I've noticed that Hillary seems to be paying attention to the "Shrillary" moniker---have you noticed how subdued and modulated her speaking has become? It seems that when she is on air now, it is in a one-to-one interview, not making a speech, where she has always tried to be a bombastic speaker and instead just made peoples' ears bleed.
There's a lot of baggage trailing along after Hillary. Some of it is unsubtantiated gossip (her involvement with Vince Foster) some of it has been pretty well diverted by an adoring press but may come back to nip at her heinie (the Whitewater thing) and some of it has never been really discussed publicly because of the Left's whine that it would not be "fair" to go after Bill's wife when, after all, SHE was not running for office.
Remember, in his campaigns, we were always told we should just look at HIM, and not at HER. Now we will be looking at her, and it will not be pretty.
Kerry managed to block the publication of his vile book, threatening a lawsuit if the publisher were to reprint it. Hillary has done the same thing, regarding her college thesis. But her early radicalism is pretty well documented, and I predict that a copy of this paper will surface, along with documentation of her affiliation with the murderous Black Panthers and other violent radical groups.
And it's not petty stuff. A claim that someone experimented with drugs in college is not enough to disqualify a person for the presidency, and neither are several other types of youthful escapades. But a strong and continuing allegiance to a political philosophy which would be, if in power today, a great danger to our country, is something else entirely. And Hillary's politics were clear-cut and unwavering--unwavering, that is, until they started to generate some serious political backlash when she was First Lady. Then, and only then, did she start to try to moderate her public persona, and since then she has been very conscious of how she is seen. More importantly, how she WANTS to be seen.
The Hillary who will be running for office bears little resemblance to the real Hillary, and we need to remember that. And I don't think America will accept the real Hillary under the mask---the Hillary who is just to the left of Lenin.
Posted by: Almiranta at January 20, 2007 03:41 PM
"My view remains: she won't win the nomination, and if by some miracle she managed it, she doesn't have the ability to win enough States to secure 270 electoral votes."
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Posted by: extramedium at January 20, 2007 04:53 PM
Did you hear her say "I grew up in middle America" well they why is she is the senator from NY who lives in Washington D.C. That line is gonna fall; and right away she cuts into Bush; we all remember the great decisions Mr. Clinton made; Gorelik; Berger; Reno; Not-so-bright Albright; and a host of others; I pray to God that she utterly fails!
Posted by: semby at January 20, 2007 05:42 PM
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
If there are, would that be enough to keep you away?
Posted by: Retired Spook at January 20, 2007 06:05 PM
I don't really know who she is. The Secret Service guys I know just roll their eyes. And she has several public profiles.
Posted by: Kahn at January 20, 2007 06:10 PM
I know this much. I worked on the Bush campaign in 2000, while I was still living in Michigan...but now, with Shrillary running, I will do everything in my power to prevent her from being elected....
...and also to prevent Bill from becoming "First 'Gentleman'." The thought of another Co-Presidency sickens me.
Posted by: Macker at January 20, 2007 06:29 PM
In Libland, the province of poor extramedium, noting and commenting on relevant characteristics of a candidate, and/or president, is "smearing"--yet I don't remember extra chastising his/her fellow travellers for commnents like "Chimpy" or the unfounded allegations of cocaine addiction and adultery ascribed to Bush, or the slurs on his intelligence, or the vicious "chickenhawk" comments. Smears, all. Unfounded, vicious, smears.
I was careful to point out the difference bewteen the gossip about Hillary and the actual facts----issues I consider relevant to the person who might become the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America. If being an extremely radical left-wing activist, an active supporter of criminal groups such as the Black Panthers, being part of a group of women who defined lesbianism as more of a political statement than a sexual orientation (or choice) and proudly declaring a loathing for the military which she now hopes to lead are not, individually or together signifcant, then I suppose extra could call them all "smearing".
But I do suggest a vocal and energetic defense or our President when TRUE smearing takes place, if only in the names of accuracy and fairness.
Posted by: Almiranta at January 20, 2007 06:32 PM
I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse.
Posted by: kjstrouble at January 20, 2007 06:44 PM
The Dems tend not to eat their own, at least not to the extent that the Republicans do, but when you throw a Clinton into the mix, that could change. It will be interesting to see how much of Hillary's dirty laundry comes out during the campaign for the Democratic nomination. I suspect that Howlin' Howie knows that the Clintons were the primary ones behind the scenes that sunk his presidential boat. Payback can be hell.
Posted by: Retired Spook at January 20, 2007 06:55 PM
Sort of OT, but since kj brought up Obama; did anyone happen to see Leno the other night. He was doing his man-on-the-street routine, showing ordinary (well, OK, the guy who looked like David Crosby wasn't so ordinary) people pictures of potential presidential candidates, and asking if they could identify them. He showed Obama's picture to this young woman, and she said "Oh yeah, that's Tiger Woods -- he's a golfer. LMAO!!
Posted by: Retired Spook at January 20, 2007 06:59 PM
ROFL That's funny Spook.
I too am totally surprised that Hillarly is running. I mean, didn't she say several times she wasn't? I mean come on! Can't we trust what politicans say? :)
Seriously folks, once the primaries are done I'll be ready to fight any Democrat contender, I only hope we have a good canidate on our side.
Posted by:
Gozer at January 20, 2007 07:19 PM
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Oh no no no, she will get 'smeared' in spite of that prediction, all's fair in love and politics, or something like that. BTW, is it really smearing if you simply tell the truth about someone, or does the idea of smearing only apply to things said about democrats?
Posted by: Lose the Bongos at January 20, 2007 07:25 PM
What will she do first
1) Sell our technology to N. korea
2) Sentence those that oppose her to the gallows
3) Raise taxes
4) release the gitmo terrorists
5) Announce that Osama will be given a presidential pardon
6) RAISE TAXES
7) Cars are illegal You will walk for the rest of your life
If hillary catches you driving, you will be sentenced to death
If you are a terrorist that was caught with a bomb hillary will pardon you for the small amount of
$ 900
Posted by: s at January 20, 2007 07:54 PM
I guess Hillary and billyboyboob want to come back and steal from the White House what they didn't get the first time around.
Tipper Gore at least returned what they stole. The Clintons did not.
I also have a question as to why anyone would vote for a woman who not only knew her husband was a cheat - but then not only wrote a book, but states time and again that she did not. We all knew her personal secretary kept tabs on what billyboyboob was boinking - and it had to be approved by Hillary. Hillary didn't like Monica that is why they moved her away from billyboyboob.
Hillary also hasn't done anything for NY. Here are some interesting points about Hillary:
• The only First Lady ever to come under criminal investigation
• Married to the first President ever to be disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court and a state court
• Married to the first President ever sued for sexual harassment
• Married to the only President ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
• Entered the largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
• Recipient of the largest amount of illegal campaign contributions both foreign and domestic
Posted by: s_sgt7 at January 20, 2007 08:46 PM
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Then you're trolling the wrong blog, kook. Better go on back to Kos, where you can join in with the Bush-smearers...
Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... at January 20, 2007 10:25 PM
extra,
As others have noted, you'll probably think any negative comment on Hillary to be a smear...we can't help you with that. Be that as it may, her glaring moral flaws and idiotic policy prescriptions give us plenty of fodder.
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 21, 2007 12:26 AM
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
That means one of the following
1. You won't be visiting here in the two years
2. You have very, very low espections
3. You don't know us very well.
4. all of the above
go with "4"
Posted by: Paul at January 21, 2007 01:39 AM
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 21, 2007 02:21 AM
Oh, Come on! I want to see relentless shrillary smears on this blog! I want to see this shameless socialist and her idiot "partner", billy, go down in flames once and for all. It is high time to send the clintoons packing. They never should have set foot in the PEOPLE's White House (thanks, Ross Perot). IF this skanky excuse of a human being gets back in power, our nation will be at horrible risk! BUT, I do kind of hope that she will be the nominee...to completely galvanize the conservative base again!
Posted by: Lee at January 21, 2007 02:52 AM
Lew, I've always wondered about that thesis--I wonder if Obama's camp is working on it.
If I had to choose between Hitlery and Obama-sama, I'd go with the big-eared fella...
Posted by: God is Great--Libs I Hate... at January 21, 2007 08:24 AM
As an outsider looking in, I feel the best person to lead the U.S. unfortunately has withdrawn his name from the race. Russ Feingold, from the very beginning of the Iraqi debacle saw it for what it was and with integrity and guts made his views perfectly clear.
It is a great loss for the American people not to have this man at the helm.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at January 21, 2007 08:27 AM
Lew, the lady who wrote the article you linked to, Barbara Olsen, was the wife of former Solicitor General, Ted Olsen. She was on the plane that slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Hillary's announcement has already spawned a new, bipartisan bumper sticker.
It simply says, "RUN HILLARY, RUN"
Democrats place in on the rear bumper, Republicans place it on the front bumper.
Posted by: Retired Spook at January 21, 2007 09:27 AM
"I know this much. I worked on the Bush campaign in 2000, while I was still living in Michigan...but now, with Shrillary running, I will do everything in my power to prevent her from being elected...."
Macker,
Some power you got. Gore won Michigan in 2000.
Posted by: Martin at January 21, 2007 01:34 PM
kjstrouble states: "I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse."
How about Hillary with Obama as her running mate? Huh? eh? Wouldn't that rot your socks off.
Posted by: Canuckguy at January 21, 2007 02:19 PM
Then again, America is not ready for woman AND an Afro-American to be in the two top jobs.
Posted by: Canuckguy at January 21, 2007 02:23 PM
Spook, that's a hoot! I'll buy a few of those bumper stickers. One of those on the front of an F-35 crew cab long bed Power Stroke will make my feelings clear!
The thing about Hillary is that what is said about her will be true and relevant. It will be characterized as sliming, as character assassination, as smearing, by the fawning radical Left, but it will be true. And it will relate directly to the kind of president she would be.
And I personally believe that anyone who writes and publishes tracts which are basically anti-American is not someone who should be running the country, whether it be Hillary or Kerry.
Posted by: Almiranta at January 21, 2007 02:58 PM
I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse.
Its going to be one of these two to win it all more then likely. As I see it it would take some catastrophic failure on the part of the Democrats to turn the tide of public opinion against them enough to push them from power.
Then when you factor in that the media covers for most everything they do wrong, and that they have so many "media darlings" on their side and we have so few its hard for me to see how we can gain anything back we've lost.
sad times...
Posted by: Jay20 at January 21, 2007 03:23 PM
And I personally believe that anyone who writes and publishes tracts which are basically anti-American is not someone who should be running the country, whether it be Hillary or Kerry.
Posted by Almiranta at January 21, 2007 02:58 PM
I don't get it. Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong? In other words, freedom of speech. To accept everything your government does, without question, is ridiculous. Every government needs to have a degree of accountibility. Sheep raised for their wool and tasty goodness is great, but as citizens of a great democracy, they suck.
Posted by: Canadian Observer at January 21, 2007 04:20 PM
Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong?
Isn't that exactly what Almiranta did, CO?
While we enjoy the right to speak out and against the country, ones who don't care for the country should not be running it.
Your reply sort of reminds me of Hillary Clinton's rant where she screeched, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!”
Odd that wasn't her outlook when she said that she and her husband were victims of a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” that was determined to undermine their presidency.
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 21, 2007 06:50 PM
Lew,
Great post, and information on her Thesis. The site you referred, posters said Barbara Olson's book "Hell To Pay: Hillary, etc." was hard to find in bookstores probably due to Clinton machine
interferring again with freedom of info acts. Well, I want posters to know, I just order this book on Amazon.com so it is available, and scary
as hell from the exerpts. I am wondering Lew, if
this thesis she wrote at Wellesly is going to be made public, as it certainly says what this woman is all about, and her lust for power/money. I am wondering if you can forward your info to say Rush
and Dick Morris-the more we shine the true light on Hillary, the better the public is for knowing what she REALLY IS ALL ABOUT, NOT WHAT SHE WANTS TO SAY TO GET INTO A POWER POSITION. Thanks again
for the informative links.
Posted by: Jo at January 21, 2007 10:53 PM
Jo, I wish her thesis would be made public. As I understand it, it is Wellesley College that has it under lock and key, refusing to make it public. Somehow, Barbara Olsen got hold of a copy and I have no idea where hers went. I keep hoping someone becomes a "whistleblower" and posts it publicly, somewhere.
Even though Wellesley is hiding the paper, I also have no doubt that Hillary herself has something to do with that decision. However, her commencement speech is still public, Hillary’s Commencement Speech. Life magazine featured her in a 1969 article about this speech. I haven't found a copy of the article online yet.
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 22, 2007 01:00 AM
According to the Wellesley College website, their library archive now says her thesis, "There is only the fight: An analysis of the Alinsky model," is currently availble in the library. I couldn't find a way to access it online or order a copy online.
Perhaps someone close to the college?
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 22, 2007 02:59 AM
Lew,
Interesting - I didn't look for Hillary's thesis, but decided to find out who Saul Alinsky was...he was a pinko agitator for many decades in the Chicago area and seems to have had a profound influence on Hillary Clinton. This may end up being quite important: Some quotes from Alinsky:
Every shaking advance of mankind toward equality and justice has come from the Radical. He hits, he hurts, he is dangerous. Conservative interests know that while Liberals are most adept at breaking their own necks with their tongues, Radicals are most adept at breaking the necks of Conservatives...
The Radical may resort to the sword but when he does he is not filled with hatred against those individuals whom he attacks. He hates these individuals not as persons but as symbols representing ideas or interests which he believes to be inimical to the welfare of the people...
If you push a negative hard and deep enough it will break through into its counterside...
Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it...
Look for ways to increase insecurity, anxiety, and uncertainty...
Ridicule, especially against organizational leaders, is a potent weapon. There's no defense. It's irrational. It's infuriating. It also works as a key pressure point to force concessions...
Hurting, harassing, and humiliating individuals, especially leaders, causes more rapid organizational change...
Rather typical leftist - angry, hate-filled, cruel, destructive...what you get when you believe the pack of lies which underpins all leftwing ideology. But we can also see in Alinsky's writing where Hillary picked up the politics of personal destruction (and one of the more ironic things is that after bringing the politics of personal destruction firmly into mainstream politics, Hillary then had the gall to complain about the politics of personal destruction...when you are of the left, the ends justify any means).
Posted by: Mark Noonan at January 22, 2007 03:41 AM
Posted by:
Lew Waters at January 22, 2007 10:10 AM
Lew and Mark,
Right now, I cannot think of Barbara Olson's husband's name, but I have seen him on Fox from time to time. He had something to do with some aspect of our govt. I am wondering if he would have the copy that Barbara used for her book? I will try to call Fox and get that info. Let you know-THIS information is most important, IMO, as it became her mantra, in following her mentor Saul Alinsky. This stuff is what has shaped Hillary and is very telling to her behavior today-
especially when innihilating her "enemies"..Let's keep on this guys...Jo
Posted by: Jo at January 22, 2007 11:21 PM
Lew/Mark,
Just looked up some info, and found that Ted Olson
was the Solicitor General that works within the Dept. of Justice. I think we can try to get to him on the above. Will keep you posted, and likewise, do the same if you get him, regarding the papers Barbara used about the Hillary Thesis in her book. I remember Barbara appearing many times on the Fox network doing reports, and her husband as well. Saw him recently...
Posted by: Jo at January 22, 2007 11:28 PM
CO strikes (OUT) again...
Note these pearls of wisdom: "I don't get it. Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong? In other words, freedom of speech."
Yeah... and your point is....????
I never said Hillary did not have complete and total freedom of speech. I never said she should have been deprived of the right or ability to say exactly what she thought at any time, for any reason. You simply have to learn to read what I write, CO, and then process it accurately. Running everything through that LLL filter of yours will always distort it.
But then, not satisfied with sounding like an idiot, CO has to make sure we get it..."To accept everything your government does, without question, is ridiculous."
No, CO, YOU are ridiculous. And you love showing off your ridiculousness for the entertainment of us all.
Hillary had, and has, total and complete freedom of speech, a right which was granted to her by God and memorialized in the Constitution of the Unites States of America. I stand for that right, I believe in it, and I defend it. Nothing in my post could possibly have been interpreted to imply any criticism of free speech. Except to an LLL, that is, who can't think his way out of a paper bag.
One side effect of such freedom of speech is that it allows people to say what they really think, which in turn allows us to KNOW what they really think. And so we know that what Hillary really thinks is bad for our country.
Now,up there in the Great North, you all might find it somehow appealing to elect someone to office who is openly and virulently anti-Canadian. Good for you. Down here, where our brains are a little less iced over, we tend to think that electing a leader who hates our country and our traditional form of government, and who deep-down wants to impose a radical socialist form of government upon us, is about as smart as, say, electing someone who brags about "loathing the military" to be Commander in Chief.
(Drum roll.....)
Posted by: Almiranta at January 24, 2007 08:14 PM
I've noticed that Hillary seems to be paying attention to the "Shrillary" moniker---have you noticed how subdued and modulated her speaking has become? It seems that when she is on air now, it is in a one-to-one interview, not making a speech, where she has always tried to be a bombastic speaker and instead just made peoples' ears bleed.
There's a lot of baggage trailing along after Hillary. Some of it is unsubtantiated gossip (her involvement with Vince Foster) some of it has been pretty well diverted by an adoring press but may come back to nip at her heinie (the Whitewater thing) and some of it has never been really discussed publicly because of the Left's whine that it would not be "fair" to go after Bill's wife when, after all, SHE was not running for office.
Remember, in his campaigns, we were always told we should just look at HIM, and not at HER. Now we will be looking at her, and it will not be pretty.
Kerry managed to block the publication of his vile book, threatening a lawsuit if the publisher were to reprint it. Hillary has done the same thing, regarding her college thesis. But her early radicalism is pretty well documented, and I predict that a copy of this paper will surface, along with documentation of her affiliation with the murderous Black Panthers and other violent radical groups.
And it's not petty stuff. A claim that someone experimented with drugs in college is not enough to disqualify a person for the presidency, and neither are several other types of youthful escapades. But a strong and continuing allegiance to a political philosophy which would be, if in power today, a great danger to our country, is something else entirely. And Hillary's politics were clear-cut and unwavering--unwavering, that is, until they started to generate some serious political backlash when she was First Lady. Then, and only then, did she start to try to moderate her public persona, and since then she has been very conscious of how she is seen. More importantly, how she WANTS to be seen.
The Hillary who will be running for office bears little resemblance to the real Hillary, and we need to remember that. And I don't think America will accept the real Hillary under the mask---the Hillary who is just to the left of Lenin.
"My view remains: she won't win the nomination, and if by some miracle she managed it, she doesn't have the ability to win enough States to secure 270 electoral votes."
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Did you hear her say "I grew up in middle America" well they why is she is the senator from NY who lives in Washington D.C. That line is gonna fall; and right away she cuts into Bush; we all remember the great decisions Mr. Clinton made; Gorelik; Berger; Reno; Not-so-bright Albright; and a host of others; I pray to God that she utterly fails!
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
If there are, would that be enough to keep you away?
I don't really know who she is. The Secret Service guys I know just roll their eyes. And she has several public profiles.
I know this much. I worked on the Bush campaign in 2000, while I was still living in Michigan...but now, with Shrillary running, I will do everything in my power to prevent her from being elected....
...and also to prevent Bill from becoming "First 'Gentleman'." The thought of another Co-Presidency sickens me.
In Libland, the province of poor extramedium, noting and commenting on relevant characteristics of a candidate, and/or president, is "smearing"--yet I don't remember extra chastising his/her fellow travellers for commnents like "Chimpy" or the unfounded allegations of cocaine addiction and adultery ascribed to Bush, or the slurs on his intelligence, or the vicious "chickenhawk" comments. Smears, all. Unfounded, vicious, smears.
I was careful to point out the difference bewteen the gossip about Hillary and the actual facts----issues I consider relevant to the person who might become the President and Commander in Chief of the United States of America. If being an extremely radical left-wing activist, an active supporter of criminal groups such as the Black Panthers, being part of a group of women who defined lesbianism as more of a political statement than a sexual orientation (or choice) and proudly declaring a loathing for the military which she now hopes to lead are not, individually or together signifcant, then I suppose extra could call them all "smearing".
But I do suggest a vocal and energetic defense or our President when TRUE smearing takes place, if only in the names of accuracy and fairness.
I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse.
The Dems tend not to eat their own, at least not to the extent that the Republicans do, but when you throw a Clinton into the mix, that could change. It will be interesting to see how much of Hillary's dirty laundry comes out during the campaign for the Democratic nomination. I suspect that Howlin' Howie knows that the Clintons were the primary ones behind the scenes that sunk his presidential boat. Payback can be hell.
Sort of OT, but since kj brought up Obama; did anyone happen to see Leno the other night. He was doing his man-on-the-street routine, showing ordinary (well, OK, the guy who looked like David Crosby wasn't so ordinary) people pictures of potential presidential candidates, and asking if they could identify them. He showed Obama's picture to this young woman, and she said "Oh yeah, that's Tiger Woods -- he's a golfer. LMAO!!
ROFL That's funny Spook.
I too am totally surprised that Hillarly is running. I mean, didn't she say several times she wasn't? I mean come on! Can't we trust what politicans say? :)
Seriously folks, once the primaries are done I'll be ready to fight any Democrat contender, I only hope we have a good canidate on our side.
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Oh no no no, she will get 'smeared' in spite of that prediction, all's fair in love and politics, or something like that. BTW, is it really smearing if you simply tell the truth about someone, or does the idea of smearing only apply to things said about democrats?
What will she do first
1) Sell our technology to N. korea
2) Sentence those that oppose her to the gallows
3) Raise taxes
4) release the gitmo terrorists
5) Announce that Osama will be given a presidential pardon
6) RAISE TAXES
7) Cars are illegal You will walk for the rest of your life
If hillary catches you driving, you will be sentenced to death
If you are a terrorist that was caught with a bomb hillary will pardon you for the small amount of
$ 900
I guess Hillary and billyboyboob want to come back and steal from the White House what they didn't get the first time around.
Tipper Gore at least returned what they stole. The Clintons did not.
I also have a question as to why anyone would vote for a woman who not only knew her husband was a cheat - but then not only wrote a book, but states time and again that she did not. We all knew her personal secretary kept tabs on what billyboyboob was boinking - and it had to be approved by Hillary. Hillary didn't like Monica that is why they moved her away from billyboyboob.
Hillary also hasn't done anything for NY. Here are some interesting points about Hillary:
• The only First Lady ever to come under criminal investigation
• Married to the first President ever to be disbarred by the U.S. Supreme Court and a state court
• Married to the first President ever sued for sexual harassment
• Married to the only President ever impeached on grounds of personal malfeasance
• Entered the largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
• Recipient of the largest amount of illegal campaign contributions both foreign and domestic
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
Then you're trolling the wrong blog, kook. Better go on back to Kos, where you can join in with the Bush-smearers...
extra,
As others have noted, you'll probably think any negative comment on Hillary to be a smear...we can't help you with that. Be that as it may, her glaring moral flaws and idiotic policy prescriptions give us plenty of fodder.
In that case, you have nothing to fear and I therefore won't expect to see two years of relentless Hillary smearing posts on this blog.
That means one of the following
1. You won't be visiting here in the two years
2. You have very, very low espections
3. You don't know us very well.
4. all of the above
go with "4"
While St. Hitlery's thesis is under lock and key, FreeRepublic was discussing an article on her thesis back in 2000, with quotes.
Hillary’s Thesis Reveals Her Mind
Oh, Come on! I want to see relentless shrillary smears on this blog! I want to see this shameless socialist and her idiot "partner", billy, go down in flames once and for all. It is high time to send the clintoons packing. They never should have set foot in the PEOPLE's White House (thanks, Ross Perot). IF this skanky excuse of a human being gets back in power, our nation will be at horrible risk! BUT, I do kind of hope that she will be the nominee...to completely galvanize the conservative base again!
Lew, I've always wondered about that thesis--I wonder if Obama's camp is working on it.
If I had to choose between Hitlery and Obama-sama, I'd go with the big-eared fella...
As an outsider looking in, I feel the best person to lead the U.S. unfortunately has withdrawn his name from the race. Russ Feingold, from the very beginning of the Iraqi debacle saw it for what it was and with integrity and guts made his views perfectly clear.
It is a great loss for the American people not to have this man at the helm.
Lew, the lady who wrote the article you linked to, Barbara Olsen, was the wife of former Solicitor General, Ted Olsen. She was on the plane that slammed into the Pentagon on 9/11.
Hillary's announcement has already spawned a new, bipartisan bumper sticker.
It simply says, "RUN HILLARY, RUN"
Democrats place in on the rear bumper, Republicans place it on the front bumper.
"I know this much. I worked on the Bush campaign in 2000, while I was still living in Michigan...but now, with Shrillary running, I will do everything in my power to prevent her from being elected...."
Macker,
Some power you got. Gore won Michigan in 2000.
kjstrouble states: "I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse."
How about Hillary with Obama as her running mate? Huh? eh? Wouldn't that rot your socks off.
Then again, America is not ready for woman AND an Afro-American to be in the two top jobs.
Spook, that's a hoot! I'll buy a few of those bumper stickers. One of those on the front of an F-35 crew cab long bed Power Stroke will make my feelings clear!
The thing about Hillary is that what is said about her will be true and relevant. It will be characterized as sliming, as character assassination, as smearing, by the fawning radical Left, but it will be true. And it will relate directly to the kind of president she would be.
And I personally believe that anyone who writes and publishes tracts which are basically anti-American is not someone who should be running the country, whether it be Hillary or Kerry.
I just heard some MSM talking head saying that if Obama does not mess up, he would beat Hillary. Not sure which would be worse.
Its going to be one of these two to win it all more then likely. As I see it it would take some catastrophic failure on the part of the Democrats to turn the tide of public opinion against them enough to push them from power.
Then when you factor in that the media covers for most everything they do wrong, and that they have so many "media darlings" on their side and we have so few its hard for me to see how we can gain anything back we've lost.
sad times...
And I personally believe that anyone who writes and publishes tracts which are basically anti-American is not someone who should be running the country, whether it be Hillary or Kerry.
Posted by Almiranta at January 21, 2007 02:58 PM
I don't get it. Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong? In other words, freedom of speech. To accept everything your government does, without question, is ridiculous. Every government needs to have a degree of accountibility. Sheep raised for their wool and tasty goodness is great, but as citizens of a great democracy, they suck.
Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong?
Isn't that exactly what Almiranta did, CO?
While we enjoy the right to speak out and against the country, ones who don't care for the country should not be running it.
Your reply sort of reminds me of Hillary Clinton's rant where she screeched, “I am sick and tired of people who say that if you debate and you disagree with this administration, somehow you’re not patriotic. And we should stand up and say we are Americans, and we have a right to debate and disagree with any administration!”
Odd that wasn't her outlook when she said that she and her husband were victims of a “Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy” that was determined to undermine their presidency.
Lew,
Great post, and information on her Thesis. The site you referred, posters said Barbara Olson's book "Hell To Pay: Hillary, etc." was hard to find in bookstores probably due to Clinton machine
interferring again with freedom of info acts. Well, I want posters to know, I just order this book on Amazon.com so it is available, and scary
as hell from the exerpts. I am wondering Lew, if
this thesis she wrote at Wellesly is going to be made public, as it certainly says what this woman is all about, and her lust for power/money. I am wondering if you can forward your info to say Rush
and Dick Morris-the more we shine the true light on Hillary, the better the public is for knowing what she REALLY IS ALL ABOUT, NOT WHAT SHE WANTS TO SAY TO GET INTO A POWER POSITION. Thanks again
for the informative links.
Jo, I wish her thesis would be made public. As I understand it, it is Wellesley College that has it under lock and key, refusing to make it public. Somehow, Barbara Olsen got hold of a copy and I have no idea where hers went. I keep hoping someone becomes a "whistleblower" and posts it publicly, somewhere.
Even though Wellesley is hiding the paper, I also have no doubt that Hillary herself has something to do with that decision. However, her commencement speech is still public, Hillary’s Commencement Speech. Life magazine featured her in a 1969 article about this speech. I haven't found a copy of the article online yet.
According to the Wellesley College website, their library archive now says her thesis, "There is only the fight: An analysis of the Alinsky model," is currently availble in the library. I couldn't find a way to access it online or order a copy online.
Perhaps someone close to the college?
Lew,
Interesting - I didn't look for Hillary's thesis, but decided to find out who Saul Alinsky was...he was a pinko agitator for many decades in the Chicago area and seems to have had a profound influence on Hillary Clinton. This may end up being quite important: Some quotes from Alinsky:
Rather typical leftist - angry, hate-filled, cruel, destructive...what you get when you believe the pack of lies which underpins all leftwing ideology. But we can also see in Alinsky's writing where Hillary picked up the politics of personal destruction (and one of the more ironic things is that after bringing the politics of personal destruction firmly into mainstream politics, Hillary then had the gall to complain about the politics of personal destruction...when you are of the left, the ends justify any means).
Another good article by the late Barbara Olson on Hillary's use of "children" to effect Socialist agenda.
Hillary’s ambition is far from satisfied
Lew and Mark,
Right now, I cannot think of Barbara Olson's husband's name, but I have seen him on Fox from time to time. He had something to do with some aspect of our govt. I am wondering if he would have the copy that Barbara used for her book? I will try to call Fox and get that info. Let you know-THIS information is most important, IMO, as it became her mantra, in following her mentor Saul Alinsky. This stuff is what has shaped Hillary and is very telling to her behavior today-
especially when innihilating her "enemies"..Let's keep on this guys...Jo
Lew/Mark,
Just looked up some info, and found that Ted Olson
was the Solicitor General that works within the Dept. of Justice. I think we can try to get to him on the above. Will keep you posted, and likewise, do the same if you get him, regarding the papers Barbara used about the Hillary Thesis in her book. I remember Barbara appearing many times on the Fox network doing reports, and her husband as well. Saw him recently...
CO strikes (OUT) again...
Note these pearls of wisdom: "I don't get it. Isn't one of the most precious things about being an American the right to speak out against what you believe is wrong? In other words, freedom of speech."
Yeah... and your point is....????
I never said Hillary did not have complete and total freedom of speech. I never said she should have been deprived of the right or ability to say exactly what she thought at any time, for any reason. You simply have to learn to read what I write, CO, and then process it accurately. Running everything through that LLL filter of yours will always distort it.
But then, not satisfied with sounding like an idiot, CO has to make sure we get it..."To accept everything your government does, without question, is ridiculous."
No, CO, YOU are ridiculous. And you love showing off your ridiculousness for the entertainment of us all.
Hillary had, and has, total and complete freedom of speech, a right which was granted to her by God and memorialized in the Constitution of the Unites States of America. I stand for that right, I believe in it, and I defend it. Nothing in my post could possibly have been interpreted to imply any criticism of free speech. Except to an LLL, that is, who can't think his way out of a paper bag.
One side effect of such freedom of speech is that it allows people to say what they really think, which in turn allows us to KNOW what they really think. And so we know that what Hillary really thinks is bad for our country.
Now,up there in the Great North, you all might find it somehow appealing to elect someone to office who is openly and virulently anti-Canadian. Good for you. Down here, where our brains are a little less iced over, we tend to think that electing a leader who hates our country and our traditional form of government, and who deep-down wants to impose a radical socialist form of government upon us, is about as smart as, say, electing someone who brags about "loathing the military" to be Commander in Chief.
(Drum roll.....)