After bashing Senator Barack Obama for saying that Ronald Reagan's presidency ushered in an era of change in America, and stating that Obama liked Reagan, which Obama did not say, we now find that Senator Clinton's press release dated 12/12/2007 lists Ronald Reagan as one of her favorite presidents.
Wow. The Clinton problem is that she's so busy trying to find weakness she's tripping all over herself. Here's the release below:
12/12/2007
Eleven Salmon Press Weekly Newspapers Endorse Hillary Clinton for President
MANCHESTER, NH - The Salmon Press newspapers, which include 11 weekly newspapers published throughout New Hampshire’s Lakes Region and North Country today endorsed Hillary Clinton for President. The Salmon Press is the first newspaper in New Hampshire to endorse a Democrat in the 2008 primary. In their endorsement editorial, the Salmon Press highlighted the "combination of her proven track record and positive vision for America" adding "she’s an engaging personality able to unite people behind a common cause regardless of their political affiliations."
"Every week the Salmon Press newspapers provide a local voice for many New Hampshire communities and I am honored to have their endorsement," said Senator Clinton. "I have enjoyed talking and meeting with voters in New Hampshire and earning their support in my campaign. I believe I am the candidate with the record and experience American families can depend on to make real change happen."
The 11 Salmon Press newspapers include: the Littleton Courier, Coos County Democrat (Lancaster, NH) and Berlin Reporter, the Granite State News (Wolfeboro, NH), Carroll County Independent (Conway, NH), Meredith News, Record Enterprise (Plymouth, NH), Winnisquam Echo (Tilton, NH), Gilford Steamer, Baysider (Alton, NH), and Mountain Ear (Conway, NH). The Salmon Press endorsed Bill Bradley for president in 2000 and Howard Dean in 2004.
The Salmon Press endorsement editorial follows:
Sen. Hillary Clinton
Those that don’t think experience counts in politics haven’t been listening to Sen. Hillary Clinton. The combination of her proven track record and positive vision for America make her our choice in the Democratic primary.
Sen. Clinton earned our admiration as the First Lady and respect as a U.S. senator from New York. Today she’s an engaging personality able to unite people behind a common cause regardless of their political affiliations. She hit the Senate floor on the run and she can do the same thing in the White House.
She is sincere and passionate about restoring fiscal responsibility, providing health care to all Americans, protecting the environment, keeping the tax burden off the middle class and earning the faith and trust of the American people.
But no president can do it alone. She must break recent tradition, cast cronyism aside and fill her cabinet with the best people, not only the best Democrats, but the best Republicans as well.. We’re confident she will do that. Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list.
After all it was during his administration - eight years of peace and prosperity - that Hillary was able to observe, learn and contribute, all at the same time. And though she possesses traits similar to the former president, a great communicator chief among them - the voters of New York State have overwhelmingly validated her abilities - twice.
Sen. Clinton told us she doesn’t want our vote just because she’s a "woman." She wants our vote because she’s the "best." On the Democratic side we agree that she is.
Friday, January 18, 2008
Billary Uses Carl Rove's WMD In Nevada Against Obama
For those of you who are in need a refresher course in Billary's WMD (weapons of mass destruction) Must Stop Barack Obama For President 6-Step Insurgent Manual (first edition written by the far right's infamous son Carl Rove) are as follows:
Step 1: Slander your opponent Step 2: Wait and see if you're called on the slander Step 3: If called on the slander, decide whether you've offended a group you need to win the election Step 4: If the answer to step 3 is "yes, we need that group," deny Step 1 ever happened. Step 5: Hope nobody realizes what you just did Step 6: If someone DOES realize what you did, slander the person who just realized what you did or tell that person that "they're taking things out of context".
The Clintons are livid that their Nevada legal gangbangers couldn't strike a lethal legal blow of superior presidential firepower that was meant to be seen all around the globe against Culinary Workers Union Local 226 for endorsing Sen. Obama over Hillary for President. They were hoping to put other unions on notice...ENDORSE BILLARY OR ELSE. Mr. Clinton even went so far as to play his presidential pardon trump card by calling in a personal marker by having disgraced U.S. Secretary Of Housing and Urban Development -HUD (from 1993 -1997) Henry Gabriel Cisneros campaign for his wife in Las Vegas to court the Latino vote. Some us haven't forgotten your appointee Mr. Cisneros cost Americans $21-23 million dollars in legal fees for making his mistress mad, lying, stealing and cheating. Check out the BARRETT REPORT and read it for yourselves @ http://barrett.oic.gov/ Not a good look Billary. It reminds me of the $70 million Americans had to pay for WHITEWATER http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/whitewater/committee.pdf during Pres. Clinton's administration too. Some people are truly accident prone but this couple (to include their hand selected appointees) are INDICTMENT AFTER INDICTMENT prone. My purse just started to cry again.
Sen. Clinton's campaign has sent direct mail pieces to Nevadans distorting Sen. Obama's position on Social Security. You can now hear Hillary on several Nevada radio stations blatantly lying to voters about Barack's long-standing against Yucca Mountain. Additionally, she's on TV misleading people about Obama's outspoken position against the war in Iraq. But perhaps most disturbing, Clinton has attacked Barack on his 100% pro-choice record. The tone of Senator Clinton's campaign has been so negative that even her supporters are saying enough is enough. Lorna Brett, a former Clinton donor and president of Chicago National Organization for Women, had this to say about the tactics:
"I was disappointed that Hillary Clinton would launch misleading attacks on Barack Obama and his unimpeachable record on a woman's right to choose. I have switched my support to Barack Obama because I know the truth. I cannot be a part of that kind of deceptive politics."
Check out what Sen. Barack Obama has to say about Billary...I mean Sen. Clinton and (honey I keep attacking Barack like you instructed wannabe FMT (First Man In Training) Bill Clinton:
I wanted to let Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton to include her PIC (partner in crime) President William Jefferson Clinton know that most Americans will not be fooled by all the lies, distortions and re-clarifications coming out of the Billary camp every day. We've heard and paid dearly for both your excuses all before. Curious were Americans being charged for 35+ years of experience or was that pro bono during the Clinton Glory Years? Even Pres. George W. Bush woke up eventually and was smart enough to put Carl Rove out the white house. No more drama my vote's for Obama.
FOX AND FRIENDS - A Real Idiotic Telecast Featuring Gretchen Carlson's Legs
Fox and Friends: All about the legs!
I can't get over how overtly racist, stupid, and downright misguided "Fox and Friends" cable show is. They talk fast, say nothing, and don't know what the hell they're gabbing about. I guess show hosts Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade are supposed to be entertaining, but the only aspect of the show that is -- and that's a stretch -- are Gretchen's legs.
Other than that, I see no real value in the show. And what's more disturbing is that it's the highest rated show in its morning category, over CNN's American Morning. But it's not for intelligent content at all. It is really about Gretchen's blonde hair and short skirt.
That's all it is. In fact, the Fox producers focus on her legs and even had scenes of E. D. Hill's legs in an upskirt fashion! That's the only reason -- the only one -- that Fox is ahead of CNN and MSNBC.
And here's the E.D. Hill segment where she's sitting in a short skirt and in a way that is provacative:
This is the key to the Internet. If you put a hot blonde woman on with a short skirt, people will tune in to see her. Then you can say any stupid thing you want to, and that's what they do.
I can't get over how overtly racist, stupid, and downright misguided "Fox and Friends" cable show is. They talk fast, say nothing, and don't know what the hell they're gabbing about. I guess show hosts Gretchen Carlson, Steve Doocy, and Brian Kilmeade are supposed to be entertaining, but the only aspect of the show that is -- and that's a stretch -- are Gretchen's legs.
Other than that, I see no real value in the show. And what's more disturbing is that it's the highest rated show in its morning category, over CNN's American Morning. But it's not for intelligent content at all. It is really about Gretchen's blonde hair and short skirt.
That's all it is. In fact, the Fox producers focus on her legs and even had scenes of E. D. Hill's legs in an upskirt fashion! That's the only reason -- the only one -- that Fox is ahead of CNN and MSNBC.
And here's the E.D. Hill segment where she's sitting in a short skirt and in a way that is provacative:
This is the key to the Internet. If you put a hot blonde woman on with a short skirt, people will tune in to see her. Then you can say any stupid thing you want to, and that's what they do.
Barack Obama Before SF Chronicle Editorial Board - Does Well But Chron's Questions and Intent Are Suspect
Senator Barack Obama appeared before the San Francisco Chronicle's Editorial Board today and as this video shows he performed well. He answered questions in incredible detail and showed great thought on the issues of the day. Senator Obama has particularly clear command of the matter of the security industry problem and the politics behind the heath care issue as well as energy policy.
I think where he seemed to confuse SF Chronicle Chief Phil Bronstein is in the statement that he "generally uses the truth" where Obama was explaining that he's not going to say something that makes a Democratic collegue look bad.
It seeme to me that Phil was more looking for weakness in what Obama said than paying attention to context and words. For example, Obama -- on the issue of how to exact change in the health care system -- said that it was necessary to use (not his exact words) some shame, by having a more open process so that one can hear if a legislator was on the side of the insurance providers, or not.
But Bronstein seemed to focus on just the use of the term "shame" and took that out of context to apply it in a general sense but forgetting the orginal conversation. That's what ones does when they seek weakness -- they don't see that the weakness is not there because the desire to be "right" in their search overwhelms any sensible thought and consideration.
I'm also very surprised that in the Internet capital of the United States there was no question regarding technology! How the Chronicle coule miss that is beyond me.
Also, Senator Obama, after the questions were over, said "Maybe we should adress this off the record," in a conversation about "experience" but the camera kept going. That was when Phil Bronstein tried to zero in on the way that Washington is caused to change in policy response. You know, the "shame" conversation. At that point, I expected the camera to be turned off, but that didn't happen. That's not right in my view. Off the record is off the record. Period.
I'm also interested in why the SF Chronicle made the video public so that Senator Obama's opponents -- who did not go before the editorial board, yet -- can see the cast and base their responses on it. The only way to blunt this obvious development is to have a nearly totally different set of questions. Otherwise, the process is not fair at all.
Let's keep an eye on what the Chronicle does.
Mitt Romney Confronts An AP Reporter On Lobbyists
Ok. Many liberals will not like this, but at first presidential candidate Mitt Romney did not "clash" with a reporter as Bill Clinton did. He calmly answered the question -- at first. At first, I thought the reporter came off as a confrontational jerk who seemed to have an axe to grind, and he was doing just that.
The dust-up started as Romney was stating that Lobbyists were not in charge of his campaign. The AP reporter pointed to an advisor to the campaign who's a lobbyist and tried to "fit" the role of advisor into that of campaign head.
Does not work.
But when I saw the complete video, I came away with a different view because after the initial press conference, Romney came back and seemed to confront the reporter, who really was doing a job of asking a question regarding being honest and not giving the idea that lobbyists have no involvement at all. What Mitt should have done is just said "You're right, I mispoke about that; he's an advisor and even though he is, he's also is a lobbyist but has no "control roll" in my campaign."
But Mitt didn't do that.
The dust-up started as Romney was stating that Lobbyists were not in charge of his campaign. The AP reporter pointed to an advisor to the campaign who's a lobbyist and tried to "fit" the role of advisor into that of campaign head.
Does not work.
But when I saw the complete video, I came away with a different view because after the initial press conference, Romney came back and seemed to confront the reporter, who really was doing a job of asking a question regarding being honest and not giving the idea that lobbyists have no involvement at all. What Mitt should have done is just said "You're right, I mispoke about that; he's an advisor and even though he is, he's also is a lobbyist but has no "control roll" in my campaign."
But Mitt didn't do that.
Obama Is Right About Reagan | Reagan Changed The Country
Some people are upset that Senator Barack Obama referred to Ronald Reagan's presidency as a major era of change. Well, the simple fact of the matter is that Senator Obama's right. I clearly remember being really upset that President Reagan had a silver-tongued way of swaying not just Republicans but many Democrats over to his agenda. Indeed, Reagan's presidency wrecked the Democratic Party for almost 20 years and it seemed that we'd never regain power.
That's what Obama's talking about and to ignore his point is to show an ignorance of political history.
Bill Clinton Nevada Lawsuit Melt-Down Captured; President Looks Desparate
This video captures President Bill Clinton at his worst and it's not the first time in this presidential campaign that he's looked this way. But it comes just before the day -- Thursday -- when the lawsuit to halt the Nevada Caucus was tossed out of court. Not only does Clinton get aggressive with this KGO-TV (San Francisco / Oakland) reporters, Clinton did not answer the question if the lawsuit would have been filed had the Cullinary Workers Union endorsed Hillary Clinton; instead, they backed Senator Barack Obama.
The obvious answer is "no" and President Clinton know it. Here's the video:
The obvious answer is "no" and President Clinton know it. Here's the video:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)