Is it, strictly speaking, illegal for candidates to accept contributions from foreigners?
More in the nature of hyperbole.
Indeed…And, thank God we only a little more than a year of a President who has done much, much, much, much, much, much, much, much worse than HC would ever do to it.
I invite readers of this thread to read that article that Plan B himself linked to as a cite of his claim when pressed and then decide who has fibbed the most in describing this whole incident…HC or Plan B in his original description given above.
Man, you Clinton-haters are almost enough to make those of us who are no big fans of hers (and will almost certainly vote for someone else in the primary) vote for her just to spite you!
And? Should we go ahead and elect Cheney because even he would be better than Dubya? Or is it too much to ask for a candidate that doesn’t suck?
What she said was that it was a sensible reaction to the problem, and that she did not endorse it. Somtimes it’s possible to disagree with a policy without saying there’s no justification for it.
This is true, although in those days hardly anyone knew anything about Bill Clinton. Very few people would say that about Hilary now.
It is, at any rate, not too much to ask for a candidate who is not a Republican.
Cite?
Sorry I was busy adding to the economy this AM and didn’t have time to dig this up:
Please explain this one. Maybe I don’t remember the definition of hyperbole, maybe I forgot the difference between a traveler and a homeless person. But I just don’t get this one at all.
This isn’t the article I was thinking of but it’s a start. Here the negatives are 52%. But if you google “hillary negatives” you’ll get a lot of possibilities. Sorry I don’t have time now.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/huge_increase_in_hillarys_nega.html
Jesus’ family (in that highly questionable story – there was no Empire-wide census in the relevant time period and the Romans certainly never required people to return to their ancestral homes for census purposes) was homeless at the moment, and forced by circumstances to bed down in a stable. Christians have based moral points on that for centuries – see “The Wife of Bath’s Tale.”
HRC’s statement in question is no fundamentally different.
Oh, where to start?
How about the fact that she is a rabid socialist?
How about the fact that she is a liar (remember the Rose Law Firm billing records? Remember Castle Grande? Remember Travelgate?).
How about the fact that she is morally and ethically challenged? Pretty much anyone else would have kicked Bill’s ass to the curb over Monica and his other women, but not Hillary. She knew that if she did, her political aspirations would go bye-bye.
There are other reasons, but those will do for now.
:rolleyes: If only! She is the most right-leaning Dem in the field. She’s a founding member of the motherfucking Democratic Leadership Council, for Og’s sake! She is no more a socialist than Giuliani or Romney.
Perhaps, but no one would have been morally or ethically obligated to do so. In moral terms, shouldn’t she be applauded for her forbearance?
Excuse me? I’m still married to a woman who cheated on me. Are you telling me that I’m “morally and ethically challenged”?
He was, but not intentionally; sometimes when you sling mud, it spatters a little.
So she’d be in the clear if she’d gotten a divorce, then? Didn’t she do the right thing, morally, ‘standing by her man’?
I predict he’ll say you’re not, because you stayed because you love her, not because you wanted to get ahead in life.
I predict he’ll say nothing. Clothahump rarely follows up on his posts.
Sorry, this is bugging me now. Even John Edwards accused her of being disingenuous? Even her opponent? Even the man who can’t succeed without her campaign melting down? Whoa.