling the shots these last six years, than the idiot we have to deal with presently!

The right is launching several books, their usual Hillary bashing. I know one, is being written by Bay Buchannon, you know, Pat Buchannon's sister, and Republican talking head, the one that kind of resembles Sir Wences's hand puppet, with the funny lipstick mouth drawn on his hand, with a scarf tied around it, LOL, hmmm, you may be too young to remember that one, /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif...It seems, that Bay has already been on the circuit, spreading her usual anythinghillaryhatred on all the cable channels, /ccboard/images/graemlins/tongue.gif so that nutty 25%, (Yeah, their numbers are still sliding) will gobble all that hubris and trash right up, and after a few more guest appearances on Faux News, even Bay won't recognize her book, as if it isn't silly enough as it is.

Anyway, I do recall that even after the original early incessant investigations of the Clinton's, Travelgate, Whitewatergate, about all sorts of accusations, even murder, LMAO, all unfounded, as it turned out, ultimately, no illegal activity was uncovered, but the cost to this country, many millions, took the National attention off such pressing dangers as ObLaden, and alQaeda, until finally, investigating inside the president's pants zipper out of sick desperation, ended in revealing quite a number of the most prolific accusors as being involved in even worse, shall we say, private matters, than Clinton's! Through it all, IIRC, the statements about Hillary, from the investigators, were that she was doing all she could to cooperate.

As for white House papers, she said they were misplaced, but, obviously, she didn't destroy the evidence, as so foten we see the Republicans do, nor did she refuse to answer questions, or provide documents, as the present administration is famous for, and even under Congressional request. There were no indictments, other than the gentleman's lie told by Bill Clinton, which previously, had never been asked of any President, that I can think of. I do recall, Bush Senior, being asked, after all that, about his mistress, who lived right across the bridge, in Virginia, and he refused to give an answer, similar to the response of his son, when he was asked about his Cocaine use.

Gotta go, gets cold sitting here in the nude, typing for this long... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

wolfdancer
06-01-2007, 11:32 AM
Every few hundred years a great lady emerges to save the people....Madame Bouvier, the mythical Madame DeFarge, Jacqueline Bouvier Kennedy...and now Hillary....
Rather then question her motives, etc....it is best to approach her candidacy with trust and faith, and "no pensar nada" (don't think anything)
When you've hit bottom in the Presidency, as we have...anyone will be an improvement...besides Hillary has promised to return the missing silverware, if elected....

DickLeonard
06-01-2007, 11:32 AM
Gayle I heard that Hilliary was as smart as Bill IQ wise. Don't you just love the sun. Your not going to be on You Tube?####

wolfdancer
06-01-2007, 11:44 AM
Gotta go, gets cold sitting here in the nude, typing for this long
I'll let that pass without comment...after all there are children, and Christian Republicans, browsing here.
Good post, by the way, about Hillary.

wolfdancer
06-01-2007, 11:46 AM
Your not going to be on You Tube

For your penance, say 5 "Hail Mary's"

Gayle in MD
06-01-2007, 11:46 AM
/ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

I hope not! /ccboard/images/graemlins/cool.gif

Gayle in MD
06-01-2007, 11:47 AM
LOL...will do. /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Deeman3
06-01-2007, 01:20 PM
I think Hhillary will do fine. She is not as smart as Bill but he was a pretty high standard as far as intellegence to measure most by. I do think Bush is now destroying the country very slowly but that Hillary can speed the process up quite a bit and will certainly do so. In any case, with the liars, cheats and immoral sluts we have running on both sides, it just does not make any diference who steals our money, just who will hand the country over to the UN and ACLU quicker.

Happily, we were warned of this years ago so we don't have to depend on social security and other programs they are now destroying. I still know people who seem to think they will be getting that money they put in in a few years when it has already been spent on present programs. What a crock. At least Hillary can bake cookies...can't she?

wolfdancer
06-01-2007, 01:50 PM
Actually we are looking for someone to head up the Luverne chapter of the "Hillary for President" org.
When you think about it, it's a no-brainer to vote for Hillary.

Drop1
06-01-2007, 02:11 PM
We all seem to be nude,when it comes to Hillary. This is not a trivial question,and was not intended to be about Republicans,we have seen what they can do. This is not about Bill,or their daughter. She is a powerfull woman,with a great political machine behind her. What will she do,where is the agenda,and how much of what she says,and does will bring us back to being the Country we were. Thank you Gayle,I just remembered why I bought a phone with a camera. /ccboard/images/graemlins/blush.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/smile.gif

Bobbyrx
06-01-2007, 02:52 PM
What has she done in Congress that would make you think she would be a good president besides voting for going into Iraq? She had never lived in New York so it was obvious why she chose that state. She has passed no important legislation, except for twenty bills renaming post offices and courthouses and congratulating Alexander Hamilton, Shirley Chisolm, Harriet Tubman, the American Republic, and the Syracuse men's and women's Lacrosse team on their respective accomplishments. Two of the people she was most responsible for Bill appointing were Janet Reno and Lani Guinier, enough said there

pooltchr
06-01-2007, 05:02 PM
Should you vote for Hillery? That depends on what kind of government you want for this country. If you believe in the values expressed by the founders of the country, ie, representative republic, free enteprise, fiscal responsibility, an honest day's work for an honest day's pay or those other kinds of silly things, than she probably isn't the best choice.

If you think the average American is too stupid or lazy to handle their own finances, healthcare, retirement and educational choices, and that those types of difficult, complicated things are best left in the hands of the government experts, then she is your girl!

She is a socialist, through and through. If that is the way you think the country should be run, then vote for her.

Unfortunately, the Republicans don't seem to be able to come up with a candidate worth a darn either, I am afraid we are probably going to continue to deteriorate as a country, regardless of who is in the White House.
Steve

Drop1
06-01-2007, 07:04 PM
Please read the friggin post,before you respond. There is nothing there,that says I think Hillary Clinton would be a good President. The question simply put, is who is Hillary Clinton,and how do I measure her as a candidate. I was for Juliani,but not anymore. I want party politics put aside,and take a look at each candidate on the basis of what they have done in Office. Personaly I don't believe in Democracy,as the best method of picking leaders,but if we have to have it, I would favor the British system. The worst President we have had,sits in the White House. The second worst was Abe Lincoln.

Bobbyrx
06-01-2007, 10:44 PM
Sorry. I read the friggin post. When I got to the part that said "is there a there there", I just lost it......again, my humble apologies

Gayle in MD
06-02-2007, 06:22 AM
You're welcome, just thought I'd give you a visual to lighten up your election concerns, lol.

Well, speaking for myself, only, of course, I think we have so many good Democratic candidates to consider, I am far from able to make my own choice, yet. But, your interesting post, will probably yield more pertinent opinions after the debates to be aired over the next few days. I am anxious to hear what each candidate has to say, and how they present themselves. The last democratic dabate, I thought Hillary and Joe Biden, were the best. I think those two, have by far the most experience in foreign matters, of both parties. I was not impressed with Obama's performance. I think our candidates should be required to name their possible running mates, before the primaries, even if they are also contenders, and also, that the debates should be aired with C-Span style, call in questions, from the public, atleast some of them. Or, maybe they could accumulate e-mails, and those questions which come up most often, be posed by the moderators. Candidates should be forced to reveal not only what they believe in, but how they propose to bring their positions and policies, to fruition.

Gayle in Md.

Sid_Vicious
06-02-2007, 06:56 AM
"Candidates should be forced to reveal not only what they believe in, but how they propose to bring their positions and policies, to fruition."

What would we do with the chimp then? His vocabulary only contains three words, "He's a liberal." I never thought the goofball voters would fall for such a POS, when presented well stated debates about issues, TWICE! He never said nuthin' and got away with it. Who's dumber, GWB or those who swallowed what he didn't say? sid

Gayle in MD
06-02-2007, 06:59 AM
Those who swallowed what he did say, were the dumbest... /ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gif

Sid_Vicious
06-02-2007, 07:00 AM
"There is nothing there,that says I think Hillary Clinton would be a good President."

Put Hillary and Bush side by side and as far as a worthy president goes...Hillary would be stellar. Bush needs to find himself an organ grinder and a tin cup. sid

Drop1
06-02-2007, 01:16 PM
The important thing is you understand the intent of the question. I agree with Gayle,that the candidates should be made to be as transparent as possible,in terms of what they hope to do,and before the primary,name their running mate. I have no allegence to any organized political party or any candidate at this point. Anyway you have a good day

Drop1
06-03-2007, 09:41 PM
Bless you,I'm now in the after image stage,love the beauty mark. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

eg8r
06-04-2007, 09:24 PM
[ QUOTE ]
Please read the friggin post,before you respond. There is nothing there,that says I think Hillary Clinton would be a good President. The question simply put, is who is Hillary Clinton,and how do I measure her as a candidate. <hr /></blockquote> Don't you think looking at someone's history in Congress is a good place to start when trying to measure them as a candidate?

eg8r

Drop1
06-04-2007, 09:54 PM
That's a good start,but I also think you have to look at why they were able to do,or not do what they thought correct. I think its important to look at the candidate during the campaign,and see how much of what they are saying reflects what they said while in office. All the candidates are busy getting in touch with their humble roots,and their dependence on prayer in times of stress. "Hello Sister Hillary". The Republicans never had a problem declaring the wonders of their faith,and trying to shove it down the throat of every person that was not born again,to their faith. I object to prayer in Congress,and a Bible in the Court Room.

Gayle in MD
06-05-2007, 08:14 AM
It's funny, to me atleast, that the right has created such a chasm in our society over things that shouldn't even be a part of our political discussions.

Bibles, in the court room, IMO, should be optional. One does not have to harbor the fear of the fires of hell, to have integrity, and be a man/woman of their word.

Organized Religion has been, and remains to this day, to be one of the most destructive forces in the world. Where ever there exists tension, war, and inhumanity, organized religion, is never far from the center.

Prayer and religion, belief in a higher being, or living ones life according to high standards of forgiveness and compassion, have nothing whatever to do with organized religion, IMO, nor is it a reasonable test to ones belief in a higher power. As long as one is free to pray, or not pray, where ever they wish, as an individual, our constitutional requirements are fulfilled. There is nothing in the Constitution that requires public agreement, or the agreement of the State, in order for one to have freedom to worship and pray as they so desire.

In Politics, IMO, the overall policy in this country should be one of don't ask, don't tell, when it comes to organized religion. Religious statements, and questions, have no place in determining how one would run the country, nor is ones religious belief, any indication or proof of how honest or correct ones decisions, in political and government policies, leadership ability, intelligence or integrity as president, or any other office. These last six plus years have certainly proven that, as far as I'm concerned.

Gayle in Md.

eg8r
06-05-2007, 08:33 AM
[ QUOTE ]
The Republicans never had a problem declaring the wonders of their faith,and trying to shove it down the throat of every person that was not born again,to their faith. I object to prayer in Congress,and a Bible in the Court Room. <hr /></blockquote> This is not just a one party thing, or easier for one party than the other. As much as you want separation of church and state, it is not going to happen. Clinton, Gore, Kerry, etc have all hit every church they passed.

As far as voting record being a start I think you are not giving it enough credit. It should be the leading indicator. What is being said on the campaign trail is the weakest bit of info you should be looking at, they are just saying what they think people want to hear so that they get elected. By looking at the congressional voting history you get the real flavor of what they believe in and how they will react when the time comes to make a decision.

eg8r

Drop1
06-05-2007, 10:10 PM
So how do you judge a first time candidate. I say compare what they are saying,with how they voted. Anyway pickem the way you want,you gave the World Bush,based on his command of the english language I assume. This primary race is going to be a blood bath. Hey! I just remembered,you said,I would leave the forum, after the Republicans tore up the Democrats. What are you still doing here. At long last have you no pride sir.

eg8r
06-06-2007, 06:44 AM
[ QUOTE ]
So how do you judge a first time candidate. <hr /></blockquote> There is always history. A first time candidate was not born yesterday.

[ QUOTE ]
you gave the World Bush <hr /></blockquote> Contrary to your thought process, I am only one vote. However, I thank God every day Gore did not win and Kedward did not win.

[ QUOTE ]
This primary race is going to be a blood bath. <hr /></blockquote> While it may not be the best idea, I usually do not get all hot and bothered over primaries.
[ QUOTE ]
Hey! I just remembered,you said,I would leave the forum, after the Republicans tore up the Democrats. <hr /></blockquote> I really have no idea what you are referring to?

eg8r

Gayle in MD
06-07-2007, 07:47 AM
LMAO, yeah, you know, history, Drop, that's when you look back into someone's life, find out he was a drunk, druggie, cheerleader, whose daddy helped him hide away to avoid Vietnam, who's grand Daddy did business with Hitler, and who got away with bilking stockholders out of their hard earned money. If on top of all that, he ruined the school system while he was governor, and slandered one of the most admired women in the Political Theatre, and can't speak three sentences in a row, correctly, then he gets the nutty right vote, as long as he was a good cheerleader. /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

After four years of lies and corruption, impeachable offenses, and destroyed international respect, launching an Illegal, unwinnable war which threatens the safety of other nations all over the world, dirty underhanded deals with the Arabs, destruction of our Constitution, and our Bill Of Rights, and no protection of our sovereignty, if you're part of the nutty right, you vote for him AGAIN!!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif

The last thing I'd be interested in is a lecture from a righty on how to vote!!! /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif

/ccboard/images/graemlins/wink.gifG.

Vapros
06-07-2007, 12:51 PM
Not to worry, GMD, about how to vote. It's even money you will be certified and committed before the election.

Gayle in MD
06-08-2007, 10:58 AM
[ QUOTE ]
Those who swallowed what he did say, were the dumbest...

<hr /></blockquote>

And, I might add, the nuttiest....hence, you're much more likely to certified and committed, than I. I did not vote for Bush, <font color="red">twice! [ QUOTE ]



Do you ever post anything other than insults aimed at people with a different opinion than yours? Just wondering.

Drop1
06-08-2007, 12:00 PM
You ain't funny,and you ain't much. My dog could come up with more original wit than you do,and post more original ideas. You haven't done much since 02 friend. Lets see you post something from your own thoughts,on any subject. Lay yourself on the table for dissection,instead of feeding off what others write.

Vapros
06-08-2007, 12:07 PM
"Do you ever post anything other than insults aimed at people with a different opinion than yours? Just wondering."

Gayle, I don't insult people because of their opinions. The rocks I chunk at you are because of your nasty attitude toward the other posters. The question quoted above is an example of you chastising others for what you, yourself, do every day to them. You're certifiable. Not much doubt.

Why not chill out and quit the pitching? You're not making any sales.

I've been off your back for a month. See you later, pal.

Drop1
06-08-2007, 12:26 PM
Oh!! Thank the Lord,the Angle Vapros has arrived just in time to save us, from the rock thrower Gale. "I don't care,if what she says is true,it's the way she says it," said our hero Vapros,picking his nose.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2007, 07:42 AM
Nice,.... /ccboard/images/graemlins/smirk.gif when you get the guts to take a stand on something, you may earn some respect from me. I show respect, to those who show it to me, but have no respect for snipers and stalkers, like you. I've offered more olive branches to folks around here than any of my attackers ever have. I can live with that.

Gayle in Md.

Vapros
06-11-2007, 08:45 AM
Gayle, you're not paying attention. I have taken a very firm stand on something . . . .it's you. If I don't talk politics it's because I am disgusted with both sides. Your heroes are just as slimy as the current administration. If they win the coming election they will prove it again.

Being a sniper is not such a bad gig. You don't have to work every day, like an agitator. Be well.

Gayle in MD
06-11-2007, 10:14 AM
[ QUOTE ]

Gayle, you're not paying attention. I have taken a very firm stand on something . . . .it's you. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">That's obvious, and irrelevant, given the serious issues our country is faced with at present. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
If I don't talk politics it's because I am disgusted with both sides. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Aren't we all? I'm afraid it is you who is not paying attention. The distortion of truth, and lack of integrity, which is evidenced by both parties, at different times, should be the enemy of each of us, respectively. I've been registered as Republican, Democratic, and Independent, at various times. It just so happens that at this time, I believe the Republicans are doing more damage than I have witnessed ever before, hence, I am firmly against their platform of unlawful, decietful, immoral, illegal activities. </font color>

[ QUOTE ]
Your heroes are just as slimy as the current administration. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">That's debatable, but oh, that's right, debate is of no interest to snipers, I forgot. Oh, and, BTW, you don't know me well enough to know those who qualify as my heroes, but I have posted about some particular acts of heroism, by Republicans, Democrats, and Independents. My heros don't all come from the same political party, like some of the more partisan posters on this forum.</font color>

[ QUOTE ]
If they win the coming election they will prove it again.
<hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Careful, your radical right wing bias is showing. </font color>


[ QUOTE ]
Being a sniper is not such a bad gig. <font color="red">I wouldn't know, that's never my aim, but I'll take your word for it, since you seem to be an expert on it. </font color> You don't have to work every day, like an agitator. <hr /></blockquote>

[ QUOTE ]
<font color="red">If my posts agitate you, you do have the option of handling that in a well adjusted manner, and taking responsibility for your own automatic emotional responses, but that would require some emotional stability, and an educated opinion, from which to debate your position. Public debate, is, after all, the cornerstone of a democratic nation, in spite of the fact that this administration has worked to demonize, discredit, slander and harrass anyone, and everyone, who are against their policies, or not considered to be a "Loyal Bushie" if I may use the requirement phraseology of those Republican Loyal Bushies, who hire, and appoint, employees of the Federal Government, including the DOJ, doled out no-bid contracts to, and/or hired in spite of being unqualified for their positions, and in the process, broken the law over and over in their corrupt maneuvers for creating and promoting fascism. </font color> <hr /></blockquote>

All the best.

Gayle in Md.

Vapros
06-11-2007, 10:21 AM
Well said, and bully for you. Your passion, at least, is laudable.

eg8r
06-11-2007, 11:34 AM
It is funny to see you act hypocritically all in the same post...

<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Vapros:</font><hr> Your heroes are just as slimy as the current administration. <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle:</font><hr> Oh, and, BTW, you don't know me well enough to know those who qualify as my heroes, <blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle with big foot in mouth:</font><hr> My heros don't all come from the same political party, like some of the more partisan posters on this forum.
<hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> <hr /></blockquote> Oh, and, BTW, you don't know any of us well enough either to make such a hypocritical comment.

I find it entertaining to watch you open your mouth and slide your feet right in.

eg8r

pooltchr
06-11-2007, 05:30 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> </font color>

&lt;/font&gt;&lt;blockquote&gt;&lt;font class="small"&gt;Quote:&lt;/font&gt;&lt;hr /&gt;
If I don't talk politics it's because I am disgusted with both sides. <hr /></blockquote>

<font color="red">Aren't we all? </font color>

All the best.

Gayle in Md.
<hr /></blockquote>

Wait a minute! I seem to remember you posting something to the effect that there were so many wonderful Democratic Presidential Candidates that you couldn't figure out which one you thought was best. That doesn't sound like someone who is disgusted with both parties! /ccboard/images/graemlins/confused.gif

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-12-2007, 11:13 AM
I'm disgusted that the Democrats haven't tried to impeach this law breaking, lying, idiotic President, but, you see what's happening with Gonzales, who should definately be impeached, yet the Republicans, as usual, don't care enough to do the right thing. Everyone knows that Gonzales lied, and broke the law, yet with a razor thin majority, Democrats can't get a whole lot done. I watched all the hearings, and the Republicans, many of them, were outraged over Gonzales's lies. Yet, when it comes time to take a stand, Republicans, block the Democrat's efforts, even when most of them agree with the Democrats, just for their own political purposes, to make things look as though the Democrats can't get anything done.

The truth is, they can't, but it is because they do not have enough numbers. Everytime the Democrats do anything to stop this administration's law breaking, the President is right out there accusing them of political maneuvers, and the Republicans block progress. They've all been out there saying they don't think Gonzales can be effective, and voiced deep concerns over his illegal activity, and his lies, and convenient loss of memory. I think I'm like a lot like many others in our country, digusted with both parties, over certain issues. That has little or nothing to do with the Democratic contenders for president. There isn't a single Republican contender who represents my views, or who I think is stable enough, or experienced enough, or honest enough, that I would have any confidence in them...and of course, I would never vote for any candidate who does not support women's rights, nor would I vote for some nut who thinks the earth is only five thousand years old, or that intelligent design belongs in our school system, or generally puts religious dogma on the same level with scientifice theory, or that denies the law breaking, and illegal activities of the current administration, or is in bed with the oil cartel which is gouging Americans left and right, or thinks that a man can live inside a whale.

No party in history has ever been as dishonest, and incompetent, as the present Republicans, IMO, and I think they have done more to hurt this country, than any other party, at any other time. They continue to give this incompetent administration a blank check, regardless of how many lies they tell, or how many laws they break. I find them repulsive.

I seem to recall you posting that you often vote against someone, rather than for someone. I have had to do so at times, myself. This time, I am happy that there are atleast three good candidates from which to make a reasonable choice. I believe the only route to getting our country back on the right track, is an appreciable Democratic majority, as I have said for years. After they have control for a while, I'll probably be saying the same thing about Republicans. Neither party suits me completely, at any time, about all issues. However, I do give credit where I think it is due, regardless of party affiliation, hence, I have complimented Representative Gordon Smith, Arlen Spector, and Chuck Hagle. There are posters here who would choke before they would acknowledge any wrong doing by any Republican, or anything good about any Democrat. My own values dictate how I vote, just as yours probably do. However, taxes, are not the dentral issue to me. I am more interested in preserving our Democratic Principles, maintaining the checks and balances in government, using diplomacy to solve our problems, helping those who are born into poverty, hungry, and without hope, and embracing those who have traditionally been demonized by the religious right in this country out of pure evilness, and lack of compassion.

Now if you decide to read this, I trust you will take responsibility for having made the decision to do so.

Gayle in Md.

pooltchr
06-12-2007, 06:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote Gayle in MD:</font><hr> However, taxes, are not the dentral issue to me. I am more interested in preserving our Democratic Principles, maintaining the checks and balances in government, using diplomacy to solve our problems, helping those who are born into poverty, hungry, and without hope,
Gayle in Md.

<hr /></blockquote>
Those are all nobel causes, although personally, I think preserving the culture and society of America is far more critical than anything else at the moment. Our open boarders, and the love affair so many in DC see to have with illegal alien invaders, will lead to the downfall of the US long before anything else. That is why I fully support Tom Tancredo for President. He is the only one I have seen take a stand to save the country. I challenge you to visit his web site, read his stand on the issues, and tell me why he shouldn't be the next President of the country. I'll make it easy for you...

http://www.teamtancredo.com/tancredo_issues_index.asp

Steve

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 08:04 AM
Steve,
He does not address my priorities. Women's rights, and getting our people out of a militarily unwinnable slaughter, and providing the proper equipment, and medical care, and follow up treatment for them when they come home. I am very upset with our Government leaders, failing to address the illegal occupation of our country by aliens, who take our jobs, and drive American wages down, for those people who most need decent pay, in order to break out of proverty. But the same people who are beating their breasts over this, are the same people who look the other way over the outsourcing of those jobs, across the sea, and the illegal Corporate manuevers by corporations, to avoid paying their fair share of Taxes. And refuse to recognize the Republican treatment of the poor, and disadvantaged.

Tancredo, is for torture, in spite of the fact that even Colin Powell, says we have lost our moral authority, because of the Bush Administration's destruction of our international leadership, by putting us in the same category with the worst of the worst, a Nation who tortures people. http://thinkprogress.org/2007/05/15/debate-torture/

My focus is on our troops, and our Veterans, and getting this incompetent, dishonest President, and the blank check party who allowed this illegal, immoral war, to continue, unchecked, for over four years, causing the deaths of over 3500 young Americans, partly because they did not have the proper equipment, thanks to George Bush, and Donald Rumsfeld.

I view Tancredo as someone who will continue to destroy our pride, our hunamity, and our credibility, as a Nation which is committed to solving the problems of the world, by using intelligent discourse, international diplomacy, and not as a Nation who believes in torture, and goes off half cocked with the bombs and nukes, every time something happens in the world that requires thought, communication, reasonable study, and careful planning. He's already calling for expanding the bombing into the Iranian borders. One idiot Republican for eight years, followed by yet another bomb happy biggot, is not what I call progress.

Gayle in Md.

Gayle in MD
06-13-2007, 09:01 AM
Here's Who She Isn't....

Jeff Gerth, meet Judith Miller
by Eric Boehlert

Isn't former New York Times reporter Jeff Gerth writing the definitive book about Hillary Clinton sort of like Judith Miller deciding to write the definitive book about Iraq's WMDs? It just doesn't add up.

After all, both Gerth and Miller, former star reporters, are well known for the facts they got wrong, more so than the stories they got right. While Miller limited most of her damage to a single topic, Iraq, Gerth, by contrast, became a Zelig-like figure at the newspaper during the 1990s, appearing at every crossroads where The New York Times lost its newsroom composure, and uncorked dark, convoluted tales featuring the conniving Clintons at the heart of a would-be criminal enterprise.

Indeed, Gerth was at the center of a rather unfortunate period in the Times' history. It was pre-public editor, pre-bloggers, and pre-Media Matters for America. And it was a time when the paper's leadership seemed more concerned with protecting high-profile scandal stories -- propping them up, really -- than with being accurate and honest with its readers.

But that shoddy approach to journalism caught up with the Times in recent years, and the paper has suffered a series of credibility setbacks, particularly with its prewar reporting. If you don't think Gerth's corner-cutting contributed to the paper's troubles -- if you think ambitious insiders at the Times didn't take notice of Gerth's star run when he was lauded and rewarded for writing accusatory stories that couldn't withstand close scrutiny and often didn't even make sense -- then I don't think you understand how the Beltway media's star system works.

Meaning Judith Miller simply picked up where Jeff Gerth left off.

I have no real nostalgic desire, in 2007, to rehash the Gerth blunders regarding Whitewater, rocket technology transfers to China, Monica Lewinsky, and Wen Ho Lee, among others. But with Her Way, Gerth is presenting himself as an expert on Hillary Clinton -- and the book is lauded as presumptively credible because, the media remind us, it is co-authored by respected investigative reporters -- despite the fact that, among mainstream reporters, perhaps nobody during the 1990s got more things wrong about Hillary and Bill Clinton than Jeff Gerth.

Gerth's misfires became as predictable as his reporting style. The drill went like this: Gerth would write accusatory, albeit muddled accounts of alleged Clinton wrongdoings and lean heavily on the cover-up angle. The allegations were often fueled by questionable partisan sources, and Gerth often refused to seriously consider alternative (i.e. benign) explanations for the questions raised. Republicans, seizing on Gerth's high-profile work, would then create an investigatory body (such as the Cox committee), or urge for an independent counsel (like Kenneth Starr). That meant Gerth would receive leak after leak from grateful Clinton investigators and then play up their over-the-top accusations without a hint of skepticism, only to have the investigators' final reports and conclusions be widely dismissed as ineffectual and untrustworthy. But by that point, Gerth has moved onto a new target, and the same closed loop began anew.

It's interesting that once President Bush came into office, Gerth seemed to lose his investigative zeal. He took some swings at corruption surrounding Halliburton and Enron. But Gerth was careful never to suggest White House cover-ups were under way, and his stories did not create much buzz or shift the D.C. landscape; the thrill seemed to be gone. Perhaps that was because Gerth's GOP cheering section -- his base -- was no longer interested in journalists aggressively trying to connect widely scattered dots about the president or his aides. And without their prodding and their leaks, Gerth's pipeline dried up. (From 1995 through 2000, Gerth had more than 180* bylines at the Times; from 2001 through 2005, he produced less than half that number.)

Gerth is also a famously bad writer. Even journalist James Stewart, a fellow Whitewater cheerleader who wrote lovingly of Gerth's journalistic skills in Blood Sport (Simon &amp; Schuster, 1997), reported: "Some Gerth submissions left [Times] editors stunned, not even knowing where to begin." That brand of bad writing, as Little Rock columnist Gene Lyons and Slate's Bruce Gottlieb have detailed, allowed Gerth to camouflage all sorts of holes in his reporting. Gerth seemed to take bad writing, and camouflaging, to new heights during his discredited Whitewater adventures.

Gerth's career was quickly elevated by the Times' convoluted Whitewater narrative about the Clintons and their 1970s real-estate investment with James McDougal -- who later opened an Arkansas savings and loan that eventually failed -- as well as the kaleidoscope of conflicts that modest deal supposedly triggered. Prior to entering the Clinton chase, Gerth was perhaps best known for formally apologizing for a story he'd co-written for Penthouse prior to joining the Times. In that article, Gerth tried to link a California resort with organized crime. The resort co-owners sued, and in order to avoid being targeted in the $522 million libel suit, Gerth wrote a letter of apology to the owners for any harm the article caused.

It appears to have been the last time Gerth apologized for his reporting.

Even the headline on Gerth's infamous first Whitewater story from March 8, 1992, was inaccurate. As Lyons noted in Fools for Scandal: How the Media Invented Whitewater, (Franklin Square Press, 1996), the Times headline read "Clintons Joined S.&amp; L. Operator In an Ozark Real Estate Venture." The operator, of course, was James McDougal. Except that when the Clintons joined the venture in 1978, McDougal was not a savings and loan operator.

The actual contents of the article did not fare much better. Gerth wrote: "The Clintons appear to have invested little money, so stood to lose little if the venture failed, but might have cashed in on their 50 percent interest if it had done well." Not true; the Clintons put $220,000 in borrowed money at risk. (They lost approximately $42,000.)

Another example: Gerth wrote about Beverly Bassett Schaffer, an Arkansas bank regulator appointed by then-Gov. Clinton and who was portrayed in the Times as a political crony who went easy on McDougal's savings and loan, Madison Guaranty. Bassett Schaffer served as a linchpin in the early Whitewater conspiracy. In the first Whitewater article, Gerth informed readers that Schaffer "did not remember the federal examination of Madison." In truth, after reviewing her Madison file, Schaffer faxed Gerth 20 pages of notes before he wrote his accusatory story. (Among the facts lost down Gerth's memory hole: It was Bassett Schaffer who first recommended that Madison be shut down, a full 18 months before it happened.)

Incredibly, Gerth not only left out any mention of the notes Bassett Schaffer had faxed to him regarding the examination, but he claimed Bassett Schaffer "did not remember" the examination.

A stunned Bassett Schaffer complained to Gerth in writing: "This information was ignored and, instead, you based your story on the word of a mentally ill man [McDougal] I have never met and documents which you admitted to me ... were incomplete." (It's no exaggeration to suggest Gerth's conduct regarding Bassett Schaffer would have been a firing offense in many newsrooms.)

Printing Starr's leaks

Despite years of conspiratorial reporting and commentary from the Times (readers could practically hear William Safire's heart beating faster when the columnist typed up his predictions about pending Clinton indictments), Whitewater proved to be a dry hole. "Through it all, the evidence against the Clintons bordered on the nonexistent," wrote Jeffery Toobin in his 1999 book A Vast Conspiracy (Random House).

Nonetheless, Gerth's unusually close relationship with Whitewater sleuth Kenneth Starr paid off when the Monica Lewinsky story broke in early 1998. At the time, Gerth served as the newspaper's point person -- a clearinghouse of sorts -- between the paper and Starr's talkative lieutenants, who were anxious to use the press to shape the unfolding investigation and pressure the White House by planting doomsday stories in the media. Gerth helped.

Two weeks after the Lewinsky charge went public, Gerth co-wrote a Page One exclusive that suggested Clinton had summoned his personal secretary, Betty Currie, to the Oval Office the day after he gave a deposition in the sexual misconduct lawsuit filed by Paula Jones, leading Currie "through an account of his relationship" with Monica Lewinsky that differed in part "from her own recollections." The Times' source: "lawyers familiar with her account." The article, which came amid the Monica media frenzy and was deemed to be a very Big Deal, set in motion the media narrative that Clinton had tried to coach Currie into lying. The article also came complete with Gerth's patented worse-case-scenario-for-Clinton spin. "It just comes screaming at you out of the Times story," NPR's Nina Totenberg said at the time. "This has all the earmarks of a Starr leak."

Indeed it did. Months later, Starr admitted to journalist Steven Brill that he and his deputy spoke with Gerth at length the day before his Currie story ran. Starr insisted they simply confirmed the information Gerth and his team already had, which, of course, revolved around secret grand jury testimony that only prosecutors and Currie knew about at the time. (Obviously, Currie and her attorney had no reason to leak it.)

In the end, the Currie story proved to be a total washout. As testimony from Currie's five grand jury appearances later showed, there was no discernable difference in how she and Clinton recalled the meeting in question. The Washington Post later noted, "Rather than Currie being the crack in the Clinton armada that the independent counsel's office had hoped for, her testimony shows she was intent on remaining a faithful personal secretary unwilling to undermine her CEO." [Emphasis added.]

From Monica, Gerth soon moved on to more high-minded Clinton pursuits, such as the allegation of illegal technology transfers to China. The guts of the story were that after a civilian Chinese rocket carrying a Loral Space and Communications satellite exploded and crashed shortly after takeoff on February 14, 1996, Loral engineers diagnosed the problem and gave Chinese officials a report on the mishap. But in the process, Loral may have given the Chinese too much sensitive information. The Justice Department opened an inquiry into those charges.

That's the story Gerth began to report in April 1998. But, as usual, Gerth went much further. His stories clearly implied that a crucial White House waiver needed by Loral to launch satellites in China was granted because Loral chairman Bernard Schwartz was a longtime contributor to the Democratic Party. Once granted that waiver, Gerth asserted, Loral leaked ballistic missile secrets to the People's Republic of China. The allegation, and the fact that it was made on the front page of The New York Times, set off a Beltway firestorm, with administration critics declaring that Clinton had sold out America's national security in exchange for some campaign cash. In essence, Clinton was being charged with treason.

As was his custom, though, during his missile reporting, Gerth had downplayed or left out key information, omissions that strengthened the angle he was pushing. For instance, the allegation that Loral's actions had damaged national security; Gerth's articles omitted any reference to the fact that a CIA report concluded that the Loral incident had not harmed national security. (News consumers had to rely on The Washington Post to find out that information.)

In his original damning exposť, Gerth reported that Clinton had "quietly" approved a Loral waiver to launch another Chinese satellite despite the company's security breach. "Quietly" certainly carried with it the connotation that Clinton was acting on the hush-hush.

How's this for "quietly"?

1. Clinton immediately notified Congress of his February decision to approve the launch.

2. The State Department and all of Clinton's top national security aides approved of the decision.

3. Even the Pentagon, which first raised concerns about Loral, recommended the China approval.

Fast-forward to May 23, 2000, when the Los Angeles Times reported that just months after looking into the matter in 1998, Justice Department investigators became convinced the Loral chairman had done nothing wrong. A task force led by prosecutor Charles La Bella had been unable to turn up "a scintilla of evidence -- or information -- that the president was corruptly influenced by Bernard Schwartz." One federal investigator told the paper, "Poor Bernie Schwartz got a bad deal. There never was a whiff of a scent of a case against him."

It took 17 days for The New York Times, on Page 24, to inform readers that Schwartz had been cleared. And no, Gerth did not write that story.

By then, Gerth had already won a Pulitzer Prize for his missile technology reporting. The Loral stories resulted in something besides a Pulitzer -- it resulted in the creation of the Cox committee, named after then-Rep. Christopher Cox (R-CA). Cox was to investigate Chinese espionage and the theft of U.S. missile technology in hopes of embarrassing the Clinton administration. Fueled by the unfolding Lewinsky scandal, Republicans embraced Gerth's reporting as yet another entry into the world of perpetual Clinton investigation.

After the overheated Cox Report was published in January 1999, it was ridiculed by experts in the field for being little more than a scare document riddled with factual errors, its language "inflammatory" and its key conclusions "unwarranted." That was the conclusion reached by a research team connected to Stanford University's Center for International Security and Cooperation, which reported that "there is no credible evidence presented or instances described of actual theft of U.S. missile technology."

Neither Gerth nor anybody else at the paper ever reported on the research team's findings. That may have been in part because the newspaper was still institutionally committed to the Cox Report, which the paper had hyped relentlessly. How else to explain the paper's embarrassing, unsigned editorial at the time of the report's release, labeling the Cox committee's work "an invaluable public service" and celebrating its "unsparing investigation." That's a flattering description that perhaps only Cox committee staffers still cling to today.

The Times' Wen Ho Lee fiasco

Like Whitewater, the Cox committee report may have been a bust, but it produced more scandal fodder for the Times. That's because the Cox committee's star witness was an obsessive Energy Department sleuth with no formal technical training named Notra Trulock. Trulock claimed that he had cracked the case of how the Chinese government had obtained information about U.S. warheads, including the most sophisticated in the arsenal, the W-88 Trident D-5. According to Trulock, the information came from an American employee at Los Alamos National Laboratories, a soft-spoken 60-year-old scientist named Wen Ho Lee, who was spying for Chinese government. Worse, Clinton administration officials were dragging their feet in uncovering the dastardly plot. Trulock had been spinning his fantastic tale about Lee for years. (That China had obtained the W-88 information was a confirmed fact.) But most government officials, including those at the CIA, wouldn't bite. Trulock, though, eventually found an eager audience with the Cox committee and with the Times.

On March 6, 1999, the Times uncorked a breathless, 4,000-word exclusive ("Breach at Los Alamos: A Special Report: China Stole Nuclear Secrets For Bombs, U.S. Aides Say") that essentially presented Trulock's doomsday allegations as fact, and contained a loaded quote from a government investigator who compared the alleged spy case to Americans Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were convicted of giving atomic secrets to the Soviet Union and executed in 1953. The article was co-authored by Gerth. Predictably, Republicans went bonkers, framing the controversy in the most hysterical terms.

Although it did not name Lee (that came three days later), the article made clear that Lee was the prime suspect in what the paper called a historic bout of communist espionage. Relentlessly prosecutorial in tone, the March 6 story often, in unqualified terms, referred to "the espionage," "the leak," "the theft," and "the crime," leaving readers no room for doubt.

Interrogating Lee the next day at Los Alamos -- without his attorney present -- FBI agents waved the Times article around. "You know, Wen Ho, this, it's bad," said one agent. "I mean, look at this newspaper article! I mean, 'China Stole Secrets for Bombs.' It all but says your name in here."

Yet by the summer of 1999, a crew of respected reporters -- the New York Daily News' Lars-Erik Nelson, the Los Angeles Times' Bob Drogin, and The Washington Post's Walter Pincus and Vernon Loeb -- were firing missiles into the Times' leaky Wen Ho Lee ship, reporting that the paper's initial, breathless spy caper just didn't withstand scrutiny and that it was "built on thin air," as Robert S. Vrooman, Los Alamos' former counterintelligence chief described the case against Lee.

It quickly became obvious that the Times, much as with Gerth's work on Whitewater and Lewinsky, had been duped by partisan sources with axes to grind against the Clinton administration. Indeed, the Times' competitors revealed that Trulock, the paper's star source, had posted a message of thanks and support on the right-wing Clinton-hating website FreeRepublic.com and that Trulock once spit on the Energy Department's acting counterintelligence chief, who was black, and who, in a subsequent affidavit, accused Trulock of "having racist views towards minority groups." Additionally, after leaving the Energy Department, Trulock became a spokesman for the conservative Free Congress Foundation and then an associate editor at the right-wing media watchdog group Accuracy in Media. That's who the Times built its Wen Ho Lee story around, adopting his spin as fact.

Wen Ho Lee was charged in December 1999 with 59 counts of mishandling nuclear secrets and denied bail. He spent 278 days in solitary confinement. The story, though, completely unraveled in the summer of 2000, when government witnesses had to tell their tall tales in court as part of Lee's bail hearing. The most damaging revelation came from the FBI's lead agent, Robert Messemer, who was forced to recant crucial testimony he'd given in December, when he charged that Lee had lied to investigators and colleagues. On September 13, 2000, after a U.S. District Court judge lit into top government officials who had "embarrassed our entire nation" with their handling of the case, Lee was free. Incredibly, as the Lee case fell apart, indignant Times editorials demanded the government appoint an "independent examiner" to determine whether Lee had been unfairly targeted. Why didn't the daily just ask Gerth?

Today, the Times' original breathless Wen Ho Lee exposť, much like Gerth's first Whitewater exposť, reads like a journalistic train wreck, with unproven allegations strewn across the landscape. As Lucinda Fleeson concluded in the magazine American Journalism Review:

After 19 months of sensational reporting and demagogic politicking, none of the major points made in Gerth and [James] Risen's original March 6, 1999, story hold up:

* There is no evidence that there was espionage at Los Alamos as opposed to any of hundreds of other locations.

Wen Ho Lee did not fail two lie detector tests. He passed lie detector tests in 1984 and December 1998. In February 1999 the FBI gave him two tests, one of which was pronounced inconclusive and the other interpreted as deceptive.

* Whether the Chinese made a great leap forward in their nuclear development continues to be a matter of sharp dispute -- clearly the Chinese obtained information that enabled them to learn how to miniaturize warheads, but the Chinese haven't deployed anything like the W88.

* This wasn't the most serious spy case since the Rosenbergs.

* While Republicans complain they have been stonewalled by the Clinton administration in their efforts to obtain some documents, there is no evidence of a Clinton cover-up. In fact, it now appears that [then-Attorney General Janet] Reno acted properly when she initially resisted pressure to investigate Lee.

According to a Columbia Journalism Review interview in 2001, Gerth was "unwilling to articulate any lessons learned from the Wen Ho Lee story beyond saying that intelligence stories, by their nature, are fraught with danger." That's not surprising. Gerth has been unwilling to articulate any mistakes made.

For instance, Gerth appears to be almost delusional about his flawed Whitewater reporting. "The New York Times has never run a correction of the [March 8, 1992] story because there's nothing to correct," Gerth proudly told CJR.

You gotta love that outdated Times view of the world: If all-knowing and unerring Times editors refuse to run a correction, that means everything's accurate.

Gerth produced for CJR a 1999 letter written by Joseph Lelyveld, then the executive editor of the Times, to an Arkansas newspaper editor who had criticized the Times' Whitewater coverage. In the letter, Lelyveld condescendingly announced that Gerth's work was above reproach. According to CJR, Gerth was practically beaming with pride when he shared the correspondence -- his "trump card," as the magazine described it.

Honestly, does Gerth really think that a cover-your-ass letter written by his boss means that Gerth and the Times did nothing wrong during Whitewater? That type of elitist, protect-your-own approach might have worked during the 1990s. But it's not going to fly in the new digital era, where fact-checking reigns (just ask Judith Miller) and where Gerth won't be able to hind behind genuflecting Times editors.

I agree that Her Way should be judged on its own merits. And Gerth, along with co-writer Don Van Natta Jr., are free as journalists to portray Hillary Clinton however they wish. But readers are also free during the upcoming book release and book tour to press Gerth to explain how getting stories wrong about the Clintons for a decade now qualifies him as an expert on the topic.

<font color="red">The Clintons unseated Bush Senior, and Republicans, will hate them for that forever, and tell every lie they can get their Vast Right Wing Corporate Fascist Billionaire Media Moguls, like Murdoch, to help them to spread themm, along with the Jeff Gerths and Judy Millers of the world. I have not yet decided which candidate will recieve my vote, but it surely will not be a Republican, after what I have witnessed over the last twenty or thirty years.

Gayle in Md.</font color>