Clinton Duplicity
Dec 31, 2007 Political
When the Clinton crime gang occupied the White House (and the Arkansas Governor’s Mansion prior to that) they worked hard to keep their daughter Chelsea out of the political spotlight. They wanted to ensure she was not part of the ugliness of politics and that is a good thing. The way the media and the left have attacked the Bush girls is a good reminder of how the ugliness knows no bounds. Unfortunately, while politicians might want their children to be off limits, they often have no problems using their children for political gain.
Chelsea Clinton has been brought in to campaign for her mother and she works the crowds after each of her mother’s speeches. She is a true Clinton moving through the crowd and asking people to caucus for her mother. But while the Clintons don’t mind using their 27 year old to pander for votes they have made it perfectly clear to the press that she is not to be interviewed. This mandate included a 9 year old kid reporter who asked Chelsea; “Do you think your dad would be a good ‘first man’ in the White House?”
Chelsea brushed off the little girl with this reply; “I’m sorry, I don’t talk to the press and that applies to you, unfortunately. Even though I think you’re cute.” Condescending and dismissive all at once. I don’t talk to the press, just like Hillary who limits which press has access to her and what they may ask. It seems to me that if one is to be the champion of the people then that person might actually be more open with the people.
However, this should come as no surprise to people who remember the first Clinton Administration. They were secretive, ignored the press and lied to cover up wrong doing. Now that the queen is locked in a tight battle they don’t mind parading their daughter around in order to pander for votes but at 27 she is still off limits to the press. It seems to me that if you put yourself out there (and at 27 Chelsea is old enough to take her own decisions) then you make yourself fair game for the press, even if the press is a 9 year old kid reporter.
It almost seems as if Chelsea, in addition to helping her mother’s floundering campaign, is getting her feet wet in the political world. How long, one wonders, before she is involved heavily in politics and running for office as a carpetbagger? She is old enough to run for the House and 3 years shy of being old enough for the Senate. Are the Clintons trying to build a political dynasty that rivals the Kennedy Crime family and all of its “public servants”? I also wonder where Chelsea works and how she got so much time off to campaign. Did her boss allow her to go do this? Is she being paid and, if so, does that constitute a campaign donation?
The Clintons are a crime family and they do not deserve another stint in the White House. I might also add, if these wonderful parents want to protect their daughter perhaps they should not parade her around on the campaign trail.
Source:
My Way News
Others with similar items:
Outside the Beltway, Blog @ MoreWhat.com, Is It Just Me?, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Shadowscope, The Pink Flamingo, Leaning Straight Up, Cao’s Blog, and Pursuing Holiness, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: caucus, chelsea, Clinton, crime family, reporters
Clinton and the Politics of Fear
Dec 30, 2007 Political
For years the left has accused the Bush Administration of using the politics of fear to retain power and to get its way. The events of 9/11, according to the left, have been used to scare people into voting for Bush in 2004 and for passage of legislation designed to keep us safe. It would seem they have abandoned that criticism or, more accurately, they have shown hypocrisy with regard to it.
Former President Bill Clinton is out campaigning for his wife and touting the imagined experience she has as a major asset and reason for people to vote for her as the next president. He claims that she has the experience to lead from day 1 and that there are threats that we do not know about that she is ready to handle. Of course, there are threats out there, something the Bush Administration has been saying all along, but is Hillary best equipped to handle them just because she was First Lady?
It would appear as if the Clinton camp is using the very tactics that the left has complained about all along. They are using fear to get people to vote for Hillary. Bill want us to believe that these threats are there and only Hillary is best equipped to take the lead and mitigate them. I guess the decades of experience Dodd and Biden have pale in comparison to the 8 years Hillary spent as First Lady. Those two Senators could not possibly have the experience to handle threats to this country because they were never married to a president.
There are threats to this country out there and whoever serves as the next president will have to handle them but there is a bigger threat to this country and that threat is already known. That threat is Hillary Clinton. Having the Clintons in the White House compromised our national security for 8 years and having them there for 4 or 8 more will only make it worse. Another Clinton presidency will bring us more sold secrets, corruption and dead bodies swept under the carpets with the other evidence the media continues to ignore.
The Clintons argue that the others do not have the experience that Hillary has and that she is a known quantity competing against a bunch of unknowns. I believe that what we know about Hillary should remind us of why she should never be the president of the United States.
In this case, it is better to go with the devil you don’t know rather than the one you do. Hillary is Satan.
Source:
Washington Post
Tags: Clinton, corruption, Democrats, fear, iowa, national security, threats
Vote for Hillary and Get Lower Oil Prices
Dec 23, 2007 Political
Hillary Clinton has ramped up the pandering and outright lies of her campaign by claiming that electing her to the presidency will instantly lower the price of oil. Hillary is claiming that since she will reduce our dependence on oil, the oil producing countries will lower prices to get us to stifle that effort. She actually claimed that Jimmy Carter, perhaps America’s worst president, was on the right track in doing this and then Reagan was elected and he ignored it because oil was cheap. I know that the 60 year old Clinton has to remember the gas lines of the 70s and the terrible economic times fueled, in part, by the oil crunch. If this is her idea of being on the right track, she is more delusional than I originally thought.
So, electing Hillary will result in an instant drop in the price of oil. I wonder if she will sign a binding and irrevocable contract stating that she will immediately resign if the price of oil does not instantly drop (and it needs to be a significant drop, not a few dollars but more like the $60 or $70 she cited). The Arabs are probably keeping the oil price high to help Democrats win the White House anyway. The Democrats have a history of being in bed with the terrorists and the Commies.
I wonder what unbelievable (and unrealistic) claims Hillary will make next. Vote for me and global warming will instantly stop. Vote for me and Natalie Holloway will show up unharmed. Vote for me and the dead Beatles will rise from the dead and go on tour with those who are living. Vote for me and I will turn water into wine. Vote for me and there will instantly be world peace. Vote for me and world hunger will end.
This is the part of the campaign where candidates say just about anything to get elected. There is no way that she is correct on this but she does not care so long as she gets elected. Once she is president she can shrug it off until it is time to get reelected and then she can tell a few more whoppers and make a few more unrealistic claims.
I have a feeling she would get in office and then when the prices failed to drop she would say that the Arabs are trying to make her look like a liar (as if she needs help). Remember, Bill promised a huge tax cut for the middle class and then when he got in he said he looked at everything and tried all he could but he could not make it work. Things, he said, were worse than he thought or than anyone told him. Hillary would play much the same way.
Anyone who votes for Hillary Clinton is an idiot. Anyone who believes what she is saying should be locked in a small room with no lights and kept there away from other humans.
If Hillary is elected and prices go down does it mean she is the candidate of big oil?
Source:
NY Daily News
Others with similar posts:
Stuck On Stupid, The Pink Flamingo, Chuck Adkins, Right Truth, The World According to Carl, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, lies, oil prices, pandering, snake oil
Clinton Doubletalk
Dec 23, 2007 Political
B. Hussein Obama said that he has more former Clinton (Bill) foreign policy advisers working for him than Hillary does and that this should show people something. While this claim might or might not be true the Clinton camp felt it was necessary to answer the charge. I can understand why because even if Obama does not have more of them he has a significant number of them and this really should cause people to ask; if she is so wonderful why are her hubby’s former advisers backing her rival?
The Hillary Clinton camp could have answered this charge in a number of ways. They could have ignored it (which is a non answer, really) they could indicated that people do not vote for advisers, which is what they did and if they had stopped there, they might have made the point. Instead, Hillary went one step further by describing the large number of advisers that she does have.
“This is not a campaign between lists of advisers,” Clinton told reporters in a packed diner. “This is a campaign between real people with experience and qualifications to become president on day one.”
~snip~
“Why is the national security adviser of Bill Clinton, the secretary of the Navy of Bill Clinton, the assistant secretary of state for Bill Clinton, why are all these people endorsing me?” Obama said. “They apparently believe that my vision of foreign policy is better suited for the 21st century.”
Clinton rejected the comment’s premise.
“Honestly, it’s a silly question. We have hundreds of people’s support, not just people who were in my husband’s administration, but people from all over the country who have expertise.”
She added: “It’s important to pick the person who can make the best decision, who is tested and proven as a leader.” My Way News
Hillary contends that this is not a campaign about advisers but about experience and then she goes on to say how many advisers she has. If this is a campaign about experience, as she said, then she should have expanded the experience part. Instead, she expanded that which she just said was not important. She said that people do not vote for advisers and then told everyone how many advisers she has.
The reason for this is quite simple, Hillary Clinton does not have the experience she wants everyone to believe she has. Obama has held elected office longer, Obama was against the war in Iraq (though he was not in the Senate) and he voted against the Iran resolution. No matter what one thinks about these issues, Obama and Hillary were opposites on them and if the Democratic base is using the war as the bellwether (this issue is why they say they won the election) than Obama is clearly more in tune with the base than Hillary is. This might be because she triangulated in order to appeal to the general election voters (she was supposed to win the primaries, hands down).
This is more Clinton double speak. They are already down playing the Iowa caucus and lowering expectations. They are doing the same in Hew Hampshire. It is true that Hillary is in trouble in those states but there are reasons for this ploy. They will be able to say they expected the losses if she in fact loses one or both states and if she wins both they can say she is the second coming of the comeback kid. They will say that Iowa and NH were always going to be tough and she never figured to win but she is the comeback kid like her hubby. The reality is, Hillary and her people have been predicting she was the inevitable winner for a year because she held huge leads for most of it.
I can’t figure how she has any support because she talks out of both sides of her face and she has not been truthful for years (remember, she said she never thought about running for president and then jumped right in the race). She has the highest negative ratings of any candidate and she is very polarizing. I might not agree with Obama’s politics but at least he appears to be a warm and charming person.
Hillary is toast and I cannot wait for her to lose so that we can finally rid this country of the vermin known as Clinton.
Do Clintons use Charity Donations for Campaigns?
Dec 20, 2007 Political
The Clintons are under fire again for potential circumvention of campaign financing laws. This time the question is whether charitable contributions to the Clintons, which do not have to be disclosed, somehow make it into their various campaigns. Specifically, have donations for his library been routed to Hillary’s presidential campaign. There is also some question as to whether these donations have been bribes.
But an examination of the foundation demonstrates how its fund-raising has at times fostered the potential for conflict.
The New York Times has compiled the first comprehensive list of 97 donors who gave or pledged a total of $69 million for the Clinton presidential library in the final years of the Clinton administration. The examination found that while some $1 million contributors were longtime Clinton friends, others were seeking policy changes from the administration. Two pledged $1 million each while they or their companies were under investigation by the Justice Department.
Other donations came from supporters who had been ensnared in campaign finance scandals surrounding Mr. Clinton’s 1996 re-election campaign.
In raising record sums for her campaign, Mrs. Clinton has tapped many of the foundation’s donors. At least two dozen have become “Hillraisers,†each bundling $100,000 or more for her presidential bid. The early library donors, combined with their families and political action committees, have contributed at least $784,000 to Mrs. Clinton’s Senate and presidential coffers. NYT
The Clintons have kept the list of donors private but Bill promises to make future donations public only if Hillary gets elected. This does not answer the questions raised by the NYT. Did the Clintons get pay offs from companies under investigation or that had some interest before the government? Just looking at the item above one would have to conclude that there is at least the appearance of a conflict of interest. However, in true Clinton fashion, Bill tells us not to worry.
Even so, past donors should remain private, he insisted, “unless there is some conflict of which I am aware, and there is not.â€
Let me interpret; Trust me, there is no conflict. Nothing to see here, move along. If I say it then it is so because I am a trustworthy guy. I would never lie to you.
Only in American politics can this be said with a straight face and only in the world of Clinton can it be said with a delivery that expects it to be believed. With the Senate refusing to consider the nominees for the FEC the Clintons might feel like a cat left alone in a tuna factory.
Clinton = Dirty Criminal. Hillary = Satan.
Others with similar posts:
Outside the Beltway, The Virtuous Republic, Rosemary’s Thoughts, Faultline USA, The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns, Adam’s Blog, The World According to Carl, Pirate’s Cove, Blue Star Chronicles, The Pink Flamingo, The Amboy Times, CORSARI D’ITALIA, Conservative Cat, and Right Voices, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Tags: Clinton, fundraising, lawbreaking, scandal