[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Just remember, Dio, three lefts might make a right, but two wrongs don’t. 
It’s just that the Clinton’s are so much blatant and arrogant in their manipulations and lies.
[/quote]
I totally disagree. I think they’re about average. They’re certainly no worse than McCain and nowhere near as bad as Bush. As least Hillary’s Bosnia story hasn’t killed thousands of people.
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Shayna’s example above is a perfect example of this. Had Hillary just put a more positive spin on her trip it would have served her purposes superbly. Instead, she chose to completely make up a story out of whole cloth and now it’s backfired on her.
I can’t think of another politician in my lifetime with anywhere near as aggressive a record of dishonesty than either Bill or Hillary Clinton. How on earth are we to take seriously anything she says from now on?
Suppose she was elected. Could we depend on her to tell us the truth about her dealings with other world leaders? About the circumstances involved in this political issue or that? How can she rally public support when by now almost everyone but her die-hard fans know that the truth rarely passes her lips?
[/QUOTE]
I appreciate the shout-out and all, but c’mon, Starving Artist, let’s get real here. Even if you combine them, stir them up and double them, the lies told by Hillary and Bill Clinton pale in comparison to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
That being said, I do agree with you that I wouldn’t trust her with the Presidency any more than I trust the current crop in there.
Until the Bosnia flap, the right wing was trying to lay off of Hillary in the hopes that she might still get the Dem nomination over Obama. I guess this was too hard to be quiet about, though. The best thing about it is that it’s knocked that stupid, Reverend Wright non-scandal out of the news loops.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
I appreciate the shout-out and all, but c’mon, Starving Artist, let’s get real here. Even if you combine them, stir them up and double them, the lies told by Hillary and Bill Clinton pale in comparison to George W. Bush and Dick Cheney.
That being said, I do agree with you that I wouldn’t trust her with the Presidency any more than I trust the current crop in there.
[/QUOTE]
Whatever you might want to say about them, Bill was still a pretty damn good President.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
I agree the Clintons can be manipulative, selective with the truth and ruthless, but so is just about every other politician out there…The Clintons are not extraodinarily evil or unethical. They just get called on it more than anyone else.
[/QUOTE]
I dispute that they get called on it more than other politicians. They certainly whine about criticism more loudly than others (a great example of this came during a Democratic candidates debate earlier this year, when Hillary was going off about how despicable it was for the Obama camp to do a mailing critiquing her health care plan. Obama pointed out that the Clintonistas have done similar mailings about his policies that he thought were unfair, but that he didn’t have so virulent a reaction to criticism as Hillary. Her response was essentially that “well, health care is MY SPECIAL THING”. so Obama had better lay off. :rolleyes: )
Another reason the Clintons face scrutiny over their double-dealings is their sleaze appears so prominent when contrasted with the sickening aura of sanctimony that they project (or is projected on their behalf).
Anyway, this thread is about HRC (and by extension the contrast with her opponent, Obama) - not the neocons. Tu quoque and all that.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
Whatever you might want to say about them, Bill was still a pretty damn good President.
[/QUOTE]
Of course he was. Notice I said I wouldn’t trust her with the Presidency.
More fallout from the sniper fire lies. ‘SHOOTER’ MARINE FUMES
I wonder how Murtha feels now about endorsing her? I wonder what he’s hearing from his constituents?
Well, since Clinton will likely do OK in Pennsylvania, and since his district is white and geriatric and union (Clinton voters, for the most part) he won’t suffer much.
If he hasn’t been punished yet for his previous antics he never will be for anything.
I visit that district from time to time (I grew up there) and I hear some veterans grouse about him. But he’ll still win reelection overwhelmingly.
[QUOTE=Diogenes the Cynic]
The best thing about it is that it’s knocked that stupid, Reverend Wright non-scandal out of the news loops.
[/QUOTE]
That was bound to happen, though. All the doomsday predictions about Obama’s chances in the Wright aftermath were way too premature seeing how we have a good stretch before the next primary. Bosnia-gate is a good example of how something small can blow up to become a big, indefensible laugh-o-rama. I’m embarrassed for Hillary. Seriously, everytime I see those clips of her talking about that trip, I cringe.
On the bright side though, at least people are accusing her of lying instead of calling her delusional. I haven’t seen anyone say anything like “Oh, look at that poor wittle woman thinking she was in a scawy place for no good reason. Isn’t that funny?” She’s being treated the same way she would be if she were a man, despite the the potential for sexism to inject itself into the matter.
You mean “that she done did”. I’m fluent in country.
[QUOTE=RTFirefly]
I ask this in all sincerity: has Team Hillary provided any believable explanation for her “sniper fire” account of her landing in Bosnia in 1996? Does anyone else have a reasonable explanation or defense? Or is Team Hillary’s response to duck, say she “misspoke,” and hope it blows over?
IMHO, “misspoke” won’t do, because as the record shows, she continued to “misspeak” and attempt to cast doubt on the veracity of other witnesses, after she was initially called on her “misspeaking.”
[/QUOTE]
She always fabricates when it suits her… she’s patholigical, like her husband.
She also said Chelsea was jogging arount the WTC when it was blown up in order to appear like a real new yorker and concerned parent. Chelsea said she was at a friend’s apt at the time, and another friend called to tell her about the attack…
[QUOTE=Mr. Moto]
Well, since Clinton will likely do OK in Pennsylvania, and since his district is white and geriatric and union (Clinton voters, for the most part) he won’t suffer much.
If he hasn’t been punished yet for his previous antics he never will be for anything.
I visit that district from time to time (I grew up there) and I hear some veterans grouse about him. But he’ll still win reelection overwhelmingly.
[/QUOTE]
What about veterans’ reactions to Snipergate in terms of primary voting? Will they be sufficiently disgusted with her valor-grabbing fabrications to decide not to vote for her in the primary? I’m not expecting them to swing over to Obama, but if a lot of veterans choose not to vote at all for either candidate, it would help Barack in the overall totals.
[QUOTE=JohnnieEnigma]
She also said Chelsea was jogging arount the WTC when it was blown up in order to appear like a real new yorker and concerned parent. Chelsea said she was at a friend’s apt at the time, and another friend called to tell her about the attack…
[/QUOTE]
Speaking of Chelsea, there’s another apple that hasn’t fallen far from her family tree. CHELSEA MISSPEAKS ON BUSH MIDEAST TRAVEL:
REALLY???
Well, not exactly. . .
And of course she “misspoke” again on the subject at her next campaign stop this afternoon.
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Speaking of Chelsea, there’s another apple that hasn’t fallen far from her family tree. CHELSEA MISSPEAKS ON BUSH MIDEAST TRAVEL: REALLY???
Well, not exactly. . . And of course she “misspoke” again on the subject at her next campaign stop this afternoon.
[/QUOTE]
Why do these people fabricate? don’t they know they’re living in an age where things could be checked immediately, and that they’ll be called on it? What are they thinking?
[QUOTE=Shayna]
Speaking of Chelsea, there’s another apple that hasn’t fallen far from her family tree. CHELSEA MISSPEAKS ON BUSH MIDEAST TRAVEL: REALLY???
Well, not exactly. . . And of course she “misspoke” again on the subject at her next campaign stop this afternoon.
[/QUOTE]
Eh. I’d say this Chelsea thing hardly rises to the level of her mom’s Bosnia adventure. It could just be a factual error; it was a slur against someone who isn’t running against anyone; if it was a deliberate lie it wouldn’t gain any great advantage for her or her mom.
If her friend was of the male persuasion, maybe she would lie to her mom . . . I’m increasingly squicked out by this line of reasoning, whether it’s because I’m defending Chelsea, or forcing myself to contemplate her sex life. I’ll just shut up now.
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
You do know that, at least among us Left Wing Daily Kos Crazies[sup]tm[/sup], CNN is known as the Clinton News Network, doncha?
[/QUOTE]
No, I wasn’t aware of that. However, CNN’s long been known that way by us righties too. 
It’s astonishing how Hillary has managed to bring us all together. Drudge and Daily Kos, Starv., Moto, Shodan/ETF, Shayna, Phlosphr…all united and singing Kumbaya (well, sort of), and all due to our mutual detestation of Hillary Clinton’s underhanded tactics.
What an interesting political season it is.
I’m disappointed, however, upon returning to this thread after having been gone for several hours and finding that our very interesting discussion of the Clintons’ sudden-seeming clumsiness and dishonesty and the role the mainstream media may have played in keeping their true nature under wraps all these years (and that perhaps…just perhaps…we righties haven’t been so full of shit all these years after all) has degenerated into a pretty fair number of posts that don’t say much more than “yeah, well…your guys are worse.”
Obviously, I’m not inclined to agree with that assessment and I’ve given my reasons many times around these boards. Time will tell though, and if GWB/Cheney do indeed ultimately prove to have lied to us as is alleged so often around here, I will certainly attempt to face it with the same degree of intellectual honesty shown by some of the posters to this thread.
But GWB and Cheney are not up for election. To go “na, nanna, boo, boo” over
whose guys are worse seems unproductive. Why not look at the Clintons in light of their actual character behavior, the upcoming election, and the alternative candidates, and leave GWB, et al. for congressional panels and the history books to judge?
Otherwise, we might as well suggest that Hillary adopt the campaign slogan: “Hillary Clinton 2008/She’s not as bad as the last guys.”
[QUOTE=Starving Artist]
Otherwise, we might as well suggest that Hillary adopt the campaign slogan: “Hillary Clinton 2008/She’s not as bad as the last guys.”
[/QUOTE]
That’s a variation on the Kerry slogan from 2004: “He’s not George Bush.” That didn’t work, either. :smack:
Edited: I’d like to add that it really feels weird to be relaxing in political comity with Starving Artist. Really weird.
Yikes, bad editing. I meant no line before “whose guys.” And I meant to say “…in light of their actual character and behavior.”
I hate when I’m trying to make a point and then screw it up with jolting syntax errors. :smack: 
[QUOTE=jayjay]
Edited: I’d like to add that it really feels weird to be relaxing in political comity with Starving Artist. Really weird.
[/QUOTE]
Just wait until the primaries are over. Reality will return to normal soon enough.
[QUOTE=jayjay]
That’s a variation on the Kerry slogan from 2004: “He’s not George Bush.” That didn’t work, either. :smack:
Edited: I’d like to add that it really feels weird to be relaxing in political comity with Starving Artist. Really weird.
[/QUOTE]
Yup, something about it just isn’t right.
(But it’s nice while it lasts.) 
[QUOTE=EddyTeddyFreddy]
What about veterans’ reactions to Snipergate in terms of primary voting? Will they be sufficiently disgusted with her valor-grabbing fabrications to decide not to vote for her in the primary? I’m not expecting them to swing over to Obama, but if a lot of veterans choose not to vote at all for either candidate, it would help Barack in the overall totals.
[/QUOTE]
I couldn’t begin to predict, except to say that I’ve heard more than one Democrat back home say they’re seriously thinking of voting for McCain in the general election.
Given the social conservatism of many Pennsylvania Democrats and McCain’s demonstrated crossover appeal, this shouldn’t be surprising.