Hillary isn’t Joan of Arc either.

Don’t believe for a second that Hillary Clinton will go up against the right in this country, because she is just like them, and will embrace all the methods they hold dear. Sure she’ll call herself by another name but the results will be the same.

The country cannot take another 4 years of polarization, we’d be better off with a moderate Republican, or Bloomberg.

By cyrena, January 8: “So, quit lying…”

If you were nice, cyrena, you would post a link to your story from Haaretz. And go read his speech for yourself, uhh. Its disgusting in its supine pandering…..

Trusting Obama’s foreign policy means that you endorse his advocating of pre-emptive strikes and bombing of villages in N.Pakistan even though the US already holds the world record for bombing weddings, funerals and innocent people in general in that region alone.

In other words, his pro-Israeli, pro Bush, pro-Neocon approach to world affairs and foreign policy as directed by his friend and colleague, Condoleeza Rice. Ever heard of her, cyrena? She’s black and a woman too - and looking for a job as secretary of state next year.

Accusing people of lying is not appropriate when you yourself are no longer interested in truth but only in validating your own naive (or delusional) and biased opinions at - any price.

This is a lie about Obama and AIPAC Douglas. So, quit lying. If anybody is in the pocket of AIPAC, it’s Hillary Clinton.

So, if you missed the article at haaratz.com, where the Israelis were polled and weighed-in on who THEY’VE chosen to lead OUR country, you should check it out. Giuliani is their first choice, and Hillary is right behind him.

So, quit lying.

Meantime, Hillary’s ‘experience’ is more like her ‘baggage’. And, while there is no guarantee how he will ‘govern’ we already know how SHE will, and that is NOT the kind of ‘change’ that we have in mind, nor is it the kind of ‘experience’ that we care about.

I trust Obama’s foreign policy over Hillary’s any day of the establised week, and a day or two over that besides.

I cannot agree that experience always matters.  I think integrity matters more than experience.  I am not a fan of Obama or Clinton since their policies are so similar.  I do feel that Clinton has been involved/or speculatively involved with some less than admirable people.  Such as Wal-mart, Tyson Foods, and Harkin Oil.

Article:
“Mrs. Clinton, now a partner at the Rose Firm, begins a series of commodities trades under the guidance of Tyson Foods executive Jim Blair, earning nearly $100,000. (author’s emphasis). The trades are not revealed until March 1994.

Also:
“The Stephens Group prides itself on being the nation’s largest investment bank outside Wall Street, based, of all places, in little ol’ Little Rock, in hillbilly land, Arkansas, one of the poorest states in the United States. Stephens Inc. is also one of the biggest institutional shareholders in 30 large multinationals including the Arkansas based firms Tyson Food, the world’s largest chicken industrial factory operation and the infamous Arkansas giant, Wal-Mart.”

And also:
“The Rose law firm was the house law firm of Jackson Stephens’ Stephens Group investment bank in Little Rock. To be the corporate law firm of the Stephens Group was no casual affair. It implied a deep trust relationship and perhaps more. As one crony of Jackson Stephens put it at that time, ‘Jackson Stephens? He’s the man who owns Arkansas.’”

http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/GMO/Monsanto/monsanto.html

Unless something comes up to tell us otherwise, I would prefer Obama to this type of “experience”.  I know I’ve linked to this article before but let’s not forget where Clinton’s “experience” comes from.

G. Anderson:

“I agree completely, Liza, God Help us if she wins, she is one angry lady, and she’s been looking for payback for a long time.”

True.  But the payback she is looking for is against the GOP and the right in general.  How can you fault that?

Peace.

I agree completely, Liza, God Help us if she wins, she is one angry lady, and she’s been looking for payback for a long time.

Louise,
I totally agree.  This woman’s sense of entitlement is off the charts.  She has paid her dues and that presidency job BELONGS to her. 

I’m a little weary of hearing about her 35 years of experience.  Her 35 years of experience is mostly in campaigning for Bill until she was elected to the senate in 2000.  That is her first time holding a public office.  Does she think that Bill’s career was her career as though they are some kind of Siamese entity?  I’ll admit that Bill tasked her with “national healthcare” in his first administration and her failure is legendary.  Since 2000, the Democrats in Congress haven’t advanced much of anything.  What are her outstanding achievements?  Tell me again because I’ve forgotten.  One thing I do remember is her voting to invade Iraq and never admitting she was wrong.

Now that she has won New Hampshire, I suspect the money will roll in again and the attack on Obama will get very serious and very ugly.  That is how the Clintons operate, and it works for them for some reason. 

God help us if she pulls this off.  God help us.

I don’t want Obama to be JFK, or anyone else for that matter. Who said we wanted JFK?

I only want Obama to be Obama, and he already does a good job of that.

As to Hillary Clinton, does she even know who she is anymore?

I don’t recall hearing Obama or Edwards ever call themselves someone else. Nor do I recall hearing the press call them someone else. The problem is Hillary ISN’T someone else. And desperation brings out some mighty strange behavior. Like suddenly Hillary is sensitive and feeling. Actually able to almost cry. And as concerned about al Qaeda “getten us” as Bush, warning “they” will attack America if we have the wrong president, and the really low, low. Intimating Obama might be assassinated like Dr.King.

An aide said that? Obviously the thought was circulating, or it wouldn’t have been said. And it wasn’t an aide that stated the veiled threat that al Qaeda is watching our election. And they attacked London right after their new PM took office to “test” him. No indeed, that was Hillary!

Sorry folks, this is pure political schmuck designed to appeal to the “poor me” faction, the “keep me safe” faction, and the “please don’t scare me” faction. Which is also a form of intimidation through fear!

Shame, shame, shame. I never thought I would see her get so desperate she would start using republican strategy!

But she has not said or done one darn thing any different in the last few days to make me feel she will actually set the administration of this country on a course to recovery! No indeed.

And the subject of the War in Iraq seems to have disappeared altogether!

There is a huge difference between “change” and “recovery” perhaps the biggest challenge Hillary still has to confront is recognizing the difference.

So, is she play-acting, or is this the real Hillary? If its a pretense, I for one have had enough of phoniness. If she’s sincere, she is starting to sound a lot like another presidential candidate who used fear coupled with sympathy to influence voters back in 2004. She just doesn’t sound like she has a mouth full of marbles when she talks.

The only change Hillary clearly presents is she’s a different gender. So is Nancy. Still waiting for that change ...

Quote Hillary Clinton: “I’m running for president because I believe that there is not a contradiction between experience and change.”

The naive and young seem to think that any kind of change is a good change. They don’t respect experience because they don’t have any themselves. As a result, neither do they value it or place it above fashionable or trendy appeal. In the end, Obama would fade like France’s “hyper-president” Sarkosy as his inability to tackle the country’s problems becomes obvious.

What is so pathetic is that the male Democrats alternatives are nothing more than a bunch of boring suits. In fact, the ONLY thing that is different about Obama is that he is black, uhh. In other respects, he panders for his votes and funding at least as much as the rest. He doesn’t have an idea on policy but then neither do his supporters.

Hillary might “have a dream” because she has actually put far more of herself into her campaign than the men have and has enunciated policy better. Obama’s fanciful “dream” centers around all of his platitudes about Israel in his feel-good speech crawling to AIPAC!!!

Actually, stating the truth is NOT “negative.”  It is honest.

Obama is NOT JFK.  His candidacy is alot of smoke and mirrors and pretty words like “hope” and “change” and “turn the page” and the sweetly inclusive “we.”

Yet those are just WORDS.  WHAT “hope?”  WHAT “change?”  “Turn the page” of WHAT book?  To WHERE?  “We?”  Poppycock.

What WE do as individuals is elect candidates based on what they tell us they will do - substantively - and, assuming we agree with those things, hope that they live up to their promises.  If they do, we get the government, and the “changes,” we want.  If not, we wait until the next election cycle and vote them out.  Period.

Obama has not articulated - clearly and succinctly - ONE SINGLE ASPECT of all the “hope” and “change” he plans.  In fact, he has articulated substantive positions on only a few of the major issues: i.e., there is FAR less SUBSTANCE to his candidacy than to Hillary’s, despite all his pretty, inclusive words.

I hope for everyone’s sake that people start to wake up from Obama’s “rock star moment” and realize that he is not that much different from Hillary - and far less experienced.  And experience DOES matter.

Because, for one thing, Obama will be far less able to withstand what will unquestionably be the most blistering, withering, negative, attacking campaign ever launched by the GOP.  Hillary is battle-tested in this regard, and has taken everything the right can throw at her and weathered it.  Obama, on the other hand, was barely able to deal with some of the MINOR “attacks” from people in his OWN party: he bristles easily and, despite great strength of character, is simply not prepared to deal with the what the right can, and will, muster.  As well, as one pundit put it, all of the skeletons in Hillary’s closet have been flogged and dragged through the mud extremely visibly; they are all “old news.”  Despite Obama’s seeming “squeaky clean” demeanor, we simply don’t know what “skeletons” the right will find - and exploit.

As well, even if Obama is nominated and wins the election, Hillary and others will have the “last laugh” when he is unable to deliver on so many of his promises - and all his talk of “hope” and “change” is seen for what it was: wonderulf rallying talk, with ZERO substance.  Indeed, the letdown of an Obama presidency will be ENORMOUS, since, as the saying goes, the greater the expectation, the greater the disappointment.

Peace.

Hillary and Bill and their handlers have apparently come to the conclusion that NOW is the time go negative, really negative.  What is she going to do?  Be a pit bull one day and then cry to strangers in restaurants about how hard it all is but she must go on because this is deeply personal?