Richardson: Hillary crossed the line when she tried to bash Obama on his childhood.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2007/11/27/bill_richardsons_lay_of_the_io.html

It's towards the end of this informative news brief on the Richardson campaign.

Hillary about EVERYTHING from the get go. So if she speaks up for herself it is a NO-NO. Damn typical sexist reactions.

any evidence that this is motivated by sexism?

I guess more knee jerk reaction.

Look for some real gems to come out of her mouth as the Iowa caucus approaches.

fight in her.She actually gains more respect by this then negatives. Also To show that she will even fight those of her own party if she feels she is wrongly attacked, and she has and watch soon for her to attack Obama and cut his legs out from under him. I have an expression that I see more and more HRC using.

"IF YOU GOING TO BE A BEAR, BE A DAMN GRIZZLEY".

Ben David

She is a pathetic candidate and will soon be handed her hat in short order. Count on that.

Come on, who could have a straight face after Obama said he

lived abroad as a kid, therefore he has foreign policy experience.

What a boneheaded thing to say.Funny and dumb as hell :rofl:

:rofl:

Oh, right, there isn't one. :rofl:

I would have been pretty shocked, wouldn't you?

I have no doubt Obama will be very popular world wide if he gets elected President, but the same for is true for Hillary. Most of the world would love to see a U.S. President with third world ancestors, and most of the world is pretty damn nostalgic for the relatively good old Clinton days.

And Obama will be a damned sight more compelling as a role model for most of the planet than the long-suffering wife of an ex-President.

Both Obama and Hillary's biographies would matter. Outside of the U.S., with the possible exception of the United Kingdom, Canada, and possibly Australia, no one is paying attention to any "long suffering" aspect to Hillary Clinton's life. She simply is the wife of an Ex-President who is still extremely well liked around the world. And of course Hillary would no longer just be the wife of a very popular ex-President, she would be the President of the United States AND the wife of a very popular ex-President. I think either Obama or Clinton winning the election would bring an at least initial burst of enthusiastic reception in most nations around the world. How long that held up would be a matter of the actions they took once in office. But the U.S. would garnish some initial good will with either of them winning.

and Hillary's gender will be a factor in her profile globally. But you are talking about someone who fails to inspire her home audience. On that basic measurement alone, one would have to be guilty of a flagrant failure of the imagination to equate her potential impact as a symbol of this country to the outside world with that of Obama.

This matter is becoming an interesting diversion. No matter how much good will whoever replaces Bush initially generates, after a while the proof will be in the pudding regardless. And we can guess but we can not really know how much confidence Americans or citizens of other nations will have in, or how much they will or won't be inspired by, whoever replaces Bush a couple of years down the road. Ronald Reagan was coming up pretty short prior to the attempt on his life, and after that he unfortunately became pretty damn popular here in the States, and his "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" comment played pretty well in Germany and Eastern Europe.

Where a president with the middle name of Hussein ("blessed one" in Arabic) will be hailed as a "turning the page" by 1.2 billion Muslims.

I doubt a President Hillary "IWR/Kyl-Lieberman" Clinton would be much cause for celebration for Middle Eastern Muslims, though.

girls who idolized her for not being forced into a subservient woman's role.

Here's one from Japan though.

There are many. You forget the Clintons are loved the world over. :rofl:

On this, you have no peer.

?v=1&c=ViewImages&k=2&d=17A4AD9FDB9CF1936808AB6AB7C5FBAB0B531AEAE6A8CA65284831B75F48EF45

Betcha I can find lots more too.

There are plenty of photos of Hillary surrounded by crowds in various countries since her years as first lady and beyond. To imply that Obama is more popular overseas than Hillary is simply laughable!!! :eyes:

out the silliness, and kudos to her for doing it with a straight face.

One would think at least a couple of Obama supporters would be honest


and call him on his nonsense.:shrug:

It's something I value greatly in a nominee, and it's a big plus for Obama.

Hillary needs to grow up.

for his foreign policy curriculum vitae. Is that what you are saying...with a straight face?

I hope Hillary keeps up her childish, arrogant mockery. It will only hurt her more in the polls if she continues.

:rofl:

put up or shut up!

He noted his father was from Kenya and that he himself spent part of his childhood in Indonesia. ‘‘Probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia,’’ he said Monday.

...and listened to other candidates speak at their campaign events, and out of ALL that, he only found this thing that crossed the line? come on...i used to have more respect for Richardson

Or words to that effect. And she called him on it. There's a difference between calling bs bs and bashing.

I know it's hard to keep up on the campaign trail, but gosh, Gov, Bill -- context is important!

Obama grew up with regular people, and being overseas gave him a perspective on how people think and perceive things that Hillary severely lacks.

BTW, if foreign travels was a determinant of Presidential timber, perhaps we should nominate an ex-patriate for President.

Obama's larger point is as you described ( and Richardson understood) -- and it's a good perspective to bring to Iowans, who are smart enough to
understand the what Obama and Richardson are saying, too.

He mentioned that he's been in the Foreign Relations Committee, the Homeland Security Committee as well as has met leaders while in Pakistan, Iraq, Israel, Palestine and many parts of Asia and Africa.

Yeah, funny how that wasn't mentioned in Hillary's cackled screed.

"But you know, probably the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact that I spent four years living overseas when I was a child in Asia — Southeast Asia."

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/11/19/obama-cites-childhood-in-helping-shape-world-view/

That is the topic of the thread, that is what HE touted as experience, and Hillary's calling bullshit on it is really just stating the obvious.

It amazes me how quick some are to attack Hillary for, hell, for the word of a right wing bozo like Novak, but become so sensitive and understanding when it concerns the new messiah.

Clinton did not "ridicule Obama's statement last week that living abroad as a child helped to inform his foreign policy views."

She ridiculed Obama's FLAT STATEMENT that living abroad as a child is his best foreign policy credential.

If the piece linked in the OP is accurate in its characterization of Richardson's remarks then he is a clod.

If it is inaccurate, why post it? It puts your candidate in a very poor light.

Hilary's bashing of the other candidates is nasty.

them

She said he was "irresponsible and frankly naive".

So now Ms WhineyPants complains that she is getting attacked. And now she has to fight back. Well, the chronology is a bit amiss. Hillary struck the first blow.

And of course the Hillary Gaggle knows this, but hopes everyone else didn't notice!

concerns?

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/07/25/us/politics/25debate.html?_r=1&ex=1186200000&en=a14eaeedc62ccb93&ei=5070&oref=slogin

That chronology?

"Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton sharply criticized Senator Barack Obama for the first time yesterday as inexperienced on national security, calling him “irresponsible and frankly naïve” for saying he would be willing to meet without preconditions with leaders of Iran, North Korea and three other nations during his first year as president"

Fact of the matter is that Hillary has flip flopped on Iraq. She voted for it. Refused to apologize. Now she says she will end the war. But she will leave troops there. Meanwhile, she votes for Kyl-Lieberman. But says that is diplomacy (calling people terrorists I guess is now diplomatic....)

Be real. Hillary was attacking Obama last July. Because Obama said he would talke with enemies. Something every Democratic president has done. But in hillary's world that is "irresponsible and frankly naive"
What. Ever.

Try paragraph 5. Unless you need me to come over and hold your hand while you click the mouse.

It simply puts the lie to your irate 'chronology' attack. Thought you might like to know.

I'm glad decent people like Richardson are speaking up.

Shows there are still some adults in the race.

What's next? The Bill Richardson School of Debate?

at Hilllary's nearly thirty years experience at the highest levels of state and federal governments, while promoting his playtime as a ten year old as foreign policy credentials. What an embarrassing revelation of just what he thinks qualifies him for the Presidency of the United States.

Hillary was gentle in her obvious and necessary rebuke of Obama's snide 'new politics'.

Get your facts straight.

From the 1992 campaign leading into, and throughout the eight-year tenure of the Clintons in the White House, they admitted to, and dealt with the fallout from, Hillary playing a serious role in working with Bill in his Presidency. From domestic policy like healthcare and children to traveling around the world representing the Clinton Administration internationally.

She's also an 8-year active Senator in the US Senate.

Keep sticking up for Obama with nasty, dishonest, divisive garbage like that. It shows exactly what Obama and crew are really like.

such was her popularity at the time.

Her most memorable act as a Senator was to get the IWR vote wrong.

The end.

It's hardly a strike against her. What it is, is serious executive experience at the federal level. Something Obama doesn't even have at the Senate level.

Her IWR vote was exactly right. Those that don't understand this have no business in serious politics.

It's just the beginning for Hillary, and if Obama doesn't grow up, the end for him.

would strongly disagree that the IWR was exactly right.

If you feel that way, why don't you volunteer and go to Iraq already?

How dare you suggest that because I don't support the Iraq War I should be fighting against US troops in the militias! And your logic differs from George Bush's most rabid supporters...how?

How does your logic differ for *'s?

If warlocks had to do the fighting, we would have fewer wars.

Iraq War was/is insane. Hundreds of thousands have died, been maimed, have had their families destroyed, jobs lost, hospitals ruined, infrastructure destroyed, dreams squashed. For what?

No, voting for the IWR was not perfect.

If you think the war is so great, then fight it! Sorry, I don't. And I won't.

The Hillary-Haters of 2000; back then the Gore-Haters, are what started the Iraq War. Understanding nothing of politics, nor caring about the consequences of anything beyond their own sanctimonious progressive attitudes, they handed this country over to fascists for the better part of a decade. In any political calculus, that's what caused the Iraq invasion.

Neither Hillary nor I have so much as a drop of blood on our hands because neither of us could stop that from happening, no matter how much you want to pretend we could. DHLs on the other hand, are bathed in blood. Maybe that's why they're always pointing fingers at others over Iraq and everything else, while screaming with that same sanctimony: because deep down they know exactly what they did to this country and to that country.

So, if you're a Democrat-Hating-Leftist, you go fight in Iraq.

There were true Democrats who voted no. People facing tough re-election battles like Paul Wellstone. Who voted no.

It wasn't even the IWR that was the worst. Hillary and a lot of others also....the same day....voted AGAINST the Levin Amendment, which would have sent the matter back the UN, and only after another vote would a war resolution be ok-ed.

Hillary voted no on Levin, and yes on the IWR on the same day.

It was Bush who started the Iraq War. Not the Hillary haters. Not the Gore Haters. Fact of the matter is, Hillary was right there with a vote to enable this war. And she has never regretted her vote.

Could she have stopped it from happening? Maybe not. But she didn't have to be an enabler. Did she?

With the Levin AMendement, the war could have been delayed, or if cooler heads had prevailed, prevented.

If she had voted for Levin, it would be forgivable to vote for the IWR. But she didn't.

Hillary couldn't have done anything to stop Bush and his Publican thugs in Congress from invading Iraq, any more than either you or I could have done at the time. Why didn't you stop the invasion?

We were all of us cast into the rightwing pit of hell in 2000, including Hillary. As I've said before, she could have stood on the Senate floor with an AK-47 blazing under each arm and she couldn't have stopped Bush and his Publicans, along with the full weight of the American media, from invading Iraq. Hillary, like the dead GIs, like all the dead Iraqis, like all of us, was a victim of the politics of Democrat-Hating-Leftists throwing the 2000 election to fascists.

You are right that Bush invaded Iraq. But only partially right, by ignoring the politics, which is what we are here for. Bush got all his power when Gore-hating leftists threw the 2000 election close enough for fascists to steal eight years of this country. Ignoring the fact that THEIR ACTIONS delivered to Bush the power to do everything he has done is to purposefully turn a blind eye to where the real authority to invade Iraq came from. It came from the backstabbing politics of the far left. They want to pretend that a meaningless piece of paper called 'iwr' was where the power came from, and not from their treachery. This way they get to look in the mirror and pretend that they are so wholesome, when absolutely nothing could be farther from the truth.

You seem to honestly understand at least some of this earthlover, when you ask "Could she have stopped it from happening? Maybe not." That's better than most here.

Without the ability to stop the invasion, the IWR becomes a mere gesture, a gesture that those very same DHLs are incensed wasn't made. That's because, in addition to lacking the integrity to acknowlege their own culpability in granting the ACTUAL authority to start a war to a party of psycopaths, they also understand nothing whatsoever of what the IWR 'gesture' meant either.

Since you've at least gotten this far, I'll do you the honor of letting you figure out that last part yourself.

If it had failed, or if the Levin Amendment had passed, it could have at least delayed the invasion. Things could have been different if a larger number of Congress people stood up and spoke out against the IWR and all the rush to war like Paul Wellstone did even though he was facing a tight re-election battle at the time (unlike Hillary, by the way).

So where was the courage? Where was the leadership? Hillary had the ability to know that Sadam being tied to 9/11 was bogus and that Iraq posed no threat to us. Yet she went along. As did many others.

If enough of them had the courage to stand up and resist, it is possible that things may have worked out differently.

But we will never know. Because Hillary and others just went along.

In any case, voting for something puts one's sacred name alongside it. Her vote had meaning. It was an endorsement of the war, giving Bush the go-ahead to kill hundreds of thousands of people.

She also voted for Kyl-Lieberman. So I am not impressed that she has stopped going along.

Just what would we expect from a Hillary foreign policy? I would have a lot more confidence if she had the courage and vision to oppose IWR and Kyl-Lieberman. But she disappoints.

when he ruled that the health plan could not be included in the budget. Because of that, the plan needed a filibuster proof 60 votes instead of a simple majority

the budget as it was only passed by one vote, the VPs. Add the health care to it and the whole thing probably would have been voted down.

The health care proposal died in 94, not 93.

Nothing you say refutes anything I said. If Byrd had decided differently, the plan would have needed a majority, and not 60 votes. This is a 100% accurate statement

All you added was speculation. I could just as easily argue that having the plan in the budget would make the budget easier to pass.

And yes, after Byrd's decision, the process continued to stumble along into 1994 before it died a quiet death. IIRC, it was never even voted on.

Bottom line: I am "completely correct" to hold Byrd responsible for the death of universal health care

You are giving them a free pass by saying that Byrd killed it. There was a massive resistance to it from Newt Gingrich and the Reps. If you are gonna blame it on one guy, Newt would be a better candidate than Byrd.

So what is it you don't like? Practice what you preach!

They sure can dish out the nasty though.

So you apparently have mistaken me for someone who supports Obama

How do they even manage to tie their shoes?

They have their mommies tie their shoes so they can go out and scream invectives at anybody who doesn't buy into the Obama kiddie-cult.

One reason I back Edwards- whose gaffes have confined to parsing awkward stances on immigration for instance- is that In both Hillary and Obama I see the potential for rank political mistakes of the garish sort that only Biden seems to get punished for and which on the personal side don't seem anywhere as bad as this recent example.

Awkward, ham-handed, insensitive lashing out which at best indicates the candidates are not comfortable with it(publicly at least). Grist for the unfair media machine which can canonize Rudy even if he were to read from "Mein Kampf" at every stump speech and uses Ann Coulter as his personal Emily Post.

So what we have is care not to give the left any sign of hope and subdue passion. Then to flail about nastily and unnecessarily at an opponent when a simpler comment would have done the job. Then to effuse about Colin Powell whose sole contribution had been to supposedly trick her into the Iraq War vote she still evades. Stupid, stupid politics torturing the forceful base of her party to attract who exactly? Nasty GOP loyalists who still admire the lying opportunist Powell?

You can hardly bring these examples up without engaging or seeming to engage in the "politics of dirt" itself. We already have many loyal Dems who think ANY attack or criticism of any Dem about anything is too too depressing, discouraging, deflating for the entire party.

What I am arguing about is an open, practical and effective politics of the hope that the Party needs of itself at least. People do not change much, nor style, nor performance, nor consistency. It all adds up to the better people pol being Edwards among the "top three" with others much deserving consideration, not least of which DK who has tested the waters of daring honesty and bold criticism and NOT been found awkward, off base or personally offensive.

The whole media, cultural, power system has been behind, has sold and has persisted behind apocalyptic disaster and it shows in their pimping of the top gun" circus. Golden shotguns aimed with divine accuracy at the foots in their mouths never being noticed by the gilded elites. We are witnessing political "experience" in action and should take note.

Hillary and Obama are ahead of him for reason.

exemplifies the awkward attack stance of the other two candidates. Behind in corporate money and corporate press time. Behind in opinion polls owned by the same. Using all of our natural enemies to define the strengths of our candidates.

He has had more gaffes than you give him credit for

none of the obama or edwards or biden or richardson or kucinich or Dodd fans booed before a candidate had a chance to finish what they were saying. The only ones that friggin rude during the debate were the Hillary Gaggle. The boos reflect on their rudeness more than anything else.

I'll believe you over my lyin' eyes

It was all a Hillary conspiracy. That's the ticket!

and could you explain to us...calmly....when the followers of obama, richardson, kucinich, edwards, biden, ever, EVER boo-ed? The hillary folks booed, that much is public record. The rest were basically normal people, not so rude. Fact of the matter is not only Edwards, but Obama also was interrupted by the booers before he could finish what he was saying. Pathetic creatures, these.....

And they wonder why people are pissed off at them and their candidate!

Does it even occur to them that if they act in a hateful manner, people will hate them? And their candidate?

Gees, get a grip. In October 08 I sure hope a lot of you stop eliciting hate when you should be out there winning votes.

which in the political game is a cynical expression of causing the least long term damage. Of course, being outside the horse race you can get away with more. BTW aren't the boos you refer to from Hillary supporters crudedly planted there for that purpose or is this something beside the debate in Nevada?

It was you who said Edwards gaffes were limited in a way which excludes several genuine gaffes. I just pointed out that is patently untrue.

And your insinuations of a clinton conspiracy undermines your entire post. All that talk about dirty campaigning undermined with your baseless accusations of conspiracy. Sad

I think you had better go back to the Nevada debate postings where there was evdience in pnety for Clinton stacking and the behavior of that portion of the audience. The fact that this had no traction outside that debate is part of that.

and others are free to dismiss her statements or embrace them.

and I thought that Obama was foolish to bring up his childhood years as a significant part of his foreign policy experience.

lived abroad is awesome on foreign policy, is now considered mud-slinging

Although, as a 10 year old he probably enjoyed playing in the mud

He's right. Thanks, Carrieyazel. K&R

This stuff is so junior high school.

I rest my case.

I was laughing my butt off when Obama mentioned his childhood years in Indonesia as foreign policy experience. Gee, I've lived in various countries much longer than he has, I guess that qualifies me to be Secretary of State.

The goal is to win in November 2008.

We went through this in 2004. Gephardt and Dean hammer and tongs. Does anyone think that if Dick Gephardt had won the primaries that Howard Dean would have been able to support him? Would Gephardt have been out stumping enthusiastically for Dean? Even Bush, a total slime bucket if ever there was one, stayed above the fray personally while Karl Rove did the dirty work in the background against McCain. Why, because they knew that the voters wouldn't like it and two, in the end they would have to work together in the general election.

I'm not going to get a hate on for any of the Democratic candidates because in the end I'm probably going to end up voting for and most likely working for one of them.