![]() ![]() |
|
| |
|
Bill Maher vs. Terry McAuliffePosted on Mar 9, 2008
Clinton campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe joined Bill Maher on Friday for what turned into a surprisingly tough satellite interview, which ended prematurely due to technical difficulties—and perhaps because of a crack about Bill Clinton and Puerto Rico.
Watch it:
Previous item: Iran's President Is Smiling -- Mosaic Tells Us Why Next item: Obama on Team Clinton: Theyre Trying to Hoodwink You Elsewhere: . CommentsAre you a Truthdig member yet? Login now, or register with Truthdig. Add Your Comment
|
A Progressive Journal of News and Opinion. Editor, Robert Scheer. Publisher, Zuade Kaufman.
Copyright © 2008 Truthdig, L.L.C. All rights reserved. |
By V. Campbell, May 5 at 6:43 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Why does Hillary have to answer for everything that former President Clinton did or did not do. Was she in charge and if so she deserves congrats. for the state of the economy #1. and the lack of wars#2...If Laura ran for President, she’s probably get in for her leave no child behind reading program.
Anywho, I’m suspecting that Republicans are voting for Obama in a guise to keep the democrats from winning. It’s certainly suspicious how he is winning in the West.
Report thisBy JoeFriday, March 12 at 10:11 pm #
jack,
“Terry was probably worried that Bill would say something about those FALN ‘terrorists’ that W.J. Clinton pardoned on his way out the door. It will be interesting to see how Sen Clinton responds to that vetting if she’s the nominee.”
She would likely reply that you are merely regurgitating RightWing propaganda.
A) President Clinton did not pardon the eleven Puerto Rican nationalists in question, they were given clemency.
B) They were not “terrorists”, but had been convicted of simple auto theft and simple firearms violations.
C) The people in question had received ridiculously harsh sentences, and had already served a combined 200 years behind bars, an average of 19 years each. Just some of those who had requested President Clinton consider clemency:
The Archbishop of Puerto Rico
Report thisCardinal John J. O’Conner of New York
Archbishop Desmond Tutu
Former President Carter
Coretta Scott King
10 Noble laureates
By tdbach, March 12 at 7:10 am #
And you base this Rove comparison on...what? It doesn’t take much imagination to conjure up what that interview would have been like had Rove been the one being interviewed. First of all, he would have said Barrack Hussein Obama at least three times. He would have somehow found a way to link that indicted Chicago money man who has been tied to Obama (and just about every pol within 5,000 miles) to Mahers foreign policy experience question, and he would have found a way to suggest that Osama has been contributing precious jihad money to Obamas campaign.
You guys dont have a f*cking clue what youre talking about when you make such bone-headed comparisons. Or maybe you do. Maybe its just lazy shorthand for I hate Hillary and all she represents, and I dont care if its based on fact or fantasy I hate her, and thats all that counts.
Report thisBy JohnQPublic, March 11 at 9:17 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
I completely agree with Robert.
Report thisBy Aegrus, March 11 at 10:32 am #
Puerto Ricans are American Citizens, DC. You’re an absurdity.
Report thisBy rage, March 11 at 6:01 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
“....which is why they torture/imprison/exile/disappear any and all alleged subversives (laborers, journalists, intellectuals, peasants, clergy, etc, etc) or anybody else who would dissent against the fascist regime.”
Don’t foret their own witnesses who can potentially grow a conscience and tell where the bodies are buried.
Remember Vince Foster?
Report thisBy cyrena, March 10 at 9:25 pm #
I don’t know Robert. Even without Terry McAuliffe, (and I agree he’s a Rove clone) Hillary wouldn’t get the nomination.
In reality, he’s representing her ONLY because she wants him to. And, Hillary has also voiced respect in the past, for Rove’s tactics. Maybe that’s why she choose McAuliffe.
So, SHE is what’s wrong with the Democratic party, along with all the rest of the status quo DLC left over from the 20th Century. It’s time for ALL of them to go, including the rest of the Blue Dog dems, Pelosi, etc, etc. You get my drift.
They are indistinguishable from the repug co-horts. I still think Hillary and McCain should have teamed up for the same repug ticket.
THEN we could quit wasting time, and let the 21st Century Democrats get the nation back together.
Report thisBy Robert Mendez, March 10 at 12:15 pm #
(Unregistered commenter)
Terry McAuliffe is precisely what is wrong with the Democratic party and is the reason Clinton must not be given the nomination. As long as he is associated with any candidate, I will never support that candidate. He is no different than Rove and perhaps worse. He will eat his own in order to gain more power and he must be stopped.
Report thisBy Tom Semioli, March 10 at 10:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Yet another great reason to vote for Raplh Nader!
Report thisBy cyrena, March 10 at 9:21 am #
The irony is that if the Repugs are going to be as ugly as they usually are, and as Terry promises they will be, the efforts will be FAR more successful if Hillary is the nominee than they would be if Obama was.
Believe me, they are saving their dirt for Hillary, hoping and praying that she IS the nominee.
You’re right about the post 9/11 shit. Americans have figured that out by now. We’ve had 7 plus years of fear mongering, and it SHOULD be more than obvious to even a ‘semi-savvy’ politician, that American are sick and tired of it, no matter WHAT party they belong to.
So this is befuddling. It’s difficult for me to believe that Hillary is that stupid. Seriously. I don’t know why she’s taken up the ‘national security’ thing, when we all now know that ‘national security’ is code for protecting the corporate interests of the ruling class.
At the foundation of EVERY SINGLE COUP that has turned a former democracy into a dictator/totalitarian regime, the excuse has ALWAYS been ‘national security’.
Chile - Brazil - Uruguay - Argentina - Peru - Germany- THE UNITED STATES!!
I could go on. But, it’s ALWAYS ‘national security’ and that NEVER means the security of the people, it means the security of the military regime, which is why they torture/imprison/exile/disappear any and all alleged ‘subversives’ (laborers, journalists, intellectuals, peasants, clergy, etc, etc) or anybody else who would dissent against the fascist regime. In the US, that would be the neoconners representing the elite and corporate interests.
And, they ALWAYS call it ‘national security’.
So, since even a casual student of history already KNOWS this, why doesn’t Hillary ‘get it’ that the ‘national security’ platform simply scares the shit out of the average American?
All we see is more of what we’ve got, every time she says ‘national security’. We KNOW the code Hill!!
Report thisBy mitt, March 10 at 8:25 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
Maher and Huffinton are joined at the hip and she uses Huffo for her love of Obama. Her and Bill smoke together and its not cigarettes.
Report thisBy bozhidar bob balkas, March 10 at 6:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
basic discourse w. us by kings, priests, modern politicians hasn’t changed since rise of sumerian city states or even before that. in the main, it consists of ‘promises’, evocation of catastrophies if not elected, selfpraise, generalities, blame, etc. i evaluate all or most political/priestly ‘promises’ as lies. i don’t think many of us remember any of thousands upon thousands of the general statements just uttered in one week let alone last month. at best we can paraphrase an odd one. in any case, it’l matter just a little who becomes prez; each represents, being a mere hired mouth, the ruling class, or ab. 10% of US’ pop. thanx
Report thisBy bozhidar bob balkas, March 10 at 6:12 am #
(Unregistered commenter)
basic discourse w. us by kings, priests, modern politicians hasn’t changed since rise of sumerian city states or even before that. in the main, it consists of ‘promises’, evocation of catastrophies if not elected, selfpraise, generalities, blame, etc. i evaluate all or most political/priestly ‘promises’ as lies. i don’t think many of us remember any of thousands upon thousands of the general statements just uttered in one week let alone last month. at best we can paraphrase an odd one. in any case, it’l matter just a little who becomes prez; each represents, being a mere hired mouth, the ruling class, or ab. 10% of US’ pop. thanx
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, March 10 at 4:18 am #
Its absurd to assume that not choosing Hillary as the nominee is some kind of path to endorsing McCain. Her comment was aimed at the Democrats leadership...... and the conflict is their problem.
Going “all the way” in Puerto Rico...... pina coladas at the Hilton.... and fuck the Puerto Ricans, uhh.
Report thisBy jackpine savage, March 10 at 4:00 am #
What a bloody shame that Democratic Party grandees have descended to Chenyisms like, “Well, it’s a post 9/11 world and everything is different now.”
The Democratic Party seems to be having a bad case of death throes, and i’m not so sure that it’s worth using up any sympathy on them.
Terry was probably worried that Bill would say something about those FALN “terrorists” that W.J. Clinton pardoned on his way out the door. It will be interesting to see how Sen Clinton responds to that vetting if she’s the nominee.
Report this