`The amazing thing about the Clintons is that they lie so easily.' - ex-Clinton supporter David Geffen.
Y-A-W-N.
For the handful of people that managed to stay awake to watch it, the latest debate by the Democrats only outlined the fact that for the most part, the Democrat's current choices are between a front runner who is, ummmm, shall we say severely credibility challenged and a bunch of second raters with very little substance.
The debate, oddly enough was structured around front runner Senator Hillary Clinton.The audience on the debates has consistently ranged between 1 and 3 million, or about 4% of the first Bush-Kerry debate in 2004 so this may have been a deliberate attempt to get some ratings.
It was only notable because Clinton, who's been very careful to tell any given whatever they want to hear got caught out in an exchange, of all things on a proposed New York state bill pimped by Democrat governor Elliot Spitzer to give driver's licenses to illegal aliens ` for identification purposes'.
After Clinton said it was ` a good idea' a couple minutes later, she's saying she doesn't agree with it, and Tim Russert and Senator Chris Dodd, of all people hung her out to dry on it. Interestingly enough, Clinton, the avowed feminist went and hid behind her own skirts when she was cornered, accusing Russert of playing `gotcha'!
In case you're wondering what all the fuss is about, remember that thanks to Federal legislation, anyone applying for a driver's license is also automatically given a voter registration form. In my home state, they don't even check ID's when you go to the polls, nor do they in New York State or a number of others. So driver's licenses for illegal aliens are a guaranteed fool proof scam for voter fraud, especially in urban areas.
Which is why a lot of Democrats are for it.
The other huge loser, of course, was Barack Obama. Given a softball by Russert to be assertive in attacking Clinton's record, he wimped out, along with telling a racial joke that even got boos and mumbles from a partisan audience:
Not ready for primetime in the least, this one. Barack Obama was probably the guy who bunted when he was playing tee ball as a kid...if he played at all. And just look at Stalin-in-a-pantsuit glaring at him!
John Edwards actually put on the best show. When he wasn't beating the class warfare drum, he got in a number of attacks on Hillary Clinton.
Even funnier was ex-Clintonista Bill Richardson, who made an obvious bid for th evice presidentcy by decrying ` all the personal attacks.'
And then we have Joe Biden, who took a nasty swipe at GOP frontrunner Rudy Giuliani by saying that what he says `consists of a noun, a verb and 9/11'. WHich of course is more than Biden or any of the others on the podium could say, even if it were true.
To a lot of Democrats, of course, Biden's rehearsed little sound bite was the highlight of the evening, which is well and good. That's what politics is about, although I have a feeling that Hizzoner might just have had a pretty devastating comeback had he been present.
I doubt this was a major fall for Hillary...just a stumble, though it could be the start of something, especially if a couple of these people drop out. She's got far too much money and momentum, and it will take a lot more to seriously slow her up and overtake her.
But at least it gives us one more clear example of who she really is, deep down.
I can't imagine any serious person wanting to turn the country over to the leadership of any of these people.
7 comments:
mmmm.second raters with very lttle substace? sounds like W. & Cheney
--CitizenKane
Ah, another case of Bush Derangement Syndrome.
Unfortunately,they're not running against this lot in `08, are they.
The funny thing is, `Citizen' that there are lots and lots of legitimate
criticisms of the Bush Administration, as you'll see if you hang around here.
But you'd rather just delve into the personal hate, right? it's certainly easier, I'll give you that. Only thing is, that kind of asininity tends to alienate the very people you hope to reach.
ff
Actual, "FF" (a.k.a Josh right-winger/war-monger who's beating the drums for war against Iran, without only the flim-flamest of pretexts, while also paradoxically beating the his anti-abortion drums), I have specific questions about the legitimacy and legality of Dick Cheney's actions and the Bush crime family syndicate that are devoid of emotion.
Q#1) How do we as a nation and people who have criminalized and prosecuted water boarding, and other forms of torture for at least the last 100 years, reconcile this administration’s open embrace and practice of it?
Secondly, if the leaders of other countries were prosecuted for such war crimes as torture, why should not Bush & company be rightly charged and face prosecution as well?
Q#2) Should not the business/financial relationship between the Bush family and the bin-Laden family be fully disclosed in light of the events of 9/11 as well as why the FBI was prevented from pursuing relatives and associates of bin-Laden who were in the United States before 9/11 and were then flown out of the country on secret flights while all other commercial flights were grounded after 9/11?
Q#3) A bi-partisan consensus of senators on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence recently concluded that the Bush administration selectively publicized and leaked intelligence on Iraq's alleged WMD program and connection to 9/11 while suppressing dissenting analysis and evidence by U.S. officials, the DOE and I.A.E.A prior to the congressional vote to authorize military force against Iraq.
How is this official U.S. gov't conclusion not sufficient grounds to support a federal indictment for conspiracy to defraud the United States as outlined in Title 18, United States Code, Section 371.
FYI: This statute has been around for over 100 years. It was charged against people in the Watergate era and also Iran-Contra.
The statute provides a legal mechanism to prosecute federal employees and officials for taking concerted action to use deceit or what’s called “trickery” to interfere with any branch of government or an agency.
Since legal precedent allows for this type of federal prosecution of high gov't officials, could not Congress be considered a branch of government upon whom substantial evidence exists to impanel the legal instrument of a grand jury to explore whether the Bush administration used trickery and fraud to accomplish their vote for congressional authorization to use force against Iraq?
Please, Josh, enlighten us with your considered opinion on these legal matters. Tick-tock, tick-tock, tick-tock...
--ps: the above was submitted by Citizen Kane who's sole goal in this life is to uphold the Constitution and make sure all are equal before the law regardless of status, race or class.
Trolls are so cute when they deliberately try and beg for attention....
I have a rule here. I welcome opposing points of view here. Anyone who posts a polite and reasoned response gets one from me. You, however, don't qualify.
First of all, doofus, I don't think you have ANY respect for the Constitution or for our Republic, based on your remarks and your regard for MY freedom of speech.
As for being a `war monger' ,
based on what's going on with Iran's clandestine nukes program, and the fact that Iran has killed many Americans and continues to help kill Americans in Iraq, and that they regards themselves in a state of war with us since 1979, that makes you clueless ( and probably fairly unpatriotic) as well.
As for your other allegations, I'm no particular fan of the President's although, unlike you, I have a basic respect for our country's institutions.
I won't dignify your horsemanure on `torture' with an answer, since it doesn't deserve one.
And as for question 2, you might want to read up on Able/Danger and the role that Clinton Assistant Attorney Jamie Gorelick (who bizarely sat on the 9/11 commision for some reason) played in erecting a wall to prevent US intel from sharing info on Mohammed Atta and the other scum who attacked our country. Why do you think Sandy Berger destroyed all those classified documents?
I've heard the inane arguments about `title 18' before, especially from people who haven't got the slightest inkling about law or our Constitution. Suffice it to say that if some of the detritus in Congress were able to bring an indictment and make it stick, they would have, given the insane personal hate they have for President Bush. Save that one for mutual masterbation with your KOS and Truther pals.
I'll take mercy on you and give you a hint, Bubba..if you really want to mine some gold on the Bushs', check out their relationship with the ruling family in Kuwait, with Dubai and the UAE and with the Saudis. Look especially at the Carlyle group (`bi-partisan' I might add)and ponder why the Saudis are allowed to fund jihad in America at the mosques and madrassahs they control.You can start by doing searches on this site.
I'll also make things easier for you by saying that in my opinion while both were mediocre, nothing Bush has done even comes close to the damage Mr. Bill did by likewise ignoring the Saudis and other jihadis durting his 8 year nap, selling the Chinese massive amounts of military hi-tech through heavy dem donors Loral in exchange for campaign cash, or by ignoring the escalating jihad against America,starting with the original WTC bombing in 1992.
Though of course, since it concerns a Democrat,you doubtless don't want to know.
See, that's where we differ..for me, politics stops at the water's edge and I'm willing to look at the slime on both sides of the aisle.People like you are willing to excuse just about anything in order to glom on to power, whether it's beneficial for th ecountry or not. That's why Lady Macbeth is the Dem frontrunner, when th eonly reason she isn't behing bars for the Madison Guaranty scandal and preparing fraudulent documents is because the prosecuters couldn't prove intent and Susan McDougal and Webb Hubbel kept their mouths shut and sat in jail until Mr. Bill pardoned them.
I think I'm pretty much done with you.Take a hike, and be aware that anything you post in the future will be deleted unless you learn some basic courtesy, common sense and manners an dhave some idea of what you're talking about.
I appreciated the analysis and the Youtube clips, but you forgot this classic post-debate clip that makes fun of the Dems attraction to aliens - both terrestrial and non:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2Sc_E1llpY
Thanks Fergie,
And welcome.
To tell the truth, I'm more than a little embarrased that a presidential debate withone of our major parties contained that kind of nonsense, but it does underline the `Twilight Zone' motif...
Post a Comment