Saturday - December 06, 2014

all it takes people, is a bit of empathy and presto. world peace. listen to mrs clinton

OK. Suggestions?

As a possible future head of state, maybe one of those states that hate us, she could get us all together hold hands and sing we are the world.

We didn’t “empathize” much with Germany back in the day.  Maybe if FDR had empathized more with Tojo and Hitler, war could have been avoided.
Think of the advantage if he had.
Generations of multi language speaking Americans. Sushi imported to the west 70 years earlier.
Supermarkets in the USA run by super efficient German markets like ALDI and LIDL.  German cars 70 yrs sooner. The VW Beetle in the 30s?
Who knows where we couldda got to by showing a bit of respect to folks who kill.

Hillary Clinton under fire after saying America should ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to its enemies

Hillary Clinton, 67, spoke at Georgetown University in Washington D.C.

Claimed America should ‘empathize’ and ‘show respect’ to its enemies

Said US should use ‘every possible tool and partner’ to advance peace

Front-runner Democratic nominee’s remarks criticized as ‘naive’ online

Described as ‘irrational’ by ex-Marine Lieutenant Colonel, Oliver North

Some critics highlighted U.S.’s recent air strikes on the Islamic State

Clinton’s speech was to promote female leadership in foreign conflicts

By Sophie Jane Evans for MailOnline

Hillary Clinton has come under fire after saying that America should ‘empathize’’ with its enemies.

Speaking at Georgetown University in Washington D.C. to promote female leadership, the former U.S. Secretary of State also said the country should show ‘respect’ to those fighting against it.

Using an approach she dubs ‘smart power’ - which women are apparently uniquely positioned to deploy - she urged Americans to use ‘every possible tool and partner’ to advance peace.

This approach means ‘showing respect, even for one’s enemies;

trying to understand and, insofar as psychologically possible, empathize with their perspective and point of view,’ she said.

Right.  How hard is that?

Hitler’s pov was that all Jews need to be dead, and the Japanese only wanted to kill the Chinese and almost anyone else who didn’t see their perspective on the world.

That’s the secret Mrs Clinton has stumbled on. It could work. If only FDR and Churchill had a bit of empathy. That’s all it takes.

Show a bit of that to the muzzies who have just killed two more westerners, along with many of their own ppl.

Oh if only people could empathize.

The front-runner Democratic nominee’s speech, specifically focusing on female leadership in foreign conflicts and relations, was held in the university’s famed Gaston Hall on Wednesday.

Within minutes of the 67-year-old’s appearance being broadcast, she was being criticized by social media users across America for her ‘ridiculous’ attitude toward the country’s enemies.

Many people condemned her comments in the context of the U.S.’s recent airstrikes against the Islamic State (ISIS), which has taken over swathes of Iraq and Syria, Fox News reported.

Addressing Clinton directly, one Twitter user wrote: ‘You have NO understanding of ISIS or ANY of America’s enemies. Empathizing with killers only ensures your demise.’

CONTINUES

Posted by peiper     on 12/06/2014 at 10:45 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Stoopid-People •  
• Comments (5) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - January 02, 2013

Spies Wear Rayon

There’s the gal who leads a life of danger.
To everyone she meets she stays a stranger.
With every move she makes, another chance she takes.
Odds are she won’t live to run in ‘16.

Secret agent Hill
Secret agent Hill
They’ve given you a number,
and taken away your pantsuit.

this started to surface the day before yesterday ...

Clinton Injured, US Navy Seal Killed In Secret US Mission To Iran

A new Foreign Military Intelligence (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today is saying that United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton was injured, and a top US Navy Seal Commander killed when their C-12 Huron military passenger and transport aircraft crash landed nearly 3 weeks ago in the Iranian city of Ahvaz near the Iraqi border.

Iranian intelligence agents quoted in this GRU report confirm that the C-12 Huron aircraft is still in their possession in Ahvaz, but will only admit that the plane was “forced to land because of technical problems”.

The US Navy Seal member reported killed in this bizarre incident, this report says, was iulencedentified as Commander Job W. Price [photo 3rd right] who as a leader of this highly specialized American Special Forces unit protects high-ranking diplomats traveling in Middle Eastern and Asian combat zones.

Upon the C-12 Huron landing at Ahwaz, however, this report says it encountered “extreme turbulence” causing it to leave the runway where its main landing gear then collapsed causing it to crash.

Within seconds of the C-12 Huron crashing, this report continues, Iranian emergency and security personal responded freeing the victims, including Secretary Clinton who was reportedly unconscious and “bleeding profusely.”

After emergency aid was given, GRU agents stationed in Iran state that another US military flight was dispatched from Bahrain to Ahwaz which evacuated all of those wounded and killed in the crash including Secretary Clinton.

Strangely to note, this report says, is that in the aftermath of this crash, Iran’s main oil company announced today that they were buying the Ahwaz airport with the intention of moving it because, they say, oil was discovered beneath it.

Oh, and I wonder if the Farsi way to spell “extreme turbulence” is M A N P A D S?

Oops ... maybe I shouldn’t be joking around about this ...

A startling Foreign Military Intelligence (GRU) report circulating in the Kremlin today states that President Obama was informed by White House medical personal shortly after Secretary of State Hillary Clinton’s return to the United States that her health prognosis was “grim” as her likelihood of survival was “diminishing by the hour.”

Ordinarily, I’d say that if it was published in Pravda it must be true. But this was from a GRU report. You remember those guys. Like the KGB, only nastier. No reason they’d ever disseminate false information about the West. Nyet!
h/t to Da Bro

Posted by Drew458     on 01/02/2013 at 02:17 PM   
Filed Under: • Adventure • Hildabeast • Iran •  
• Comments (4) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Sunday - December 06, 2009

PART TWO, THE ROMANCE OF HILLARY AND DAVID … IS IT REALLY LOVE THIS TIME? BABANAS FOR CIGARS?

To be fair and honest here, and really I should be otherwise I become the left, I have found flattering and very nice photos of these two people. But as you know, cameras shoot a many fames per second and every twitch and twist is caught too quickly to ever undo. Except with PhotoShop. However, I chose to post these photos instead.

Hillary Clinton and David Miliband all touchy-feely as she indulges her ‘toyboy crush’ at Nato meeting ( PART TWO)
By MAIL FOREIGN SERVICE
Last updated at 2:20 PM on 04th December 2009

Or, perhaps not - perhaps Hillary Clinton is, once again, taking the ‘special relationship’ a little too literally.

The U.S. Secretary of State collapsed in a fit of girlish giggles during a Nato meeting today at Mr Miliband’s presumably witty comments.

Mrs Clinton owned up to an unlikely crush on the ‘vibrant, vital, attractive, smart’ British Foreign Secretary last month.
Speaking in Vogue magazine, Mrs Clinton, 62, joked with an interviewer about Mr Miliband’s accent. ‘Well, if you saw him it would be a BIG crush,’ she said.

‘I mean, he is so vibrant, vital, attractive, smart. He’s really a good guy. And he’s so young!’
Her remarks are an unlikely compliment for Mr Miliband, who has often been teased about his geeky image.

Former Labour spin doctor Allistair Campbell famously called him ‘Brains’ - not because of his formidable intellect, but for of his resemblance to the nerdish puppet character of the same name in the children’s programme Thunderbirds.

Mr Miliband also seems taken with his American counterpart.

Today he seemed to take delight in teasing the former First Lady - and looked distinctly unimpressed when another man joined their tete-a-tete.
Last month he said Mrs Clinton was ‘delightful to deal with one on one’ and added: ‘She’s someone who laughs and can tease, and she’s got perspective as well.’

HERE FOR MORE

MELANIE PHILLIPS: Arrogant, ignorant and out of his depth, is Banana Boy Miliband our worst Foreign Secretary ever?

The most startling thing about David Miliband is that he has been taken as seriously as he has for so long.

His latest achievement is to have upset the government of India so badly that it has reacted with unprecedented public fury. This is because on his visit there last week he suggested that the only reason India was targeted by Islamic terrorism was its dispute over Kashmir, and that the government of Pakistan had played no part in the terrorist attack on Mumbai last November.

In a much-mocked article he wrote in the Guardian, he claimed that Islamic terrorism did not have one unifying characteristic but was merely caused by different grievances - such as Kashmir - and that the best way of dealing with it was not through confrontation but ‘co-operation’.
For a Foreign Secretary to display as he did such ignorance about the nature and antecedents of global Islamic terrorism was simply astounding.

HERE FOR MORE

Posted by peiper     on 12/06/2009 at 06:39 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Politics • UK • USA •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - August 12, 2009

STARTING THE DAY WITH A LAFF ….  GOOD MORNING BMEWS

posted without comment

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/cartoon/

I call this one, Halloween Early.  Other captions welcome.

Posted by peiper     on 08/12/2009 at 03:26 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Humor •  
• Comments (3) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - January 23, 2009

mrs. clinton vows new era will end obsession with threats. (bet the enemy will love to hear that)

Meanwhile, Al-Qaeda (spelling?) spokesman has called for new attacks upon the UK.
Well, I sure hope someone here is “obsessed” with threats against this country. What’s wrong with a bit of obsession? I like that and paranoia too. Cause I know they’re out there and I do believe what I hear them say.  Or more precisely what I read that they say. And they say they’re out to get us.  Why should I doubt them?

Take heart guys.  Do not be discouraged. She could always get hit by a bus or maybe get bit by a rabid squirrel.
This is Alice in Wonderland.  I feel this deep depression settling in on me.  I wasn’t actually afraid of Bill.  But this person does put a fright in me. And that’s just when I look at her photos.

I guess we’ll see in time, as it will surely tell.  Oh Boy! Will It!

Hillary Clinton vows to end paranoia of George Bush era
Hillary Clinton, the new secretary of state, has stamped her imprint on US foreign policy by saying she wouldn’t be worrying exclusively about the safety of the nation.

By Alex Spillius in Washington
Last Updated: 8:25PM GMT 22 Jan 2009

In a clear reference to George W Bush’s obsession with national security after the September 11 attacks, Mrs Clinton said: “I don’t get up every morning just thinking about the threats and dangers, as real as they are. I also get up thinking about who we are and what we can do.”

Addressing staff members of the 18,000-strong state department on her first day at work, she proclaimed a “new era for America”.

“We are not any longer going to tolerate the kind of divisiveness that has paralysed and undermined our ability to get things done for America,” she said.

“There are three legs to foreign policy: defence, diplomacy and development, and we are responsible for two of those,” she told cheering officials crammed into the main hall of the department’s Washington headquarters.

“Diplomacy and development are essential tools in achieving the long term objectives of the United States. Robust diplomacy and effective development are the best long-term tools for securing America’s future,” said the 61-year-old former first lady, who supervises the US Agency for International Development.

She was later joined by President Barack Obama and Vice President Joe Biden, in a show of solidarity aimed to assure the state department that it would again be the primary agency of foreign policy.

“We want to send a clear and unequivocal message: this is a team, and you are members of that team,” she said.

In a sign of his commitment to solving the gravest problems confronting the US, Mr Obama appointed two foreign policy heavyweights to key envoy roles.

George Mitchell, the former Northern Ireland negotiator, was made a special envoy to the Middle East, and Richard Holbrooke, a former ambassador to the UN, as special envoy to Pakistan and Afghanistan. They were both introduced by Mrs Clinton, as Mr Obama looked on. Mr Mitchell said that his experience in Northern Ireland had shown him that “there is no such thing as a conflict that can’t be ended”.

Addressing an audience of senior staff later in the day, Mr Obama said: “I have given you an early gift - Hillary Clinton.” He added: “My presence underscores my commitment to renewing American leadership.”

Former president Bush allowed the Pentagon to lead the country into war in Iraq under Donald Rumsfeld and then take charge of a reconstruction process that went badly awry.

Colin Powell, who served as secretary of state in Mr Bush’s first term, was sidelined in policy-making by both Mr Rumsfeld and former vice president Dick Cheney.

Her sure-footed performance served as a reminder of the political and communication skills that led Mr Obama to select her as the top US diplomat, quickly burying any lingering bitterness from their battle for the Democratic nomination.

She will act as the new president’s representative as they tackle a daunting array of challenges, including unfinished wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, the troubled Middle East peace process, climate change and Iran’s nuclear ambitions.

Mrs Clinton was confirmed late on Wednesday as secretary of state in a 94-2 senate vote and was immediately sworn into office in a ceremony watched by her husband, former president Bill Clinton.

She spent her first afternoon telephoning her foreign counterparts, receiving an intelligence briefing and consulting various regional experts.

TELEGRAPH

Posted by peiper     on 01/23/2009 at 11:47 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Homeland-Security • War On Terror •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - December 03, 2008

LETS HEAR IT FOR HILLARY, SEC.O.S.

Just HAD to post this today ... interesting read no matter what side of the fence you’re on.  My very I confess to all uneducated guess is she won’t last in that position.  While I might not approve of the pres.-elect and did not vote for him, it can’t be honestly said that he’s stupid.  I wonder, being cynical as I am, if maybe just maybe he approved her with the idea that she would fail at it.  Can not stand her either but again, she isn’t dumb .

This is gonna get very interesting after January. 

I haven’t seen this article in American press so I am assuming it’s for this market. 

Hillary Clinton is a brilliant choice for US Secretary of State

By Anne Applebaum
Last Updated: 12:01am GMT 03/12/2008

When news first leaked that Hillary Clinton was Barack Obama’s top candidate for Secretary of State, I had the same reaction as just about everyone else: has he gone mad? To put Hillary in charge of American foreign policy seemed not merely an error, but also clear evidence that Obama’s reputation for good judgment, sober decision-making and impenetrable cool had been much overrated.

For reasons personal, political and practical, Hillary seemed absolutely the wrong choice: this is not a woman known for her diplomatic skills or any special ability to make peace.

She does have, on the other hand, an almost unique ability to provoke irrational hatred in the breasts of total strangers. Dramatic tension rises when she walks into the room. Fantastic stories trail in her wake. Some of these stories she merely inspires, others she invents - such as the ones which came up during the primary campaign, about how she “brought peace to Northern Ireland” or “arriving in Bosnia in a hail bullets”.

Hillary doesn’t exactly have a track record of loyalty to the new president-elect either. On the contrary, for most of the past year Hillary was not just Obama’s most serious Democratic rival, but she was also his most vicious opponent.

Most of the nastiest attacks on Obama in this past year were launched not by John McCain’s Republicans, but by Hillary’s Democrats. That Obama lacked experience; that he had a secret, fanatically radical past; that, being from Hawaii, he might not be “really” American; that being black, he would have trouble winning “white” states in the presidential election: all of those notions originated with Hillary or her surrogates. Sometimes, they started with her husband, Bill.

Bill Clinton was, and still is, a problem. As a former president, he has made a career out of giving extremely lucrative speeches, which he makes at meetings of all kinds of organisations in all kinds of countries.

That means, however, that he has taken money from all kinds of people with all kinds of agendas. Even if he stops taking this money tomorrow - and he has more or less promised that he will - the potential for conflicts of interest are immense. There are a lot of people out there who think they are going to be able to get to Hillary through Bill. There are also a lot of people who will think that, when Bill talks, he is speaking on behalf of the President of the United States of America.

This problem is exacerbated by the fact that Hillary herself doesn’t have nearly as strong a foreign policy record as her husband. As First Lady, she focused on domestic issues - health care, children’s rights. As Senator, she did work on some military issues and took a few important stands - among other things, supporting the invasion of Iraq, for example, though she doesn’t like to talk about that now.

Other than that, no one knows much about her views, whether of Iraq, of Afghanistan, of Europe, or of Russia. Do they match those of her husband?

More important, do they match those of Obama, whatever those may be? And if not, will she - once his severest critic - be able to toe the line? In the American political system, the Secretary of State functions as a spokesman for the President abroad. But when Hillary talks, many will wonder if she is speaking on behalf of President Obama, or on behalf of herself, her husband, and the present and future interests of Clinton Inc.

HERE’S MORE ON THE SUBJECT

Posted by peiper     on 12/03/2008 at 07:53 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Government • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - June 05, 2008

Hillary Clinton the last to admit her own death

The View From Here on Hillary.

By Simon Heffer
Last Updated: 12:01am BST 05/06/2008

The joy of jet lag is that one is awake in time to channel-hop between all America’s breakfast news programmes. After an hour or so of this entertainment yesterday morning, it was clear that not just the media, but also the public interviewed over their bacon and maple syrup in diners the length of the East Coast, had decided on one thing: this was a historic morning for America.

Hillary Clinton the last to admit her own death, whilst Barack Obama garners sufficient delegates
Mrs Clinton has achieved her aim of becoming part of history: only not quite in the way she would have wanted

A black man was for the first time confirmed as a nominee for a major party for a presidential election. There seemed to be not just a sense of self-congratulation at this unquestionably inclusive step being made by a country that has not enjoyed the best international press of late, but also relief that a 17-month campaign to choose the top Democrat was over.

However, one person and her friends seemed not to share these sentiments: and that person was Hillary Clinton. When I was last here in New York, the state for which she is a senator, it was Super Tuesday, and even then the game appeared to be up. In the intervening four months, Senator Clinton has had her triumphs, but they have not managed to keep pace with her disasters.

Barack Obama has garnered delegates in sufficient numbers not merely to keep him well ahead of her, but also, at close of play on Tuesday night after the Montana and South Dakota votes ended the primary process, to declare himself the nominated candidate.

Yet Mrs Clinton was still slow to concede that her once-inevitable procession to the White House had been terminally diverted. She claimed she needed more time to think about something that had not merely been pretty obvious to most people for the past four months, but that was now an apparent arithmetical fact.

Her refusal to admit defeat can be, and is, justified in all sorts of ways. She says she is ahead in the popular vote, which ignores the fact that this is not how these things are decided. She says that the delegates might change their minds between now and the convention in Denver at the end of August. Indeed they might, but only if they wished to write their party’s suicide note because of the divisions that would ensue.

She has, of course, delivered a distasteful inference that someone might do to Senator Obama what Sirhan Sirhan did to Bobby Kennedy 40 years ago today, and the less said about that the better. As they say here, she starts to look like a pretty sore loser: or, as we say at home, she just doesn’t get it.

There has not been such a stubborn refusal to die in high politics since the end of Rasputin. Her determination to stay in the race was viewed as courageous by her supporters, who for reasons of taste cannot cite the reason why they think she is right: their belief that a black man, however gifted (and Mr Obama is certainly that) cannot become president of the United States, at least for the moment.

Others have seen it as pig-headed and destructive: and typical of a bullying, arrogant, slimy, dishonest and manipulative political culture that ruled in the White House from 1993 to 2001, when her husband was president.

That is Mrs Clinton’s main problem, and has been her undoing. Her style is that of 1990s machine politics. Her views are those of 1990s “third way” Leftism, with their emphasis on the power of the state and extended welfarism and their ignorance of real economics. Her rhetoric is tailored to appeal to the cohorts of organised blue-collar labour who are her power base, and she speaks stiltedly and rather patronisingly in their tongue.

For all these reasons she is completely out of date. She has an appeal only to those who wish to defend a position that a sane army would have abandoned long ago. She is an irrelevance to those who see that America has changed, the world has changed, and a new leader needs to make an accommodation with those realities. Does she remind you of anyone?

It has been difficult, watching Mrs Clinton’s final desperate moments as a would-be nominee, not to draw parallels with our own Prime Minister. She is being rumbled by her own party, and by the wider American public, as someone who can’t do the business. Mr Obama has been gentlemanly in the extreme in his lavish public tributes to her, but his followers regard her as self-serving and destructive.

Mrs Clinton’s period of reflection yesterday was the cover for her attempt to engineer Mr Obama into offering her a place as his running mate: her sense of entitlement will be the last part of her to die. It has been hard to find an Obama supporter, however wedded to party unity, who wants him even to countenance such a thing.

The Obama camp has snidely whispered throughout this process about “Bill’s unconstitutional third term”. Having beaten his wife to the nomination, do they really want to bring her, him and the baggage of Clintonism back into the White House for perhaps eight years of raining on his parade?

As is usual with the Clintons, subtle threats seep from “sources close” about what would happen if Mrs Clinton doesn’t get her consolation prize. They hint that her fundraisers, some of the most opulent of whom she met in New York on Tuesday night, might not bankroll Mr Obama. He, however, has had far more success at raising money than she has, and will not end the campaign, as she is ending it, $11 million in debt.

More worrying is the chorus from some of her supporters, notably white working-class women, that they will adamantly sit at home, or possibly even vote for John McCain, if she is not on the ticket. That is the judgment Mr Obama now has to make, and there is a united view outside Mrs Clinton’s camp that anyone but her will do.

To be fair to Mrs Clinton - and it requires a superhuman effort, given the dirty and charmless way she has run her campaign - she is more experienced than Mr Obama. It is true when she says he is untested in ways that she, as someone who has hacked around high politics for the past 15 years, is not. But to be fair to Mr Obama, he has not merely won a beauty contest by dint of being more beautiful.

He has won it by failing to promise anything in particular, notably the return to the 1990s that his opponent has. It may be in the battle now against Senator McCain that he will be found wanting, and the vacuity of his charismatic world view will be exposed: but he has earned the right to be in that battle, just as surely as Mrs Clinton has forfeited hers.

The only surprise now - short of Mr Obama asking her to be his running mate - will be a genuine act of loyalty by the Clintonistas towards him when they realise that Mrs Clinton will not be heading for the vice-presidency. As, again, we have seen in our own politics, it is always easier to fight one’s own side than one’s notional enemies, so this may not happen.

The unexpected can, of course, happen between now and November 4. Yet with the primaries over, Mrs Clinton has achieved her aim of becoming part of
history: only not quite in the way she would have wanted.

http://tinyurl.com/6564xf

Posted by Drew458     on 06/05/2008 at 10:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Editorials • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

JUST TOO DARN FUNNY NOT TO POST.  POOR HILLARY.

ONE OF THE POSTED COMMENTS AFTER A SIMON HEFFER COMMENTARY IN THE TELEGRAPH

This about sums up Mrs Clinton!

Judy Wallman, a professional genealogical researcher, discovered that Hillary Clinton’s great-great uncle, Remus Rodham, was hanged for horse stealing and train robbery in Montana in 1889.

The only known photograph of Remus shows him standing on the gallows. On the back of the picture is this inscription: “Remus Rodham; horse thief, sent to Montana Territorial Prison 1885, escaped 1887, robbed the Montana Flyer six times. Caught by Pinkerton detectives, convicted and hanged in 1889.”

Judy e-mailed Hillary Clinton for comments. Hillary’s staff sent back the following biographical sketch:

“Remus Rodham was a famous cowboy in the Montana Territory.
His business empire grew to include acquisition of valuable equestrian assets and intimate dealings with the Montana railroad. Beginning in 1883, he devoted several years of his life to service at a government facility, finally taking leave to resume his dealings with the railroad.

In 1887 he was a key player in a vital investigation run by the renowned Pinkerton Detective Agency.

In 1889 Remus passed away during an important civic function held in his honor, when the platform on which he was standing collapsed.”

Posted by Sidney Harbour-Bridge on June 5, 2008 3:14 PM

http://tinyurl.com/6564xf

Posted by Drew458     on 06/05/2008 at 10:21 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Humor •  
• Comments (2) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - June 04, 2008

How Barack Obama beat Hillary Clinton

It’s a pretty long column people, but use the link below for the rest of it. You might find it interesting.
It’s interesting I think, to read how foreign reporters read our happenings.

Good grief it’s after midnight here. Gotta go. I’m outta here.

By Toby Harnden in Washington
Last Updated: 9:53PM BST 04/06/2008

Hillary Clinton began her presidential bid as the overwhelming favourite and party establishment pick, the inevitable candidate who was “in it to win it”.

During the agonising denouement of the past three months, she has been the inevitable runner-up. She’s still in it, she protests, even now. But she has lost.

Although she finished the Democratic race on Tuesday with nine wins in the last 16 contests and “found my own voice”, as she declared after an upset victory in New Hampshire, her stunning loss in Iowa exactly five months earlier began the slow bleed she could never staunch.

In hindsight, the seeds of that defeat lay in the very strategy she and her chief strategist Mark Penn had mapped out more than a year before.

As the new face of Team Clinton - then the most powerful brand in Democratic politics - she could build up the momentum and money needed to lock up the nomination before the voters were consulted.

Even before her first event in Iowa - dubbed ‘Let the Conversation Begin!” - her focus seemed to be on the general election. She had already seen off the centrists Senator Evan Bayh and Governor Mark Warner and believed her greatest threat was John Edwards, running as a populist friend of the downtrodden.

Having carefully positioned herself - and badly miscalculated - with her vote for the Iraq invasion in October, she recalibrated repeatedly until she became an opponent of the war.

But rather than apologise for her vote, as Mr Edwards had done, she refused to admit she’d been wrong for fear of seeming weak in a general election against Rudy Giuliani or John McCain.

She reckoned without a young freshman senator called Barack Obama. In December 2006, it was already clear he had become a political rock star, attracting adoring crowds at book signings and already drawing comparisons with John and Robert Kennedy.

“The single most important thing that happened was the Clinton campaign always underestimated Senator Obama,” said Simon Rosenberg, a veteran of Bill Clinton’s 1992 campaign and president of the NDN think tank.

“Even when Obama started to rise, he didn’t become in their minds their central opponent. They also overestimated their own strength. Her staff kept saying she was leading in all national polls but she was never leading in Iowa and that was the most important poll of all.”

Mention of Mr Obama would often prompt an eye role from an inhabitant of Hillaryland - a hermetically-sealed bubble protected by the Secret Service and from which all naysayers were kept out. Like President George W Bush, Mrs Clinton put a premium on loyalty, which meant hard truths were seldom aired.

http://tinyurl.com/69yxum

Posted by Drew458     on 06/04/2008 at 05:56 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Saturday - April 19, 2008

Hillary Clinton is the US Gordon Brown

OBOY-OBOY. Ask Lyndon to write a few lines about Mr. Brown. He can explain beter then I. 

AMERICA, WAKE UP!  Tell em Lyndon .........

By Andrew Gimson
Last Updated: 2:30am BST 19/04/2008

American election sketch

Hillary Clinton has moved to consolidate her position as the Gordon Brown of American politics. There are some superficial differences between the two. Mrs Clinton is a woman, and better than Mr Brown at pretending to be delighted to see whichever audience she happens to be addressing.

AHHHHHHHHHH!  O-GOD HELP US!  BROWN’S HER ICON?  AHHHHHHHHHHHHGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGAG

The possibility arose of a meeting of minds when Mrs Clinton announced, during an appearance at Haverford College in the suburbs of Philadelphia, that if elected president she will introduce new tax credits.

Mr Brown is the only other leader to speak with such enthusiasm on this subject. He and Mrs Clinton share an impressive grasp of the technical advantages of tax credits, coupled with a complete inability to understand that many of us will never get around to claiming them.

Mrs Clinton declared with a smile that she “wanted to have a conversation” with the students, but she proceeded instead to give them a series of lectures. Like Mr Brown, Mrs Clinton displays an unshakeable faith in the ability of the state to solve every problem, as long as a gifted and serious technocrat, namely herself, is in power.

When asked about the environment, Mrs Clinton disclosed with pride that she had discussed that very subject at a meeting with Mr Brown on Thursday: “Gordon Brown has done a lot more than we have. They’ve actually created jobs… They’ve even invested in eco-cities… We just need presidential leadership and I will offer that.”

yeah right. silly damn pratt. eco-cities huh?  she doesn’t really know what folks here who are threatened by it think, nor would she listen if given the chance.

It was the same with every subject, from immigration to the economy. The longer she went on, the more exasperated she sounded that the American people may, conceivably, decide not to elect her, even though she knows a hundred times better than her rival Barack Obama what needs to be done.

The same note of disbelief enters Mr Brown’s voice when he contemplates the possibility that the British people might entrust their destinies to a lightweight such as David Cameron.

When Mrs Clinton was asked to explain how she would begin withdrawing troops from Iraq within 60 days if her own generals warned her against it, she replied in an irate tone: “I have spent a lot of time thinking through how we are going to do this responsibly and carefully.”

It would be wrong, however, to imply that Mrs Clinton cannot tell a joke. When a supporter asked what to say when out canvassing for her, she replied: “Just knock on the door and say, ‘You know, she’s really nice’. Or you can say, ‘She’s not as bad as you think’.”

But Mrs Clinton then spoiled the joke by cluttering her reply with several more points. Like Mr Brown, and unlike Mr Obama and Mr Cameron, she lacks the human touch: the ability to imagine how she will appear to other people.

http://tinyurl.com/45jace

Posted by Drew458     on 04/19/2008 at 03:35 PM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast • Politics •  
• Comments (1) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Thursday - March 13, 2008

Barf Alert! (child abuse)

I think this qualifies as child abuse by the Clinton campaign.

Posted by Christopher     on 03/13/2008 at 05:46 AM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (0) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - December 21, 2007

In the land of the blind, the one-eyed woman is queen

From PMS-NBC:

Former President Clinton says his wife is a “world-class genius” when it comes to improving the lives of others.

Clinton stuck mostly to familiar themes in two hour-long appearances Thursday, describing at length what he views as the nation’s biggest challenges. Nearly 15 minutes into his first speech, he added almost as an afterthought that “everything I’m saying here is my wife’s position, not just mine.”

”Woops, I keep forgetting that I’m talking about her and not me”

Calling the ability to help others the most important quality in a president, Clinton first compared the successes of his administration in creating jobs and other areas to the failures of the Bush administration before finally turning the focus to his wife, a New York senator.

“The reason she ought to be president, over and above her vision and her plans is that she has proven in every position she has ever had in life, whether it was in elected office or not, that she is a world-class genius in making positive changes in other people’s lives,” he said.

”She cleaned me up good.”

What a bunch of crap.  We don’t need a President that “makes positive changes in people’s lives”, we need a president who will lead this nation and the world on the course for representative democracy and personal freedom.

Posted by      on 12/21/2007 at 10:08 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Wednesday - October 24, 2007

Typical

In typical Democrat fashion, Hillary Clinton has decided that she would be able to give something away that isn’t hers to begin with.

Clinton will consider giving up some powers

WASHINGTON - Senator Hillary Clinton said Tuesday that the Bush-Cheney administration had engaged in a “power grab” and that she would consider relinquishing some of that executive power if she followed it into the White House.

“There were a lot of actions which they took that were clearly beyond any power the Congress would have granted, or that in my view that was inherent in the Constitution,” Mrs. Clinton said, in an interview posted on the Web site of The Guardian newspaper of Britain.

So, which powers have the current administration “grabbed” from under the watchful eye of Congress?

She did not provide specifics about which claims to power she would relinquish, adding, “That has to be part of the review that I undertake when I get to the White House.”

Like I said: Typical.

Posted by Drew458     on 10/24/2007 at 07:49 AM   
Filed Under: • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (7) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

   Friday - May 04, 2007

Losing Wars For Dhimmis

Let’s do a little backtracking on recent history here for a minute. Let’s see if we can define how to lose a war, help bring America to its knees, create ugly partisan divide in the nation, throw an entire country in the Middle East to the wolves and do it all in just twenty steps ....

Clinton Proposes Vote to Reverse Authorizing War
WASHINGTON (NY TIMES) - May 4, 2007

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton proposed Thursday that Congress repeal the authority it gave President Bush in 2002 to invade Iraq, injecting presidential politics into the Congressional debate over financing the war.

Mrs. Clinton’s proposal brings her full circle on Iraq — she supported the war measure five years ago — and it sharpens her own political positioning at a time when Democrats are vying to confront the White House.

“It is time to reverse the failed policies of President Bush and to end this war as soon as possible,” Mrs. Clinton said as she joined Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of West Virginia, in calling for a vote to end the authority as of Oct. 11, the fifth anniversary of the original vote.

Her stance emerged just as Congressional leaders and the White House opened delicate negotiations over a new war-financing measure to replace the one that Mr. Bush vetoed Tuesday.

Even if Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd succeed in their effort, it is not clear whether President Bush would have to withdraw troops, or if he could resist by claiming that Congress cannot withdraw its earlier authorization but instead has to deny money for the war to achieve that result.

The question could prompt a constitutional debate over war powers that only the federal courts could resolve. Mostly, Mrs. Clinton appeared to be trying to claim a new leadership position among the Democratic presidential candidates against the war in Iraq.

She supported the war early on, but she has turned into a staunch critic of the administration’s performance on Iraq. She has been saying that she granted Mr. Bush the authority to go to war based on intelligence reports at the time, but that the reports have since proved wrong.

Now, her advisers say, a vote to withdraw authorization would make plain to antiwar and liberal Democrats that she was repudiating her 2002 vote. The hope among her aides was that demands by antiwar voters for her to apologize for her vote would be rendered moot.

Mrs. Clinton’s vote for the original authorization has been a persistent problem in her presidential bid when contrasted with the positions of other Democratic contenders.

Former Senator John Edwards has repudiated his vote for the war. After Mr. Byrd and Mrs. Clinton announced their plan, Mr. Edwards quickly put out a statement urging Congress to focus on withdrawing troops and not revoking the 2002 authorization.

“Congress should stand its ground and not back down to him,” Mr. Edwards said. “They should send him the same bill he just vetoed, one that supports our troops, ends the war and brings them home.”

Mrs. Clinton pointedly noted that she voted in 2002 to put a one-year limit on Mr. Bush’s war authority, an effort led by Mr. Byrd that failed. Mr. Edwards had opposed that limit.

Senator Barack Obama of Illinois, who was not in Congress at the time of the vote, cites his consistent opposition to the war. Mr. Obama issued a statement on Thursday evening indicating that he would support the effort by Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Byrd.

- More ...

Posted by The Skipper     on 05/04/2007 at 12:08 PM   
Filed Under: • Democrats-Liberals-Moonbat Leftists • Hildabeast •  
• Comments (8) • Trackbacks(0)  Permalink •  

DISCLAIMER

THE SERVICES AND MATERIALS ON THIS WEBSITE ARE PROVIDED "AS IS" AND THE HOSTS OF THIS SITE EXPRESSLY DISCLAIMS ANY AND ALL WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO WARRANTIES OF SATISFACTORY QUALITY, MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE, WITH RESPECT TO THE SERVICE OR ANY MATERIALS.

Not that very many people ever read this far down, but this blog was the creation of Allan Kelly and his friend Vilmar. Vilmar moved on to his own blog some time ago, and Allan ran this place alone until his sudden and unexpected death partway through 2006. We all miss him. A lot. Even though he is gone this site will always still be more than a little bit his. We who are left to carry on the BMEWS tradition owe him a great debt of gratitude, and we hope to be able to pay that back by following his last advice to us all:

1. Keep a firm grasp of Right and Wrong
2. Stay involved with government on every level and don't let those bastards get away with a thing
3. Use every legal means to defend yourself in the event of real internal trouble, and, most importantly:
4. Keep talking to each other, whether here or elsewhere

It's been a long strange trip without you Skipper, but thanks for pointing us in the right direction and giving us a swift kick in the behind to get us going. Keep lookin' down on us, will ya? Thanks.

THE INFORMATION AND OTHER CONTENTS OF THIS WEBSITE ARE DESIGNED TO COMPLY WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA. THIS WEBSITE SHALL BE GOVERNED BY AND CONSTRUED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA AND ALL PARTIES IRREVOCABLY SUBMIT TO THE JURISDICTION OF THE AMERICAN COURTS. IF ANYTHING ON THIS WEBSITE IS CONSTRUED AS BEING CONTRARY TO THE LAWS APPLICABLE IN ANY OTHER COUNTRY, THEN THIS WEBSITE IS NOT INTENDED TO BE ACCESSED BY PERSONS FROM THAT COUNTRY AND ANY PERSONS WHO ARE SUBJECT TO SUCH LAWS SHALL NOT BE ENTITLED TO USE OUR SERVICES UNLESS THEY CAN SATISFY US THAT SUCH USE WOULD BE LAWFUL.

Copyright © 2004-2015 Domain Owner