Obviously I am no great fan of HRC but this seems like scraping the bottom of the barrel for trying to manufacture controversy. Why should any of us care if she “in the house” while Bill was messing around? What I want to know is how those records support her claim of executive experience by virtue of being “in the house”, not whether or not she was checking up on Bill while he was with an intern.
Other news outlets have been reporting the same thing.
Hillary Clinton is running on experience, so it is interesting to know what she actually did as First Lady. Was she involved in policy meetings? Aside from the health care task force, which didn’t go well, she didn’t seem to be.
Her visits abroad were largely ceremonial, which is typical of a First Lady. And as for these salacious little details, they’re important in a small way - they remind us that in the White House the President has an office that does not include his wife. Indeed, she has her own office and staff.
To hear Hillary talk, you’d think she had the run of the place, which is laughable on the face of it.
I don’t get why people can’t understand that maybe, just maybe HRC is a raging dyke who is totally cool with her husband getting sex elsewhere because she has no interest in giving it to him? And maybe they have a good laugh together when they see these silly reports?
Amusingly enough, one of them is your choice for oh-so-critical thinker Brian Ross of ABC News. Here’s a nice piece from Glenn Greenwald on that little piece of shit, and his ABC News coverage of this and other issues:
For an endorsement of Brian Ross as a critical thinker, see Mr. Moto, just yesterday, in this delightful little post, here.
Brian Ross, investigative journalist and critical thinker extraordinaire.
If Hillary is running on experience and it’s experience that is being called into question with the release of her white house first lady records, which appear to showshe was nothing more than a hood ornament, her experience table is starting to lose legs. Plain and simple.
She may as well just stand up with a bull horn and say, "I am running for president because I know what it smells like in the White House Pantry!.." because anything else is purly unacademic.
For one thing, Rezko has nothing to do with the issue at hand. Anyone of the faintest level of intellect should be able to discern that. Regards the rest, it was, as is noted in that thread, already soundly rebutted.
Here’s a good example of her experience at the White House.
"First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton on Tuesday firmly denied allegations that her husband had an affair with former White House intern Monica Lewinsky. Mrs. Clinton blamed the sex allegations on a “a vast right-wing conspiracy” …“I do believe that this is a battle,” the first lady said…The first lady called the sex and perjury allegations swirling around her husband part of an effort “to undo the results of two elections.” she added that, in light of this “political campaign” against her husband, the best thing to do was “to be patient, take a deep breath and the truth will come out.”
The two bolded parts do NOT represent a contradiction. Unless you have a cite that he has indeed heard anti-US comments before the tape was played. You are out of gas.
The release of the records themselves is noteworthy and could provide useful information. A day by day breakdown of where she was when her husband was getting busy with an intern? Not so much. As ArchiveGuy shows, there has to be other interesting stuff in there.
Okay Burton that’s fair enough. It is fair to point out the pattern of playing every criticism as victim and every issue into a battle. That gets to a heart of the sort of politics she plays and why so many of us think she would be ineffective as a President, why we are so ready to “turn the page.” I am unsure if I feel that her poor judgment assessing matters as a spouse is fair game as part of the pattern of her poor judgment on how to actually achieve policy goals like universal healthcare and on giving the thumbs up for war in Iraq, but I can understand the point of those who do.
But day by day, hour by hour, of where she was while her husband had fun with cigars? That is pandering. Will CNN and MSNBC follow the BBC in getting to the real issues? Or do they assume that America only cares about the naughty bits?
I assume you mean the sort of thing brickbacon is doing. If that’s all it is, I shouldn’t have bothered - it’s really not possible to talk someone out of denial.
“The papers showed she spent most of her time in 1993 and 1994 overseeing the health care task force whose eventual failure would help cost Democrats control of the House and Senate. They indicate she held meetings to help her husband pass the North American Free Trade Agreement even as candidate Clinton tries to distance herself from the trade agreement now. And while she traveled to Northern Ireland and other countries to help promote peace and women’s rights, her schedules indicate that most of her time overseas was spent on the more traditional duties of a first lady.”
The emphasis on the tired old titillation of the Monica affair is actually to Hillary’s benefit, as it obscures the evidence from her schedules that contradicts her current “experience” claims. It also creates sympathy for poor, downtrodden HRC. :rolleyes:
I apologize, DSeid. My only point was to note that one of the sleazemongers doing exactly what you are complaining about in the OP was the same one that came up in a discussion yesterday. In both cases, this person engaged in really poor, dubious “journalism.”
