I have often admitted to be being technology-challenged when it comes to finding things on the internetz – so I am hoping you Hillary supporters will be able to help me out.

I am trying to find actual quotes, statements, official declarations – via links to MSM appearances, newspaper or magazine articles, videotapes, whatever – to mount a defense of Hillary Clinton’s current positions based on the fact that she has held these positions not only before but throughout the primary process.

I have no doubt that many of you will be able to provide what seem to be ‘missing links’ in support of your candidate.

What I am specifically looking for is:

A link to a statement from Hillary saying that she hopes she won’t have things "all wrapped-up" by Super Tuesday because it is important that every voter’s voice be heard.

A link to Hillary declaring her refusal to sign the pledge agreeing that votes in FL and MI would not be counted, or a statement before-the-fact reflecting her reluctance to do so because it would be unfair to voters in those states, or a statement to either effect before she realized she was losing, or a photo of her crossing her fingers behind her back as she signed the pledge, signifying her right to denounce her adherance to the pledge in the event that she needed those votes in future.

A link supporting Hillary’s contention that she is “ahead in the popular vote” which does not include votes cast in FL and MI, and which does include caucuses, along with a full explanation of how individual votes were calculated where no such data is available.

A link to a Hillary statement, back in her ‘inevitable candidate’ heyday, that she was a victim of rampant sexism despite her front-runner status.

A link to to a statement by either Clinton during the aftermath of the November 2004 election declaring that all Democrats should unite in insisting that every Kerry vote be counted accurately, regardless of the fact that his election would mean Hillary had to wait another possible eight years to launch her own bid for the presidency.

A link to a Hillary statement that her IWR vote was ill-informed, ill-advised, and one that she regrets considering the consequences of her actions, along with a link to a coherent explanation as to why she didn’t actually read the resolution herself before voting in favor of it.

A link to Hillary’s apology for telling voters that McCain was better qualified for the presidency than her fellow Democrat, who was nothing more than a “speech he gave in 2002”.

A link to Hillary’s full explanation as to why her reference to “hard-working white Americans” was in no way a reminder to bigoted voters that she, like them, was white, as opposed to her Democratic competitor for the nomination.

A link to any early campaign declarations from Hillary as to the (a) unfairness of the caucus system, and/or (b) the illegitimacy of a delegate count being the measurement by which a nominee is chosen as opposed to popular votes, electoral votes, swing-state votes, ‘big’ state votes, ‘small’ state votes, and/or (please insert her latest declared ‘truly legitimate vote count’ mechanism here).

A link to Hillary’s contention that “unifying the Party” leading up to the General Election is contingent on dragging out the process for as long as possible, including the ‘loser’ taking their case all the way to the Convention.

A link to Hillary acknowledging that she lied about her Bosnia sniper-fire story without any mention of simply having “mis-spoke” due to exhaustion – and a full explanation of how she managed to “simply mis-speak” repeatedly in several prepared speeches.

A link to either Clinton expressing their outrage at the “hanging chad – votes not being counted” debacle in Florida before said talking point was (oh-so-conveniently) raised today.

A link to Hillary’s declaration that she had the legitimate option of changing the rules she agreed to abide by at the beginning of the primary process in the event they did not result in her nomination.

A link to Hillary’s pre-campaign admonitions that people such as Karl Rove and the minions of FOX-News should always have been accepted as legitimate sources of information and consultancy during a DEMOCRATIC primary.

A link to Hillary's explanation as to how she is "standing up for the little guy" by stiffing the "little guy" on payments owing by her campaign for services rendered, as well as a complete description of how people like Mark Penn earned the bucks that her supporters contributed.

A link to ANY – ANY – ANY Hillary statement, or ANY statement by her campaign or its surrogates, that the Democratic Party and its chances to win in November 2008 are more important than the ambitions of one delusional, egotistical, blatantly insane candidate.

I know you Hill supporters will be able to provide thousands of links for ALL of the above – so thanks in advance!

:hi:

nothing.

blowin' on the prairie that says nothing is happening.

...because of all of the hatred, anger, and abuse directed at them by the,"Unity, crowd.

And after all of the nice things said about Obama by the Hillary supporters, we should all be ashamed of ourselves. :sarcasm:

they informed me months ago that he wasn't really black.

and more recently they informed me that he was. :eyes:

Trolls?

NGU.

you know, that other place.

lie..the martyrs are here on Ignore.

for example, I asked them to tell me what states were counted and not counted to add up to her popular vote lead and not one of them would tell me that the result included Michigan, but counted as ZERO, from Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington (the true answer to my question).

I no longer think they are playing fair because while they do lots of research and cut and paste against Obama, when I ask a simple question about something Hillary has said, not one of them gives me the truth.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=6035872&mesg_id=6035872

when they thought her the presumptive nominee.

they always attacked the questioner.

within a two minute time frame.

I'm surprised she still has supporters. Well, apart from the corporate crooks and their attorneys, Gloria Steinhem, Maya Angelou and Sheila Jackson Lee, and of course the hard-working white racists. Who are more commonly known as trailer trash.

please do not use it against fellow Dems. "Hate the game, but not the players." Thanks.

where have you been?

I'm sure you can handle it.

:hi:

:popcorn: :popcorn:

Fucking Kick.

Excellent work, as usual.

Too bad you can't get this mainlined directly to the DNC....

maybe I will have some Ball Park wieners for dinner.

it be presumptuous to ask for one?

'ed my finger....just a minute while I get a bandaid....

you can see it at this link:

Flying RC "link" Disrupts Garry Kasparov Speech

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vbnySBqioB0

"I had to double check that this wasn't a story about Second Life, but rather is an actual event in actual meatspace occurring this past weekend in Moscow. As former chess champion Garry Kasparov was giving a speech to unite opposition political forces, a radio-controlled "link" flew across the room to some applause and laughter. The fun was ended when a dour-faced man smashed the "link" out of the air. That's always the case, isn't it? Some guy's having fun with a flying "link" when some joker just has to ruin the party.

http://gizmodo.com/391794/flying-rc-penis-disrupts-garry-kasparov-speech

OMG! A FLYING FICKLE DIGIT OF FATE..........

Colonel: What is it, son?

Johnson: I don't know, sir, but it looks like a giant--

Jet Pilot: Dick.

Dick: Yeah?

Jet Pilot: Take a look out of starboard.

Dick: Oh my God, it looks like a huge--

Bird-Watching Woman: Pecker.

Bird-Watching Man: (raising binoculars) Ooh, Where?

Bird-Watching Woman: Wait, that's not a woodpecker, it looks like someone's--

Army Sergeant: Privates! We have reports of an unidentified flying object. It has a long, smooth shaft, complete with--

Baseball Umpire: Two balls. (looking up from game)

Baseball Umpire: What is that. It looks just like an enormous--

Chinese Teacher: Wang, pay attention!

Wang: I was distracted by that giant flying--

Musician: Willie.

Willie Nelson: Yeah?

Musician: What's that?

Willie Nelson: Well, that looks like a giant--

Colonel: Johnson?!

Johnson: Yes, sir?

ya there.

:popcorn:

I was about to go dig in my picture box for a picture of that Hairy knuckle draggin, bow legged ex husband of mine...then I read the post, thanks for saving me that task Nance. Great post as always.

:hi:

Sorry, parrot got in the room from next door at the HRC forum. My apologies.

Remember, Norwegian blues are easily stunned.

you know how slippery some of the hillary folks are with definitions;)

Steven Colbert would be shocked.

As would the entirety of Fox News.

Its always been sort of a unwritten rule on DU to provide links to go along with umm,

whats it called?

ah yes.

FACTS.

"truthiness" on any given subject.

And don't forget - he was on the Helen Thomas' side of truthiness when it came to the Iraq War.

:9

:rofl:

:spray:

Thanks for laying it out so well! :yourock:

I'd bet my left testicle that not a single Hillbot could read that complete list without their head exploding .., let alone find a SINGLE reputable citation for any consistency or principled behavior on those issues.

Well done. You have more patience than I.

:applause:

the whole thing is a farce and her and all her pathetic little minions know it.

as does the MSM, which never brings up a single one of these issues because they're scared shitless of the new sherrif coming to town....

:think:

You really don't expect all that, do you?

:wow:

The sound you keep hearing is a quick click out of this thread every time an HRC booster realizes you're asking them to put their money where their vile mouths are and provide some mundane *facts*.

I'm sure the responses and links will be rolling in shortly.

and we see not one response from the Hillary Rapid Response Team.

:rofl:

So many links....so little time. I`m still searching for the link to her apology for enabling George Bush to invade and occupy Iraq.

And that's my problem. Hillary's shifting views of reality and situational ethics are just . . . . . unsettling to say the least.

She needs some serious one on one time.

::woohoo:

I would like to see those links too, but you should be aware it is extremely hateful and sexist to expect proof of anything that is said or done by Hillary or her campaign. And for your information, it is right and good that Hillary does anything and changes any metric because Hillary is doing it and Hillary wants to win. FL and MI will only be disenfranchised if Hillary does not get their delegates. Its ok to disenfranchise the caucus states by not counting them because Obama won them. If Hillary won them we couldn't disenfranchise those states and those voters would have a right to be heard too, but it didn't work out that way. Just think of it as creative thinking. Now that should be good enough for you. Go have a nice drink of water and go to bed like a nice little Democrat. :beer:

I thought this was was especially relevant:

Hillary supporters say the darnedest things!

she refers to them as her base

Be prepared for a lengthy cricket serenade.


K&R

K&R and bookmarking.

Excellent.

:hi:

:rofl:

Maybe it can be sent to Move On and Keith and others that can get some answers.

All we are looking for are --- "The facts mame just the facts."

Come out, come out wherever you are ~ little links you must be hiding someplace.

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

is she trying to get votes and delegates from Zimbabwe now? :spank:

on DU

someone yelling YOU HATE HILLARY HATE HATE HATE. That's an easy way out. No stinky "facts" required

... I made a sincere request that facts be provided.

Have any yet?

not the OP.

I guess my anger is making me a bit trigger-happy tonight!

Thanks ... :blush:

... if I misunderstood your reply. Please see my post below.

:blush:

Bosnia gunfire footage discovered.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc

>A link to Hillary acknowledging that she lied about her Bosnia sniper-fire story without any mention of simply having “mis-spoke” due to exhaustion – and a full explanation of how she managed to “simply mis-speak” repeatedly in several prepared speeches.<

How do you mis-speak three times. Sorry Darling she lied.

Hillbots gave up even pretending to use logic some time ago.

Even when they do provide links they normally are to other Hillbot sites like Taylor Marsh, Larry Johnson, Fox News, etc.

It is now TRULY like arguing with conservative Republicans. "Evolution is just a theory!" "Hillary can still win!" Same level.

I think this was beneath you. Even though your "points" are accurate, they do nothing but generate friction between Obama an Clinton supporters. It'll be nice when the nomination is over and you go back to bashing the repugs instead of needling you Dem brothers and sisters, IMHO.

and stops threatening to take this to the convention. We are supposed to stand down and have a group hug while she is saying things like that? Not bloody likely on my part.

She was never my first choice, but she would have got my vote in the GE if it had worked out that way. However, she (and her advisors) ran an extremely poor and negative campaign. I have no idea why, and I refuse to speculate. Want to know why? Because it doesn't MATTER. If you think that her staying in the race is going to "destroy" the party, then you must feel that it's a weak party. If that's so, then why not work to strengthen it by encouraging your fellow Democrats and DUers rather than belittling them. That's something you CAN do, influencing Clinton's campaign decisions you cannot.

I hope you don't believe in Santa 'cuz you ain't gettin all that.:rofl:

Excellent Nance! K&R So many questions and not one answer.

I wanted to know if she had listened to "A More Perfect Union" yet. :shrug:

:hi: :yourock:

But I came across these which may indicate that with Hillary anything's possible:

APRIL: Clinton would begin diplomatic discussions with troublesome world leaders
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/hillary.clinton.healthcare.2.243798.html

JULY: Clinton slams Obama for willingness to meet with troublesome world leaders
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

:kick:

nailed it. k and r

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

wait a minute...

Do that again and we'll give you three hours of Limbaugh in your headphones.

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

that is all...

for the missing links. Let me know if you find those links 'cause they're are plenty of others to show the opposite is true.

Thanks for the reality check on DU, NanceGreggs.

:D

:thumbsup:

Linc!

:-)

Or is this what passes for legitimate O-Bot discourse these days? :rofl:

... and you will note there is no mention of him in the OP.

This is all about HILLARY - and what she has to say for herself.

If you can't provide anything I've requested, that's fine - it's also completely understandable.

attacks. The irony of their projection is lost in their own desperation and they are unable to perceive it.

No links.

You KNOW they aren't going to be able to provide those links, because the internet doesn't cross over into an alternate universe.

unity.

unity. never seen it from from you....

I'm one of the calmer people here. Length does not equal wise.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Freudian slip?

Find something else to do with your life besides trashing women.

Enough is enough. We GET that you hate Hillary. We GET that you hate women who vote for Hillary.

Good God...just imagine how much time you insist on pissing away with your sexist bashing of women.

You could donate your time to a local women's shelter.

If you need something to do with your time, search the googles for Stockholm Syndrome.

Just harness all that hate and do SOMETHING positive with it.
Harness all that hate and HELP someone. In your own community. Next time you feel like barfing out one of your slimey rants....STOP. Just stop. Pick up the phone and channel all that hate into actually HELPING someone. Call your local adoption agency and offer to raise funds. Call your local food-shelf and offer to type their newsletter.

Do SOMETHING besides bash women.

I think maybe you should be the one searching "the googles for Stockholm Syndrome".

As a woman, I would love to see a woman as President. "Bashing" ONE woman, for the dishonest, dirty, sleazy, and just plain selfish and disruptive things she's done, and continues to do, has nothing at all to do with sexism. It has EVERYTHING to do with the person that this particular woman has turned out to be.

You can (and will, I'm sure) scream sexism over and over, but character and a moral compass appear to be missing in this particular woman, and that has nothing at all to do with sexism.

... to be honest and forthright is "bashing women"?

Funny, I always thought 'equality' with men meant being held up to the SAME standards, not asking for those standards to be "changed" because you're a girl.

Live and learn ...

Oh, and BTW - I've been working since I was nineteen - which was pretty much eons ago. So please don't lecture me about 'getting a job'.

And here's the beauty part: I never had to change the rules, go back on my solemn oath, or "take it to the convention" to prove I deserved the job I'd applied for.

away from what the OP was about - which was requesting links to the thhings that Clinton has been basing her continuing campaign on.

Now if you are through attacking the poster, perhaps you can offer some of the proof that she is requesting. Clinton is so trustworthy and honest that it shouldn't be all that hard...

Where is she bashing "women"?

Where are the links requested in the original OP?

Oh wait, she's not a Hillary supporter, ergo she must hate women.

STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE STAY ON MESSAGE

Response to #82
I like this post. It made me laugh.

You are the shaman - the one who makes the fool of the envious. And humbles the haughty.
Thank you *bow to you*


Obama '08!
Let the man stand on his own
not under the rubble of the vicious purpose of his flock!
Don't soil his good name
by calling out false blame
on a hero from our past
who did much for the party and passion
Of a needy generation!
We let Chappaquiddick go
Yet call Hill a ho
Which is your party?
I dunno.
But Obama does!
He knows right from wrong
It is his creed, his passion his song.
Emulate the Man!
Man!
I know you can!
Man!

:shrug:

I also know that any link I provide will be shot down no matter what, because EVERYTHING on this planet is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, before you jump on me. Remember that I have been very unbiased in this election cycle. I'm the person who made a post praising Edwards AFTER he endorsed Obama. Remember I have said that I think Obama is a swell candidate and will vote for, donate to, and support him in the GE. Remember that while I am a Hillary voter I have bashed her on the whole Bosnia business. That being said... I think that every vote should be counted and they should find a way to do a re-vote in Florida and Michigan because of that. I also think it is wonderful that states such as mine (North Carolina) got to finally feel so important in such a tight race. I got to see Bill Clinton come to Asheboro, such a small town. It was probably one of the biggest days in our history, and if Hillary had dropped out we'd never get to see something like that here.


BUT, here is a link. I am posting this to show that Hillary DID have some concern regarding the alienation of a swing state, and that well before the primary she was "furious" at other candidates for dropping out and "diminishing" the say of such an important state.

First I will post two quotes from the article, and then the link:

"Mrs. Clinton’s advisers said it would be foolish to rebuff an important swing state, especially since doing so could alienate Democratic-leaning independents who could be favoring her. But she is also taking a risk that staying in Michigan will not hurt her with voters in Iowa and New Hampshire."

Also

"Debbie Dingel, a major Clinton backer in Michigan, told a television interviewer that she was “furious” with the other candidates. Their absence will diminish Michigan’s importance in the primary process and probably deny it much sought-after attention from the candidates and the news media. The state has the highest unemployment race in the country and has been eager for a spotlight on its economic woes."

Had she not cared, and merely wanted to look great by winning... she would have been thrilled (not furious) that other candidates had withdrawn. Obama staying in may have taken many votes from her (most certainly would have and he might even have wont the state) but despite this she WANTED the other candidates in the race because she wanted to help that state and to make sure they got some of the action this primary had to offer.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/10/10/us/politics/10cnd-michigan.html


Again, I am sure, like another poster stated (who would dare to tread here) that I am going to be bashed for posting this and trying to stand up. It is the reason that no one else has done so. Because no number of links on any of these issues could ever, ever, ever be satisfactory. There will always be something wrong in your eyes with any link we post. BUT, in the spirit of good sportsmanship, and to take the OP at their word that they are sincerly looking for information.... here is a link. :) and :hug:

I certainly wouldn't bash you for that, and nobody else should either.

... musicblind!

However, the "she was furious" quote is attributed to a major Clinton backer, not the candidate herself.

The sentence could be interpreted as Debbie Dingel, who is quoted here, as relating not her own, but Hillary's 'state of fury'. But where and when did the candidate herself denounce the pledge to leave MI and FL uncounted - before she realized she needed those votes?

and no bashing!

This is the key to the Four State Pledge fiasco. At the time (before September 2007), Hillary was the 900lb. gorilla in the array of contenders for the nomination. Nobody else came close. As such, she didn't have to take the step of removing her name for the Michigan ballot - the way to not "participate" in the election. The other candidates could not take that risk. The early primaries are critical to the secondary candidates. Hillary had funding and organization already in place to sustain her through Super Tuesday. Even Chris Dodd had to drop out early.

The fact that "Clinton’s advisers" even acknowledged the "risk" of leaving her name on the ballot is a confirmation that the did the risk assessment against the ADVANTAGE of garnering an uncontested and un-campaigned faux-election ... as a hole card. This, DESPITE the posturing about it "not counting" in order to MAXIMIZE her support in early contests. It served her THEN to say it didn't count - a self-serving lie - and it serves her NOW to claim they should. Again ... no principle. Just self-serving flip-flops and triangulation.

although issue can be taken with the source of the quotes supplied

I can't imagine why anyone would bash you for this sincere offer of information.

Excellent. The 'responses' by Hillary defenders is the politics of diversion in action. They can't defend Hillary's

divisive tactics and deception so they resort to charges of hating hillary and accuse you, Nance, of trying to divide

the party.

So how can anyone defend the link posted where Hillary said that she WOULD begin 'talks with supposed enemies' if she

was president and then turn around and blast Obama

a year later for saying he would do the same thing:

Duder (969 posts) Thu May-22-08 03:02 AM
Response to Original message
57. Not the links you're looking for...
But I came across these which may indicate that with Hillary anything's possible:

APRIL: Clinton would begin diplomatic discussions with troublesome world leaders
http://wcbstv.com/topstories/hillary.clinton.healthcare...

JULY: Clinton slams Obama for willingness to meet with troublesome world leaders
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/c0b02a90-39b7-11dc-9d73-00007...

Hillary gets caught out again and again and again in her lies and her supporters counteract by saying, stop hating her,

can't we have a little unity around here?

How about a little truth, or a lot of it!

Thank you, Nance

If you point out contradictions you are a Clinton hater. If you look for any apologies, you are a Clinton hater too, apparently. People respond as though asking for substance were somehow cruel. It has been quite baffling to me.

:rofl:

NGU.

Yikes and the accusation that you are a Clinton Hater is like so very much worse than the accusation of being a racists! Poor kid!

Why dont you all drop this crap and start focusing on what matters? Healing this party and starting on Mc-Cane. Come on, let's all do something new? Like start making canes that say "Vote Mc-Cane, Geriatrics Unite" or something. Now THAT is funny. Come-on dont turn into a bunch of crabby pants.

It's like the Repugs have a Big ol jar of Marbles and DU's goal is to grab the Golden Marble. Simple -Damned Simple. Yet the MSM in Repug pocket starts tossing out the other marbles and DU is like "Oh! Ohhh! Look at all the pretty marbles! Oo look at that one! Oh that one is priceless. All these marbles, these juicy gems about the Clintons et al. Those juicy gems arent priceless though they give some a rush! Get some hot and all flushed. But they arent worth shiat. Repugs still have the golden marble. Damn it - get it already! Go on anti obsessive compulsive meds if needed to but f*ing FOCUS already. Stop hitting for the soft target. Go for the gusto -GOP. doh! Yeah! Remember them?


Obama '08
Let the man stand on his own
not under the rubble of the vicious purpose of his flock!
Don't soil his good name
by calling out false blame
on a hero from our past
who did much for the party and passion
Of a needy generation!
We let Chappaquiddick go
Yet call Hill a ho
Which is your party?
I dunno.
But Obama does!
He knows right from wrong
It is his creed, his passion his song.
Emulate the Man!
Man!
I know you can!
Man!

You are awesome. :applause:

but I don't know if I have enough to go around...

This took about an hour. Sorry I didn't see your post earlier. I was doing one of my own. Now I know why you do not use references a lot.

1. Florida 2000

http://archives.cnn.com/2000/ALLPOLITICS/stories/12/09/president.election/index.html



2.Michigan Ballot from last October (when Clinton was the front runner)

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/10/11/407187.aspx



3.“A link supporting Hillary’s contention that she is “ahead in the popular vote” which does not include votes cast in FL and MI, and which does include caucuses, along with a full explanation of how individual votes were calculated where no such data is available.” This figure would be nonsense data since a caucus is never a simple ballot vote. People have to set aside hours to caucus, whereas they can vote early or absentee and can often take a few minutes to vote. Also, ballot voting is secret. Caucusing allows “arm twisting” peer pressuring, campaigning, etc. Statistics about “votes” are useful when examining a candidates ability to get out the vote and motivate people to go to the polls and pull a lever in the privacy of a booth with no one to spur them on. Re: Michigan and Florida, while they are awarded no delegates, their votes are still votes. Here is the link which you do not want. This was before the 2 to 1 victory in Kentucky.

http://us-president.suite101.com/article.cfm/clinton_leads_in_primary_votes

4.Hillary Sexism: You could just read my four part journal “The Press vs. Hillary Clinton” in which I document rampant sexism against Clinton starting in early 2007, when she was clearly the front runner. Here are two of them:

http://journals.democraticunderground.com/McCamy%20Taylor/157

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x4977117

Here is NOW from March 25, 2007 describing the MSM sexist attacks on Clinton
http://www.now.org/issues/media/070315hillary_media.html

And as for Clinton decrying sexism, here is an example from 2007 in which her campaign used the MSM topic du jour of her cleavage (yes, the press spent a week talking about her tits) to decry sexism

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/28/clinton-seeks-cleavage-cash/

And she didn’t just decry sexism aimed at herself

http://www.famousquotes.me.uk/speeches/Hillary-Clinton/

Here is an excerpt. The whole text is well worth reading.



:applause:

5. Ohio 2004 Was Stolen

In March 2005 Clinton and Holt attempted to introduce bills to prevent stolen elections:
http://www.organicconsumers.org/politics/elections31005.cfm



Hillary Addresses Ohio voters in 2006 and tells them 2004 election was stolen and not to let it happen again
http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-clinton-claims-2004-elections-stolen-in-ohio



:applause:

6. Hillary admits she made a mistake

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-campaign26mar26,1,167030.story



Now I must ask a question. When Hillary remembers sniper fire on one out of many journeys when she may well have landed in an area that was under fire somewhere else and confused the two landings a decade later, why is that a lie, but it is not a lie when McCain says that Iran is training Al Qaeda or when Obama says that he never heard Wright say anything controversial?

Be very careful of attempts to rewrite history in the Balkans---as some people do when they now attempt to claim that we had no business being there and that there was no genocide for Clinton to intervene in (claims that I have seen people who purport to be Obama supporters make on-line). They may be propelled by groups with agendas like this:
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=22912
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marvin_Olasky

7. Hillary Clinton has been one of the Senate’s bipartisan members ever since she arrived so “A link to Hillary’s pre-campaign admonitions that people such as Karl Rove and the minions of FOX-News should always have been accepted as legitimate sources of information and consultancy during a DEMOCRATIC primary” is a piece of cake. Recall that she and Bill got to know the post-reactionary Barry Goldwater.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/daily/may98/goldwater072894.htm



As KO mentioned recently, they got to know Goldwater before he died. People who keep an open mind get to do stuff like that. Goldwater was once the height of right wing nastiness but turned into the height of libertarian chic before he died. It is fun to taunt Republicans with "Goldwater is probably rolling over in his grave."

http://www.cbn.com/CBNnews/224908.aspx
And everyone has known for years that Clinton crosses political lines when it comes to her religious studies. This article has a list of “values” bills she has cosponsored with Republicans. This is who she is.

8.A link to Hillary’s contention that “unifying the Party” leading up to the General Election is contingent on dragging out the process for as long as possible, including the ‘loser’ taking their case all the way to the Convention.

Could it be history?
http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E0CE1DA133FF933A25757C0A964958260&sec=&spon=&partner=permalink&exprod=permalink

From April, 1992 NYT, Bill Clinton had the election pretty much sewn up but the SDs were afraid to commit. They were worried that something would happen. Another sex scandal.


Since everything worked out OK in 1992, maybe that is why the Clinton camp is saying give it time---the way the Dems gave Bill Clinton time back in 1992.

That should give you plenty to read. Let me know if you need any more research (but you really should learn to do this stuff yourself).

and two, most of the Clinton supporters have been suspended or Tomb Stoned to rid the board of any contrary criticism. Seems odd to ask people to respond when they have been virtually killed off to "silence" (thats me...heh) opposition- This ain't any kind of victory in a natural setting.

that I did all that Googling for nothing. I hope NanceGregg learns how to do it for herself. Maybe someone else can give her some tips. It is all about using key words and dates and knowing how to slip in that one extra word that will narrow it down to the first couple of hits. Almost all of this stuff showed up on the first page of each search. Googling is so much fun.

:headbang:

I am simply asking for links that support the idea that Hillary's constant goalpost-moving is founded in positions she has always held, rather than adopted when politically expedient.

Have any?

it's sort of ridiculous to ask HRC supporters for anything. Most are gone, and I wouldn't bother, but you have been responded to.

In fact, I was unaware of some of that information myself. :)

This is what it must feel like to be an invisible person. Next time, I will just assume any request for a dialog about political issues is purely rhetorical.

:hide:

For people who can read this, here is a nice, somewhat appropriate poem by Yeats

In my daily life, I work for Beliefnet. We're the biggest spirituality site on the web so we've had to suspend/ban a fair few people and the very, very first accusation out of their keyboards is ALWAYS that they're being censored for having contrary views. It's bullshit there and it's bullshit here. People get suspended/banned because they break teh rules, no other reason.

Prayer for Travelers


For those who travel on land, on water, or in the air , let us pray to the Lord.
Lord, have mercy.



Christian
source: Book of Common Prayer 1979



:rofl:





GOBAMA!

I do a load of teh technical stuff that no-one notices until we get it wrong.

Does Beliefnet know you TYPE WITH THOSE FINGERS????????????!!!!!!!!!


tsk tsk tsk.

Obama '08

They know I'm a Satanist too.

*sprinkles holy water over self and mutters two rosaries consecutively.*

Drats...ruined my hair.

*fixes a look on Prophet. wags finger*

hmmmmmmmmmmmm...I'm watching you.

*straightens. scratches head*

so, like, Prophet, speaking from experience- why do they always depict satan as some hot latin type dude? Curious minds want to know...

I've never been entirely sure about that myself. I think it started out as a "seductive evil" kinda thing but from the point of view of this devil-worshipper, it kinda fits.

c'mon McCam -- one can't say two completely opposite things just hours apart and be considered trustworthy. Hillary set herself up in a win-win lie from moment one. you support this?:

On New Hampshire Public Radio:

"I personally did not think it made any difference whether my name was on the ballot. You know, It's clear this election they are having is not going to count for anything."

youtube link of the recording: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2xHRqi8nsvI

October 11, 2007.

.

VERSUS

.

On your msnbc link (also 10-11-2007):



.

This one is still a missing link --- sorry, a fail.

I'm in the middle of working on final exams, so don't have time to debunk other of the so-called "links", but reading through them many are precarious. Check dates people, track down Hillary herself forming diametrically opposite statements. This is her dsvious strategy, and it's our duty to debunk it....

to drown in crickets....

Very thin arguments....most of the links are not even pertinent to what is being asked.

It's all they can do.

you changed the terms of the argument and shifted the premises to a separate issue, otherwise know as a red herring ( ). Nowhere in either Nance's request nor in the realm of logic does this issue have anything to do with an argument against the legitimacy of caucuses. Ever heard of an argument ex post facto? after the fact does not fly in logic, does not fly in the law, and does not have any bearing on the present stated cricumstamces. That was not what Nance was requesting. Her exact words:



furthermore, you're going to go to right before Kentucky? give me a break :eyes: ....

I explained it already. The numbers do not include Kentucky. If they did, Clinton would be ahead by even more votes, because they have not counted all the votes yet in Oregon and she won Kentucky 2 to 1.

Putting caucus goers and simple votes together defeats the purpose of estimating who can draw people to the polls this fall. Obama has the organization to get people to show up to caucuses where you have to stay longer and resist pressure to change your vote----that will count for nada this fall.

The Obama camp has admitted that they calculated the primary based upon how to get the greatest number of delegates. They were not interested in votes and they did not care which states they got the delegates from. They assumed that no one would notice or care that in some states they were defeated by large numbers of voters as long as their delegate totals remained high. And had the press been well intentioned this might be so. However, the press wants this race to go to the convention, so it will criticize wherever it can.

When Obama is ahead, the press will air Clinton's talking points, just as the press aired the Obama camps talking points such as the fallacy riddled Race Memo when Clinton was ahead, The press just wants to witness a good fight.

What you're saying has anything to do with either the missing link Nance is requesting or the relevance this has to equivocation in the HRC campaign or the fact that this is an ex post facto moot point or that

and Florida. You accuse Nance of googling inadequacy and then link directly to an article which states that Clinton is ahead using Michigan and Florida votes.

You then go on to disparage caucuses as somehow being undemocratic and indicate that somehow using the results of caucuses "defeats the purpose of estimating who can draw people to the polls this fall."

With all due respect, I'm doubting that there will be a state in the fall where John McCain's name doesn't appear on the ballot and he gets to count 0 votes. I'm also in doubt that there are any states where he will be prohibited from campaigning in the fall. And I don't really think that any argument a Republican voters will think the results of the General Election won't count.

So, talking about who can get more votes in the fall based on popular vote totals from a state where no primary occurred (only one name on the ballot) or a state where many of the voters did not come out because they'd been told the primary did not count, holds no relevance to anything about the General Election.

"...that they calculated the primary based upon how to get the greatest number of delegates."

In other words, they have actually fessed up to the fact that they planned all along to win the primary according to *gasp* the actual agreed rules of the primary??

No moving of goalposts at all? No insertion at a late stage of the much greater importance of the popular vote?

There is a term used to describe those that try to change the rules in the middle of the game in order to insure their own victory: CHEATER.

Your figures on the popular vote are skewed. They are based on counting what you want counted and not counting what you don't want counted. It also does not address the point in the OP.

But more importantly, it DOESN'T MATTER. Obama, who has admitted that he planned all along to follow the rules, has now won according to those rules.



If you want to change the rules, it must be done between seasons, not in the 4th quarter of a game that you are losing.

“President Bill Clinton, who threw his full support behind a recount, said …” Not exactly the same kind of fight-to-the-finish passion we hear when it comes to his wife’s candidacy. I want to remember Bill being in the forefront of the fight to have ALL votes counted before Bush was ‘installed’ in the Oval Office, but it’s an image I have a hard time remembering at all - maybe because it never happened.

"I'm not going to campaign there before the deadline for February 5th window. I'm not going to spend any money there. But I did not believe it was fair to just say goodbye Michigan and not take into account the fact that we're gonna to have to win Michigan if we're gonna be in the White House in January 2009." Could you provide a link to where she REFUSED to sign the pledge NOT to count those votes, or a quote where she stated that her solemn pledge was NOT to be taken seriously, because she had the right to change her mind when expedient?

Your Point No. 3, ” Caucusing allows “arm twisting” peer pressuring, campaigning, etc.,” is a reiteration of Hillary’s argument that the caucus system is unfair and should be discounted. Again, could you provide a link to where she expressed this opinion during the campaign, BEFORE she was losing?

Point No. 4: ”Hillary Sexism: You could just read my four part journal “The Press vs. Hillary Clinton” in which I document rampant sexism against Clinton starting in early 2007, when she was clearly the front runner.”. I didn’t ask for your opinion as to whether sexism played a part in Hillary’s demise – I asked for a link where SHE stated she was a victim of sexism BEFORE she started losing.

Point No. 5: You have provided quotes from 2005 and 2006. The election was stolen in 2004 – where was Hillary’s legendary fightin’ spirit while the election was being stolen, as opposed to after-the-fact?

My request for Hillary’s acknowledgment that she LIED in respect to her Bosnia sniper-fire story still stands. Saying that “she erred” in recounting her “vivid memories” of something that never happened is nowhere near admitting that she lied – which she clearly did. And she wouldn’t have even admitted to having “erred” if it wasn’t for the widespread dissemination of a videotape PROVING she “erred”.

Thank you ever so for the irrelevant treatise on Hillary’s ‘Goldwater Years’. As for ”Since everything worked out OK in 1992, maybe that is why the Clinton camp is saying give it time---the way the Dems gave Bill Clinton time back in 1992,” I don’t remember Bill ignoring the fact that a Democratic opponent had actually won the majority of delegates, but HE was going to “take it to the Convention” to prove the case that he SHOULD be given the nomination in spite of the People having already spoken. I also don’t remember any claims that ‘electoral votes’, or ‘swing state votes’, or ‘popular votes’ were the measure by which nominees should be elected. Maybe I don’t remember it because it NEVER happened that way.

But if you can provide me with a LINK that shows that actually DID happen, I will stand corrected.

Nance asked for a statement from HILLARY on her being a victim of rampant sexism while she was the front-runner of this current primary campaign:



.

This: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2007/07/28/clinton-seeks-cleavage-cash/ is the only link you supplied that actually dates from the entire primary, and not A SINGLE QUOTE in that article is from Hillary.

.


hey people, googling and research involves more than blindly pasting sources; it means reading them, gauging their authenticity, and accouting for their relevance to the topic at hand....

Otherwise, KO's special comment in which he blasts her over Ferraro makes no sense.

I'd love to see the video that goes with that, since as I recall the tone wasn't one of contrition but of someone who has been called on a lie but resents the implication that they, uh, lied. But, then again, the word themselves pretty much show that it isn't about anything she did--it's all the fault of those who think she isn't human. :eyes:

the vid's on you tube. check the jedreport (he's got a couple up in the SU vid section; you can find a link to his youtube account there)

I tried hunting around for it, but as you can imagine 'clinton bosnia lie' brings up a lot of hits.

Hillary had no motive to lie. She was trying to impress the world with her ability to negotiate the release of refugees who were in danger of becoming the victims of genocide. Everything else was just the kind of flashy detail you attack to a story to make it interesting. The presidential part was the refugee release---which I have documented in my journals she accomplished. There are testimonies from military officials and diplomats that attest to that. Consider that neither she nor Obama is running for Ninja Warrior or President of Running through Sniper Fire.

Now, consider the other possibility. Does the Obama camp have a motive to conflate her mistake into a lie? Yes, indeed. Just as Bush had the press call Gore a liar to make the public question everything he said, so the Obama camp sent out memos pushing the Sniper Story that also contained distortions that lied about Clinton's foreign policy experience. See my "Tea Party Memo" journals. The Obama Camp suckered KO into spreading disinformation about Clinton's role in the Northern Irish peace process which many prominent Irishmen and women have praised, They diminished her role in Bosnia. The Sniper story was what made it possible for them to cast her as a figure of ridicule, not to be taken seriously.

So, that is how I know that who is doing the distorting and why.

Why is it than whenever you actually make a coherent statement it's completely preposterous?

:shrug:

Do you KNOW that?

So you basically look at a situation and think of a POSSIBLE explanation and then you miraculously "know" that that hypothesis is fact?



I think we have an indication of what might be the problem here...

Basically, whoever stands to gain, according to you, is convicted? Glad you're not running the criminal justice system...


Another way of looking at it: Hillary lies. Obama says nothing. Some stories start in the media pointing out the lie. Conclusion: Obama is sabotaging Hillary! Logic: Nowhere in evidence.

you'd say that either
1) you don't want a president who cries or
2) she's a masterful actress

So it doesn't matter. This whole thing has become like the abortion and gay marriage debates: there is no debate. People on both sides feel so strongly that there is no rational discourse that goes on - just trying to trip each other up and rip the other's words to pieces.

Sad, so sad.

"Since everything worked out OK in 1992, maybe that is why the Clinton camp is saying give it time---the way the Dems gave Bill Clinton time back in 1992."

Except that the situation is reversed. Bill Clinton was on the winning side waiting for the supers' endorsements; this time, they only reason they're trying to give it time is because Hillary is losing and she's waiting for something to happen to Obama that will cause the nomination to default to her.

her desired end point is a Democratic victory this fall. Women are typically more likely to be "team players" than men.

What the Clintons want is irrelevant in any case. You should be arguing with the SDs. I quoted this article, in part, to show that they are acting now exactly as they did then---and no harm came of it in 1992.

for Team Hillary. Make that Team AEI.

How'd that statement about Bosnia turn out?

Who isn't going to say to a bunch of Democratic supporters that they too want a Democratic victory? To say otherwise would be ridiculous.

But I'm not sure what that has to do with the article you posted. I stand by my point: The perspectives of an extended contest are totally different depending on whether you're winning or losing it. And another aspect of Bill's situation is that his own previous screw-up with the sex scandals gave the SD's legitimate pause. He created his own uncertainty with regard to the SDs.

In Hillary's case, she's hoping to cause problems for the candidate who's in the lead. That is NOT behavior that mirrors their situation in '92. They had no choice but to wait when Bill was the candidate. They're taking measures to extend this contest so that Hillary doesn't have to concede.

By the way, I'd love to take it up with the SDs. Obama has a pledged delegate majority that Clinton cannot remotely hope to overcome without getting the unfair and extreme as-is invalid results of MI/FL added to her column. Even if she got a compromise, his gain in PR would put him back over the top. They have no real reason not to declare for Obama now.

That does it...I'm callin' sexism!
:hide:

Isn't that a stretch even for you?

Fair enough except it's Bill not the supposedly independent Hill

2 Still does not address the problem that she stated that Michigans votes would not be counted; that only after Super Tuesday

3 Only a link to an unsubstantiated claim. Does not address Nance's point. Please supply a link that addresses Nance's point.

4 Having read your journals I can only say you make largely unsubstantiated claims. Others manufacture similar claims from words like "periodically" or "claws". Also Nance asked When HILLARY began to complain about "sexism" in the campaign.

5 Bills to prevent stolen elections are fine, but when did Hillary go on the record about this? because it was not in November 2004

6 Bosnia was not asked about - the IWR specified in the OP. Please provide a link to Hillary admitting a mistake about that

7 I have no comment

8 Could you provide a link to Hillary's position. Not to her position as a subordinate to Bill

Like it would make a dimes worth of difference to anyone. I think this thread is bait to belittle anyone who has the audacity to do the research. But I'm not sure to what point.

For me, I'm committed to voting for the dem nominee come November. Obama isn't my first choice, but I admire his ability to rise above the fray. I wish his supporters would do the same, and maybe they would be attracting more folks to their cause rathter than driving them away.

And if people would stop for a sec and just think, we can't, as a party, write off FL. There's probably a compromise to be had with the delegates from the state (seat them evenly, proportional with the committed delegates in other states - which gives the advantage to Obama, etc.), which is important since FL is a pretty damn critical state for the GE and is an electoral prize.

I don't post on DU that much any more. I guess I should change my Avatar because it is like the most delicious flamebait. But I guess I'm just not ready to do that.

I think I have a rudimentary understanding of where the Obama supporters are coming from. If I were them, I would want this thing wrapped up, too, because it means the person they are supporting is the nominee. Game. Set. Match. But I also think there's something spectacular about giving every state the opportunity to have a voice that counts for the nominee. What better way to invest people emotionally in the democratic process.

And at the end of the day, I'm convinced we'll be a unified party. I just don't think there's need to poke a stick at people who have a difference of opinion. There's an end to this race, and it's not that far away. In the immortal words of Rodney King, can't we all just get along?

when their hugest supporter, Ted Kennedy, when he was running for president kept fighting until the convention, tried to have rules amended and did whatever he could to get the nomination away from Carter AT THE CONVENTION.

Fast forward to the present and even though the state of Massachusetts went to Clinton in the primary, he as superdelegate is defying the will of the people of his state and voting for Obama.

Resoundingly - to batshit crazy Reagan.

Great point & analogy to make to get this shiznit wrapped up.

and why it is so difficult to find any information that backs up what Hillary Clinton asserts.

I've posted several times on other discussions requests for links to information regarding Obama's experience relative to Clinton's and have literally had NO RESPONSE despite the fact that I provided links to evidence of her eperience.

I, like you, have no need to respond to Ms Greggs.

links to different legislation, experience etc. Kind of long, but if you're truly interested might be worth the time.
http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2006/10/barack_obama.html

of course. :eyes:

great link though! :hi:

It's a shame that so few supposed Hillary supporters bothered to do any research or offer any links, but instead wasted time complaining about the OP.

#8 is irrelevant because things did not go to the convention. That is different than her being the one determined to do so.

#3 is not addressing the question because the link you provide by CNN did count MI and FL and did exclude the caucus states. Nance asked for a metric that did not do this.

#7 Karl Rove, FAUX news, etc. are a far cry from a dinner with Barry Goldwater. You should have went with the link where Bill and Karl were becoming friends....and Bill invited Karl over to dinner to pick his brain.

#6 Hillary trying to make her sniper lie into a "mistake" made three separate times does not address Nance's question. Nance wanted her repetition included in the link. You should have gone with when she admitted that she lied in the debate...she clearly said that she said something not in congruence with her notion of the facts. That was the link I think Nance needed.

#5 Your sources here do not refer to the aftermath of 2004, but rather, one and two years later. This would make it way too late to restore the vote in Ohio for 2004. For this, you should have used a link to her speech where she supported Barabara Boxer in her courageous fight to not have Ohio's votes certified. Hillary gave a speech in support of Boxer, but did not vote with her. However, that link would have been more pertinent.

#4 is not Clinton herself saying it, but rather a mailer to solicit for money becuse the press was focused on her cleavage. I admit, though, that is sexist. Just not Obama's sexism or the sexism of any other Democratic campaign.

#2 is still during the primary, and it is her explanation for keeping her name on the ballot. One could just as easily argue that her FL and MI strategy began at that point (which would need spin to keep her on the ballot), so it is not germaine to Nance's request. Yes, it was while she was the front-runner, but it is not a quote from her independent of her on-going campaign.

#1 is legit.

That provides an explanation why you'd sink to baiting fellow DUers and Dems with these cheap and disingenuous tactics, pretending to seek answers when you've so obviously already made up your mind and just want to stir it up again for the madding crowd.

And an apology wouldn't hurt either, but I won't hold my breath.

She didn't make up the claims, she's simply asking those who support them to back up their assertions. The point is, it should be easy given the hundreds of posts created with those very talking points. Judging from the responses so far, it's not as easy as it looks.

I am not 'baiting' anyone to do anything. I am asking fellow DUers, especially the ones who keep finding excuses for Hillary's behaviour, to provide the links that prove she held the positions she now espouse (re the 'legitimate' count to determine the nominee) BEFORE she was losing the race.