George's Bottom Line: “Sources tell me that the Obama team's review of contacts with Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich will show that Rahm Emanuel had only one phone conversation with Blagojevich.
The contact, described as a "pro-forma" courtesy call, came as Emanuel was named Chief of Staff for Obama. Most of the discussion concerned Emanuel's Congressional seat (which had previously been held by Blagojevich), with only a "passing reference" to the Senate vacancy, according to these sources. No deal for the Senate vacancy was discussed.”
Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts
Showing posts with label ABC News. Show all posts
Sunday, December 21, 2008
Saturday, May 31, 2008
SHAME ON CNN FOR FORCING JESSICA YELLIN TO CHANGE HER STORY
DID YOU SEE THIS:
CNN's Jessica Yellin's turnabout statement taking the blame off her former employer, which was thought in this space to be ABC News and Yellin says was MSNBC. At any rate, here's her new statement:
J
All I can say is SHAME ON CNN for having Yellin make this statement. I seriously doubt she did this on her own. But now the cat's out of the bag and the emperor wears no clothes at all. It's sad to see CNN try to restore it's reputation. Good luck there.
CNN's Jessica Yellin's turnabout statement taking the blame off her former employer, which was thought in this space to be ABC News and Yellin says was MSNBC. At any rate, here's her new statement:
J
essica Yellin
Congressional Correspondent
I find myself in an interesting position. Today the blogs lit up with comments I made last night on AC360° and suddenly I’m being reported on.
It’s not the most comfortable position for a reporter.
So let me clarify what I said and what I experienced.
First, this involved my time on MSNBC where I worked during the lead up to war. I worked as a segment producer, overnight anchor, field reporter, and briefly covered the White House, the Pentagon, and general Washington stories.
Also, let me say: No, senior corporate leadership never asked me to take out a line in a script or re-write an anchor intro. I did not mean to leave the impression that corporate executives were interfering in my daily work; my interaction was with senior producers. What was clear to me is that many people running the broadcasts wanted coverage that was consistent with the patriotic fever in the country at the time. It was clear to me they wanted their coverage to reflect the mood of the country.
And now I’m going back to work covering the Puerto Rico primary from San Juan.
All I can say is SHAME ON CNN for having Yellin make this statement. I seriously doubt she did this on her own. But now the cat's out of the bag and the emperor wears no clothes at all. It's sad to see CNN try to restore it's reputation. Good luck there.
Thursday, April 17, 2008
ABC= Assault Black Candidate Obama Smeared by ABC News In Debate
Once again, ABC News showed its biased and unprofessional approach in this election year with a debate last night that seemed not to be that at all, but an attempt to assault Senator Barack Obama.
Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolos should be fired for this. They were terrible. It's a good think Obama weathered the storm, but this was supposed to be a debate anyway.
Charlie Gibson and George Stephanapolos should be fired for this. They were terrible. It's a good think Obama weathered the storm, but this was supposed to be a debate anyway.
Tuesday, February 19, 2008
Did Officer Wiley Willis Do Brutality Against Angela Garbarino
In my opinion this is an excellent example of a police officer terrorizing a person and turning off a camera himself to continue an act of brutality. This happened in Shreveport, LA and to one Angela Garbarino . who was arrested on suspicion of DUI by Officer Wiley Willis, who has been fired.
But this again shed light on why some -- not all -- police officers are allowed to behave in this way. It wrecks the very idea of "protect and to serve." How can you feel protected by people who can act like this?
Here's the rest of the story, from ABC News:
A Louisiana police officer was fired after a woman, who was pulled over on the suspicion of a DWI, ended up with two black eyes and bruises to her face while in police custody in November.
Video
DWI Suspect in Pool of Blood: How Did it Happen?
What makes Angela Garbarino's injuries and situation more curious is the fact that Shreveport police Officer Wiley Willis turned off the interrogation-room camera after he and Garbarino exchanged words.
The video shows Garbarino requesting a phone call.
"You're not going to let me call anybody?" she asks on the video. "I have a right to call somebody right now and I know that. Is this on the record?"
The footage documents Wiley attempting to read Garbarino her rights, but he runs out of patience and things get tense. He seems to forcefully put her in a chair.
"Don't touch me again. Get away from me," Garbarino says after a scream.
Then, Wiley walks over to the police camera recording the booking and turns it off. What happens next is a mystery, but when the video resumes the handcuffed Garbarino is sprawled on the floor and silently lying in a pool of her blood.
Another officer arrives and takes a cursory look before Garbarino is wheeled out on a stretcher. In addition to her bruised face, Garbarino's injuries also included two broken teeth.
While Garbarino says Wiley physically abused her, his attorney said what he did was "in accordance with normal practice."
"The suspect again tried to leave the room. In the process of stopping her, she fell and injured herself," said Eron Brainard in a statement to ABC News.
Wiley is appealing his dismissal and police have not brought charges against him because no one knows for sure what occurred.
Meanwhile, Garbarino faces reckless driving, hit-and-run and DWI charges. She has denied the charges.
A Shreveport police spokesperson said no specific law about the phone call exists, but typically suspects are processed, booked and then allowed to make a phone call.
But at least one expert said at the very least Wiley should have called for a female backup.
Wednesday, December 19, 2007
Barack Obama Ahead Of Clinton in Iowa 33 to 29; Edwards at 20 In ABC News Poll
ABC reports that Barack Obama's ahead of Hillary Clinton 33 to 29 in Iowa, with John Edwards at 20 percent. But what's interesting and smelly to me is that the Huffington Post didn't report that, electing to go with a more obscure poll that shows John Edwards out in front, instead of reporting on both polls.
That's not right.
Here's the news the Huff Post doesn't want you to see:
Currently, among likely Democratic caucus-goers in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, 33 percent support Obama, 29 percent Clinton and 20 percent Edwards, with single-digit support for the other Democratic candidates
Yep. He's in front, and in of all places an ABC Poll, which is certainly giving them fits, as they've been trying to bury him in subtle ways for months. Not again.
ABC and CNN and Huff Post should deal with the fact that no one trusts them and their attempts to manipulate public opinion are seen as distrespectful of the voting process and of Americans.
That's not right.
Here's the news the Huff Post doesn't want you to see:
Currently, among likely Democratic caucus-goers in this ABC News/Washington Post poll, 33 percent support Obama, 29 percent Clinton and 20 percent Edwards, with single-digit support for the other Democratic candidates
Yep. He's in front, and in of all places an ABC Poll, which is certainly giving them fits, as they've been trying to bury him in subtle ways for months. Not again.
ABC and CNN and Huff Post should deal with the fact that no one trusts them and their attempts to manipulate public opinion are seen as distrespectful of the voting process and of Americans.
Thursday, December 13, 2007
Ron Paul - ABC News Fix Has Interview Only On Web
This is a terrible bit of news I got from Andrew Sulivan and which he got from The Huff Post's Matt Simon. Apparently Congressman Ron Paul gave an interview to ABC News' John Stossel -- one that ABC didn't show on television, but confined to the World Wide Web.
This is the latest and ultimate example of a mainstream media fix that has been in the works in different forms, from polling to television coverage. New Media to the rescue as bloggers and vloggers uncover a fix that would have determined the election in the past.
No more.
According to Matt Simon, Stossel wrote this:
Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate.
Yeah, right.
Any Internet expert know that television drives web searches. If the interview were shown on ABC, it would have compelled many undecided viewers to go to their computers and search for news on Ron Paul.
ABC either knew this and punted, or didn't know this, and still worked to deny the Paul interview full disemenation. In either case, it's wrong what was done. Here's the ABC interview.
This is the latest and ultimate example of a mainstream media fix that has been in the works in different forms, from polling to television coverage. New Media to the rescue as bloggers and vloggers uncover a fix that would have determined the election in the past.
No more.
According to Matt Simon, Stossel wrote this:
Despite relatively low poll numbers, Paul has had a big influence on the presidential campaign. That's in part because he's raised a ton of money, and in part because of the passionate following he has on the Web. It's one reason we're posting my interview with Paul only on the Internet, where the debate about Paul is very active. In fact, he's the most Googled presidential candidate.
Yeah, right.
Any Internet expert know that television drives web searches. If the interview were shown on ABC, it would have compelled many undecided viewers to go to their computers and search for news on Ron Paul.
ABC either knew this and punted, or didn't know this, and still worked to deny the Paul interview full disemenation. In either case, it's wrong what was done. Here's the ABC interview.
Friday, November 16, 2007
20/20 ABC News: Video Of Kids Picking White Male Criminals Over Good Black Men
You've got to see this video. It is from an ABC News 20/20 segment and shows mostly white kids picking a White Male Criminal -- Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVey -- over a standard, athletic looking Black man, with the idea that the White man was "nice" and a "teacher" where the Black man looked "mean" and "bad."
Where do you suppose they learn those ideas from? It's from home, and parents don't teach their kids how to better think about people and the World around them. Thus, racism is allowed to grow and fester and becomes expressed in paranoid delusion -- a mental illness that must be stamped out.
Thursday, November 01, 2007
Hillary Clinton Still Being Bashed For Poor Drexel Debate Performance
Being the supposed front runner has the one disadvantage of having everything you do or say analyzed and taken-apart. And in this digital world, the results of that work are spread far and wide rapidly. Senator Clinton's poor performance in this debate -- so bad that it may have cost her the nomination. I say may, because she's got another chance on November 15th with CNN.
NBC went on the attack, which places CNN in a bind. If they're too nice to Clinton, they could be seen as favoring her, rather than being good journalists.
Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate - ABC News
October 31, 2007 9:49 AM
For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.
But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.
Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.
Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.
"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that."
She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012. "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.
"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."
Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."
It went on like that.
Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.
Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it."
Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."
Is that Sen. Clinton's view?
Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."
Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.
Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense."
"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."
Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.
Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"
If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?
"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."
"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.
"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"
Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."
It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.
So they, too, pounced.
"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."
Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."
Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.
Thoughts?
-- jpt
October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (86)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/22916048
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate:
User Comments
Here here James!
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 7:08:35 PM
Smith, you wrote: "I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement." You want to impose your own ideals and judgment upon President Bush. But see that is where you have no clue.
President Bush strongly believes -- a true heartfelt conviction -- that the key to peace in the Middle East, and hopefully to the overall War on Terror, is two-fold: (1) Thriving democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq being role models for their neighbors. That eventually the populace of their neighbors will demand democracies in their own countries; (2) The two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he will not waver from his conviction.
Now it is possible that democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. And if that is the case, then there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. But President Bush will not give up on the Middle East. That is why he is so adamant in wanting to win the war in Iraq both from a military and a political standpoint.
A recent poll indicates that 19% of Democrats actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq; and another 20% of Democrats don't know whether the world would be better off or not. Overall, 11% of Americans believe the world would be better off if we lost the war; while 73% disagree. That's because many of you just do not believe that the terrorists are serious about wanting to end Western Civilization and destroying the United States. And you certainly refuse to believe that we ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. But letting al Qaeda have a military victory in Iraq WILL OPEN the gates of Armageddon. And when that happens, losing nearly 3,000 citizens on 9/11 and losing 3,842+ members of the U. S. Armed Forces in Iraq the past 4 1/2 years, will pale in comparison.
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 6:24:44 PM
Millie - I'm sorry if you lost someone in the war but that doesn't make Bush a murderer.
all wars are absurd.
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM
How about we issue the illegal immigrants driver licenses and when they come to pick them up deport them? You know, since they are, you know, illegal and all...
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:22:39 PM
Jim Bob,
If your son or daugther had been killed in Iraq in this absurd war that only Bush and his cronies support, you would not hesitate to call the president a murderer. You do not need to do a lot of homework to verify this fact!! I can only ask, how can he sleep at night????
Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 5:18:15 PM
Alex - When you said, "A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader." I disagree. A leader NEEDS to take into consideration what the people want. Isn't that what our country is based on? Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement. I also understand why candidates will ride the fence on some issues. It's so that they can appeal to more than just one group of people. I understand that we also need someone firm in their beliefs, but when everyone picks on every single word you say, it's hard not to waffle from time to time. Give it a rest, will ya! (And go ahead, pick on my posting too. I know you want to.)
Posted by: Smith | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:20 PM
Spock,
If you think Bush is interested in the welfare of America, please consider the close relationship between King George and the Saudi Royalty and the Bin Laden family. He is interested in the wealthy and the elite, not the US, not the US Constitution, not the US soldier, only the US military because his family makes money when the military uses ordinance. Go ahead and Google "Bush and bin Laden".
Posted by: BooMan | Oct 31, 2007 4:45:43 PM
correction - can not be that dumb
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:29:31 PM
Brenda - Jeff seems ideologically blinded by his hatred for Bush, See Pres Bush ran for the People of the US, not Foreign countries. Who cares if they like us or not.
Kerry did it, Gore did it, I just do not understand why they run for President here if France likes them.
President Bush can be that dumb he beat the Libs twice with the second time a record number of the popular vote, more then even Reagan.
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:28:21 PM
Hey Jake
I got to hand it to you, in one Blog your called a Hilary supporter, and then in this blog your called a Hilary Basher!
Got to wonder!
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:20:36 PM
UGOCHUKWU - Kerry served Honorable, um you forget the question purple hearts, the radio speeches in France, I guess thats honorable for you libs.
Gore? Are you kidding, anybody who Blames the US first can get a Noble Peace Prize! what in the world does his Propaganda Global Warming got to do with Peace, and it shows since they skipped giving it to that woman who saved thousands from the Nazis
Lets see your Clinton/Soros attack on a General who is a Hero
STOP READING LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:13:38 PM
UGOCHUKWU, I don't like Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist (if not a communist). Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society."
CONNECT THE DOTS! First she said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she says it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it shared responsibility for shared prosperity." That is Marxist!
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:00 PM
This is hopeful and perhaps constructive criticism for I do not want to block or interfere with any one candidate at this time. I had been a “key” individual and for the public within the shadows of the U.S. government since the lost of the space shuttle Columbia, and then I became more to the forefront with my concerns over the safety issues within NASA and became a whistle blower, courtroom activist, jailed without trial, lost of family. I am a person who chose to go to Vietnam with the HAWK unit as a marine in 1965 and later became a computer scientist and if people talked with me between the years of 1986 to yesterday they would think of me as a rebel because they had not yet realized they had been so badly mislead and in a fog of marketing of professionals. Today I am very hopeful that our candidates are on both sides genuinely preparing their platform for the best interest of the United States and not for their personal agenda. I am in ill health, and have been since Vietnam, otherwise I would been much more active as a human within our social fabric, our national security is still weak, our environmental protection is much weaker, the national farmers associations will have critical problems, our health system are unfair and in disarray, the national school system is in a “Clear and Present” danger (from all classes and from birth many family‘s are disconnected with their children), etc, etc,. Currently our enemy is genuine and with terrorism, but very soon with the crisis of global environmental losses in food and resources there will be border conflicts, and foreign wars. I am very concerned over the recovery of the United States at this time in our evolutionary period, and who takes command of the U.S. Government. The world cannot function well without a functioning government within the United States, and I believe most of the world governments realize that to be true. I have combated terrorism in South Vietnam and their the street orphans constantly helped me in avoiding contact with the enemy when I was alone and vulnerable, I was under orders not to engage the enemy and not to be captured , but I was also constantly present amongst the civilians. Now decades later I am again in a deep and critical matter that requires attention by national leaders and they choose to abandon me, persecute me, and after it is determined that I am correct, they remain further in distance and only one comes forward with a recent hand shake. The next leader of this nation has a task of recovery of reuniting of rebuilding, and so far I have not seen that spirited platform appear within any of the parties. I hope my reflections and statements are of some use. Note: I use to sing and talk to my children from the day they were born, and I would talk to them about the clothing they wore, or at cafeterias I would let them pick their food even at the early age of 6 months, we had a ongoing open and friendly relationship.
Posted by: Williamwfh | Oct 31, 2007 4:04:10 PM
It is heartening to know that after all the ridicule President Reagan took from democrats for the movie, Bedtime for Bonzo, the frontrunner would only poll 46-48% against “any republican” prior to the debate and most likely only 43% against Bonzo after this debate.
Posted by: flyover | Oct 31, 2007 3:48:20 PM
ABC PULLED MY POST! Is it because I pointed out your bias?
Posted by: jim | Oct 31, 2007 3:46:15 PM
I want to ask if Jake Tapper is favors
one party 'cause every time I check on the comments,it is full of Mrs Clinton
bashers.I posted a comment at one time and went back to check but was not there
any more.I do observe that he has always
posted more of unfavorable comments about the Clinton and nobody else. WHAT IS GOING ON?
Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:45:17 PM
Why didn't she just say "sooner, rather than later," when she meant "never." It worked for the "most ethical administration" before.
Posted by: taxplan | Oct 31, 2007 3:28:54 PM
SHAME,SHAME,SHAME,there we go again folks,the right hate mongers have already started and it is not the general election yet. What are you guys
afraid of on Hillary Clinton? is 'cause
she is a woman? is it cause she is Bill's wife,is it cause you hate mongers
do not like women being in charge? what
is it cause it bugs me why some people
are so narrow minded. You guys last time
I checked went after AL Gore on many
issues like global warming ten years ago
and now he is a nobel peace prize winner
You guys went after John Kerry,a man who
served, I repeat served his country in
Vietnam,you went after former Georgia
senator Maxclelan,a disable vet who lost
both leggs and one ,calling him a liberal 'cause of his stands with the
Irag war. Where are your taugths. This
time you guys are going after her,fool
me once and the country but this time
It is not going to work. Brenda and others bashing,you out of touch right
winggers, get a life 'cause she is going
to be the next president of the united
states.
Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:27:16 PM
If Hilary were a male, this stupid sniping would disappear, and she would be considered according to her merits. Get over it, and I'm sorry... but I wanted so much to believe Obama would take the high road, but he's like a kid poking a dog with a stick. He has much less substance than I would have hoped.
BUT all of these issues are complicated. People are allowed to consider and change their minds - Geez, it shows that they THINK about things - this goes for all the candidates. We now have an administration that NEVER corrects it's views, and it' s HORRIBLE. Let's see what these folk have to offer, not who's the best at sniping.
Posted by: kcareymac | Oct 31, 2007 3:24:03 PM
This seems to be a classic example of the "good Hillary/bad Hillary" personae which, like Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, the junior senator from New York often manifests. When Sen. Clinton doesn't respond to the political attacks and the baiting, she seems competent and presidential; when she triangulates her position and tries to be everything to everybody, she seems indecisive and calculating. The other candidates smelled her blood in the water and began to attack, most deservedly, when she seemingly expressed support for Gov. Spitzer without supporting him. It's obvious she's a follower of Lewis Carroll, but shouldn't be: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."
Posted by: chuck | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:13 PM
So everyone on all the campaigns are reading everything we (the real people) are saying and all their opionions will change tomorrow. Love this country, can't wait to read the news.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:06 PM
I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EARLIER SAYING THAT OBAMA AND CLINTON ANSWERED THE SAME REGARDING THE QUESTION OF ISSUING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT'S IDS TO DRIVE. OBAMA SAID THIS"I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.
That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.
UNLESS YOU WERE OUTSIDE TAKING A BREATHERLIZER TEST, WHAT DID THEY NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING OBAMA'S ANSWER?
HERE IS SENATOR CLINTONS ANSWER:
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.
I WAS JUST AS CONFUSED AS OBAMA!
Posted by: James | Oct 31, 2007 3:17:06 PM
Apparently Hillary supporters are blindsided by the fact that its Bill they really want. Let's face it..after last night's debate, its apparent the woman is an idiot with little integrity. The woman cannot answer a question without blaming someone else thinking that's the answer to the question. Too evasive and non-committal to any issue. Bad for the country not to have answers for issues in our country during a campaign.
Posted by: cbeargal | Oct 31, 2007 3:16:42 PM
I would like someone to win that has actually RAN something. Perhaps been a Governer. Even Rudy with Mayor experience is a little better than a Senator. They are all under qualified to run this country. It would be good to have run a state, money, laws etc.
so they at least have a clue. I believe a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. He will be President she will be his puppet.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:02:24 PM
STEVEN: What the h*ll was that? First, there is a key next to the "A" key on your keyboard...it's called the caps lock key. Push it once. Secondly, are you literate? There were more sentence fragments, run on sentences and spelling mistakes than I have even seen in one location at one time! I tried to read your posting and honestly I don't know what side you are on or what you were trying to say for that matter! YIKES!
Posted by: Julio | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:12 PM
This nation DOES NOT need any more family rule. If Clinton is elected it will have been decades that we have been under the leadership of only 2 families! I thought we broke away from this $%@&* long ago!
Posted by: RW | Oct 31, 2007 2:57:41 PM
The bottom line? As much as I'd like to vote for a woman, I just don't trust Hillary and I don't think she could win the general election. She should put personal ambition aside and do what's best for the party by withdrawing from the race.
Posted by: Bob | Oct 31, 2007 2:54:07 PM
Hey I do not mind them attacking President Bush! It shows their lack of respect for the office, and in doing that shows they do not deserve to take the office. And Also they show ignorance because the last time I read President Bush unfortunately can not run again.
They out right lie, which anybody with a unbrainwashed brian can find out for themselves,
1 - Cancer Death Rates that they said were up, there was a report that cancer Death rates have gone down
2 - Social Security under Clinton was to survive to 2055 but under Bush it went to 2042, well half lie again under Clinton it was to run out in 2037, Pres Bush went up to 2042
3 - Bush Lied - Well where were the facts???
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 2:53:10 PM
Interesting that when pushed to give a clear "yes" or "no" answer she still waffled all around--even later.
If she felt her answer was not clear then she would have insisted on clearing up the issue but she did not. That indicates that she really did not want to clear up the matter--probably as has been pointed out -- because she is afraid of alienating people who diagree with her.
The other candidates and possibly her final Republican opponent will be hitting her hard with continued references like "There you go again without explaining yourself". If she does not come up with a defensive tact to dela with it then it wil be BYE BYE Hillary.
Posted by: John | Oct 31, 2007 2:49:23 PM
They were all eating crow last night about campaign contributions as well. I looked at guys like Dodd and Kucinich, and I have more respect for them now, since they stick to their principals and true to their issues. What is everyone's opinion about Al Gore getting into the race? Does he have time? The true desire?
Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:45:20 PM
They are all weather vanes. Their people read what everyone is saying and jump on the lastest band wagon. So far like I said before, what are they going to do for US? So far nothing. We can bash Bush til we are blue in the face but the point is to replace him, move forward. What are these candidates going to do to make it better? That is what I want to hear. Not what has been done wrong what is going to be done right. Then stick to what they say. That is what I want. But hey I'm an American and it doesn't seem to matter what I want. I am beginning to feel like the minority in this country.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 2:39:53 PM
Look at New York. You have all the Rangels, Sharptons, Clintons, Spitzers, etc. Then people want to know why we in the South still want to seceed.
Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:36:43 PM
Like I heard someone say: Hillary is a weather vane and not a compass. She will go any way the popular wind is blowing. A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:15 PM
Clinton had Vince Foster killed? Riiiiiiiight. But nonetheless, Hillary is not a good choice for the Democratic nominee. She, like McCain, is too power-hungry. She should remain a strong Senatorial Democrat and let someone much more qualified - like Al Gore - run for President.
Posted by: Mike F | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:14 PM
Hillay appears to say whatever will cover the widest swath of opinion. You want to hear yes? Well, thar ya go! But with a qualifier, for those who wanted to hear "no". Got it all covered that way. Defiantly against something? Well so is she, in principle anyway, leave the "in practice" part to her, for she's far more wiley than the commoners, and you'll just have to understand she would've done what you wanted, only she's smarter than you and had to do it her way ultimately. Got that? Good. I was being sarcastic, by the way.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:35 PM
It was funny and revealing of her lack of character, watching her waffle all last night blame everything on Bush and Cheney. Governor Spitzer will give illegals a drivers license and hillary is blaming it on Bush. Yet she and her fellow Senators are ultimately the body that fail to create effective immigrant legislation. Last night she even sidestepped a qustion about tax increases, and blamed it on Haliburton. Hillary Bush is a fake. Spitzer looks like he wears eyeliner...blame that on Bush as well.
Posted by: New Yorker | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:22 PM
The ONE and ONLY reason I would vote for Hillary is to get BILL back in office. She's just there for show and everyone knows its true.
Posted by: JT | Oct 31, 2007 2:27:33 PM
EDWARDS ATTACK THE WOMAN A CHAUVENSITIC EDWARDS DITN GET HIGH SCORE-HE LOST. ALSO HILLARY DONT WANT TO BE IN THE BAG- THEN LATER IT BITE HER- TIM RUSSERT VERY BULL AND TRICKY GUY- HILLARY WAS SMART LAST NIGHT- ONLY THE CLINTON CAN GET BACK IN SHAPE IN OUR AMERICA JUST LIKE BEFORE; AMERICA IS GREAT-AMERICA WS GREAT UNDER THE CLINTON RMEMBER THAT TO ALL YOU AMERICAN PEOPLE OR AMERICAN PEOPLE RMEBER THE GOOD TIMES. WE HAVE GOOD ALMOST EVERYTHING AND WE HAVE SURPLUS REPUBLICAN PARTY BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE BSUH ADM, AND MESSY BUSH ACT LIKE HE HAS A NETAL PROBLEM AS KUSINICH ARGUMENT OR COMMNET. EDWARDS A LOSWR LIAR GEMINI BORN GUY- HE DONT GO NOWHERE. CHAUVENSITIC GUY SHOUD NOT ATTACK AWOMAN/ EVBEN REPUBLICAN- THEYR MOTHERS AND AUNT AND REALTIVES ARE WOMEN. HILLARY SI NON-INCUMBERNT CANDIATE AND WELL EXPREIENCE.55 YEARS IN CHCILDREN ADVOCATE /WOMNE AND WOEMN RIGHTS AND ETC. SHES GOOD WE NED A LADY LIKE HER- WISH ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH ALL HER GOOD THINGS SHE DID DURING HER HHUSBAND TERMS. GOD BLESS YOU HILLARY UR THE EBST IN MY OPINION.
UR CARING LADY OTHER NOT GOOD. JUST TLAK NO SUSBTANCE.
Posted by: STEVEN | Oct 31, 2007 2:26:02 PM
Clinton had Vince Foster killed after she had an affair with him. This doesn't even top the list of the crooked things they have done. The Clintons are such scoundrels.
Posted by: Marlena | Oct 31, 2007 2:12:33 PM
Just a note: having an editor go through your article(s), or at the very least, proof-reading them before they're available for public viewing can go a long way.
Posted by: Rodney | Oct 31, 2007 2:05:35 PM
Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM
Wow doesn't that qualify all politicians? Not just Bush. How about Mr. Clinton? Some just aren't caught yet and others don't make the news.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:58 PM
She made many mistakes last night. She troubles me greatly.
Posted by: Dennis | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:48 PM
This article has some grammatical mistakes. Consider running it through spellcheck again.
Posted by: michael | Oct 31, 2007 1:50:21 PM
Doesn't matter unless she flip-flops on Israel ( and she won't do that. She is more ambitious than ethical).
Then they will flush her.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 31, 2007 1:48:02 PM
Given the fact that no one on this board is privy to more that 5% of the intelligence information presented to the President on a daily basis, please explain how you can determine Bush's level of intelligence. Anyone who has spoken with him will tell you he is an extraordinarily intelligent person. Yes, maybe he struggles speaking in public, but this is not an indication of his intelligence...unless you feel that you can judge a person's entire character and intelligence level by the few times a year you see him on TV... But enough about Bush, this article isn't about him.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:47:02 PM
Jeff: This article has nothing to do with Bush. In case you don't know, he didn't debate last night. You constantly bashing Bush every opportunity you get shows who you really are...a liberal democrat with no other agenda but "hate-Bush". Let's focus on the issues at hand instead of using this as a platform to launch your agenda.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:42:35 PM
I say we ammend the constitution and put BUSH/CHENEY in for four more years.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:41:17 PM
Jeff: Typical liberal comment...change the subject by making a "hate-Bush" comment. 1) Bush has nothing to do with Hillary's flip-flopping. 2) Bush has remained constant in his stance (whether you agree with him or not) for seven years...he hasn't changed his values for political gain. 3) Even if you think Bush is the "village idiot", that's no reason to elect Hillary...stupidest arguement I ever heard (transparent attempt to use this article to promote your liberal "hate-Bush" agenda). 4) The reason people around the world don't think Hillary is an idiot is simply because they don't know her yet. I would venture to guess that many around the world think she's a fool for turning a blind eye to her husband's sexcapades for the past 20 years. Any femanist should think she's an idiot with no values...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:39:45 PM
SteveW, I agree. Last night won't dissuade her voters, most of whom are, as you indicate, lukewarm to begin with. Her supporters also a progressive bunch, and she managed to stay on message with respect to progressive causes (immigration reform, alt min repeal) albeit flimsily. I think.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Oct 31, 2007 1:36:21 PM
Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM
Hillary has no plans. Anything she is telling you now is nothing more than a political promise. I live in NY and when she campaigned for Senator she promised the world...so far she has delivered nothing, and I do mean "nothing". And she can't blame it on being stopped by republicans either because this state is vastly democratic, both in population and leadership. She's a power-monger who will say anything to gain more power...she doesn't give a rat's #$%^& about the people who elect her.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:32:17 PM
Brenda - Kind-of like all the misinformed people that voted for Bush. It too late to erase all damage he has done to the US. Atleast one thing that H. Clinton has is people around the world don't think she is the village idiot.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:30:48 PM
ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:50 PM
ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:43 PM
Millie: Calling the President a murderer is a pretty serious claim...I hope you done all your homework and you're not just jumping on the liberal "hate-Bush" band-wagon. As for Ku-sin-ich, I think he showed his true colors last night. People may not like Bush, but I think his comments were uncalled for and showed who he really is. But I don't expect anything less from a liberal...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:36 PM
WE want to know WHO is in New York! WE want to know WHO is everywhere. Hillary is part of the WE! Beware of the WE! WE have plans.
Posted by: GM | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:53 PM
SteveW: That was very well put. The driver's license issue is crystal clear to me...illegals tend to favor liberals because they, by-and-large, support amnisty. Who are they going to vote for? You are correct though, she only has a handful of core supporters. Right now, she is completely beholden to the far left to sustain the support of organizations like MoveOn.org and the Democracy Alliance (aka George Soros and his money). For this reason she only has the extreme far left as her base. Once she gets the nomination, watch how fast she runs back to the middle. My fear is that her support will grow among moderates and then if she is elected, she will show who she really is, a socialist...but by that time, it will be too late.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:48 PM
I am a 100% Obama suporter and think he did a terrific job last night bringing up important issues without insulting anyone. However, regarding the question asked of Kucinich, as a science teacher I must clarify that a UFO is an unidentified flying object and many people have seen them. It is just an object that does not look like an airplane or other identifiable craft. It may be a meteor, or even a piece of space debris entering the atmosphere. It does not have to be aliens! As to Bush being mentally ill, I can see no other rational explanation to all the bullying, arrogance, and plain murder he has committed.
Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 1:20:04 PM
If "illegal alian" = "undocumented worker" then does "drug dealer" = "unlicensed pharmacist"?
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:12:08 PM
I haven't seen but a few outright Hillary supporters on this blog, which is the only one I post on. Even when I go to blogs with 'liberal' or 'progressive' in the blog title, I see less than wholehearted support for Hillary-corp, as if she's the lesser of eight evils, and they want the 90's back. They don't care that she won't answer a direct question until her handlers have a day or so to do some polling and spin out a position. Many of her few strong supporters, though, like what she REALLY believes. She said last night that we should have passed the Immigration Reform Bill--it failed because a huge majority of Americans oppose blanket amnesty--but her few core supporters want that. She flip-flopped badly on the New York drivers license for illegals question--because she knows that a huge majority of New Yorkers are against it. But her few core supporters want drivers licenses for illegals, because once they have drivers licenses, they can VOTE...illegally, of course, but to Hillary supporters, a vote is a vote. She said last night that she would pare down the military by BILLIONS of dollars, yet she conceded that she would have to continue the war against terrorism for YEARS!!! That, of course, doesn't make practical sense, but her few core supporters want those drastic military cuts that the majority of Americans don't want. Her performance last night was not good--that is true. It was not good because she got caught a few times saying what she really thinks....and once the rest of America knows what she REALLY believes, it's over for her. Really.
Posted by: SteveW | Oct 31, 2007 1:11:04 PM
Her answer on the driver's license issue was stupid. How is giving an illegal a driver's license going to "bring about comprehensive immigration reform"? This was just an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. She then said that the possibility of them having an accident and harming someone is great. So...how is giving them a driver's license going to help? They will still be driving on the same roads with the same vehicles. All this does is makes the government issued driver's license a non-valid form of identification because anyone can get one. Brilliant idea!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:09:34 PM
I am just so sick of all of this so soon. The reality is not a one of these people will do this country any good. They have not YET said what they will do for this country. Too busy bashing each other. Try that first and I may listen. If elections were today I would not vote. It doesn't matter who we get our government is a joke. They do not work together they try to upstage each other. Sad for this country. Hilary has been in NYS for a few years and all she has done for us is promote her book and her election. Do we still have to pay her?
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:04:04 PM
The question on UFO's was irrelevant.We all have seen strange things-especially when it comes to the political system. I have more tust in the UFO's and I haven't seen one.
Posted by: D. Kerns | Oct 31, 2007 1:02:38 PM
Jerry, if you call getting called to the carpet for talking out both sides of her mouth for political gain "ganging up on Hillary" so be it, but if people are ignorant enough to elect someone who is obviously only out for herself and power, then we deserve what we get...a socialist who wants to tax us to the gills and turn us into a anti-capitalism, socialist country. BTW, anyone will get Bush out of office in '08...it's the end of his 2nd term...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:01:08 PM
I think they should have pushed her for a yes or no answer. I was a Clinton supporter in the beginning when she announced her candidacy, but after reading up on her position and watching her in debates, I am honestly not sure where she stands on many things for precisely the reason demonstrated in this debate; she answers questions on issues based on the political value of the answer and not based on what she actually thinks. That is unacceptable in every way. I think both Obama and Edwards are far better choices at this point. Although I have to say that the best overall candidate from either party remains the Republican, Dr. Ron Paul. All the other GOP candidates are garbage though.
Posted by: Tom G | Oct 31, 2007 1:00:41 PM
Step One: Triangulate - take all sides of a position.
Step Two: If step one fails, blame Bush (even though Congress stalled his comprehensive immigration proposal).
The most telling sentence from Hillary was "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.'" Well, as President and a leader, you have to make decisions so get used to 'gotcha'.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 31, 2007 12:59:23 PM
Did you noticed at last night's Democratic debate that Hillary have set
aside that hyena's laugh (cuckle) despite the attacks thrown at her ? Remember how she tried to parry Tim and George's tough question with it on their shows with the prolonged cuckle ? Where was her vaunted counter punch as she bragged of decking her attackers ? I don't know if this debate will change the dynamic of the campaign, but certainly it affirms that Hillary is a very pliable candidate that in Tech hardware lingo, she is classified as a programmable chip. So, I therefore categorized the debate as a Hillary Reset. What do you think ?
Posted by: wilson | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:25 PM
Ok, according to the state of New York you must have a drivers license and valid insurance to drive in the State of New York. If illegal immigrants are driving now without a license and insurance and risking the consequences, what is a 2nd law stating the same thing going to do to stop them?
If Hillary is such an "intuitive thinker", why didn't she think of that?
Let's face it, having Hillary in office would be no different than GWB or her husband Billy. Yet another administration based on lies and only thinking about themselves.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 31, 2007 12:55:04 PM
Sorry...Hillary is the front-runner and I'm not willing to turn my country over to a flip-flopping socialist while you people hem and haw trying to make up your minds who to vote for. If you don't want to hear the truth, read something else!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:53:01 PM
Its obvious the other candidates are getting desperate and the media wants to create some conflict so its lets gang up on Hillary time. Stiop trying to dissect every word she says into several possible meanings and get on with getting BUSH out of office. She's the only one capable of doing that at this time.
Posted by: Jerry | Oct 31, 2007 12:52:51 PM
For God's sake, everyone. WHY are you STILL picking on Hillary? Give those of us who haven't made up our minds who to vote for a chance to evaluate her and the other candidates rationally. So until we do, just SHUT UP, stop muddying her name, and let us decide in peace!!
Posted by: Veronica | Oct 31, 2007 12:46:00 PM
I was looking forward to having a women president. What we are going to get is just another politician, is as simple as that. I used to respect Hillary Clinton, but lately as I pay more attention to what she says and does that respect is gone. Calling NY State ILLEGAL Aliens, undocumented immigrants is just a playing with words. They are not entitle to driver licenses, 3/4 of her constituent's do not agree with this plan. Does she listen to them? No!
Voting yes to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, just what Bush needs to declare war with Iran. Did she not learn from the mistake that the Iraq war has turned out to be.
Shame on her, Congress and look for nothing to change in the White House.
Posted by: A Soldier's Mom | Oct 31, 2007 12:43:05 PM
I was a democrat / Hillary supporter until earlier this year when I took a step back, disregarded all the bias and "republican hate" I was being fed and looked at the facts and what was best for our country. The results were amazing. I was blinded to the truth for so long by all the propaganda the liberal media and democrat party was feeding me. Holy crap! I can see how people can't see the truth amid the limited information that is out there, but I would encourage people to think about the level of character a president should have. Bush may not be perfect, but he has stuck to his convictions and hasn't waivered. The Clinton machine is an agenda driven organization. There is no concern for the American people, just power. Open your eyes people!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:37:56 PM
Interesting that you don't mention that Obama also said that he could see issuing the driver's license as an issue of 'public safety' and also declined to endorse, or attack the govenor's plan. I like Hillary and Obama and they both answered the same on this issue, but, Hillary gets all the criticism. Our fine media at work.
Posted by: k | Oct 31, 2007 12:31:23 PM
What came to the surface last night is just the tip of the iceberg. She has no values, she has no principles. All she is concerned about is being popular so if that means changing her stance on key issues depending on who she's talking to, she has no problem with that. Frankly, I don't think anyone can lead a nation without values. A compass, not a weathervane will lead you forward. PS...she also has no qualifications to be president regardless of what she lies, uh I mean tells you.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:29:20 PM
I only caught a portion of the debate last night. I found Sen. Biden's and Sen. Dodd's comments about them fearing Pakistan more than Iran very interesting. YET neither one of them -- at least during the time that I was watching -- attacked Sen. Obama for his comment from several weeks ago saying he would be willing to invade Pakistan.
Now as for issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, it is a huge mistake. That actually makes that individual "legal" -- at least at the state level. And then the individual is free to drive LEGALLY anywhere in the country.
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 12:16:32 PM
Senator Clinton is finally being confronted about her trying to preach to the croud saying what she thinks a specific group wants to hear. Not the truth on the issues that most americans want to hear. She wants to attack Bush and that is the basis of her campaign . The only problem with that is everyone agrees with her position on Bush.
Posted by: John McMichael | Oct 31, 2007 12:13:28 PM
Hillary is not the best candidate and it is not a matter of male of female. Mrs Clinton like her husband will say anything as long it gets her in power.
Why she did not ran for Senate for her own State? because she knew she will have been a sure looser period. I will never waste my vote on her.
Posted by: Franco | Oct 31, 2007 12:10:43 PM
Oh poor Tim Russert. There will be hell to pay for him now. The Clintons don't mess around. Better put up an electric security fence Tim, like Juanita Brodderick had to do.
Posted by: JRB | Oct 31, 2007 12:05:10 PM
Hillary kick off your shoes get in the kitchen and cook us something.........
Posted by: Roostercruiser843 | Oct 31, 2007 12:01:06 PM
Well, for me, I didn't go "huh" when you quoted Hillary's comments about giving illegal taxi drivers licenses and suggested it was a contradiction. (?!)
All she said is that she understood why the governor WOULD do it (i.e., to counter a flaw in the current system).
This is typical of intuitive thinkers -- they can follow various arguments and even articulate them to others, all without it being any sort of endorsement.
She was simply explaining the governor's reasoning, but she was not necessarily endorsing his solution at this time. If she had been endorsing it, she would have explicitly said so.
Shame on the others for capitalizing on this "mistake" in how she expressed herself. It's one reason I hate election season... people are more concerned with ripping holes in each other's comments rather than working together to accomplish a task.
Posted by: Jennifer | Oct 31, 2007 12:00:58 PM
Hillary showed America the true Hillary-a person with very little principles who will say and do anything for power--thoughts of Machivelli, Stalin and Lenin come to mind. She will destroy the dems if they persist in promoting her. They have good people in Biden and Obama but are obsessed with calculating Clinton and it ain't gonna fly folks.
Posted by: rockychance | Oct 31, 2007 11:53:32 AM
I think that they are trying to twist what Hillary said...the Governor is trying to do something to make sure that everyone driving in New York State is license, and insurance, is it the best plan, maybe not, but he is coming up with a plan to make the roads safer. I think she clearly stated that the Federal Government should have been doing something about the illegal immigrants, not State by State, I understood her and would vote for her and I think she would make the best President, and any one of the other men running should be proud that she is on their team and work with her not against her.
Posted by: Anita Kramer | Oct 31, 2007 11:49:15 AM
I think that driver's licenses should be considered as licenses to drive. Does that make sense? I mean, state-issued driver's licenses should not necessarily be used by the federal government to control borders. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Posted by: reyonthehill | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:19 AM
Gotcha Hillary! The perils of being the frontrunner.
Posted by: megan | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:01 AM
Ahh! the Gotcha point! I think Obama finally got teeth, good for him, even thou I would never vote for any of the socialists I am glad to see them standing up to Clinton.
Hilary has always flipped-flopped, worse then Kerry has ever done!
Thou you got put something up about Kuninch calling Bush mentally ill, but in the same time saying he saw little green men (UFO's)
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 9:58:48 AM
NBC went on the attack, which places CNN in a bind. If they're too nice to Clinton, they could be seen as favoring her, rather than being good journalists.
Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate - ABC News
October 31, 2007 9:49 AM
For the first section of last night's Democratic debate -- during the entire section on that arcane Kyl-Lieberman amendment on Iran -- frontrunner Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, held her own just fine, I thought, and her reluctance to engage in the tit-for-tat bickering served her well.
But then something must have happened during that first commercial break.
Because when we came back, she seemed obfuscatory and less than forthright.
Take the question on whether or not she would allow the National Archives to open up more records of her husband's presidency -- a pertinent one given her declaration that her eight years as First Lady constitutes "experience," not to mention her husband's request that the National Archives keep their communications sealed until 2012.
"The Archives is moving as rapidly as the Archives moves," she said. 'There's about 20 million pieces of paper there. And they are move, and they are releasing as they do their process. And I am fully in favor of that."
She was pressed on her husbands request that any communication between the two of them not be made available to the public until 2012. "Would you lift that ban?" she was asked by moderator Tim Russert.
"Well, that's not my decision to make, and I don't believe that any president or first lady ever has. But, certainly, we're move as quickly as our circumstances and the processes of the
National Archives permits."
Said Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois: "We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history. And not releasing, I think, these records at the same time, Hillary, that you're making the claim that this is the basis for your experience, I think, is a problem."
It went on like that.
Russert flatly accused her of being duplicitous on Social Security, saying to him and at an AARP-hosted debate that she would not increasing Social Security taxes, then telling a teacher -- and being overheard by an AP reporter -- that she would consider it. "Why do you have one public position and one private position?" Russert asked.
Clinton denied she did, saying -- when pressed on her private conversation with a teacher -- that "everybody knows what the possibilities are, Tim. Everybody knows that. But I do not advocate it. I do not support it."
Then came questions about the tax reform proposal offered by one of her biggest supporters, Rep. Charles Rangel, D-NY, chair of the House Ways and Means Committee. Campaigning with Rangel and his wife, former President Bill Clinton on Saturday said, "Charlie Rangel wants me to pay more taxes so you can pay less and I think that's a good idea."
Is that Sen. Clinton's view?
Clinton declared herself a "great admirer of Chairman Rangel." Then she said "I don't know all the details of what Charlie is recommending, but I certainly agree with the goal."
Then she sounded as if she was quite familiar with the details of what Rangel is recommending.
Then she said "I don't agree with all the details, but he's on the right track to say we've got to do something about" the Alternative Minimum Tax.
Her worst moment came at the end of the debate, (watch it HERE) when asked about a comment she gave to a New Hampshire newspaper that New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's controversial proposal to give driver's licenses to illegal immigrants "makes a lot of sense."
"What Governor Spitzer is trying to do is fill the vacuum left by the failure of this administration to bring about comprehensive immigration reform," she said. "We know in New York we have several million at any one time who are in New York illegally. They are undocumented workers. They are driving on our roads. The possibility of them having an accident that harms themselves or others is just a matter of the odds. It's probability. So what Governor Spitzer is trying to do is to fill the vacuum."
Then Sen. Chris Dodd, D-Conn., took issue with Spitzer's proposal.
Clinton then interjected -- "Well, I just want to add, I did not say that it should be done, but I certainly recognize why Governor Spitzer is trying to do…"
If you paid attention you might have felt hundreds of thousands of Americans go: HUH?
"No, no, no," Dodd said. "You said -- you said yes, you thought it made sense to do it."
"No, I didn't, Chris," said Clinton.
"Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard," said Russert. "Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?"
Clinton got defensive. "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.' It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows. He's making an honest effort to do it. We should have passed immigration reform."
It fed into the meme that Obama and former Sen. John Edwards, D-NC, had been pushing all night -- that Clinton is calculating and less than honest.
So they, too, pounced.
"Unless I missed something, Senator Clinton said two different things in the course of about two minutes just a few minutes ago," Edwards said. "And I think this is a real issue for the country. I mean, America is looking for a president who will say the same thing, who will be consistent, who will be straight with them. Because what we've had for seven years is double-talk from Bush and from Cheney, and I think America deserves us to be straight."
Added Obama: "Well, I was confused on Senator Clinton's answer. I can't tell whether she was for it or against it. And I do think that is important. One of the things that we have to do in this country is
to be honest about the challenges that we face."
Clinton is still the frontrunner, and has a commanding lead. But it was shaky performance, with the grand finale of the debate being a devastating punch delivered by … Clinton herself.
Thoughts?
-- jpt
October 31, 2007 | Permalink | User Comments (86)
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/22916048
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Gets Poor Grades at Drexel Debate:
User Comments
Here here James!
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 7:08:35 PM
Smith, you wrote: "I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement." You want to impose your own ideals and judgment upon President Bush. But see that is where you have no clue.
President Bush strongly believes -- a true heartfelt conviction -- that the key to peace in the Middle East, and hopefully to the overall War on Terror, is two-fold: (1) Thriving democracies in Afghanistan and Iraq being role models for their neighbors. That eventually the populace of their neighbors will demand democracies in their own countries; (2) The two-state solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict. Therefore, he will not waver from his conviction.
Now it is possible that democracy will never take hold in the Middle East. And if that is the case, then there will NEVER be peace in the Middle East. But President Bush will not give up on the Middle East. That is why he is so adamant in wanting to win the war in Iraq both from a military and a political standpoint.
A recent poll indicates that 19% of Democrats actually believe that the world would be a better place if the United States were to lose the War in Iraq; and another 20% of Democrats don't know whether the world would be better off or not. Overall, 11% of Americans believe the world would be better off if we lost the war; while 73% disagree. That's because many of you just do not believe that the terrorists are serious about wanting to end Western Civilization and destroying the United States. And you certainly refuse to believe that we ARE fighting al Qaeda in Iraq. But letting al Qaeda have a military victory in Iraq WILL OPEN the gates of Armageddon. And when that happens, losing nearly 3,000 citizens on 9/11 and losing 3,842+ members of the U. S. Armed Forces in Iraq the past 4 1/2 years, will pale in comparison.
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 6:24:44 PM
Millie - I'm sorry if you lost someone in the war but that doesn't make Bush a murderer.
all wars are absurd.
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:45:10 PM
How about we issue the illegal immigrants driver licenses and when they come to pick them up deport them? You know, since they are, you know, illegal and all...
Posted by: southern_bell | Oct 31, 2007 5:22:39 PM
Jim Bob,
If your son or daugther had been killed in Iraq in this absurd war that only Bush and his cronies support, you would not hesitate to call the president a murderer. You do not need to do a lot of homework to verify this fact!! I can only ask, how can he sleep at night????
Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 5:18:15 PM
Alex - When you said, "A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader." I disagree. A leader NEEDS to take into consideration what the people want. Isn't that what our country is based on? Politicians are supposed to represent their constituents' wishes. I'd rather a president, or whomever for that matter, change their stance and say "I was wrong", rather than let their pride override their better judgement. I also understand why candidates will ride the fence on some issues. It's so that they can appeal to more than just one group of people. I understand that we also need someone firm in their beliefs, but when everyone picks on every single word you say, it's hard not to waffle from time to time. Give it a rest, will ya! (And go ahead, pick on my posting too. I know you want to.)
Posted by: Smith | Oct 31, 2007 4:56:20 PM
Spock,
If you think Bush is interested in the welfare of America, please consider the close relationship between King George and the Saudi Royalty and the Bin Laden family. He is interested in the wealthy and the elite, not the US, not the US Constitution, not the US soldier, only the US military because his family makes money when the military uses ordinance. Go ahead and Google "Bush and bin Laden".
Posted by: BooMan | Oct 31, 2007 4:45:43 PM
correction - can not be that dumb
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:29:31 PM
Brenda - Jeff seems ideologically blinded by his hatred for Bush, See Pres Bush ran for the People of the US, not Foreign countries. Who cares if they like us or not.
Kerry did it, Gore did it, I just do not understand why they run for President here if France likes them.
President Bush can be that dumb he beat the Libs twice with the second time a record number of the popular vote, more then even Reagan.
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:28:21 PM
Hey Jake
I got to hand it to you, in one Blog your called a Hilary supporter, and then in this blog your called a Hilary Basher!
Got to wonder!
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:20:36 PM
UGOCHUKWU - Kerry served Honorable, um you forget the question purple hearts, the radio speeches in France, I guess thats honorable for you libs.
Gore? Are you kidding, anybody who Blames the US first can get a Noble Peace Prize! what in the world does his Propaganda Global Warming got to do with Peace, and it shows since they skipped giving it to that woman who saved thousands from the Nazis
Lets see your Clinton/Soros attack on a General who is a Hero
STOP READING LIBERAL PROPAGANDA!!
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 4:13:38 PM
UGOCHUKWU, I don't like Sen. Hillary Clinton. Not because she is a woman, but because she is a socialist (if not a communist). Back in May, Sen. Clinton said that what the Bush administration touts as an "ownership society" really is an "on your own" society that has widened the gap between rich and poor. She also said: "It's time for a new beginning, for an end to government of the few, by the few and for the few, time to reject the idea of an "on your own" society and to replace it with shared responsibility for shared prosperity. I prefer a "we're all in it together" society."
CONNECT THE DOTS! First she said that an "ownership society" is really an "on your own" society. Then she says it's time to reject an "on your own" society. Thus she says we should reject an "ownership society" and "replace it shared responsibility for shared prosperity." That is Marxist!
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 4:08:00 PM
This is hopeful and perhaps constructive criticism for I do not want to block or interfere with any one candidate at this time. I had been a “key” individual and for the public within the shadows of the U.S. government since the lost of the space shuttle Columbia, and then I became more to the forefront with my concerns over the safety issues within NASA and became a whistle blower, courtroom activist, jailed without trial, lost of family. I am a person who chose to go to Vietnam with the HAWK unit as a marine in 1965 and later became a computer scientist and if people talked with me between the years of 1986 to yesterday they would think of me as a rebel because they had not yet realized they had been so badly mislead and in a fog of marketing of professionals. Today I am very hopeful that our candidates are on both sides genuinely preparing their platform for the best interest of the United States and not for their personal agenda. I am in ill health, and have been since Vietnam, otherwise I would been much more active as a human within our social fabric, our national security is still weak, our environmental protection is much weaker, the national farmers associations will have critical problems, our health system are unfair and in disarray, the national school system is in a “Clear and Present” danger (from all classes and from birth many family‘s are disconnected with their children), etc, etc,. Currently our enemy is genuine and with terrorism, but very soon with the crisis of global environmental losses in food and resources there will be border conflicts, and foreign wars. I am very concerned over the recovery of the United States at this time in our evolutionary period, and who takes command of the U.S. Government. The world cannot function well without a functioning government within the United States, and I believe most of the world governments realize that to be true. I have combated terrorism in South Vietnam and their the street orphans constantly helped me in avoiding contact with the enemy when I was alone and vulnerable, I was under orders not to engage the enemy and not to be captured , but I was also constantly present amongst the civilians. Now decades later I am again in a deep and critical matter that requires attention by national leaders and they choose to abandon me, persecute me, and after it is determined that I am correct, they remain further in distance and only one comes forward with a recent hand shake. The next leader of this nation has a task of recovery of reuniting of rebuilding, and so far I have not seen that spirited platform appear within any of the parties. I hope my reflections and statements are of some use. Note: I use to sing and talk to my children from the day they were born, and I would talk to them about the clothing they wore, or at cafeterias I would let them pick their food even at the early age of 6 months, we had a ongoing open and friendly relationship.
Posted by: Williamwfh | Oct 31, 2007 4:04:10 PM
It is heartening to know that after all the ridicule President Reagan took from democrats for the movie, Bedtime for Bonzo, the frontrunner would only poll 46-48% against “any republican” prior to the debate and most likely only 43% against Bonzo after this debate.
Posted by: flyover | Oct 31, 2007 3:48:20 PM
ABC PULLED MY POST! Is it because I pointed out your bias?
Posted by: jim | Oct 31, 2007 3:46:15 PM
I want to ask if Jake Tapper is favors
one party 'cause every time I check on the comments,it is full of Mrs Clinton
bashers.I posted a comment at one time and went back to check but was not there
any more.I do observe that he has always
posted more of unfavorable comments about the Clinton and nobody else. WHAT IS GOING ON?
Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:45:17 PM
Why didn't she just say "sooner, rather than later," when she meant "never." It worked for the "most ethical administration" before.
Posted by: taxplan | Oct 31, 2007 3:28:54 PM
SHAME,SHAME,SHAME,there we go again folks,the right hate mongers have already started and it is not the general election yet. What are you guys
afraid of on Hillary Clinton? is 'cause
she is a woman? is it cause she is Bill's wife,is it cause you hate mongers
do not like women being in charge? what
is it cause it bugs me why some people
are so narrow minded. You guys last time
I checked went after AL Gore on many
issues like global warming ten years ago
and now he is a nobel peace prize winner
You guys went after John Kerry,a man who
served, I repeat served his country in
Vietnam,you went after former Georgia
senator Maxclelan,a disable vet who lost
both leggs and one ,calling him a liberal 'cause of his stands with the
Irag war. Where are your taugths. This
time you guys are going after her,fool
me once and the country but this time
It is not going to work. Brenda and others bashing,you out of touch right
winggers, get a life 'cause she is going
to be the next president of the united
states.
Posted by: UGOCHUKWU | Oct 31, 2007 3:27:16 PM
If Hilary were a male, this stupid sniping would disappear, and she would be considered according to her merits. Get over it, and I'm sorry... but I wanted so much to believe Obama would take the high road, but he's like a kid poking a dog with a stick. He has much less substance than I would have hoped.
BUT all of these issues are complicated. People are allowed to consider and change their minds - Geez, it shows that they THINK about things - this goes for all the candidates. We now have an administration that NEVER corrects it's views, and it' s HORRIBLE. Let's see what these folk have to offer, not who's the best at sniping.
Posted by: kcareymac | Oct 31, 2007 3:24:03 PM
This seems to be a classic example of the "good Hillary/bad Hillary" personae which, like Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde, the junior senator from New York often manifests. When Sen. Clinton doesn't respond to the political attacks and the baiting, she seems competent and presidential; when she triangulates her position and tries to be everything to everybody, she seems indecisive and calculating. The other candidates smelled her blood in the water and began to attack, most deservedly, when she seemingly expressed support for Gov. Spitzer without supporting him. It's obvious she's a follower of Lewis Carroll, but shouldn't be: "A word means exactly what I want it to mean, neither more nor less."
Posted by: chuck | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:13 PM
So everyone on all the campaigns are reading everything we (the real people) are saying and all their opionions will change tomorrow. Love this country, can't wait to read the news.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:21:06 PM
I HEARD A COUPLE OF COMMENTS EARLIER SAYING THAT OBAMA AND CLINTON ANSWERED THE SAME REGARDING THE QUESTION OF ISSUING ILLEGAL IMMIGRANT'S IDS TO DRIVE. OBAMA SAID THIS"I think that it is the right idea, and I disagree with Chris because there is a public safety concern. We can make sure that drivers who are illegal come out of the shadows, that they can be tracked, that they are properly trained, and that will make our roads safer.
That doesn't negate the need for us to reform illegal immigration.
UNLESS YOU WERE OUTSIDE TAKING A BREATHERLIZER TEST, WHAT DID THEY NOT UNDERSTAND REGARDING OBAMA'S ANSWER?
HERE IS SENATOR CLINTONS ANSWER:
Russert: Senator Clinton, I just want to make sure of what I heard. Do you, the New York senator, Hillary Clinton, support the New York governor's plan to give illegal immigrants a driver's license?
You told the New Hampshire paper that it made a lot of sense. Do you support his plan?
Clinton: You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays "gotcha." It makes a lot of sense. What is the governor supposed to do? He is dealing with a serious problems. We have failed. And George Bush has failed. Do I think this is the best thing for any governor to do? No. But do I understand the sense of real desperation, trying to get a handle on this? Remember, in New York, we want to know who's in New York. We want people to come out of the shadows.
I WAS JUST AS CONFUSED AS OBAMA!
Posted by: James | Oct 31, 2007 3:17:06 PM
Apparently Hillary supporters are blindsided by the fact that its Bill they really want. Let's face it..after last night's debate, its apparent the woman is an idiot with little integrity. The woman cannot answer a question without blaming someone else thinking that's the answer to the question. Too evasive and non-committal to any issue. Bad for the country not to have answers for issues in our country during a campaign.
Posted by: cbeargal | Oct 31, 2007 3:16:42 PM
I would like someone to win that has actually RAN something. Perhaps been a Governer. Even Rudy with Mayor experience is a little better than a Senator. They are all under qualified to run this country. It would be good to have run a state, money, laws etc.
so they at least have a clue. I believe a vote for Hillary is a vote for Bill. He will be President she will be his puppet.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 3:02:24 PM
STEVEN: What the h*ll was that? First, there is a key next to the "A" key on your keyboard...it's called the caps lock key. Push it once. Secondly, are you literate? There were more sentence fragments, run on sentences and spelling mistakes than I have even seen in one location at one time! I tried to read your posting and honestly I don't know what side you are on or what you were trying to say for that matter! YIKES!
Posted by: Julio | Oct 31, 2007 3:01:12 PM
This nation DOES NOT need any more family rule. If Clinton is elected it will have been decades that we have been under the leadership of only 2 families! I thought we broke away from this $%@&* long ago!
Posted by: RW | Oct 31, 2007 2:57:41 PM
The bottom line? As much as I'd like to vote for a woman, I just don't trust Hillary and I don't think she could win the general election. She should put personal ambition aside and do what's best for the party by withdrawing from the race.
Posted by: Bob | Oct 31, 2007 2:54:07 PM
Hey I do not mind them attacking President Bush! It shows their lack of respect for the office, and in doing that shows they do not deserve to take the office. And Also they show ignorance because the last time I read President Bush unfortunately can not run again.
They out right lie, which anybody with a unbrainwashed brian can find out for themselves,
1 - Cancer Death Rates that they said were up, there was a report that cancer Death rates have gone down
2 - Social Security under Clinton was to survive to 2055 but under Bush it went to 2042, well half lie again under Clinton it was to run out in 2037, Pres Bush went up to 2042
3 - Bush Lied - Well where were the facts???
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 2:53:10 PM
Interesting that when pushed to give a clear "yes" or "no" answer she still waffled all around--even later.
If she felt her answer was not clear then she would have insisted on clearing up the issue but she did not. That indicates that she really did not want to clear up the matter--probably as has been pointed out -- because she is afraid of alienating people who diagree with her.
The other candidates and possibly her final Republican opponent will be hitting her hard with continued references like "There you go again without explaining yourself". If she does not come up with a defensive tact to dela with it then it wil be BYE BYE Hillary.
Posted by: John | Oct 31, 2007 2:49:23 PM
They were all eating crow last night about campaign contributions as well. I looked at guys like Dodd and Kucinich, and I have more respect for them now, since they stick to their principals and true to their issues. What is everyone's opinion about Al Gore getting into the race? Does he have time? The true desire?
Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:45:20 PM
They are all weather vanes. Their people read what everyone is saying and jump on the lastest band wagon. So far like I said before, what are they going to do for US? So far nothing. We can bash Bush til we are blue in the face but the point is to replace him, move forward. What are these candidates going to do to make it better? That is what I want to hear. Not what has been done wrong what is going to be done right. Then stick to what they say. That is what I want. But hey I'm an American and it doesn't seem to matter what I want. I am beginning to feel like the minority in this country.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 2:39:53 PM
Look at New York. You have all the Rangels, Sharptons, Clintons, Spitzers, etc. Then people want to know why we in the South still want to seceed.
Posted by: Alex | Oct 31, 2007 2:36:43 PM
Like I heard someone say: Hillary is a weather vane and not a compass. She will go any way the popular wind is blowing. A President - a leader - should not just do what the masses want, otherwise they'd just be a follower and not a leader.
Posted by: Mark | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:15 PM
Clinton had Vince Foster killed? Riiiiiiiight. But nonetheless, Hillary is not a good choice for the Democratic nominee. She, like McCain, is too power-hungry. She should remain a strong Senatorial Democrat and let someone much more qualified - like Al Gore - run for President.
Posted by: Mike F | Oct 31, 2007 2:32:14 PM
Hillay appears to say whatever will cover the widest swath of opinion. You want to hear yes? Well, thar ya go! But with a qualifier, for those who wanted to hear "no". Got it all covered that way. Defiantly against something? Well so is she, in principle anyway, leave the "in practice" part to her, for she's far more wiley than the commoners, and you'll just have to understand she would've done what you wanted, only she's smarter than you and had to do it her way ultimately. Got that? Good. I was being sarcastic, by the way.
Posted by: Jim | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:35 PM
It was funny and revealing of her lack of character, watching her waffle all last night blame everything on Bush and Cheney. Governor Spitzer will give illegals a drivers license and hillary is blaming it on Bush. Yet she and her fellow Senators are ultimately the body that fail to create effective immigrant legislation. Last night she even sidestepped a qustion about tax increases, and blamed it on Haliburton. Hillary Bush is a fake. Spitzer looks like he wears eyeliner...blame that on Bush as well.
Posted by: New Yorker | Oct 31, 2007 2:28:22 PM
The ONE and ONLY reason I would vote for Hillary is to get BILL back in office. She's just there for show and everyone knows its true.
Posted by: JT | Oct 31, 2007 2:27:33 PM
EDWARDS ATTACK THE WOMAN A CHAUVENSITIC EDWARDS DITN GET HIGH SCORE-HE LOST. ALSO HILLARY DONT WANT TO BE IN THE BAG- THEN LATER IT BITE HER- TIM RUSSERT VERY BULL AND TRICKY GUY- HILLARY WAS SMART LAST NIGHT- ONLY THE CLINTON CAN GET BACK IN SHAPE IN OUR AMERICA JUST LIKE BEFORE; AMERICA IS GREAT-AMERICA WS GREAT UNDER THE CLINTON RMEMBER THAT TO ALL YOU AMERICAN PEOPLE OR AMERICAN PEOPLE RMEBER THE GOOD TIMES. WE HAVE GOOD ALMOST EVERYTHING AND WE HAVE SURPLUS REPUBLICAN PARTY BANKRUPT THE COUNTRY UNDER THE BSUH ADM, AND MESSY BUSH ACT LIKE HE HAS A NETAL PROBLEM AS KUSINICH ARGUMENT OR COMMNET. EDWARDS A LOSWR LIAR GEMINI BORN GUY- HE DONT GO NOWHERE. CHAUVENSITIC GUY SHOUD NOT ATTACK AWOMAN/ EVBEN REPUBLICAN- THEYR MOTHERS AND AUNT AND REALTIVES ARE WOMEN. HILLARY SI NON-INCUMBERNT CANDIATE AND WELL EXPREIENCE.55 YEARS IN CHCILDREN ADVOCATE /WOMNE AND WOEMN RIGHTS AND ETC. SHES GOOD WE NED A LADY LIKE HER- WISH ALL AMERICAN PEOPLE CAN SEE THROUGH ALL HER GOOD THINGS SHE DID DURING HER HHUSBAND TERMS. GOD BLESS YOU HILLARY UR THE EBST IN MY OPINION.
UR CARING LADY OTHER NOT GOOD. JUST TLAK NO SUSBTANCE.
Posted by: STEVEN | Oct 31, 2007 2:26:02 PM
Clinton had Vince Foster killed after she had an affair with him. This doesn't even top the list of the crooked things they have done. The Clintons are such scoundrels.
Posted by: Marlena | Oct 31, 2007 2:12:33 PM
Just a note: having an editor go through your article(s), or at the very least, proof-reading them before they're available for public viewing can go a long way.
Posted by: Rodney | Oct 31, 2007 2:05:35 PM
Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM
Wow doesn't that qualify all politicians? Not just Bush. How about Mr. Clinton? Some just aren't caught yet and others don't make the news.
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:58 PM
She made many mistakes last night. She troubles me greatly.
Posted by: Dennis | Oct 31, 2007 1:53:48 PM
This article has some grammatical mistakes. Consider running it through spellcheck again.
Posted by: michael | Oct 31, 2007 1:50:21 PM
Doesn't matter unless she flip-flops on Israel ( and she won't do that. She is more ambitious than ethical).
Then they will flush her.
Posted by: Rob | Oct 31, 2007 1:48:02 PM
Given the fact that no one on this board is privy to more that 5% of the intelligence information presented to the President on a daily basis, please explain how you can determine Bush's level of intelligence. Anyone who has spoken with him will tell you he is an extraordinarily intelligent person. Yes, maybe he struggles speaking in public, but this is not an indication of his intelligence...unless you feel that you can judge a person's entire character and intelligence level by the few times a year you see him on TV... But enough about Bush, this article isn't about him.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:47:02 PM
Jeff: This article has nothing to do with Bush. In case you don't know, he didn't debate last night. You constantly bashing Bush every opportunity you get shows who you really are...a liberal democrat with no other agenda but "hate-Bush". Let's focus on the issues at hand instead of using this as a platform to launch your agenda.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:42:35 PM
I say we ammend the constitution and put BUSH/CHENEY in for four more years.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:41:17 PM
Jeff: Typical liberal comment...change the subject by making a "hate-Bush" comment. 1) Bush has nothing to do with Hillary's flip-flopping. 2) Bush has remained constant in his stance (whether you agree with him or not) for seven years...he hasn't changed his values for political gain. 3) Even if you think Bush is the "village idiot", that's no reason to elect Hillary...stupidest arguement I ever heard (transparent attempt to use this article to promote your liberal "hate-Bush" agenda). 4) The reason people around the world don't think Hillary is an idiot is simply because they don't know her yet. I would venture to guess that many around the world think she's a fool for turning a blind eye to her husband's sexcapades for the past 20 years. Any femanist should think she's an idiot with no values...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:39:45 PM
SteveW, I agree. Last night won't dissuade her voters, most of whom are, as you indicate, lukewarm to begin with. Her supporters also a progressive bunch, and she managed to stay on message with respect to progressive causes (immigration reform, alt min repeal) albeit flimsily. I think.
Posted by: cordelia525 | Oct 31, 2007 1:36:21 PM
Brenda - Well so far Bush has only delivered the worst case scenario. Lies, deception, arrogance, stupidity, etc, etc, etc... It hard to get any worse than Bush/Cheney.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:35:35 PM
Hillary has no plans. Anything she is telling you now is nothing more than a political promise. I live in NY and when she campaigned for Senator she promised the world...so far she has delivered nothing, and I do mean "nothing". And she can't blame it on being stopped by republicans either because this state is vastly democratic, both in population and leadership. She's a power-monger who will say anything to gain more power...she doesn't give a rat's #$%^& about the people who elect her.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:32:17 PM
Brenda - Kind-of like all the misinformed people that voted for Bush. It too late to erase all damage he has done to the US. Atleast one thing that H. Clinton has is people around the world don't think she is the village idiot.
Posted by: Jeff | Oct 31, 2007 1:30:48 PM
ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:50 PM
ME, the problem is that the political game has turned so nasty that the qualified people for president are not about to subject their familis to it. I dont blame them. Hillary is just an example of what is left over, it's sad.
Posted by: jim bob | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:43 PM
Millie: Calling the President a murderer is a pretty serious claim...I hope you done all your homework and you're not just jumping on the liberal "hate-Bush" band-wagon. As for Ku-sin-ich, I think he showed his true colors last night. People may not like Bush, but I think his comments were uncalled for and showed who he really is. But I don't expect anything less from a liberal...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:28:36 PM
WE want to know WHO is in New York! WE want to know WHO is everywhere. Hillary is part of the WE! Beware of the WE! WE have plans.
Posted by: GM | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:53 PM
SteveW: That was very well put. The driver's license issue is crystal clear to me...illegals tend to favor liberals because they, by-and-large, support amnisty. Who are they going to vote for? You are correct though, she only has a handful of core supporters. Right now, she is completely beholden to the far left to sustain the support of organizations like MoveOn.org and the Democracy Alliance (aka George Soros and his money). For this reason she only has the extreme far left as her base. Once she gets the nomination, watch how fast she runs back to the middle. My fear is that her support will grow among moderates and then if she is elected, she will show who she really is, a socialist...but by that time, it will be too late.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:24:48 PM
I am a 100% Obama suporter and think he did a terrific job last night bringing up important issues without insulting anyone. However, regarding the question asked of Kucinich, as a science teacher I must clarify that a UFO is an unidentified flying object and many people have seen them. It is just an object that does not look like an airplane or other identifiable craft. It may be a meteor, or even a piece of space debris entering the atmosphere. It does not have to be aliens! As to Bush being mentally ill, I can see no other rational explanation to all the bullying, arrogance, and plain murder he has committed.
Posted by: Millie | Oct 31, 2007 1:20:04 PM
If "illegal alian" = "undocumented worker" then does "drug dealer" = "unlicensed pharmacist"?
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:12:08 PM
I haven't seen but a few outright Hillary supporters on this blog, which is the only one I post on. Even when I go to blogs with 'liberal' or 'progressive' in the blog title, I see less than wholehearted support for Hillary-corp, as if she's the lesser of eight evils, and they want the 90's back. They don't care that she won't answer a direct question until her handlers have a day or so to do some polling and spin out a position. Many of her few strong supporters, though, like what she REALLY believes. She said last night that we should have passed the Immigration Reform Bill--it failed because a huge majority of Americans oppose blanket amnesty--but her few core supporters want that. She flip-flopped badly on the New York drivers license for illegals question--because she knows that a huge majority of New Yorkers are against it. But her few core supporters want drivers licenses for illegals, because once they have drivers licenses, they can VOTE...illegally, of course, but to Hillary supporters, a vote is a vote. She said last night that she would pare down the military by BILLIONS of dollars, yet she conceded that she would have to continue the war against terrorism for YEARS!!! That, of course, doesn't make practical sense, but her few core supporters want those drastic military cuts that the majority of Americans don't want. Her performance last night was not good--that is true. It was not good because she got caught a few times saying what she really thinks....and once the rest of America knows what she REALLY believes, it's over for her. Really.
Posted by: SteveW | Oct 31, 2007 1:11:04 PM
Her answer on the driver's license issue was stupid. How is giving an illegal a driver's license going to "bring about comprehensive immigration reform"? This was just an opportunity to take a shot at Bush. She then said that the possibility of them having an accident and harming someone is great. So...how is giving them a driver's license going to help? They will still be driving on the same roads with the same vehicles. All this does is makes the government issued driver's license a non-valid form of identification because anyone can get one. Brilliant idea!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:09:34 PM
I am just so sick of all of this so soon. The reality is not a one of these people will do this country any good. They have not YET said what they will do for this country. Too busy bashing each other. Try that first and I may listen. If elections were today I would not vote. It doesn't matter who we get our government is a joke. They do not work together they try to upstage each other. Sad for this country. Hilary has been in NYS for a few years and all she has done for us is promote her book and her election. Do we still have to pay her?
Posted by: ME | Oct 31, 2007 1:04:04 PM
The question on UFO's was irrelevant.We all have seen strange things-especially when it comes to the political system. I have more tust in the UFO's and I haven't seen one.
Posted by: D. Kerns | Oct 31, 2007 1:02:38 PM
Jerry, if you call getting called to the carpet for talking out both sides of her mouth for political gain "ganging up on Hillary" so be it, but if people are ignorant enough to elect someone who is obviously only out for herself and power, then we deserve what we get...a socialist who wants to tax us to the gills and turn us into a anti-capitalism, socialist country. BTW, anyone will get Bush out of office in '08...it's the end of his 2nd term...
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 1:01:08 PM
I think they should have pushed her for a yes or no answer. I was a Clinton supporter in the beginning when she announced her candidacy, but after reading up on her position and watching her in debates, I am honestly not sure where she stands on many things for precisely the reason demonstrated in this debate; she answers questions on issues based on the political value of the answer and not based on what she actually thinks. That is unacceptable in every way. I think both Obama and Edwards are far better choices at this point. Although I have to say that the best overall candidate from either party remains the Republican, Dr. Ron Paul. All the other GOP candidates are garbage though.
Posted by: Tom G | Oct 31, 2007 1:00:41 PM
Step One: Triangulate - take all sides of a position.
Step Two: If step one fails, blame Bush (even though Congress stalled his comprehensive immigration proposal).
The most telling sentence from Hillary was "You know, Tim, this is where everybody plays 'gotcha.'" Well, as President and a leader, you have to make decisions so get used to 'gotcha'.
Posted by: Kevin | Oct 31, 2007 12:59:23 PM
Did you noticed at last night's Democratic debate that Hillary have set
aside that hyena's laugh (cuckle) despite the attacks thrown at her ? Remember how she tried to parry Tim and George's tough question with it on their shows with the prolonged cuckle ? Where was her vaunted counter punch as she bragged of decking her attackers ? I don't know if this debate will change the dynamic of the campaign, but certainly it affirms that Hillary is a very pliable candidate that in Tech hardware lingo, she is classified as a programmable chip. So, I therefore categorized the debate as a Hillary Reset. What do you think ?
Posted by: wilson | Oct 31, 2007 12:57:25 PM
Ok, according to the state of New York you must have a drivers license and valid insurance to drive in the State of New York. If illegal immigrants are driving now without a license and insurance and risking the consequences, what is a 2nd law stating the same thing going to do to stop them?
If Hillary is such an "intuitive thinker", why didn't she think of that?
Let's face it, having Hillary in office would be no different than GWB or her husband Billy. Yet another administration based on lies and only thinking about themselves.
Posted by: Michael | Oct 31, 2007 12:55:04 PM
Sorry...Hillary is the front-runner and I'm not willing to turn my country over to a flip-flopping socialist while you people hem and haw trying to make up your minds who to vote for. If you don't want to hear the truth, read something else!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:53:01 PM
Its obvious the other candidates are getting desperate and the media wants to create some conflict so its lets gang up on Hillary time. Stiop trying to dissect every word she says into several possible meanings and get on with getting BUSH out of office. She's the only one capable of doing that at this time.
Posted by: Jerry | Oct 31, 2007 12:52:51 PM
For God's sake, everyone. WHY are you STILL picking on Hillary? Give those of us who haven't made up our minds who to vote for a chance to evaluate her and the other candidates rationally. So until we do, just SHUT UP, stop muddying her name, and let us decide in peace!!
Posted by: Veronica | Oct 31, 2007 12:46:00 PM
I was looking forward to having a women president. What we are going to get is just another politician, is as simple as that. I used to respect Hillary Clinton, but lately as I pay more attention to what she says and does that respect is gone. Calling NY State ILLEGAL Aliens, undocumented immigrants is just a playing with words. They are not entitle to driver licenses, 3/4 of her constituent's do not agree with this plan. Does she listen to them? No!
Voting yes to declare the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, just what Bush needs to declare war with Iran. Did she not learn from the mistake that the Iraq war has turned out to be.
Shame on her, Congress and look for nothing to change in the White House.
Posted by: A Soldier's Mom | Oct 31, 2007 12:43:05 PM
I was a democrat / Hillary supporter until earlier this year when I took a step back, disregarded all the bias and "republican hate" I was being fed and looked at the facts and what was best for our country. The results were amazing. I was blinded to the truth for so long by all the propaganda the liberal media and democrat party was feeding me. Holy crap! I can see how people can't see the truth amid the limited information that is out there, but I would encourage people to think about the level of character a president should have. Bush may not be perfect, but he has stuck to his convictions and hasn't waivered. The Clinton machine is an agenda driven organization. There is no concern for the American people, just power. Open your eyes people!
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:37:56 PM
Interesting that you don't mention that Obama also said that he could see issuing the driver's license as an issue of 'public safety' and also declined to endorse, or attack the govenor's plan. I like Hillary and Obama and they both answered the same on this issue, but, Hillary gets all the criticism. Our fine media at work.
Posted by: k | Oct 31, 2007 12:31:23 PM
What came to the surface last night is just the tip of the iceberg. She has no values, she has no principles. All she is concerned about is being popular so if that means changing her stance on key issues depending on who she's talking to, she has no problem with that. Frankly, I don't think anyone can lead a nation without values. A compass, not a weathervane will lead you forward. PS...she also has no qualifications to be president regardless of what she lies, uh I mean tells you.
Posted by: Brenda | Oct 31, 2007 12:29:20 PM
I only caught a portion of the debate last night. I found Sen. Biden's and Sen. Dodd's comments about them fearing Pakistan more than Iran very interesting. YET neither one of them -- at least during the time that I was watching -- attacked Sen. Obama for his comment from several weeks ago saying he would be willing to invade Pakistan.
Now as for issuing driver's licenses to illegal aliens, it is a huge mistake. That actually makes that individual "legal" -- at least at the state level. And then the individual is free to drive LEGALLY anywhere in the country.
Posted by: James Danley | Oct 31, 2007 12:16:32 PM
Senator Clinton is finally being confronted about her trying to preach to the croud saying what she thinks a specific group wants to hear. Not the truth on the issues that most americans want to hear. She wants to attack Bush and that is the basis of her campaign . The only problem with that is everyone agrees with her position on Bush.
Posted by: John McMichael | Oct 31, 2007 12:13:28 PM
Hillary is not the best candidate and it is not a matter of male of female. Mrs Clinton like her husband will say anything as long it gets her in power.
Why she did not ran for Senate for her own State? because she knew she will have been a sure looser period. I will never waste my vote on her.
Posted by: Franco | Oct 31, 2007 12:10:43 PM
Oh poor Tim Russert. There will be hell to pay for him now. The Clintons don't mess around. Better put up an electric security fence Tim, like Juanita Brodderick had to do.
Posted by: JRB | Oct 31, 2007 12:05:10 PM
Hillary kick off your shoes get in the kitchen and cook us something.........
Posted by: Roostercruiser843 | Oct 31, 2007 12:01:06 PM
Well, for me, I didn't go "huh" when you quoted Hillary's comments about giving illegal taxi drivers licenses and suggested it was a contradiction. (?!)
All she said is that she understood why the governor WOULD do it (i.e., to counter a flaw in the current system).
This is typical of intuitive thinkers -- they can follow various arguments and even articulate them to others, all without it being any sort of endorsement.
She was simply explaining the governor's reasoning, but she was not necessarily endorsing his solution at this time. If she had been endorsing it, she would have explicitly said so.
Shame on the others for capitalizing on this "mistake" in how she expressed herself. It's one reason I hate election season... people are more concerned with ripping holes in each other's comments rather than working together to accomplish a task.
Posted by: Jennifer | Oct 31, 2007 12:00:58 PM
Hillary showed America the true Hillary-a person with very little principles who will say and do anything for power--thoughts of Machivelli, Stalin and Lenin come to mind. She will destroy the dems if they persist in promoting her. They have good people in Biden and Obama but are obsessed with calculating Clinton and it ain't gonna fly folks.
Posted by: rockychance | Oct 31, 2007 11:53:32 AM
I think that they are trying to twist what Hillary said...the Governor is trying to do something to make sure that everyone driving in New York State is license, and insurance, is it the best plan, maybe not, but he is coming up with a plan to make the roads safer. I think she clearly stated that the Federal Government should have been doing something about the illegal immigrants, not State by State, I understood her and would vote for her and I think she would make the best President, and any one of the other men running should be proud that she is on their team and work with her not against her.
Posted by: Anita Kramer | Oct 31, 2007 11:49:15 AM
I think that driver's licenses should be considered as licenses to drive. Does that make sense? I mean, state-issued driver's licenses should not necessarily be used by the federal government to control borders. Maybe I'm just old fashioned.
Posted by: reyonthehill | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:19 AM
Gotcha Hillary! The perils of being the frontrunner.
Posted by: megan | Oct 31, 2007 11:20:01 AM
Ahh! the Gotcha point! I think Obama finally got teeth, good for him, even thou I would never vote for any of the socialists I am glad to see them standing up to Clinton.
Hilary has always flipped-flopped, worse then Kerry has ever done!
Thou you got put something up about Kuninch calling Bush mentally ill, but in the same time saying he saw little green men (UFO's)
Posted by: spock | Oct 31, 2007 9:58:48 AM
Monday, September 24, 2007
ABC News And Amada Congdon Still Together For Now
Contrary to many posts, ABC News Vlogging Star Amanda Congdon is still with the network for now. She reports on her blog...
Wow. A girl goes on vacation for a week (my first week off in over a year– I was in production on Christmas!) — and look what I come back to! Whew. Contrary to some reports, AC on ABC WILL resume next week, as I mentioned in my most recent episode. However, I’ve decided not to continue at ABC once our year together is up (and it ain’t up yet) in favor of a new, innovative project that will take every ounce of my time and energy. Brian Stelter over at the New York Times has some accurate coverage.
Thanks to everyone who has written me… I appreciate all the supportive emails, myspace messages, etc. I’m excited (kinda giddy actually) for what’s ahead– should be interesting. In the meantime, see you next week on ABC for a special military-themed episode.
I hope ABC comes to a moment of clarity and gives Amanda more involvement in how their news reporting is done. One can only hope...
Monday, August 06, 2007
ABC Debates Video - Disney Is Looking - Disney Worldwide Services Captured On Traffic Report
Well, someone from Disney Worldwide Services in Burbank, Ca, has seen my video at least from the Valleywag point of view. The person went to Valleywag, then clicked through to my blog and looked at the same blog page seven times! That means they were listening to the video more than once. Which also means the may be trying to see if I made a statement I should not have.
I did not.
But before I get to that, the photo of the traffic report are presented here. The Disney person -- or persons -- visited at 12:06 PM PST and looked at the page repeatedly until 12:20 PM PST. Nice. Page view traffic!
First, what I stated was indeed my opinion, and I do use that term in my video.
Second, Disney and ABC are for all practical purposes public institutions which can be openly criticized in this free speech nation.
But my real hope is that Disney puts Amanda Congdon in charge of running the ABC Debates. I really hope they give her more juicy assigments regarding politics!
Sunday, August 05, 2007
ABC Iowa Debates - ABC Commits Video Fraud
Calling for a "Vloggercot"
I just finished watching the ABC Iowa Republican Presidential Debate. You know the one. The one that claimed to be based around video submissions by people like you and me. The one that got everyone thinking that the top rated videos would be used? The one where it was reported that ABC News George Stephanopoulos would use the questions.
Well, they didn't do that.
ABC committed the most brazen act of video content fraud I've ever seen. They promoted this debate as driven by video questions submitted, then had people upload videos, set up a system to rank videos, then showed those videos in some order that in itself was questionable.
I submitted a video, but it was a recycled one from the YouTube debate that wasn't asked. But other video-bloggers like Newbievids made new videos for the ABC effort, then had to sit and watch as their great work was ignored.
ABC only picked two videos -- none were top-ranked. The first one was the typical, predictable, stereotypical blonde white female that a TV producer would select. Not even in the running at all, yet picked out of a hat.
ABC owes American an appology for this outrage in getting the vlogging community all worked up over nothing. ABC even sent an email stating this:
Thanks for submitting your video question for the candidates!
As you know, the deadline for submitting videos for the Republican
candidates is now closed.
ABC's George Stephanopoulos & his editorial staff are still reviewing
your insightful & articulate questions for Sunday's program.
Tune in to see if your question is picked! Check your local listings for
the scheduled airtime for the Special edition of "This Week with George
Stephanopoulos" this Sunday, August 5th.
Don't worry- you're role in ABC News' political coverage is *NOT* over:
We want to know your opinion of the forum. Did the candidates tackle the
issues? Specifically your issue? Are you satisfied with their answers to
the questions asked?
What is your reaction to the Republican debates?
Send in your video following Sunday's discussion and your new
contribution will have the opportunity to air in post-debate review &
analysis.
HOW TO SUBMIT VIDEOS:
1) Via cell phone
Record a 15-45 second clip and email it to: icaught@abcnews.go.com
2) Via the web:
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/BeSeenBeHeard/story?id=3446667
We hope you'll accept this new challenge!
~The ABC News 'Talk Back' Team
Oh. But that pales in comparison to this email from ABC:
"'TALK BACK' Team @ ABCNews"
More options Aug 3 (2 days ago)
Greetings from ABC News!
Thank you so much for taking the time to send ABC News your video
questions for the Republican Candidates!
Your videos have made the first-cut and are featured in our online
voting section of the 'iCaught- VOTE 2008" section of the website.
http://ugv.abcnews.go.com
We encourage you, your family, colleagues & friends to vote/rate
favorite questions & the highest rated videos will be a factor in George
Stephanopoulos' decision and also have the opportunity to be featured in
ABC News NOW's post-debate Spin room!
The deadline for voting is Saturday, August 4th @ midnight EDT.
Thanks again for your efforts & Good luck!
~The ABC News 'TalkBack' Team
ABC's next covering the Dems. Maybe we should send ABC a message and not submit any videos at all.
Hmm...
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Thursday, August 02, 2007
2008 Presidential Election: ABC Debate Mistakes; Call Amanda Congdon!
ABC should enlist Amanda Congdon's help with videos and the debates
On August 5th, ABC will host it's 2008 Republican Debate called "The Iowa Debates." For the first time for ABC, it's allowing uploaded video questions, just as the CNN / YouTube Partnership has done.
Now you would think ABC -- in copying CNN -- would have a ton of videos by now, but not at all. So the obvious question is "Why?" The answer is basically simple, but the explaination behind it can become technical for those not in the web industry. Still, we can break it down like this: the website where videos are to be uploaded is terrible.
The first problem is that ABC failed to establish a relationship with a video distribution firm, if it ever tried to create on at all. In other words, leave the video distribution work to the specialists. Second, the website established to upload videos and respond to those already posted is faulty. One has to login to use it, which is no big deal, except the login itself doesn't work properly. Third, the upload system itself is tempermental and seems to struggle to capture your video. Now, when it does do so, it works like a charm.
The other problem is in responding to a comment on a video with a comment. When I try to do this, the system kicks me out, so I have to login again, and then get kicked out again. This has happened so much it's silly.
The other problem is that one could press the wrong link button and wind up at the ABC home page, which has no obvious link about the debate, but you can learn a lot about Grey's Anatomy!
All of this adds up to failure. ABC should have asked Amanda Congdon to help here, after all, she's on the ABC payroll and knows a thing or three about video distribution.
And the matter of Amanda brings up another grip I've got about ABC; they don't understand how to mate their online effort with their television activities. They're two separate worlds, and that's a serious mistake. Amanda should be ABC's bridge, between TV and Internet, but it's not happening, and my sense is that it's not her fault.
Who's minding the store over there at ABC? Well, here's my video on the matter...
Thursday, July 19, 2007
Barack Obama's Right - AGE APPROPRIATE (!) Sex Discussions Are Needed
Ok. WAKE UP PEOPLE. ABC NEWS, too!
Are you awake? Can you read? Yes? Good.
ABC News used a very inappropriate headline that misquoted Senator Barack Obama. In a conversation with Planned Parenthood on Tuesday of this week, Senator Obama more than once said that "age appropriate" sex education and science-based education was "the right thing to do."
BUT even with this detailed comment, ABC tried to sandbag the Senator with a headline that amounts to a complete lie.
This is the article in full below. Please read it carefully. ABC did not listen, obviously.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, "You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you’ve got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence."
"Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."
When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.
Are you awake? Can you read? Yes? Good.
ABC News used a very inappropriate headline that misquoted Senator Barack Obama. In a conversation with Planned Parenthood on Tuesday of this week, Senator Obama more than once said that "age appropriate" sex education and science-based education was "the right thing to do."
BUT even with this detailed comment, ABC tried to sandbag the Senator with a headline that amounts to a complete lie.
This is the article in full below. Please read it carefully. ABC did not listen, obviously.
ABC News' Teddy Davis and Lindsey Ellerson Report: Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., told Planned Parenthood Tuesday that sex education for kindergarteners, as long as it is "age-appropriate," is "the right thing to do."
"I remember Alan Keyes . . . I remember him using this in his campaign against me," Obama said in reference to the conservative firebrand who ran against him for the U.S. Senate in 2004. Sex education for kindergarteners had become an issue in his race against Keyes because of Obama’s work on the issue as chairman of the health committee in the Illinois state Senate.
"'Barack Obama supports teaching sex education to kindergarteners,'" said Obama mimicking Keyes' distinctive style of speech. "Which -- I didn’t know what to tell him (laughter)."
"But it’s the right thing to do," Obama continued, "to provide age-appropriate sex education, science-based sex education in schools."
Speaking to a young woman who asked a question about sex education, Obama said, "You, as a peer, can have enormous power over your age cohort but you’ve got to have some support from the schools. You certainly should not have to be fighting each and every instance by providing accurate information outside of the classroom because inside the classroom the only thing that can be talked about is abstinence."
"Keep in mind: I honor and respect young people who choose to delay sexual activity," Obama continued. "I’ve got two daughters, and I want them to understand that sex is not something casual. That's something that we definitely want to communicate and should be part of any curriculum. But we also know that when the statistics tell us that nearly half of 15 to 19 year olds are engaging in sexual activity, that for us to leave them in ignorance is potentially consigning them to illness, pregnancy, poverty, and in some cases, death."
When Obama's campaign was asked by ABC News to explain what kind of sex education Obama considers "age appropriate" for kindergarteners, the Obama campaign pointed to an Oct. 6, 2004 story from the Daily Herald in which Obama had "moved to clarify" in his Senate campaign that he "does not support teaching explicit sex education to children in kindergarten. . . The legislation in question was a state Senate measure last year that aimed to update Illinois' sex education standards with 'medically accurate' information . . . 'Nobody's suggesting that kindergartners are going to be getting information about sex in the way that we think about it,' Obama said. 'If they ask a teacher 'where do babies come from,' that providing information that the fact is that it's not a stork is probably not an unhealthy thing. Although again, that's going to be determined on a case by case basis by local communities and local school boards.'"
In addition to local schools informing kindergarteners that babies do not come from the stork, the state legislation Obama supported in Illinois, which contained an "opt out" provision for parents, also envisioned teaching kindergarteners about "inappropriate touching," according to Obama's presidential campaign. Despite Obama's support, the legislation was not enacted.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)