I am Hillary - Hear Me RoaR!

[Gan]

Well, it seems that Hillary is starting to take a more active role in laying groundwork for a presidential bid. Nothing is confirmed - and wont be this early in the game... but its looming in the not so distant future. You can bet on it. As if 8 years of being first lady, and 1 term as senator of a state she's not even from she thinks she's ready to lead the nation. And you guys thought W was light on experience to be president. :whistle:

Here's her latest 15 minutes of fame as related by CNN:
_____________________________

Republicans blast Sen. Clinton on Bush attack.

She had compared him to Alfred E. Neuman

Monday, July 11, 2005; Posted: 2:05 p.m. EDT (18:05 GMT)
~~~

ALBANY, New York (AP) -- Republicans took aim at Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Monday for a speech comparing President Bush to Mad magazine's freckle-faced, "What, me worry?" kid, Alfred E. Neuman.

A Republican National Committee official said the former first lady was "part of today's angry and adrift Democrat Party," while a spokesman for one of her potential 2006 Senate rivals said she was guilty of "insulting the president."

"At a time when President Bush and most elected officials are focused on the security of our nation, Mrs. Clinton seems focused on taking partisan jabs and promoting her presidential campaign," added New York's GOP chairman, Stephen Minarik. "Her priorities are clearly out of whack."

Clinton's attack on the president came Sunday during a speech in Colorado.

"I sometimes feel that Alfred E. Neuman is in charge in Washington," Clinton said during the inaugural Aspen Ideas Festival, organized by the Aspen Institute, a non-partisan think tank.

The former first lady drew a laugh from the crowd when she described Bush's attitude toward tough issues with Neuman's catch phrase: "What, me worry?"

It wasn't the first time that Clinton had likened Bush to the Mad kid. In April, she told New York Daily News reporters and editors, "We're in a very dangerous fiscal situation, and this administration is Alfred E. Neuman -- what, me worry?"

As Clinton gears up for a Senate re-election race in New York next year and a possible White House presidential bid in 2008, her attacks on Bush have become sharper.

In her speech Sunday, she accused the president of damaging the economy by overspending while giving tax cuts to the rich, depriving U.S. soldiers of equipment needed to fight the war in Iraq and cutting funds for scientific research.

"Hillary Clinton's opportunistic attempt to market herself as a centrist is like a wolf dressing up in sheep's clothing," said RNC spokeswoman Tracey Schmitt. "Such thinly veiled rhetoric doesn't change the fact she is part of today's angry and adrift Democrat Party."

Thomas Basile, a spokesman for potential Senate challenger Edward Cox, a son-in-law of the late President Nixon, said while Clinton was "busy insulting the president across the country, she is failing to produce the homeland security and transportation funding" the state needs.

Clinton has been accusing the Bush administration of providing inadequate funding for New York's security needs.

While national polls show the former first lady to be leading the pack among potential 2008 Democratic presidential contenders, Clinton has said she is too wrapped up in her Senate work and re-election effort to think about that.

Copyright 2005 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/POLITICS/07/11/clinton.speech.ap/index.html

[Apotheosis]

Hillary's been positioning herself for a bid for quite some time now. this is old news.

I think her comparison of GWB is fair game. I laughed. So? It's no different then the way the republicans attack the democrats.

Both sides are whiny bitches, and need to start working on the country's real issues, in my opinion.

[DeV]

Um yeah, I laughed as well at the very first line of that article.

Couldn't resist.

I also can't believe their accusing her of taking partisan jabs, as if this is something totally new and groundbreaking in the world of politics.

[Gan]

I think its more just making sure that its got enough attention to make the press so that not just the republican mud slinging is known. Fair is fair I suppose.

As far as old news of Hillary in 2008? Not really - since there hasnt been a direct thread addressing Hillary's goals that I could find here on the boards...

In fact, the only thread I could find addressing any future campaign hopefuls for 2008 was this one with the last post being in November of 2004.

http://forum.gsplayers.com/viewthread.php?tid=10706&page=2

Personally, I hope she does try for the Democrat ticket. It will make for a very lively and entertaining political season if so.

[Edaarin]

Will someone please tell Hillary that the 19th Amendment gives women the right to vote...and that's it?

No mention of actually holding office. I tell ya, give these women an inch...

[Atlanteax]

Ganalon, you should be rooting for Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.

As if this country would ever elect a female president! :lol:

(tongue in cheek, Ladies!)

[Apotheosis]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Ganalon, you should be rooting for Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.

As if this country would ever elect a female president! :lol:

(tongue in cheek, Ladies!)


You're not wrong. I think the republicans are definitel concerned, though, perhaps we'll see a condoleeza VS. Hillary in 2008?

They're both ballbusters, so who knows...

[ElanthianSiren]

:lol: Administration focused on security issues? Meanwhile, one of its top thinktanks, (Rove), just admitted to being the source that outed a CIA agent?

That's funny, but then again, why worry?


-M

[Farquar]

I think the "senator from a state she's not from" argument lost its effect a long time ago, particularly because most New Yorkers approve of Hillary and are quite satisfied with the quality of her representation.

In terms of the experience itself, I see being a two term first lady during one of the most prosperous times in the history in the nation much more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union.

Light on experience I can tolerate. Light on experience AND intelligence, I cannot.

[Landrion]

Originally posted by Atlanteax
Ganalon, you should be rooting for Hillary to be the Democrat nominee.

As if this country would ever elect a female president! :lol:

(tongue in cheek, Ladies!)

You may be kidding, but I honestly do think the country is still too sexist to elect a woman president. Id be more encouraged if we'd seen a woman vice president already

[Gan]

Originally posted by Farquar
I think the "senator from a state she's not from" argument lost its effect a long time ago, particularly because most New Yorkers approve of Hillary and are quite satisfied with the quality of her representation.

In terms of the experience itself, I see being a two term first lady during one of the most prosperous times in the history in the nation much more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union.

Light on experience I can tolerate. Light on experience AND intelligence, I cannot.

The fact that Hillary bought a senate seat from a Democratic stronghold is a topic, perhaps ever so tired, that will come up more in the future - so all attempts at discouraging it now will be laughed at.

<more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union. >

I'm from Texas and I think you either should put up some sources or edit that as your opinion. Otherwise I'm calling, in my most Texan drawl... bullshit.

Additionally the Clintons rode on the prosperity of the Regan/Bush years so giving them the credit with a high riding economy and to suggest that she had anything to do with it is just plain stupid. I'll be happy to give you a lecture on macroeconomics 101 if you happen think that everything that the Clintons did while in office had any direct and immediate coorelation with the market's success or failure. You're hillary'ous. :lol: :lol: :lol:

<Light on experience I can tolerate. Light on experience AND intelligence, I cannot. >

Yes we all know that if you drive slow enough through campus real slowly Havard will throw an MBA through your window. :rolleyes:

[ElanthianSiren]

Hell, if we want to play that game, Cheney and Bush are both Texans and Cheney had to move his residency to a state he does not reside in.

Politicians all do that. That's a pretty sad argument.

-M

[Ravenstorm]

And Bush is from Connecticut. How about that.

Raven

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Farquar
<more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union. >

I'm from Texas and I think you either should put up some sources or edit that as your opinion. Otherwise I'm calling, in my most Texan drawl... bullshit.

Just off the top of my head:

-Texas v. Johnson
-Lawrence v. Texas
-Roe v. Wade
-Your state's almost lighthearted attitude about the death penalty

You Texans need to understand that the Union relies on you for two things:

-Steak
-Blonde party girls

Stick to your core competencies. Leave the thinking and the public policy to us. This goes for you too Oklahoma. A general guide is if you dont have an Ivy League school (Stanford, U of Michigan, and U of Chicago qualify as Ivies) in your state, you have no business trying to direct Constitutional litigation.

<I'll be happy to give you a lecture on macroeconomics 101 if you happen think that everything that the Clintons did while in office had any direct and immediate coorelation with the market's success or failure. You're hillary'ous.>

I didn't make any causal connections, you just inferred that I did. Nevertheless, I have an A.B. from Princeton, with a dual concentration in Economics and Sociology, but I'm always willing to learn something new.

<Yes we all know that if you drive slow enough through campus real slowly Havard will throw an MBA through your window.>

I consider myself quite knowledgeable when it comes to Ivy league admissions. HBS is arguably the most political school when it comes to admissions. A set of connections and a recognizable name will get you disgustingly far. Business schools often give great weight to intangibles like "work experience" and your general level of influence in business or politics, if any. The goal of HBS, and any good business school, is not to assemble the most intelligent class, but to create a class with the greatest level of influence and potential for wealth creation.

In contrast, W applied for admission to law school(which is generally more about numerical qualifications) at UT-Austin and was denied.

[Keller]

Farquar and longshot are the two posters on this board I would instigate a battle of wits with.

This is why.

[Hulkein]

Well Farquar is a lawyer and all lawyers are above the level of genius.

I wouldn't mess with him, he's fucking badass and kicks the shit out of people with his subpeonas.

[Keller]

I'd say lawyers who haven't been to a non-ivy school are generally people I'd not like to tangle with, intellectually.

Hoo-hah for double negatives!

[Gan]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Hell, if we want to play that game, Cheney and Bush are both Texans and Cheney had to move his residency to a state he does not reside in.

Politicians all do that. That's a pretty sad argument.

-M

Dick Cheney

Born: Lincoln Nebraska

Raised: Casper Wyoming

First house seat: Wyoming

He did not become president of Halliburton (headquartered in Houston, Tx) until 1995.

Your analagy doesnt fly, sorry.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Ganalon]

[SpunGirl]

I don't think I would vote for Hilary. She just disgusts me.

-K

[Gan]

Originally posted by Farquar
[
Just off the top of my head:

-Texas v. Johnson
-Lawrence v. Texas
-Roe v. Wade
-Your state's almost lighthearted attitude about the death penalty

Texas v. Johnson:

During the 1984 Republican National Convention in Dallas, Texas, respondent Johnson participated in a political demonstration to protest the policies of the Reagan administration and some Dallas-based corporations. After a march through the city streets, Johnson burned an American flag while protesters chanted. No one was physically injured or threatened with injury, although several witnesses were seriously offended by the flag burning. Johnson was convicted of desecration of a venerated object in violation of a Texas statute, and a State Court of Appeals affirmed. However, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals reversed, holding that the State, consistent with the First Amendment, could not punish Johnson for burning the flag in these circumstances. The court first found that Johnson's burning of the flag was expressive conduct protected by the First Amendment. The court concluded that the State could not criminally sanction flag desecration in order to preserve the flag as a symbol of national unity. It also held that the statute did not meet the State's goal of preventing breaches of the peace, since it was not drawn narrowly enough to encompass only those flag burnings that would likely result in a serious disturbance, and since the flag burning in this case did not threaten such a reaction. Further, it stressed that another Texas statute prohibited breaches of the peace and could be used to prevent disturbances without punishing this flag desecration.

Opinion of the Supreme Court:
JUSTICE BRENNAN delivered the opinion of the Court.

After publicly burning an American flag as a means of political protest, Gregory Lee Johnson was convicted of desecrating a flag in violation of Texas law. This case presents the question whether his conviction is consistent with the First Amendment. We hold that it is not

Sorry, I'm all for freedom of expression, but I'm offended by someone burning a US flag and wish that it did have more protection than it currently has. If thats constitutionally bankrupt then I'm glad I'm living in a constitutional poor house.

Lawrence v. Texas:
In Lawrence vs. Texas, two gay men say the state of Texas deprived them of privacy rights and equal protection under the law when they were arrested in 1998 for having sex in a Houston home.

A neighbor had reported a "weapons disturbance" at the home of John G. Lawrence, and when police arrived they only found two men having sex. Lawrence and another man, Tyron Garner, were held overnight in jail and later fined $200 each for violating the state’s Homosexual Conduct law. The neighbor was later convicted of filing a false police report.

All sodomy laws in the US are now unconstitutional and unenforceable when applied to non-commercial consenting adults in private.

Imagine that, an old law, which probably exists on the books of more states than just Texas (in my opinion) was applied. Funny, it New York 2 additional years after this case was filed in Houston, to remove their antiquated sodomy laws from the books (June 22, 2000). And New York happens to have Ivy League Schools and attempting to direct constitutional litigation to boot. :rolleyes:

Roe v. Wade
A pregnant single woman (Roe) brought a class action challenging the constitutionality of the Texas criminal abortion laws, which proscribe procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life. A licensed physician (Hallford), who had two state abortion prosecutions pending against him, was permitted to intervene. A childless married couple (the Does), the wife not being pregnant, separately attacked the laws, basing alleged injury on the future possibilities of contraceptive failure, pregnancy, unpreparedness for parenthood, and impairment of the wife's health. A three-judge District Court, which consolidated the actions, held that Roe and Hallford, and members of their classes, had standing to sue and presented justiciable controversies. Ruling that declaratory, though not injunctive, relief was warranted, the court declared the abortion statutes void as vague and overbroadly infringing those plaintiffs' Ninth and Fourteenth Amendment rights. The court ruled the Does' complaint not justiciable. Eventually overturned by the Supreme Court.

Yes because those who believe that a baby is a life at birth are bad bad people.


Originally posted by Farquar
You Texans need to understand that the Union relies on you for two things:
-Steak
-Blonde party girls

Is it very painful to attempt to be so funny and yet fail so miserably? Yes, because you're from New York it automatically makes you Gods gift to the American culture. :rolleyes:


Originally posted by Farquar
I didn't make any causal connections, you just inferred that I did. Nevertheless, I have an A.B. from Princeton, with a dual concentration in Economics and Sociology, but I'm always willing to learn something new.

to wit...


Originally posted by Farquar
In terms of the experience itself, I see being a two term first lady during one of the most prosperous times in the history in the nation much more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union.


To which I point out that you did make a causal connection if only implied, but the intent was still there, and given your background in economics as you claim, you should know better than to make that elusion.

The remainder of your discourse on Ivy League schools I'll yield to your opinion, but rest assured that they are not the end all be all of higher education in America, and to think that they are is plain ignorant.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Ganalon]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ganalon
< Sorry, I'm all for freedom of expression, but I'm offended by someone burning a US flag and wish that it did have more protection than it currently has. If thats constitutionally bankrupt then I'm glad I'm living in a constitutional poor house. >

So basically what you're saying here is:
"I'm all for freedom of expression, but not when it actually means anything. I wish that people aren't allowed to say things that offend me to the point that I think they actually have something valid to say. If this means attacking a fundamental right that the founding fathers considered important enough to put at the top of the list, then I'm glad to be doing it."

< Imagine that, an old law, which probably exists on the books of more states than just Texas (in my opinion) was applied. Funny, it New York 2 additional years after this case was filed in Houston, to remove their antiquated sodomy laws from the books (June 22, 2000). And New York happens to have Ivy League Schools and attempting to direct constitutional litigation to boot.>

Ah right you are. Indeed, many states have strange old laws. In one part of Connecticut, it's illegal to walk backwards after sunset. In New York, its illegal to shake a dust mop out the window. New York may or may not have had a similar sodomy law on its books. The crucial difference, of course, is that only ONE state was brazen and self righteous enough to ENFORCE the law. Not only that, this same state had the gall to litigate the case to the highest court in the land, wasting millions of dollars and valuable man-hours in the vain attempt to metastasize their particularly reprehensible brand of myopic conservatism. That state, ladies and gents, was the great state of Texas.

< Yes because those who believe that a baby is a life at birth are bad bad people.>

If you read more carefully, you'd have found that the invalidated law "proscribe[d] procuring or attempting an abortion except on medical advice for the purpose of saving the mother's life." The statute covered not babies at birth, but at any and all times during which an abortion could be undertaken. The wide scope of the statute effectively criminalized ANY type of abortion. Laws preventing late term abortions are nothing new and are narrow enough to be constitutional.

< Is it very painful to attempt to be so funny and yet fail so miserably? Yes, because you're from New York it automatically makes you Gods gift to the American culture.>

I was being dead serious.

< To which I point out that you did make a causal connection if only implied, but the intent was still there, and given your background in economics as you claim, you should know better than to make that elusion.>

So you equate:

"In terms of the experience itself, I see being a two term first lady during one of the most prosperous times in the history in the nation much more credible than being the former governor of the most Constitutionally bankrupt state in the Union. "

with

"The Clintons were responsible for the economic and technological boom of the late 20th century."?

Like casting pearls before swine I tell you...


p.s. It's "allusion".


[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Farquar]

[Gan]

You say tomatoe, I say tomatoe. And yes, it is allusion, elude is what humility is doing to you with your lofty viewpoints of us non ivy educated folk.

Just whatever you do, dont let me discourage you from voting for Hillary in 2008.

I want the opportunity to laugh [alot] when she destroys the Democratic ticket and blows any chance of a Democrat in the White House [again].

Go Hillary!

:rah:

Wow, you went to princeton. I totally want to suck your dick now.

[Warriorbird]

Bush is such a real Texan.

:snickers:

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Meanwhile, one of its top thinktanks, (Rove), just admitted to being the source that outed a CIA agent?



-M

Get your facts straight. Thanks.

[Parkbandit]

And I also have no issue with Hillary portraying George W as Alfred E. Neuman. It's fair game.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Meanwhile, one of its top thinktanks, (Rove), just admitted to being the source that outed a CIA agent?



-M

Get your facts straight. Thanks.

What's not to be straight? His own lawyer announced yesterday that he was the leak.

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Dick Cheney

Born: Lincoln Nebraska

Raised: Casper Wyoming

First house seat: Wyoming

He did not become president of Halliburton (headquartered in Houston, Tx) until 1995.

Your analagy doesnt fly, sorry.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Ganalon]

Analogy flies just fine. I don't register to vote in Cambria county and expect to be allowed to vote in Ottowa County.

Dick Cheney changed his legal residency to be permitted to run on the same ticket as Bush back to Wyoming. What you are saying in your argument basically is that any politican who changes their residency to run on a ticket is open to direct scorn, yet the irony of your argument is that Dick Cheney did just that; regardless of when he became part of Halliburton, his legal residency was still listed as Texas and he still changed that legal residency due to the legal constraint that says that the VP and P may not be representative of same state.

-M

[Gan]

What I'm saying is that you're using Cheney as an example is a bad analagy because Cheney has a connection to Wyoming.

Hillary has no bonafied connection with New York, making her buy/seat into the Senate from NY ironic. She was born and raised in Illinois then after attending Yale (as a college republican I might add) she married Bill and moved to Arkansas.

Cheney had to change his residency due to his running mate already being a resident of the same state. Hillary changed hers in order to to run for a vacant democratic seat. The fact that she has no connection from NY with regards to prior residence, nor a connection with the inhabitants of NY other than being a Democrat and former first lady just shows that she's not above opportunism, which if she does decide to run, we'll see more examples of the opportunities she's either created or taken advantage of to further her political ambitions.

Comparing Hillary's congressional seat to Cheney's congressional seat as you were is a still a bad analagy.



I am thoroughly going to enjoy playing the part of the political watchdog, especially so with Hillary, in the upcoming elections.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Ganalon]

[Latrinsorm]

Hilary Clinton was running in New York and was not from New York.
Cheney was running in America and was from America.

That's the difference. They're both still slippery, but considering Cheney's been reelected and Hilary has good approval ratings or whatever, apparently they're doing alright.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Latrinsorm]

[Parkbandit]

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Meanwhile, one of its top thinktanks, (Rove), just admitted to being the source that outed a CIA agent?



-M

Get your facts straight. Thanks.

What's not to be straight? His own lawyer announced yesterday that he was the leak.

-M

Please do yourself a favor and read something other than moveon.org. Thanks.

[DeV]

"According to MSNBC, Rove's lawyer, Robert Luskin, confirmed that Rove had been interviewed by Cooper for the article. It is unclear, however, what passed between Cooper and Rove."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/07/10/AR2005071001000.html -- Not Moveon.org

I think the kicker here is he probably did not mention her name directly per se or "knowingly" leak classified information according to the reports I've read. I've quoted knowingly because as a rule I don't trust politicians for the most part and Rove is no exception. Also the language their using seems carefully worded to me.

It remains to be seen how this will play out.

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren

Originally posted by Parkbandit

Originally posted by ElanthianSiren
Meanwhile, one of its top thinktanks, (Rove), just admitted to being the source that outed a CIA agent?



-M

Get your facts straight. Thanks.

What's not to be straight? His own lawyer announced yesterday that he was the leak.

-M

Please do yourself a favor and read something other than moveon.org. Thanks.

Actually, I was referencing Yahoo news last night when Rove's attorney openly admitted that he was the source of the leak. I've noted a few times that I don't belong to moveon.org. Having your own facts straight PB would be refreshing :)

-M

[ElanthianSiren]

Originally posted by Latrinsorm
Hilary Clinton was running in New York and was not from New York.
Cheney was running in America and was from America.

That's the difference. They're both still slippery, but considering Cheney's been reelected and Hilary has good approval ratings or whatever, apparently they're doing alright.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Latrinsorm]

I wasn't condemning either. I'm simply stating that it's politics as usual, and I'm sure we could find many examples of residency changes for ballot issues, questionable elections, etc on both sides.

As it's politics as usual, I find it a pretty weak argument to get in a frothing frenzy about.

-M

[Warriorbird]

Elizabeth Dole is a better Republican counter-example.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I want the opportunity to laugh [alot] when she destroys the Democratic ticket and blows any chance of a Democrat in the White House [again].

Go Hillary!

We are in agreement here. Hillary is just too polarizing a figure. I can identify with her to some extent, and so do highly educated career women that I work with. I can also see how much of blue collar america, men and women alike, would probably find her unappealing and inaccessible. She exudes that northeast upper crust, I'm so smart I must have an agenda impression, much like John Kerry.

I voted for Wes Clark in the Primary, not Kerry, but I supported the party when the time came. I will do the same in 2008. I would, however, be more comfortable with a Biden-Clinton ticket. Biden has a respectable presence, he's personable, and comfortable speaking to the media. He doesn't have the Ivy League pedigree, but he's educated nonetheless. He has the rep of being more of a centrist, which many liberals see as a "cop out" but which the rest of us see as the best chance to win. Add to him a minority or "deep south" VP and I think we've got a decent shot.

If McCain gets the GOP nod, I see it as a difficult uphill battle, since I respect and admire McCain. I believe that if it weren't for Karl Rove's shameful and deplorable smear campaign against McCain, he would be the President today, and would be doing an infintely better job at it.

[Warriorbird]

Biden - Easley has superb suggestive flow.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Farquar
[

Go Hillary




Going to be very interesting if Hillary does get to go against Allen/Rice

[Warriorbird]

No. It'll be pathetic.

:chuckles:

Mind you, I didn't think Kerry should be the Democratic candidate either. I hope y'all don't luck out.

[Edited on 7-12-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
Biden - Easley has superb suggestive flow.

I've heard the same thing. I've heard that North Carolinians love Easly, but were generally cautious about Edwards. Is this an accurate assessment?

[Warriorbird]

Yes. People didn't feel really connected to Edwards, except for respecting that he'd made a lot of money theoretically helping folks. Easley makes people laugh and even blue collar Republicans like him. Polling 'King of the Hill' viewers is just part of his genius.