or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Is Hillary Melting Down? - Page 4

post #121 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

It's interesting how the wingnuts have dedicated so much to defeating Hillary because of their extreme fear of the Clintons. Obama (if he is nominated) will be a lot tougher for a Republican to beat. If he wins this week, the wingnut media machine will be launching quite an offensive.

You betcha. The first thing they'll go for is the middle name. RedState has already started referring to him as Barak Hussein Obama. Watch EVERY Republican news trade, talk radio host, Fox News reporter continuously refer to him by all three names. Everyone else will either refer to him as Barak or Obama. But not the wingnuts. They're going to go ape-shit if he's nominated.

And when that doesn't catch on, watch out for a full onslaught of xenophobic negative campaign ads that will make your head spin! Whoa Nelly!

This is going to be the rootinest, tootinest, sumbitch campaign you ever did see!
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #122 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You betcha. The first thing they'll go for is the middle name. RedState has already started referring to him as Barak Hussein Obama. Watch EVERY Republican news trade, talk radio host, Fox News reporter continuously refer to him by all three names. Everyone else will either refer to him as Barak or Obama. But not the wingnuts.

Next thing you'll know they're going to tell us he is Irish or something.
post #123 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

It's interesting how the wingnuts have dedicated so much to defeating Hillary because of their extreme fear of the Clintons. Obama (if he is nominated) will be a lot tougher for a Republican to beat. If he wins this week, the wingnut media machine will be launching quite an offensive.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You betcha. The first thing they'll go for is the middle name. RedState has already started referring to him as Barak Hussein Obama. Watch EVERY Republican news trade, talk radio host, Fox News reporter continuously refer to him by all three names. Everyone else will either refer to him as Barak or Obama. But not the wingnuts. They're going to go ape-shit if he's nominated.

And when that doesn't catch on, watch out for a full onslaught of xenophobic negative campaign ads that will make your head spin! Whoa Nelly!

This is going to be the rootinest, tootinest, sumbitch campaign you ever did see!

I personally fear Hillary much more than Obama. I don't think Obama is qualified, particularly on foreign policy, but I don't dislike him either. I just disagree with him, which is how I suspect a lot of conservatives feel.

Further, I wouldn't support the repetition of the name Barack Hussein Obama for political purposes. That would be cheap. Of course, not repeating it out of fear of political damage would be cheap too. It shouldn't really mean anything, though I suspect that it does to some, at least subconsciously.

Finally, I agree that Obama scares a lot of Republicans. He's the first serious black candidate, yes, but he's also pulling a boat load of young voters along. He does have weaknesses, such as his church affiliation (read this...racist much? ) and past admitted drug use, as well as lack of experience. And I'm not sure being black is an advantage, not if one believes there is a large amount of institutionalized racism in this country, as liberals like to claim.

But he'd still be tough to beat. I think McCain would probably be the best bet against him.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #124 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I personally fear Hillary much more than Obama. I don't think Obama is qualified, particularly on foreign policy, but I don't dislike him either. I just disagree with him, which is how I suspect a lot of conservatives feel.

I'm curious, mostly because I don't know much about Obama, but could you elaborate on what, precisely, about his foreign policy you disagree with?

Quote:
He does have weaknesses, such as his church affiliation (read this...racist much? )

How is attending an "unashamedly black" church racist? Does his church not allow white folks?

Quote:
and past admitted drug use,

That's actually a plus in my book. I like that he was honest, and I suspect that, now that the baby boomers are old enough to be seriously political candidates, it's going to be increasingly hard to find someone who has not experimented with drugs on some level.

Quote:
as well as lack of experience.

I've always found this position interesting, mostly because it seems totally, completely, reasonable, until you think that there is no job that could adequately prepare someone for being the POTUS.

Quote:
And I'm not sure being black is an advantage, not if one believes there is a large amount of institutionalized racism in this country, as liberals like to claim.

Depends on how the South and major northern cities turn out. But I do believe that there will be lots of proxy racism, such as referring to him as "Hussein." I'll know more when I get back from MS this summer, and will be happy to report back about how my clan of Red State, NASCAR-loving, librul-hating Bubbas have to say,

Quote:
But he'd still be tough to beat. I think McCain would probably be the best bet against him.

Is there an emoticon for that sound that Sideshow Bob makes when he keeps stepping on the rakes?
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #125 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Next thing you'll know they're going to tell us he is Irish or something.

Remember "The French-looking guy"? But that wasn't enough, so a group of Republicans had to go out and outright lie and smear a war hero.

It's shameful how low the wingnut assholes go to try to bring down the competition. ZERO ethics. You BET they're going to concentrate on the middle name, the "madrasa" education, co-co-co-cocaine, "he's a socialist!" and whatever else the fuck they can manipulate, make up or lie about.
post #126 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

such as his church affiliation (read this...racist much? )

As one of 1.2 million UCC members, I can assure you that the UCC is not a racist church.

Certainly, I cannot speak of this specific church, but I would be very, very surprised if this was the case.

My mother lead several youth group trips to Chicago, and they always stayed at/attended a UCC church on Sunday. It's certainly possible they may have attended Trinity (and my mother's church is as white as you can get). I will have to inquire.
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
A good brain ain't diddly if you don't have the facts
Reply
post #127 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I personally fear Hillary much more than Obama. I don't think Obama is qualified, particularly on foreign policy, but I don't dislike him either. I just disagree with him, which is how I suspect a lot of conservatives feel.

I assume you voted for Bush in 2000? Obama is no less qualified than the current president re. foreign policy at the start of his first term. I don't like or dislike Obama either: I just feel that the Dems have made two unelectable choices to be their front runners, in an apparent party-suicide bid. But... who in hell wants to enter the White House in 2009, with 50 years worth of damage to clean up before any progress can be made, in any area, foreign and domestic? The legacy of the last 8 years is going to reflect badly on whoever takes over, be it Republican or Democrat, assuming the November elections go ahead as scheduled of course.
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #128 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

You betcha. The first thing they'll go for is the middle name. RedState has already started referring to him as Barak Hussein Obama. Watch EVERY Republican news trade, talk radio host, Fox News reporter continuously refer to him by all three names. Everyone else will either refer to him as Barak or Obama. But not the wingnuts. They're going to go ape-shit if he's nominated.

And when that doesn't catch on, watch out for a full onslaught of xenophobic negative campaign ads that will make your head spin! Whoa Nelly!

This is going to be the rootinest, tootinest, sumbitch campaign you ever did see!

Can you link to some of these incidences? I went to the website today and although I am not that familiar with it, I didn't see what you were talking about.

Quote:
Originally Posted by @_@ Artman View Post

Next thing you'll know they're going to tell us he is Irish or something.

You do realize that was addressed at Bill OReilly.

Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Remember "The French-looking guy"? But that wasn't enough, so a group of Republicans had to go out and outright lie and smear a war hero.

It's shameful how low the wingnut assholes go to try to bring down the competition. ZERO ethics. You BET they're going to concentrate on the middle name, the "madrasa" education, co-co-co-cocaine, "he's a socialist!" and whatever else the fuck they can manipulate, make up or lie about.

First I find it interesting that labeling someone a socialist is the same as practicing an -ism. As for Kerry, everything that was said was the truth and his detractors had been following him around for decades because of his atrocity claims. I saw video of the Kerry and the same Swiftboat detractor debating the same issues from 1974 or so.

However what is most interesting is all this stuff you claim Republicans are going to use is already out there NOW and you have to wonder why that is so. Any deep questioning would reveal that Republicans don't really fear Obama as much because of his policy positions. They have proven very adept at letting the opponents shoot themselves in the foot. The quote that probably turned the last election was given by Kerry himself. The pictures of the troops with misspelled banners were related to statements he made.



Did the evil Republicans make Al Gore leave his podium and approach Bush in 2000? The Republicans also didn't make him sigh and snort incessantly whenever dealing with answers or questions he didn't like.

Republicans will have plenty of fun just digging into the Obama positions. The reason this stuff is out right now is because here is so little difference between the Democrats with regard to there positions. They are the ones using this nonsense to try to create some space between each other. How many more Hillary campaign people will have to resign before you realize this?

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #129 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I just feel that the Dems have made two unelectable choices to be their front runners, in an apparent party-suicide bid.

I can't help but ask for your list of electables.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #130 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Can you link to some of these incidences? I went to the website today and although I am not that familiar with it, I didn't see what you were talking about.

There was a recent email sent to RedStaters pleading for money to fix their blog. Here's a graph from that email...

"Ill be blunt: I hate asking you for money. But I hate even more to imagine what America will be like if someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama wins the presidency in November. RedState can help prevent that nightmare from coming true but only if were offering the best possible web experience to the widest possible audience."

[/QUOTE]
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
"The selfishness of Ayn Rand capitalism is the equivalent of intellectual masturbation -- satisfying in an ego-stroking way, but an ethical void when it comes to our commonly shared humanity."
Reply
post #131 of 235
I'm so tired of the right wing misinformation machine. I love how they continuously boast that their listeners/readers are so intelligent and informed because they "listen to talk radio". Talk radio listeners are the original bobble heads.
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
traveling the globe in an envelope
Reply
post #132 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Northgate View Post

There was a recent email sent to RedStaters pleading for money to fix their blog. Here's a graph from that email...

"I’ll be blunt: I hate asking you for money. But I hate even more to imagine what America will be like if someone like Hillary Clinton or Barack Hussein Obama wins the presidency in November. RedState can help prevent that nightmare from coming true – but only if we’re offering the best possible web experience to the widest possible audience."

Okay, I see the context now. Hyperbole in a fundraising attempt. Thanks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #133 of 235
The race goes on!

At least for now, Hillary isn't melting down. She's melting up.
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
We were once so close to heaven
Peter came out and gave us medals
Declaring us the nicest of the damned -- They Might Be Giants          See the stars at skyviewcafe.com
Reply
post #134 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flat Stanley View Post

I can't help but ask for your list of electables.

I'm not talking about the Democratic Party's ability to select two candidates to run for president and vice president. I was asking whether a nontraditional/unconventional team consisting of a (white) woman and a black man can win the hearts of "middle America" over a traditional/conventional Republican pair; I have my doubts. I don't have a list of democratic "electables": any candidate which represents the base, ot core values of the party (for example Dennis Kucinich), as opposed to "Republican-Lite", have been been ignored by the media, and thus been denied the publicity and face recognition required for any hope as a front-runner. The lion's share of the attention has been given to Clinton and Obama. Similarly on the the Republican side, the candidate closest to traditional values of the party, Ron Paul, has been actively shut out of the circus by the media.

The majority of the voting public are starved for the time to do the necessary reading/research into the strengths and weaknesses of the candidates. Had these two designated outsiders (Paul and Kucinich) been given the same degree of attention and publicity given by the media to the favorites (Romney/Huckabee/McCain Clinton/Obama), then maybe we would see their percentages up in a similar range? I guess we will never know, because the media will continue to ignore them. Why does the media ignore them?.... now that's a hard one to know, but I very much doubt that "merit" comes within several light years of being a parameter in that equation.......
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
"We've never made the case, or argued the case that somehow Osama bin Laden was directly involved in 9/11. That evidence has never been forthcoming". VP Cheney, 3/29/2006. Interview by Tony Snow
Reply
post #135 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

How many more Hillary campaign people will have to resign before you realize this?

Two. No. Three.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #136 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by sammi jo View Post

I assume you voted for Bush in 2000? Obama is no less qualified than the current president re. foreign policy at the start of his first term.

I actually think he's far more naive. Perhaps the amount of experience is similar.

Quote:

I don't like or dislike Obama either: I just feel that the Dems have made two unelectable choices to be their front runners, in an apparent party-suicide bid.

Obama is more electable than Hillary, I think.

Quote:

But... who in hell wants to enter the White House in 2009, with 50 years worth of damage to clean up before any progress can be made, in any area, foreign and domestic?

That's lunacy. It really is.

Quote:
The legacy of the last 8 years is going to reflect badly on whoever takes over, be it Republican or Democrat, assuming the November elections go ahead as scheduled of course.

I don't think it will reflect at all. You're just listening to the "let's rebuild America's image" crap again, which is just pointless rhetoric.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #137 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

Obama is more electable than Hillary, I think.

I agree completely. Hillary is way too polarizing and independents do not like her nearly as much as they like Obama.
post #138 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

I actually think he's far more naive. Perhaps the amount of experience is similar.



Obama is more electable than Hillary, I think.



That's lunacy. It really is.



I don't think it will reflect at all. You're just listening to the "let's rebuild America's image" crap again, which is just pointless rhetoric.


" I don't think it will reflect at all. "



Well! I've got to say it SDW. You have a real talent for having wild, screwball, takes on current affairs! Not at all?

Jesus!
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
Without the need for difference or a need to always follow the herd breeds complacency, mediocrity, and a lack of imagination
Reply
post #139 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by jimmac View Post

" I don't think it will reflect at all. "



Well! I've got to say it SDW. You have a real talent for having wild, screwball, takes on current affairs! Not at all?

Jesus!

This is what sammi posted:

Quote:
The legacy of the last 8 years is going to reflect badly on whoever takes over, be it Republican or Democrat, assuming the November elections go ahead as scheduled of course

Do you really think that's true? I think it's crap. No one is going to be talking about Bush because he won't be in office. There might be comparisons, but beyond that you're going to hear about the new President and the new President alone. There certainly isn't going to be "50 years worth of damage" to repair. That's just election rhetoric and you know it. Or you should, at least.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #140 of 235
Quote:
As for Kerry, everything that was said was the truth and his detractors had been following him around for decades because of his atrocity claims.

Actually some of the Swifites had given speeches about how great Kerry was, before they were bought. Try again, trumpt.
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
proud resident of a failed state
Reply
post #141 of 235
post #142 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by groverat View Post

Actually some of the Swifites had given speeches about how great Kerry was, before they were bought. Try again, trumpt.

Actually John O'Neill went back in time to 1971 so he could confront Kerry on this matter and then traveled forward to 2004 again so he could form Swiftboat Vets for Truth.

So I've tried again and this site clearly details all the issues they have continually had with Kerry. The site and what it presses has not conveniently disappeared after the 2004 campaign nor will it have magically reappeared if Kerry ever decides to run again. Your conspiratorial nonsense is just not reality. Kerry and the VVAW haven't disappeared either only no one is walking around attempting to claim that he and they magically appeared for political motivations in 2004.

Your sour grapes doesn't change history.

This is part and parcel of why people have serious concerns about Hillary's ability to become president. She has so much baggage and has made so many political enemies and all these people will actively work to insure she isn't elected. They won't just magically appear out of no place with false claims and political motivations as arranged by the Republican nominee. They will have been pursuing those claims and pressing those issues for years, possibly decades. The only thing that will have changed is the focus and attention on their efforts. If you are trying to air some grievance against Clinton, it won't get exposure in the down time, but you have her as the nominee and it will get air time.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #143 of 235
Why are we still talking about this?

Quote:
Originally Posted by weekeypeeedyuh

Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members.[11] Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,[12] neither Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, nor Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in Unfit for Command as part of Kerry's chain of command, are affiliated with the group.
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
Gangs are not seen as legitimate, because they don't have control over public schools.
Reply
post #144 of 235
A couple of points:

1. It's still WAY early; to get the nomination you need thousands of delegates -- I think we are at 60.

2. If Bill dropped dead tomorrow, Hillary would be finished. Her margins -- in an economics sense -- rest on getting back to the "good old days" of the Clinton 90s. She does have a core, but it's not enough to get her the job.

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply

In our desire to impose form on the world we have lost the capacity to see the form that is there;
and in that lies not liberation but alienation, the cutting off from things as they really are. --...

Reply
post #145 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by midwinter View Post

Why are we still talking about this?

We are talking about it because Democratic nominees for president can not lose unless it is vote fraud, dirty tricks or some other such nonsense. At least that is the case here. Al Gore lost because Jeb gave George Florida. Al Gore losing his own state, running a crappy campaign, his own mannerisms, claims or other such acts are all not relevant. Kerry lost because of dirty tricks from people paid of by Republicans, oh and voter fraud again, because people such as those in this thread can never believe someone would actually vote for a Republican.

Also your point doesn't support Groverat's and doesn't dispute mine. You can receive a positive evaluation while serving, come home and allege atrocities and still have those who gave you those evaluations declare that being willing to allege such baseless claims makes you unfit to be commander in chief.

But again, the reality is that all these vets of various sorts must have been, as Grove claims, BOUGHT OFF, because clearly no one could ever believe Kerry unfit for being commander in chief. It is apparently an indisputable fact and only people who would lie for money would ever dispute that "fact."

In relation to the thread, we are already having the most ridiculous claims made about Hillary. She is a world class genius because is running on the paradoxes of being a strong woman who is running on the coattails of her husband. Anyone who disputes this nonsense will make her cry and is practicing misogyny. If such "compelling" arguments fail to sway the populace at large over whatever idiotic frat/monkey boy the media will characterize the Republicans running, it will of course be fraud and dirty tricks that caused her to lose.

I've already read a half dozen stories about how "terrible" the caucus process must be because it appears Clinton will lose every time it is used. Finally the Clinton's have their own dirty tricks and are loading both barrels. Of course that is a lie because Democrats never need dirty tricks or opposition research. They just utter the word change a thousand times and if you don't vote for them, it is your fault for being stupid, tricked, duped or evil.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #146 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We are talking about it because Democratic nominees for president can not lose unless it is vote fraud, dirty tricks or some other such nonsense. At least that is the case here. Al Gore lost because Jeb gave George Florida. Al Gore losing his own state, running a crappy campaig snip
.

While this is an excellent rant about the Clintons, traditionally one actually responds to the points raised in the post one is responding to!

In this instance, Midwinter posted some information directly relating to the SBVT, which seemed to contradict your previous post!

In the interest of actually seeing this debate progress by count-and-counterpoint, I'll re-post Midwinter's quote for you again. It would be really cool if you'd respond to it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by weekeypeeedyuh
Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members.[11] Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,[12] neither Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, nor Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in Unfit for Command as part of Kerry's chain of command, are affiliated with the group.

Thanks Nick!
post #147 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hassan i Sabbah View Post

While this is an excellent rant about the Clintons, traditionally one actually responds to the points raised in the post one is responding to!

In this instance, Midwinter posted some information directly relating to the SBVT, which seemed to contradict your previous post!

In the interest of actually seeing this debate progress by count-and-counterpoint, I'll re-post Midwinter's quote for you again. It would be really cool if you'd respond to it.



Thanks Nick!

Also your point doesn't support Groverat's and doesn't dispute mine. You can receive a positive evaluation while serving, come home and allege atrocities and still have those who gave you those evaluations declare that being willing to allege such baseless claims makes you unfit to be commander in chief.

Quote:
Of the 3,500 Swift boat sailors who served in Vietnam, the names of some 250 appeared on the group's statement against Kerry; most did not serve at the same time or in the same place as Kerry.[8][9][10] Founding members of SBVT include Rear Admiral Roy Hoffmann (retired), a former commander of Swift boat forces; Houston attorney John O'Neill, an officer who became commander of Swift Boat PCF 94 several months after Kerry's departure in 1969 and who appeared opposite Kerry in a televised 1971 debate between them on The Dick Cavett Show; and 13 other named veterans. Several of those who joined SBVT during the 2004 campaign were officers who had previously praised Kerry's conduct during the Vietnam War. These included Division Commander Grant Hibbard, who wrote positive evaluations of Kerry, and Commander George Elliott, who submitted Kerry for a Silver Star. SBVT counts, in total, 16 officers who served with Kerry in Coastal Division 11 as members.[11] Despite SBVT's statements that Kerry's "entire chain of command" belonged to the group,[12] neither Joseph Streuli, former commander of Coastal Division 13, nor Art Price, former commander CTF 116 who is described in Unfit for Command as part of Kerry's chain of command, are affiliated with the group.

The very next paragraph from the Wikipedia article notes what I mentioned in my response.

Quote:
The group's initial letter against Kerry stated "It is our collective judgment that, upon your return from Vietnam, you grossly and knowingly distorted the conduct of the American soldiers, marines, sailors and airmen of that war (including a betrayal of many of us, without regard for the danger your actions caused us). Further, we believe that you have withheld and/or distorted material facts as to your own conduct in this war."[13] However, Kerry had posted over 100 pages of his military records at his website nearly two weeks before the issuance of the SBVT letter, and had also made his military medical records available for inspection by reporters (and provided a summary from his doctor).[14][15][16]

So I have addressed it as you wanted. Now to the point of the thread, answer me this, if you run your campaign on a questionable premise and your opponent exposes it, whether by independent or partisan means and you lose because of that premise, does the intent of the party exposing it really matter?

Hillary is running on her husband's record while running away from his scandals. She is new blood running as an incumbent. She is within the system and change-agent at the same time. She is breaking up the old boys club while being inevitable since she is still a member of the old white people's club.

That is an awful lot of paradoxes. Poking holes in them won't be that hard. Even if the claims of Swiftboaters were half-truth, half-false and half politically motivated, it wasn't hard to note that a man who left the field of combat as soon as possible to come home and allege atrocities was not a war hero "reporting for duty" to lead us into a "better run" Iraq war.

Obama has already been pointing out that being first lady does not give you top security clearances, access to briefings, etc. If a 100% funded Republican group, all made up of people who clearly hate Hillary makes the same claim and as such people begin questioning the foreign policy experience of Hillary Clinton, their intents in countering the claim are not relevant. It was a terrible and paradoxical claim to begin with that anyone could and should knock down.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #148 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also your point doesn't support Groverat's and doesn't dispute mine. You can receive a positive evaluation while serving, come home and allege atrocities and still have those who gave you those evaluations declare that being willing to allege such baseless claims makes you unfit to be commander in chief.

That's not all the switfboaters said. If that's all they had said, there wouldn't have been any question as to the truthfulness of what they claimed - everyone saw Kerry testifying in front of Congress and elsewhere about Vietnam. What they said that everyone was talking about was that he faked the circumstances surrounding his medals. But virtually every neutral analyst said that each of their claims were either false or unprovable. If they had simply stuck to the truth, people could have judged whether Kerry's testimony was accurate or inaccurate and patriotic or not. But they went far beyond that, because it was a smear that they wanted, not a legitimate political issue.
post #149 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

That's not all the switfboaters said. If that's all they had said, there wouldn't have been any question as to the truthfulness of what they claimed - everyone saw Kerry testifying in front of Congress and elsewhere about Vietnam. What they said that everyone was talking about was that he faked the circumstances surrounding his medals. But virtually every neutral analyst said that each of their claims were either false or unprovable. If they had simply stuck to the truth, people could have judged whether Kerry's testimony was accurate or inaccurate and patriotic or not. But they went far beyond that, because it was a smear that they wanted, not a legitimate political issue.

But there were questions about his medals, some of which still remain. He claimed a Silver Star with Combat V, which did not exist, for example. And that doesn't begin to get into the claims they made about the veracity of his testimony and his service in general, most if not all of which have not been disproven.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #150 of 235
QED.

Nick, SDW's post is what it was really all about. It was not about being outspokenly against the Vietnam war, which most people today see as the correct position. It was about claiming that Kerry was never a war hero, not that he was a war hero who then turned.
post #151 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

That's not all the switfboaters said. If that's all they had said, there wouldn't have been any question as to the truthfulness of what they claimed - everyone saw Kerry testifying in front of Congress and elsewhere about Vietnam. What they said that everyone was talking about was that he faked the circumstances surrounding his medals. But virtually every neutral analyst said that each of their claims were either false or unprovable. If they had simply stuck to the truth, people could have judged whether Kerry's testimony was accurate or inaccurate and patriotic or not. But they went far beyond that, because it was a smear that they wanted, not a legitimate political issue.

You fail to see the point which is it doesn't really matter how they disproved a questionable premise.

Kerry's premise was that he was a war hero, reporting for duty as he stated at the convention, who would run the war better than Bush.

Larry Flynt has been particularly good at slamming people with their own statements, morals, etc. It doesn't matter that the money comes from selling pornography, that he is clearly politically and personally biased and motivated, etc. If you run on a family values ticket and then go see prostitutes, it is your own values, morals and statements that are condemning you no matter how ham-handed, semi-correct, biased or whatever else the actions of the person doing the knocking down.

Hillary is running on a load of faulty premises. It appears Obama is an empty suit who won't hit back hard enough on them. I suspect neither of them are hitting hard enough because of their various -ism firewalls that attempt to blunt criticism. Obama can't make Clinton cry and Clinton can't beat down on a black man.

Obama also can't nail her on areas where hey have agreement or desire the same outcome and thus, must let the inconsistencies hang there. Hillary spends a lot of time NOT pointing out that she has been silent on gay marriage and limits support to civil unions. Clinton attempts to stay on both sides of the war issue. She also wants both sides of illegal immigration. We all saw how well that played out.

These sorts of matters are the ones that give us voting for the troops before voting against them, lockboxes, and things of that nature.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #152 of 235
It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that their allegation were false, as long as it played into the narrative?

I hope you agree that there is a difference between these two scenarios:
1. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents call him a hypocrite.
2. A politician claims to have family values, his political opponents falsely claim he went to prostitutes, and call him a hypocrite.
post #153 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

It doesn't matter? It doesn't matter that their allegation were false, as long as it played into the narrative?

I hope you agree that there is a difference between these two scenarios:
1. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents call him a hypocrite.
2. A politician claims to have family values, his political opponents falsely claim he went to prostitutes, and call him a hypocrite.

I agree there is a difference. However what is the difference between one and two here.

1. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents call him a hypocrite.

2. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents who are pimps who employ prostitutes call him a hypocrite.

I would hope you would agree that even though pimps employ prostitutes, the politician is a hypocrite when judged under the values he or she promotes.

Now you say the allegations were false. There were several points put forward regarding his medals. However the main point that the medals were supposed to support both by Kerry and those in opposition to him, was that he was or was not a decorated war hero who would make a better commander in chief than Bush. We can argue about how deserved or not they were, but the reality is that people we consider heroes wouldn't have asked for reassignment. It doesn't matter whether the scratch on the first purple heart was enemy or self-inflicted, signed by his commanding office or another officer, etc. All those points can remain disputed and most people would agree that we don't call the person requesting early reassignment a war hero.

The other point was that he alleged atrocities which is what created the baggage in terms of men following him around and refuting them for all these years.

That all said, Kerry still brought it on himself. He is the one who released a book called Tour of Duty to highlight his record and call himself a hero. He is the one who said he was reporting for duty at the Democratic convention. He is the one along with Democrats who again tried to use what Bush did during that time as a campaign issue.

But back to the point at hand, if you bring up a campaign issue and your opponent ends up using your own words, own record and own mishandling of it to beat you, it isn't dirty tricks.

If Al Gore tries to play up his intelligence, each misstatement, his own test scores, grade reports and aptitude tests are going to be open season. If he doesn't want that then you don't go around claiming you will be a better president because the other guy is so dumb and you are so smart.

Hillary is clearly trying to make herself out to be something she isn't. She is the woman who won't bake cookies and be a country song called Stand by Your Man, except she did exactly that. She is the woman who represents a new era for women, except she is trying to do that by riding on the coattails of her husband and claim his accomplishments as her own. Slapping this stuff down won't be hard.

If the people doing it are biased, donated to whoever, have 80% of their contentions be factual while the other 20% are either wrong or true based on if you drink the kool-aid or not, that won't matter. The 80% is good enough. In the case of Kerry it was good enough to note he simply came home earlier, the types of wounds inflicted, and what he did with his time after he came home. The other 20% is disputed. It always will be disputed in politics with different viewpoints and sides.

Think of it like a civil versus criminal suit. We don't need unreasonable doubt, just a preponderance of the evidence. They can be 80% right and 20% disputed and still win the argument.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #154 of 235
Thread Starter 
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

QED.

Nick, SDW's post is what it was really all about. It was not about being outspokenly against the Vietnam war, which most people today see as the correct position. It was about claiming that Kerry was never a war hero, not that he was a war hero who then turned.

No, there were two components. First, his being a "war hero" was questioned. He was only there a short time and there are legit questions about his actions and what he may or may not have done to earn medals. There are numerous examples we don't need to get into here. The point is his conduct during the war still is an open question.

Secondly, there was his testimony after his return to the United States. According to many of his fellow soldiers, he was lying in that testimony. There was also question of his anti-war activities beyond testifying, activities he has never fully explained.
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
I can only please one person per day.  Today is not your day.  Tomorrow doesn't look good either.  
Reply
post #155 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

I agree there is a difference. However what is the difference between one and two here.

1. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents call him a hypocrite.

2. A politician claims to have family values, but goes to prostitutes and is caught and his political opponents who are pimps who employ prostitutes call him a hypocrite.

No, there is no difference between those two, because the facts are still the facts. Your implication is that the allegations against Kerry were true but the accusers were bad. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the specific allegations made by the swift boaters about his medals were all shown to be either demonstrably false or unprovable.

YOu say Kerry brought it on himself. That's like saying that it's OK to lie and claim that any family-values politician went to see prostitutes. A lie and a smear are still a lie and a smear, even if Kerry ran on his record as a war hero. It would be wrong to make up an allegation that Jerry Falwell saw prostitutes, even though Falwell claimed to believe in family values.

Basically you're saying that as long as it fits a good story that smears a political opponent, the truth of it is irrelevant. Well in that case, I say that Bush was behind 9/11. It's not true, but he brought it on himself for talking about 9/11 a lot.
post #156 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by SDW2001 View Post

No, there were two components. First, his being a "war hero" was questioned. He was only there a short time and there are legit questions about his actions and what he may or may not have done to earn medals. There are numerous examples we don't need to get into here. The point is his conduct during the war still is an open question.

It is not an open question. It was a false smear of the very worst kind. YOu can take all of the greatest war heros in history, and second-guess the medals and the events 30 years later, and say "there are legit questions." Well, they're not legit, they're false and despicable.
post #157 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by BRussell View Post

No, there is no difference between those two, because the facts are still the facts. Your implication is that the allegations against Kerry were true but the accusers were bad. That's not what I'm saying at all. What I'm saying is that the specific allegations made by the swift boaters about his medals were all shown to be either demonstrably false or unprovable.

YOu say Kerry brought it on himself. That's like saying that it's OK to lie and claim that any family-values politician went to see prostitutes. A lie and a smear are still a lie and a smear, even if Kerry ran on his record as a war hero. It would be wrong to make up an allegation that Jerry Falwell saw prostitutes, even though Falwell claimed to believe in family values.

Basically you're saying that as long as it fits a good story that smears a political opponent, the truth of it is irrelevant. Well in that case, I say that Bush was behind 9/11. It's not true, but he brought it on himself for talking about 9/11 a lot.

BRussell, you are just being dismissive at this point. I can link to the actual Swiftboat ads themselves off of YouTube if you desire. As you note the kool-aid drinkers for Republicans like me will see those medal allegations as true even if aspects of them are unprovable and kool-aid drinkers like you will call them wrong. That is the 20% I've said won't be able to be settled to the satisfaction of anybody. You continually dismiss and ignore the reality that Kerry was running as a self-proclaimed war hero while having alleged atrocities of others. That is all true. PERIOD. Kerry and his campaign attempted to compare his record to that of Bush and rehash 25-30 years prior. That is a fact. The fact that you believe a specific allegation made by the swift boaters about his medals is false does not mean it is the only allegation they made or that all the other allegations which were true and hit the mark did not convince the public-at-large.

It is old news by now and those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. You can keep scratching your head next year and mutter about "dirty tricks" because some darn group didn't buy Hillary's nonsense about the first lady being the same as being the president and hit home with several points one of which you think is flat out wrong or a lie.

Of course we really don't have to worry about that with regard to her because Clinton addresses every allegation strongly and is very good at generating plausible deniability in the areas where she was caught in the wrong.(Iraq war vote) I'm sure she will be a better candidate than Gore or Kerry ever were. We have seen the driver's license deer in the headlights problem rear its head though so we know it is there. I'm sure the Republicans are building up plenty of things to toss out to see what sort of nonsense might wander out of her own mouth in explanation. If she manages to shoot herself in the foot explaining something, they might catch some breaks.

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply

"During times of universal deceit, telling the truth becomes a revolutionary act." -George Orwell

Reply
post #158 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

We are talking about it because Democratic nominees for president can not lose unless it is vote fraud, dirty tricks or some other such nonsense.

Good point. And kinda sucks, actually.
post #159 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

Also your point doesn't support Groverat's and doesn't dispute mine. You can receive a positive evaluation while serving, come home and allege atrocities and still have those who gave you those evaluations declare that being willing to allege such baseless claims makes you unfit to be commander in chief.

Of course you can! Because Vietnam vets, especially officers, tend to get pissed off when their ex-buddies tell the truth that they will do anything to get back at them for it. Even lie.

So were they lying when they gave a positive evaluation, or when they "flip-flopped" and suddenly screamed "No, these atrocities never happened! He's a Liar! And... and... and... he didn't really EARN his medals! Yeah! That's the ticket!"

There's proof of at least one lie in there. And which one do you think is the most probable one?

I DON'T KNOW WHY YOU SPEND SO MUCH TIME TRYING NOT TO USE YOUR BRAIN, NICK!

Like I've said a million times, you're smarter than that.
post #160 of 235
Quote:
Originally Posted by trumptman View Post

BRussell, you are just being dismissive at this point. I can link to the actual Swiftboat ads themselves off of YouTube if you desire. As you note the kool-aid drinkers for Republicans like me will see those medal allegations as true even if aspects of them are unprovable and kool-aid drinkers like you will call them wrong. That is the 20% I've said won't be able to be settled to the satisfaction of anybody. You continually dismiss and ignore the reality that Kerry was running as a self-proclaimed war hero while having alleged atrocities of others. That is all true. PERIOD. Kerry and his campaign attempted to compare his record to that of Bush and rehash 25-30 years prior. That is a fact. The fact that you believe a specific allegation made by the swift boaters about his medals is false does not mean it is the only allegation they made or that all the other allegations which were true and hit the mark did not convince the public-at-large.

It is old news by now and those who do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it. You can keep scratching your head next year and mutter about "dirty tricks" because some darn group didn't buy Hillary's nonsense about the first lady being the same as being the president and hit home with several points one of which you think is flat out wrong or a lie.

Of course we really don't have to worry about that with regard to her because Clinton addresses every allegation strongly and is very good at generating plausible deniability in the areas where she was caught in the wrong.(Iraq war vote) I'm sure she will be a better candidate than Gore or Kerry ever were. We have seen the driver's license deer in the headlights problem rear its head though so we know it is there. I'm sure the Republicans are building up plenty of things to toss out to see what sort of nonsense might wander out of her own mouth in explanation. If she manages to shoot herself in the foot explaining something, they might catch some breaks.

I'm being dismissive because the allegations about Kerry's medals have been debunked, not just by the "koolaid drinkers," but by neutral fact-check groups that looked at them. He also discussed atrocities that he had heard others claim they had done. He didn't invent them, he didn't lie about them, he heard other people talk about them at a conference that many other people attended in addition to himself, and then he testified about that in front of congress. He can be criticized for doing that, but there is such a thing as truth and lies, and lying is wrong. Crazy, huh?

What I'm getting from you is that the truth doesn't matter. Because Kerry claimed to be a war hero, people are allowed to lie about his record. It's fair game. It's all just one side and the other and we can't judge the truth, we just spin one way or the other.

And I don't know what it has to do with Hillary Clinton. I'm an Obama supporter and I think Clinton is full of it when she tries to say she has more experience. Obama (not to mention Biden, Dodd, Richardson, and Kucinich) has more years in elective office than Clinton. But that doesn't mean Republicans can lie and claim she is a lesbian or whatever other nonsense you people will come up with. I think Bush was wrong to go into Iraq, but that doesn't mean I'll say that he was behind 9/11.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Is Hillary Melting Down?