Thread: Hillary gets slammed by Obama

Hillary is also using Obama's past drug experimentation as an issue. Pretty pathetic.

This race is so dense that I'm barely following it.

No matter who get elected, any changes will be mostly cosmetic.

I figured this would be a porno.

If hillary gets the nom Im voting libertarian unless ron paul gets the nom. Thats coming from a hardcore democrat sick of buissness as usual

Originally Posted by FishOrCutBait

I figured this would be a porno.

trying to give nightmares fucker

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Hillary is also using Obama's past drug experimentation as an issue. Pretty pathetic.

This race is so dense that I'm barely following it.

No matter who get elected, any changes will be mostly cosmetic.

Between another republican or a democrat? Or between the democratic candidates.

If it's the former, I'd have to disagree.

Originally Posted by goandykid

Between another republican or a democrat? Or between the democratic candidates.

If it's the former, I'd have to disagree.

Both parties. Both parties are basically one political party.

Yes, the Ds may make some cosmetic changes to help the image of the US abroad.

But no changes that are significant will be made, IMO.

The gov and economy are too complex for that, and interest groups too deeply entrenched.

Take Hillary for example: Big Pharma likes her, and she panders to the Military Industrial complex. Add big business, Social Security, and you get "more of the same" basically.

Where just so far in the whole right now.

9,000,000,000,000 dollars

Next pres must be able to raise taxs, and cut spending and keep medicare and social security going while we heading into a economic slowdown.


Ron Paul sees the problem but Americans like big government, just not paying for it so I see our fiscal policy of spend and borrowing contunuing untill we realise that must live below our means for a long time.

that is never popular.

The only thing can really save us are huge investments in tech to keep us ahead of the pack its been nice on top but it can only last so long just ask the British.

Originally Posted by Big Smoothy

Both parties. Both parties are basically one political party.

Yes, the Ds may make some cosmetic changes to help the image of the US abroad.

But no changes that are significant will be made, IMO.

The gov and economy are too complex for that, and interest groups too deeply entrenched.

Take Hillary for example: Big Pharma likes her, and she panders to the Military Industrial complex. Add big business, Social Security, and you get "more of the same" basically.

Vaild points. I think the D's would change our situation in the Middle east as far as occupation wise more than cosmetically. And I also thing our foreign relations will improve.

As far as the other candidates, like Obama and Huckabee, where do their special interest funders lie?

Originally Posted by goandykid

Vaild points. I think the D's would change our situation in the Middle east as far as occupation wise more than cosmetically. And I also thing our foreign relations will improve.

If a D becomes President, I think the PNAC will lose some influence. It will still be there, but will be less overt.

As far as the Middle East, the US has been in the Middle East before and since Carter's "Carter Doctrine" that he presented in 1980, and it won't be changing.

As far as the other candidates, like Obama and Huckabee, where do their special interest funders lie?

You can find this info on the web.

As for Iowa: how important is Iowa? I'm not so sure.

But by April 1st, the nominees will likely be known for both parties.

Watch those Clinton comparisons, Barack: Bill's first 2 years were disaster


Barack Obama compares his experience with a young Bill Clinton to prove he's prepared to be President.
There's a readily available comeback Hillary Clinton can't use: Her husband's first two years were a monumental disaster.
Obama and Bill Clinton both launched their presidential candidacies at 46. The ex-President contends there's a huge difference: "I was also the senior governor in America."
It didn't help.
Neither did Hillary, a collaborator in some of the larger fiascos from that era.
That's another reason neither of the Clintons talks much about their first two years in power.
Let's flash back to yesteryear: Instantly, the new President was engulfed in controversy. It took three tries to find an attorney general who could be confirmed.
Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military strained the commander in chief's relations with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Senior Democrats complained the new crowd was more arrogant and contemptuous of its legislative allies than the Jimmy Carter crowd, no small indictment.
Hillary's health care reform plan was unveiled in September 1993 - an epic policy debacle.
The scandal account was oversubscribed. White House counsel Vince Foster, Hillary's former law partner, killed himself.
At Hillary's urging, civil servants were booted from the White House Travel Office to placate Bill Clinton's cousin. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr probed the Clintons' land dealings. The First Lady appeared before a Whitewater grand jury. Paula Jones filed her sexual harassment suit.
By the 1994 midterm elections, the country had enough of personal and policy turmoil. Republicans gained 54 seats and seized the House for the first time in 40 years. Suddenly, new Speaker Newt Gingrich was doing prime-time addresses to the nation touting his Contract With America. Clinton's approval ratings tanked, from 64% to 38%.
Clinton was so marginalized he actually had to justify his existence. "The President is relevant here," he argued at a press conference early in 1995. Not even George W. Bush at his nadir swallowed such crow.
Ultimately, Clinton turned it around. Abetted by Gingrich's overreaching and personal hubris, as well as a humming economy, he was reelected in 1996 and withstood impeachment.
He remains as controversial - and popular - as when he left office. His wife now hopes Clinton nostalgia, coupled with Bush fatigue, will trump her high negatives and propel her back into the White House.
There's no doubt the Clintons have learned from their mishaps, and the strength/experience argument is her best electoral card.
But judging from their early steep learning curve, Obama may have a point when he argues experience isn't everything.
Neither Hillary nor Barack would be wise to claim Bill Clinton as a role model for how to start a new administration.
tdefrank@nydailynews.com

^ The first 2 years of the Clinton administration, was old style (D) policies.

After the 1994 Congressional Elections, Clinton started his policy of:

Triangulation.


There's an old saying: "Bill Clinton was the last popular Republican President."

Triangulation. (Originally conceived by Dick Morris.)

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Watch those Clinton comparisons, Barack: Bill's first 2 years were disaster


Barack Obama compares his experience with a young Bill Clinton to prove he's prepared to be President.
There's a readily available comeback Hillary Clinton can't use: Her husband's first two years were a monumental disaster.
Obama and Bill Clinton both launched their presidential candidacies at 46. The ex-President contends there's a huge difference: "I was also the senior governor in America."
It didn't help.
Neither did Hillary, a collaborator in some of the larger fiascos from that era.
That's another reason neither of the Clintons talks much about their first two years in power.
Let's flash back to yesteryear: Instantly, the new President was engulfed in controversy. It took three tries to find an attorney general who could be confirmed.
Clinton's "don't ask, don't tell" policy on gays in the military strained the commander in chief's relations with the Joint Chiefs of Staff. Senior Democrats complained the new crowd was more arrogant and contemptuous of its legislative allies than the Jimmy Carter crowd, no small indictment.
Hillary's health care reform plan was unveiled in September 1993 - an epic policy debacle.
The scandal account was oversubscribed. White House counsel Vince Foster, Hillary's former law partner, killed himself.
At Hillary's urging, civil servants were booted from the White House Travel Office to placate Bill Clinton's cousin. Independent counsel Kenneth Starr probed the Clintons' land dealings. The First Lady appeared before a Whitewater grand jury. Paula Jones filed her sexual harassment suit.
By the 1994 midterm elections, the country had enough of personal and policy turmoil. Republicans gained 54 seats and seized the House for the first time in 40 years. Suddenly, new Speaker Newt Gingrich was doing prime-time addresses to the nation touting his Contract With America. Clinton's approval ratings tanked, from 64% to 38%.
Clinton was so marginalized he actually had to justify his existence. "The President is relevant here," he argued at a press conference early in 1995. Not even George W. Bush at his nadir swallowed such crow.
Ultimately, Clinton turned it around. Abetted by Gingrich's overreaching and personal hubris, as well as a humming economy, he was reelected in 1996 and withstood impeachment.
He remains as controversial - and popular - as when he left office. His wife now hopes Clinton nostalgia, coupled with Bush fatigue, will trump her high negatives and propel her back into the White House.
There's no doubt the Clintons have learned from their mishaps, and the strength/experience argument is her best electoral card.
But judging from their early steep learning curve, Obama may have a point when he argues experience isn't everything.
Neither Hillary nor Barack would be wise to claim Bill Clinton as a role model for how to start a new administration.
tdefrank@nydailynews.com

"In August 1993, Clinton signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993, which passed Congress without a single Republican vote. It raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers,[35] while cutting taxes for 15 million low-income families and making tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses.[36] Additionally, it mandated that the budget be balanced over a number of years, through the implementation of spending restraints."

Bill Clinton - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


He was not a spend and borrow republican the way Bush is

Originally Posted by NordicNacho

If hillary gets the nom Im voting libertarian unless ron paul gets the nom.

lol.. with less than 5% of his own party's vote, it looks like you're voting libertarian.

Nice to hear though... if that sentiment catches on, 4 more years of a Republican in office is fine by me

I feel like 2008 is lose, lose, lose all around even though Bush will finally be gone.....it's no wonder that HST took the shortcut after rubbing that crystal bald head of his and seeing the bleak future of politiques, fuck it why even bother bang!

Originally Posted by maniclion

I feel like 2008 is lose, lose, lose all around even though Bush will finally be gone.....it's no wonder that HST took the shortcut after rubbing that crystal bald head of his and seeing the bleak future of politiques, fuck it why even bother bang!

Unfortunately, it looks like Romney will get the (R) nod. He's the only one I really don't like of our candidates.

In that case, I would say it's lose-lose, but it's a definite win in my book if Hillary loses.

then again, I guess the same would go for Obama & Edwards.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

lol.. with less than 5% of his own party's vote, it looks like you're voting libertarian.

Nice to hear though... if that sentiment catches on, 4 more years of a Republican in office is fine by me

They are doing great now.

"It's pretty astonishing, really - we're at the tail end of a failed presidency, and the Republicans running to succeed it are promising to continue its failed policies."

Originally Posted by min0 lee

They are doing great now.

"It's pretty astonishing, really - we're at the tail end of a failed presidency, and the Republicans running to succeed it are promising to continue its failed policies."

Failed presidency? That's astronomically wrong in my opinion.Say what you will about him, but we've been safe since 9/11.

No matter what the left says, that is not by accident.

Put a democrat in office & Al Qaeda will bounce right back.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Failed presidency? That's astronomically wrong in my opinion.Say what you will about him, but we've been safe since 9/11.

No matter what the left says, that is not by accident.

Put a democrat in office & Al Qaeda will bounce right back.

Wasn't Bush the President at that time?

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Wasn't Bush the President at that time?

the age-old debate.

yes, but they flourished & planned it under Clinton.

Originally Posted by busyLivin

Failed presidency? That's astronomically wrong in my opinion.Say what you will about him, but we've been safe since 9/11.

No matter what the left says, that is not by accident.

IMO, there is no "Left" in the U.S., except for a couple of legistaters in Congress (e.g., Bernie Sanders, who votes with the Democrats anyway.)

Put a democrat in office & Al Qaeda will bounce right back.

That's an opinion. Using the term "will" is means there is 100% likelihood. We don't know this.

The "War against Al-Qaeda" is being conducted by intelligence services for the most part (and some military operations) such as the action in Yemen, and Afghanistan.

Al-Qaeda is an organization, as you know and not a nation-state.


Back to the topic of the caucuses and primaries.

February 5th will be a big day: 22 states will hold primaries, including CA, NY, Ill, and NJ.

4 weeks away....

Originally Posted by busyLivin

the age-old debate.

yes, but they flourished & planned it under Clinton.

Blame Bush
Blame Clinton
Blame Bush
Blame Reagan
Blame Carter
Blame Nixon

Originally Posted by min0 lee

Blame Bush
Blame Clinton
Blame Bush
Blame Reagan
Blame Carter
Blame Nixon

nah, I don't blame any of them... I just hate when people say "It happened under Bush." It's really not a fair statement.