View Full Version : Who do the Clintons support now?
bem401
09-09-2008, 09:20 AM
Huh? Seriously BEM where have you been reading this stuff? Sure, it was pretty much a given that Hillary was going to run for president but "presumptive nominee"? Seriously BEM that's just anti-Clinton bellyaching on your part. As for her staying in the race. What harm did it do? If anything it caused McCain to spend more time and money campaigning against two different people which only helps the Dem's cause
Robbed? Again I'm not seeing it. What I am reading and hearing is the Clintons and their advisers talking about what they may have done wrong during the campaign. Sure McCain came back and Hillary may as well. Ijust happen to think she won't..
The Clinton campaign had no plan for after Super Tuesday. To most people that meant they presumed she would have the nomination locked up at that time. It took her weeks to regain her footing after Super Tuesday and make the charge at the finish that she did. Don't you remember her borrowing tens of millions of dollars to keep the campaign afloat? They found themselves in that position because they thought it would be over by then. And all the squawking over what to do about Florida and Michigan arose from the feeling that somehow or other this election was being taken away from them. Or at least they tried to present it that way.
But really how is her age an issue? She will be older and wiser and, who knows, maybe even qualified! Somehow I doubt it but hey, who knows!
The age isn't an issue with me but you can bet it would be made an issue in the campaign, just like it is now for McCain. Issues are made of anything that could have an impact.
My thought here is that the Clintons and their people are being watched much too closely to try and sabotage the election campaign. Anything they say or do is going to be under a microscope by the press and the Democratic party. Hillary is not about to risk hurting her own political future over this.
You would think so, but politics is a ruthless game, and the Clintons play it very well, some might say better than anyone.
sapphiregirl
09-09-2008, 01:46 PM
The Clinton campaign had no plan for after Super Tuesday. To most people that meant they presumed she would have the nomination locked up at that time. It took her weeks to regain her footing after Super Tuesday and make the charge at the finish that she did. Don't you remember her borrowing tens of millions of dollars to keep the campaign afloat? They found themselves in that position because they thought it would be over by then. And all the squawking over what to do about Florida and Michigan arose from the feeling that somehow or other this election was being taken away from them. Or at least they tried to present it that way.
The age isn't an issue with me but you can bet it would be made an issue in the campaign, just like it is now for McCain. Issues are made of anything that could have an impact.
You would think so, but politics is a ruthless game, and the Clintons play it very well, some might say better than anyone.
LOL.....you think the Clintons have a secret little conspiracy to sabotage the election and let Mccain win just so she can run for President in 4 years and win? Is that correct or do you mean something else?
Well, you must think Mccain would do a PISS POOR job as President if you think Hillary has a chance of running for President in 4 years and winning.
......paranoid much? was there another shooter on the grassy knoll?
bem401
09-09-2008, 01:55 PM
LOL.....you think the Clintons have a secret little conspiracy to sabotage the election and let Mccain win just so she can run for President in 4 years and win? Is that correct or do you mean something else?
I'm not sure I'd go that far, but I don't think they'd be devastated by an Obama loss either. They'd begin planning for 2012 the very next day.
Well, you must think Mccain would do a PISS POOR job as President if you think Hillary has a chance of running for President in 4 years and winning.
I don't think McCain will do a PISS POOR job as President. I know he will, just not as bad as Obama.
And the quality of his job as President would have absoluely zero bearing on whether Clinton runs again. They belong to different parties.
yoda57us
09-09-2008, 05:03 PM
The Clinton campaign had no plan for after Super Tuesday. To most people that meant they presumed she would have the nomination locked up at that time. It took her weeks to regain her footing after Super Tuesday and make the charge at the finish that she did. Don't you remember her borrowing tens of millions of dollars to keep the campaign afloat? They found themselves in that position because they thought it would be over by then. And all the squawking over what to do about Florida and Michigan arose from the feeling that somehow or other this election was being taken away from them. Or at least they tried to present it that way.
Everything you are talking about here simply reinforces my point that they ran a less than perfect campaign. No one, except maybe Hillary herself, had her pegged as the "presumptive nominee" for the Democratic party.
The age isn't an issue with me but you can bet it would be made an issue in the campaign, just like it is now for McCain. Issues are made of anything that could have an impact.
Here's the thing BEM, I don't like Hillary as a candidate. Now, in four years or in eight years. I could care less if anyone tries to make age an issue. If you are saying that a difference of four more years on her birth certificate could influence weather or not she tries to sabotage the campaign of her party's nominated candidate for president, well, I think that's a bit if a stretch...
You would think so, but politics is a ruthless game, and the Clintons play it very well, some might say better than anyone.
Um, well, Bill Clinton, in spite of being impeached and dogged by scandal throughout half of his presidency still has one of the highest popularity ratings in the history of the presidency. His wife ran for president and didn't get the nomination...I'm not seeing any sort of consitancy there at all in the ruthless behavior department.
bem401
09-10-2008, 06:34 AM
Everything you are talking about here simply reinforces my point that they ran a less than perfect campaign. No one, except maybe Hillary herself, had her pegged as the "presumptive nominee" for the Democratic party.
Maybe "presumptive" is a bit strong, but she was far and away the frontrunner a few years ago in the her mind, the minds of her supporters, and the minds of those who follow politics closely.
Here's the thing BEM, I don't like Hillary as a candidate. Now, in four years or in eight years. I could care less if anyone tries to make age an issue. If you are saying that a difference of four more years on her birth certificate could influence weather or not she tries to sabotage the campaign of her party's nominated candidate for president, well, I think that's a bit if a stretch...
Hey, we finally agree on something. We don't like Hillary. I am saying that if you believe she still has presidential aspirations, as I do, she has a better chance of achieving that goal if McCain wins this Fall. The deck is stacked much worse against her for a 2016 run than a 2012 run for a number of reasons, one of which could potentially be her age..
Um, well, Bill Clinton, in spite of being impeached and dogged by scandal throughout half of his presidency still has one of the highest popularity ratings in the history of the presidency. His wife ran for president and didn't get the nomination...I'm not seeing any sort of consitancy there at all in the ruthless behavior department.
All successful politicians are ruthless. They have to be. And the Clintons are very successful politicians, this recent loss notwithstanding.
Eric Stoner
09-11-2008, 01:54 PM
Who seriously thinks that in their "heart of hearts" Bill and Hil REALLY want Obama to win ? That they wouldn't prefer for him to lose to McCain ?
Richard_Head
09-11-2008, 07:13 PM
Who seriously thinks that in their "heart of hearts" Bill and Hil REALLY want Obama to win ? That they wouldn't prefer for him to lose to McCain ?I do. I think that you're letting your hatred for Hillary (and all things Clinton) cloud your judgment.
Zia_Abq
09-11-2008, 09:05 PM
As ambitious as the Clintons may be their primary concern is and always has been promotion of the Democratic party and it’s policies.
bem401
09-12-2008, 06:03 AM
I do. I think that you're letting your hatred for Hillary (and all things Clinton) cloud your judgment.
And we'd argue that you're letting your love of the Clintons cloud your judgment.
Even some of those who know them best feel similarly, though they words very carefully, something you always have to pay attention to when dealing with all things Clinton.
SPLUT
09-12-2008, 06:42 AM
Zia, are you serious? The Clintons are in it for themselves. The Democratic party is just the vehicle they use to achieved those goals.
Richard_Head
09-12-2008, 07:20 AM
And we'd argue that you're letting your love of the Clintons cloud your judgment.
Even some of those who know them best feel similarly, though they words very carefully, something you always have to pay attention to when dealing with all things Clinton.Give me a few names of those who know them best feeling this way?
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 08:09 AM
Dick Morris; David Geffen; Web Hubbell; George Stephanopolous; Bill Richardson;and even Rahm Emanuel.
bem401
09-12-2008, 08:50 AM
^^^^ and every liberal newscaster or commentator who was previously a Clintonista until the Chosen One came along .
Zia_Abq
09-12-2008, 09:35 AM
Zia, are you serious? The Clintons are in it for themselves. The Democratic party is just the vehicle they use to achieved those goals.
Yes, I’m serious. It’s my opinion and I get that you are of a different opinion.
However even IF what you think is true and they use the party to promote themselves then they are still promoting the party. The results are the same. Promotion of democratic policy and ideas.
Melonie
09-12-2008, 09:40 AM
^^^ not necessarily the case if the Clintons versus Obama are causing a 'wrinkle' to develop in the party's base. This is arguably the case with one particular segment of the party's base i.e. white blue collar families in 'flyover' states - who heavily supported Hilary and who arguably have issues with some of Obama's background and policies. If that 'wrinkle' turns into a 'tear' i.e. if those white blue collar families in 'flyover' states decide to pull a Reagan (again) in the voting booth, this will NOT help the Democratic party.
Eric Stoner
09-12-2008, 09:58 AM
^^^^ and every liberal newscaster or commentator who was previously a Clintonista until the Chosen One came along .
No. The question was people that "really know" the Clintons. Not just those that like and admire them.
I'm making the argument that those that REALLY get to know them, often end up NOT liking them very much and allowing for "true believers" like Carville and Begala, of course.
Melonie
09-12-2008, 02:48 PM
how's this for a backhanded Clinton campaign boost ?
(snip)"Ex-Clinton Aide: Media Tougher On Palin, Losing Credibility
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 12, 2008 - 13:58 ET
A former aide to Hillary Clinton's campaign has told CBS News that the media have been much harder on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin than the other candidates in the race, and as a result "have growing credibility problems."
In an interview posted at CBSNews.com Friday, Mark Penn eviscerated the press for "going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed" whilst showing no similar interest for those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or even John McCain.
Readers are warned to strap themselves in tightly, for Penn spoke more plainly about media coverage of this election cycle than most in his party can tolerate"(snip)
(snip)"CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?
Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."
What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them."(snip)
sapphiregirl
09-12-2008, 02:51 PM
how's this for a backhanded Clinton campaign boost ?
http://newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2008/09/12/ex-clinton-aide-media-tougher-palin-losing-credibility
(snip)"Ex-Clinton Aide: Media Tougher On Palin, Losing Credibility
By Noel Sheppard (Bio | Archive)
September 12, 2008 - 13:58 ET
A former aide to Hillary Clinton's campaign has told CBS News that the media have been much harder on Republican vice presidential nominee Sarah Palin than the other candidates in the race, and as a result "have growing credibility problems."
In an interview posted at CBSNews.com Friday, Mark Penn eviscerated the press for "going through every single expense report that Governor Palin ever filed" whilst showing no similar interest for those of Barack Obama, Joe Biden, or even John McCain.
Readers are warned to strap themselves in tightly, for Penn spoke more plainly about media coverage of this election cycle than most in his party can tolerate"(snip)
(snip)"CBSNews.com: So you think the media is being uniquely tough on Palin now?
Mark Penn: Well, I think that the media is doing the kinds of stories on Palin that they're not doing on the other candidates. And that's going to subject them to people concluding that they're giving her a tougher time. Now, the media defense would be, "Yeah, we looked at these other candidates who have been in public life at an earlier time."
What happened here very clearly is that the controversy over Palin led to 37 million Americans tuning into a vice-presidential speech, something that is unprecedented, because they wanted to see for themselves. This is an election in which the voters are going to decide for themselves. The media has lost credibility with them."(snip)
Well....the media should be HARD on her. She has less than two months to prove she can handle the job of VP of the United States. It's not like she can try the position out for 6 months and quit if its not for her.
Besides....if she can't handle the media, how is she going to handle to big boys in Washington or people in other countries who hate us.
Melonie
09-12-2008, 03:39 PM
^^^ By your statement, I assume you agree that the media should also be hard on Barack Obama ... who has less that two months to prove that he can handle the job as PRESIDENT of the united states ?
So far Obama has not released his medical records, has not released his record of actions as a community organizer in despensing gov't grant money ( i.e. ACORN, AAAN), has not released portions of his record from the Illinois senate etc.
But that's all beside the point ... which is ... that we now have an (ex) Clinton Aide attempting to coerce the media into cutting Palin some slack. In the context of the Clinton conspiracy theories, this would certainly seem to be a highly convenient way for the Clintons to take a backdoor jab at Barack Obama while at the same time 'appearing' to officially support him.
Nor has Obama released his cell phone records from November 1999 but that is a story I won't go into ;)
FBR
Melonie
09-12-2008, 03:49 PM
^^^ very true ... and you're right that bringing up that subject would accomplish little in this forum. But another fundamental point still dangles ... the fact that nobody in US media has complained about lack of access to Obama's various records, while at the same time the same US media is trying to comb through Palin's gubernatorial expense account ! But again this is beside the point ... which involves what sorts of actions are the Clintons now taking in regard to this election ?
Biden getting das boot in favor of Hilliary would be one hell of an October Surprise. And just might defuse some of the incredible excitement over Gov Palin. But somehow I can't see Obama, considering his arrogance and dislike of the Clintons, supporting that change.
Of course, there is the remote possibility that Obama might himself somehow be truly vetted during the weeks prior to the election in which case the Dems would have no choice but to scramble for an electable candidate. The MSM with their tingly feelings won't contribute to the process but there seems to me to be a groundswell building to reveal the real man behind the media manufactured curtain.
FBR
Zia_Abq
09-12-2008, 04:36 PM
Nor has Obama released his cell phone records from November 1999 but that is a story I won't go into ;)
FBR
Curious question. Does what you are being so cloak and dagger about have ANYTHING to do with the subject of who the Clintons support in this election?
If so, why not share? If not, why bring it up here?
Curious question. Does what you are being so cloak and dagger about have ANYTHING to do with the subject of who the Clintons support in this election?
If so, why not share? If not, why bring it up here?
It was just a slight drift off topic. My latest post was right back on the Clinton thing. Thank you for the reminder.
FBR
sapphiregirl
09-12-2008, 05:15 PM
Biden getting das boot in favor of Hilliary would be one hell of an October Surprise. And just might defuse some of the incredible excitement over Gov Palin. But somehow I can't see Obama, considering his arrogance and dislike of the Clintons, supporting that change.
Of course, there is the remote possibility that Obama might himself somehow be truly vetted during the weeks prior to the election in which case the Dems would have no choice but to scramble for an electable candidate. The MSM with their tingly feelings won't contribute to the process but there seems to me to be a groundswell building to reveal the real man behind the media manufactured curtain.
FBR
What is your problem with Obama? List the reasons you are voting for McCain and support the Republican party.
sapphiregirl
09-12-2008, 06:23 PM
Hillary Clinton campaigning for Barack Obama in Florida....she looks committed to me. She is campaigning exactly where he needs it.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRaojhtMhXk
Zia_Abq
09-12-2008, 07:14 PM
It was just a slight drift off topic. My latest post was right back on the Clinton thing. Thank you for the reminder.
FBR
Oh, ok. I thought maybe you had dirt to share. Oh well.
Eric Stoner
09-13-2008, 01:20 PM
Biden getting das boot in favor of Hilliary would be one hell of an October Surprise. And just might defuse some of the incredible excitement over Gov Palin. But somehow I can't see Obama, considering his arrogance and dislike of the Clintons, supporting that change.
Of course, there is the remote possibility that Obama might himself somehow be truly vetted during the weeks prior to the election in which case the Dems would have no choice but to scramble for an electable candidate. The MSM with their tingly feelings won't contribute to the process but there seems to me to be a groundswell building to reveal the real man behind the media manufactured curtain.
FBR
Obama would NEVER replace Biden with Hillary. With Hillary comes Bill and he brings a whole host of baggage best left unrummaged. His tawdry finanial dealings and current affair with Belinda Stronach being at the top of the list.
Then there's Hillary's girlfriend being "paired up" with a closeted gay Congressman named Anthony Weiner. It's just a whole can of worms that
too many Dems prefer remain closed.
bem401
09-13-2008, 01:26 PM
Obama would NEVER replace Biden with Hillary. .
Unless, of course, its seen as the only way he can get into the Oval Office.
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 01:27 PM
Obama would NEVER replace Biden with Hillary. With Hillary comes Bill and he brings a whole host of baggage best left unrummaged. His tawdry finanial dealings and current affair with Belinda Stronach being at the top of the list.
Then there's Hillary's girlfriend being "paired up" with a closeted gay Congressman named Anthony Weiner. It's just a whole can of worms that
too many Dems prefer remain closed.
Prove it....closeted gay Congressman....whose business is that anyway....IDIOT!
Good God....you remind me daily why the Republican party has made the United States a Joke.
bem401
09-13-2008, 01:47 PM
Prove it....closeted gay Congressman....whose business is that anyway....IDIOT!
Good God....you remind me daily why the Republican party has made the United States a Joke.
Just because ES identifies it as an issue doesn't mean he takes a stand one way or the other. Nor does it make him an idiot. For you to resort to name-calling shows an unwillingness or inability to discuss the issue intelligently.
There are many different points of views on a myriad of issues in America. Just because someone doesn't agree with me ( or you, in this case ) doesn't give license to call them idiots.
He's basically telling you he thinks Obama would consider it an issue. Does that Obama an idiot as well?
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 01:52 PM
Just because ES identifies it as an issue doesn't mean he takes a stand one way or the other. Nor does it make him an idiot. For you to resort to name-calling shows an unwillingness or inability to discuss the issue intelligently.
There are many different points of views on a myriad of issues in America. Just because someone doesn't agree with me ( or you, in this case ) doesn't give license to call them idiots.
He's basically telling you he thinks Obama would consider it an issue. Does that Obama an idiot as well?
I asked him to prove Anthony Weiner is a closet homosexual like he claims...and he is an idiot for that...ITS NO ONES BUSINESS.
bem401
09-13-2008, 01:56 PM
I asked him to prove Anthony Weiner is a closet homosexual like he claims...and he is an idiot for that...ITS NO ONES BUSINESS.
Well if Weiner is a homosexual, is Obama an idiot for for keeping his distance from him?
I don't know if he is gay or not and frankly don't care. He is a radical buffoon regardless of his orientation.
Dirty Ernie
09-13-2008, 02:02 PM
In the run-up to Obama's VP decision, there were a number of pundits saying Hillary would make a Democratic victory a near slam-dunk. Who, you ask? Guys like Rove, Buchanon, Gingrich and Hassert that I recall. They were salivating like a pack of feral dogs, trying to goad Obama to take Hillary.
The only rational explanation I could come up with was they had something big waiting in the wings to unleash on Hillary, a bullet only worth firing in a presidential race.
Eric Stoner
09-13-2008, 03:50 PM
Prove it....closeted gay Congressman....whose business is that anyway....IDIOT!
Good God....you remind me daily why the Republican party has made the United States a Joke.
Hold the phone ! You're killing the messenger. I explained ONE reason why Obama's campaign did not / does not want Hillary on the ticket and focused on political- campaign related reasons why Hillary is not and never will or would be on the ticket. There are a host of others directly related to governance, assuming Obama/ Hillary got elected but let's leave those aside.
FACT- Bill has a full time Canadian girlfriend- Belinda Stronach and their affair has been widely reported, more in Canada than in the U.S.
FACT- Hillary is a lesbian and has a full time girlfriend. Certain secrets are very hard to keep in NYC and it's been all over the gay grapevine FOR YEARS. Ask Michael Musto. While Hillary was running she was terrified that it would come out so she helped engineer a "Bess Meyerson- Ed Koch type romance" between her gal pal and Weiner who has been discreetly in the closet for years and still wants to run for Mayor. It was a win-win for her and Weiner and her gal pal went along.
QUESTION- Why hasn't this been reported in the mainstream press ? The short easy answer is because no one directly involved will go on the record with anything other than a denial. The REAL answer, and I've confirmed this with several friends in the press, is that Bill and Hillary twisted a lot of arms and killed more than one story. The L.A. Times has been sitting on this for over a year. The only one with the guts to report it has been Musto and he's been relatively easy to dismiss as just a "gay gossip".
There is admittedly a fine line sometimes between legitimate news and scandalous gossip. The fact that Hillary's a lesbian ( while whispered about ever since her college days - read Bernstein's book) is arguably not "news" and a private matter. Hillary and Bill have been generally supportive of Gay Rights so there's no hypocrisy involved a la Larry Craig. Likewise, nobody involved has committed a crime.
As for Weiner's orientation; he's known as "New York's McGreevy" BUT he's been very discreet- no gay bar cruising or clubbing for him and he hasn't been involved in any sort of scandal that would make his sexuality relevant. He was an early and strong supporter of Hillary and it is rumored; repeat RUMORED, that he approached Hillary and suggested the "romance" between him and her girlfriend
to give them both cover.
If all Hillary and Obama had to worry about was running in New York; or San Fran or Miami this whole thing would probably NOT be a big deal. But Obama has to win Michigan, Ohio, PENNSYLVANIA and keep other states like Virginia,and Nevada in play where this whole batch of peccadillios would not play well. That's A reason why there was NO WAY he'd ever put Hillary on the ticket because they KNOW the Republican opposition researchers have ALL this stuff and would not be afraid to try and use it. You think the whole "lipstick" fiasco was a silly distraction ? Imagine if this stuff got the same play in the media.
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 04:00 PM
Hold the phone ! You're killing the messenger. I explained ONE reason why Obama's campaign did not / does not want Hillary on the ticket and focused on political- campaign related reasons why Hillary is not and never will or would be on the ticket. There are a host of others directly related to governance, assuming Obama/ Hillary got elected but let's leave those aside.
FACT- Bill has a full time Canadian girlfriend- Belinda Stronach and their affair has been widely reported, more in Canada than in the U.S.
FACT- Hillary is a lesbian and has a full time girlfriend. Certain secrets are very hard to keep in NYC and it's been all over the gay grapevine FOR YEARS. Ask Michael Musto. While Hillary was running she was terrified that it would come out so she helped engineer a "Bess Meyerson- Ed Koch type romance" between her gal pal and Weiner who has been discreetly in the closet for years and still wants to run for Mayor. It was a win-win for her and Weiner and her gal pal went along.
QUESTION- Why hasn't this been reported in the mainstream press ? The short easy answer is because no one directly involved will go on the record with anything other than a denial. The REAL answer, and I've confirmed this with several friends in the press, is that Bill and Hillary twisted a lot of arms and killed more than one story. The L.A. Times has been sitting on this for over a year. The only one with the guts to report it has been Musto and he's been relatively easy to dismiss as just a "gay gossip".
There is admittedly a fine line sometimes between legitimate news and scandalous gossip. The fact that Hillary's a lesbian ( while whispered about ever since her college days - read Bernstein's book) is arguably not "news" and a private matter. Hillary and Bill have been generally supportive of Gay Rights so there's no hypocrisy involved a la Larry Craig. Likewise, nobody involved has committed a crime.
As for Weiner's orientation; he's known as "New York's McGreevy" BUT he's been very discreet- no gay bar cruising or clubbing for him and he hasn't been involved in any sort of scandal that would make his sexuality relevant. He was an early and strong supporter of Hillary and it is rumored; repeat RUMORED, that he approached Hillary and suggested the "romance" between him and her girlfriend
to give them both cover.
If all Hillary and Obama had to worry about was running in New York; or San Fran or Miami this whole thing would probably NOT be a big deal. But Obama has to win Michigan, Ohio, PENNSYLVANIA and keep other states like Virginia,and Nevada in play where this whole batch of peccadillios would not play well. That's A reason why there was NO WAY he'd ever put Hillary on the ticket because they KNOW the Republican opposition researchers have ALL this stuff and would not be afraid to try and use it. You think the whole "lipstick" fiasco was a silly distraction ? Imagine if this stuff got the same play in the media.
I don't give a flying flip who Hillary and Bill sleep with. Are you in their bedrooms?
.....lets talk about McCain and his affairs if that is so important.....after all he is the 'family values" President wanna be.
Eric Stoner
09-13-2008, 04:23 PM
I don't give a flying flip who Hillary and Bill sleep with. Are you in their bedrooms?
.....lets talk about McCain and his affairs if that is so important.....after all he is the 'family values" President wanna be.
Oh for Pete's sake.
Either you have a blinding animus for me or serious problems in READING COMPREHENSION. When did I EVER say any of this matters to me ?
It doesn't. I personally couldn't care less. BUT would you like me to pretend that there is NOT a market for this type of salacious stuff ? That the Republicans and their "family values" type allies wouldn't be licking their chops at the prospect of the mainstream press digging into this ? Whatever opposition research they have on Obama is dwarfed by all the stuff they've been accumulating and saving up for 16 ( SIXTEEN ) years on Hillary and Obama and his team know it.
The original question was whether Obama would replace Biden with Hillary ?
I say: " Absolutely not and here is just ONE reason why " and you have a conniption. Put your feet up and apply a cool compress.
Richard_Head
09-13-2008, 05:20 PM
FACT- Bill has a full time Canadian girlfriend- Belinda Stronach and their affair has been widely reported, more in Canada than in the U.S.
FACT- Hillary is a lesbian and has a full time girlfriend. Certain secrets are very hard to keep in NYC and it's been all over the gay grapevine FOR YEARS. Ask Michael Musto. While Hillary was running she was terrified that it would come out so she helped engineer a "Bess Meyerson- Ed Koch type romance" between her gal pal and Weiner who has been discreetly in the closet for years and still wants to run for Mayor. It was a win-win for her and Weiner and her gal pal went along.
What exactly makes these facts? It sounds more like second hand rumor and speculation to me.
sapphiregirl
09-13-2008, 10:27 PM
What exactly makes these facts? It sounds more like second hand rumor and speculation to me.
No kidding....I really want to know about this "gay grapevine" he knows about. Sounds fascinating.
I think Hillary would help out Obama for the simple fact she did not work so hard to watch Sarah Palin become the first person in the white house.
bem401
09-14-2008, 07:07 AM
What exactly makes these facts? It sounds more like second hand rumor and speculation to me.
FWIW, and I'm not declaring it ot be fact, a friend of mine played for the Pittsburgh Penguins back in the '90's and claimed ( I have no reason to doubt him ) that he was told by Secret Service agents who attended their games that when Bill and Hillary went to Camp David, he had his girls brought in and she had her girls brought in. The agents were formerly assigned to that detail.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 08:08 AM
FWIW, and I'm not declaring it ot be fact, a friend of mine played for the Pittsburgh Penguins back in the '90's and claimed ( I have no reason to doubt him ) that he was told by Secret Service agents who attended their games that when Bill and Hillary went to Camp David, he had his girls brought in and she had her girls brought in. The agents were formerly assigned to that detail.You're right, that's not fact, that's second hand second hand rumor and speculation.
bem401
09-14-2008, 08:12 AM
You're right, that's not fact, that's second hand second hand rumor and speculation.
but it doesn't mean it isn't true, only that it can't be proven ( a line the Clinton's know a thing or two about walking).
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 09:08 AM
but it doesn't mean it isn't true, only that it can't be proven ( a line the Clinton's know a thing or two about walking).What type of proof would make you happy?
bem401
09-14-2008, 09:21 AM
What type of proof would make you happy?
RH, there is no proof that would make me happy re: the Clintons. Likewise there is nothing I could probably do to convince you that Obama is the wrong choice for Prez. In case you haven't figured it out, I find Bill and Hillary two of the most reprehensible people in American politics. I have no animus for Obama. I just think he is wrong on everything.
The topic being discussed was whether Obama would dump Biden for Hillary in the upcoming weeks. I doubt it because you can believe the Reps are lying in wait for her, much like the Dems were lying in wait for Romney had he been on the ticket. Its the way the game is played nowadays.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 11:26 AM
RH, there is no proof that would make me happy re: the Clintons. No need for proof when you can defame somebody without it huh?
bem401
09-14-2008, 11:34 AM
No need for proof when you can defame somebody without it huh?
I'm quite sure I'm in no position to defame them. If you want to say that I am repeating comments of others that may be defamatory, you might be right. But you'd have to first prove them intentionally false staements and I don't think you can do that.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 11:44 AM
I'm quite sure I'm in no position to defame them. If you want to say that I am repeating comments of others that may be defamatory, you might be right. But you'd have to first prove them intentionally false staements and I don't think you can do that.That's ridiculous, I guess you're right about Ivy league graduates. Shouldn't it be up to you to prove your assessment as opposed to them having to disprove it?
bem401
09-14-2008, 11:49 AM
That's ridiculous, I guess you're right about Ivy league graduates. Shouldn't it be up to you to prove your assessment as opposed to them having to disprove it?
Why is it up to me to prove or disprove?
I presented it as exactly what it is : something I heard. I qualified it before I mentioned it. To be defamatory, it has to be an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.
Richard_Head
09-14-2008, 12:00 PM
Why is it up to me to prove or disprove?
I presented it as exactly what it is : something I heard. I qualified it before I mentioned it. To be defamatory, it has to be an intentional misrepresentation of the truth.What if I said that I heard that bem is into bestiality? Should everybody believe me with no proof? Speaking of which, could you please prove to me that I'm wrong?
Zia_Abq
09-14-2008, 12:25 PM
You're right, that's not fact, that's second hand second hand rumor and speculation.
More likely a complete fabrication.