hillary, the pork star

Senator Hillary Clinton has requested nearly $2.3 billion in federal earmarks for the next fiscal year. That’s almost three times the largest amount received by a single senator during this current fiscal year. Earmarks are funding requests for those so-called pet projects that lawmakers usually award to their own constituency.

And while Clinton has asked for $750,000 for a Homeland Security grant program and another $125 million for an urban security initiative, it is not clear what exactly those grants would pay for.

hillary voted for the gas tax before she voted against it

Hillary Clinton is calling for a holiday on the 18.4-cent gasoline tax, and she says she’d make up the funding from that (which funds transportation infrastructure) by taxing oil company’s “windfall” profits.

But it’s worth pointing out that Clinton OPPOSED efforts to cut or repeal gas taxes during her 2000 Senate contest against Rick Lazio.

Hillary’s ties to terrorists

What you don’t know might really hurt you. Read up.

In this week’s debate, Hillary Clinton said all of her “baggage” has been “rummaged through” for years. But important features of her close relationship with known terrorist sympathizers and Hamas supporters are still opaque to the public view.

Her relationship with terrorists began in the mid-1980s when she served on the Board of the New World Foundation, which gave funds to the Palestine Liberation Organization, at a time when the PLO was officially recognized by the US government as a terrorist organization.

In 1996, the First Lady initiated an outreach program to bring Muslim leaders to the White House. But, as terrorism expert Steve Emerson noted in the Wall Street Journal “Curiously, nearly all of the leaders with whom Mrs. Clinton elected to meet came from Islamic fundamentalist organizations. A review of the statements, publications, and conferences of the groups Mrs. Clinton embraced shows unambiguously that they have long advocated or justified violence. By meeting with these groups, the first lady lent them legitimacy as ‘mainstream’ and ‘moderate.’”

Among these radical groups was the American Muslim Alliance (AMA) and the Council on American-Islamic Relations, both groups that support Hamas, who attended a White House reception hosted by Hillary in February, 1996. Emerson says that its leaders “have sanctioned terrorism, published anti-Semitic statements, and repeatedly hosted conferences that were forums for denunciations of Jews and exhortations to wage jihad.”

The American Muslim Alliance was headed in the 90s by Abdulrahman Alamoudi who met with Clinton and Gore in 1995. Emerson notes that “Mrs. Clinton [allowed] the American Muslim Alliance to draw up the Muslim guest list for the first lady’s…White House reception.”

Alamoudi, Emerson says was “the primary defender of Musa Abu Marzug, the Hamas political bureau chief responsible for creating the group’s death squads.” Marzug took “credit” when Hamas brigades sprayed machine gun fire into a crowded Jerusalem mall. But less than three days after Marzug was arrested by the FBI in July of 1995, Alamoudi said that Marzug “had never been involved in terrorism” and called his arrest “an insult to the Muslim community. Emerson reports that he “elicited contributions fro Marzug’s defense fund” and called him a “political prisoner.”

Then, Hillary ran for Senate on her own and suddenly it was payback time. On June 13, 2000, the American Muslim Alliance’s Massachusetts Chapter held a very successful fundraiser for her candidacy. Tahir Ali, the chairman of the chapter, said “we must support all who have [Muslim] interests at heart.”

Perhaps conscious of how controversial the contribution would be, Hillary or someone on her staff, tried to pull a fast one, recording the donation on federal filing forms as being from the “American Museum Alliance.” But alert observers weren’t fooled and Senate candidate Clinton was forced to acknowledge who the real donor was and, four months after getting the money, she returned it.

like her mother, Chelsea Clinton doesn’t constrain herself with truths

For the first time, she is facing the kind of scrutiny that has bedeviled the candidates and their surrogates along the campaign trail.

During a long day of campaigning in Oregon on Saturday, she mentioned at two different stops that during the course of the campaign a 7-year-old and an 11-year-old had separately asked her “with terror in their eyes” what will become of the Social Security system. It’s possible they were precocious, or that their parents put them up to it, but one skeptical blogger wrote afterward that the story was “stunning in its absurdity.”

(When asked for details, such as where and when Clinton met the children, the campaign could not provide them.)

Hillary Rodham Clinton has recently stopped telling the story of a pregnant Ohio woman who lost her baby then died because she lacked health insurance and proper prenatal care. The New York senator had recounted the story as it was told to her, but the account turned out to be oversimplified and wrong on some key details, according to news reports.

Still, Chelsea Clinton continued to tell it, even getting the woman’s age wrong. (She was 35, not “younger than me,” as Chelsea Clinton reported Saturday.)

“There was some talk in the media about whether it was true or whether it was not true,” she said. “Her family has said it’s true in the interim, but what matters to me in the following story is that no one ever doubted that it could be true in our country. So here’s the story we heard . . . .”

Kathleen Hall Jamieson, director of the Annenberg Public Policy Center at the University of Pennsylvania, said Chelsea Clinton should be held accountable for her stories. This story, she said, was plausible, so the telling of it, with Chelsea’s caveat, was acceptable.

Hillary says one thing.. the money says another

As Chinese authorities have clamped down on unrest in Tibet and jailed dissidents in advance of the 2008 Olympics, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has taken a strong public stance, calling for restraint in Tibet and urging President Bush to boycott the Olympics opening ceremonies in Beijing.

But her recent stern comments on China’s internal crackdown collide with former President Bill Clinton’s fundraising relationship with a Chinese Internet company accused of collaborating with the mainland government’s censorship of the Web. Last month, the firm, Alibaba Inc., carried a government-issued “most wanted” posting on its Yahoo China homepage, urging viewers to provide information on Tibetan activists suspected of stirring recent riots.

Alibaba, which took over Yahoo’s China operation in 2005 as part of a billion-dollar deal with the U.S.-based search engine, arranged for the former president to speak to a conference of Internet executives in Hangzhou in September 2005. Instead of taking his standard speaking fees, which have ranged from $100,000 to $400,000, Clinton accepted an unspecified private donation from Alibaba to his international charity, the William J. Clinton Foundation.

Hillary laughs off another question about her ethics

Hillary Clinton used her trademark laugh Thursday to deflect a question about the $800,000 her husband earned in 2005 giving speeches for a Bogota-based group that supports the Colombia free trade agreement — the same trade deal she currently opposes.

Asked by CNN if those earnings represented a conflict of interest given that she has dipped into her family’s pocketbook to pay campaign bills, Clinton threw up her hands and laughed loudly for several seconds.

“How many angels dance on the head of the pin?,” she responded, continuing to giggle. “I have really, uh, nothing to … I mean, how do you answer that?”

The New York senator explained there are different sides to the argument over trade, and re-emphasized her own opposition to the trade deal, assailing the Colombian government’s “outrageous” record of “targeting labor leaders.”

“I am against the Colombia free trade deal,” she said. “It doesn’t matter who talks to me. It doesn’t matter any circumstances. I have been against it. I am against it. I will be against it absent the kind of changes in behavior that I have been calling for from the Colombian government.”

Earlier in the press conference, describing her husband’s advocacy for the trade deal, Clinton said: “Everyone is free to express their opinion.”

Clinton Pay Comes to $30 Per Lie

Bill and Hillary Clinton’s tax returns for the last seven years reveal that since leaving the White House the couple has earned nearly $30 per lie.

“If you break their income down, you see that on average they earned $42,661 a day, or $1,777 an hour, which comes to $29.61 a minute,” said political analyst Pim Peeny. “And, this being the Clintons, that amounts to $29.61 per lie told.”

Clinton Under Fire Over False Story Of Health Care Horror

Over the last five weeks, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York has featured in her campaign stump speeches the story of a health care horror: an uninsured pregnant woman who lost her baby and died herself after being denied care by an Ohio hospital because she could not come up with a $100 fee.

The woman, Trina Bachtel, did die last August, two weeks after her baby boy was stillborn at O’Bleness Memorial Hospital in Athens, Ohio. But hospital administrators said Friday that Ms. Bachtel was under the care of an obstetrics practice affiliated with the hospital, that she was never refused treatment and that she was, in fact, insured.

Hillary Clinton: “I Fought Muhammed Ali for the Heavyweight Championship”

At a campaign stop in Philadelphia, PA, Hillary Clinton furthered her identification with Rocky, recalling how she once stepped into the ring against Muhammed Ali.

Clinton said that she was sent to fight Ali when no one else would. “They used to say in the White House, if the ring were too small, or the venue too unimportant, or the opponent too fast, send Hillary.”

Recounting the championship bout against Ali, Senator Clinton recalled how she “ducked under a flurry of fists, crouched down and sought refuge on the ropes.” Asked about how difficult it was to staunch the bleeding between rounds, cutman Chelsea Clinton said, “none of your business.”

Responding to a question as to who won the heavyweight championship bout, Clinton called Ali “inept and irrelevant.”

“If he’s a heavyweight, he should have stood there and punched. If he dances and jabs, then he’s a lightweight…..and, he’s also a Muslim, so far as I know.”

Clinton, campaigning for the critical Pennsylvania vote, was criticized for not fighting Joe Frazier, the local hero. “I’m dedicated to health care reform,” said Clinton, “so I was not going to fight a guy called smokin’ Joe.” Asked, then, why she hired Mark Penn, who has done work for the tobacco industry, Clinton said, “ask Chelsea.”

Hillary began her career with lies.. will she end it that way, too?

Neal Boortz summarizes how Hillary was fired from a committee that investigated a president who was indicted for lying under oath. The reason… obstructing justice and potentially committing perjury.

* Hillary Rodham gets a spot on the legal staff of the House Judiciary Committee upon the recommendation of a lawyer pal of Ted Kennedy.

* The man who hires Hillary is Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat.

* The House Judiciary Committee is investigating Richard Nixon with an eye on impeachment.

* A question arises as to whether or not Nixon is legally entitled to counsel during the investigation. If so, his council would be allowed to cross examine witnesses appearing before the panel.

* The concern about having counsel for Nixon cross examine witnesses centered on E. Howard Hunt. Democrats on the committee feared that Nixon’s counsel would elicit information from Hunt that would be very damaging to the Kennedys.

* Zeifman tells Hillary that Nixon is entitled to counsel. He cites documents in the committee’s public file referencing the fact that Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas had representation four years earlier while he was being investigated.

* Hillary removes the documents from the committees public file and places them under lock and key in her office where they are not available for media or public scrutiny.

* Hillary then prepares a brief for filing with a federal judge which falsely states that there is no precedent for an official being investigated by the committee to have legal representation during that investigation.

* Nixon resigns before Hillary has a chance to submit the brief in which she makes knowingly false claims.

* Zeifman then fires Hillary. Hillary asks for a letter of recommendation. Zeifman says no. This was only the third time in Zeifman’s 17 years with the committee that he had refused a letter of recommendation.

Zeifman told Dan Calabrese that if Hillary had actually submitted the brief she most likely would have been disbarred.

Why exactly was she fired? In the words of the man who fired her…

“Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.”

Hillary’s reaction to WTC bombing… go to a photoshoot and attend a play

Hillary loves to talk about her ‘experience’ in the Oval Office. Well, here are a couple examples from some very noteworthy days during the Clinton administration.

When the World Trade Center was attacked in February 1993, President Bill Clinton flew to New York to be briefed on the attack and the response by city, state and federal authorities. According to newly released White House calendars of Hillary Clinton’’s time as first lady, she remained in Washington to attend a photo shoot with Parade magazine and a performance of “Jesus Christ Superstar.”

Seven years later, in October 2000, the Clintons were enjoying a quiet weekend at their new home in Chappaqua, N.Y., when word came that the Cole, a U.S. destroyer, had been attacked in a Yemen port. Bill Clinton rushed back to the White House to deal with the crisis. Hillary Clinton returned to the campaign trail in her run for the Senate.

Hillary’s health care plan isn’t paying for her own employees

The self-professed champion for ‘universal health care’ hasn’t been paying the health care bills for her own employees.

Among the debts reported this month by Hillary Rodham Clinton’s struggling presidential campaign, the $292,000 in unpaid health insurance premiums for her campaign staff stands out.

Clinton, who is being pressured to end her campaign against Barack Obama for the Democratic nomination, has made her plan for universal health care a centerpiece of her agenda.

The campaign provides health insurance to all its employees, their spouses, partners and children — and that wasn’t interrupted by any lag in payments to insurance providers, said Jay Carson, a Clinton campaign spokesman.

He said the campaign this month paid off all outstanding bills to Aetna Healthcare and CareFirst BlueCross BlueShield. Those payments will be reflected on a report the campaign will file this month with the Federal Election Commission, which Carson said will show “zero debt owed to both vendors.”

“Sometimes invoices are not paid immediately because we need additional information for our records, or to verify expenses,” Carson said in a statement e-mailed to Politico. “Sometimes invoices arrive at the very end of the month at the cutoff of the reporting period, which means that we are required to report them as a debt on the current FEC report, even where they are paid in regular course during the next month.”

But the unpaid bills to Aetna were at least two months old, according to FEC filings.

They show the campaign ended last year owing Aetna more than $213,000 for “employee benefits.”

During the first two months of the year, the campaign did not pay down any of that debt. In fact, it accrued another $16,000 in unpaid bills last month, and it finished the month owing Aetna $229,000.

Clinton Pushes Housing Market Fixes As Campaign Manager Sits on Board of Bankrupt Lender

Hillary Clinton spends considerable time on the campaign trail bemoaning unscrupulous lenders who have left millions of Americans scrambling to keep their homes but all the while her campaign manager, Margaret “Maggie” Williams, has sat on the board of one of the nation’s once-largest and now-bankrupt sub-prime mortgage lenders.

Clinton Communications Director Howard Wolfson told FOXNews.com late Sunday that Williams, a longtime Clinton ally, didn’t join Clinton’s Democratic presidential campaign as a volunteer until after Delta Financial Corporation — for which Williams is a director — went bankrupt in December 2007.

That’s more than seven years after Williams joined New York-based Delta Financial in 2000. She became a director one month after a federal settlement was reached with the lender over discriminatory lending practices. More recently, Delta has been accused by consumer advocates of pursuing predatory practices throughout the housing boom and bust.

As of September 2007, Williams owned 12,500 shares of Delta’s common stock, and by 2007 had earned at least $175,000 for her board obligations, according to company filings available in the Securities & Exchange Commission online database.

…
Intently focused on the nation’s housing crisis in recent appearances, Clinton has been clear that sub-prime mortgage lenders, particularly in poor, working class urban neighborhoods shoulder much of the blame for the credit crunch.

…

But as it turns out, Clinton’s top aide is on the board of what had been — until its bankruptcy — the ninth-leading sub-prime lender in the nation, handling almost $800 million worth of sub-prime lending in the third quarter of 2007 alone, according to National Mortgage News.

Hillary stiffs the working people

There is something seriously ironic about a woman that will tell a bunch of rich people at a 2004 San Francisco fundraiser that she is going to “take things away from you on behalf of the common good”, referring to taking from the rich to give to the working class, and then proceed to stiff that same working class when she owes them monies for services rendered.

The Hillary Clinton campaign has avoided paying hundreds of bills and vendors and service providers are warning people to get paid up front before rendering any services to the Clinton campaign or they may not get paid at all.

Ronald Reagan’s son claims more ‘presidential experience’ than Hillary

“I’m indebted to Hillary Clinton for the revelation that my global wanderings when my dad was president qualify me to run for the presidency myself.

Mrs. Clinton has been insisting that her global junkets as first lady, and her meetings with foreign leaders, qualify her to be president of these United States.

I never thought of it that way, but if she is correct then I am eminently qualified to follow my father’s footsteps and take up residence at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave., not merely as a member of the president’s family, but as president in my own right.

Hillary, who even the media now admit will say or do anything to win election, is using her past as first lady to attempt to sell the American people on her expertise in foreign policy, a claim largely based on her travels during her husband’s administration and the fact that she met with world leaders while junketing abroad.

Well I’ll match my global travels and meetings with world leaders against hers any time, and I’ll come out on top.

As a member of the president’s immediate family I traveled far and wide, accompanied by an entourage of Secret Service agents, as are all members of a president’s family. And because I was the son of a sitting president, my presence in their country — no matter what the reason for my visit — was treated by their leaders as an official visit and I was accorded the treatment given to such official guests.

Moreover, I was present during times of crisis when momentous decisions were made affecting foreign policy. For example, I was in a suite in the Century Plaza Hotel when my father gave Attorney General Ed Meese the authority to order our military to shoot down Moammar Gadhafi’s aircraft in the Gulf of Sidra.

Following Hillary’s reasoning, that experience qualifies me as an expert of military matters relating to foreign affairs capable of knowing what to do in a moment of crisis.

Hillary’s widely-touted experience is not at all unique. Any member of any presidential family has had similar experiences but not one of them ever even suggested that their travel and meetings with foreign leaders qualified them to be president of the United States.

Nancy Reagan, for example, had far more experience than Hillary, but she was content to be the loving wife of a president instead of crowing about the famous world leaders she met in her eight years as first lady and claiming it qualified her to be president. Unlike Hillary, Nancy tells the truth.

The reports of Hillary’s campaign death are no longer greatly exaggerated

Kimberley A. Strassel, at the Wall Street Journal, has an excellent summary of why Hillary’s campaign is over.

Hillary Clinton’s been all the news this week, after she “misspoke” about Whitewater, Travelgate, missing files, suspicious pardons, Johnny Chung and cattle futures. Oh wait, after she “misspoke” about Bosnia. Oh wait, same thing.

That’s one way to make sense of the unrelenting, unforgiving, 24/7 news coverage of Mrs. Clinton’s fictional telling of Bosnian sniper fire and the subsequent debunking of her every word. In a nasty primary battle that has already featured racial slurs and Chicago slum lords, missing tax documents, and a “monster,” you might expect this slip-up to have been yet another blip in the media cycle.
[Hillary Clinton]

But that would have been to deny the press, the pundits, Democrats, and even Barack Obama, the catharsis of finally — finally! — getting a chance to confront the Clintons’ questionable mores. Hillary’s and Bill’s scandals have been the elephant in the primary room ever since she first signaled a run. Yet up to now everyone has been too scared, or too loyal, or too weary to touch the ugly past. Her Bosnia misspeak is now serving as proxy for all the truths about the Clintons’ non-truths, allowing even liberals to break free from their Clinton dependence.

And how liberating it is! The video of Mrs. Clinton’s speech about Bosnian sniper fire, twinned with real footage of calmly strolling down the Tuzla tarmac, has been running on one continuous TV loop. Reporters have dug up every last person who accompanied her on the sedate trip to pour a little more salt in the wound. “The Audacity of Hoax,” yelled a blog posting in the liberal Nation magazine, which innocently asked: “What else is she fibbing about?” Bill Burton, Barack Obama’s spokesman, gleefully noted that Mrs. Clinton’s recent attacks on his candidate were designed to deflect attention away from her “made up” Bosnia story. Heavy emphasis on the “made up” part. No need to mention Vince Foster, Red Bone, Marc Rich or Webster Hubbell. All this will do.

Read the rest here.

Hillary, why doth thy media foresaketh thee?

Hillary is being “swiftboated”!

She claimed that she came under sniper fire when she visited in Bosnia in 1996, but was contradicted by videotape showing her sauntering off the plane and stopping on the tarmac to listen to a little girl read her a poem.

Similarly, John Kerry’s claim to heroism in Vietnam was contradicted by 264 Swift Boat Veterans who served with him. His claim to having been on a secret mission to Cambodia for President Nixon on Christmas 1968 was contradicted not only by all of his commanders — who said he would have been court-martialed if he had gone anywhere near Cambodia — but also the simple fact that Nixon wasn’t president on Christmas 1968.

In Hillary’s defense, she probably deserves a Purple Heart about as much as Kerry did for his service in Vietnam.

Also, unlike Kerry, Hillary acknowledged her error, telling the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review: “I was sleep-deprived, and I misspoke.” (What if she’s sleep-deprived when she gets that call on the red phone at 3 a.m., imagines a Russian nuclear attack and responds with mutual assured destruction? Oops. “It proves I’m human.”)

The reason no one claims Hillary is being “swiftboated” is that the definition of “swiftboating” is: “producing irrefutable evidence that a Democrat is lying.” And for purposes of her race against matinee idol B. Hussein Obama, Hillary has become the media’s honorary Republican.

In liberal-speak, only a Democrat can be swiftboated. Democrats are “swiftboated”; Republicans are “guilty.” So as an honorary Republican, Hillary isn’t being swiftboated; she’s just lying.

Indeed, instead of attacking the people who produced a video of Hillary’s uneventful landing in Bosnia, the mainstream media are the people who discovered that video.

I’ve always wondered how a Democrat would fare being treated like a Republican by the media. Now we know.

Chelsea Clinton, stumping for Mom, gets the Monica question

Back in 1992 when candidate Bill Clinton had the opportunity to tell intrusive questioners where to go when they asked about his underpants, he chickened out. And answered.

Not so, Clinton’s daughter, Chelsea.

The only child of the former president and Sen. Hillary Clinton has been out on her own impressing crowds across the country in recent weeks stumping for her mom. Presumably, the question had to come at some point. And presumably Chelsea was ready.

Tuesday it came. The Monica Lewinsky question. (Please note, it was not the media that inquired.)

There she was in Indianapolis talking to a crowd of maybe 200 students at Butler University, seeking votes for the state’s May 6 primary. It was near the end of the session when some guy asked Chelsea if her mother’s credibility had been injured by the infamous sexual relationship her father had with the White House intern.

“Wow,” said Chelsea, “you’re the first person actually that’s ever asked me that question in the, I don’t know, maybe 70 college campuses I’ve now been to.”

Then, she fired: “And I do not think that is any of your business.”

So, Chelsea has been to 70 college campuses and has never been asked the most obvious question on everyone’s mind? That, in itself, points out the intellectual collusion among our institutes of higher learning. Rather than being an environment where people are encouraged to consider many sides to issues, universities use the shield of political correctness to avoid dealing with uncomfortable issues.

And you’re wrong, Chelsea. It is our business to consider how a person who is now attempting to get elected President of the United States handled an issue that caused the impeachment of our country’s commander in chief. The fact that the impeached president was her husband has no bearing on the situation. And by never admitting, to this day, that she was wrong, Hillary showed that her allegiance was, as is still, with her husband (or rather, her political future) rather than with facts and law of the land.

Also telling, is the insertion in the story that it was not the media who asked the longed for question. This being the same media who has never questioned Bill Clinton in the rape of Juanita Broaddrick.

For Hillary, lying ain’t no big deal

Hillary Clinton got caught in a lie recently, a whopper about being under fire in a so-called combat zone, a well-rehearsed lie she has been telling on the campaign trail for months.

When the truth came out, as it so often does in the microscopic world of politics, she shrugged her shoulders and dismissed it by saying:

I made a mistake. That happens. It proves I’m human, which you know, for some people, is a revelation.

Calling her tall tales of running and ducking for a cover a “mistake” is massive understatement. Her claim about being human leaves an opening that’s ripe for comment but we won’t go there.

Clinton’s campaign for President is built on a mountain of lies. She says she brokered peace in Northern Island. The man who did broker the peace — and who won a Nobel Prize for his honest efforts — says her claims are a crock.

Ron Fournier of The Associated Press writes an excellent analysis of Clinton’s vague association with the truth:

During a speech last week on Iraq, Clinton stretched the truth to the breaking point. “I certainly do remember that trip to Bosnia and … there was a saying around the White House that if a place was too small, too poor, or too dangerous, the president couldn’t go, so send the first lady. That’s where we went. I remember landing under sniper fire. There was supposed to be some kind of greeting ceremony at the airport, but instead we just ran with our heads down to get into the vehicles to get to our base.”

Hogwash. The truth is:

– There was no sniper fire.

– Nobody ducked for cover.

– Bad weather, not security concerns, kept her husband from making the same trip a few months earlier.

Clinton and her aides stood behind the story — which she has told more than once — until video surfaced showing the former first lady, her daughter, Chelsea, and their entourage strolling off the plane and walking calmly across the tarmac.

What makes Clinton’s situation unique — and the Bosnia embellishments so damaging — is the fact that the New York senator has built her candidacy on the illusion of experience. Any attack on her credentials is a potential Achilles heel.

As first lady, she did not attend National Security Council meetings, did not receive the presidential daily briefing on terrorism and other threats and did not have a top level security clearance. Her foreign trips were glorified goodwill tours, a collection of photo opportunities and sightseeing trips.

Yet her lies about being under fire, used as a questionable way to justify her claim of being qualified “from day one” to be commander-in-chief are an insult to every man and woman who served their nation and actually came under fire. Anyone who has been under fire in a combat situation will tell you that it’s not something you forget and it’s certainly not something that you simply “misspeak” about.

To accept Clinton’s ludicrous claims that she “misspoke” means accepting the fact that she misspoke at least three times during the campaign. Each time, she added more embellishment to the story. When challenged with the facts, her first claim was that she was “sleep deprived” and because of lack of sleep she wasn’t in full control of her memory or faculties.

This from the woman who wants us to believe that she will be the best person to answer that ringing phone at 3 in the morning.

Are destructive Clintons plotting a McCain win?

Pat Murphy asks a question that I’ve been pondering, as well.

Perhaps it’s not so baffling that the House of Clinton is eager to demonize Barack Obama as too inexperienced to be president, and that it slyly stokes suspicions about his patriotism and allegiance to the United States, belittles his uplifting speeches as hot air and continues the ugly, destructive fight for the Democratic nomination against steepening odds.

Indisputably, the Clinton machine is providing grist for Republican John McCain to use against Obama if he’s the Democratic presidential nominee—certified charges from no less than Democrats Hillary and Bill that Obama’s too inexperienced, lacking sufficient patriotism, a man of ready talk but no solutions.

Could this be the final Clinton strategy as her chances appear bleaker every day—helping McCain win the White House so Hilary could run for president in 2012? (McCain would be too old for a second term.)

This notion would be considered unthinkable, almost the delusions of a psychotic. Would any Democrat dare purposely sabotage another Democrat to pave the way for a Republican president?

The Clintons, mind you, are not ordinary or rational Democrats. The Clintons are megalomaniacal in their hunger for power. What has long been suspected has been confirmed by a few Clinton staffers bitter about Obama’s rise in popularity—they believe Hillary is “entitled” to be president. The nation owes her. The nation cannot survive without her.

Two facts support the notion of a self-destructive last stand by Hillary and Bill.

First, their tactics haven’t increased her lead over Obama or won any superdelegate support. She’s lost 60 superdelegates in the past month, according to Politico.com.

Second, Obama was leading McCain in double digits—and now McCain is leading and approved by 67 percent of Americans, since the Clintons unleashed their wreck-and-ruin tactics.

Experts in these matters calculate Hillary Clinton has a 10 percent or less chance of the nomination. That percentage is bound to shrivel as the self-destruction continues. Her claim of visiting Bosnia under sniper fire as proof of her “experience” has been exposed as fiction. Her believability is bound to suffer, increasing doubts about her character to be commander-in-chief.

Whatever else the Clinton legacy, their most outstanding feature is a proclivity for shaming themselves and their nation.

Bill did it with his cheap peccadillo with Monica Lewinsky in an anteroom just outside the Oval Office and his lies thereafter.

Now Hillary, overcome by peevishness, would destroy her party’s chances for the presidency by sabotaging her Democratic rival to aid the fortunes of a Republican. She seems indifferent to the personal cost of being banished to the political graveyard.

Hillary’s pants are on fire

liar, liar...

more gutter politics by the Clinton gang

Bill Richardson came out swinging Easter Sunday, slamming the “gutter” politics which he says is “typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton.”

The New Mexico governor made the searing remarks appearing on “Fox News Sunday” with Chris Wallace.

Asked about James Carville’s comments, as reported in the New York Times Saturday, that Richardson’s endorsement of Barack Obama was comparable to “when Judas sold out [Jesus] for 30 pieces of silver,” an angry Richardson told Wallace, “I’m not going to get in the gutter like that.”

Then he followed with a blistering attack on the Clinton’s inner circle.

“And you know, that’s typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency.”

Heavy Hitter? Not Hillary

Now that Hillary Clinton’s schedule as first lady has been released, her near-total lack of serious involvement in the real inner workings of the government is bluntly apparent.

There are few, if any, meetings with Cabinet members, congressional leaders, the National Security Council, the National Economic Council, leaders of the Irish peace process, players in the Bosnian crisis or representatives from Rwanda. All of her so-called experience is absent from her daily schedule. What’s there, for us all to see, is one soft event after another, a schedule far more typical of such first ladies as Mamie Eisenhower or Lady Bird Johnson than of a future presidential candidate.

This near-total paucity of participation in policy-making dovetails with our recollection of her White House role. In 1995 and 1996, she largely toured the country, speaking at ceremonial events, wrote a book (“It Takes A Village”) and toured the world. During her international travels, there was no serious diplomacy, just a virtually endless round of meetings with women, visiting arts-and-crafts centers, watching native industries and photo opportunities for the local media.

President Clinton’s memoirs reflect this absence of substance. The book contains only a handful of mentions of his wife that aren’t related to their joint travel, her health care-reform program or her ceremonial duties. The Hillary she now claims to be was nowhere evident.

Hillary Clinton was deeply involved in the White House’s inner workings only from the time of Bill’s election through the Democratic defeat in the congressional elections of 1994. She played a key role in choosing the Cabinet and staff, in crafting the health care-reform legislation and in relations with the Democratic Congress.

But Bill Clinton saw his loss of Congress as owing to Hillary’s policies and ideas. He felt that his presidency had been captured by a liberal phalanx that included the first lady and such staffers as George Stephanopoulos and Harold Ickes. He realized the need to move to the center and exiled Hillary from the White House, asking her to mix the largely ceremonial duties of her “job” with writing, speaking and policy advocacy. Her key role in the White House was a thing of the past – and remained so through all of 1995, 1996 and 1997.

Only in January 1998 did Hillary come back to real power – in order to lead the defense to the Monica Lewinsky scandal and prevent Bill’s impeachment. Of course, after April 1999, she was consumed with her New York Senate race.

So Hillary’s experience, real enough in 1993-94, led to a total disaster, the first loss of the House for the Democrats in 40 years. Her experience in 1998-99 was focused almost exclusively on defending against impeachment, hardly relevant for the future. But her schedule shows the vacuity of her experience in the years in between – the key years of the Clinton presidency – when the budget was balanced, the economy turned around, welfare reformed, Bosnia transformed and Kosovo freed.

Newsflash: Hillary is now from Pennsylvania

Remember when Hillary Clinton moved to New York and adopted it as her home by idiotically putting on a Yankees hat? And remember how Hillary Clinton tried to head into Illinois and claim that no, no, she’s from there too? And then remember how she implied that her Wellsley and Yale roots meant she was from Massachusetts and Connecticut in the lead up to those states’ primaries? And then remember during the Texas primary she claimed she also had deep roots in south Texas?

Well, now she’s claiming she’s actually from Pennsylvania – a convenient announcement just a few weeks ahead of Pennsylvania’s primary.

* davidsirota’s diary *

I just got this from her campaign in my email box:

Dear David,

Hillary has always had deep family roots in Pennsylvania and lifelong memories of her time spent there as a child. Her grandparents came to Pennsylvania over a century ago, and her father, Hugh Rodham, was born and raised in Scranton — and then went on to play football for the Penn State Nittany Lions. Hillary has always been connected to Pennsylvania and that’s why she has always carried with her the images and voices of the people she came to know. Coming back to Pennsylvania this week has been more like a homecoming…

Yes, she cares so much about Scranton that she spent the last decade championing the same NAFTA that has destroyed that part of Northeastern Pennsylvania.

Why do the Clintons always treat the public like we are just drop-dead stupid?

Hillary’s Commander-In-Chief Test

Monday Howard Wolfson, the supreme spokesman for Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign, issued a pronouncement by telephone conference call: “We do not believe,” he said, “that Sen. Obama has passed that key commander in chief test.”

This point was apparently made to disqualify Barack Obama from the No. 2 vice president job that he says he would never want and Hillary Clinton herself brought up last week and has talked about several times along with her husband but now they’ve decided the Illinois senator hasn’t passed the commander in chief test that he’s never taken and no one knows what it is anyway.

Which got us to thinking. What do you suppose a commander in chief test looks like? What do you have to know how to do to become commander in chief? And how, by the way, do we know whether Sen. Clinton has passed or even taken the commander in chief test?

Her campaign has not released Clinton’s commander in chief test, which….

fits because she hasn’t released her recent years’ income taxes either or the vast volume of documents from her first lady days that she says constitute so many of those 35 years of valuable experience that qualify her to be commander in chief.

So the entire world is left to guess what exactly is on Hillary Clinton’s commander in chief test. Which may be what her campaign wants. Because, in point of fact, if you think about it, Obama and John McCain are actually a tad bit closer to being the commander in chief since Obama leads in popular votes, states and Democratic delegates and McCain has already locked up the Republican nomination, unless Ron Paul really turns it on here in the next few weeks.

Anti-semite among Hillary’s top fundraisers

Earlier this week, there was renewed reporting in the blogosphere about Mehmet Celebi, a film executive whose company, BMH Worldwide, produced the movie Valley of the Wolves. Here’s how the Jerusalem Post describes the movie: “American actor Gary Busey portrays a Jewish doctor in the American army who cuts out the organs of Iraqis at the Abu Ghraib prison and sells them to wealthy clients in New York, London, and Tel Aviv.”

Celebi is listed as a “Hillraiser” on the Clinton website, meaning he has raised more than $100,000 for her campaign.

When the New York Post first reported on the movie last month, the newspaper said a Clinton campaign official did not get back to them for comment. Renewed questions in the blogosphere, including postings on the political websites of ABC News and The Atlantic Magazine, produced this answer from Clinton campaign spokesman Howard Wolfson: “He will no longer be raising money for the campaign.”

Hillary Clinton Is No Victim And Barack Obama Is No Ken Starr

“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign compared rival Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Clintons’ chief nemesis of the 1990s.

Clinton herself declined to comment on the comparison, made by her chief spokesman in a conference call with reporters and also in a memo distributed by the campaign.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.”

The worst insult that a Democrat can lob against a fellow Democrat is to compare him to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was obsessed with uncovering Bill Clinton’s sex life.

Obama has waged a tenacious but circumspect campaign that is beyond reproach. Hillary has more scandals than a dog has fleas, but Obama has refrained from using any of them against her. If Obama was a sex-obsessed misfit like Starr, he would have questioned Hillary’s sexual orientation. But Obama is a gentlemen, who would never play the gay card against his opponent.

Barack is not mining the mud that the Clinton’s wallow in, he is simply asking Hillary to release her tax records.

You would think that Hillary was a paragon of virtue, but she is the opposite: A politician who will do anything to gain power. In the last few weeks she has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Barack Obama.

By comparing Obama to Starr Hillary is attempting to portray herself as a victim. A bully always paints himself as a victim: Everyone hates me, that’s why I took that kid’s lunch money.

Hillary is not a victim and Obama is not Ken Starr. Hillary’s machinations are so transparent; I hope voters are not deceived. A Hillary administration will plunge this country into scandals and malaise.

The Clintons, a horror film that never ends

The Clintons have always had a touch of the zombies about them: unkillable, they move relentlessly forward, propelled by a bloodlust for Republicans or uppity Democrats who dare to question their supremacy. You can’t escape; you can’t hide; and you can’t win. And these days, in the kinetic pace of the YouTube campaign, they are like the new 28 Days Later zombies. They come at you really quickly, like bats out of hell. Or Ohio, anyway.

When you look at the electoral map if the Clintons run again, you also see a reversion to the old patterns of the 1990s – the patterns that cynical political strategists such as Karl Rove and Dick Morris have been exploiting for two decades. The country – scrambled by the post-baby-boomer pragmatism of Obama – snaps back into classic red-blue mode, with the blue areas denoting Democratic-leaning states around the edge and true red Republican states in the heartlands.

The Clintons are comfortable with this polarisation. They need it. Even when running against a fellow Democrat, they instinctively reach for it. Last week, in response to the Obama camp’s request that they release their tax returns, Clinton’s spokesman called Obama a new Ken Starr. For the Clintons, all Democrats who oppose them are . . . Republicans. And all Republicans are evil.

And evil means that anything the Clintons do in self-defence is excusable – even playing the race card, and the Muslim card, and the gender card, and every sleazy gambit that the politics of fear can come up with. This is how they have arrested the Obama juggernaut. It’s the only game they know how to play.

Hillary caught padding her resume… again

Clinton has previously described her role in the Northern Ireland peace process as meeting with women’s groups to encourage them to build a political climate for peace.

Former Sen. George Mitchell, who was the lead U.S. negotiator, said Clinton’s visits were “very helpful.”

“She was especially involved in encouraging women to get involved in the peace process,” which was a “significant factor” in the agreement, Mitchell said in an interview.

But Tim Pat Coogan, an Irish historian who has written extensively on the conflict in Northern Ireland, said the first lady’s visits were not decisive in the negotiating breakthroughs in Northern Ireland.

“It was a nice thing to see her there, with the women’s groups. It helped, I suppose,” Coogan said. “But it was ancillary to the main thing. It was part of the stage effects, the optics.

“There were all kinds of peace movements, women’s movements throughout the ‘Troubles.’ But it was more about the clout of Bill Clinton,” added Coogan, who said Clinton administration decisions to grant visas to leaders of the Irish Republican Army’s political wing and appoint a U.S. negotiator were the keys to changing the political climate.

Beijing speech

One of Clinton’s most noteworthy forays onto the foreign stage came in 1995, when she delivered a speech at the United Nations’ women’s conference in Beijing. That speech was widely noted and hailed as a bold call for women’s rights, especially because Clinton explicitly spoke out against forced abortion and other practices of the host country.

“In the years since, I have met many women from many places who tell me they were at Beijing, or had friends who were, or who were inspired by the conference to launch initiatives,” Albright wrote in her 2003 memoir.

The speech might never have happened if the first lady had not pressed for it, said one former Clinton administration official sympathetic to her candidacy who traveled with her and Albright to Beijing. The administration was conflicted about whether Hillary Clinton should go to Beijing at all because of the regime’s record on human rights.

“Yet she was determined to go and was convinced that her going would send a very strong signal of support for human rights,” said the official, who spoke on the condition that he not be named. “Everyone at the end of the process almost certainly would have said, ‘How could we be so foolish to question the wisdom of the trip?’”

Still, Rice questioned whether that trip amounted to the kind of preparation for a global crisis that Clinton has claimed.

“How does going to Beijing and giving a speech show crisis management? There was no crisis. And there was nothing to manage,” Rice said.

Hillary Clinton Is No Victim And Barack Obama Is No Ken Starr

“Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign compared rival Sen. Barack Obama on Thursday to independent prosecutor Kenneth Starr, the Clintons’ chief nemesis of the 1990s.

Clinton herself declined to comment on the comparison, made by her chief spokesman in a conference call with reporters and also in a memo distributed by the campaign.

Clinton spokesman Howard Wolfson said Obama’s statement that he plans to be more critical of Clinton’s record is reminiscent of the attacks the Clintons endured during the investigations in the 1990s.”

The worst insult that a Democrat can lob against a fellow Democrat is to compare him to Ken Starr, the independent counsel who was obsessed with uncovering Bill Clinton’s sex life.

Obama has waged a tenacious but circumspect campaign that is beyond reproach. Hillary has more scandals than a dog has fleas, but Obama has refrained from using any of them against her. If Obama was a sex-obsessed misfit like Starr, he would have questioned Hillary’s sexual orientation. But Obama is a gentlemen, who would never play the gay card against his opponent.

Barack is not mining the mud that the Clinton’s wallow in, he is simply asking Hillary to release her tax records.

You would think that Hillary was a paragon of virtue, but she is the opposite: A politician who will do anything to gain power. In the last few weeks she has thrown everything, including the kitchen sink, at Barack Obama.

By comparing Obama to Starr Hillary is attempting to portray herself as a victim. A bully always paints himself as a victim: Everyone hates me, that’s why I took that kid’s lunch money.

Hillary is not a victim and Obama is not Ken Starr. Hillary’s machinations are so transparent; I hope voters are not deceived. A Hillary administration will plunge this country into scandals and malaise.

Hillary busy rewriting history again

Democratic presidential contender Hillary Rodham Clinton tried to backpedal Friday from comments she made in October suggesting Mississippi was a backward place for women’s progress.

Speaking to radio station WJZD-FM in Gulfport, Miss., the former first lady said the comments she made about the state in the run up to the Iowa caucuses “were not exactly what I said,” even though they came directly from an interview she gave to the Des Moines Register in October.

Hillary’s claim of bringing peace to Ireland is full of blarney

Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a “wee bit silly” for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.

“I don’t know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around,” he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely “the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets” during elections. “She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don’t want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player.”

more obfuscation by the “most ethical administration in history”

Federal archivists at the Clinton Presidential Library are blocking the release of hundreds of pages of White House papers on pardons that the former president approved, including clemency for fugitive commodities trader Marc Rich.

The archivists’ decision, based on guidance provided by Bill Clinton that restricts the disclosure of advice he received from aides, prevents public scrutiny of documents that would shed light on how he decided which pardons to approve from among hundreds of requests.

Clinton’s legal agent declined the option of reviewing and releasing the documents that were withheld, said the archivists, who work for the federal government, not the Clintons.

The decision to withhold the records could provide fodder for critics who say that the former president and his wife, Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, now seeking the Democratic presidential nomination, have been unwilling to fully release documents to public scrutiny.

Officials with the presidential campaign of Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., criticized Hillary Clinton this week for not doing more to see that records from her husband’s administration are made public. “She’s been reluctant to disclose information,” Obama’s chief strategist, David Axelrod, told reporters in a conference call in which he specifically cited the slow release records from the Clinton library. “If she’s not willing to be open with (voters) on these issues now, why would she be open as president?”

life is full of trials

While Obama has seen a dip in his popularity due to the recent news surrounding the Tony Rezko scandal, let’s not forget about Hillbilly and Peter Paul.

While Hillary Clinton battles Barack Obama on the campaign trail, a judge in Los Angeles is quietly preparing to set a trial date in a $17 million fraud suit that aims to expose an alleged culture of widespread corruption by the Clintons and the Democratic Party.

At the conclusion of a hearing tomorrow morning before California Superior Court Judge Aurelio N. Munoz, lawyers for Hollywood mogul Peter F. Paul will begin seeking sworn testimony from all three Clintons – Bill, Hillary and Chelsea – along with top Democratic Party leaders and A-list celebrities, including Barbra Streisand, John Travolta, Brad Pitt and Cher.

Paul’s team hopes for a trial in October. The Clintons’ longtime lawyer David Kendall, who will attend the hearing, has declined comment on the suit.

The Clintons have tried to dismiss the case, but the California Supreme Court, in 2004, upheld a lower-court decision to deny the motion.

Bill Clinton, according to the complaint, promised to promote Paul’s Internet entertainment company, Stan Lee Media, in exchange for stock, cash options and massive contributions to his wife’s 2000 Senate campaign. Paul contends he was directed by the Clintons and Democratic Party leaders to produce, pay for and then join them in lying about footing the bill for a Hollywood gala and fundraiser.

The Clintons’ legal counsel has denied the former president made any deal with Paul. But Paul attorney Colette Wilson told WND there are witnesses who say it was common knowledge at Stan Lee Media that Bill Clinton was preparing to be a rainmaker for the company after he left office.

Paul claims former Vice President Al Gore, former Democratic Party chairman Ed Rendell and Clinton presidential campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe also are among the people who can confirm Paul engaged in the deal.

Hillary: Stand by some other man

Ann Coulter is trying to do what Hillary Clinton can’t… help her win the nomination.

The mainstream media said she was finished, but our brave Hillary soldiered on to wallop B. Hussein Obama in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night. I don’t know what the MSM is so upset about– we let them pick the Republican nominee. Did they want to pick the Democratic nominee, too?

Not only that, but after some toothsome appearances on various madcap comedy shows this past week — “Saturday Night Live,” “Late Night With David Letterman,” “Hardball With Chris Matthews” — Hillary’s “likability” quotient is soaring! According to the latest CNN/CBS News poll, she’s just been upgraded from “Utterly Loathsome” to “Execrable.”

The percentage of registered voters who would rather disembowel themselves with a wooden spoon than vote for Hillary has just slipped below the magical 50 percent mark. We’re surging, Hillary! If you want to be even more likable, you should go on “The View.” Next to those four harpies, you seem almost agreeable.

catfight!

Two columnists at the Boston Globe seem to have very different opinions about what is fair media coverage of a woman running for President.

Caryl Rivers explains how any uncomplimentary media coverage is inherently sexist.

The media coverage of the Clinton campaign will be, for years to come, a textbook case of how the coverage of female candidates differs from that of males. Women have to walk a very thin line when they run for high office. On the one hand, they have to appear tough, nothing at all like a sniveling female, and when they do talk tough, they are called “shrill.”

The media loved Hillary when she put her hand on Obama’s and said it was a privilege to be on the same podium; they hated her when she slammed him for giving out what she called misleading information on her healthcare plan. (After googling “shrill” and “Hillary” after that encounter, I stopped at 20 pages.)

At the same time, the news media have gone into a deep swoon over Barack. Washington Post media critic Howard Kurtz said, “Look, I haven’t seen a politician get this kind of walk-on-water coverage since Colin Powell a dozen years ago flirted with making a run for the White House. I mean, it is amazing.”

I guess the moral there is that the media can’t give Obama any sort of preference.. after all, he’s a man! (Notice how Caryl dodges the race issue, tho.. after all, he’s black!)

Then there is the Elinor Lipman, also at the Boston Globe. She seems to think that Hillary might not be the perfect candidate.. even though she’s a woman.. but because her personality throws up huge red flags.

Questioning a woman’s tone and delivery evokes charges of sexism, of biased preoccupations with niceness – as if no one ever complained about the Bob Dole snarl or the Dick Cheney sneer. How many times do we have to hear that when women get forceful, they are called shrill and angry, while bellicose males are lauded as strong and presidential? We get it. No one has questioned Senator Clinton’s toughness, or her readiness to be commander in chief. I hope “hectoring” isn’t a word that is more feminine than masculine, because I would like to employ it now.

My e-mailing friends took great and irretrievable offense when Senator Clinton rapped on our candidate’s knuckles with “So shame on you, Barack Obama!” for campaign mailers criticizing her healthcare plan. Paired up with her Providence soliloquy (“The sky will open. The light will come down. Celestial choirs will be singing. Then everyone will know we should do the right thing and the world will be perfect!”), she crossed some line in our maternal hearts. “Hillary off the deep end?” two friends wrote in near-simultaneous e-mails. “Off her meds?” wrote another. I wondered if these double rhetorical whammies might be a paler version of Howard Dean’s unintentional valedictory in Iowa in 2004.

secretly recorded phone conversations with Bubba up for sale

Gennifer Flowers is putting the tapes of her recorded conversations with Bill Clinton during their 12-year affair on the auction block, Vegas Confidential learned Monday.

Flowers, who came forward during Clinton’s 1992 Presidential election campaign with details of the relationship, said she decided to part with the tapes after renewed interest surfaced. She was offered $5 million by a Japanese collector in the 1990s, she said.

Asked about the timing of her announcement coming out as Hillary Clinton continues to slide in her presidential bid, “I don’t need to hurt Hillary. She is doing a fine job of that herself, along with her idiot husband. Karma is an interesting thing. If these two don’t get elected, and they are a team, it will be karma coming back to visit them. It’s about time.”

When President Clinton denied the relationship during his presidential campaign, Flowers called a press conference played what she said were secretly recorded phone conversations.

“These are the tapes I brought forth as proof,” she said.

Flowers, who lives in Las Vegas, sued Hillary Rodham Clinton, George Stephanopoulos, James Carville and other, accusing them of orchestrating a campaign to discredit her. Carville and Stephanopolous claimed Flowers doctored the tapes.

Flowers, 58, said she has kept the tapes “very safe all these years and I just recently received more interest and I said ‘why not?’

“I certainly would enjoy the money for my future security. I don’t have any guarantee what might be coming,” she said.

Flowers is also exploring a new book with “explosive story additions to the Clinton affair,” her publicist Bruce Merrin said in a release. The book “ill contain a special item which must remain a protected secret until the book is published.”

The 12 Questions Hillary Wouldn’t Answer

Pravda’s pissed.

The Russian newspaper, once eagerly read by the CIA for hints about the USSR’s Communist leadership, sent the junior senator from New York twelve questions.

They never received any answers.

In fact, they still haven’t received a dah or nyet.

The paper was so peeved it published an editorial a several weeks ago taking Hillary Clinton to task for not even responding to their request a few years back for some answers.

Two years ago, the office of Senator Hillary Clinton was contacted with a polite message requesting an interview. A standard anonymous answer followed. Despite repeated contacts during the election campaign, not even a message of recognition was received, contrary to all the other political parties in the USA, including the office of Vice President Richard (Dick) Cheney. Here are the questions that Hillary Clinton did not answer:

Even Dick Cheney!

Although the Russian newspaper started sending their queries a few years ago, they must have added to their list since then, as the last couple questions pertain to Barack Obama’s campaign, which wasn’t announced until little over a year ago.

What were the questions that Clinton didn’t even acknowledge?

Pravda published them on February 3 2008 along with a couple snide–some would say accurate–observations.

Here they are:

The Twelve Questions Hillary Clinton won’t Answer

1. Senator Clinton, is it true that you insinuated President Putin does not have a soul?

2. You have said you wish to reform the US healthcare system. Could you please tell us how you plan to do this?

3. Why should you succeed where others have failed?

4. How would you comment on your statement that being a Republican and a Christian are difficult to conciliate?

5. Is it true that you have the support of the Jewish Lobby? If so, how will this influence your foreign policy? Will it continue to be controlled by Israel?

6. What is your message to the average American voter? How would you propose to make his/her life better?

7. What are your plans for Iran? Do you stand for a war?

8. How would you improve America’s standing in the international community?

9. Why did you support the war against Iraq?

10. What are the reasons for your having fallen for the lies which were launched against Saddam Hussein?

11. Why does your Candidate website not have an email for the Press, whereas that of Senator Obama has? Would you agree this is a comment on the professionalism or the arrogance of your campaign?

12. Did you hope to gain an advantage over your opponent by announcing your trip to Florida and your support for the seating of Florida delegates just prior to the Florida primary?

After listing the above questions in their editorial, Pravda then followed them with a few obsevations.

The absense of an answer, on a systematic basis, can mean one or all of a number of things: Senator Clinton cannot answer these questions, does not want to answer these questions because she cannot find a credible enough reply, could not care less about the international press (in which case, what a fine candidate for a US President at a time when the USA needs to build bridges) or worse still, never received the messages in the first place, which would indicate a tremendous and shocking degree of lack of professionalism. If she cannot handle a website, how can she be expected to govern a nation of 300 million people?

The reader can decide for himself the wording or validity of Pravda’s questions, especially those in #5.

However, more than a few Americans would agree with the conclusions they reached.

Pravda then fired a parting shot at Clinton’s presidential campaign by noting that, “Indeed, for some reason Barack Obama’s website has a contact for the Press, whereas Senator Clinton’s has none.”

Whatever one thinks of the questions that Clinton declined to decline to answer, one has to admit one thing.

They’re tougher questions than anyone in the American MSM has asked the Democrat candidate to date.

Now Pravda knows how many American voters feel.

They’ve been trying to get some of those answers for years.

Why the Democrats Are Kicking the Clintons to the Curb

The ever eloquent Lorie Byrd, who I’ve been reading for years, has an amazingly concise article as to who Hillary Clinton can blame for her demise.

I believe there is a whole group of Democrats out there who are secretly enjoying being able to vote against a Clinton. They can take out their frustrations with the Clintons and still vote for a Democrat. For the first time in 16 years, Democrats can vote against a Clinton without having to vote for a Republican to do it.

Please read the whole story.

Bill puts his ‘campaign skills’ to use

Hillary gets booed again

Clinton also raised Obama’s use in his campaign speeches of words first uttered by his friend, Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.

“If your candidacy is going to be about words then they should be your own words,” she said. “…Lifting whole passages from someone else’s speeches is not change you can believe in, it’s change you can Xerox.”

The debate audience booed.

Meanwhile, Hillary might want to review some of her own plagiarisms before she starts throwing stones.

another day, another lie

Worried that the sun might rise and set without meeting her quotas of lies, Hillary got this one in just as dusk was settling in… whew!

Clinton Fingerprints on Plagiarism Flap

Hillary Rodham Clinton says reporters, not her campaign, uncovered evidence of Democratic rival Barack Obama sharing speech lines with Massachusetts Gov. Deval Patrick.
She made the claim Tuesday despite the fact her campaign posted video clips on YouTube illustrating similarities in the speeches and has suggested in several instances that the shared lines amount to plagiarism.
THE SPIN: “It’s not us making this charge, it’s the media,” Clinton told Honolulu television station KITV Tuesday. “The media is finally examining my opponent which I think is important. We’re trying to pick a president, someone for the toughest job in the world.”

She added: “I think the media is going to be putting forth whatever facts and information it has for voters to assess on their own.”

In an interview with another Honolulu station, KGMB, Clinton noted that Obama and Patrick share a strategist, David Axelrod, “who is apparently putting words in both of their mouths.”
She added: “I think that’s a serious concern.”

FACT CHECK: Any suggestion that the story had a life of its own, apart from the Clinton campaign, is disingenuous.

Obama spokesman Bill Burton said: “Senator Clinton knows full well that her campaign held a conference call with reporters to fan these flames and the fact that she suggested her campaign had nothing to do with it is exactly the kind of evasive tactic voters are rejecting.”

Joke of the Day

Clinton issues Obama skeletons warning

Hillary Clinton argues that she’s scandal-proof after all her years in federal politics.

But Republicans, she says, will have a field day with relative newcomer Barack Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee instead of her.

“We Don’t Need To Have a Beer With the Next President”

During a campaign stop Monday night, Hillary Clinton warned a crowd of several thousand supporters that picking a president should be based more on experience than popularity, pointing out that President George W. Bush is a product of voters choosing based a president based on popularity.

“We need to know as specifically as possible what our next president intends to do. We don’t need a leap of faith, we don’t need to have a beer with the next president, we had that president,” she said.

“I’d be happy to have a beer too we can talk about what we’re going to do to solve our problems.”

Clinton, who stayed on message throughout her remarks focused on the economy, health care and education. But she found moments to take jabs at Barack Obama without naming him saying, “I know that contrasts have been drawn often in this campaign between the soaring rhetoric and the speeches. But I have to say there is a difference between speeches and solutions,” said Clinton drawing loud applause from the crowd.

Clinton also attacked Obama on health care pointing out that she is the only candidate who offers a universal health care plan. Clinton said it is “unconstitutional to discriminate against sick people.”

As she often does at these rallys, Clinton asked the crowd who she should “leave out” of her plan, a subtle dig at Obama whose health care plan, she claims, leaves out 15 million people. At one point, someone in the crowd yelled, “Leave out Obama.”

“I’m not going to leave out anybody. I’m not running for president to put Band-Aids on problems,” she responded.

Clinton’s visit to Madison is her last stop in Wisconsin before voters head to the polls today. Clinton’s daughter Chelsea, who joined her at this event, will be campaigning here today while Sen. Clinton heads to Ohio for campaign events in Cleveland and Youngstown.

Since when does the Constitution mention anything about sick people? But you have to remember that Hillary was referring to her aforementioned (failed) experience.

once again, the Clintons take the low road

“Mine will be the most ethical administration in the history of the republic!” President-Elect Bill Clinton, November 1992

The Clinton campaign has launched a furious spin war in the past few days against Barack Obama, ludicrously accusing Obama of “plagiarism” (even though the original source, Massachusetts Governor Deval Patrick, has endorsed and campaigned for Obama), accusing delegates won in red state caucuses by Obama of being “second-class delegates” and threatening to blow up the party’s rules if the race lasts until the Democratic convention.

It’s too early to know if any of these attacks will stick. More victories tonight by Obama in Wisconsin and Hawaii and the momentum will remain on his side, making Ohio and Texas must-win for Clinton on March 4. Clinton can still rebound from her post-Super Tuesday slide. But if she does, it’s pretty obvious that she’ll capture the nomination by taking the low road.

The Politico’s Ben Smith asked a group of Democratic strategists how Clinton could still win. Their answers were revealing of Clinton’s predicament.

“The best thing she can do is either discredit Obama or raise doubts about him,” said Dan Gerstein, a former top strategist to Joe Lieberman. “I hate to say it, but in certain respects, it’s using the Bush strategy against Kerry against Obama.”

Democracy editor Ken Baer invoked a few similar doomsday scenarios:

1) Obama has a massive gaffe, 2) there is a terrorist attack or other major foreign policy crisis that gets people yearning for a steady hand or 3) there is a revelation of some sort of Obama scandal that gets Democratic voters to take a pause.

This advice begs the question: why can’t Clinton win on her own merits? Why can’t her campaign win caucuses, or highly educated voters, or compete competitively in red states? How have they failed to win a single contest since Super Tuesday? Gallup found that recently Obama has begun eroding Clinton’s advantages among key segments of her base, namely “women, Hispanics, and self-identified Democrats.”

These tracking polls, like all other polls this cycle, tend to be fluid and unreliable. Despite Obama’s string of victories, from a delegate standpoint the race is still very tight. Tonight could go either way. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clinton ends up pulling an upset in Wisconsin. I also wouldn’t be surprised if Obama wins, as expected, and Clinton never recovers. Either way don’t expect her campaign to take the high road from here on out.

hillary’s scarlett o’hara act

Why some of us aren’t falling for it.

Feb. 8, 2008–There’s been a lot of talk about women and their choices since Super Tuesday, when African American women overwhelmingly voted for Sen. Barack Obama, while white women picked Sen. Hillary Clinton. Some pundits automatically concluded that “race trumped gender” among black women. I hate this analysis because it relegates black women to junior-partner status in political struggles. It is not that simple. A lot of people have tried to gently explain the divide, so I’m just going to put this out there: Sister voters have a beef with white women like Clinton that is both racial and gendered. It is not about choosing race; it is about rejecting Hillary’s Scarlett O’Hara act.

Black women voters are rejecting Hillary Clinton because her ascendance is not a liberating symbol. Her tears are not moving. Her voice does not resonate. Throughout history, privileged white women, attached at the hip to their husband’s power and influence, have been complicit in black women’s oppression. Many African American women are simply refusing to play Mammy to Hillary.

It takes a liar…

While researching material for this blog, I have become overwhelmed by the high percentage of stories that, with just a little extra research.. literally, a few mouse clicks.. reveal flat out lies by Hillary. Sure, all politicians lie, we say. But at what point do we start to be concerned.. maybe when 30 percent of EVERYTHING that person says can be quickly and clearly disproven?

Take this story, for example… I planned to use the headline for Hillary’s famous “It Takes a Village” book to start this post. It is common knowledge that Hillary borrowed a classic african proverb as her title, but I wanted to learn a little more about it, in the same way that I try to learn a little about every Hillary news article before I link to it. While there was nothing unusual about Hillary’s use of the title, save from the socialist theme it presents, I was lead straight to yet another bold-faced Hillary lie.

Ghostwriter controversy

Clinton has been criticized for not giving credit to a ghostwriter in connection with It Takes a Village. The majority of the book was reportedly written by ghostwriter Barbara Feinman. When the book was first announced in April 1995, The New York Times reported publisher Simon & Schuster as saying “The book will actually be written by Barbara Feinman, a journalism professor at Georgetown University in Washington. Ms. Feinman will conduct a series of interviews with Mrs. Clinton, who will help edit the resulting text.”

Feinman spent seven months on the project and was paid $120,000 for her work. Feinman, however, was not mentioned anywhere in the book. Clinton’s acknowledgment section began: “It takes a village to bring a book into the world, as everyone who has written one knows. Many people have helped me to complete this one, sometimes without even knowing it. They are so numerous that I will not even attempt to acknowledge them individually, for fear that I might leave one out.” During her promotional tour for the book, Clinton said, “I actually wrote the book … I had to write my own book because I want to stand by every word.” Clinton stated that Feinman assisted in interviews and did some editorial drafting of “connecting paragraphs”, while Clinton herself wrote the final manuscript in longhand.

This led Feinman to complain at the time to Capitol Style magazine over the lack of acknowledgement. In 2001, The Wall Street Journal reported that “New York literary circles are buzzing with vitriol over Sen. Clinton’s refusal, so far, to share credit with any writer who helps on her book.” Later, in a 2002 article for The Writer’s Chronicle, Barbara Feinman Todd (now using her married name) related that the project with Clinton had gone smoothly, producing drafts in a round-robin style. Feinman agrees that Clinton was involved with the project, but also states that, “Like any first lady, Mrs. Clinton had an extremely hectic schedule and writing a book without assistance would have been logistically impossible.” Feinman reiterates that her only objection to the whole process was the lack of any acknowledgement. A 2005 Georgetown University web page bio for Barbara Feinman Todd states that It Takes a Village was one of “several high-profile books” that she has “assisted, as editor, writer and researcher.”

I personally am ambivalent about the argument that ‘it is about time for America to have a female president.’ I couldn’t care less what the gender is of our Commander in Chief. I am much more concerned that the leader of our nation has a firm and consistent record of integrity.

I also feel that a person’s integrity isn’t shown by large gestures, but rather is apparent in the small everyday occurances that often go unnoticed. An example would be of the diner who is polite to the waitstaff during the meal and tips beyond the prescribed minimum after. Giving credit where credit is due, and humbly stepping aside and allowing an underling to accept praise when it is warranted is something we could use more of in our society.

But lying to steal the credit for another person’s work shows nothing but a maladjusted psyche and an overambitious mind. This is not a person I would recommend for any elected office, much less the highest in our land.

jumping ship or going down with it?

For years, Bill and Hillary Clinton treated the Democratic National Committee and party activists as extensions of their White House ambitions, pawns in a game of success and survival. She may pay a high price for their selfishness soon.

Top Democrats, including some inside Hillary Clinton’s campaign, say many party leaders — the so-called superdelegates — won’t hesitate to ditch the former New York senator for Barack Obama if her political problems persist. Their loyalty to the first couple is built on shaky ground.

“If (Barack) Obama continues to win …. the whole raison d’etre for her campaign falls apart and we’ll see people running from her campaign like rats on a ship,” said Democratic strategist Jim Duffy, who is not aligned with either campaign.

The rats started looking for clear waters when Obama won Iowa, narrowly lost New Hampshire and trounced Clinton in South Carolina before holding his own in last week’s Super Tuesday contests. He won primaries in Virginia, Maryland and the District of Columbia on Tuesday to extend his consecutive win streak to eight.

Obama has won 23 of 35 contests, earning the majority of delegates awarded on the basis of election results. The remaining 796 delegates are elected officials and party leaders whose votes are not tied to state primaries or caucuses; thus, they are dubbed “superdelegates.”

And they are not all super fans of the Clintons.

Some are labor leaders still angry that Bill Clinton championed the North American Free Trade Agreement as part of his centrist agenda.

Some are social activists who lobbied unsuccessfully to get him to veto welfare reform legislation, a talking point for his 1996 re-election campaign.

Some served in Congress when the Clintons dismissed their advice on health care reform in 1993. Some called her a bully at the time.

Some are DNC members who saw the party committee weakened under the Clintons and watched President Bush use the White House to build up the Republican National Committee.

Some are senators who had to defend Clinton for lying to the country about his affair with Monica Lewinsky.

Some are allies of former Vice President Al Gore who still believe the Lewinsky scandal cost him the presidency in 2000.

Some are House members (or former House members) who still blame Clinton for Republicans seizing control of the House in 1994.

Some are donors who paid for the Clintons’ campaigns and his presidential library.

Some are folks who owe the Clintons a favor but still feel betrayed or taken for granted. Could that be why Bill Richardson, a former U.N. secretary and energy secretary in the Clinton administration, refused to endorse her even after an angry call from the former president? “What,” Bill Clinton reportedly asked Richardson, “isn’t two Cabinet posts enough?”

And some just want something new. They appreciate the fact that Clinton was a successful president and his wife was an able partner, but they never loved the couple as much as they feared them.

Never count the Clintons out. They are brilliant politicians who defied conventional wisdom countless times in Arkansas and Washington. But time is running out.

Two senior Clinton advisers, speaking on condition of anonymity to discuss the race candidly, said the campaign feels the New York senator needs to quickly change the dynamic by forcing Obama into a poor debate performance, going negative or encouraging the media to attack Obama. They’re grasping at straws, but the advisers said they can’t see any other way that her campaign will be sustainable after losing 10 in a row.

Clinton strategists are famous for poor-mouthing their own campaign in order to lower expectations, but these advisers have never played such games. They’re legitimate, and legitimately worried.

The fear inside the Clinton camp is that Obama will win Hawaii and Wisconsin next week and head into the March 4 contests for Ohio and Texas with a 10-race winning streak. Her poll numbers will drop in Texas and Ohio, Clinton aides fear, and party leaders will start hankering for an end to the fight.

Clinton should find little comfort in the fact that she has secured 242 superdelegates to Obama’s 160.

“I would make the assumption that the … superdelegates she has now are the Clintons’ loyal base. A superdelegate who is uncommitted today is clearly going to wait and see how this plays out. She’s at her zenith now,” Duffy said. “Whatever political capital or IOUs that exist, she’s already collected.”

Few Democrats want to cross the Clintons when they’re on top. But how many are willing to stand by them when they’re down?

Generally, it’s easy to find the people who stand by the Clintons when they’re under scrutiny. Just be sure to call ahead to confirm the prison’s visiting hours.

And Speaking of Deserters…

An aide to Barack Obama says the man who led former President Clinton’s 1992 bid plans to endorse the Illinois senator.

Obama’s campaign plans a 1 p.m. conference call Wednesday to announce the endorsement by David Wilhelm, who later became chairman of the Democratic National Committee. The aide spoke on condition of anonymity because the announcement would be made public later in the day.

Wilhelm plans to tell reporters that Obama can build a coalition of Democrats, independents and Republicans needed to win the general election. He also says Obama can bring the change he promises—improving the economy and ending the war in Iraq.

Wilhelm is a superdelegate from Illinois who was previously uncommitted in the race.

who’s your daddy?

Juanita Broaddrick, who now runs a nursing-home business in Arkansas, told the Wall Street Journal that Mr Clinton raped her in the Camelot Hotel in Little Rock in 1978, when he was the state attorney-general.

The newspaper reports that Mr Clinton persuaded Mrs Broaddrick to have coffee with him in her hotel room during a conference of nursing home administrators in 1978. She alleges that he then forced her on to the bed, where he held her down, bit her lips and raped her.

When it was over, Mrs Broaddrick claims, Mr Clinton told her that she should not worry because he was sterile due to a bout of childhood mumps.

Let’s check a calendar. Bill raped a woman in 1978 and said she couldn’t get pregnant because he was sterile. Chelsea Clinton was born February 27, 1980… two years later.

While Bill was raping women in hotel rooms, rumors were spreading that Hillary was having an affair with Webster Hubbell, a law partner at the firm where Hillary worked at that time.

I’m sure Chelsea has figured out by now who her real dad is… isn’t it time everyone else did?

can you trust her?

An anti-Hillary robocall is riling up the Clinton supporters who have their heads buried up their proverbial sandbox. Click to learn more about the REAL Hillary

Robert Morrow emailed me this evening with the following explanation:

Everything I say in my anti-Hillary phone message, I can back up and document.

1) Hillary’s prison yard vocabulary and cussing fit (because she could not have VP Al Gore’s office) that she had on Inauguration Day, 1993 are well covered in many biographies.

2) Larry Nichols, Clinton insider for 10 years in Arkansas, was in the room in 1978 when Hillary comes running in and says “You will never believe what the &*^% did now, he tried to rape some %$#@ – This was just after Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick.

3) Jack Palladino told Melanie Morgan in 2003 that the only thing he regretted about working for Hillary in the Willey terror campaign was that Hillary did not pay him on time.

Jack Palladino says “The only regret that I have about that whole thing was that Hillary did not pay me in a timely fashion.” [Kathleen Willey, Target, p. 212]

4) James Carville’s comment about Paula Jones being trailor trash is well-known. Bill is a pervert who exposed himself to Paula and told her to “Kiss it.”

5) Hillary tells TIME (in an election year 1996) that she and Bill were talking about ADOPTING a child. Bill, of course, was having hundreds of affairs, Monica being just one. Hillary is a lesbian, bisexual really, who was at one point screwing BOTH of her law partners Vince Foster and Webb Hubbell (Chelsea).

HILLARY TREATS PEOPLE LIKE THEY ARE INVISIBLE

Hello. FBI agent Gary Aldrich says that Hillary on Inauguration Day, 1993 was in an uncontrolled and unbridled fury, yelling and screaming profanities, because she was not allowed to have Vice President Al Gore’s office in the White House. Hillary treats people like they are invisible; can you trust her?

Hillary knew about and helped cover up Bill’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Hillary treats women like they are invisible; can you trust her?

Hillary hired Jack Palladino to run a terror campaign on Kathleen Willey to keep her quiet about what Bill had done to her. They nail gunned her car tires and stole or killed her pet cat named Bullseye. Hillary thinks cats are expendable; can you trust her?

After Bill pulled down his britches and EXPOSED himself to Paula Jones, Hillary’s friend James Carville said “Drag a hundred dollar bill through a trailer park, you never know what you’ll find.” Hillary treats women like they are invisible, can you trust her?

Hillary told TIME Magazine in June, 1996, that she was thinking about adopting a child, despite the fact Bill was having an affair with Monica and Hillary knew he had a whole harem in the White House. Hillary was having her own affairs with Vince Foster, probably Webb Hubbell and even others. Hillary makes up fairy tales about adopting an orphan child, can you trust her?

This message is from Robert Morrow on behalf of everyone who has been violated and abused by Hillary and Bill – treated like they were invisible. Hillary sure does say a lot of things, doesn’t she – but can you trust her?

remember when the President used to be someone we admired?

“Hillary Clinton said today that public appearances with her and Bill would be rare. The only thing more rare? Private appearances with her and Bill.” –Jay Leno

“Hillary Clinton’s campaign has issued a statement saying she and Bill will be together this weekend in Selma, Alabama, which will be their first joint appearance together in a month. That’s when you know you have a bad marriage — when you have to put out a press release saying you’ll be together for the weekend. You need cameras to record it, in case people don’t believe you” –Jay Leno

“Presidential candidate Barack Obama … went door to door in Iowa over the weekend to talk about his opposition to the war and gain votes. Hillary Clinton also went door to door — not looking for votes, trying to find her husband.” –Jay Leno

“You all excited about the 2008 presidential election? There’s some interesting potential matchups. For example, Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani. … On the one hand, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history of marital problems. Or, you have a pushy New Yorker with a history of marital problems.” –David Letterman

“Former President Bill Clinton said that if his wife, Hillary, is elected president, he will do whatever she wants. You know Bill Clinton — when he makes a vow to Hillary, you can take that to the bank.” –Jay Leno

“At the national portrait gallery in Washington, D.C. new portraits were unveiled of former President Clinton and First Lady Hillary Clinton. The Smithsonian said that the portraits of Bill and Hillary will not hang in the same room. Boy, talk about art reflecting life.” –Jay Leno

“In a fiery speech this weekend, Hillary Clinton wondered why President Bush can’t find the tallest man in Afghanistan. Probably for the same reason she couldn’t find the fattest intern under the desk.” –Jay Leno

“Well, the big story — Hillary Clinton will be running for president in 2008. You know why I think she’s running? I think she finally wants to see what it’s like to sleep in the president’s bed.” –Jay Leno

“Hillary Clinton said today that she wants legislation to allow all ex-felons to vote. See, this way all the Clinton’s former business partners can vote for her in 2008.” –Jay Leno

Bill pardons terrorists.. Hillary wins an election

Hillary Rodham Clinton, with no personal political experience of her own, becomes senator for New York state. Thanks to Bill Clinton pardoning convicted terrorists.

It was nearly 10 p.m. on New Year’s Eve, 1982. Two officers on New York Police Department’s elite bomb squad rushed to headquarters at One Police Plaza, where minutes earlier an explosion had destroyed the entrance to the building. Lying amid the carnage was Police Officer Rocco Pascarella, his lower leg blasted off.

“He was ripped up like someone took a box cutter and shredded his face,” remembered Detective Anthony Senft, one of the bomb-squad officers who answered the call 25 years ago. “We really didn’t even know that he was a uniformed man until we found his weapon, that’s how badly he was injured.”

About 20 minutes later, Mr. Senft and his partner, Richard Pastorella, were blown 15 feet in the air as they knelt in protective gear to defuse another bomb. Detective Senft was blinded in one eye, his facial bones shattered, his hip severely fractured. Mr. Pastorella was blinded in both eyes and lost all the fingers of his right hand. A total of four bombs exploded in a single hour on that night, including at FBI headquarters in Manhattan and the federal courthouse in Brooklyn.

The perpetrators were members of Armed Forces of National Liberation, FALN (the Spanish acronym), a clandestine terrorist group devoted to bringing about independence for Puerto Rico through violent means. Its members waged war on America with bombings, arson, kidnappings, prison escapes, threats and intimidation. The most gruesome attack was the 1975 Fraunces Tavern bombing in Lower Manhattan. Timed to go off during the lunch-hour rush, the explosion decapitated one of the four people killed and injured another 60.

On Aug. 7, 1999, the one-year anniversary of the U.S. African embassy bombings that killed 257 people and injured 5,000, President Bill Clinton reaffirmed his commitment to the victims of terrorism, vowing that he “will not rest until justice is done.” Four days later, while Congress was on summer recess, the White House quietly issued a press release announcing that the president was granting clemency to 16 imprisoned members of FALN. What began as a simple paragraph on the AP wire exploded into a major controversy.

Given all this, why would Bill Clinton, who had ignored the 3,226 clemency petitions that had piled up on his desk over the years, suddenly reach into the stack and pluck out these 16 meritless cases? (The New York Times ran a column with the headline, “Bill’s Little Gift.”)

Hillary Rodham Clinton was in the midst of her state-wide “listening tour” in anticipation of her run for the U.S. Senate in New York, a state which included 1.3 million Hispanics. Three members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus — Luis V. Gutierrez (D., Ill.), Jose E. Serrano, (D., N.Y.) and Nydia M. Velazquez, (D., N.Y.) — along with local Hispanic politicians and leftist human-rights advocates, had been agitating for years on behalf of the FALN cases directly to the White House and first lady.

Initial reports stated that Mrs. Clinton supported the clemencies, but when public reaction went negative she changed course, issuing a short statement three weeks after the clemencies were announced. The prisoners’ delay in refusing to renounce violence “speaks volumes,” she said.

The Clintons were caught in an awkward predicament of their own making. The president had ignored federal guidelines for commutation of sentences, including the most fundamental: The prisoners hadn’t actually asked for clemency.

more Clinton obfuscation

Resisting calls from Barack Obama to release her income tax returns, Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday she would only do so if she secures the Democratic presidential nomination and contended her rival had been less than candid about his relationship with major campaign contributors.

And when Hillary refers to dirty money in politics, she speaks from personal experience.

the leopard changes her spots

Having won exactly zero of the last four primaries, Hillary believes that when the going gets tough, the tough fire their campaign managers.

Hillary, I’m sure you read this blog regularly, so let me clue you in… it’s not that the voters don’t trust you… well, yeah.. that’s exactly what it is. Nevermind.

how quickly they forget

Am I the only one who has a memory that goes back two full years? Apparently nobody in the mainstream media can remember that far back. Take Hillary’s 2006 re-election bid for senate, for example.

A strong majority of New Yorkers want Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to commit to serving a full six-year term if she wins re-election next year, according to a poll released yesterday.

Clinton — who is widely believed to be planning on running for president in 2008 — made that pledge when she first won office in 2000, but she hasn’t done the same for her possible second term in the Senate, which would continue to 2012.

The Quinnipiac University poll found 60 percent of those questioned said Clinton should promise to serve out her full second term, and it revealed a bare majority of voters — 51-41 percent — don’t want her to run for president in 2008.

Even 65 percent of Democrats said she should pledge to serve six years if she’s re-elected.

Here we are, not even two years after that poll, and her constituents are now supporting her in the primary. Maybe they’re just anxious to get her out of their state?

in the company of thieves

Richard Nixon is often cited as the political example of arrogance and paranoia. His infamous ‘enemy list’ is the prime example. The same can be said for Bill and Hillary Clinton. Few knowledgable people question whether the Clintons resort to questionable tactics to gain and retain political power. Hiring Craig Livingstone to illegally collect FBI records of political opponents goes even further than Richard Nixon’s ‘enemy list’. And hiring known felons is just par for the course with Bill and Hillary.

There are two kinds of crooks. The first cuts a deal. He tells the government what he knows and forever after is ostracized and hunted by his old partners in crime. The second is “stand-up.” He keeps his mouth shut. After serving his time, he is welcomed back into the fold. He might even get a “bump up” in rank from his grateful bosses.

No, we’re not talking about The Sopranos. What we have in mind is a new episode of a tawdry soap opera that began in the 1990s. Welcome to the case of disgraced former national security adviser Sandy Berger — and what it portends about a potential President Hillary.

Now Berger is back in business at Camp Clinton, advising New York’s junior senator in her bid for the White House. This warrants a review of Berger’s recent history. After his stint as national security adviser, he became Bill Clinton’s liaison to the 9/11 Commission as it investigated intelligence failures (many of which happened on Berger’s watch). Berger was accordingly given access to the national archives, both to prepare his own testimony and to get the former president ready for an interview with the commission.

Berger used his privileged access to steal top-secret national-defense documents. On at least two occasions he stuffed them into his clothing and briefcase, smuggling them out of the archives. He secreted some of these stolen papers under the wheel of a truck at a nearby construction site so that he could return for them later. Other documents he intentionally destroyed. These actions were serious felonies.

What kind of advice is Berger giving Mrs. Clinton, anyway? It can’t be legal advice: Berger forfeited his law license. It’s unlikely he’d be much help on Iran: The Clinton administration didn’t respond to the Khobar Towers bombing (in which19 U.S. Air Force personnel were killed) because Berger and others were convinced that then–Iranian president Mohammed Khatami was going to “reform” the hard-line mullahs. Berger failed on al Qaeda, too: Clinton declined to respond to the terror network’s bombing of the U.S.S. Cole (17 U.S. Navy personnel killed) because, according to Clinton, Berger’s intelligence services couldn’t tell him who did it.

Sandy Berger was a failure as national-security adviser. Then he became a criminal. As Americans contemplate making Hillary their president, they would be wise to consider the company she keeps.

Hillary’s ties to Communism

Presidential candidate Hillary Clinton’s time as a summer associate may come back to haunt her. And not because she stripped down to her undies and took a swan dive into the Hudson.

Rather, it’s because she worked for a bunch of Commies. From a piece by Josh Gerstein in the New York Sun:

In a life marked largely by political caution, one entry on Senator Clinton’s résumé stands out: her clerkship in 1971 at one of America’s most radical law firms, Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein.

One partner at the firm, Doris Walker, was a Communist Party member at the time. Another partner, Robert Treuhaft, had left the party in 1958, several years after being called before the House Un-American Activities Committee and labeled as one of America’s most “dangerously subversive” lawyers. The Oakland-based firm was renowned for taking clients others rejected as too controversial, including Communists, draft resisters, and members of the African-American militant group known as the Black Panthers.

To this day, Mrs. Clinton’s decision to work at the unabashedly left-wing firm is surprising, even shocking, to some of her former colleagues there and to those supporting her bid for the presidency. To the former first lady’s enemies and political opponents, her summer at the Treuhaft firm is yet another indication that radical ideology lurks beneath the patina of moderation she has adopted in public life.

Senator Clinton tends to be tight-lipped about Treuhaft. In her memoir, Living History, she gives her summer stint rather cursory treatment:

I told Bill about my summer plans to clerk at Treuhaft, Walker and Burnstein, a small law firm in Oakland, California and he announced that he would like to go with me. I spent most of my time working for Mal Burnstein researching, writing legal motions and briefs for a child custody case.

Why doesn’t Hillary make more of her time at this ultra-liberal law firm, and embrace her past as a radical leftist? Might the Daily Kos krowd warm up to her, if they knew about her time as a fellow traveler?

Hillary unplugged

Here’s an interesting post about Hillary’s view (or maybe ‘use’ is a better description) of religion

I don’t know Hillary Clinton personally, but I, for some reason, don’t get the feeling that she’s a particularly spiritual person. I would think that if she ever had a sizable problem, she would go straight to her cell phone and call a cadre of lawyers, political advisers and PR experts to immediately embark on “damage control” as opposed to falling on her knees in prayer.

Perhaps, she utters Sydney Blumenthal’s name when she needs “divine” inspiration.

Or maybe, she used to… BEFORE his January 7th arrest. Always remember: you can’t spell “I’m drunk”…without the letters “D-U-I”.

As far as religious affiliations are concerned, Hillary Clinton’s bio indicates she’s a Methodist.

OK…fine. I’ll buy that.

Again, I don’t know the woman Hillary Clinton is, but I don’t like the politician she has become. I think ALL politicians are glad handers, they’ll say whatever they have to to advance their agenda, but in my opinion, Hillary has carefully honed deflection, transference and rationalization to a fine art.

Still, I wonder about the woman. I wonder what she’s like when the camera isn’t on her, when she’s alone, in private–away from her constituency, the pundits and the pollsters.

Having done some research on Hillary, I think I can shed some light on the woman Hillary really is when the cameras are turned away.

Where is Socks now?

Hillary thanks Bill’s rape victim for her support

Hillary’s regard for the people assigned to protect her

Hillary and Bill.. and his other women

Hillary the gracious hostess

slumming with the Clintons

Rightpundits couldn’t explain it any better…

Who knew that the Clintons hang out with shady real estate characters?

Rezko is the real estate developer named by Hillary Clinton as having close ties to Barack Obama. That spectacle of hypocrisy occurred during the Democratic presidential debate in South Carolina, video below. After Obama dropped the well-timed line that Hillary was on the Walmart board of directors while he was fighting for underdogs, Hillary fired back about Obama doing legal work for Tony Rezko the Chicago “slum lord.”

Why Obama did not follow Hillary’s example and lose his billing records is a mystery, but this time honesty was the best policy. Hillary just got her hand caught in a cookie jar full of campaign contributions.

Since the story broke of the Clinton’s ties to Rezko, Hillary has developed a case of amnesia:

“I don’t remember meeting Rezko,” she says sheepishly. “I probably have taken hundreds of thousands of pictures. I don’t know the man. I wouldn’t know him if he walked in the door.”

Find Hillary’s explanation on the Today Show here where you can note the giant American flag in her small office space with assorted other props.

Sorry Hillary, a picture speaks a thousand words. While you may not remember him, nobody gets their picture taken with Bill and Hillary Clinton without doing them favors. So what did Tony Rezko do for the Clintons to deserve this photo?

even the blind are starting to see

Lately, though, the Clintons have really begun to wear on me. First, it was Hillary playing games with Martin Luther King’s memory. That Sean Wilentz is sticking up for her interpretation only deepens my skepticism about Hillary’s intentions. And not because Wilentz is a bad historian.* But anyone who claims he’s not a proxy for the Clintons** hasn’t been paying attention. Next, it was Bill dragging himself through the muck and then popping back up with an expression of righteous outrage on his face when anyone would dare to question his methods. Finally, we have this: Hillary trying to reinstate the delegates from Michigan and Florida.

Perhaps a little research into Hillary’s past on the part of the blogger can move him in the direction of real change and honesty in government.

hillary and bill are losing it

Peggy Noonan makes it simple even for Clinton Supporters and other idiots to see who they are backing… and who is walking away.

There are many serious and thoughtful liberals and Democrats who support Mr. Obama and John Edwards, and who are seeing Mr. Clinton in a new way and saying so. Here is William Greider in The Nation, the venerable left-liberal magazine. The Clintons are “high minded” on the surface but “smarmily duplicitous underneath, meanwhile jabbing hard at the groin area. They are a slippery pair and come as a package. The nation is at fair risk of getting them back in the White House for four years.”

That, again, is from one of the premier liberal journals in the United States. It is exactly what conservatives have been saying for a decade. This may mark a certain coming together of the thoughtful on both sides. The Clintons, uniters at last.

opposite day

Generally, there is one way to find out the truth in anything Bill or Hillary Clinton say. Simply reverse the situation. Compare THIS to THIS.

For those who aren’t in a clicking mood, here is the second link…

David Plouffe, in a succinct statement appended to a released quotation from his boss, Barack Obama, said the Obama campaign was investigating more than 200 reporters of irregularities in Nevada.

“We currently have reports of over 200 separate incidents of trouble at caucus sites, including doors being closed up to thirty minutes early, registration forms running out so people were turned away, and ID being requested and checked in a non-uniform fashion. This is in addition to the Clinton campaign’s efforts to confuse voters and call into question the at-large caucus sites which clearly had an affect on turnout at these locations. These kinds of Clinton campaign tactics were part of an entire week’s worth of false, divisive, attacks designed to mislead caucus-goers and discredit the caucus itself.”

Plouffe asks Nevadans to call a toll-free number, (866) 675-2008, and report any other problems.

Obama, for his part, said he “ran an honest, uplifting campaign in Nevada that focused on the real problems Americans are facing, a campaign that appealed to people’s hopes instead of their fears.”

“I promise that my promises are worthless”

In an attempt to get an early start on breaking her campaign promises, Hillary is now breaking her promises about campaigning.

crack just happens

Barack Obama’s campaign has dismissed as not believable a prominent Hillary Rodham Clinton backer’s “tortured explanation” for seeming to inject Obama’s youthful drug use into the 2008 presidential campaign, and called it “troubling” that Clinton has not done more to distance herself from the remark.

Former President Bill Clinton was drawn into the controversy on Monday in appearances on black radio talk shows. He told one host, Roland Martin, that impolitic remarks by supporters sometimes “just happen” in politics and said, “I think it’s important not to overreact to them.”

Obama has admitted in his memoir to using drugs as a young man, and Hillary Clinton has said personal attacks using that information are off-limits. Except they keep coming, in what are now at least three direct or indirect drug references from top Clinton surrogates in recent weeks.

I find it particularly noteworthy that Bill Clinton shows a great deal of restraint and patience when fielding questions raised about his own staff, and that of his wife. However, his view that it’s ‘just politics’ is forgotten when he and his own are the brunt of the rumors. The Bill Clinton temper tantrums are well known in media circles.

damage report, Mr. Scott!

Once again on the ropes for past comments, Hillary is trying to rewrite her history. This time involving comments she made downplaying Martin Luther King’s role in civil rights history.

It must be frustrating for her to not have her usual allies, the media, go along with her plan they way they always have in the past.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton suggested Sunday that Barack Obama’s campaign had injected racial tension into the presidential contest, saying he had distorted for political gain her comments about Martin Luther King’s role in the civil rights movement.

“This is an unfortunate story line the Obama campaign has pushed very successfully,” the former first lady said in a spirited appearance on NBC’s “Meet the Press.”"I don’t think this campaign is about gender, and I sure hope it’s not about race.”

Both New York Sen. Clinton and her husband, the former president, have engaged in damage control this week after black leaders criticized their comments shortly before the New Hampshire primary last Tuesday.

The senator was quoted as saying King’s dream of racial equality was realized only when President Lyndon B. Johnson signed the Civil Rights Act of 1964, while Bill Clinton said Illinois Sen. Obama was telling a “fairy tale” about his opposition to the Iraq war.

hillary’s housekeeping

“I just put it in a little box. That’s how I deal with it. I put it in a box in my mind and I just don’t think about it.” When asked by Camille Paglia, “People are alleging that the president is a sex addict — is this true?”

It’s interesting to see where hillary’s priorities are. It’s perfectly fine with her that her husband raped at least one woman (Juanita Broaddrick) and has cheated on her countless times, as long as Hillary can tuck those facts away and not be bothered with them.

Thank you, President Clinton

as found on various internet sites… author unknown

Dear Mr. Ex President Clinton:

I recently saw a bumper sticker that said, “Thank me, I voted for Clinton-Gore.” So, I sat down and reflected on that, and I am sending my “Thank you” for what you have done, specifically:

1. Thank you for introducing us to Jennifer Flowers, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Dolly Kyle Browning, Kathleen Willey, and Juanita Broderick. Did I leave anyone out?

2. Thank you for teaching my 8-year-old about oral sex. I had really planned to wait until he was a little older to discuss it with him, but now he knows more about it than I did as a senior in college.

3. Thank you for showing us that sexual harassment in the work place (especially the White House) and on the job is OK, and all you have to know is what the meaning of “it” is. It really is great to know that certain sexual acts are not sex, and one person may have sex while the other one does not have sex.

4. Thank you for reintroducing the concept of impeachment to a new generation and demonstrating that the ridiculous plot of the movie “Wag the Dog” could be plausible after all.

5. Thanks for making Jimmy Carter look competent, Gerald Ford look graceful, Richard Nixon look honest, Lyndon Johnson look truthful, and John Kennedy look moral.

6. Thank you for the 73 House and Senate witnesses who have pled the 5th Amendment and 17 witnesses who have fled the country to avoid testifying about Democratic campaign fund raising.

7. Thank you, for the 19 charges, 8 convictions, and 4 imprisonment’s from the Whitewater “mess” and the 55 criminal charges and 32 criminal convictions (so far) in the other “Clinton” scandals.

8. Thanks also for reducing our military by half, “gutting” much of our foreign policy, and flying all over the world on “vacations” carefully disguised as necessary trips.

9 Thank you, also, for “finding” millions of dollars (I really didn’t need it in the first place, and I can’t think of a more deserving group of recipients for my hard-earned tax dollars) for all of your globe-trotting. I understand you, the family and your cronies have logged in more time aboard Air Force One than any other administration.

10. Now that you’ve left the White House, thanks for the 140 pardons of convicted felons and indicted felons-in-exile. We will love to have them rejoin society. (Not to mention the scores you pardoned while Governor of Arkansas)

11. Thanks also for removing the White House silverware. I’m sure that Laura Bush didn’t like the pattern anyway. Also, enjoy the housewarming gifts you’ve received from your “friends.”

12. Thanks to you and your staff in the West Wing of the White House for vandalizing and destroying government property on the way out. I also appreciate removing all of that excess weight (China, silverware, linen, towels, ash trays, soap, pens, magnetic compass, flight manuals, etc.) out of Air Force 1. The weight savings means burning less fuel, thus less tax dollars spent on jet fuel. Thank you!

13. And finally, please ensure that Hillary enjoys the $8 million dollar advance for her “tell-all” book and you, Bill, the $10 million advance for your memoirs. Who says crime doesn’t pay!

14. The last and most important point – thank you for forcing Israel to let Mohammed Atta go free. Terrorist pilot Mohammed Atta blew up a bus in Israel in 1986. The Israelis captured, tried and imprisoned him. As part of the Oslo agreement with the Palestinians in 1993, Israel had to agree to release so-called “political prisoners”. However, the Israelis would not release any with blood on their hands. The American President at the time, Bill Clinton, and his Secretary of State, Warren Christopher, “insisted” that all prisoners be released. Thus Mohammed Atta was freed and eventually thanked the US by flying an airplane into Tower One of the World Trade Center. This was reported by many of the American TV networks at the time that the terrorists were first identified. It was censored in the US from all later reports. Why shouldn’t Americans know the real truth?

What a guy!!

And finally, thank you for reminding me of the things to consider now that Hillary is running for president.

SINCERELY,
A US Citizen

Hilly’s foreign policy experience

According to Hillary, while Bill met with the “various factions” of Irish politics, Hillary met with women leaders of the peace movement. Rather than discuss the difficulties of the peace process, Hillary focused on a teapot used by the women:

“They poured tea from ordinary stainless steel teapots, and when I remarked how well they kept the tea warm, Joyce insisted that I take a pot to remember them by. I used that dented teapot every day in our small family kitchen in the White House…”

If Hilly was so fond of that dented teapot, why didn’t she take that instead of the White House silverware?

New Hampshire isn’t buying whatever Hillary is selling

Hillary’s supporters are shopping around.

must be the middle digit

On ABC this weekend she said: “When I started here, I was in single digits. I mean, nobody expected me to be doing as well as I’m doing in Iowa.”

Nobody, meaning, almost everybody, unfortunately. (The campaign can’t point us to a poll where she was ever in single digits.

the sun was in my eyes!

The polling hasn’t even started yet, and Hillary is already lining up her excuses for not winning in Iowa.

“I was shocked when I learned Iowa and Mississippi have never elected a woman governor, senator or member of Congress,” Hillary told Des Moines Register columnist David Yepsen in October.

“There has got to be something at work here.”

Clinton Hand + Cookie Jar

Once again, allegations are turning into subpeonas for Hillary Clinton.

The top donor to Sen. Hillary Clinton’s 2000 campaign has filed a complaint with the Federal Election Commission asking the agency to re-open an investigation into illegal contributions and to probe alleged continuing violations of the law by the Democratic presidential candidate.

The complaint by business mogul Peter Franklin Paul also asserts the Clinton campaign’s 2005 conciliation agreement with the FEC – in which a finance aide was fined $35,000 – effectively let Clinton and other top aides off the hook.

obama is a crackhead

A top adviser to Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign said Wednesday that Democrats should give more thought to Sen. Barack Obama’s admissions of illegal drug use before they pick a presidential candidate.

Bill Shaheen, a national co-chairman of Clinton’s front-runner campaign, raised the issue during an interview with The Washington Post, posted on washingtonpost.com.

Shaheen, an attorney and veteran organizer, said much of Obama’s background is unknown and could be a problem in November 2008 if he is the Democratic nominee. He said the Republicans would work hard to discover new aspects of Obama’s admittedly spotty youth.

Now let’s compare this to the earlier years in the Clinton household where Bill was (and most likely still is) a known cokehead.

According to biographer Roger Morris, a personal acquaintance of the Clintons, “The Clintons were close socially to Lasater and his wife and flew often on Lasater’s private Lear jet. They went to the Kentucky Derby. And these are flights that we later had testimony from state troopers and others that cocaine was available in ashtrays and literally at every seat on the private jet – as well as in the box at Churchill Downs.”

boo hoo, Hillary

Only a day after a New Hampshire campaign headquarters was the center stage for a hostage situation, Hillary felt herself held hostage by an unappreciative crowd in Iowa.

Her cool reception turned frigid when she took real questions from real citizens (probably a first for her at a campaign stop). Her response to a question about amnesty for illegal aliens prompted boos from the small throng of people.

ya gotta give her credit..

“I think the fact of the matter is that Senator Clinton is claiming basically the entire eight years of the Clinton presidency as her own, except for the stuff that didn’t work out, in which case she says she has nothing to do with it,” Obama said.

we meant we wouldn’t get CAUGHT doing it again

In a telephone interview with Fox, Geoffrey Mitchell, 32, says he was approached by an operative for the Clinton campaign to ask a planted question about standing up to President Bush on Iraq war funding. The encounter happened before an event on a farm outside Fort Madison, Iowa. The Clinton event was hosted by Iowa State Sen. Gene Fraise.

Mitchell tells Fox that Clinton campaign worker Chris Hayler approached him and asked him to ask Sen. Clinton a question about how she was standing up to President Bush on the question of funding the Iraq war and a troop withdrawal timeline.

Mitchell told Fox the Clinton campaign wanted to contrast Clinton to Sen Barack Obama, who had recently said the president would probably prevail in the Iraq funding battle with Congress.

Mitchell said he refused to ask the question.

“I told Chris I had other issues I wanted to raise with Sen. Clinton,” Mitchell said. Asked what those were, Mitchell said: “I wanted to ask her why she voted for the Iraq war and why she didn’t consider that a mistake.”

Mitchell told Fox that Hayler, the Clinton campaign worker, was unhappy and moved on to others. “I know he tried to have others ask that question,” Mitchell said.

Ultimately, Mitchell said Clinton took no questions at the event.

‘we didn’t do it… and we won’t do it again next time’

On Tuesday Nov. 6, the Clinton campaign stopped at a biodiesel plant in Newton as part of a weeklong series of events to introduce her new energy plan. The event was clearly intended to be as much about the press as the Iowa voters in attendance, as a large press core helped fill the small venue. Reporters from many major national news outlets came to the small Iowa town, from such media giants as The New York Times, Los Angeles Times, the Associated Press, and CNN.

After her speech, Clinton accepted questions. But according to Grinnell College student Muriel Gallo-Chasanoff ’10, some of the questions from the audience were planned in advance. “They were canned,” she said. Before the event began, a Clinton staff member approached Gallo-Chasanoff to ask a specific question after Clinton’s speech. “One of the senior staffers told me what [to ask],” she said.

“It’s not a practice of our campaign to ask people to ask specific questions,” said Mark Daley, Clinton’s Iowa Communications Director. Daley said that when an event is focusing on a specific topic, such as health care or Iraq, “people are encouraged to ask questions in these regards,” but denied that they are given specific questions.

But when directly asked if his statements meant that planting does not occur in the Hillary campaign, Daley could only say, “to the best of my knowledge.”

“[Planting] is not something that is encouraged in our campaign,” he said.

http://web.grinnell.edu/sandb/questions.html

On the other hand, Hillary is the first one to yell ‘rat’ when the table is turned on her…

At a campaign stop in New Hampton, Iowa, Hillary Clinton sparred verbally for several minutes with a man who pressed her on her recent vote to call Iran’s army a terrorist organization.

Randall Rolph, from nearby Nashua, asked why he should support Clinton’s candidacy when she did not appear to have learned any lessons from having voted to authorize force in Iraq.

Clinton thanked him for the question and explained her Iran vote would lay the groundwork for using diplomacy and sanctions to pressure that government.

Clinton accused the man of being a plant who had been sent to ask the question, to which he took exception, saying the question was a result of his own research.

Hillary the Magician

First the Rose Law Firm billing records disappeared without a trace, only to turn up unexpectedly in Clintons’ White House office. Somehow the media must have missed that ‘little’ scandal. Maybe that’s why Hillary Clinton is falling back on that same old trick now, when her presidential campaign is in full swing, and documentation of her previous *cough* work might prove a bit damaging to her reputation.

Nearly three years after the Clinton Library opened—and more than 21 months after its trove of records became subject to the Freedom of Information Act—barely one half of 1 percent of the 78 million pages of documents and 20 million e-mail messages at the federally funded facility are public, according to the National Archives. The lack of access is emerging as an issue in Hillary’s presidential campaign: she cites her years of experience as First Lady as one of her prime qualifications to be president. Like other Democratic candidates, she has decried the “stunning record of secrecy” of the Bush administration; her campaign Web site vows to bring a “return to transparency” to government. But Clinton’s appointment calendar as First Lady, her notes at strategy meetings, what advice she gave her husband and his advisers, what policy memos she wrote, even some key papers from her health-care task force—all of this, and much more documenting her years as First Lady, remains locked away, most likely through the entire campaign season. With nearly 300 FOIA requests pending for Clinton documents, and only six archivists at the library to process them, Archives spokeswoman Susan Cooper says it is “really hard to predict” if any of this material will be released before the election.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/57351

what has Socks done for me lately?

AS THE “first pet” of the Clinton era, Socks, the White House cat, allowed “chilly” Hillary Clinton to show a caring, maternal side as well as bringing joy to her daughter, Chelsea. So where is Socks today?

Once the presidency was over, there was no room for Socks any more. After years of loyal service at the White House, the black and white cat was dumped on Betty Currie, Bill Clinton’s personal secretary, who also had an embarrassing clean-up role in the saga of his relationship with the intern Monica Lewinsky.

sure to be mandatory with the new and improved HillaryCare

Tryphorgetin

Think you might have heartburn? It might just be Hillary Clinton!

Not sure you want a lying, malicious feminist in the White House? Try OxyClinton.

she voted for troop supplies before she voted against it

In General David Petraeus’ last public hearing before the Armed Services Committee in January, Hillary asked the top military commander in Iraq to request whatever funding was necessary to keep U.S. troops safe: “[Hillary] urged Petraeus to ask Congress for all resources necessary to provide the troops with adequate equipment,” wrote Roxana Tiron in The Hill last January.

According to the Republican National Committee, Hillary asked Gen. Petraeus to request “every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect” U.S. Troops.

Said Hillary at the time:

“So the one thing that I would ask the General is — please do everything you can to get additional security. The Humvees are turning into death traps, as we see the sophistication of the IEDs [improvised explosive devices]. We don’t have enough of the mine protection vehicles and we haven’t even ordered enough and we haven’t put them into the theater. If we’re going to put these soldiers and marines into these very exposed positions, which this strategy calls for, please come to us; ask for whatever you need to try to provide maximum protection.

“… [L]et’s make sure we have every possible piece of equipment and resource necessary to protect these young men and women …”

Gen. Petraeus replied: “I’ll do that, Senator,” according to testimony recorded by the Committee On The Armed Services, U.S. Senate on Jan. 7, 2007.

In March, Gen. Petraeus warned that a delay in emergency spending funds would have an adverse impact on his mission, saying: “If those resources are not forthcoming, then obviously, it would have an impact on us.” (PBS’ “The News Hour,” 3/4/07)

Incredibly, in May, Hillary voted against providing funding for the same critical equipment she cited in the January hearing, voting against providing funds for the troops contained in the Iraq Emergency Spending Bill. (H.R. 2206, CQ Vote #181: Passed 80-14: R 42-3; D 37-10; I 1-1, 5/24/07, Clinton Voted Nay)

The Iraq Emergency Spending Bill that Hillary voted AGAINST provided for:

$1.6 billion For body armor;

$2.4 billion to help combat IEDs;

$3 billion For mine resistant vehicles.

(House And Senate Committees On Appropriations, “Summary Of The Fiscal 2007 Supplemental Funding Legislation, Press Release, 5/24/07)

don’t fix Social Security (until Hillary is out of office)!

“When I’m president, privatization is off the table because it’s not the answer to anything.”

It’s so assuring to know that Hillary Clinton feels it’s best to do nothing and let Social Security take care of itself. And as CNN Money explains, it will put itself out of its own misery post haste.

http://money.cnn.com/2005/03/23/retirement/2005_trusteesreport/index.htm

Based on revised assumptions, the trustees now estimate that by 2041 the system’s trust fund will be exhausted, meaning the system will only be able to pay out a percentage of the benefits currently promised. In this case, the trustees estimate the system will be able to pay out 74 percent of benefits.

In their 2004 report, the trustees estimated the trust fund would be exhausted in 2042.

They also now estimate that by 2017 the system will not be taking in enough in payroll taxes to pay all benefits promised and will need to tap the special-issue bonds that make up its trust fund. That date was moved up from 2018.

The amount of the shortfall facing the system over the next 75 years was revised upward to $4 trillion from $3.7 trillion.

Hillary Marx

“I prefer a ‘we’re all in it together’ society,” she said. “I believe our government can once again work for all Americans. It can promote the great American tradition of opportunity for all and special privileges for none.”

“We’re going to take things away from you on behalf of the common good.”

And a few words from someone with a little more concern for Americans… “There you have it: Hillary Clinton, the soul of the Democratic Party, talking about taxpayers’ money like it’s hers,” said Americans for Tax Reform head Grover Norquist. “What insufferable arrogance – it’s as though our taxes are hers to spend!”

pay no attention to the woman behind the curtain

“Thank you, Mrs. Broaddrick, for everything you do for Bill.”
Hillary Clinton’s comments to Juanita Broadrick two weeks after Bill raped Mrs. Broadrick in a Little Rock hotel room. Hillary was fully aware of this ‘incident’ at the time she expressed her ‘thanks’ to Juanita for remaining silent at a critical time in Bill’s political career.

Mrs. Broaddrick is shown in the right of this photo, taken just a few months before she was raped by Bill Clinton.

and now a few words from our sponsor

“Although she is formidably intelligent, there is something scarily inauthentic about her…she seemed cold and artificial to me, her face a mask, her eyes unlit by her smile.”

Mary Ann Sieghart, London Times

a fan no more

“Everybody in politics lies, but they do it with such ease, it’s troubling.”
spoken by David Geffen, a past supporter of the Clintons… emphasis on the word ‘past’

jocularity

Students were assigned to read 2 books, “Titanic” and “My Life” by Bill Clinton. One smart student turned in the following book report, with the proposition that they were nearly identical stories! His cool professor gave him an A+ for this report:
Titanic: $29.99
Clinton: $29.99
Titanic: Over 3 hours to read
Clinton: Over 3 hours to read
Titanic: The story of Jack and Rose, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Clinton: The story of Bill and Monica, their forbidden love, and subsequent catastrophe.
Titanic: Jack is a starving artist.
Clinton: Bill is a bullshit artist.
Titanic: In one scene, Jack enjoys a good cigar.
Clinton: Ditto for Bill.
Titanic: During ordeal, Rose’s dress gets ruined.
Clinton: Ditto for Monica.
Titanic: Jack teaches Rose to spit.
Clinton: Let’s not go there.
Titanic: Rose gets to keep her jewelry.
Clinton: Monica’s forced to return her gifts.
Titanic: Rose remembers Jack for the rest of her life.
Clinton: Clinton doesn’t remember Jack.
Titanic: Rose goes down on a vessel full of seamen.
Clinton: Monica…..ooh, let’s not go there, either.
Titanic: Jack surrenders to an icy death.
Clinton: Bill goes home to Hillary…basically the same thing.

uniter, not a divider

“I have to confess that it’s crossed my mind that you could not be a Republican and a Christian.”

zero tolerance for sexual assault (for people she isn’t married to)

“We know that it could happen there––in broad daylight–it could happen anywhere. This is a crime against all women, everywhere. And so we have to say enough is enough. This violence is unacceptable and it must stop.”
Regarding sexual assaults committed in NYC during the Puerto Rican Day Parade in 2001.

“I am so happy to meet you. I want you to know that we appreciate everything you do for Bill. EVERYTHING you do for Bill.”
Her reaction to Juanita Broaddrick who has passed lie detector tests regarding her accusations that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room. Juanita Broaddrick never went forward with her rape allegations after being confronted by Hillary.

bad for thee, but good for me!

“Too many people have made too much money.”

“I am pleased that the Senate Ethics Committee has found that my agreement with Simon & Schuster fully complies with the Senate ethics rules.”
Her comments after finalizing her $8 million book deal. This after strongly criticizing Newt Gingrich for his $4.5 million book deal.

“What the fuck did we come here for? There’s no money here!”
Hillary’s response to being forced to attend a political rally on an upstate New York dairy farm.

in public

“If there’s one thing I’ve learned over the past seven years, it’s how to hold my tongue.”

in private

Actual quotes of the “smartest woman in the world” as witnessed by her staff and the Secret Service agents assigned to protect her life.

“What the f*ck are you doing up there? You get back here right away.”

“Come back here, you *sshole! Where the f*ck do you think you’re going?”

“You stupid motherf*cker!”

“You fucking *sshole!”

“You g*ddamn stupid f*cking fool.”

“Motherf*cker”

“C*cksucker”

“For God’s sake Bill, don’t be an *sshole. If you want to lose this election because you’re too chickensh*t, then go ahead!”

“I’ve got to be there just to make sure they don’t f*ck it up.”

“Get f*cked! Get the f*ck out of my way! Get out of my face!”

“Stay the f*ck back, stay the f*ck away from me! Don’t come within ten yards of me, or else! Just f*cking do as I say, okay?”
A warning to her assigned Secret Service detail assigned to protect her life.

“If you want to remain on this detail, get your f*cking ass over here and grab those bags.”

“Personal, trained pigs.”

“F*ck off! It’s enough that I have to see you sh*t-kickers every day. I’m not going to talk to you, too. Just do your g*ddamn job and keep your mouth shut.”

insider trading? who me??

“I was lucky.”
Hillary turned $1000 in cattle futures into $100,000 in under 1 year. By comparison, $1000 invested in Microsoft in its first year of public trade, would have garnered less than $36,000 in eight years.

“There’s no evidence of that. No, I don’t really believe that.”

“The conclusion was that, like many investors at the time, I’d been fortunate.”
The brokers who arranged Hillary’s cattle futures trades were prosecuted for conducting the same exact sort of trades as the ones Hillary claims involved no illegal activity.

Bill’s women

“These women are all trash. Nobody’s going to believe them.”

“What the f*ck do you think you’re doing? I know who that whore is. I know what she’s here for. Get her out of here.”

“G*ddamn it, Bill. How long do you expect me to put up with this sh*t?”

“Come on, Bill. Put your dick up. You can’t f*ck her here.”

“Bill told me that Monica Lewinsky was an intern he had befriended two years earlier. He said that she had misinterpreted his attention, which was something I had seen dozens of times before.”

“My husband may have his faults, but he has never lied to me.”

“You stupid f*cking moron. How could you risk your presidency for this?”

“You know, we did have a very good stretch — years and years of nothing. I thought this was resolved ten years ago.”

semper infidelis

“Gee, now it was probably 19 years ago – in 1975. I decided that I was very interested in having some experience in serving in some capacity in the military. So I walked into our local recruiting office, and I think it was just my bad luck that the person who happened to be there on duty could not have been older than 21. He was in perfect physical shape. I wanted to explore – I didn’t know whether I thought active duty would be a good idea, reserve, you know, maybe National Guard, something along those lines. This young man looked at me and he said, ‘How old are you?’

I said, ‘Well, 27′ … I had these really thick glasses on.

He said, ‘How bad’s your eyesight?’

I said, ‘It’s pretty bad.’ And he said, ‘How bad?’ So I told him.

He said, ‘That’s pretty bad.’ And he finally said to me, he said: ‘You’re too old. You can’t see. And you’re a woman.’ And then he went on … this man, young man, was a Marine. He said, ‘But maybe the dogs [Army] would take you.’”

on the record regarding Iraq

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

http://www.rightwingnews.com/quotes/demsonwmds.php

a real career, rather than a homemaker

“I suppose I could have stayed home and baked cookies and had teas, but what I decided to do was to fulfill my profession which I entered before my husband was in public life.”

Bill who?

“I’m not some little woman standing by my man like Tammy Wynette.”