Will this hurt or stick to Hillary?
Michelle Obama: 'One of the most important things that we need to know about the next President of the United States is, is he somebody that shares our values? Is he somebody that respects family? Is a good and decent person? So our view was that, if you can't run your own house, you certainly can't run the White House. So, so we've adjusted our schedules to make sure that our girls are first'...
Tuesday, August 21, 2007
Michelle Obama: Not afraid to say what most people think
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
46 comments:
Given the August 16th public appearance by Rudy Guiliani, an audience member asked, "[H]ow you could expect the loyal following of Americans when you are not getting it from your own family?"
You make such a great point. This is all about Clinton.
PS: Game.. have you stopped taking your CDS meds?
Wasn't this story about Hillary?
Focus, focus...
Parklife was talking about meds again and not about Hillary Clinton or Michelle Obama or anything related.
A helpful hint: When you don't have anything to say about a topic, don't comment.
"Will this hurt or stick to Hillary?"
Imagine a campaign contributor. Joe Biden walks into his office and is asked, "what's 2+2?" Biden, being a direct kind of guy, answers "4." "Thank you," the contributor replies.
Then Obama walks into the room, and is asked the same question. "Well," Obama replies, "You need to understand the nuances and complexities of the issues. We need to get beyond the kind of politics that sees things in absolute terms. The solution perhaps a little above 4, a little below 4, no one really knows the exact answer."
Obama exits. Then Hillary walks in.
"What is 2+2?" the former first lady is asked. "Whatever you want it to be" is her answer.
Guess who got the contribution?
If you understand how the Democratic Party is constructed, you'll know that Hillary WILL be the nominee. The big players, that is, the union thugs, the trial lawyers, the NEA, Viacom, TimeWarner, all want somebody pliant. Plus Hillary, the master of pandering and identity politics, will clean up among feminazis, blacks, Latinos and so forth. She has the Dem nomination, if not the Presidency, in the bag.
Hey libs, take some notes from Jason on how to write a great post.
"If you understand how the Democratic Party is constructed, you'll know that Hillary WILL be the nominee."
This is entirely possible.
She IS part and parcel of the neocon machine, a "free trader".
why don't you explain that one
Hillary is the Rethug choice to win the presidency.
They certainly have no one of their own to offer up to the task, and they don't have any particularly bright ideas of their own that they can get away with.
Better to them that they should kick back, while everything's cleaned up for them, and do nothing but bark, moan and whine at all things liberal. Hillary is not so radical, that anything revolutionary to the neocon mind will transpire. The wars will continue, illegal aliens (cheap labor and servants for the oligarchs)will continue to stream in as planned, we will move closer to the North American Union, and Middle East policy will remain essentially unchanged.
In short, bring a "Democratic" women to accomplish what those big, tough neocons wanted in the first place.
"ghetto bitches
interesting compassion"
Don't go there. You've said far worse about your inner-city pupils (yet that doesn't seem to stop you from cashing your paycheck for it..)
and saying people don't work hard and don't care about their education is not calling them ghetto anything...man are you a racist...should we show it all from this week?
Game,
I was wondering when you'd dump hash.
I agree with Michelle Obama's original remark. Now the Democrat spinmeisters are going to "talk" her out of saying what she said.
This would be the same as if Elizabeth Edwards said the same thing.
GAME....Just post the story about how you are thought of in MPS as you actually are there in the inner city every day working hard with troubled kids,and leave the clueless dead-heads to their ranting and raving, 'cause I guess that must be the highlight of their daily existence.Jason nails it RIGHT ON....so it must be hard for these "experts" to deal with.
LOOK...NO VULGARITIES!!!
Scorpion, I don't think Game needs to expend any effort to illustrate that Hash is past the point of no return. This is clear for all to see.
"LOOK...NO VULGARITIES!!!"
It's nice to see the adderall kicking in.
Game- What does this have to do with Clinton?
I ask myself the same question when I read most liberal answers to clinton questions.
The hash-like attempts at "sarcasm"
are brutal...."fudgie??"that has what to do with bozo Bill and horrid Hillary??
I read the quote and immediately thought about Giuliani.
Sure, Clinton cheated, and that's wrong, but if you are a Giuliani supporter, and you are still gnawing on that old piece of rawhide, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?
(yes it does)
I didn't say it, Michelle Obama did. I asked a question.
still not going to give the link?
After reading the entire quote
http://electioncentral.tpmcafe.com/blog/electioncentral/2007/aug/21/obama_campaign_denies_michelles_speech_was_attack_on_hillary
My opinion is that she was talking about Giuliani. First, she uses the masculine pronoun. Also, Giuliani's children have noted as reasons for their animosity Giuliani's absence from events in their lives.
In any case, if you are going to criticize the Clintons family life, you have to give it to Giuliani three times as much. For God's sake, he left a press availability on father's day saying that he was going to go play with his son, and instead went to meet his mistress at his love nest suite in the basement of city hall.
On an unrelated note, I found out that Giuliani's law firm represents Cintra Concesiones de Infraestructuras de Transporte, S.A, one of the investment firms financing the Trans-Texas Corridor
"She IS part and parcel of the neocon machine"
Hillary is about one thing, and that's Hillary Clinton.
"Sure, Clinton cheated, and that's wrong, but if you are a Giuliani supporter, and you are still gnawing on that old piece of rawhide, doesn't that make you a hypocrite?"
(no it doesn't, necessarily)
Only if you only vote for a guy because he's a good husband and father. If things like, the war, the economy, judicial nominations, foreign policy, etc., play a part in your vote, you might have to make a decision on which negatives to ignore. I recall during the Clinton years, such things didn't matter at all to the left, spouting things like how in Europe, a politician's personal life never mattered, just his ability. Now to point to anyone in this manner for a lefty IS hypocrisy.
"I recall during the Clinton years, such things didn't matter at all to the left, spouting things like how in Europe, a politician's personal life never mattered, just his ability. Now to point to anyone in this manner for a lefty IS hypocrisy."
But hypocrisy in politics is not always wrong, and it IS a valuable tool in pointing out a candidate's inadequacies to those who DO place value in judging a politician's personal life choices as an indicator of how well or not he will perform in office.
I'd also like to point out that, during Bush's first campaign, it was not unknown by any means that Bush had drug and alcohol problems, had indeed degenerated into a dry drunk, and had in fact dealt coke in New Haven. This was no big secret. But his Republican supporters CHOSE to ignore these facts, or denied it, and continued on their merry way.
So no political party or ideological worldview has a monopoly on hypocrisy. It has simply become another tool in the political game.
What the libs are saying here is morality should only be important to conservatives, because we are the side that thinks that is important. Liberals showed for the 8 years of Clinton that they do not care about the personal life of the President, but I guess that only matters when it is a Democrat.
"...because we are the side that thinks that is important..."
You are the side that thinks it is important for OTHER PEOPLE to have, but you do not manifest the same virtues in your own conduct.
It is a simple concept.
If you do not wish to use birth control, DON'T use it.
If you don't want to live up to your job responsibilities as a pharmacist, DON'T become one.
This cannot possibly be so difficult to comprehend.
Game.. take the meds.. please..
Marshall, let me make this simple for you to understand.
If conservatives are going to criticize Bill Clinton every single day for cheating on his wife, they can't give Giuliani a pass, or else they are hypocrites.
Giuliani (and Gingrich) treated their (multiple) wives much worse than Clinton treated Hillary. But somehow, I never hear bloggers like game arguing that conservatives as a whole are morally debased because their leaders cheat on their spouses.
I guess it's ok if you're a Republican, right?
Marshall.. you almost got it. As a voter, I don’t think we “ignore” the negatives of a candidate. At least I try to be very conscious of the positives and negatives are of the candidates. We just hold our noses and vote for the one we feel would do the best job. That takes into account economy, war, blah blah blah. Then you go on to “recall” things about Bill Clinton (last I checked.. hes not running for anything). You seem to act like Democrats are some unified group. Nothing can be farther from the truth. The Dems are not marching in lockstep like the republicans. Ultimately, this is the single best and biggest problem with the party.
I always complained that Clinton lied to the American people on National TV, then lied under oath...that is a high crime.
Realism,
If Hillary wasn't as hurt as the wives of Rudy or Newt, it's likely because she married for reasons other than love, or that love wasn't the main reason. Of course that's my opinion. The truth is that there's no way in hell you could ever hope to judge the degrees to which any of those women were hurt. So this angle is pointless.
I only referred to Clinton not for what he did, but for how the left minimized it's importance. Now, they insist that we on the right elevate it back to it's proper level of disdain. There is a difference between Rudy/Newt and Slick Willie. That would be that the first two left their wives, but Bubba pretended to repent and then found another piece, and then another, and then another, and then even more. Are Rudy and Newt cattin' about? Or have they stuck with the women for whom they left their wives?
Still, I'd prefer they were a pure as the driven snow. But since there are Islamic assholes trying to kill us, I have to support the guy most likely to thwart them and hope they don't disgrace the office of the prez as Clinton did. In fact, I think pickin' up chicks was one of the main reasons Bubba wanted to be prez in the first place.
So it still isn't hypocrisy since marital fidelity isn't an issue with these guys in their present marriages. At least we don't know that. uh, I'm sure Hash does.
"But since there are Islamic assholes trying to kill us..."
They may be trying to kill YOU.
They are certainly not trying to kill those of us who put our nation's interests over OTHER nation's interests, like you.
"So it still isn't hypocrisy since marital fidelity isn't an issue with these guys in their present marriages. At least we don't know that. uh, I'm sure Hash does."
Unfortunately, (for you), there's still that matter of George and Karl and ALL THOSE OVERNIGHTS, romping with Jeff Gannon...
One wonders why it took Laura Bush so long to stop sleeping at the White House, and spend so much time at that residence hotel...
I'd also have to question the endless pedophilia scandals among the Rethugs in Washington...
To coin an overused phrase, the truth can be inconvenient.
Carter and Clinton hated the Jews?! You're onto something.....
Game, do you try hard to dim the line between Hash and yourself? You both are quite capable of highly irrational statements.
So it still isn't hypocrisy since marital fidelity isn't an issue with these guys in their present marriages.
I'm not saying that THEY'RE hypocrites, I'm saying that YOU'RE hypocrites.
You go on and on about Clinton's indiscretions (almost 10 years later) and use it to claim that Liberals are immoral.
You completely ignore Republicans doing the same thing. If you look at the multiple cases of infidelity on the part of Gingrich and Giuliani, there's no way that you can claim that Clinton was worse. Gingrich dumped his first wife while she was in the hospital undergoing cancer treatments, FGS!
So, yes, when YOU continually criticize a Democrat for cheating on his wife, and use it to label hundreds of millions of people as "immoral" , but then ignore the same or worse from your own party, it makes you a hypocrite.
"They would slit your throat in 5 seconds, sorry, 2."
Sorry, but your little fear-mongering tactics don't work on me.
I've been following this CNN documentary, "God's Perfect Warriors". Based on what I've known and experienced in the Middle East, I automatically expected (based on my own prejudices) that the Jewish radical segment would have been the most frightening, the Muslims somewhat less so, and the Christian radicals least of all.
I'm sad to report that the Christian fundamentalist segment was by far the most chilling...because it illustrated how low American society has sunk, in comparison to the fanatics of the other two religions.
"I know, to people like hash no one is as evil as the Jews, which is why people who think like hash must never be in control of the military."
Game, are you saying that you believe that a US military SHOULD be run by those who put the priorities of OTHER nations ahead of the US?
Did it ever once cross your mind that this is precisely why the US military LOSES EVERY CONFLICT it becomes embroiled in?
"...some people have no clue what we are up against..."
No, game, what YOU are up against is nothing more than a figment of your imagination. It is WE that must pay for your fever dreams...
"We have seen what has happened to our military the last two times (Carter, Clinton)."
Yes....a military that served its NATION'S interests and not everyone else's (and under budget, too, I might add...)
"You both are quite capable of highly irrational statements."
So??
Andy, you are MORE than capable of being an apologist, in true DLC form, for every useless centrist position that comes along, speaks pretty words, and accomplishes nothing.
Do I bust YOUR chops about your style?
"If you look at the multiple cases of infidelity on the part of Gingrich and Giuliani, there's no way that you can claim that Clinton was worse."
Realism, don't even kid yourself that any of this mudslinging is based on reality or that it is in any way anything but partisan.
These neocons would elect Michael Jackson their president if they thought doing so would achieve their goals.
President Carter was in the CNN special as well, and seeing him reminded me what a great President we had in him, and how what's around nowadays can't even hold a candle to him.
A great man and a great President, of decent, upstanding character...someone Americans can be proud of.
"Hash, the difference is I don't loathe Jews and throw around terms such as "ghetto bitches.""
So? Is it easier to pretend that such people just don't exist, and have no effect on American society?
Is it better just to exist in a state of perpetual denial?
First, Michelle Obama was not talking about Hillary Clinton. Read the full paragraph.
Second,
Hey libs, take some notes from Jason on how to write a great post.
Jason made up a hypothetical example that conformed to your cartoon image of Democrats. That's not a "great post"; it's a caricature.
Third,
I always complained that Clinton lied to the American people on National TV, then lied under oath...that is a high crime.
What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton? Has she lied under oath? Did she cheat on Bill?
Post a Comment