NationStates Jolt Archive

In a startling expression of her campaign's bitterness toward what they perceive as a pro-Obama bias in the news media, Clinton suggested the moderators were giving Obama preferential treatment. As proof, she cited a "Saturday Night Live" skit portraying journalists fawning over Obama.

"In the last several debates I seem to get the first question all the time -- and I don't mind," Clinton said when moderator Brian Williams asked her about her stance on NAFTA.

"If you saw 'Saturday Night Live' last Saturday, maybe we should ask Barack if he's comfortable and get him another pillow," she quipped as some in the crowd booed.

The debate, staged with the candidates sitting at a conference table, had the air of a job interview, with moderator Tim Russert grilling both on a range of issues, often forcing them to defend statements they made in video clips.

The Illinois senator took his own shots at Clinton, suggesting that she whined about campaign fliers slamming her positions on health care and NAFTA.

"I have endured over the course over this camp repeated negative mail ... on the other hand I don't fault Sen. Clinton," he said. "We haven't whined about it because that's the nature of these campaigns."


http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story


Ok, so regardless of if there is a bias or not (I personally dont see one), to me, this just sounds like more of Clinton's bitching, and I dont think Im alone. Does this just sound like sour grapes and her being a sore loser to anyone else?

Clinton is just fucking herself over by attacking Obama. She could get away with it if she was good at it, but she just fucking sucks.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get a clue Clinton. You are not liked.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

That sums up everything the US has/is/will ever do really.

Of course the media is biased. It's also fickle. She was the golden child until Obama came along with a prettier package and now he's the golden child. If someone else comes along with a more salable image, they'll change again. This is because the media bias isn't about who is more capable but who sells advertising space.

The media always are biased. I've yet to find one significant publication or internet source that does not have a bias of sorts, even if it may be small. I must confess I do find the Guardian's stance on Obama really quite vexing; somewhere between the inevitable pro-Obama article advertised on the frontpage to the unprofessional vindictive criticisms of Hillary.

Pot, Kettle, Black.

That sums up everything the US has/is/will ever do really.

Hvae you seen the British papers? The Grauniad and the Telegraph have resumed open hostilities, again, over Obama and Hillary.

You know, if Obama'd gone first in all the recent debates, she'd say it's unfair because he'd be getting to set the tone, giving him an unfair advantage.

Clinton is teh ebvil one. She's following orders from Michael Jackson, to eat all your babiez.*nods emphatically*

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story


Ok, so regardless of if there is a bias or not (I personally dont see one), to me, this just sounds like more of Clinton's bitching, and I dont think Im alone. Does this just sound like sour grapes and her being a sore loser to anyone else?

The interesting part is she's a walking contradiction. Right after she chides them for asking her first she says she'd be happy to answer the question. This is also an advantage to her as it allows her to frame the debate from the start. She's just bitching because she's losing. Finally, CNN made note that she was asked the first question in 6 out of ten debates. This hardly constitutes as always being asked first.

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get a clue Clinton. You are not liked.
Okay, why do you not like her?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story


Ok, so regardless of if there is a bias or not (I personally dont see one), to me, this just sounds like more of Clinton's bitching, and I dont think Im alone. Does this just sound like sour grapes and her being a sore loser to anyone else?

BWahahah! Pro-Obama bias? I think not. The news media's very late awakening to the momentum of the Dem's race and pro-HRC bias is still evident from what I see...

Okay, why do you not like her?

There are zillions of threads on this, but Ill just sum it up real quick.


She is an authoratarian war mongering pro-censorship corperate whore who does things not based on conviction but on what is politcally advantagous and safe at the time. She is also batshit crazy.


CH, is that you? Did we destory your credibility so bad you needed to make a new name? I mean...CanuckHaven and Canuck Utopia...both rushing to Clinthullu's defense?

Ugh...she's using SNL as a reference...

That's either incredibly stupid, or incredible desperate.

It's only days away... I see the big Clinton eruption coming. Pretty soon, she's going to create her own "Dean" moment. I just hope it's something we can enjoy over and over again.



IMO shes already had several Dean moments, such as "Shame on you Barrak Obama...for using tactics right out of the Karl Rove Playbook*!"


*- Also know as The Prince

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story


Ok, so regardless of if there is a bias or not (I personally dont see one), to me, this just sounds like more of Clinton's bitching, and I dont think Im alone. Does this just sound like sour grapes and her being a sore loser to anyone else?

It's only days away... I see the big Clinton eruption coming. Pretty soon, she's going to create her own "Dean" moment. I just hope it's something we can enjoy over and over again.

She is an authoratarian war mongering pro-censorship corperate whore who does things not based on conviction but on what is politcally advantagous and safe at the time. She is also batshit crazy.


CH, is that you? Did we destory your credibility so bad you needed to make a new name? I mean...CanuckHaven and Canuck Utopia...both rushing to Clinthullu's defense?


I demand an apology for that completely uncalled for insult.
The noble Cthulhu would never sink that low.

It's only days away... I see the big Clinton eruption coming. Pretty soon, she's going to create her own "Dean" moment. I just hope it's something we can enjoy over and over again.

I think the Dean moment was a legitimate case of media bias. Having seen the video of the incident I didn't see it as being anything particularly odd.

I just think that Clinton's starting to get desperate now.. So her solution is to try going on the offensive to tear down the other candidate.

I demand an apology for that completely uncalled for insult.
The noble Cthulhu would never sink that low.
The name game in general is kind of tedious.

She's been complaining about the gentle handling of Obama for a while now, and she's not entirely wrong. I was going to do a comparison of how she's photographed in news stories vs. Obama as a side thing, but instead I ran across this, which apparently is a few days old but has to be the biggest WTF I've seen so far-

Clinton Supporter Stabs Obama Supporter (http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0225081ortiz1.html)

According to a criminal complaint, a copy of which you'll find here, the 41-year-old Shurelds, an Obama supporter, told Ortiz that the Illinois senator was "trashing" Clinton (apparently in regard to recent primary and caucus results). Ortiz, a Clinton supporter, replied that "Obama was not a realist." While not exactly fighting words, the verbal political tiff led to some mutual choking and punching. And, allegedly, a stabbing in the abdomen. Ortiz, pictured in the mug shot below, was charged with a felony aggravated assault count and two misdemeanors and jailed in lieu of $20,000 bail.

Fucking hell. Take it down a few dozen notches. Sorry for the siderail...

I think the Dean moment was a legitimate case of media bias. Having seen the video of the incident I didn't see it as being anything particularly odd.

I never understood why rallying people at a rally was supposed to be bad.

God...the more she attacks, the stupider the attacks seem.

Just, go away Clinton, you are done. I doubt you can win both Texas and Penn. now. Stick a fork in her, she is done.

There are zillions of threads on this, but Ill just sum it up real quick.


She is an authoratarian war mongering pro-censorship corperate whore who does things not based on conviction but on what is politcally advantagous and safe at the time. She is also batshit crazy.

And that's not to mention she's claiming the legacy of being part of the co-presidency that fucked up post-Cold War US foreign policy, setting the stage for GW to fuck it up even worse.

CH, is that you? Did we destory your credibility so bad you needed to make a new name? I mean...CanuckHaven and Canuck Utopia...both rushing to Clinthullu's defense?

As the WoO said, "Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain."

I demand an apology for that completely uncalled for insult.
The noble Cthulhu would never sink that low.

You took the wrds right out of my mouth. Canuck utopia is just a dead giveaway. Now let's destroy his puppet as well.

I like Obama but I do feel that some media outlets have been biased toward Obama while others seemed to favor Clinton.

Of course, attacking the media will not help.

then we use it's strength against it!
Use the media to kill the media, in a wholesale media scandal of all the main operators of it, as the newspapers slowly destroy each other we take our chance and take power as presidents of the world, with the media's attention averted they will never know the difference.
And so my secret plan is finally revealed.
is it secret? Is it safe?

I like Obama but I do feel that some media outlets have been biased toward Obama while others seemed to favor Clinton.

Of course, attacking the media will not help.

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game, his sig openly says he's CanuckHeaven. I'm leaning towards account deactivation from inactivity as the reasoning behind it.
I think that sig is new, I don't believe it was there earlier.
Except hes been on a lot lately.


And yes, I have no sig activated. As do most of us I thought.

If you link directly to the forums like I do it's possible to time out your nation while still posting here. It's happened to a few people.

You took the wrds right out of my mouth. Canuck utopia is just a dead giveaway. Now let's destroy his puppet as well.

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game, his sig openly says he's CanuckHeaven. I'm leaning towards account deactivation from inactivity as the reasoning behind it.

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game, his sig openly says he's CanuckHeaven. I'm leaning towards account deactivation from inactivity as the reasoning behind it.

Except hes been on a lot lately.


And yes, I have no sig activated. As do most of us I thought.

aka CanuckHeaven

That is his signature. So yes it is he.

The thread was only two pages long, you couldn't read the whole thing before you posted and thus avoided pointing out something already discussed?

Ugh...she's using SNL as a reference...

That's either incredibly stupid, or incredible desperate. 2nded. It's kinda sad.

Okay, why do you not like her?

Because I do not want another authoritarian war-monger in the White House. Why should I support 4 more years of the same shit that has been going on for the last 8?

CH, is that you? Did we destory your credibility so bad you needed to make a new name? I mean...CanuckHaven and Canuck Utopia...both rushing to Clinthullu's defense?

aka CanuckHeaven

That is his signature. So yes it is he.

If you link directly to the forums like I do it's possible to time out your nation while still posting here. It's happened to a few people.

Ah yes. My nation...
*shuffles feet*

Because I do not want another authoritarian
What makes Clinton "authoritarian"?

war-monger in the White House.
How do you figure that Clinton is a "warmonger"?

Why should I support 4 more years of the same shit that has been going on for the last 8?
You voted for Bush, and have been vocal for Bush the past 4 years. I would call that support.

Also, when Obama made his declaration about invading Pakistan, you stated something along the line that you would consider voting for him now that he is "showing some spine".

Methinks you are not telling the truth.

It's only days away... I see the big Clinton eruption coming. Pretty soon, she's going to create her own "Dean" moment. I just hope it's something we can enjoy over and over again.

i like mrs clinton just fine but im looking forward to it too.

losing sucks and she doesnt have much experience with losing. and she is supposed to have quite a mean temper.

it should be a moment that will go down in political history.

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game, his sig openly says he's CanuckHeaven. I'm leaning towards account deactivation from inactivity as the reasoning behind it.

Except hes been on a lot lately.


And yes, I have no sig activated. As do most of us I thought.

no sigs game? did i miss something?

why do people who HAVE sigs turn sig off?

What makes Clinton "authoritarian"?

Her stance on video games is enough to mark her as against personal liberty.

Seriously, I think only stupid or authoritarian people claim that video games cause violence and should be banned. I don't think she's stupid.

As for warmonger, she more than supported the war in Iraq.

no sigs game? did i miss something?

why do people who HAVE sigs turn sig off?Because signatures make the eyes bleed.

Her stance on video games is enough to mark her as against personal liberty.No its not. It would be hypocritical to support liberty on everything but video games, but one issue on its own is insufficient to make such an accusation.

Ugh...she's using SNL as a reference...

That's either incredibly stupid, or incredible desperate.
Both.

Because signatures make the eyes bleed.

well i'm glad i don't have that problem.
My eyes are okay, although i do use the computer a bit too much and read too much (as my writing is pretty messy it's probably even worse for my eyes). So really i suppose you could say that my signatures might make your eyes bleed.
cool i went full circle in my comment.:cool:

The media are whatnow? That well known bastion of integrity and truth! Biased! Well, I don't know what to say. This calls for action!


Disgusted of tunbridge wells...

Zillions huh?
She sure does have a lot of supporters who would disagree with your opinion.

So do scientologists.

What makes Clinton "authoritarian"?

Oh for the Lord's Sake :headbang:

How do you figure that Clinton is a "warmonger"?

Because she has not ruled out using nukes on Terrorist camps.

You voted for Bush, and have been vocal for Bush the past 4 years. I would call that support.

Have I been vocal? There have been many times I have condemned this administration. But then, we all know you are blinded to actual facts.

Also, when Obama made his declaration about invading Pakistan, you stated something along the line that you would consider voting for him now that he is "showing some spine".

You still do not know what the word Invade is.

Methinks you are not telling the truth.

I'm not telling the truth? That's rich coming from you.

There are zillions of threads on this, but Ill just sum it up real quick.
Zillions huh?

She is an authoratarian
How so?

war mongering
Please explain.

pro-censorship
In what regards and for what reason?

corperate whore
Strong words. Vast majority of politicians get their money from corporations and/or influential people of money. Is it legal? Obama is an angel huh?

who does things not based on conviction but on what is politcally advantagous and safe at the time.
Politicians do what is politically advantageous for them to remain in office?

She is also batshit crazy.
She sure does have a lot of supporters who would disagree with your opinion.

Oh for the Lord's Sake :headbang:
I didn't ask you to invoke the Lord's help....why do you say Clinton is "authoritarian"?

Because she has not ruled out using nukes on Terrorist camps.
You can do better than this Corny...please try again. Besides, as I recall, you thought it would be good to nuke the Iranians. Go figure.

Have I been vocal? There have been many times I have condemned this administration. But then, we all know you are blinded to actual facts.
You don't want me to go back over your old posts and make you look rather silly do you?

What makes you think that Clinton would give you 4 more years of Bush like politics?

You still do not know what the word Invade is.
If I came crashing into your house...dropping bombs and shooting up the place would you consider that an invasion?

I'm not telling the truth? That's rich coming from you.
Unless you go and delete all your posts, I can prove my point.

Hvae you seen the British papers? The Grauniad and the Telegraph have resumed open hostilities, again, over Obama and Hillary.

The Guardian is a Northern Communist Newspaper that gets polished up (It used to be the "Manchester Guardian", as in Guarding the workers).

The Telegraph?

What about the Good ol' Daily Mail?

They're really biased. But fun and with the best articles.

I You can do better than this Corny...please try again. Besides, as I recall, you thought it would be good to nuke the Iranians. Go figure.

Yea right.

You don't want me to go back over your old posts and make you look rather silly do you?

Which would be Ironic now and desperate on your part.

What makes you think that Clinton would give you 4 more years of Bush like politics?

What makes you think she won't?

If I came crashing into your house...dropping bombs and shooting up the place would you consider that an invasion?

Depends! Are you talking about trying to kill me or alter the way my house is runned?

Unless you go and delete all your posts, I can prove my point.

Um yea...nice try.

no sigs game? did i miss something?

why do people who HAVE sigs turn sig off?

I turned them off about the time the SIZE 7 FONTS BECAME IN VOGUE.

What makes Clinton "authoritarian"?


How do you figure that Clinton is a "warmonger"?


You voted for Bush, and have been vocal for Bush the past 4 years. I would call that support.

Also, when Obama made his declaration about invading Pakistan, you stated something along the line that you would consider voting for him now that he is "showing some spine".

Methinks you are not telling the truth.

We've already destroyed this stupid argument when you were signed on as CH in another thread. Enough is enough. Your arguments don't get any better when you use a puppet and post in another thread. On another note, Hillary Clinton refuses to release her tax information (http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gfd1crHwEDJCP-3_UVArM_pmEhYQD8V2P8H01) as she said she would "do as quickly as possible" in last night's debate. She's just a balls out liar.

We've already destroyed this stupid argument when you were signed on as CH in another thread.
What stupid argument are you referring to? This is a thread about Clinton. The other thread is about Obama.

Enough is enough. Your arguments don't get any better when you use a puppet and post in another thread.
I don't recall asking you anything specific in this thread. I was asking the other Hillary haters as to why they don't like her.

What stupid argument are you referring to? This is a thread about Clinton. The other thread is about Obama.


I don't recall asking you anything specific in this thread. I was asking the other Hillary haters as to why they don't like her.



For reasons we've all stated and explained in the Obama thread that you thread jacked, as well as Jocobia's Hillary thread you didnt read because it was started by Jocobia. We dont feel like repeated ourselves over and over again, ony for you to tell us we are wrong despite the evidence.

Also, you keep using the same old BS anti-Obama arguements that have been destroyed on the Obama thread. Same bull, different name I spose.


This thread is about Media Bias, not CH's personal crusade for Hillary Clinton. You want to debate Hillary, make a thread to debate her policies rather than thread jacking other threads.

Clinton is just fucking herself over by attacking Obama. She could get away with it if she was good at it, but she just fucking sucks.

she appears almost desperate.

While Obama appears to keep his cool-remaining calm and undistracted

What stupid argument are you referring to? This is a thread about Clinton. The other thread is about Obama.


I don't recall asking you anything specific in this thread. I was asking the other Hillary haters as to why they don't like her.

It's the same argument you were making in the Obama thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549897). Simply because someone wrote Hillary's name as the tagline for this thread does not mean you aren't using the same tired argument from a threadjack you perpetrated earlier.

We've already had the Obama thread, the "Why I like Hillary thread?" The super Tuesday thread that lasted forever, and now this one. In each you are making the exact same points, except now you are using a nation you made just to piss people off. Enough! I'm not one to go to the mods with issues very often but if they are looking in they should take note of your behavior. Like I've said before, you used to be someone I respected. Now you're just a pathetic hack.

Finally, I pawned your ass in the Obama thread by giving you exact quotes from debates and news article of the other candidates, including Hillary, about strategic strikes (invasion in your world) in Pakistan. You've been owned and now you're trying to annoy people in a new thread with a new nation you made up purely to troll.

There are zillions of threads on this, but Ill just sum it up real quick.

Perhaps in this thread you'll bother to back up your scurrilous accusations against Senator Clinton.

I support Barack Obama like you do, but I don't feel the need to lie about Hillary Clinton.


She is an authoratarian

No, she isn't. On what do you basis this accusation?

war mongering

No, she isn't. On what do you basis this accusation?

pro-censorship

No, she isn't. On what do you basis this accusation?

corperate whore

No, she isn't. On what do you basis this accusation?

who does things not based on conviction but on what is politcally advantagous and safe at the time.

Not true. I'm curious. I'm often told that Barack Obama has the power to defy partisanship and "reach across the aisle." Yet if Clinton does that, she is accused of playing politics.

She is also batshit crazy.

If you believe all of the above, it is not Senator Clinton's sanity you should be questioning.

Perhaps in this thread you'll bother to back up your scurrilous accusations against Senator Clinton.

I support Barack Obama like you do, but I don't feel the need to lie about Hillary Clinton.



Backed the Iraq war, backed giving Bush wartime powers. Approved of the Patriot Act (and pobably would push for it renewal), has said before she thinks violent video games, movies and TV shows should be censored, was on the board at WALMART, was a corperate lawyer before getting into politics, gets tons and tons of money from corperations (Obama gets far less, many of his are private doners), supported a banning on flag burning (I know the real bill, youve showed it before, and I see that bill as a backdoor to banning it. Who burns flags to intimidate people? Its only done as a form of protest, but now whenever someone does it people will take them to court saying they were intimidated rather than offended), etc.


I said all this in the thread about Hillary's policies. That no one here wanted to read it is not my fault.


EDIT: How can you argue that someone who served Walmart's higher ups and was a corperate fucking lawyer is anything BUT a corperate whore?

Backed the Iraq war, backed giving Bush wartime powers.

Other than one vote on the issue before Obama was in the Senate, what exactly is the difference between Obama and Clinton here? Hasn't she made clear her vote was wrong and she doesn't support the war in any way shape or form?

Approved of the Patriot Act (and pobably would push for it renewal),

Um. Obama voted to renew it.

has said before she thinks violent video games, movies and TV shows should be censored,

Way overstated. I'd love to see you provide an actual quote.

was on the board at WALMART, was a corperate lawyer before getting into politics,

Um. Obama was a lawyer as well and worked for a law firm that practiced corporate law. But I once worked for Shopko, so I must be a corporate whore as well.

gets tons and tons of money from corperations (Obama gets far less, many of his are private doners),

Decent point. One might admire, however, that she is able to get such support despite her positions on issues such as universal health care.

supported a banning on flag burning (I know the real bill, youve showed it before, and I see that bill as a backdoor to banning it. Who burns flags to intimidate people? Its only done as a form of protest, but now whenever someone does it people will take them to court saying they were intimidated rather than offended), etc.

Obama voted for that bill. How do you hold that bill against her, but not him?

I said all this in the thread about Hillary's policies. That no one here wanted to read it is not my fault.

I have challenged such statements in the Hillary thread and got no reply.

You haven't even tried to justify calling her authoritarian, war mongering, or bat-shit crazy. Your accusations of her being pro-censorship aren't born out by the facts. And your accusation that she is a corporate whore is based on little more than guilt by association.

Again, I strongly support Obama over Clinton. But you needn't smear a decent liberal politician in order to hold that view.

You haven't even tried to justify calling her authoritarian, war mongering, or bat-shit crazy. Your accusations of her being pro-censorship aren't born out by the facts. And your accusation that she is a corporate whore is based on little more than guilt by association.

Again, I strongly support Obama over Clinton. But you needn't smear a decent liberal politician in order to hold that view.



The war mongering is the Iraq and Bush thing. I dont care if she says she regrets it, frankly I dont believe her and think she is just blowing with the political winds.

Authoritarian is her stance on all demestic issues, from censorship to the patriot act. None of them alone are bad, but combined they are.

Obama was also not a corperate lawyer, he was a civil rights lawyer, which I respect immensly, and never sat on the board of a fortune 500 company. THAT is what makes you a corperate whore.


EDIT: I am deeply disappointed Obama also voted to renew the patriot act (which I hadnt heard), but at least he makes up for that in other areas that frankly she doesnt.

EDIT: I am deeply disappointed Obama also voted to renew the patriot act (which I hadnt heard), but at least he makes up for that in other areas that frankly she doesnt.I have. Then again, I have a far leftist friend that urged me not to vote for Obama.

Other than one vote on the issue before Obama was in the Senate, what exactly is the difference between Obama and Clinton here? Hasn't she made clear her vote was wrong and she doesn't support the war in any way shape or form?

No, actually, she hasn't made that clear at all. She patently refuses to say that her vote was wrong. Instead, she says that her vote was right, but that Bush misused it.

Meanwhile, that bill is the focus because it is the difference between going to war and not going to war. Obama clearly opposed going to war. The fact that they have voted similarly on an already crappy situation does not chang the fundamental difference here: Obama opposed it while Hillary voted in favor of it.

As for other authoritarian issues:
- Her healthcare plan is inherently authoritarian, as it seeks to force people to buy health insurance
- Her statement that national security is more important than human rights
- Supports use of torture in certain circumstances
- Support for DOMA*

*Obama seems iffy on this one. He certainly doesn't support full equality. =(

Looking over ontheissues.org, I'm actually a bit confused by the Patriot Act renewal. Was it a watered-down version? Because both are listed as having voted against issues that were contained in the first Patriot Act.

*could look this up, but will just ask for now*

Clinton is just being a miserable old witch who doesn't know how to retire gracefully, despite the fact that she is clearly beaten. :mad:

Clinton is just being a miserable old witch who doesn't know how to retire gracefully, despite the fact that she is clearly beaten. :mad:

Not clearly yet unfortunately but is down by 91 delegates at last count.

Anyone who watches election coverage is an idiot if they don't think that a blatant bias slanted towards Obama exists. Clinton isn't out, despite what Obama-zombies want to say/believe.

Anyone who watches election coverage is an idiot if they don't think that a blatant bias slanted towards Obama exists. Clinton isn't out, despite what Obama-zombies want to say/believe.

No, she's not out of the race by far. But unless she wins Penn, Ohio, and Texas by a sizable margin even her husband says she is out. Obama has energized people in a new and exciting way. People who previously felt like the system was worthless to them have decided to get involved. Anyone who can get more people to care about the future of their country is doing something positive. Regardless if they are your preferred candidate.

Clinton is just fucking herself over by attacking Obama. She could get away with it if she was good at it, but she just fucking sucks.

It's good that she sucks at it. :)

Anyone who watches election coverage is an idiot if they don't think that a blatant bias slanted towards Obama exists.

It rather depends on the coverage you're watching. CNN, if anything, seems to slant towards Clinton. I haven't noticed any real bias in NPR's coverage (yes, this is listening, not watching). I'm not sure about NBC and I only watch Fox occasionally to laugh at it.

Clinton isn't out, despite what Obama-zombies want to say/believe.

Ah, yes, resorting to silly names makes you seem so much more mature.

A recent Hellary commercial vowed she would crack down on companies that export jobs overseas from America. This, from the same woman who served on the board of WalMart, practically responsible for pushing the flow of the American manufacturing industry to China?

HA!

Sounds like sour grapes to me. Get a clue Clinton. You are not liked.



Or maybe she is right and the media is openly in favor of Obama? I hate the donkocrats and even I believe the media is treating her unfairly. Most likely some hidden sexism that you can't run the country unless you have a dick dangling between your legs. :rolleyes:

Nah, thats a more Republican viewpoint.

And Donkocrats. I havent ever heard that one before:rolleyes:



:rolleyes:

Most likely some hidden sexism that you can't run the country unless you have a dick dangling between your legs. :rolleyes:


Nah, thats a more Republican viewpoint.

And Donkocrats. I havent ever heard that one before:rolleyes:

If this is what she's resorting to in the campaigns, I can hardly see her being a level-headed president, to be quite honest. In fact, I can see her as "like Thatcher, but more so, without the economic success of the 1980s to prop her up".

This smells like everything else she's been doing on this campaign, complaining whenever something doesn't go her way. And then complaining some more when people call her on it.

Or maybe she is right and the media is openly in favor of Obama? I hate the donkocrats and even I believe the media is treating her unfairly. Most likely some hidden sexism that you can't run the country unless you have a dick dangling between your legs. :rolleyes:

I've made this appeal before but I'll do it again. Enough with the stupid motherFing silly names. If you want to argue policy, opinion, etc. then do it. No more Rethuglicans, Donkocrats, Dumbocrats! Let's debate without turning it into a middle school name calling thread. For those of you outside of the US, middle school is generally where you'll find children from 12-14, more of less. So I think you get the picture.

This smells like everything else she's been doing on this campaign, complaining whenever something doesn't go her way. And then complaining some more when people call her on it.

It was lurking in the shadows back in 1996..

It had lain dormant when the Smirking Chimp took charge and ran the country into the ground like every other business he'd been put in charge of.

But now... it's come back.

Hillary Clinton in...

RETURN OF THE VAST RIGHT-WING CONSPIRACY!!

Coming Soon To An Election Near You.

FOX NEWS = McCain/Romney

HOLY CRAP FOX NEWS HAS A RIGHT WIG BIAS?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

I have noticed a bias, in all three cable news channels

MSNBC & CNBC = Obama
CNN & CNN Headline News = Clinton
FOX NEWS = McCain/Romney

Each one has their preferred candidate, and is covering the news in a way that supports that candidate. It is not noticeable so much in so much in what they are saying but what they aren't saying.

Or maybe she is right and the media is openly in favor of Obama? I hate the donkocrats and even I believe the media is treating her unfairly. Most likely some hidden sexism that you can't run the country unless you have a dick dangling between your legs. :rolleyes:

You may not of been paying attention when she was the presumptive winner and the media fawned over her. You just want her to win because you know she'll lose to McCain.

HOLY CRAP FOX NEWS HAS A RIGHT WIG BIAS?!? ARE YOU KIDDING ME?!?

You know he's kidding, everyone knows the Fox News is run by a bunch of liberals and is part of the left wing conspiracy.

Anyway, the media likes a winner. Obama's been winning. You can't really spin 11 losses in a row - many by enourmous margins.

I did notice at the debate though, the moderator seemed to be on her case about that one question after the enourmous health care stalemate. However, she more than made up for it by being ridiculously petty in response to a couple questions later on. ("I not only denounce but I also 'reject' him," "Just making a speech about the Iraq war isn't worth anything" [despite the fact that Obama put his senate campaign in a risky position by making such an unpopular decision])

- Support for DOMA*)

DOMA?

DOMA?

Defense of Marriage act. Keep the filthy queers from getting married. It's important, land of the free and all that.

Defense of Marriage act. Keep the filthy queers from getting married. It's important, land of the free and all that.

Defense of Marriage Amendment, or the 'no marriage for homos act'

Oh, that. Ugh.

DOMA?

Defense of Marriage Amendment, or the 'no marriage for homos act'

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game, his sig openly says he's CanuckHeaven. I'm leaning towards account deactivation from inactivity as the reasoning behind it.

Which is precisely what happened, given that I rezzed CanuckHeaven earlier.

*hands Deus Malum a hot cocoa.*

so.... when she was the darling of the media, crying on camera, media bias is good.

Because her strident accusations and crying now look like emotional instability and the media has chosen a new darling, bias is bad.

For those of you playing the "no sigs" game...
I didn't know it was a "game". Very rarely, for reasons unknown to me, the "sigs" are visible, but by default they are not, and the reason for that is unknown to me also. I thought it was just some Jolt peculiarity.

No, actually, she hasn't made that clear at all. She patently refuses to say that her vote was wrong. Instead, she says that her vote was right, but that Bush misused it.

RUSSERT: Before you go, each of you have talked about your careers in public service. Looking back through them, is there any words or vote that you'd like to take back?

Senator Clinton?

CLINTON: Well, obviously, I've said many times that, although my vote on the 2002 authorization regarding Iraq was a sincere vote, I would not have voted that way again.

I would certainly, as president, never have taken us to war in Iraq. And I regret deeply that President Bush waged a preemptive war, which I warned against and said I disagreed with.

*snip*

RUSSERT: But to be clear, you'd like to have your vote back?

CLINTON: Absolutely. I've said that many times.

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textdebate.php?page=19)

Meanwhile, that bill is the focus because it is the difference between going to war and not going to war. Obama clearly opposed going to war. The fact that they have voted similarly on an already crappy situation does not chang the fundamental difference here: Obama opposed it while Hillary voted in favor of it.

I agree and that fundamental difference is one of the reasons why I support Obama over Clinton. But calling her "warmongering" or "authoritarian" based on that single vote which she has explained and disavowed is a bit ridiculous.

As for other authoritarian issues: Her healthcare plan is inherently authoritarian, as it seeks to force people to buy health insurance

Psshaw. Her healthcare plan is no more "authoritarian" than Social Security or Medicare (or Senator Obama's plan re children).

Let's see what Senator Obama says about it (emphasis added):

Now, keep in mind that I have consistently said that Senator Clinton's got a good health care plan. I think I have a good health care plan. I think mine is better, but I have said that 95 percent of our health care plan is similar.
*snip*
Now, I am -- I am happy to have a discussion with Senator Clinton about how we can both achieve the goal of universal health care. What I do not accept -- and which is what Senator Clinton has consistently done and in fact the same experts she cites basically say there's no real difference between our plans, that are -- that they are not substantial.

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textdebate.php?page=4)

- Her statement that national security is more important than human rights

An example of much ado made of nothing. Obama and Clinton gave similar answers. On_the_issues is letting us down here. What she actually said:

Q: What is more important, human rights or national security?
A: The first obligation of the president of the US is to protect and defend the US. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests. After 9/11, Bush had a chance to chart a different course, both in Pakistan and in Afghanistan, and could have been very clear about what our expectations were. We are now in a bind. It is not completely, but partly, a result of the failed policies of the Bush administration. Where we are today means that we have to say to Musharraf, "Look, this is not in your interest either; this is not in the interest of the US. It is not in your interest to either stay in power or stay alive." When I was meeting with him earlier this year I asked him if he would accept a high-level presidential envoy to begin to negotiate some of these issues. He said yes. I called the White House, I asked them to send such a high-level envoy. They did not do it. They're going to send one now.

Source: 2007 Democratic debate in Las Vegas, Nevada Nov 15, 2007

I like Obama's answer better, but her answer is hardly authoritarian.

- Supports use of torture in certain circumstances

An even worse example. What she actually has said:

In an interview with the New York Daily News in October 2006, Clinton condoned torture, saying, "In the event we were ever confronted with having to interrogate a detainee with knowledge of an imminent threat to millions of Americans, then the decision to depart from standard international practices must be made by the President. That very, very narrow exception within very, very limited circumstances is better than blasting a big hole in our entire law."
But in a debate in New Hampshire last month, Sen. Clinton shifted her position, when offered a similar ticking time bomb case, responding, "As a matter of policy, torture cannot be American policy, period."
Source: FactCheck.org on 2007 Democratic debate at Drexel University Oct 30, 2007

Q: Let's say we were to capture the #3 man in Al Qaida, and we know there's a bomb about to go off, and we have 3 days, and we know this guy knows where it is. Should there be a presidential exception to allow torture in that kind of situation?
A: As a matter of policy it cannot be American policy, period. There is very little evidence that it works. Now, there are a lot of other things that we need to be doing that I wish we were: better intelligence; working to have more allies. But these hypotheticals are very dangerous because they open a great big hole in what should be an attitude that our country and our president takes toward the appropriate treatment of everyone. And I think it's dangerous to go down this path.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Compare that with Obama:

America cannot sanction torture. It's a very straightforward principle, and one that we should abide by. Now, I will do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time. But what we cannot do is have the president state, as a matter of policy, that there is a loophole or an exception where we would sanction torture. I think that diminishes us and it sends the wrong message to the world.
Source: 2007 Democratic primary debate at Dartmouth College Sep 6, 2007

Again, I like Obama's answer slightly more, but it is hardly a case of her supporting torture and him opposing it.

- Support for DOMA*

*Obama seems iffy on this one. He certainly doesn't support full equality. =(

Definitely an area where Clinton is very wrong, but you are right that Obama is not substantially better here. At least both of them are far superior to McCain.

You may not of been paying attention when she was the presumptive winner and the media fawned over her. You just want her to win because you know she'll lose to McCain.

:rolleyes:


I find it funny lefties always seem to think they know everything about a person based on one post. :rolleyes: And FYI, Obama is losing to McCain in some polls as well. I believe McCain can beat anybody. The only reason you support Obama is because you don't want a woman in office.:rolleyes:

Which is precisely what happened, given that I rezzed CanuckHeaven earlier.

*hands Deus Malum a hot cocoa.*
* thanks Kat for the rezzing!! :)

I've made this appeal before but I'll do it again. Enough with the stupid motherFing silly names. If you want to argue policy, opinion, etc. then do it. No more Rethuglicans, Donkocrats, Dumbocrats! Let's debate without turning it into a middle school name calling thread. For those of you outside of the US, middle school is generally where you'll find children from 12-14, more of less. So I think you get the picture.





Don't demand one person stop doing something when you very well know you bring it upon yourself. I have heard far worse comments against the reupublicans and anybody who dares disagree with the uber left than what I said. As long as they choose to insult those who disagree with them, I shall continue mine. Turnabout is fairplay, want it stopped? Look in the mirror!

Which is precisely what happened, given that I rezzed CanuckHeaven earlier.

*hands Deus Malum a hot cocoa.*

1) What is rezzing?

2) I don't know how you and HotRodia do that, but it is friggin' awesome.

1) What is rezzing?

2) I don't know how you and HotRodia do that, but it is friggin' awesome.

The speculation is that the term rez, or rezzing is a Tron reference in Second Life, It means to make an object appear from your inventory on the land or to create a brand new item (right mouseclick and choose “create”). To rez an object you just click and drag it to the ground and it will appear. There are some cases it won’t appear — like if rezzing the item would exceed your prim allotment.

Did you miss where he said 'no more 'rethuglicans'? Unless you can find cases of this specific poster playing those kinds of name games you can stow your "B-b-but they started it!!!" whine.

hypocrisy at it's best! :rolleyes: Maybe you should actually read other people posts before you act all innocent. My post wasn't directed JUST at him, but you lefties in general. Now let it rest.

Don't demand one person stop doing something when you very well know you bring it upon yourself. I have heard far worse comments against the reupublicans and anybody who dares disagree with the uber left than what I said. As long as they choose to insult those who disagree with them, I shall continue mine. Turnabout is fairplay, want it stopped? Look in the mirror!

Did you miss where he said 'no more 'rethuglicans'? Unless you can find cases of this specific poster playing those kinds of name games you can stow your "B-b-but they started it!!!" whine.

hypocrisy at it's best! :rolleyes: Maybe you should actually read other people posts before you act all innocent. My post wasn't directed JUST at him, but you lefties in general. Now let it rest.

So you aren't a big enough person to rise above childishness. good to know.

So you aren't a big enough person to rise above childishness. good to know.

Nice to know lefties can say whatever they want but they rest of us can't. :rolleyes: Grow up, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't cry about something you brought on yourself. If you lefties can attack people anyway you want, be ready to get some of that shit back in spades. You are getting what you deserve, so grow the motherfuck up and take your medicine like a MAN! Maybe next time you lefties will learn to treat people a little better.

That's either incredibly stupid, or incredible desperate.
It's gotta be the pantsuits on a wee too tight.

My post wasn't directed JUST at him, but you lefties in general.Well, derision and such are well deserved directed at yourself, then. Enjoy.

It's the same argument you were making in the Obama thread (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=549897). Simply because someone wrote Hillary's name as the tagline for this thread does not mean you aren't using the same tired argument from a threadjack you perpetrated earlier.
This thread is about Hillary. People are dissing Hillary and I am asking them why they hate her. Seems like I am on topic....are you?

We've already had the Obama thread, the "Why I like Hillary thread?" The super Tuesday thread that lasted forever, and now this one. In each you are making the exact same points,
And you have used different arguments in those threads? I am consistent and you are not? What is your point?

except now you are using a nation you made just to piss people off.
Your assumption is way off base. Perhaps you will figure it out someday.

Enough! I'm not one to go to the mods with issues very often but if they are looking in they should take note of your behavior.
Perhaps you will turn yourself in for invoking the Mods as a weapon idea?

Like I've said before, you used to be someone I respected.
You don't respect me anymore because I prefer Hillary over Obama?

Now you're just a pathetic hack.
You like flaming as well?

Finally, I pawned your ass in the Obama thread by giving you exact quotes from debates and news article of the other candidates, including Hillary, about strategic strikes (invasion in your world) in Pakistan.
You owned nothing because you didn't prove your point. Far from it.

You've been owned and now you're trying to annoy people in a new thread with a new nation you made up purely to troll.
More flames and more false accusations.

Not one of your better posts.

* thanks Kat for the rezzing!! :)

1) What is rezzing?

2) I don't know how you and HotRodia do that, but it is friggin' awesome.

The speculation is that the term rez, or rezzing is a Tron reference in Second Life, It means to make an object appear from your inventory on the land or to create a brand new item (right mouseclick and choose “create”). To rez an object you just click and drag it to the ground and it will appear. There are some cases it won’t appear — like if rezzing the item would exceed your prim allotment.

Rezzing is resurrection in mod-speak: restoring your nation and kicking it from the dust-mice infested bowels of the server into Lazarus to rise anew!

I don't think you know what the word 'hypocrisy' means. He called out both sides for doing it and you whined "WWWWWAAAaaaaaahhhh!!! You started it!!!!" His post isn't concerned with who started it or who does it, in fact he called out both sides for it, just that it's childish. Much like saying "B-b-b-b-but they started it!!!" is.

It's not 'hypocrisy' to think it's stupid no matter who does it. It is hypocrisy to bitch one side out for doing it and then use that as an excuse to do it yourself.



Grow up. Seriously, I have no time for little babies such as yourself. I stated a damn fact. The left treats others like shit and when you get some of the back you cry like little babies. Grow up and deal with it! If you can attack everybody else you better be ready to get some of it back! And if you read any posts here NSer's deserve it is spades! Now grow the fuck up, take it like a goddamn man and move on! Baby. :rolleyes:

Rezzing is resurrection in mod-speak: restoring your nation and kicking it from the dust-mice infested bowels of the server into Lazarus to rise anew!

Oh, and by 2) I meant, "How do you always appear offline, even when you're online?"

Nice to know lefties can say whatever they want but they rest of us can't. :rolleyes: Grow up, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't cry about something you brought on yourself. If you lefties can attack people anyway you want, be ready to get some of that shit back in spades. You are getting what you deserve, so grow the motherfuck up and take your medicine like a MAN! Maybe next time you lefties will learn to treat people a little better.

You need to chill out and knock it off.

hypocrisy at it's best! :rolleyes: Maybe you should actually read other people posts before you act all innocent. My post wasn't directed JUST at him, but you lefties in general. Now let it rest.

I don't think you know what the word 'hypocrisy' means. He called out both sides for doing it and you whined "WWWWWAAAaaaaaahhhh!!! You started it!!!!" His post isn't concerned with who started it or who does it, in fact he called out both sides for it, just that it's childish. Much like saying "B-b-b-b-but they started it!!!" is.

It's not 'hypocrisy' to think it's stupid no matter who does it. It is hypocrisy to bitch one side out for doing it and then use that as an excuse to do it yourself.

Other than one vote on the issue before Obama was in the Senate, what exactly is the difference between Obama and Clinton here? Hasn't she made clear her vote was wrong and she doesn't support the war in any way shape or form?

Um. Obama voted to renew it.

Way overstated. I'd love to see you provide an actual quote.

Um. Obama was a lawyer as well and worked for a law firm that practiced corporate law. But I once worked for Shopko, so I must be a corporate whore as well.

Decent point. One might admire, however, that she is able to get such support despite her positions on issues such as universal health care.

Obama voted for that bill. How do you hold that bill against her, but not him?

I have challenged such statements in the Hillary thread and got no reply.

You haven't even tried to justify calling her authoritarian, war mongering, or bat-shit crazy. Your accusations of her being pro-censorship aren't born out by the facts. And your accusation that she is a corporate whore is based on little more than guilt by association.

Again, I strongly support Obama over Clinton. But you needn't smear a decent liberal politician in order to hold that view.
I think you popped a few balloons. I certainly would defer to your more extensive knowledge on the subject.

You need to chill out and knock it off.



Pardon me? I am telling the truth! If you want me to knock it off tell the other hostile asshole lefties here to first. I am treating them the way they treat others, they whine like babies and I am just telling them to grow up and why they deserve it!

So either be fair and get them too or fuck off! And I don't care if you are a mod! I am right here just as I have been in all other arguments that got me banned.

Oh, and by 2) I meant, "How do you always appear offline, even when you're online?"

Magic. ;)

Magic. ;)

:eek:

Know what, you can just fuck off.

Pardon me? I am telling the truth! If you want me to knock it off tell the other hostile asshole lefties here to first. I am treating them the way they treat others, they whine like babies and I am just telling them to grow up and why they deserve it!

So either be fair and get them too or fuck off! And I don't care if you are a mod! I am right here just as I have been in all other arguments that got me banned.

Um...telling a mod to "fuck off" is not very smart.

Magic. ;)

Magic is you NOT being a piece of shit.

Um...telling a mod to "fuck off" is not very smart.

I know that. :rolleyes:

Oh, that's a hoot. The media just loves Clinton and Obama, even McCain nowadays. I hate all of them - they're all the same! Liberals.

Pardon me? I am telling the truth! If you want me to knock it off tell the other hostile asshole lefties here to first. I am treating them the way they treat others, they whine like babies and I am just telling them to grow up and why they deserve it!

So either be fair and get them too or fuck off! And I don't care if you are a mod! I am right here just as I have been in all other arguments that got me banned.

Enjoy your vacation then. No one here is flaming but you.

Let me reference you to the FAQ to save the complaints of bias:

>I got into an argument with this idiot in the forums, and I got deleted and he didn't! How come you allow pro-Catholic argument, but when someone tries to tell the TRUE story of the coming of Christ--

Okay, let me stop you there. It might look as if you are being persecuted for your political views, but what most likely happened is you made a personal attack and your opponent didn't. No matter what the subject matter, if you don't conduct yourself in accordance with the rules of etiquette, you will get into trouble with the moderators. The best way to get your points across in the forums is to remain calm and respect other people's right to disagree with you.

Enjoy your vacation then. No one here is flaming but you.

Let me reference you to the FAQ to save the complaints of bias:

FUCK OFF SLUT!

FUCK OFF SLUT!

You give the few-and-far-between non-"lefties" on this forum a bad name.

You give the few-and-far-between non-"lefties" on this forum a bad name.

Best keep away. If he's going to commit suicide by mod, he'll be gone in a few minutes, anyway.

Wow, I'm never around when stuff like this happens...

Best keep away. If he's going to commit suicide by mod, he'll be gone in a few minutes, anyway.
True enough.

You give the few-and-far-between non-"lefties" on this forum a bad name.There's a huge margin of people who seem to think they're clever by implying a polarity where there isn't one - that you're EITHER "leftie" OR "rightie".
There's a few of us who aren't, surprisingly enough. And a few more of us have enough experience to know it isn't that simple, and deservedly chide people who need to resort to such "absolute" fallacies.

Ok, if anything deserved DEATing, that was it.

There's a huge margin of people who seem to think they're clever by implying a polarity where there isn't one - that you're EITHER "leftie" OR "rightie".

Too often my own experience with members on here has lead to confrontation with those holding liberal viewpoints. I remember a thread even which charted members according to the political beliefs - nearly all of them were libertarian left, while I was one of the most authoritarian right around.

And, honestly, I probably do deserve placement in the right-wing polarity.

Someone really needs to lay off the caffeine. And now, we continue with our regularly scheduled program.

Someone really needs to lay off the caffeine. And now, we continue with our regularly scheduled program.
Did they read the implementation instructions wrong or something? Sheesh.

Too often my own experience with members on here has lead to confrontation with those holding liberal viewpoints.So? I hold a few, but they're not the totality of my attitude and experience.
I remember a thread even which charted members according to the political beliefs - nearly all of them were libertarian left, while I was one of the most authoritarian right around.That may be the approach of open discussion, listening/interpretation and consideration ... as compared to vitriolic bloviating that is so common in the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, "Savage" Weiner, O'Reilly, et al.

And, honestly, I probably do deserve placement in the right-wing polarity.That would be your shortcoming then, probably, which could prove most unfortunate.

... as compared to vitriolic bloviating that is so common in the likes of Hannity, Limbaugh, "Savage" Weiner, O'Reilly, et al.
I hope you learn to divide the "conservatives", like myself, from the faux "neo-conservatives" like you cited.

That would be your shortcoming then, probably, which could prove most unfortunate.
I don't claim to be some empty-headed "right-wing or nothing" kind of guy. However, most of my viewpoints rest on that side of the spectrum.

I hope you learn to divide the "conservatives", like myself, from the faux "neo-conservatives" like you cited.To be fair and balanced as i can, most of them are in it for the show. But they sure as fuck don't help things much.


I don't claim to be some empty-headed "right-wing or nothing" kind of guy. However, most of my viewpoints rest on that side of the spectrum.I would ask, then, if there were any serious considerations you took to any posts from people you originally assessed, apparently dismissively, as "liberals"? As in, perhaps you encountered some folks who had enough personal experience to qualify their viewpoints, instead of just parroting whatever the radio/TV/blog told them to?

Wow, I'm never around when stuff like this happens...

In my short time here I've seen a few as they happened - I wonder if, given time differences, it's because I get the late-at-night people from Europe and America so tired brains and short tempers combine to devastating effect - this one was pretty good though.

As to the OP: I'm thinking Senator Clinton's strategy is becoming more and more messy each day that goes by - there was a long debate, to the point of screaming matches, within her camp between those who called for aggression and those who were against that.

It's a hard one for her, if she doesn't attack she has no differentiation aside from personality, which Senator Obama is winning and if she does attack, she falls into the very stereotype of her that's causing her to lose this nomination.

I really think, if I was her, I'd gracefully drop from the race and announce my intent to ensure the Democrats win the Presidency.

I really think, if I was her, I'd gracefully drop from the race and announce my intent to ensure the Democrats win the Presidency.

Ayup.

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usdeba0227,0,6808879.story


Ok, so regardless of if there is a bias or not (I personally dont see one), to me, this just sounds like more of Clinton's bitching, and I dont think Im alone. Does this just sound like sour grapes and her being a sore loser to anyone else?

basically. sure didn't hear her saying anything about it when they froze out kussenich and gravel.

of course i can't blame her for being bitter about all the corporate ass she's kissed not returning the favor. but actually i think they already pretty much did for rather a long time. obama's pulling ahead looks to me more inspite of that then because of it, so, she of all people, i don't see as really having all that much to complain about. i mean i think her complaint may be legitimate (in a more general sense), but her timing of it is pretty obviously concerned only with her own personal advantage and appearently perceived loss there of.

=^^=
.../\...

I really think, if I was her, I'd gracefully drop from the race and announce my intent to ensure the Democrats win the Presidency.

If only she shared your sentiment. :(

If only she shared your sentiment. :(

Well I have to grant her March 4th - if she pulls off a convincing win, which I doubt she can, then her case continues but if she equals or loses then I can't see a justifiable reason for her to continue.

I think she'd make a good president, I don't see much difference between the two and, as Senator Obama said in the last debate, they're both trying to win but at some point, it would give her a world of credibility to gracefully concede.

The truest and most appropriate thing I have ever read about the media, particularly newspapers. Someone sigged it awhile back, I forget who.

I'm paraphrasing, but the sentiment is attributable to Mark Twain.

If you don't read the papers, you're uninformed. If you do read the papers, you're misinformed.

The media are all biased. They may not outright lie, but they don't tell the truth. What they believe is directly related to advertising dollars.

Clinton was the golden one, now she isn't, so, of course she's going to whine about the unfairness of the media. When she was golden, she thought the media was just fine. When Obama's image loses it's glitter, he'll start complaining about media bias. That's what politicians do.

Don't demand one person stop doing something when you very well know you bring it upon yourself. I have heard far worse comments against the reupublicans and anybody who dares disagree with the uber left than what I said. As long as they choose to insult those who disagree with them, I shall continue mine. Turnabout is fairplay, want it stopped? Look in the mirror!

Oh gee, I'm sorry. I forgot how many times I use the word rethuglican or some other variation of it. Telling me to look in the mirror just makes you look foolish. If you actually read the post it says

and quote:

No more Rethuglicans, Donkocrats, Dumbocrats! Let's debate without turning it into a middle school name calling thread.

I decried the use of stupid names by both sides. So you're arguing for the sake of..."

hypocrisy at it's best! :rolleyes: Maybe you should actually read other people posts before you act all innocent. My post wasn't directed JUST at him, but you lefties in general. Now let it rest.

I never knew you to be such a nut. What happened to you? I denounced both sides and you got all huffy. Good riddance.

Nice to know lefties can say whatever they want but they rest of us can't. :rolleyes: Grow up, if you can't take it don't dish it out. Golden rule, treat others the way you want to be treated. Don't cry about something you brought on yourself. If you lefties can attack people anyway you want, be ready to get some of that shit back in spades. You are getting what you deserve, so grow the motherfuck up and take your medicine like a MAN! Maybe next time you lefties will learn to treat people a little better.

I suggest an immediate Thorazine drip. I'm not a leftie even by your standards. I'm a registered Republican who considers myself more of a Libertarian than anything else. I am prompting both sides to cut the shit. You telling someone to grow up is merely laughable.

This thread is about Hillary. People are dissing Hillary and I am asking them why they hate her. Seems like I am on topic....are you?


And you have used different arguments in those threads? I am consistent and you are not? What is your point?


Your assumption is way off base. Perhaps you will figure it out someday.


Perhaps you will turn yourself in for invoking the Mods as a weapon idea?


You don't respect me anymore because I prefer Hillary over Obama?


You like flaming as well?


You owned nothing because you didn't prove your point. Far from it.


More flames and more false accusations.

Not one of your better posts.

I'm just tired of you. If you consider being called a hack a flame then you need to get a little thicker skin. You have brought the same arguments into multiple threads. It's not being consistent, it's trolling. YOU STILL HAVEN'T RECOGNIZED that I gave you direct quotes from other candidates, including Hillary, that said the same thing about Pakistan. Refusing to note the point and admit that you have been beaten is just trolling. I don't respect you anymore because you are not debating. You are refusing to answer substantiative points raised by Jacobia, CNTOAN, and Knights. Admit that you were wrong and other candidates said exact what you blame Obama for saying. Otherwise I repeat that you are trolling and just hollering "lalala I can't hear you." Debate and you get respect. Retread on previous information that you've already been proven wrong on and you will get none.

Pardon me? I am telling the truth! If you want me to knock it off tell the other hostile asshole lefties here to first. I am treating them the way they treat others, they whine like babies and I am just telling them to grow up and why they deserve it!

So either be fair and get them too or fuck off! And I don't care if you are a mod! I am right here just as I have been in all other arguments that got me banned.

"I'm right, I swear" (tears rolling down your face) Also, admitting that you are posting around a ban on multiple occasions just gets you...mmmm. banned.

Is the media biased against Hillary.

Of course. They've even admitted to it. So sayeth the Daily Show

Linky (http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=162951&title=anti-hillary-conspiracy)

If the Daily Show sayeth, then it be the truth.

link (http://www.iht.com/articles/2008/02/27/america/26textdebate.php?page=19)

And yet, in other debates, she's stated that the vote was good, and the right vote at the time - that it was just the president's use of it that wasn't appropriate.

This is part of my problem with her. Pick a position and stick with it already. Even in that answer, she tries to shift the focus away from her vote and onto Bush. There's no telling what her actual position on many things is, because she keeps shifting it around.

I agree and that fundamental difference is one of the reasons why I support Obama over Clinton. But calling her "warmongering" or "authoritarian" based on that single vote which she has explained and disavowed is a bit ridiculous.

Well, there is more to it. Her recent vote on Iran, for instance.

Psshaw. Her healthcare plan is no more "authoritarian" than Social Security or Medicare (or Senator Obama's plan re children).

Neither Social Security nor Medicare force you to use them, so yes, it is more authoritarian than either of them.

There is a difference between all citizens being entitled to a given social service or program and being forced to either use it or do it on your own. To use social security as an adequate analogy, for instance, the elderly would have to be legally required to either accept a social security check or have their own retirement funds or face fines from the government - whether we wanted to or not. To use Medicare, they would have to be either forced to use medicare or seek other medical treatment or, again, face fines.

And mandatory measures regarding children are quite different from mandatory measures regarding adults. There are all sorts of things that are mandatory for children that we recognize are choices for adults to make for themselves.

An example of much ado made of nothing. Obama and Clinton gave similar answers. On_the_issues is letting us down here. What she actually said:

I know what she said. I watched the debate. And I found it very disturbing.

Meanwhile, you left out the part where she fervently agreed with another of the candidates, who had unquestioningly placed national security first.

An even worse example. What she actually has said:

Again, you assume I haven't read it. I have.

And the fact that she tried to switch it up later is another case of moving the goalposts. In one quote, she clearly states that exceptions to the no torture rule could be tolerated. In the other, she dodges it by saying she doesn't want to talk about it. In another, she says "no torture, period." So, which is it?

It's so hilarious really. Hillary was treated with far more favor than any politician I've seen myself by the press when it looked for sure like she would be the DNC candidate for years and then when the even more PC Obama enters the race, she's actually complaining about the bias that she was the recipient of. Too, too funny.

And yes that's quite an accomplishment. Knowing full well that no Republican would ever survive the personal scandals that Kennedy, Byrd or Harry Reid have gone through. They would have been hounded by the press till they resigned or were forced out if they had an R next to their names.

I just want to draw the attention of CH or CU to this post in another thread regarding his throtteling.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?p=13488920&posted=1#post13488920

And yet, in other debates, she's stated that the vote was good, and the right vote at the time - that it was just the president's use of it that wasn't appropriate.

This is part of my problem with her. Pick a position and stick with it already. Even in that answer, she tries to shift the focus away from her vote and onto Bush. There's no telling what her actual position on many things is, because she keeps shifting it around.

In other words, it doesn't matter what she says, you will hold the vote against her and call her "warmongering."

And it is Bush who used the generic authorization to start a pre-emptive war.

Well, there is more to it. Her recent vote on Iran, for instance.

What about her vote on Iran?

Neither Social Security nor Medicare force you to use them, so yes, it is more authoritarian than either of them.

There is a difference between all citizens being entitled to a given social service or program and being forced to either use it or do it on your own. To use social security as an adequate analogy, for instance, the elderly would have to be legally required to either accept a social security check or have their own retirement funds or face fines from the government - whether we wanted to or not. To use Medicare, they would have to be either forced to use medicare or seek other medical treatment or, again, face fines.

And mandatory measures regarding children are quite different from mandatory measures regarding adults. There are all sorts of things that are mandatory for children that we recognize are choices for adults to make for themselves.

*sigh*

You are being over-the-top. I presume you actually believe what you are saying and there is no point in disagreeing with you. Even though Senator Obama says his plan and Senator Clinton's plan are not substantially different, her plan is a authoritarian plot. :rolleyes:


I know what she said. I watched the debate. And I found it very disturbing.

Meanwhile, you left out the part where she fervently agreed with another of the candidates, who had unquestioningly placed national security first.

Her answer was NOT simply "national security comes before human rights" and no one that is being objective can claim that is what she said. She expressly recognized that the two are not exclusive. Her answer emphasized how our foreign policy should pursue human rights.

Do I wish she had been as clear as Senator Obama? Yes. Does her answer make her an authoritarian warmonger? No.

Again, you assume I haven't read it. I have.

And the fact that she tried to switch it up later is another case of moving the goalposts. In one quote, she clearly states that exceptions to the no torture rule could be tolerated. In the other, she dodges it by saying she doesn't want to talk about it. In another, she says "no torture, period." So, which is it?

Again, all I am assuming is that you are at least trying to evaluate the answers fairly.

She said the policy of the U.S. should be no torture, but she did entertain the possibility in certain extreme circumstances (although she emphasized that creating such exceptions was a bad thing).

Obama said that the policy of the U.S. should be no torture, but said that he would "do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time."

Again, what Obama said is slightly more appealing to me, but it is absurd to suggest a huge substantive difference in their answers, let alone that her answer is "authoritarian."

I appreciate and agree with your enthusiasm for Obama, but I just don't see the need to tear down Senator Clinton in the process. I thought Obama is supposed to stand for a new brand of politics that unites rather than divides.

The only reason you support Obama is because you don't want a woman in office.:rolleyes:


Again, its usually Republicans who wouldnt want a woman president, bible says women must submit to their husband and a woman's place is in the kitchen and all that jazz.


I think youre getting the parties confused.


EDIT: Im glad he just got banned.

EDIT: Im glad he just got banned.

Who did?

Who did?

Cryptic Nightmare.


Telling a MOD to fuck off and calling them a slut is....

<snippety doo dah> I thought Obama is supposed to stand for a new brand of politics that unites rather than divides.

Obama may, but his supporters don't all subscribe to it. ;)

In other words, it doesn't matter what she says, you will hold the vote against her and call her "warmongering."

(a) The vote is what it is.
(b) I don't recall ever using that term to describe her. Hawkish, maybe, but not "warmongering".
(c) What she says only matters if it is consistent. If she says in one debate that the vote was justified but the actions of Bush weren't, and claims in another debate that the vote was a bad one, which am I supposed to believe?

And it is Bush who used the generic authorization to start a pre-emptive war.

....something they authorized him to do. I'm not saying Bush made good decisions. I'm just saying that you can't wave away the decision to give him that authority with, "Well, he used it wrong."

What about her vote on Iran?

It's another problem vote.

*sigh*

You are being over-the-top. I presume you actually believe what you are saying and there is no point in disagreeing with you. Even though Senator Obama says his plan and Senator Clinton's plan are not substantially different, her plan is a authoritarian plot. :rolleyes:

The mechanisms of their plan are very similar. The requirements of their plan is what we are discussing, however.

Obama also says that the differences between their plans are philosophical. I agree. One is a much more authoritarian philosophy - that people must be forced to take care of themselves - that they are not only entitled to healthcare, but that the government must act as a parent and make their decisions for them.

Meanwhile, you're the one being a bit over-the-top. Where did I say anything about a "plot"?

Her answer was NOT simply "national security comes before human rights" and no one that is being objective can claim that is what she said. She expressly recognized that the two are not exclusive. Her answer emphasized how our foreign policy should pursue human rights.

Not simply, no. But that was part of her answer. And you didn't quote the entire exchange. In fact, you left out the very first sentence and the question actually posed directly to her. Let's quote the entire beginning, shall we?

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

(bold mine)

(a) She clearly states that national security is more important than human rights.

(b) She says that it is not to the exclusion of other interests, but has already clearly stated where her priorities lie.

She then goes on to talk about one particular example in which she might see human rights as necessary to national security.

Do I wish she had been as clear as Senator Obama? Yes. Does her answer make her an authoritarian warmonger? No.

Her answer makes her authoritarian, and I find it highly disturbing.

Could you please point out where I called her "an authoritarian warmonger", though?

Again, all I am assuming is that you are at least trying to evaluate the answers fairly.

Indeed. And I'm evaluating them within context - both the context in which they were stated and the context of the rest of what a candidate has said.

She said the policy of the U.S. should be no torture, but she did entertain the possibility in certain extreme circumstances (although she emphasized that creating such exceptions was a bad thing).

She emphasized (at a different time) that entertaining the hypotheticals was a bad thing, not that having the exceptions would be.

Taken in the context of her previous statements, this just falls in line with her general stance of "don't talk to the public about it." Don't tell the public who you would have diplomatic meetings with. Don't tell the public how you would react to intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorists. Don't tell the public what exceptions you might make in a no torture rule.

Obama said that the policy of the U.S. should be no torture, but said that he would "do whatever it takes to keep America safe. And there are going to be all sorts of hypotheticals & emergency situations & I will make that judgment at that time."

Again, what Obama said is slightly more appealing to me, but it is absurd to suggest a huge substantive difference in their answers, let alone that her answer is "authoritarian."

Has Obama ever stated that the president would have the authority to make such exceptions? His answer is hedging a bit, and it is a bit troubling, but it is less so given that I have seen no statements similar to the first one made by him.

Clinton has said more on this issue than one statement in a debate. What she said in the debate has to be taken in the context of her other statements on the issue.

I appreciate and agree with your enthusiasm for Obama, but I just don't see the need to tear down Senator Clinton in the process. I thought Obama is supposed to stand for a new brand of politics that unites rather than divides.

I love this line. It suggests that Obama's brand of politics doesn't involve ever discussing the problems you have with a candidate's politics. As Obama himself has pointed out, the "politics of hope" do not keep one from pointing out such issues.

I'm not "tearing down" Clinton because I support Obama. I'm addressing the problems I have with her. It has nothing at all to do with Obama. If Obama didn't even exist, I would still have these problems with her. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with me, or anyone, pointing out the problems we see with a given candidate - even if that candidate happens to be Hillary Clinton.

And, while you may not see these things as "substantive differences", I do. In fact, in many ways, I see them as being at the very core of the changes in politics Obama is pushing, which is a large part of the reason I support him.

Obama may, but his supporters don't all subscribe to it. ;)

Well, when "divides" is used to mean "talk about the problems you have with a candidate"...

Well, when "divides" is used to mean "talk about the problems you have with a candidate"...

Oh sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant the "Evil Hillary eats babies " Obama crowd. :fluffle:

(a) The vote is what it is.
(b) I don't recall ever using that term to describe her. Hawkish, maybe, but not "warmongering".
(c) What she says only matters if it is consistent. If she says in one debate that the vote was justified but the actions of Bush weren't, and claims in another debate that the vote was a bad one, which am I supposed to believe?

(a) Yes, it is. And it was a bad vote. No doubt about it.

(b) You may not recall, but you stepped into a debate between Knights of Liberty and I in which I was disputing his labeling Senator Clinton as, among other things, "authoritarian," "warmongering," and "bat-shit crazy." You definitely appeared to be defending KoL's use of the first two terms.

(c) Meh. Taken as a whole her statements about why she voted as she did and how she feels about that vote now are pretty clear. I can understand why you don't feel that explanation is adequate. I don't either. But, as I started this argument saying, that doesn't make her a "warmonger."

....something they authorized him to do. I'm not saying Bush made good decisions. I'm just saying that you can't wave away the decision to give him that authority with, "Well, he used it wrong."

Which isn't what she is saying. Although he did misuse the authority he was given, he should never have been given it in the first place.

It's another problem vote.

Please explain.

The mechanisms of their plan are very similar. The requirements of their plan is what we are discussing, however.

Obama also says that the differences between their plans are philosophical. I agree. One is a much more authoritarian philosophy - that people must be forced to take care of themselves - that they are not only entitled to healthcare, but that the government must act as a parent and make their decisions for them.

Meanwhile, you're the one being a bit over-the-top. Where did I say anything about a "plot"?

This is one of the few points where I agree with Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.

Everyone is required to pay into the Social Security and Medicare programs. That isn't optional. Similarly, in order to prevent gaming the system, free-riders, and other problems, it makes sense to have everyone buy healthcare. It has nothing to do with authoritarianism, it has to do with the benefits of collective action versus a piece-meal approach.

And, yes, I think your rhetoric on this issue is over-the-top. As I noted, it far exceeds Senator Obama's own comments on Senator Clinton's plan.

Not simply, no. But that was part of her answer. And you didn't quote the entire exchange. In fact, you left out the very first sentence and the question actually posed directly to her. Let's quote the entire beginning, shall we?

BLITZER: You say national security is more important than human rights. Senator Clinton, what do you say?

CLINTON: I agree with that completely. The first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America. That doesn't mean that it is to the exclusion of other interests.

(bold mine)

(a) She clearly states that national security is more important than human rights.

(b) She says that it is not to the exclusion of other interests, but has already clearly stated where her priorities lie.

She then goes on to talk about one particular example in which she might see human rights as necessary to national security.

Her answer makes her authoritarian, and I find it highly disturbing.

1. My apologies. I relied on on-the-issues and not the actual debate transcript (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21836286/page/13/). The transcript makes Senator Clinton's answer more clear and more disturbing.

2. Beyond having implications of fascism and the like, authoritarianism is defined (http://www.askoxford.com/concise_oed/authoritarian?view=uk) as "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority." Again, her answer dismays me, but it hardly justifies calling her authoritarian.

3. By the way, do you deny that the "first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America"? I think such defense must be done within the context of human rights, but I am not sure Clinton's answer is altogether wrong on this.

Could you please point out where I called her "an authoritarian warmonger", though?

Again, those were the labels that I was criticizing when you jumped into the debate, onstensibly on the side of those labels.

If you are no going to admit that Senator Clinton is not "an authoritarian warmonger," I welcome your clarification.

Indeed. And I'm evaluating them within context - both the context in which they were stated and the context of the rest of what a candidate has said.

She emphasized (at a different time) that entertaining the hypotheticals was a bad thing, not that having the exceptions would be.

Taken in the context of her previous statements, this just falls in line with her general stance of "don't talk to the public about it." Don't tell the public who you would have diplomatic meetings with. Don't tell the public how you would react to intelligence on the whereabouts of terrorists. Don't tell the public what exceptions you might make in a no torture rule.

1. First, Obama made it clear in his answer that when push came to shove he would consider exceptions to the rule against torture in the right circumstances. He just would -- as Clinton would -- emphasize a policy of no torture without exceptions.

2. What previous statements? There is one statement made in 2006 regarding exceptional circumstances and torture. I don't agree with that statement, but I accept that Senator Clinton has since consistently clarified her position.

3. Your characterization that Clinton is saying we should hide things from the public and refuse to answer questions is neither accurate nor particularly consistent with your criticism of precisely her answers to such questions. Correct me if I am wrong, here. For example, when has she said she wouldn't tell the public who the President was having diplomatic meetings with? Instead, I thought she has a rather open dispute with Obama about who the President should meet with. Similarly, was Obama clear to you about when he would make exceptions to the rule against torture? I was a bit dismayed that he didn't clearly say there are no exceptions, but rather said he'd mkae a judgment at the time.

Has Obama ever stated that the president would have the authority to make such exceptions? His answer is hedging a bit, and it is a bit troubling, but it is less so given that I have seen no statements similar to the first one made by him.

Clinton has said more on this issue than one statement in a debate. What she said in the debate has to be taken in the context of her other statements on the issue.

Again, point me to those other statements. I could be misjudging the situation.

And, yes, Obama hedged more than just a little bit when he was asked directly about the issue.

I love this line. It suggests that Obama's brand of politics doesn't involve ever discussing the problems you have with a candidate's politics. As Obama himself has pointed out, the "politics of hope" do not keep one from pointing out such issues.

I'm not "tearing down" Clinton because I support Obama. I'm addressing the problems I have with her. It has nothing at all to do with Obama. If Obama didn't even exist, I would still have these problems with her. And there is absolutely nothing wrong with me, or anyone, pointing out the problems we see with a given candidate - even if that candidate happens to be Hillary Clinton.

And, while you may not see these things as "substantive differences", I do. In fact, in many ways, I see them as being at the very core of the changes in politics Obama is pushing, which is a large part of the reason I support him.

I think throwing around labels like "authoritarian" is not simply addressing Clinton's candidacy, but engaging in politics of destruction. I also remember you and others taking great umbrage to the idea that the Clinton's would criticize something that Obama had said regarding Republicans being the party of ideas. I think the shoe is now on the other foot regarding many of the inaccurate things that are being said about Senator Clinton.

If I am correct that you disavow the labels that Knights of Liberty was throwing around and instead wish to focus on differences in record and policy, that is great. We don't have as much to argue about there, because with the exception of healthcare I agree that Obama's policies are superior to Clinton's. I just don't see this gaping chasm of difference you seem to see. I'd love to have you explain it further.

I think I'm going to have to pile on the eyeliner and make a "Leave Hillary Alone" video and upload it to YouTube.

The media's always bias.

The end.

Oh sorry, I didn't mean you. I meant the "Evil Hillary eats babies " Obama crowd. :fluffle:

But doesn't she? =)


(b) You may not recall, but you stepped into a debate between Knights of Liberty and I in which I was disputing his labeling Senator Clinton as, among other things, "authoritarian," "warmongering," and "bat-shit crazy." You definitely appeared to be defending KoL's use of the first two terms.

I pointed out authoritarian positions she holds. Whether those positions are enough to give her an overall description of "authoritarian" is really a matter of personal opinion. I definitely think she is too authoritarian for my tastes, but is certainly not the worst US politician on that count.

I think "warmongering" is too strong a term, but her positions in general are a bit hawkish for my taste. Even her insistence on sticking to the foreign policy of refusing to talk to certain foreign leaders is, in my mind, a part of that tendency.

(c) Meh. Taken as a whole her statements about why she voted as she did and how she feels about that vote now are pretty clear. I can understand why you don't feel that explanation is adequate. I don't either. But, as I started this argument saying, that doesn't make her a "warmonger."

It appears that she would be quicker to go to war than others. On top of that, I don't find her statements to be clear. From what I can glean of her overall position, her problem is not with the fact that Congress gave Bush the power to go to war. What she does have a problem with is the fact that he used that authority.


Which isn't what she is saying. Although he did misuse the authority he was given, he should never have been given it in the first place.

I agree with you. I don't think Clinton does. Her own statements suggest a problem not with having given him the authority, but instead with the way he used it.

Please explain.

Declaring a portion of a foreign country's military as a terrorist group isn't exactly a good way to open up diplomatic channels with Iran. If anything, given the executive branch's authority to go after terrorist groups, it looks like a push towards another Iraq.

This is one of the few points where I agree with Senator Clinton more than Senator Obama.

I've noticed. It isn't one where I do.

Everyone is required to pay into the Social Security and Medicare programs. That isn't optional. Similarly, in order to prevent gaming the system, free-riders, and other problems, it makes sense to have everyone buy healthcare.

That isn't "similar". Paying into a public funding system through taxes and being forced to pay for individual coverage are not, in any way, the same thing.

I pay taxes that help fund public transportation. Does that mean I should either be forced to use public transportation or own my own car?

I pay taxes that help fund public universities. Does that mean I should be forced to attend a university?

It has nothing to do with authoritarianism, it has to do with the benefits of collective action versus a piece-meal approach.

Obama's plan is no less collective. The difference is that it is not forced upon people. They do not lose their freedom of choice.

And that loss of freedom is[/i] authoritarian.

And, yes, I think your rhetoric on this issue is over-the-top. As I noted, it far exceeds Senator Obama's own comments on Senator Clinton's plan.

So? I'm not Obama. I'm expressing [b]my opinion, not his.

1. My apologies. I relied on on-the-issues and not the actual debate transcript. The transcript makes Senator Clinton's answer more clear and more disturbing.

N/P

2. Beyond having implications of fascism and the like, authoritarianism is defined as "favouring or enforcing strict obedience to authority." Again, her answer dismays me, but it hardly justifies calling her authoritarian.

Strict obedience to authority is what you get when you place national security before human rights. Whatever is deemed "necessary" for national security suddenly becomes a priority - a must have - a strictly enforced principle, regardless of any infraction on human rights it represents.

3. By the way, do you deny that the "first obligation of the president of the United States is to protect and defend the United States of America"? I think such defense must be done within the context of human rights, but I am not sure Clinton's answer is altogether wrong on this.

I don't deny that. But what people who would place national security before human rights don't realize is that you are not protecting or defending the USA by making that prioritization. If anything, you're doing the exact opposite.

Again, those were the labels that I was criticizing when you jumped into the debate, onstensibly on the side of those labels.

I pointed out policies that I believe fall under the authoritarian level. As I said before, whether or not the sum of Clinton's policies are enough to dub her as authoritarian is a matter of personal opinion.

You've seen the political compass, right? To someone who falls rather negative on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, Clinton (and most US politicians, honestly) can seem terrifyingly authoritarian.

1. First, Obama made it clear in his answer that when push came to shove he would consider exceptions to the rule against torture in the right circumstances. He just would -- as Clinton would -- emphasize a policy of no torture without exceptions.

And either statement is worrying. If there is a policy of torture with no exceptions - that means no exceptions.

2. What previous statements? There is one statement made in 2006 regarding exceptional circumstances and torture. I don't agree with that statement, but I accept that Senator Clinton has since consistently clarified her position.

I was referring to the 2006 statement. You quote that one, along with a later debate answer.

3. Your characterization that Clinton is saying we should hide things from the public and refuse to answer questions is neither accurate nor particularly consistent with your criticism of precisely her answers to such questions.

Not accurate? Why did she slam Obama for his statements regarding terrorists in Pakistan? Was it because of what he actually said he would do? No. It was because he actually talked about it.

In the quote you gave, she claims that entertaining hypotheticals is dangerous, not because the actual response to those hypotheticals is wrong or dangerous, but because it means talking to the public about possible exceptions.

I think throwing around labels like "authoritarian" is not simply addressing Clinton's candidacy, but engaging in politics of destruction.

I disagree. I don't think it's any more of a problem than using labels like "progressive" or "right-wing economics".

I also remember you and others taking great umbrage to the idea that the Clinton's would criticize something that Obama had said regarding Republicans being the party of ideas. I think the shoe is now on the other foot regarding many of the inaccurate things that are being said about Senator Clinton.

I have no problem with her criticizing anything that he said. I do have a problem with her deliberately mischaracterizing it - which is what I believe she did.

If I am correct that you disavow the labels that Knights of Liberty was throwing around and instead wish to focus on differences in record and policy, that is great.

I don't see why one has to disavow labels to focus on differences. If one feels that Clinton is more authoritarian than Obama, why not say so?

"Warmonger" isn't really a good word to use, but I don't see a reason not to point out the fact that Clinton's foreign policy ideas and record are less diplomatic and lean more towards the use of force.

We don't have as much to argue about there, because with the exception of healthcare I agree that Obama's policies are superior to Clinton's. I just don't see this gaping chasm of difference you seem to see. I'd love to have you explain it further.

It's likely a matter of differences in priorities. What seems like a huge difference to me may seem like very little to you, if the difference isn't one that you think matters.

I have a friend who doesn't understand my problem with many candidates on the basis of civil rights issues, not because he disagrees with me on those issues, but because he prioritizes other issues and thus doesn't consider what he sees as a few disagreements with the candidate as important.

I'm guessing that this is likely a similar situation.

But doesn't she? =)

Yes! (http://hilldabeast.com/hillpics/babyeater.jpg) :eek:

First, let me say, thank you Cat for showing that people can be reasonable with ragards to both candidates. I think it's a bit sad that politics in general always seems to be about one candidate being above reproach and every other candidate being absurd. There are good and bad things about every candidate that is now or was in this race.

That said. Here is a part you should read from Clinton's reply to the very question of whether her vote was a mistake.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_california_democratic_deba.html

BLITZER: All right. I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond.

Senator Clinton, you always say if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?(1)

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time, and certainly I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what, if any, threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in, that -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you'd prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences. And what -- if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hope would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody try to change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. (2)And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would never have diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten front lines in the war against terror, that just -- you know, just struck me so forcefully -- that we have so many -- (off mike) -- and it will take everyone.

It'll take a tremendous amount of -- of effort.

But the one thing I am convinced of is that if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together a -- an effective strategy to go after the terrorists -- because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore, at our peril -- then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that's what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

BLITZER: So what I --

CLINTON: So we need a president who will be sensitive to the implications of the use of force and understand that force should be a last resort, not a first resort.

BLITZER: So what I hear you saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?(3)

CLINTON: No, that's not what you hear me say. (Cheers, applause.) Good try, Wolf. Good try. (Booing, shouting.)

You know --

BLITZER: Was she naive, Senator Obama?

CLINTON: Well, let me -- you asked the question to me. I -- you know, I deserve to answer.

BLITZER: I thought you -- I thought you weren't going to --

CLINTON: No, you know, I -- I think that -- you know, that -- that is a good try, Wolf. (Laughter.)

The -- you know, the -- the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then, when he came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so that we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time, which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.

So I think I made a reasoned judgment.

Unfortunately the person who actually got to execute the policy did not. (4)(Applause.)

(1) So you see that the question does include the fact that she often says she would have voted differently. It also asks why she won't say it was a mistake. This is important, because she can say she'd have voted differently because Bush was president, and thus it's Bush's fault that it happened and not hers.

If you read all this she kind of dances around the question. She certainly hints at the idea that it would have been a reasonable vote if she'd been President.

(2) This is as close as she comes to answering the question and she basically says that it's impossible to have known it was a bad vote at the time.

(3) Wolf is rephrasing (2) in an obviously hyperbolous way. My personal opinion was he was trying to force her into a clarification rather than avoiding the issue, but it was a low blow.

(4) Here is the crux of it. She plainly says here that giving this kind of power to the President wasn't the problem, but how HE used it. It's a plain statement. And in my opinion, indefensible. There's nothing wrong with having a monarchy if the King or Queen is the right person, but I certainly wouldn't vote for one.

*snip*


Which answers the questions as to why I think she is a warmongering authoritarian. She supports giving the president unlimited power to wage war. Her arguement is basically, "Giving the president that power was a good idea, we just gave it to the wrong guy! *under her breath* Give the power to me, Ill use it well."

*snip*

Thanks, Joc! You put that much better than I did.

There have been so many debates that it's often very difficult for me to find the right ones.

Obama The Bringer of Hope

If I hear the word Hope again I'm going to punch somebody for sure

HOPE?! That and a buck might get you a bus ride.

If you want hope, find it from within you, not in others. Manifest it by your own actions to make your life and our world a better place.

No president has the power, ability, control, or other resources to single handley save the world. Let’s get off our own butts and make a difference, one person at a time. Enough of waiting for someone else to do it for us.

A president can ENABLE hope in us by supporting education,proper health care, training, and other programs that foster independence, self-reliance, resourcefulness, self-sufficiency, self-advancement, self-sacrifice for the common good, and an inter-connectedness to our society and the world at large creating a desire in all of us to better the world for all of humankind.

Enough of our slopping at the trough put forth by pandering politicians that is full of tax cuts, rebates, subsidies, artificial manipulations, questionable motivations, welfare for individuals and businesses of all stripes, increased government benefits and safety nets to make up for our own failings (I’m not including those few who are less fortunate for reasons BEYOND THEIR CONTROL) while we selfishly borrow from the future of our children and their children. All so we can have more than anyone in history and push to satiate our ever growing greed for even more.

The real question is, is anyone up to such a task and is this really what voters want?

Obama The Bringer of Hope

If I hear the word Hope again I'm going to punch somebody for sure

HOPE?! That and a buck might get you a bus ride.

If you want hope, find it from within you, not in others. Manifest it by your own actions to make your life and our world a better place.

No president has the power, ability, control, or other resources to single handley save the world. Let’s get off our own butts and make a difference, one person at a time. Enough of waiting for someone else to do it for us.

A president can ENABLE hope in us by supporting education,proper health care, training, and other programs that foster independence, self-reliance, resourcefulness, self-sufficiency, self-advancement, self-sacrifice for the common good, and an inter-connectedness to our society and the world at large creating a desire in all of us to better the world for all of humankind.

Enough of our slopping at the trough put forth by pandering politicians that is full of tax cuts, rebates, subsidies, artificial manipulations, questionable motivations, welfare for individuals and businesses of all stripes, increased government benefits and safety nets to make up for our own failings (I’m not including those few who are less fortunate for reasons BEYOND THEIR CONTROL) while we selfishly borrow from the future of our children and their children. All so we can have more than anyone in history and push to satiate our ever growing greed for even more.

The real question is, is anyone up to such a task and is this really what voters want?

This post and a buck might get you a bus ride. I think it's amusing you protest rhetoric with so much rhetoric.

Not very funny ...but kinda true

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NvO-zWOXIFs

http://www.dailymotion.com/tag/Fey/video/x4jgrk_snl-tina-fey-hillary-clinton-vost-f_fun

A president can ENABLE hope in us by supporting education,proper health care, training, and other programs that foster independence, self-reliance, resourcefulness, self-sufficiency, self-advancement, self-sacrifice for the common good, and an inter-connectedness to our society and the world at large creating a desire in all of us to better the world for all of humankind.

While he's certainly not perfect, that pretty much sounds like what Obama says he wants to do.

I'm not hating on Obama ...I like him...but I also liked bush better than kerry...kerry was kinda creepy ...I just HOPE that when the glitter gone that Obama look just as pretty .

Yep - Obama makes it very clear that we as US citizens need to take the initiative to bring the change we want to see.

Yep - Obama makes it very clear that we as US citizens need to take the initiative to bring the change we want to see.

Which is why I take off my top as often as possible.

I think I'm going to have to pile on the eyeliner and make a "Leave Hillary Alone" video and upload it to YouTube.
Get Rotovia to do it, it'll be much more popular.

The media's always bias.

The end.

Indeed. The media will say what they think their demographic wants to hear. If CNN is biased towards Obama(I don't know if they are, it's just an example) it's because their viewers are more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters. Clinton should concern herself less with the existence of this bias and more with trying to get it back in her favour.

I also don't like the attacks on Hillary it seems to harsh everyone calling her bitch, ho, baby-eater etc. like she some kinda of monster or she did something to you .... nobody wants to say anything to Obama since he black and it might be racist...

I also don't like the attacks on Hillary it seems to harsh everyone calling her bitch, ho, baby-eater etc. like she some kinda of monster or she did something to you .... nobody wants to say anything to Obama since he black and it might be racist...

Pardon? So no one calls him things like The Magical Negro? Perhaps I must have made that one up.

Pardon? So no one calls him things like The Magical Negro? Perhaps I must have made that one up.

Racist.

I also don't like the attacks on Hillary it seems to harsh everyone calling her bitch, ho, baby-eater etc. like she some kinda of monster or she did something to you .... nobody wants to say anything to Obama since he black and it might be racist...

Nonononono you're doing it all wrong, first you say, "Obama is Teh Ebil Moslimz leader i mean he has Hussien as a middle name! He's Teh Ebil plotter who killed all those Americans in that Sandpit!", then you say, "HIllery haz experience, she went out with a president, and i like womenz in power as it's democratic".
AND you've got to do it with sincerity, and statistics to back up how many horrific terrorist attacks have been made by people with names like Obama.

As proof, she cited a "Saturday Night Live" skit

Her argument fails in its conception.

_______________________________________________

Honestly, please explain why Obama is 'glitter' and 'nonsubstantive.' As he has stated several tines hope != unreasonable claims.

I also don't like the attacks on Hillary it seems to harsh everyone calling her bitch, ho, baby-eater etc. like she some kinda of monster or she did something to you .... nobody wants to say anything to Obama since he black and it might be racist...

Those aren't used in the mainstreme media. No one has control over the right-wing bloggers and/or sexist idiots so it is not a reason to not support Obama.

This (http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/politics/5580749.html) might make the case (in so much as a single article can) stated in the OP. It's exactly the kind of thing that frustrates me about the Clinton campaign and what has made me lean Obama, so the headline brings all of that up for me-
State Democrats say Clinton camp may sue
Legal action could disrupt or delay caucuses, party says
But is that headline fair? It is in the ever important first paragraph of the story-
AUSTIN — The Texas Democratic Party warned Thursday that election night caucuses scheduled for Tuesday could be delayed or disrupted after aides to Hillary Rodham Clinton threatened to sue over the party's complicated delegate selection process.


But by the third paragraph-
Spokesmen for both campaigns said there were no plans to sue ahead of the March 4 election.
Wait, what? Are we quibbling over 'threatening' and 'plans to?'

Democratic sources said both campaigns have made it clear that they might consider legal options over the complicated delegate selection process, which includes both a popular vote and evening caucuses.
Now it's both of them? This is in the fifth paragraph. Which also contains-
But the sources made it clear that the Clinton campaign in particular had warned of an impending lawsuit.
The sixth is more of the same-
"Both campaigns have made it clear that they would go there if they had to, but I think the imminent threat is coming from one campaign," said one top Democratic official, referring to the Clinton campaign. The officials spoke on condition of anonymity.

We only get a confirmed source, response from the actual campaign not speaking on anonymity at the end-
But Adrienne Elrod, Clinton's top Texas spokeswoman, said campaign and party officials had merely discussed election night procedures and that the campaign was merely seeking a written agreement in advance.

Both campaigns, from the article, are willing to 'go there' if neccisary, but the headline is "State Democrats say Clinton camp may sue." Now, it may be fair news that Clinton's camp is more into this idea than Obama's, but given that both apparently have made overtures, it's not fair to lay this so heavily in Clinton's lap with only the passing and qualified mention that "Oh yeah, Obama might, too."

Now, that's one article and one article does not a bias make. Certainly, the AP (http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/APStories/stories/D8V3PNAO0.html) handles this whole affair a lot better-
Democratic Party warns candidates about threat of lawsuit

An attorney for the Texas Democratic Party has sent a letter to the campaigns of Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama warning that potential lawsuits over the way Texas delegates are selected would hurt efforts to re-energize voters.

Texas has a twin primary-caucus system. Of the state's 228 Democratic presidential delegates, 126 will be awarded based on voting in the March 4 primary. But most of the remaining 102 are allocated in a caucus system leading up to the state convention in June.

Chad Dunn, the party's attorney, sent a letter to the two campaigns late Thursday, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported.

"It has been brought to my attention that one or both of your campaigns may already be planning or intending to pursue litigation against the Texas Democratic Party," Dunn said in a letter obtained by the newspaper. "Such action could prove to be a tragedy for a reinvigorated Democratic process."

Both campaigns said there were no plans to sue before Tuesday's primary.

"No legal action is being taken. We have no reason to take any legal action," said Adrienne Elrod, a spokeswoman for Clinton in Texas.

Elrod said campaign and party officials had discussed primary night procedures and that the campaign wanted a written agreement in advance. She did not elaborate on the details of the agreement the Clinton campaign is seeking.

"It is our campaign's standard operating procedure that we need to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it," Elrod said.

Obama spokesman Josh Earnest said, "We're confident that by working closely with the Texas Democratic Party and the Clinton campaign we'll have a caucus that Texans can be proud of — because every eligible voter will be allowed to participate and have their vote counted in a timely manner."

The letter to the two campaigns did not specify what procedures or rules might trigger a lawsuit.
Neither candidate is assigned the blame for this, both campaigns comment that they do not intend to sue, and full(er) statements from both spokes people.

The Wall Street Journal (http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/29/texas-democrats-fret-about-possible-lawsuit/?mod=googlenews_wsj) sites Root's (the first) article-
Democratic Party officials have raised concerns that expected record turnout for next Tuesday’s Texas presidential primary and caucuses could be marred by a lawsuit from the Clinton campaign over the party’s election rules, the Fort Worth Star-Telegram reported today.
and omits the part about Obama's campaign being willing to 'go there' as well. It does talk to an Obama campaigner-
On a conference call with reporters this morning, David Plouffe, campaign manager for Sen. Barack Obama, blamed Sen. Hillary Clinton’s campaign for the row, suggesting that the Clinton camp wanted to slow or stop reporting of the caucus tally on election night. “They do not want the caucus results reported on Tuesday night,” Plouffe said. “There is timely reporting and the Clinton campaign has deep anxiety about that.”
...
Plouffe accused the Clinton camp of ratcheting up legal measures to a “new level” after the Nevada unions that supported the Clinton campaign had sued last month to shut down certain Nevada caucus sites for casino workers after the Culinary Workers Union endorsed Obama. Clinton won more votes in the Nevada caucus, but Obama held a one-delegate advantage in the delegate tally.

Word from Clinton's camp comes from Root's original article-
The Fort Worth paper reported that Clinton’s political director, Guy Cecil, had suggested a courtroom battle to challenge party rules in the primaries and caucuses, but a campaign spokeswoman said that the letter stemmed from an attempt to clarify in writing procedures for the election in advance.

The only 'new' comment from the Clinton campaign is on a separate issue of what constitutes a success in Texas and Ohio-
Facing two tight races in Ohio and Texas, the Obama campaign is trying to highlight the fact that Clinton victories in both states won’t be enough if they don’t significantly cut into Obama’s delegate lead. “They have talked repeatedly after Wisconsin about how they were going to have a big delegate day on March 4 so that is how this should be measured,” Plouffe told reporters. Measured against the metrics he outlined, Plouffe concluded: “They are going to fail.”

The Clinton campaign has shifted the focus to Obama’s need to win a big state primary, which he has struggled to do. In a statement, the Clinton campaign argued, “If he cannot win all of these states with all this effort, there’s a problem.” Clinton has focused her time more heavily on Texas and Ohio this month, but Obama holds a fund-raising advantage.
The Atlantic (http://marcambinder.theatlantic.com/archives/2008/02/more_on_the_clinton_campaign_a.php) (of which I know nothing about) attempts to clarify-
I asked Guy Cecil, the national political director for the Clinton campaign, where he ""forcefully raise[d] the prospect of a courtroom battle?" as suggested by the Houston Chroncile.

"Absolutely not. There was no threat, 'direct or veiled' to engage in litigation. We asked that the results of the call be put in writing," he said.

Mo Elliethee, a Clinton campaign spokesman, elaborated for me.

"The campaigns have been discussing primary night procedures and we asked for those procedures to be put in writing before we agree to them. It is standard operating procedure for our campaign - and we presume any campaign - to see what we are agreeing to in writing before we agree to it."

My guess is that the campaign is worried about what happens when the voting stops and the caucus starts and believes that the Texas Democratic Party isn't prepared to run the caucuses competently. Remember, Texas awards delegates in two parts; two thirds to the winners of 31 state senate district primaries, allocated proportionally; and then to the winners of a statewide caucus; only those voters who can prove they voted in the primaries can participate in the caucus.

The call where Cecil allegedly made his threats lasted ninety minutes long and featured participants from both campaigns. By singling Cecil's request to put the party's interpertation of its caucus rules on paper, the party might simply be trying to ward off potential challenges to its procedures on caucus night... or trying to embarass the Clinton campaign.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23408698/), which Clinton has directly accused of bias, seems to follow the WSJ model (I was unable to find the story in the NYT or CNN, if someone else can and wants to add to this, go ahead)-

This is their headline-
Clinton may challenge Texas vote rules
Campaign concerns prompts warning from state party about legal action
Coloring theirs.

And then there's the opening paragraphs-
LAREDO, Texas - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has raised the possibility of a challenge to Texas' primary and caucus rules just days before the contest, drawing a warning against legal action from the state's Democratic Party.

Aides to Clinton said earlier this week they were alarmed at the lack of clarity about many of the caucus rules and expressed their concerns on a conference call with staff for rival Barack Obama and state party officials. Texas has a two-step voting process, with a primary and then caucuses shortly after the polls close.

Specifically, Clinton aides questioned a provision allowing caucus attendees to vote to move the location if they choose to do so, and whether people who had cast so-called "provisional ballots" in the primary would have their votes counted in the caucus.
Not only are there none of Root's inclusion that both campaigns being willing to 'go there,' there is no mention that this is from 'anonymous sources' or that it was 'heavily hinted.'

Now, the characterization in the second two paragraphs appears to be correct from corrolating the information so far, but it's framed by the first paragraph, re-quoted here-
LAREDO, Texas - Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign has raised the possibility of a challenge to Texas' primary and caucus rules just days before the contest, drawing a warning against legal action from the state's Democratic Party.
After the jump we get the denial-
Clinton political director Guy Cecil said he asked party officials to spell out the rules in memo form and to send them to both campaigns.

"We want to see the results in writing, and we reserve the right to challenge something if we don't believe it reflects something that was discussed on the call," he said.

Cecil on Friday denied that the campaign planned to sue the party, which will manage roughly 8,700 caucuses Tuesday evening.

"There were no veiled threats of lawsuits of any kind," Cecil said of the conference call.
and the denial of the denial-
Texas party officials said they believed Cecil was threatening legal action and wrote a letter to him and to Obama senior strategist Steve Hildebrand reflecting that concern.
But no mention of the Obama camp being willing to 'go there.'

It does add an interesting aspect absent in other articles-
The letter also noted that many of Clinton's senior campaign advisers in Texas had helped to develop the rules governing the state's caucus system. A Texas party official also noted that former President Clinton won the state's caucuses in 1992 and 1996 following the same rules.

Does one story demonstrate bias across the board? No, no it doesn't. It would take an analysis of stories like this over a broad range of sources and a long period of time. Something I'm not willing to do without a grant, frankly. And I am not qualified for such a grant.

Not to mention that there might actually be a case to be made that this really is more in Clinton's lap than it is in Obama's. There has been little support for the notion that the Obama campaign was willing to 'go there.' (I would argue that there has been almost as little to support that Clinton would as well.) The AP (who are used for the bulk of outlets) handles it in the most neutral fashion. The WSJ essentially allows the story to be lensed through the Obama campaign and MSNBC leans the whole thing on Clinton.

It's this kind of thing that makes me believe she has a point to a degree. How severe it is or how reasonable it is to complain about it considering points raised about her benefiting from bias as well over candidates like Kucinich or (ugh) Paul or parties like the Green Party or the Libertarians is open for discussion.

I just came across this story and thought it would be an interesting illustration that might bring the thread back to its OP.

Or suffer from tl;dr. Whichever.

Honestly... do you guys email each other when anyone says anything that might be bad about him... Seems like I should accuse NationStates of Bias towards Hilary Clinton.. I'm here trying to find the good and bad of both Obama and Hilary but you guys are unmoving and swoop in like hawks ... Stop being so defensive... or a little less defensive.. it unnerving to expect an attack every time someone speaks

Honestly... do you guys email each other when anyone says anything that might be bad about him... Seems like I should accuse NationStates of Bias towards Hilary Clinton.. I'm here trying to find the good and bad of both Obama and Hilary but you guys are unmoving and swoop in like hawks ... Stop being so defensive... or a little less defensive.. it unnerving to expect an attack every time someone speaks

It is, for all effects and purposes, a debate forum. Anything you put up here is subject to challenge. If you don't want it to happen, don't post.

It's a debate site. We're responding to points. No one is attacking you.

You don't want people to reply?

Honestly... do you guys email each other when anyone says anything that might be bad about him... Seems like I should accuse NationStates of Bias towards Hilary Clinton.. I'm here trying to find the good and bad of both Obama and Hilary but you guys are unmoving and swoop in like hawks ... Stop being so defensive... or a little less defensive.. it unnerving to expect an attack every time someone speaks

OMG you spelled Hillary with one 'L' - stop with the attacks!!!!!!one1!!!!exclamationpoint

Pardon? So no one calls him things like The Magical Negro? Perhaps I must have made that one up.

Naww, they call him things like The Manchurian Candidate, Muslim Sleeper Agent, Obama Bin Ladin, so on and so forth.

First, let me say, thank you Cat for showing that people can be reasonable with ragards to both candidates. I think it's a bit sad that politics in general always seems to be about one candidate being above reproach and every other candidate being absurd. There are good and bad things about every candidate that is now or was in this race.

Thank you, I try. To some extent I am playing devil's advocate because people are ragging on Senator Clinton to such a hyperbolic extent.

That said. Here is a part you should read from Clinton's reply to the very question of whether her vote was a mistake.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/01/the_california_democratic_deba.html

BLITZER: All right. I'm going to let Senator Clinton respond.

Senator Clinton, you always say if you knew then what you know now, you wouldn't have voted like that. But why can't you just say right now that that vote was a mistake?(1)

CLINTON: Well, Wolf, I think that if you look at what was going on at the time, and certainly I did an enormous amount of investigation and due diligence to try to determine what, if any, threat could flow from the history of Saddam Hussein being both an owner of and a seeker of weapons of mass destruction.

The idea of putting inspectors back in, that -- that was a credible idea. I believe in coercive diplomacy. I think that you try to figure out how to move bad actors in a direction that you'd prefer in order to avoid more dire consequences. And what -- if you took it on the face of it and if you took it on the basis of what we hope would happen with the inspectors going in, that in and of itself was a policy that we've used before. We have used the threat of force to try to make somebody try to change their behavior.

I think what no one could have fully appreciated is how obsessed this president was with this particular mission. (2)And unfortunately, I and others who warned at the time, who said let the inspectors finish their work, you know, do not wage a preemptive war, use diplomacy, were just talking to a brick wall.

But you know, it's clear that if I had been president, we would never have diverted our attention from Afghanistan. When I went to Afghanistan the first time and was met by a young soldier from New York in the 10th Mountain Division who told me that I was being welcomed to the forgotten front lines in the war against terror, that just -- you know, just struck me so forcefully -- that we have so many -- (off mike) -- and it will take everyone.

It'll take a tremendous amount of -- of effort.

But the one thing I am convinced of is that if we go into our campaign against the Republicans with the idea that we are as strong as they are and we are better than they are on national security, that we can put together a -- an effective strategy to go after the terrorists -- because that is real, that is something that we cannot ignore, at our peril -- then we will be able to join the issues of the future.

And I think that's what Americans are focused on. What are we going to do going forward? Because day after day, what I spend my time working on is trying to help pick up the pieces for families and for injured soldiers, you know, trying to make sure that they get the help that they need, trying to give the resources that are required.

We had to fight to get body armor. You know, George Bush sent people to war without body armor.

BLITZER: So what I --

CLINTON: So we need a president who will be sensitive to the implications of the use of force and understand that force should be a last resort, not a first resort.

BLITZER: So what I hear you saying -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- is that you were naive in trusting President Bush?(3)

CLINTON: No, that's not what you hear me say. (Cheers, applause.) Good try, Wolf. Good try. (Booing, shouting.)

You know --

BLITZER: Was she naive, Senator Obama?

CLINTON: Well, let me -- you asked the question to me. I -- you know, I deserve to answer.

BLITZER: I thought you -- I thought you weren't going to --

CLINTON: No, you know, I -- I think that -- you know, that -- that is a good try, Wolf. (Laughter.)

The -- you know, the -- the point is that I certainly respect Senator Obama making his speech in 2002 against the war. And then, when he came to the Senate, we've had the same policy because we were both confronting the same reality of trying to deal with the consequences of George Bush's action.

I believe that it is abundantly clear that the case that was outlined on behalf of going to the resolution -- not going to war, but going to the resolution -- was a credible case. I was told personally by the White House that they would use the resolution to put the inspectors in. I worked with Senator Levin to make sure we gave them all the intelligence so that we would know what's there.

Some people now think that this was a very clear, open-and-shut case. We bombed them for days in 1998 because Saddam Hussein threw out inspectors. We had evidence that they had a lot of bad stuff for a very long time, which we discovered after the first Gulf War.

Knowing that he was a megalomaniac, knowing he would not want to compete for attention with Osama bin Laden, there were legitimate concerns about what he might do.

So I think I made a reasoned judgment.

Unfortunately the person who actually got to execute the policy did not. (4)(Applause.)

(1) So you see that the question does include the fact that she often says she would have voted differently. It also asks why she won't say it was a mistake. This is important, because she can say she'd have voted differently because Bush was president, and thus it's Bush's fault that it happened and not hers.

If you read all this she kind of dances around the question. She certainly hints at the idea that it would have been a reasonable vote if she'd been President.

(2) This is as close as she comes to answering the question and she basically says that it's impossible to have known it was a bad vote at the time.

(3) Wolf is rephrasing (2) in an obviously hyperbolous way. My personal opinion was he was trying to force her into a clarification rather than avoiding the issue, but it was a low blow.

(4) Here is the crux of it. She plainly says here that giving this kind of power to the President wasn't the problem, but how HE used it. It's a plain statement. And in my opinion, indefensible. There's nothing wrong with having a monarchy if the King or Queen is the right person, but I certainly wouldn't vote for one.

1. I'm not going to defend the indefensible. Senator Clinton's vote was wrong and she should simply admit it. Her more recent answer that I cited earlier basically did that, but you are correct that that is an evolution of her position. (And she can rightly be criticized both for her position having been wrong and for changing her position.)

2. The one point where I would disagree with you is on the idea that a President should never be given the power of war by Congress. To the contrary, that is what the Constitution envisions. The Congress declares war and the President acts as Commander-In-Chief.

3. I do think it not unreasonable for Senator Clinton to say that, if she had been President, she would not have gone to war. If she didn't say that, you all would jump on her even more.

I pointed out authoritarian positions she holds. Whether those positions are enough to give her an overall description of "authoritarian" is really a matter of personal opinion. I definitely think she is too authoritarian for my tastes, but is certainly not the worst US politician on that count.

I think "warmongering" is too strong a term, but her positions in general are a bit hawkish for my taste. Even her insistence on sticking to the foreign policy of refusing to talk to certain foreign leaders is, in my mind, a part of that tendency.

It appears that she would be quicker to go to war than others. On top of that, I don't find her statements to be clear. From what I can glean of her overall position, her problem is not with the fact that Congress gave Bush the power to go to war. What she does have a problem with is the fact that he used that authority.



I agree with you. I don't think Clinton does. Her own statements suggest a problem not with having given him the authority, but instead with the way he used it.



Declaring a portion of a foreign country's military as a terrorist group isn't exactly a good way to open up diplomatic channels with Iran. If anything, given the executive branch's authority to go after terrorist groups, it looks like a push towards another Iraq.



I've noticed. It isn't one where I do.



That isn't "similar". Paying into a public funding system through taxes and being forced to pay for individual coverage are not, in any way, the same thing.

I pay taxes that help fund public transportation. Does that mean I should either be forced to use public transportation or own my own car?

I pay taxes that help fund public universities. Does that mean I should be forced to attend a university?



Obama's plan is no less collective. The difference is that it is not forced upon people. They do not lose their freedom of choice.

And that loss of freedom is[/i] authoritarian.



So? I'm not Obama. I'm expressing [b]my opinion, not his.



N/P



Strict obedience to authority is what you get when you place national security before human rights. Whatever is deemed "necessary" for national security suddenly becomes a priority - a must have - a strictly enforced principle, regardless of any infraction on human rights it represents.



I don't deny that. But what people who would place national security before human rights don't realize is that you are not protecting or defending the USA by making that prioritization. If anything, you're doing the exact opposite.



I pointed out policies that I believe fall under the authoritarian level. As I said before, whether or not the sum of Clinton's policies are enough to dub her as authoritarian is a matter of personal opinion.

You've seen the political compass, right? To someone who falls rather negative on the Libertarian-Authoritarian axis, Clinton (and most US politicians, honestly) can seem terrifyingly authoritarian.



And either statement is worrying. If there is a policy of torture with no exceptions - that means no exceptions.



I was referring to the 2006 statement. You quote that one, along with a later debate answer.



Not accurate? Why did she slam Obama for his statements regarding terrorists in Pakistan? Was it because of what he actually said he would do? No. It was because he actually talked about it.

In the quote you gave, she claims that entertaining hypotheticals is dangerous, not because the actual response to those hypotheticals is wrong or dangerous, but because it means talking to the public about possible exceptions.



I disagree. I don't think it's any more of a problem than using labels like "progressive" or "right-wing economics".



I have no problem with her criticizing anything that he said. I do have a problem with her deliberately mischaracterizing it - which is what I believe she did.



I don't see why one has to disavow labels to focus on differences. If one feels that Clinton is more authoritarian than Obama, why not say so?

"Warmonger" isn't really a good word to use, but I don't see a reason not to point out the fact that Clinton's foreign policy ideas and record are less diplomatic and lean more towards the use of force.



It's likely a matter of differences in priorities. What seems like a huge difference to me may seem like very little to you, if the difference isn't one that you think matters.

I have a friend who doesn't understand my problem with many candidates on the basis of civil rights issues, not because he disagrees with me on those issues, but because he prioritizes other issues and thus doesn't consider what he sees as a few disagreements with the candidate as important.

I'm guessing that this is likely a similar situation.

With the possible exception of the candidates healthcare plans, I think we actually agree here more than we disagree. I have no problem with characterizing Clinton as more authoritarian than Obama, so long as one doesn't simply claim she is some kind of fascist. Similarly, she is more hawkish than Obama, but that doesn't make her a "warmonger."

My problem wasn't simply with the labels, but with the mindless way they were being thrown around as prejoratives without support. I'll note that Knights of Liberty quickly abandoned the field when asked to justify his/her name-calling.

Thank you, I try. To some extent I am playing devil's advocate because people are ragging on Senator Clinton to such a hyperbolic extent.



1. I'm not going to defend the indefensible. Senator Clinton's vote was wrong and she should simply admit it. Her more recent answer that I cited earlier basically did that, but you are correct that that is an evolution of her position. (And she can rightly be criticized both for her position having been wrong and for changing her position.)

2. The one point where I would disagree with you is on the idea that a President should never be given the power of war by Congress. To the contrary, that is what the Constitution envisions. The Congress declares war and the President acts as Commander-In-Chief.

3. I do think it not unreasonable for Senator Clinton to say that, if she had been President, she would not have gone to war. If she didn't say that, you all would jump on her even more.

The declaration of War is the actually point we go to war. In this case, many of those that gave this power to the President, said they'd essentially not declared war, but instead intended the President to have that power, and just keep it in his pocket till it was necessary. That's a pretty big difference. "Yes, we declared war, but we didn't actually expect that to be a declaration of war." See what I mean?

As to the hyperbole. I wholeheartedly agree. Actually, I don't mind hyperbole, if peole just admit they're just playing around. I exaggerate all the time, but I admit it. I'm really annoyed that so often people defend their hyperbole like it's not fallacious.

Ah, man...I was on topic and everything.

Ah, man...I was on topic and everything.

Hehe. There is a bias in the media. Which is why we look at multiple sources. Some obviously faover Clinton. Some Obama. And some used to be for Clinton and flipped like much of the country did. It's politics.

2. The one point where I would disagree with you is on the idea that a President should never be given the power of war by Congress. To the contrary, that is what the Constitution envisions. The Congress declares war and the President acts as Commander-In-Chief.

Actually declaring war is different than saying, "Go to war if you feel it is necessary", though. In the former case, Congress retains it's check on the executive branch. In the latter, it gives it's power over to the CiC before the need to do so is clear.

With the possible exception of the candidates healthcare plans, I think we actually agree here more than we disagree. I have no problem with characterizing Clinton as more authoritarian than Obama, so long as one doesn't simply claim she is some kind of fascist. Similarly, she is more hawkish than Obama, but that doesn't make her a "warmonger."

My problem wasn't simply with the labels, but with the mindless way they were being thrown around as prejoratives without support. I'll note that Knights of Liberty quickly abandoned the field when asked to justify his/her name-calling.

It seems that the longest-lasting arguments are usually over the details, rather than the broad ideas. People with widely varying ideas on the broader topics often have to simply agree to disagree. But when you agree with those and just not on the finer details, the discussion can be endless...

A lot of people do have very visceral reactions towards Clinton. I may do it sometimes, but I try not to, because I know that isn't a rational way to look at a candidate. I heard a town-hall meeting with her this morning in which I found myself agreeing with her and finding her quite reasonable for most of it - right up until she starting telling outright lies. Then I had to change the channel.

"I want to see all parents and children covered. My opponent only wants to see children covered." I'm fairly certain that is an exact quote from her. And then she went on to say that her plan, and her plan alone, worked by making healthcare affordable, conveniently leaving out the fact that Obama's plan works that way and clearly suggesting that his plan does not make it affordable.

I try to give Clinton a chance, I really do. And every time I do, I see/hear something like this.... bleh.


And somewhat on topic, I heard tow-hall/conference call meetings with Clinton, McCain, and Huckabee this morning, but no sign of one with Obama. (Of course, his might have been before Clinton's or after Huckabee's, but I'm going to pretend it was media bias anyways.) =)

Objective reporting is a myth. Or maybe it's a goal. In either case, I don't know of a time in the history of journalism (though I would love for someone to show me) when reporting could be shown to be unbiased.

Objective reporting is a myth. Or maybe it's a goal. In either case, I don't know of a time in the history of journalism (though I would love for someone to show me) when reporting could be shown to be unbiased.

It might help to let the rest of know what unbiased even means. To me it means that you report the relevant facts of the matter and if one person comes off as more correct than another then, well, that's because his opinion lines up more with the objective facts of the matter than the other guy.

This objectivity with respect to facts is easily possible; the difference between one person's "relevant facts" when you get right down to it comes into issue only at the margins. The problem with this objectivity isn't possibility but that it isn't practiced widely. Rather, most reporters today attempt objectivity with respect to positions, which is to report both sides of a debate and their relative counterarguments while attempting to be objective with respect to each side rather than objective with respect to the truth. A good example is this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1718436,00.html) article from Time this week about wiretapping. It lays down what each side is saying as well as errors of fact to what the administration in particular is saying. But it ignores some of the most glaring facts of the matter of this case, particularly the fact brought up sidelong that the Judiciary and not the President determines what the Constitution means. It's been that way since The Jefferson Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison), and in this case, the judiciary has already determined that a President cannot ignore a law even if he disagrees with it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer), as he did when he disobeyed the FISA law to perform the wiretapping. This fact isn't brought up largely because it presents Bush as acting clearly unconstitutionally; the fact that this happens to be true however wrecks this journalist's sense of objectivity.

It might help to let the rest of know what unbiased even means. To me it means that you report the relevant facts of the matter and if one person comes off as more correct than another then, well, that's because his opinion lines up more with the objective facts of the matter than the other guy.

This objectivity with respect to facts is easily possible; the difference between one person's "relevant facts" when you get right down to it comes into issue only at the margins. The problem with this objectivity isn't possibility but that it isn't practiced widely. Rather, most reporters today attempt objectivity with respect to positions, which is to report both sides of a debate and their relative counterarguments while attempting to be objective with respect to each side rather than objective with respect to the truth. A good example is this (http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1718436,00.html) article from Time this week about wiretapping. It lays down what each side is saying as well as errors of fact to what the administration in particular is saying. But it ignores some of the most glaring facts of the matter of this case, particularly the fact brought up sidelong that the Judiciary and not the President determines what the Constitution means. It's been that way since The Jefferson Administration (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marbury_v._Madison), and in this case, the judiciary has already determined that a President cannot ignore a law even if he disagrees with it (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Youngstown_Sheet_%26_Tube_Co._v._Sawyer), as he did when he disobeyed the FISA law to perform the wiretapping. This fact isn't brought up largely because it presents Bush as acting clearly unconstitutionally; the fact that this happens to be true however wrecks this journalist's sense of objectivity.
It's the ever faulty "Now say something nice about me" measuring stick.

I think I'm going to have to pile on the eyeliner and make a "Leave Hillary Alone" video and upload it to YouTube.0.0
*watches intently*

Pardon? So no one calls him things like The Magical Negro? Perhaps I must have made that one up.

I'm not sure who did that first. It was either New Mit or someone else of that ilk. I believe the Mod ruling on that was that it wasn't racist because it was a phenomenon caused by idiots like Rush Limbaugh. The dittoheads on NSG copied and there it went. Sometimes you need to fight ignorance. Other times it's best just to ignore it.

It might help to let the rest of know what unbiased even means. To me it means that you report the relevant facts of the matter and if one person comes off as more correct than another then, well, that's because his opinion lines up more with the objective facts of the matter than the other guy.

I would say that your definition is axiomatic.

Hillary Gets Unexpected Endorsement (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756/im:/080228/ids_photos_ts/r315812455.jpg)

Hillary Gets Unexpected Endorsement (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756/im:/080228/ids_photos_ts/r315812455.jpg)

Looks like someone thawed her out and then goosed her.

Hillary Gets Expected Endorsement (http://news.yahoo.com/nphotos/Most-Emailed-Photos/ss/1756/im:/080228/ids_photos_ts/r315812455.jpg)

Fixed for accuracy. :D

Wow, check out CNN between 7-9est today and you'll think again on whether the media is biased against Hillary. They've done 80% negative (my estimate of course) on Obama's negative aspects. In this last 24 hours CNN has done a lot of Obama bombing. I'm not claiming they are always biased towards Hillary. I'm not one of those nuts. I'm just saying that in the past day they have raised a lot of muck on Obama. Upon closer view you see that there's not much to the story, but they put it out there. So claiming Hillary is a martyr is just nonsense.

Let's look at some internet reporting and mainstream media reporting regarding Senator Clinton and issues like flag burning

1. Let's start with some background facts:
Senator Clinton opposed and has voted against attempts to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning (or any other flag "desecration.") link (http://www.cnn.com/2006/POLITICS/06/27/flag.burning/index.html), link (http://www.ny1.com/ny1/content/index.jsp?stid=3&aid=55396)

When a bill to amend the Constitution to ban flag burning was gaining support in the Senate (co-sponsored by John McCain), several Democrats including Senator Clinton and Republic Senator Robert Bennett proposed an alternative to amending the Consitution.

What Senator Clinton supported was very different alternative that would be similar to the law against burning crosses in someone's front yard. This law would not change the Constitution. It does not explicitly outlaw all flag burnings — just those intended to “intimidate any person or group of persons” link to Bill (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/D?r109:1:./temp/~r109zT1tQ2::):

It will not be an easy vote, as evidenced by the carefully worded statement issued by New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton. "I support federal legislation that would outlaw flag desecration, much like laws that currently prohibit the burning of crosses, but I don't believe a constitutional amendment is the answer," she said, adopting a position similar to the one taken by her husband, former President Clinton, when he was in office.

Her aides said there is no contradiction in being against the flag-burning amendment and for a flag-burning law.

They say she believes a federal law would not trample First Amendment rights because, like laws against cross burnings, it would ban flag desecration that is deemed to pose a threat to others — and not acts of political expression that are protected by the First Amendment.


link (http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2005-06-23-dems-flag_x.htm?csp=34)

Senator Clinton AND SENATOR OBAMA voted FOR Clinton's proposal.link (http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/bdquery/z?d109:SP4543:); link (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00188)

Senator McCain sponsored the attempt to amend the Constitution, which ultimately failed.

2. Now lets see how the media has reported these facts.

Wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Hillary_Rodham_Clinton#_note-77) says about Senator Clinton:

Clinton supports making flag burning illegal, but without adopting the constitutional Flag Desecration Amendment to do so.[101] Clinton introduced the Flag Protection Act of 2005. The proposed law called for a punishment of one year in jail, and a fine of $100,000.[9][10]

Fair enough, but the two linked articles slam Clinton: Hillary's pathetic ploy (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/12/Opinion/Hillary_s_pathetic_pl.shtml);
Star-Spangled Pandering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html) Both criticize Clinton for "playing politics," "pandering," etc. Not a single word is mentioned about the relevant votes of other candidates such as Obama and McCain.

On_The_Issues (http://www.ontheissues.org/Domestic/Hillary_Clinton_Civil_Rights.htm) says Senator Clinton's vote was an attempt to "re-create her image as a centrist." On the Issues doesn't report Senator Obama's vote for the Clinton proposal.

3. One more issue

Wikipedia also says: "Clinton has not signed the American Freedom Agenda's pledge to end the use of military commissions to prosecute war crimes, restore habeas corpus, end torture of captives, end domestic wiretapping without a warrant, and end presidential signing statements."

Sounds bad doesn't it?

This, of course, ignores that (1) the American Freedom Agenda is a right-wing political group and (2) Ron Paul and Steve Kubby are the ONLY politicians that have signed the AFA's pledge.

Nothing about the AFA pledge is said in the Wikipedia articles about Obama (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_Barack_Obama) or McCain (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_positions_of_John_McCain).

So this is another area where Senator Clinton is being unfairly smeared.

Granted we are looking at a small microcosm of internet sources and some mainstream media, but the picture isn't pretty.

*snip*

I don't know how much sense it makes to use wikipedia as evidence of media bias. Given the way wiki works, it's probably more evidence of individual opposition to Clinton being prevalent enough that people actually take the time to include those things in her profile. It isn't really supposed to be journalism.

I dunno about ontheissues, though. I've found it to be overall pretty unbiased, but I don't know exactly how it is run and updated.

I don't know how much sense it makes to use wikipedia as evidence of media bias. Given the way wiki works, it's probably more evidence of individual opposition to Clinton being prevalent enough that people actually take the time to include those things in her profile. It isn't really supposed to be journalism.

I dunno about ontheissues, though. I've found it to be overall pretty unbiased, but I don't know exactly how it is run and updated.

CNN did a report about thsi last night on AC360. Unfortunately I fell asleep before it aired. Did anyone see the report and get the info. I just did a quick search of the site and was unable to grab a headline that covered it. Please help!

CNN did a report about thsi last night on AC360. Unfortunately I fell asleep before it aired. Did anyone see the report and get the info. I just did a quick search of the site and was unable to grab a headline that covered it. Please help!

On what? wikipedia? media bias? ontheissues.org?

=)

I don't know whether it's really all that biased against her or not, but I do know, from her track record, she's probably only complaining about bias because it's against her when she expected it to be for her.

Not unlike this business with the MI and FL primaries. Screw them, right up until she think she can win with their votes... now suddenly she just wants them to have their voices heard... :rolleyes:

This is why I'd much prefer Obama over Clinton. The Clintons have both always had a history of insulting the intelligence of the American people.

I don't remember Clinton complaining when Clinton as President was fate accompli. Now that the media is challenging her instead of treating her like the candidate that can't lose, it's no fair.

I don't know how much sense it makes to use wikipedia as evidence of media bias. Given the way wiki works, it's probably more evidence of individual opposition to Clinton being prevalent enough that people actually take the time to include those things in her profile. It isn't really supposed to be journalism.

I dunno about ontheissues, though. I've found it to be overall pretty unbiased, but I don't know exactly how it is run and updated.

I gave examples from Wikipedia, with links to other media articles, and from ontheissues.

Try a google search of "Hillary Clinton flag-burning" and you primarily get articles that accuse her of "star-spangeled pandering (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/12/14/AR2005121401887.html)" (Washington Post) and a "pathetic ploy (http://www.sptimes.com/2005/12/12/Opinion/Hillary_s_pathetic_pl.shtml)." (SP Times).

One has to dig very deep into the records to discover the unfairness of these reports.

I'm not claiming that this is evidence of some media conspiracy. I just think it is interesting the way in which Clinton's actions get reported.

I don't remember Clinton complaining when Clinton as President was fate accompli. Now that the media is challenging her instead of treating her like the candidate that can't lose, it's no fair.

This falsely implies (1) that the media was biased in favor of Clinton before and (2) Clinton herself should have complained about media bias in her favor.

Let's just treat the above as the throw-away lines that they are.

There was a feminist on NPR a while back talking about how the media is being blatantly sexist (it's been a while and I can't remember the examples she used) without a care and are afraid to attack Obama in case they are seen as racists.

I wonder how much truth there is in the medias willingness at large to disregard the possibility that their remarks can be seen as sexist while giving strong scrutiny to potentially racial remarks.

I don't remember Clinton complaining when Clinton as President was fate accompli.
That's fait accompli (pardon my inner school-marm)

This falsely implies (1) that the media was biased in favor of Clinton before and (2) Clinton herself should have complained about media bias in her favor.

Let's just treat the above as the throw-away lines that they are.

No, it doesn't. The media is biased. This isn't news. She knows it. You know it. Obama knows it. The media likes a winner. You're correct that I'm speaking to two things, but you're wrong about one of them. A) why is the media biased? I believe it tends to pander to the public. B) Are there media biases to the favor of Clinton? Of course there are.

Have you read the reports about Obama "invading" Pakistan? How about these nonsensical articles that claim the Obama was doing the old "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" with Canada. Neither are true, but as you say one has to dig pretty deep to get to the real story.

No, it doesn't. The media is biased. This isn't news. She knows it. You know it. Obama knows it. The media likes a winner. You're correct that I'm speaking to two things, but you're wrong about one of them. A) why is the media biased? I believe it tends to pander to the public. B) Are there media biases to the favor of Clinton? Of course there are.

Have you read the reports about Obama "invading" Pakistan? How about these nonsensical articles that claim the Obama was doing the old "nudge, nudge, wink, wink" with Canada. Neither are true, but as you say one has to dig pretty deep to get to the real story.
Gaming the media (http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/8820.html). The Republicans have been doing it for years-
2. Wolfson Barks. Howard Wolfson is Clinton’s hired thug, also known as campaign communications director. He holds a conference call every day to tell reporters they are worthless and weak (not to mention fat, lazy and stupid — no way to go through life) because of their soft Obama coverage. Again, reporters’ self-justifying mechanism kicks in when someone says they are being too tough. But their self-loathing mechanism kicks in when someone says they are being too weak. Read Dana Milbank’s account of Monday's Obama press conference to see if Wolfson’s hectoring is working.

The answer: Damn straight.

On what? wikipedia? media bias? ontheissues.org?

=)

They did a report on media bias. I guess I must have still been sleeping when I posted this :-) Anybody see it?