Hillary Rodham Powell?

Why controlling the Clintons wouldn't be a problem for Obama.

By Michael Hirsh | NEWSWEEK
Published Nov 18, 2008

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/20/2008 7:33:05 PM



    I'm willing to start with giving him the benefit of the doubt on the others, but Hillary for State gives me major creeps. No, 18 million votes don't persuade me that that duo would be anything but trouble. They're compulsive as they demonstrated leading up to the convention; what they needed, etc. I thought Obama was brilliant the way he denied them with silence. Now, the news is full of details about Hillary's needs and Bill's...whatever. There was never any of this by or about anyone else from the entire Obama campaign throughout the election. I'm sure hoping he doesn't make this mistake.

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/20/2008 7:56:19 PM

      I used to dislike Hillary and posted many mean comments about Hillary and Bill during the primaries. Now I support her. I don't know what happened to me, but I have come to admire her.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/20/2008 8:06:30 PM



        Hi Pia, She has appealing aspects. Sorry, but we'll have to disagree on this one. I know too much about White Water, Hillary's "missing" billing records, her profits on futures...And then there's all that drama, I suppose mostly due to Bill but not all. Sorry, but she scares me alone, and then Bill doesn't allow us to forget about him. I do agree that she did redeem herself some at the end of the campaign...

        • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/21/2008 9:32:59 AM

          40, Let's agree that negative attacks on Hillary didn't come from those who supported her. I believe the negative attacks began when fox News determined that she would be a political star. Up until then she was a victim of Bill's affairs and many said she could leave him. She went from victim to threat almost over night when she decided to run for the Senate. I'll ask you as a 40 year republican to think back and relive the attacks by Limbaugh and Fox News against Hillary. She knew nothing about Politics and then she was the brains behind Bill She sudden abeted Bill in his affairs. she was hated by everyone in the Whitehouse. She got rid of the person who ran the travel department. They did polls to show that 1/2 of the American people hated her. If that poll includes one hundred percent of the republicans what did it show? Bush has a 72% disproval rate, that means if 100% of the democrats don't like him then 50% of the Republicans don't like him. President-elect Obama supporters have a perfect right to dislike her and conversely Hillary supports had some hard feeling for the Obama Campaign. Supporters have feelings too. when a candidate calls your person "not readt and inexperienced" that's unfair. When a candidate accuses you of playing the race card. that hurts too. Any attempts at reconciliation are thwarted by the incessant distortions of the Republicans.

          It's time for you to list what your grievances are against hillary. I think you'll find your dislike for her doesn't have much basis. Put together the pros and cons of those things you actually know for sure and i think you'll come to another conclusion. Be good.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 4:54:28 PM



            Hey Repubssuck, You are one of those posters with whom a rational, reasoned discourse can be held. I've got to say, though, that I would prefer not to engage in this debate now. Leading up to the election wore me out on compiling support for what I said. For whatever it's worth, I came to early maturity and became a professional during Watergate, and I was close to a relatively prominent figure. I went from convinced that it all was a press contrivance and attack (Nixon won reelection with a rediculous %), to essentially memorizing every detail and realizing that no one has ever jeapordized our system more.

            I say that because scrutinizing details, filtering spin has been a life-long habit since. I do not claim to know everything, nor am I immune from being deceived. I will say that I know much more about the Clintons than I wish there were, and I am no more believing they, both, have been victims of the press than most people wanted and needed to believe Nixon was a victim.

            We could get into many details, but one is simple enough for me to describe. I saw tapes of 3 different occassions, over more than two months, of Hillary referring to the prospect of an assassination. No, I can never be persuaded that it was an innocent accident. As on numerous occassions, she assumed the victim pose. She apologized to the Kennedys, but never to Obama.

            I'll be happy to debate other subjects, but I could spend too much of the rest of my life about her, and Bill won't allow himself to be ignored. And, frankly, I don't want to give amunition to the nuts here who are going to never stop trying to cause problems, as self-defeating as that is.

            I cringe at the prospect of her (unavoidably with Bill) being appointed to State, The kerflufful now is just like what has always surrounded them. I donot blame the press. As much as there is to go after about Bush et al., there is not the drama. They are the drama. It is not imposed on them.

            Anyway, I'll do my best to hope for her success and give her support if she's appointed, but I am afraid of her.

            • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 3:29:49 AM

              Then you remember Sen Clinton's role on the Nixon impeachment inquiry team? And you might want to review those tapes. She did never referred to the prospect of Obama being assassinated. She mentioned RFK's as an example of the nomination not being set in June - including her own husband's. And the Obama camp was the one who apologized to the Clinton camp for aggressively pursuing it in the media. Update your sources. And of course you're afraid of Sen Clinton--you're a man.You don't even consider her as her own politician, lumping President Clinton into the mix. If Obama's your man, and you write glowingly about him, then why don't you trust his judgment? You know that superior judgment he claimed even as he continued to change his position on Iraq as far back as 2004?

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/25/2008 4:03:16 AM



                "earthquake": You injure feminism when you suggest gender influences my views about anything. That is no more relevant than race or ethnicity for me. It is only relevant to your perspective,

                Right, she innocently considered assassination as a strategic factor in her decision making process. Repeatedly. Over a period of months.

                Since Bobby was gone, who could possibly have been a target now that would make such musings relevant to the times she was considering them?

                She's just a victim of sexism.

                Gee, I think I heard that before.

            • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/21/2008 5:32:31 PM

              I didn't say she was a saint, 40. I pointed out that she insulted him by saying he wasn't ready. To me that is worse than all the rest. What would be the most insulting? You're affiliated with terrorist or you lack the experience to be president. I say the latter is more insulting. What is worse when insulting Hillary? You lied about your experiences ala "under fire" or you're polarizing? i say the latter. nothing could have made McCain madder than the too old remark. It's not easy to overlook campaign insults but when i look at the larger view i see hillary as a plus. I'm sure you know ted Kennedy is one of the most despised but who is better for those who are struggling? She willbe appointed. If there was anymore one needed to realize that than Bill Clinton cracking open his books, certainly the appointment today of Bill Richardson as secretary of commerce confirmed. that.

              IA supporter will always see less flaws and a detractor will see more. Except for the fear factor I'll sign on the your last sentence. I have not aired my grievances from the time I supported Hillary because i supported, donated to and worked a precinct for Barack in the general. Barack did run a nicer campaign but he did have plenty of media and supporters who weren't so gentle. During the primary my lady and I asked several times, why would Hillary say that/ Some of the thing were embarassing. Barack had no need to retort, Chris Matthews and Keith Obermann were there for him

              I will tell you this though. Barack Obama is the best thing that could have happened for us. Hillary is a distant second. We'll let this go for now and evaluate Hillary in 6 months or so. At that time I'm betting only partisan Republicans will give he low grades. Be good

              • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 3:16:47 AM

                He himself said he wasn't ready. Straight from his own lips. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSTZJHujRmc

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/20/2008 8:17:43 PM

          It must be her appealing aspects and her tenacity that I admire her for. Good we disagree on some things....it would be boring if we did not.

      • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 3:34:58 AM

        I never thought I would see this day, however refreshing it is. One wonders the convenience, as those way beyond mean words can never be taken back. Nor can your relentless venomous attacks on Senator Clinton's supporters. Was there an apology along the way?

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 3:39:48 PM



    Pia, Please see mine elsewhere first. Thanks

    • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/21/2008 4:17:41 PM

      Hello 40YR-I did read it. I'm really sorry I have caused all of this.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 4:29:17 PM



        Pia, You caused nothing. Please don't take this negatively, but you thinking you caused it is too much like the mechanism by which the abused begin thinking they are responsible. I like you, and enjoy your posts, but for reasons only you know I do not feel entitled to turn my head no matter who was on the receiving end. That Chicken $h!t abuser Forty4 left, after being confronted with his own words. That is what bullies do when caught. You received, not caused.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/21/2008 6:42:42 PM

          All right. I will not worry over it anymore. Now, tell me why you ended up supporting Obama instead of McCain. I know I read your comments about your decision, only, I forgot.

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 7:20:13 PM



            Hi Pia, Good question. At least a year and a half ago, when someone brought up politics, I made the joke that "I don't know who it will be, but I'm going to be for the one for 'change'". Nobody got it because they weren't aware of Obama. I started out thinking he was just a bag of wind, pushing a slogan that meant nothing.

            The smear emails, especially the fabricated "quotes" led me to read his books. I'm a major skeptic who's had the good fortune to see true brilliance. Obama's books impressed me far more than any by any other politician. Rarely have I ever seen such an intellect, and never one who could present the entire mosaic and relate all the parts to each other as wall as the whole. When I saw that, the experience issue went out the window for me. There is no substitute for brilliance, especially when so connected to a practical understanding of actual working parts.

            I also am just in awe of his genuine post-racialism. I still marvel how in his first book he was able to describe his observations from so many disparate perspectives. And how he was able to grow up esentially without either parent, in a black skin, and be so...calm...understanding...warm...receptive to all types and views. I lack the capacity to express what I think and feel about what his writings actually represent.

            I do understand why so many think he is just a slick, glib, smooth talker. His eloquence is so supreme, I just figured that this just had to have used up, and been the sum of all the 'gifts' he was given. He speaks so well, that I don't think I would have given him any attention at all if I had not been driven to find out for myself by all the smears and racism.

            Now, in the face of friends close-mindedly (they read books but not his; so they're how smart?) believing he is only superficial, I think he is the most brilliant, able person I have ever seen in public office. That's from a life-long skeptic who has accreted some cynicism too.

            I would never vote for or against anyone because of race, gender, ethnicity etc. But I truly have never been so proud of my country that we have come so far in the last 40 years that we, our country, elected a mixed race person as President. And I am greatful that a man of such gifts and talents is that person.

            I can hear the howls and see the torches and pitchforks coming already.... So, no I don't think he's the Messiah. The is much he will not be able to do. He will make mistakes. But, now that we're in so many sh!tholes, I'm really glad this guy came along.

            And you racists....I piss on you.

            Now you owe me one....:-)

            • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 12:45:39 AM

              After Bush who wouldn't be change? And as far as his autobiography - are you aware of how much has been proven to be pure fantasy? Especially the part where he said he had a racial awakening after seeing a picture in LIFE about the man who tried to bleach his skin. Never existed. He said well it must have been Ebony. Nope didn't exist either.

              And as far as your "awe of his genuine post-racialism"? Why did all three of the self-proclaimed Transcender of Race's opponents leave the race branded as racists when none of them entered that way? The grand uniter who equates wright's hate speech with a comment his grandmother ALLEGEDLY made - no one has ever corroborated it including his sister. Mrs Dunham's co-workers in Hawaii upon hearing it were upset by that characterization and said that was not the woman they worked with and that she had never even intimated such a thing.

              Not hard to "describe his observations from so many disparate perspectives" when they're imagined. Ask yourself why he won't give names of his classmates? Why he has never released his Columbia grades. Why no one has been able to corroborate the racial epithets scrawled on the bathroom walls. It would be very easy to check - he said the walls were repainted several times. So believe what you will - just know that a great deal has been debunked and a great majority of the rest cannot or was not corroborated.

              • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/25/2008 3:50:43 AM



                Sooo, you haven't read his books?

            • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/21/2008 10:21:10 PM

              Excellent comments! I agree Pres.elect Obama is very eloquent.

              I did give you what I owed you, but I am not done yet.

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 10:13:26 AM

    Why are all of the Republicans attacking Obama for choosing hillary? If she's going to be a detrement to him, wouldn't they want that? The truth is, it's not the President -Elect who should fear the Clintons, it the Republicans. They fully realize that this alliance spells gloom and doom for them and drives a stake into the cold, cold hearts of there failed party. Panic has set in!

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 10:32:58 AM

      Once again, you couldn't be more wrong; you start with an incorrect premis and then draw incorrect conclusions. Unlike you and your partisan ilk, I want what is best for my country. And Schrillary will be a disaster for both Obama and the US.

      • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 12:20:58 PM

        And calling Obama hussein to suggest the Muslin tie, is the way to achieve it? ok jimbo gotta go.

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 2:48:45 PM

          I didn't call him Hussein, although now that you mention it, that is his name.

          • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 3:45:31 AM

            And why did he feel the need to hide it in the first place? Why didn't the self-proclaimed man of transparency get it out there from the start. Besides, why should it even matter if he were a Muslim? If you recall, it was his camp that refused to allow women wearing hijabs to be in view of the camera. Later blamed on "a volunteer".

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 4:00:47 PM

    Wait jimbo, I was mistaken McCain won missouri, his actual total is. What's that mr. Snerdly? Misouri was included in that total. Well it doesn't matter, it was close and that's the end of it. What was that song again? Don't you make my Red States Blue. you still suck jimbo!

    • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/22/2008 4:12:49 PM

      I have to hand it to you Repubs... you do listen to Rush. I couldn't listen to Al Franken no matter the payoff.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/22/2008 6:32:54 PM



        Loved Franken on SNL. He should have stayed there.

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/25/2008 1:41:59 AM



          Interesting you should think of that. I hope I never forget the source of: Da Nile ain't just a river in Egypt.

        • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/24/2008 11:49:18 PM

          yeah his INCEST skit was a regular riot.

        • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 7:47:25 PM

          That much is certain!

  • Posted By: earthquake @ 11/25/2008 12:25:29 AM

    MR HIRSH. This is just plain funny: "And to the extent that she might fail to do Obama's bidding, she would be ignored, neutralized and ultimately rendered irrelevant."

    As much as you'd like to fool yourself, the press will never stop writing about Sen Clinton so she cannot nor will she ever be ignored or neutralized. And after thirty years in public service--eight years as First Lady--and as one of the most recognizable women on the planet and staunch advocate and defender of women's rights, she will never be rendered irrelevant. Only a man would be that ignorant, rendering his words worthy of being ignored. By the way, how irrelevant is someone who has had 50 books written about her?

  • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/22/2008 12:39:43 PM

    Repubssuck,

    Surely you're kidding about Bush being at fault for the economic mess we're in... He and McCain could see this mess coming. He took legislation over a dozen times beginning in 2001 to reign in Fan/Fred from making risky loans, (which by the way, FF was the match that lit this powder keg) only to have Barney Frank and Chris Dodd vote party line to stop it. McCain tried to do the same thing in 2005 with the same results. Now hypocritical Frank is screaming that many of these loans shouldn't never have been made!

    And you can't fault Hannity or Limbaugh. These are opinion entertainment shows, not national journalisic news broadcasts. The left has their share with guys like Chris Mathews... either side simply puts their ideas out, and the people decide. You can tell by the ratings which side is more believed. There is a simple reason why Limbaugh, Hannity and O'Reilly are three of the most recognizable names in America.

    By the way, the Democrat party also has most of what's supposed to be non-biased journalism in their corner, such as NBC, CBS, ABC, NPR, MSNBC, major news magazines like NW and Time, along with just about every major newpaper. Where's the fairness in that? At least Fox News Broadcasts will tell both sides of the story. Yes, Rupert Murdock is a genius... he knew that fairness in news broadcasts would generate millions! By the way, did you know he was an Obama supporter?

    Lastly, we need both labor and management, and labor needs good management as it cannont govern itself. That's why the Rep. party will lean pro-management. However, I will be the first to say corporate management needs an overhaul in this country, and it's getting it as we speak in the best way possible... dictated by market conditions, not by the governemt. Nothing like a good economic down turn to straighten them up!

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/22/2008 7:15:31 PM



      Hey Vypurr,

      Not looking to start an argument, but these three articles really opened my eyes. For whatever it's worth, I found these after I got the 4th or so variation of that anonymous email that appeared right after Rick Davis was hired as McC's campaign manager, which was the beginning of Rs trying to blame the whole thing on Dems. I was curious why this campaign was being waged. It wasn't 'til later that I understood the motivation. It was misdirection.

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/24/us/politics/24davis.html?pagewanted=2&_r=1

      http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/22/us/politics/22mccain.html

      http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26859857/from/ET/

      One of them does say that Dems were already against it, but the Rs had the votes to get the bill that McC endorsed 9 months after it's introduction, out of committee. Rs spent millions lobbying Rs so it wouldn't get out of committee. The Rs could have done it, but big money, the housing industry etc. didn't want regulation to mess up that wonderful housing boom that was going on. At that time, the housing/mortgage market was 25% of the entire economy, including the money people took out of their homes to spend.

      Yes, there's plenty of blame to go around. It is true that with easy financing, people over bid for houses because they didn't want to be bid out of the market. Worse, everybody was using their houses as piggy banks.

      Can't find it right now, but there also was an excellent aticle in the WSJ. It laid out that the companion to the easy mortgage loans, and many times the aggregate value of all mortgages, were Credit Default Swaps. They practically did not exist in 2000. By 2006, there were something like $550 trillion of them. There were trillions of soveriegn wealth funds and similar capital looking for fast gains. The big funds and the pseudo, unregulated banks were the ones who wanted to trade in them. They spent millions to keep them from being regulated, and they won. As Greenspan said, "we trusted them to regulate themselves."

      Plenty of blame to go around, but the real power was wielded by the ones making the trillions.

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/24/2008 6:59:57 PM

        40YearR,

        I appreciate the links. Though I had not seen these articles, I have read much on the Davis thing. My take on this is everyone on both parties were enjoying the ride... no doubt about that. It took both parties to get the legislation into place, the econonmy took off, loans were made and homes were built.

        No one saw any of the coming catatrophy as a possibiltiy in the beginning, but it was Bush who said wait a minute, how long can we continue to make 300 or 500K loans to people that in all probability can't pay them back? (Especially the ridiculous ARM loans) He took legislation to alter the course we were on to congress over a dozen times beginning in 2001, and McCain went to congress once in 2005 with the same type of legislation.

        As to Rick Davis taking the dough... I'm not sure if McCain could have stopped him. But even if he could, the fact remains that McCain and Bush did take legislation to congress that was shot down by Frank and Dodd. Frank and Dodd could vote party line, and the few moderate republicans that surely would have went with them put the legislation dead in the water. They just couldn't see what was coming.

        NYT does mention the amount of money McCain took from FF: about 22K over a decade as opposed to Obama's 126K over about 3 years. I found this interesting...

        Once again I appreciate the links!

        • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/24/2008 9:27:53 PM




          Vypurr, I appreciate the discourse. People were unwise to suck all the money out of their homes, and certainly it is understandable that the ones making money would want nothing in their way. But that is why there is a need for effective regulation.

          I have only spoken out because I do believe it was a preemptive campaign to blame all things only and solely are to be blamed on the Dems. Can't buy it. I know better. The real problem is that the propaganda was so effective that the same stuff is still reverberating on sites like these to this day.

          One of those articles addresses specifically the point that the Rs had the votes to get that legislation done, and that's why all the millions were focused on the Rs. It's the blaming of the Dems solely that is my main beef.

          I worked for a large corporation that throughout tried to be ethical. One of the calculations was to contribute to supporters and to those who might be opponents who are likely to gain power. They wanted access to get their point heard, not to buy influence. I do know about the contributions to Obama. Pennies after the fact. And a drop in the ocean compared to what was spent on Rs.

          The relevance of Davis to me was that McC knew lobbyists were the main problem and promised to sweep them out. Then, he hires one of the most significant lobbyists of all. And that is precisely when the 'Dems only" campaign began.

          Plenty of blame, but the best I can see to clearly see what happened so I don't take it in the shorts again, is to try to understand what actually happened. I especially resent efforts to 'spin' me.

          I don't think Obama is a savior. He will make mistakes, but for whatever it's worth, he's the most exceptional candidate I've ever seen for national election. Might turn out differently, but now that we're in so many sh!tholes, I'm glad Obama won the election, however long it took me to come around to that.

          Oh yeah, I was in Hawaii for 27 years. The place is the most wired, corrupt place I can imagine. It is far down my list of 'druthers, but that led me to see the value of denying further entrenchment of those who presently have their hands on the steering wheel. No panaceas, though, darn it.

          See ya at other posts.

    • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 1:09:11 PM

      Did i miss something here? Did the Republican just a couple of weeks ago lose the whitehouse and several seats in both Houses of congress? Did Red states like Ind., Ohio, Va. and N.Carolina turn blue?
      Fox is the most trusted, Hannity and Limbaugh are the most trusted? By whom? Are the people who trust them not registered to vote? Here's an example of an idea by ole Rushbo, He's the messiah, he's a muslim, he's a terrorist, he's a socialist. Are those real ideas? You're as laughable as you party and just whistling in the dark.

      • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/22/2008 4:08:00 PM

        Repubs, you've just twisted almost everything I've said... I didn't say trusted, I said most recognizable. And I didn't say "real ideas." I said the opinion shows put their ideas out there and let the people decide. Unlike the bogus MSM, who proclaimed to be reporting balanced programing (all the while supporting Obama), both left and right opinion shows make no bones about their agendas.

        You didn't miss anything, of course the country elected a new pres. and the Reps lost a few states. What you fail to understand is that when the economy is in the tank, the public blames the existing administration no matter the facts. And the fact remains that Bush (and McCain) saw the economic mess we're in coming and repeatedly tried to prevent it with legislation presented to congress.... again, we have stellar democrats B. Frank and C. Dodd, whom took a boatload of $$ from FF, to thank for contiually shooting it down.

        Next time, I would appreciated it if you didn't rewrite my posts.

      • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 2:58:05 PM

        Wow, things sure do get distored when you read them, huh? Vypr says that Hannity, OReily, and Limbaugh are the most recognizable names - she never said the most trusted.

        Btw, The Messiah's win, from a popular vote standpoint, was not overwhelming by any stanpoint. And that is in an election cycle where history tells us the Democrats should have won big. So much for your oft-repeated comments about the "death" of the Republican Party.

        You need to use your brain sometimes, and not be so brainwashed by whatever union newsletter you must be reading. Hmmm, I'll bet I'm right about that, as well, aren't I?

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/21/2008 3:58:34 PM

    riddle me this! If the GOP and Democrats merged and alternated on a monthly basis the control of the Government. issues that have separated us like abortion were reconciled. Example ;abortion would be illegal but every child born would be placed in a good home and would enjoy all of those things we want and need. No one had any financial woes and everybody could pay for what they wanted without going into debp. There would be peace. we would not be fighting anywhere in the world. No problems, no stress just peace and prosperity.

    Of couse this is fantasy but let's just say it was like that. What would that mean for Fox News, Hannity, Morris, Limbaugh, Coulter and the dozens of other "Conservative" Television and talk radio personalities . Answer, it would mean ruin and they would go down scratching and screaming if there was any chance of that happening.. As long as there is hate and turmoil in the world they will attract an audience of those like Lee, holyroller and the like. discourse equals money in the shock jock world. conflict sells Bose Radios and distrust sells any number of products thease villians are hawking.. In all of the months that i've been reading comments not one Republican has mentioned those i listed above Lee below even suggests he does watch fox news. Does anyone really believe that.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/21/2008 7:05:33 PM

      You live in your own strange fantasy world. Fox News, Hannity, Morris, Limbaugh, Coulter, etc. exist and have an audience only because the MSM provides such a slanted, left-wing view of the world, and quite frankly, have done so in increasing doses ever since the days of Walter Cronkite. If the MSM actually attempted to simply report the news, and keep editorials separate (sorta like is taught in high school journalism), then conservative media would not even exist. This idea that they thrive on "hate" is preposterous and is simply one of your many smears. Have you ever watched Keith Olbermann? What do you call that which he is thriving on during his endless ranting and raving?

      And how it it that you have time to fill up the posts like you do? Get a job, dude! Oh, that's right, your a democrat; no doubt out on disability, or on some "program", and waiting on the government check to arrive. I'm just so happy that we can carry your a**.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 8:02:31 PM



        As a curious moderate/conservative who feels a need to find out and understand, I listen to and read most news. I used to not be able to listen to Olbermann, but then I realized that he makes no pose of "fair and balanced". He's there to express his point of view, and makes no bones about it. He certainly 'hates' "Billo", but I do not confuse his amplitude as consumption with hate generally. He frequently rails against it, in all forms. But, some are sure to jump all over me on this one point.....

        So my real point is this: Of all the news and opinion sources (other that the right wing howl radio that I turned off long ago), the one that I just can't sit through for long is Fox. It offends me that they think I'm so stupid to buy into that 'terrorist fist bump' and "Obama is all too familiar with the fashionable salons of our enemies in Europe" sh!t. It insults my intelligence. To suggest that "those bad guys made me do it" actually got a laugh out of me. I can find conservative/neutral news, without that tripe.

        Ok, start howlin'.... Oh, and don't leave out the accusations how typically rad-lib, stupid, and whatever, I "must be"....

        A 40 year republican

        • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 12:38:03 PM

          My guess is you won't be updating your handle to 41YearR. Maybe 1YearI

          • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/22/2008 7:46:49 PM



            It's looking like you're right about that. I chose it because I saw all the radicals smashing everyone who wasn't as radical as they, and because there were so many posters recapitulating those smear emails, I wanted to be able to say truthfully that there are a lot of repubs who reject that. I am heartened that I see so many moderates basically saying the same that I am about the party. It remains to be seen, but there is resonance to your observation.

      • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:24:12 AM

        I was an electrician for 46 years before I retired. Yes they exist today because of the hatred they preach that exites guys like yourself. Yes the mainstream media is biased, MSNBC is biased with Maddow and Obermann over the top, yes CNN and many of the largest newspapers are biased. So are you and I. The fact that they are biased doesn't mean they are wrong. Fox News, hannity, morris and limbaugh distort adn lie and that appeals to guys like you. it has nothing to do with the truth and you know it.you just enjoy hurting anyone you can. You suck!

        • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 9:35:24 AM

          Sitting on your a**, waiting for the checks to arrive - ha, I knew it!

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 6:24:04 PM



      Nope. They're just too ashamed, and too chicken, to admit it.

      • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/21/2008 6:40:08 PM

        Chickens are very pupular today. My friend, you may want to check my reply to you on the other board. Thanks.

        • Posted By: Pia1981 @ 11/21/2008 6:50:20 PM

          Oops..typo.. sorry...I meant popular.

  • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/21/2008 5:41:40 PM



    Repubssuck, I agree with almost all you say, and I hope you are about your ending. Forgive me, but I'm still investing my vibes against: She will be appointed. But I think you and your reasons are right.

    Btw, are there any interesting sites? Kind of got 'distracted' there for a bit...

    • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 12:51:35 PM

      I don't know of any political sites and have never visited one. I've never see youtube. I comment on blogs at Fox News, Here and New York Times. I seldom read the article except for the headline and then go with the flow. I look at the MSNBC and CNN sites too but commenting there is tedious and the blogs change too often to exchange comments. on the times you can't reply but you can use the name and # to reply but it is posted at the end and not immediately after the original comment. It's way too civilized there because you must use a legitimate email address. I enjoy Fox but you can change your handle with every comment and don't need a real email address. You can support yourself or pretend to argue against yourself but stupidly and then attack your own reply. It's shocking how many Dems. comment there. Just before the general election Fox locked down and filtered the comments. That didn't surpise me at all. I think newsweek is the best blog. easy to use except for the light gray font on a white background and the glitches we've experienced lately. the reason i don't go to political sites is they are going to be onesided. Kind of like the general Election results. be good.

      • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/22/2008 7:32:53 PM



        Thanks. Gotta say that I did try Fox a couple weeks before the election. Two things happened, and maybe it was just because of the election. First, the creepy, drooler, nonsensical, hysterical posts by the super-ultra delusional right wing posts.


        Then, yes, when I started posting links to debunk the Obama smears that were being recapitulate by the LIVs, they blocked me out. So much for 'fair and balanced' at Fox. I'm done with them.

        Of, course, so much of that sh!t about articles about Obama with pictures of Karl Marx, and then the incessant on air stuff like 'terrorist fist bumps' and "Obama is all too familiar with the fashionable salons of our enemies in Europe" helped seal the deal too.

        I'll try to be good, but from what I see from so many of the posters here, 'good' is more than just a little subjective... :-)

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 1:44:19 PM

    I read an article in the National Review today. it was by a contributor named Byrth i think. she said that the republican Party road to recovery depended on thme jetisoning the Nixon Dixiecrat. those were the anti-segregationist like Strom Thurmon that became dixiecrats and later republicans when LBJ signed the civil rights Act. She said that as long as the republican Party aligns themselve with the backward thinking and hate that seepes from every pore of these persons, the republican party will continue to shrink in size. does anyone think that the republicans could succeed without the Renneck vote? I sure don't

    • Posted By: 40YearR @ 11/22/2008 6:39:48 PM



      That article is spot on. I hate all the racism and all, but everyone get's to vote. I'm just tired of the crazies dominating because they screem so loud and are so demanding. And, frankly, I resent them telling me I'm not a 'real'...anything. Put them in a corner, let them stay home and sulk if they want. I wish there were The Middle Party, and let all extremists keep thinking that everyone else is strange.

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 3:12:49 PM

    Right again jimbo, i must have been listening to that liberal garbage again. The election was so breath-takingly close that some of us had to stay up until 9PM. The final electoral count was a mere 365 to 184. Who are you relying on for information, joe the Plumber?

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 12:08:05 PM

    vypurr, It's not that the Republican party sucks because of failed economic and foriegn policies. You can lay that at the door of who was on watch in the Whitehouse and Congress at the time. Replace them and move on. The Republican party sucks because they rally around some of the most dispicable characters like Limbaugh and Hannity who have no regard for truth or fairness. When I make this assertion, the retort is what about Obama, what about the Clintons. Is that a defense or rationalization of your partys affiliation of this kind of scum? as far as my success goes, it was the union who fought for my benefits and the Republicans fought them every step of the way. when I make this assertion the defense or rationalization is that the unions are crooks. Does that confirm that giving tax breaks to the rich and refusing to raise the minimum wage was ok?

    Listen, Politics is one thing, Republicans favor management, Democrats favor labor. that struggle is fair enough but trying to destroy democratic candidate with lie and distortion. You can see the mindset of someone like jimbo. He can't resist throwing in a few "Husseins" and "Messiahs". Both of these tarms were used over and over again by Hhannity and Limbaugh from the start.

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:49:12 AM

    Actually jimbo, I have automated deposit. Sometimes i'm fishing or chasing the golf ball or biking while the checks are coming it. I guess I've even had deposits made while slapping around a guy like yourself. Sorry I couldn't resist one more slap before taking out the hook. i'm a catch and release fisherman. lucky for you!

    • Posted By: Vypurr @ 11/22/2008 10:54:08 AM

      Wow. Repubssuck! You're retired, laid back, going fishing.... and you don't even have to walk to your mail box to get your checks, let alone drive to the bank! You seem to be doing extremely well.

      You were employed, largely under Republican administrations (7 Republican admins, 3 Democrat in the past forty years), but now that we've hit a sizable hump in the road for which both parties were responsible, you find that it's all the Republicans fault... and they "suck."

      Do I detect a little griping because your beef stew is a little too hot and your bed's a little too soft?

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:14:15 AM

    jimbo3800, It must be killing you to have lost your right to be heard. You bought this on yourself ,you know? Your rant on how Hillary is the only one who said Bush lied isn't true. Every Democrat who voted for the resolution has said Bush lied to them. They were gullible, given the Republican party's ability to lie on cue, but that's what they claim. The truth is , Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld groups lied about the evidence that led to the invasion of Iraq. Everyone knows that and no one is in denial. The Republicans stuck to the lie and were obliterated this year. In 2010, 19 more Republican Senate Seats are up for grabs. We will take at least 3 and perhaps 5 of them. In 2012 at the same time Barack Obama is being reelected we will gain more House and Senate seats. This trend will continue for at least 20 years. During that time the Republican party will be reduced to third party status, dry up and blow away. Nothing will save it because of the mindset of guys like you and those you idolize like Limbaugh and Hannity. A party with no ideas and who's only weapons are lies and distortions.

    • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 9:41:41 AM

      Now you are lying - you are intentionally confusing the allegation of Bush lying about the existance of WMD's with Shrillary claiming that her not understanding the Iraqi War Resolution (meaning that US troops would invade Iraq) is somehow a Bush "lie". She's the only person in Congress who didn't understand that a war resolution meant we were going to war!

      BHO is making a big mistake with this appointment; the Clinton's will pursue their own agenda and will be poison to the Obama administration

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:49:03 AM

    Actually jimbo, I have automated deposit. Sometimes i'm fishing or chasing the golf ball or biking while the checks are coming it. I guess I've even had deposits made while slapping around a guy like yourself. Sorry I couldn't resist one more slap before taking out the hook. i'm a catch and release fisherman. lucky for you!

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:34:15 AM

    Sorry for the double post, AGAIN. Jimbo, you can have the last word. The Republican party, their leaders and followers like yourself cease to be a concern for our country. I know you realize that and don't need me to slap you in the face with it. I intend now to promote Baracks agenda and will spend most of my time doing that. I'll still have time to occassionally remind guys like you of the diminishing Red Circle of States and the tidal wave of Blue coming your way. My last word to you right now is. You suck!

  • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/22/2008 9:14:31 AM

    jimbo3800, It must be killing you to have lost your right to be heard. You bought this on yourself ,you know? Your rant on how Hillary is the only one who said Bush lied isn't true. Every Democrat who voted for the resolution has said Bush lied to them. They were gullible, given the Republican party's ability to lie on cue, but that's what they claim. The truth is , Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld groups lied about the evidence that led to the invasion of Iraq. Everyone knows that and no one is in denial. The Republicans stuck to the lie and were obliterated this year. In 2010, 19 more Republican Senate Seats are up for grabs. We will take at least 3 and perhaps 5 of them. In 2012 at the same time Barack Obama is being reelected we will gain more House and Senate seats. This trend will continue for at least 20 years. During that time the Republican party will be reduced to third party status, dry up and blow away. Nothing will save it because of the mindset of guys like you and those you idolize like Limbaugh and Hannity. A party with no ideas and who's only weapons are lies and distortions.

  • Posted By: jimbo3800 @ 11/22/2008 7:53:17 AM

    Here is a quote from a NYT article that should send a chill through the blood of any thinking person, "...with Mrs. Clinton portraying herself as a hawkish Democrat and defending her decision to vote in favor of the 2002 resolution that Mr. Bush later considered an authorization to use military force against Saddam Hussein. (Later, she said she fully expected Mr. Bush to use diplomacy first ??? and was shocked that he did not.)"

    This amazing quote is shocking on multiple levels, and from it we can deduce the following:
    1. Hillary was clearly lying through her teeth to the American people when she claimed that she "didn't know" that the Iraqi War Resolution was a resolution to go to war. C'mon, every other Congressman knew what they were or were not voting for; but she didn't? Please...
    2. Hillary lies again when she says she "fully expected George Bush to try diplomacy first". This is a comical distortion of reality as only the Clintons can do it; Iraq had just been subjected to no less than 16 UN resolutions regarding their suspected WMD, and they ignored all of them.
    3. Cleary, and once again, the NYT will spin anything exactly as the Clintons want them to.
    4. Most importantly, and given the above, Barack Obama is making a terrible mistake by offering this job (or any other job) to Shrillary. He doesn't even have an assurance that she won't try and run against him in 2012! This shows very poor judgement on the part of The Messiah.

  • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/21/2008 10:33:01 AM

    Heh. The idea that the disdain of Hillary even before the primaries was a ''FOX''concocted deal is nuts. Entries from DAILY KOS archives from January of this year[Iowa],show leftwingers heaping dross on the female portion of the Clinton act. Chris Matthews was relentless in his attacks on Hillary, and even NEWSWEAK got into the ''supporting Obama by slighting him'' schtick pulled by Bill Clinton in July and August. An entire Special Comments section by the bombastic Keith Olberman back in May flayed Hillary and demanded that she withdraw for the ''good of the party''. Open internecine political warfare in the Lamestreams pitted leftwinged Obama supporters against DLC -style Clinton centrists,culminating in Hillarys famous refusal to confirm or deny an Obama Muslim backround ,and supporter Bob Kerrys article in HUFFINGTON darkly insinuating that Obama was more Muslim than Christian. Even as late as two days ago in the New York Times,liberal scribblers were writing of the ''tensions''between the two camps.
    FOX can be nailed for a few things,but this is obviously not one of them.

    Oh and REPUBSUCK: You and the audience will have observed by now that not once in my several-year history of writing on these blogs have I ever used ''FOX''as a source. Not once. This is not to say that they are any less truthful than the Lamestreams as the following article source will illiminate. It is to say that I can flay you people with your own media. Like this occasion for instance:

    The New York Times Nov.14,2008: ''Media Was Victim Of Palin Hoax''. [ironically,one of the two people [David Gergen CNN ] who was not gulled was....Bill O'Reilly.[his enemy at MSNBC however,Keith Olbermann,swallowed it hook,line and sinker]. ''It'',being the flim-flam spread by a Mr. Martin Eisenstadt in a phony YOUTUBE communique that Palin was unable to discern Africa as being a ''continent'' rather than a ''country''. For days,all of MSNBCs primetime lineup ran with the hoax. HL Mencken is laughing somewhere.

    • Posted By: Repubssuck @ 11/21/2008 3:33:09 PM

      ok, gotta go Lee

      • Posted By: Lee Holmes @ 11/22/2008 4:48:08 AM

        Wait. It gets better. GOP minority leader John Boehner[R-OH] brilliantly called the Democrats on their ''utter hypocrisy'' in demanding that the ''card check'' bill that the Democrat leadership in the House is putting up in payment to their union masters in destroying the decades-long [Since the Depression], secret ballot,[killing American jobs as well], now enconsed within the TAFT-HARTLEY Act,appear to be having problems with their own integrity.
        When it came for the Democrat Caucus to vote on who would run the House Energy and Commerce Committee,between Dingall and Waxman,the ballots cast by Democrats were held in SECRET.

        ''It was a secret ballot,thank the Lord''. Remarks,Rep.Louise Slaughter[ D-NY]. Nov.20,2008.

        And yet ,with the parsing of CSPAN to the point of weariness out of the way,we ask why a ballot is OK to be held in secret among crummy politicians,[and Democrats at this who really are hypocrites in this area], but not among the American people who may or may not desire union membership.

        www.house.gov

  • Posted By: petepaulpan @ 11/22/2008 3:39:48 AM

    more on Obama at .... www.BarackObamaPolitics.com

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse