jayjay, while I would tend to agree that your comment does not quite cross the lines of acceptable “wit” in this Forum, you really can’t claim that yours was not an ad hominem attack. Indicating that a poster’s position is faulty due to a defect of the poster (regardless the quality of the presentation) is the essence of ad hominem.
On thinking about it, you’re right. I apologize to Plan B for the ad hominem attack and to you for making a mess in your forum.
The idea that HRC is the most divisive politician of our lifetimes is still ludicrous, though.
Help me out here, Shodan – I can’t tell if you’re ridiculing my suggestion as far-fetched (which I admitted it is) or wryly giving me credit.
If the former, I must mention my 9th-grade history teacher, whom I visited recently in West Virginia. A long-time straight-ticket Democrat in general elections, she admitted that she had always registered as a Republican, so she could vote in the primaries for the candidates least likely to win.
Huh? 
Please explain to us all how Bill’s raping women, getting blowjobs in the Oval Office, selling the U. S. out to Red China and committing perjury are all the result of the “vast right-wing conspiracy”.
I really wanna hear this one.
Do some research on Richard Melon-Scaife.
Or, alternately, buy this book.
(“Raping women”? I’m sure you’ve got some credible cites for such an explosive claim, n’est pas?)
Personally, I’m a bit disappointed Bill Clinton never could get some payback from Jerry Falwell for selling those libelous “Clinton Chronicles” videotapes.
I don’t think I have a reputation as a Clinton fan, or a Clinton apologist… so let me take a shot.
So far as I’m aware, there is no credible evidence that Mr. Clinton ever raped anyone. I am willing to be educated on this point, but you certainly cannot claim it as a known, accepted fact.
“Selling the US out to Red China.” Mr. Clinton was the President, and entitled to make foreign policy, to the extent permitted by US law. You may DISAGREE with his concession to China, and argue that they are unwise public policy, but your line suggests criminal wrongdoing… again, I’m willing to be educated, but so far as I know, there was no such criminal wrongdoing.
Now, the blowjob and the perjury - yes, both happened. The blowjob had nothing to do with the “vast, right-wing conspiracy” – the perjury had everything to do woth it. But for the concentrated, unprecented effort to investigate Mr. Clinton, there never would have been a Paula Jones lawsuit: Ms. Jones’ legal expenses were underwritten by the President’s enemies. But for Jones’ lawsuit, there never would have been a deposition to lie under oath, and never a grand jury to lie to.
So - of the four things you mention, two never happened, one did happen and had nothing to do with the VRWC, and one happened but was a direct result of the VRWC.
Yes, I am.
My WAG is that conservatives are not mentioning HRC as an attempt to get the Dems to nominate a easily-defeated candidate. But I also doubt that conservatives disaffected with Bush would pick Hilary as the next logical choice. Yes, she is attempting to move to the center. But that is not exactly the position she took back in 1993. Maybe she has seen the light, and is a genuine fiscal conservative. I hope so - we need one, Democrat or Republican.
But if her move back to the center causes her to be rejected by Democrats, that would be bad, both for the Dems and for the country.
Best case scenario would be if HRC was a genuine fiscal conservative, and then uses her popularity, name recognition, and clout to pull the Dems and the country to the center. Sort of like what Schwarzenegger is doing in California. The unions and the public workers hate his guts. That’s OK - he is spending his political capital on genuine problems. Maybe HRC can do the same with the federal deficit. If she can, more power to her.
Regards,
Shodan
OK, I’m not a conservative, but here’s my wag: Most of that 33% were conservative women.
I’m not a conservative, and I’m not defending them. I’m just saying that calling Hillary Clinton’s San Francisco statement free market advocacy is absurd.
Remeber Anita Broderick? Yeah, he wasn’t arrested, tried and convicted for it, but he raped her nontheless.
Red China- remember this little fiasco?
And the perjury had abso-frigging-lutely nothing to do with the “right wing”. I don’t recall a Conservative Commando Squad breaking in and forcing Clinton to lie under oath; he chose to do that all by himself. And the fact that there needed to be an investigation in the first place is what you should be complaining about, not the fact that there was one.
Wow. You were there? You sure do get around. Are you still getting around? Can you lemme know what I had for breakfast? Or does this power of yours only work when you really dislike someone?
Clothahump, is it even possible in your mind that someone might make a false rape accusation against a famous person?
Getting back to Hillary…
What I don’t understand is the paranoia some conservatives have for her. Why is she not allowed to move to the center without being accused of ‘hiding her true beliefs’? Politicans change their positions all the time. Hell, half the neo-cons used to be Liberals. David Horowitz was a Marxist. Ronald Reagan was a lefty Democrat at one time.
If she had flipped her positions over a matter of months, or in response to a campaign, I’d agree that she was being duplicitous. But Hillary has been consistent on national defense since at least 9/11, and maybe long before.
When she ran for the Senate, she was accused of Carpet-Bagging, and all the conservatives assumed that she’d get into the Senate, raise holy left-wing hell, and then start campaigning for President. She didn’t. By all accounts, she’s done a damned good job for her state. She has been a very serious senator (much more so than people like Barbara Boxer and John Kerry). She earned her way onto some of the most powerful committees as a freshman, and seems to have at least held her own.
Not to sing her praises too highly, but I really do believe the right has been a little hysterical over Hillary. I think she deserves to be judged on what she has done since entering public office on her own, and not judged based on A) the flaws of her husband or B) things she said and did as a young college girl during a radical era. If we applied that standard to every politician (cough George Bush cough), none of them would be electable.
As I read the OP, I wondered why Plan B thought that 33% of conservatives claiming to support HRC translated into 33% actually doing so. If everyone in a gallop poll actually voted the way they claimed they would election results would turn out to mirror the polls, and they usually don’t…the polled lie (or change their minds the week before an election) for whatever their reasons, on a regular basis.
The only reason* I* would claim to support her is just as F. U. Shakespeare guessed - to game the dems and mess with their heads. I thought of that as a motivator before I even opened the thread, so it wouldn’t surprise me if a significant portion of the polled had the same thing in mind. Shouldn’t that be something people expect from the evil, lying conservative bastards anyway, just as a general rule?
Sure. Except her story stood up under scrutiny.
Is it even possible in your mind that a famous person might have raped someone and gotten away with it?
Sure, it’s possible. But I never stated for fact that he didn’t, whereas you stated as a fact that he did.
I can’t rule it out he did, but I find it bizarre that Clinton’s opposition could get him impeached over lying about cheating with wife with a willing intern, but couldn’t nail him on an actual rape who’s victim’s story you say holds up under scrutiny.
I don’t remember her, and I can’t find anything by googling. Details?
:rolleyes: What makes you think there “needed” to be an investigation? Whitewater was less than nothing, and whatever passed between Bill and Monica was nobody’s business but theirs and Hillary’s.
Nope, Even Kenneth Star decided her story was not useful.
The pattern of the prosecution had already been set: “say what we suspect or you will be prosecuted for obstruction of justice”, IIRC 2 women told Kenneth Star to take a hike and their liberty an family took asinine hits, one woman was told the feds would investigate if her adoption was valid, Juanita Broderick then had lots of assets, and family to protect, under those circumstances and immunity from prosecution, everyone would consider dumping on Clinton. I did not trust her testimony for the way it was obtained, and then three weeks after the date of the alleged rape, Broaddrick attended a Clinton fundraiser.
Also IIRC her testimony was contradicted with other evidence, so Star decided to not use her charges, in fact, no evidence was produced or charges brought regarding this incident.
Unlike you, I remember her well enough to know her name. Try “Juanita Broaddrick” in your searches. After that, note that before the WSJ *editorial * page article, she had testified under oath to exactly the opposite. What, are you accusing her of perjury?
Cite?
Why do you think there needed to be an investigation?
You’ve expressed more than enough hostility towards her in the past on this very board to be able to explain it to us yourself.