I really shouldn’t let him get to me, but when O’reilly starts bleating and blatently lieing with that smug look on his face, I can’t help myself sometimes. Fortunately AI know better then to try and kick the Tv screen in.
Anyway, in O’Reilly’s talking points memo he bleated and screeched about how both the Democrats and SHOCKER!!! the Republicans are fucking over the hard working American people.
When talking about the Democrats, O’Reilly once again singles out Senator Hillary Clinton, referring to her as "the most powerful Democrat in this country is Senator Hillary Clinton who has failed three times in the public policy arena. She couldn’t improve public education in Arkansas. She failed to develop a viable national health plan as First Lady. And she has failed to improve economic conditions in upstate New York, her primary campaign promise.
Let’s count the lies and bullshit, shall we?
Senator Clinton is the most powerful Democrat in the country. I’m a fan of Hillary. I’m a fairly liberal Democrat. But there is no way on Earth that Hillary Clinton is the most powerful Democrat in America. Hell, I don’t even think she’s in the Top 10.
Of course, O’Reilly never bothers to tell us any facts to back up this claim, no he has more important things to do, like bleating about something else.
As far as Hillary failing to improve public education in Arkansas, I wasn’t aware that was one of her duties as the Governers wife. Is this the duty of the spouse/significant other of every governer in the United States? If so, one would think something like that would have been codified somewhere. And why isn’t O’Reilly blasting Laura Bush for failing to improve the public school system in Texas?
3)Hillary sure as fuck developed a viable national health care program, but the Republicans started foaming at the mouth and tearing their hair out while screeching and bleating that if it was passed and made in to policy, the next day the US would have turned into a Soviet style dictatorship.:rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes: And I won’t go into all of the lies and distortions that the Republicans spread about the health care plan.
Well, not to defend O’Reilly, but I’m sure that the Republicans would argue that her health plan was NOT viable PRECISELY for the reasons they said at the time. It’s just that his/their view of what’s “viable” differ from yours.
But yeah, I have NO idea how Hillary is supposedly THAT powerful…
Hillary may not wield the most power in the Senate, but she certainly is the most recognized senator by the US populace as a whole. And she comes out on top of every poll of Dem presidential aspirants where she is included-- and she’s not even running. She can get press time like no one else in the party. She’s just saving herself for '08. I think you’ll see just how powerful she is if Bush wins in '04 and the Dem nomination is open the next election cycle.
Yeah, I don’t get this. (From O’Reilly, not you, that is.) I mean, there were a lot of complaints that Hillary was “pulling the strings” in too many areas of Clinton’s presidency and had too much power for a first lady. But now he’s complaining about her NOT fulfilling her “duties” as Governor’s wife? What, was she not photogenic enough for the photo-ops?
(Wait, don’t answer that; I have a good guess as to what Bill O’Reilly thinks of Hillary physically. Not much. Hey, if you can’t put someone down based on their record or other issues, go for their appearance. :rolleyes: )
Look out! It’s the junior senator from New York! AAAAAHHHHHH!!!
As far as I can tell, Hillary Clinton isn’t even among the ten most power democracts in the Senate, let alone the country. Tom Daschle (Minority Leader) and Harry Reid (Minority Whip) each have far more influence, for example, and certainly just about every other Democract Senator has more seniority. Hell, there are Democrat governors and possibly some big-city mayors with way more clout than any one senator.
Would you deny that Hillary could get the Dem presidential nomination for '04 if she wanted it? I’d say that’s pretty powerful, since no one else could claim that ability.
Thanks for starting this thread, Squish, I knew it was about time for O’Reilly’s monthly pitting but I hadn’t gotten around to it yet.
Hillary’s health plan didn’t fail, it was never implemented. It wasn’t even killed on its merits but because it was torpedoed by insurance companies who saturated the airwaves with misleading attack ads and lobbied the Republicans to spike it (and by “lobbied” I mean bribed).
Does O’Reilly think that every policy proposal is a failure unless it is passed? Calling it a “failure” is another example of his basic dishonesty and hypocrisy in calling his show a “no spin” zone. What “No spin” really means is that no one is allowed to disagree with Bill O’Reilly or call him on his lies. All he does is spin like a fucking top call people names and make shit up.
As long as this thread has been started I’d like to mention his continued ranting and unfounded assertions that the US Constitution is somehow based on the Ten Commandments. He just got into an argument with a law professor about this who patiently tried to explain the Constitution’s foundation in British Common Law. His eyes just about popped out of his head when she dared to mention the Magna Carta.
He also keeps persisting in some deranged assertion that the Ten Commandments are not religious and he’s been touting some slimy piece of legislation that would repeal the First Amendment and allow state endorsements of religion. Someone needs to give him a transfer to the clue bus. The man is a fucking psychopath. He’s getting more and more unhinged and monomaniacal every day.
I think he must be pissed because Al Franken made him his bitch on national tv. The O’Reilly chapter in Franken’s book pretty much rips him to shreds and the sales of that book are through the roof.
Of course, since she’s not running, she could hardly be called a “presidential aspirant.”
Could you cite two of those polls and show the dates they were taken and who the “aspirants” were? Please include the language used in the question given to the pollees.
I dunno. Despite the cult of celebrity so loved by Americans (and Westerners generally, truth be told), I’m pretty sure a distinction between “fame” and “power” still exists.
I have no idea about the validity of it, the methodology, etc. Just that it was widely cited as evidence bolstering the rumor that Hillary Clinton was reconsidering whether to run in '04 (she eventually said “NO” again).
If Hillary suddenly let the word out that she wanted the 2004 Democratic nomination, the party leaders would go into a full-tilt panic, looking for creative ways to beg her not to enter the race. They’ve already got enough problems trying to push Kerry ahead of Dean, fer crissakes.
And yeah, I think Hillary could make for a good President; she sure can’t screw up worse than the current holder of the job. But the truth is that there’s still too much emotional luggage in the American psyche from the whole Whitewater witch-hunt for her to have a fair chance of winning at this time.
That’s odd; I was under the impression that O’Reilly published computer books. That’s not much of a politically controversial occupation, unless you’re a follower of RMS.
Note to the humor impaired: this post not meant to be taken seriously.
In addition to the one Obfusciatrist gave, here’s another one.. Scroll down a few pages or just do a search for “Hillary”. There are at least 2 different polls, each done on 4 different dates that show HRC on top. No pun intended.
I’m not sure what factors Mr. O’Reilly might have been considering in his ranking of Ms. Clinton as the most powerful Democrat, but if it was fundraising ability, I’m pretty sure she’s in the top five.
There does seem to be something fundamentally dishonest with this sequence of events:
[ul][li] Ms. Clinton is asked to lead a health-care task force to develop a national policy[/li][li]Republicans, perhaps including Mr. O’Reilly (although he’s not so much a national figure at this point) attack not only the substantive effort but the selection of Ms. Clinton as the lead[/li][li]The plans brought forward by the task force ultimately fail to win approval[/li][li]Ms. Clinton is criticized for failing to successfully implement a national health-care plan[/li][/ul]
I can’t quite put my finger on the source of the dishonesty, except to say that any reasonable person should add a disclaimer to his criticism with regard to the last bullet along the lines of, “Of course, I fought against her tooth and nail.” It seems disingenuous to criticize Ms. Clinton, or anyone, for failing to do that which the person offering the critique violently opposed.