Hardball: Chris Hitchens Gets His Clinton Hate On
Empirically speaking, Barack Obama possesses a special kind of charisma that inspires and uplifts people, as evidenced by the talk of an Obama baby boom due to the euphoria surrounding his election. What I don't get is the diametrically opposite reaction that the Clintons, both separately and together, seem to evoke in The Villagers. Chris Matthews' obsession is long documented, and there's no one better to get your unhinged, irrational Clinton hatred on with than the drink-soaked popinjay Christopher Hitchens.
Let's keep score, shall we? Hitch is the guy that has been cheerleading the Iraq invasion and occupation (still does, as you can see from the video). Cheering arguably the biggest blunder of foreign policy we've ever committed and one that most people understand to be an epic fail. And he's on to criticize Bill Clinton--who will NOT be a member of Obama's cabinet--and while highly imperfect, did manage to lead the country to a prosperity and global status that we can only distantly and fondly remember. Why? Doesn't his continued support of our actions in Iraq speak for his judgment and grasp on reality?
And can I just object right here and now to the misogynistic and patronizing framing? Apparently the meme is that Hillary is too ambitious and self-serving to actually serve Obama's agenda. Based on what? Running a bare knuckle campaign? I don't think that if his primary rival had been a man that this would come up at all. The media was falling all over itself to talk about how cordial the meeting between Obama and McCain was yesterday. And what does it imply about Obama's strength that the assumption is that Hillary would railroad him (presumably with Bill, because to hear the media talk, you'd assume they were some sort of Machiavellian conjoined twins)? It's completely insulting on many levels.
The back-stabbing Bill and Hillary meme (one entirely conceived by GOP strategists, dutifully regurgitated in the media and swallowed sadly all-too-often by otherwise smart liberals) has gotten so out of hand that as Eric Boehlert reports for Media Matters, Fox News is already openly contemplating how Obama needs to fire her. For a job that (as of this writing) she has not been announced for and that does not take effect for another two months. Strike anyone else as premature?
Hitchens....popinjay...hehehehee
"Your hands are shaking Mr. Hitchens, you need another drink."
Hitchens IS a drunken, ex-Trotskyite popinjay, but at least he's not like the other so-called conservative punditry. Either an arrested adolescent like O'Reilley and Hannity, or a boring robot, spouting Republican talking points like Brit Hume or George Will. Check out Hitchens explaining his relationship with Brit Hume.
I have to say that, while it makes me sick, I actually have more respect for Hitchens than the other right wing talking heads. As far as I know, Hitchens is still the only pro-war, right winger who's agreed to be waterboarded.
FUCK YOU ALL pseudo progressives!!!!!
Alcoholism is a disease. You know that. If he was in a wheelchair would you call him a gimp? Huh?? Speak up!!!
I don't like him much either, but I like Hillary less, and I am totally pissed at you for making such Republican like comments.
UNACCEPTABLE.
Also it shows the shallowness of your approach.
Hillary is 20th Century Republican politician, period.
YOU KNOW IT!!!
Hitchens is an asshole. And so is anyone who mentions a disease in a political discussion.
Fucking name calling teenage mentality. We are supposed to be better than that!!!
FUCK YOU!!!
While I would agree that the constant comments about Christopher Hitchens being an alcoholic are crass and petty (and unrelated to whether or not what he says holds any merit), you can drop the faux-offended 'Alcoholism is a disease!' act. Alcoholism has been a problem in my family for a long time, and it even killed my poor grandfather, and I can say, as someone who has had to fight it himself time and again - no, it's not a disease. It is weakness, and it is a symptom of another problem more often than not. Depression, for example. But it's not a disease.
Hitchens, hate, Fox News.
Vote GOP and move forward to the 18th Century.
In my humble opinion, any criticism of the Obama administration at this point is very premature. Everyone, and it seems on both sides, is way to eager to criticize before even knowing any facts. It's like each side has a bunch of pit bulls and they are charging forward at any sign of red meat.
Let's take a lesson from Obama's play book and pick our battles wisely and calmly.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Pit bulls with lipstick?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Perhaps for some of them. :)
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
with lipstick and hocky pucks
I agree: attacking Obama at this point reminds me of Rush Limbaugh calling the economy "the Obama recession."
I don't want this morons trying to hamstring our new president.
I tend to agree.
far left loon >.<
Al Giordana at The Field says:
I just found that interesting.
I find it interesting too. Obama's camp has been so quiet on their decisions so far that I have found and still find it difficult to believe they would have let this slip.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
All of this is supposition. I think one thing that people aren't considering is that after 8 years of blatant and less blatant illegal activity which arguably could include the Iraq war (cherry picking evidence), the lattitude that Obama may get is larger than Hitchins may imagine. People want to see positive change and even if Hillary Clinton brings this supposed baggage of history (which I think the record has shown there are no skeletons...whitewater? please) the majority of the public will overlook the bits of gunpowder the right wants to turn into fireworks. And again may I say, Hitchins go play in traffic you self righteous blowhard.
Hitchins, go play in traffic
Tue, 11/18/2008 - 12:02 — Sticksman
All of this is supposition.
Are we suggesting Hitchens get a suppository?
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
Voted for the war? Still won't say it was a mistake? Thank you for your application, Ms. Clinton. We'll let you know.
posing as a democrat.
ambitious like a living dictionary deffinition.
She wasn't the only one who voted for it. Even Biden voted for it. Do you have the same irrational anger towards him? Or has your Clinton hatred blinded you to reality?
Its a balancing act keeping (one one side)the Clintons happy and productive.On the other hand,how much high strung girlish hysteria and malicious gossip does he want to put up with from the Villagers,who right on cue,are suddenly concerned about high powered political connections and possible conflicts of interest etc..
Bush essentially got an 8 year free pass from these ratbags and now they want Mrs.Clinton fired from a job she has neither yet accepted or even(for all we know) been offered.It's so deeply,deeply dumb.
"To me, truth is not some vague, foggy notion. Truth is real. And,
at the same time, unreal. Fiction and fact and everything in between,
plus some things I can't remember, all rolled into one big "thing."
This is truth, to me. "
-Jack Handy
independent of whether or not they are conservative, they hate liberals like it was a short circuit in their head. I agree almost 100% with hitchins on religion, but his irrational hatred of anything liberal defies logic and can only be described as a phobia or mental disorder.
What Hitchins professes to believe about cigarettes is as silly as any of the beliefs of Mormons, Jehovah's Witnesses, and Scientologists.
He sounds like most Obama supporters. Very ferocious in their hatred of all things Clinton. I put him in the same category as John Aravosis, Markos Moulitsas, and Rachel Maddow. I didn't think the democratic party was going to be a single party anymore after this election because of these people.
He's just jealous of Clenis, so vibrant, because you know what booze does to the whoosis.
Diabolus est Deus Inversus
I continue to be for Richardson, not because I have anything against Hillary, but because he has the exact sort of experience the job requires.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
Susan Rice has even MORE experience in that department than Richardson, and she tends to stick her tongue in her mouth less often than Bill Richardson does. I'd strongly back Bill Richardson to be the Energy Secretary again, because that job is going to be much more important this time around, and while he has a lot of foreign policy experience, he's even better when it comes to energy. Did you read his book 'leading by example?' Great book!
One of the other reasons I like Susan Rice for Sec. State is because she's young enough to be a contender for the first female president, after Obama has done his first two terms. So, personally, I'd like to see her get a high profile job, and not just jammed in to Liz Cheney's old office at the State Department.
If this were a baseball game, we wouldn't even be half way through the pre-game show, and Hitchens is already complaining about who Obama is starting at shortstop.
Internationally, Hillary is a favorite among the peoples of the world, and it doesn't hurt having Bill backing her up too. Our reputation in the world is shot thanks to Dubba. We should put our best people out there. You could do far worse than Hillary Clinton.
BTW, Hitchens pronunciation of Kissinger, is that suppose to be a slur against him, or is that Hitchens being a pompous ass? Or maybe both?
I did always consider Hitchens as something of a condescending, pompous ass with a good bit of opium den creepiness thrown in. But "drink-soaked popinjay"..That's too good!!!
Sort of like Richard Burton on a three day binge.
even lushes like Richard Burton and Dean Martin on a bender had a certain level of charm. Hitchens is just obnoxious.
When he visited the US Senate to discuss accusations that he was a war profiteer.
"...the Respect MP for Bethnal Green and Bow even had some scorn left over to bestow generously upon the pro-war writer Christopher Hitchens. "You're a drink-soaked former Trotskyist popinjay," Mr Galloway in formed him."
Hitchens hates all things Clinton and Tweety hates all things woman...perfect place for both to get their favorite hard on on. (FYI...I cannot watch this clip from the client site. Should I be incorrect in my assumption, I apologize in advance.)
Don't feel left out. I don't even see the video at all. Just a blank where it should be. I did see a bit of it earlier today on MSNBC, so I have a notion of his attitude and appearance. I think Tweety is jealous of women.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
hitch looks sloshed. tweety is still tweety.
Some stuff you can't make up!
is an alcohol marinated crumpled up ball of hate. This is not surprising. What IS surprising is that as a hopeless alcoholic, his slurred mumbles are being aired anywhere.
me-oww!
In case anyone is interested, the hearing regarding the auto loan/bailout is on c-span live right now.
Say what you mean. Mean what you say. But don't say it mean.
As simple as that. He is not someone who represents good progressive values, he is just a conservative atheist.
Hitchens is an atheist so he's not all bad.
What does that even mean? I don't care if a policy comes from someone's religious or atheist's values. I want good decisions. Apparently you have a problem with Obama being a Christian.
What does it mean? It means what is says. Hitchens is not superstitious or a religious nutjob, you don't think that's a plus? Doesn't mean I agree with everything he says so don't read too much into this.
No, I don't regard Obama being a Christian, or any other religious/superstitious denominations for that matter, as being a strength. Do I "have a problem" with it? No. Since Obama's not a right wing relgious Republican, which means he won't use his faith to take away my rights, I have no problem with what superstitious deity he chooses to believe in or not believe in.
Ok, he is not supertitious, but he is still a douchebag. If George Bush was an atheist I wouldn't change my opinion on him.
Fat, big mouthed drunk with an even bigger ego. Hitchens is a classless slob.
Emancipate yourself from mental slavery, none but ourselves can free our minds--Bob Marley
"presumably with Bill, because to hear the media talk, you'd assume they were some sort of Machiavellian conjoined twins"
No, worse than Machiavelli, with evil powers of mind control like Rasputin or Svengali! Or Jim Jones!
:-)
Cheers,
People drunk on alcohol, unless they get behind the wheel of a car, are far less of a threat than politicians and their supporters who are drunk on religion. Give Hitchens some credit, at least he's not a Christofacist religious zombie.
I wonder how may chain smokers, drinkers and druggies-prescription or otherwise - on this site are bashing Hitchens for being a "drunk". Unless you have never been falling down drunk in your life, like the good book says, judge not lest ye be judged.
Are you suggesting that being an alcoholic lying sack of shit is somehow less reprehensible than being a religious lying sack of shit?
Because that makes no sense to me whatsoever.
Actually if you go back and read this post it was about hypocrisy but on your topic, so long as that "lying sack of shit" is not trying to take away my rights, yes that is less reprehensible to me than a religious liying sack of shit who uses their brand of superstition as a basis to take away my rights. If it's not to you then my guess is you must be male, white, straight and Christian therefore not part of a group that has felt discrimination first hand or you wouldn't question the difference between the two. Make sense now?
Criminy! You got one for four. You appear to be about as accurate as Hitchens.
Christopher Hitchens ... says what?
This is the man that claimed that Orthodox Jews "conduct congress" through a hole in their bed sheets. What could be more dishonest and self-humiliating than that? Worse, Hitchens doesn't even have the excuse misfiring in the heat of the moment under he gun from reporters ... Hitchens deliberated over his mock-worthy claim at leisure and STILL found it factually defensible. He even thought that it was worthy of being published in hundreds of thousands of his very own books!
He is at best intellectually sloppy. He has no credibility.
His claim to facts are crap. His judgement is worthless.
Does the Vice President cast the deciding vote in case of a tie?
popinjay: A vain, talkative person.
Thank you for expanding my vocabulary. (Nice choice, by the way.)
called Hitchens that when he was over here testifying at Norm Colman's hearing on food for oil or something like that.
George Galloway, Scotsman, is wickedly sharped tongue.
Hitchens should be ignored by all thinking people, hell even the brain dead.
That said, Hillary Clinton is a horrible choice for Secretary of State, as is Rahm Emanuel for any post in any gov't. Unless of course you support hardline free market neoliberals, rightwing zionists, liberal imperialists, and neocon politics in the Middle East.
Far better for Obama to have chosen Kerry or Richards. Hillary's position on the Middle East is appalling. Like Obama, she's totally in thrall to the AIPAC crowd and is a total warmonger when it comes to Iran and Pakistan. It's hilarious to watch Obama supporters think his gov't will make any substantive changes to decades of morally brankrupt, racist policies in the Middle East. Bush didn't invent them.
Was there some expectation that Hitchens has reformed? Why this fascination as if some other response was expected? So don't watch him!
I'm in complete agreement this Hitchens thread overlays the lousy stinking choices Obama is making for his team. Hillary's about as exciting as Condosleeza. Can't you just hear the enthusiasm overseas?
No really, listen very attentatively and you'll hear HEAVING SIGHS.
I swear to God Chris Hitchens IS Peter Fallow.
I remember that debate vividly. The "drink-soaked popinjay" line was one of the best I've ever heard. It will stick with me forever.
If Hillary takes the job, no doubt the media are going to rake Obama over the coals for it. In spite of the long stick up his ass, it is fair to question for Hitchens to ask, "why her?"
I think Hillary would be great in the SOS role and I trust in Obama's judgement. I also take comfort in knowing that it will piss off guys like Hitchens, Hannity, etc.
I'm positive that Bill Clinton isn't thrilled about having to disclose information about his private affairs. I understand there could be conflict of interest, but I think it's for the greater good of the country. I believe she'll take the position and be excellent at it :)
Granted, Hitchens is a bit of a lush, but even when stinking drunk, he is more witty and coherent than most pundits. As for his position on the Iraq war, I think he has been a critic of the war's management from day one, but supported it for its broader agenda which is to liberate the Middle East from theocratic dictatorships. His support for Obama was due to Obama's aggressive stance on Pakistan.
I would be careful about villanizing Hitchens, he has had a more profound impact on the progresive movement than most people realize or appreciate, and is helping to minimize the power of the religious right in this country.
Even the hackacular mouthpiece for The Dick, Judith Miller, wouldn't snitch off a source. This is wherein the vilification of Hitchens begins, his subsequent worsening behaviour in light of the [understandable] reaction of friends and colleagues sealed the ultimate fate of 'Drunk Boy' Hitchens.
His views changed because he was iced by his former pals for doing the last thing a real journalist would have ever done -- swearing out an affadavit against Sidney Blumenthal and calling him a liar.
Hitch the Snitch
On Edit: "A bit of a lush?" hahahaha. You must only hang with old alkies, if you think Hitch is just "a bit of a lush."
me-oww!
I thought that Saddam Hussein was a secularist dictator, a large reason why the attempt at an al Quaida fails.
Did I miss something?
A spade deserves to be called a spade. There are a great many individuals who are both intelligent and knowledgeable--take Ben Stein, for example--but whom are nonetheless dolts. Education doesn't make the man, and there are things you can't teach. Hitchens is a self-centred, immature dickhead. He can't help but resort to offering glib low-blows and unfair generalizations in almost every public conversation he has. I am an atheist myself and I'll take a Richard Dawkins over a hateful bully like Christopher Hitchens any day of the week. For one, Dawkins doesn't hate women -- and while he'd deny it, Hitchens is one of the most misogynistic, hedonistic men in town.
I really wish the Hillary Wars could be consigned to history, but apparently not yet.
The claim that "otherwise smart" liberals only "hate" Hillary because they are stupidly swallowing right wing talking points is horse$#%&.
The fact is, there are plenty of reasons, liberal reasons, to not trust Hillary Clinton and to believe she is self-serving, ambitious, a back stabber, and a far too conservative choice for State:
"He's not a Muslim - as far as I know.";
"Hard working Americans - white Americans.";
Guilt by association (Rev. Wright, Bill Ayers);
"[O]bliterate Iran.";
Kyl-Lieberman;
Shameless nepotism;
and on and on and on - We know the list.
Hillary Clinton was not being faulted for running "a bare-knuckled" campaign. She was faulted for running a slimy campaign. Moreover, she continued that slimy campaign for months after it was clear she had lost. She poured tens of millions into attacking Obama as the race continued inexorably to an Obama victory exactly as all the experts - including her own - had predicted.
Sorry, there is no "stupid liberal swallowing conservative talking points" problem here. There is certainly no "misogyny" problem either. Although it is getting more difficult to tell: with the Clinton and Palin campaigns, "misogyny" has too often become nothing more than a vicious insult to casually and categorically toss at those who disagree with you. It certainly does not apply when justly criticizing Clinton's dishonest, below-the-belt campaign tactics that were roundly and identically criticized when later employed by John McCain.
Taking a look at those who eagerly embrace this nomination (Henry Kissenger, The Weekly Standard's Michael Goldfarb, and Sen. John Kyl for example), perhaps those suspicious of Sen. Clinton are not the ones holding empty Koolaid cups.
I, for one, would dearly love a truce: stop calling us right wing dupes with an irrational hatred of women and we'll stop pointing out just how foolish it is to trust anyone who would lie about ducking sniper fire with their teenage daughter.
Oh, and &*$% Christopher Hitchens.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
"Moreover, she continued that slimy campaign for months after it was clear she had lost."
What do you suppose is wrong with this woman that she didn't remember the misogyny rule that if you are a woman and you are winning you are really losing because the menz say so.
You forget the "inevitable" Hillary campaign which began with heavy advantages in money, political machinery, and name recognition. That the Clinton version of the Keystone Cops bankrupted the campaign, both morally and financially, has nothing to do with Hillary's gender or the irrational hatred thereof. Nor does the fact that she lost early on.
After Super Tuesday Hillary was told the campaign had lost, not because she was a woman, but because she was too far behind to have realistic chance of winning. She needed to win very large in the remaining primaries - not 51-49% or even 60-40%. Hillary needed absurd numbers like 75-25% which were statistically next to impossible. Yet knowing this, Hillary moved into her "kitchen sink" mode relentlessly attacking Obama and doing McCain's work for him. The election played out as predicted, with Hillary taking "wins" in the more bigoted parts of the country - but never by enough margin to affect the predictions.
That's my logic, and I feel it is the more reasonable argument. Hillary didn't lose because of misogyny; she just lost - poorly.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Wow, and it's pretty bad that she hang in there despite bad news and bad odds. Did you feel the same way about Gore and the entire Florida fiasco? Get over your hatred for the Clintons, they have done more to help this country and for that matter to reunite the democratic party and voters backing Obama than you can ever start dreaming of.
Right. I'm sure you'd argue that Christopher Hitchens and Chris Matthews aren't misogynistic in the least. When FOX News pundits were making comments about her "shrill" voice reminding them of a nagging housewife, it was entirely fair. Or when they suggested that when the going gets tough, she runs and 'hides behind the apron strings.' I could go on and on, because repeatedly throughout the primary season, commentators were quick to paint Hillary Clinton as an 'ice queen,' 'ambitious,' ad infinitum. Gore and Kerry weren't terribly charismatic when they independently ran against George Bush, and yet, we didn't accuse them of being secretly evil, either.
But if a woman shows interest in furthering her career, she is ambitious. Who cares if Obama is President of the US? He can't be all that ambitious, because he's so charming! Give me a friggin' break. Toss aside the cultural narrative for a moment, taking a few things into account.
For example, she campaigned long and hard to get President Barack Obama elected -- harder than any other runner-up in the history of the United States, in fact! During these tours across the nation, Bill and Hillary Clinton made unequivocal arguments in favour of Barack Obama. But, hey, who needs thousands of pro-Obama words when you can use a couple of snippets removed from context in order to imply that Clinton is a racist who wants people to think that Obama is a Muslim? Moreover, who cares if this woman has dedicated a whole life to political service when you can think of a couple of choices she made in the past you disagreed with? Out with the bathwater, you say! Well, I guess that's what we'll have to do!
I won't argue that she ran a dirty campaign; in fact, no one is arguing that! You aren't clever for your conclusions. The difference happens to be that most of us have moved past them because history marches forward regardless of what Clinton did during the primaries that you disliked.
Oh, and Henry Kissinger is a pragmatist who has is in favour of peaceful talks with Iran, which he thinks would be rather successful in the long run. Does this mean said talks are a terrible, terrible idea? If Hitchens is against Clinton being Secretary of State, is it then a good idea? In short, parading names as if to show that your position is anything more than sour grapes is silly.
Are you forgetting who won?
And why? A big part was Iraq and the Middle East. I see potential problems with Clinton's irresponsible stances and rhetoric in the area. I'm hopeful Obama's international prestige can smooth over some of these problems, but meeting with a foreign diplomat whose country you have threatened to "obliterate" could be... umm... awkward.
I have no problem accepting and marching on with history. Especially since recent history has demonstrated significant progressive successes - and not just in the Congress and over McCain.
The defeat of the Clintons in the primary was a great liberal victory. This defeat of a heavily corporate DLC candidate was achieved by hard working, dedicated, highly informed, progressives. To label these efforts as merely the results of misogynistic right wing dupes is inaccurate, unfair, and the epitome of sour grape whining.
Words I never used and arguments I never made:
But hey, you decided to go there, so somehow I'm a misogynist.
But since you did go there: in what context was falsely claiming to have endured gunfire with her child in the service of her country not a shameless lie? How is her credibility in any way viable? To anyone?
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Posturing is posturing, and while what Clinton said about Iran made me cringe, so did Obama's remarks in Israel. On that note, I was once complaining about Obama's posturing on the matter of war and Afghanistan, and I was reminded that it is just something that Obama has to do if he can be elected. The way it was put to me was, 'A presidential nominee has to promise to blow up something!'
Furthermore, did I accuse you of saying what you quoted from my post? No. You're simply being defensive. What I was doing was offering a little historical perspective for you, since it was you who threw down a preemptive rebuttal to accusations of misogony when you said: "Although it is getting more difficult to tell: with the Clinton and Palin campaigns, 'misogyny' has too often become nothing more than a vicious insult to casually and categorically toss at those who disagree with you."
This statement implies that those who have been speaking out against misogyny are doing so as a tactic and not because they are able to pinpoint actual examples of sexist behaviour from Clinton or Palin critics. If that's not what you meant to imply with your snide non-sequitur, you ought to be a little more careful with your words in the future.
When you begin your post with:
you are putting words in my mouth, and it's not "[my] simply being defensive."
As for any "implication" of mine that accusations of misogyny have been made for tactical rather than genuine reasons, please accept my apology as I did not mean to imply it - I meant to state it flat out (and thought that I had).
Specifically, I reject the accusation that criticizing Hillary's campaign is misogynistic criticism for behavior which would have been acceptable from a man. I also explicitly reject that Hillary was being criticized for running a "bare knuckled campaign" as a blatant misstatement of the criticism.
Hillary was criticized for running a slimy, "kitchen sink" campaign based on personal attacks, guilt by association, and occasionally, out-and-out race baiting. John McCain later employed similar tactics and was similarly criticized. Neither Hillary nor John were being criticized based on their gender, they were being criticized for being a slime balls.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
atheism a bad name.
Thanks, Hitch, for believing in fictions totally unsubstantiated by fact.
Go get religion, I want no association with you.
The Bosnia sniper-fire
liegaffe was pretty fucking bad.[Not the topic here though, is it? Sitemonitor]
Hitchens said it, and I'm saying it's a valid criticism.
That doesn't mean that all his criticisms were valid, but surely we can be a bit less binary about reality, no?
hitchens is voicing concerns based on factual history. that cannot be ignored.
Some stuff you can't make up!
You know what your talking about and appear to be mature in thought as well. Thanks
Study the symptoms not the virus...
Surely there's a makeup person on staff at msnbc.com?
Hitchens may like the "bad boy" image, but, he's no longer a boy and Christ! He looks awful!
What's that nonsense on top of his glittering head, surely not hair?
But - he has an English accent.
So - he gets asked his opinion.
One of his opinions was particularly brilliant, I thought.
During the run-up to the war in Iraq, Hitchens was confronted with facts that would lead a rational person to conclude that it was to be a war for oil.
Hitchens responded, and I quote, "What's wrong with war for oil?"
Gee. I dunno.
Thank you, I'll be looking forward to your link...
Study the symptoms not the virus...
1. Hillary Clinton played the "race card" on Obama?
Michelle Obama played the first and bigget "race card" in modern presidential politics in February, 2007 when she told a national audience in an MSNBC interview that "black America" will shift their support from Clinton to her husband as soon as they "wake up and get it".
2. "Bosnia fabrication", "Bosnia farce"?
The only misspeak Clinton made about what really happened 12 years ago with regard to landing under sniper fire in Bosnia (she NEVER said she deplaned into sniper fire, ducked and dodged bullets on the tarmac, etc., although mainstream media showed videos of her deplaning onto the tarmac as though that video proved she lied) was when she said "...and that's what we did" in response to what she had been told by the military about her plane landing under sniper fire and what she SHOULD do when she deplaned.
She merely forgot that on that particular leg of the trip 12 years ago (there were other side flights inside Bosnia to more dangerous warzones on that trip that Clinton took but Sinbad did not, btw) she couldn't do exactly what the military had told her to do after deplaning onto the tarmac ("duck, keep your head down and go directly to the vehicles") because there was a small, casual group there to meet her...but not a "greeting ceremony". The real "greeting ceremony" had been moved indoors for the sake of saftey. None of that was a lie, a fabrication or a farce.
Do a YouTube search on Former Secretary of the Army Togo West confirming Hillary Clinton's account of Bosnia and CBS News 1996 Report on Hillary Clinton's trip to Bosnia. Not the 2008 hit job of Clinton CBS, but the actual contemporaneous report by that same reporter on CBS back in 1996.
Hitchens is a hopeless liar.
that confirms her account.
Corruption favors the wealthy.
Hitchens admiration for the war was simply to destroy the the Fundies over in camel land before they fly another airplane into your children's school as part of their "Holy War". Just as he wants to stop the Fundies here, who blow up abortion clinics.
The sheep that are ordered how to live by a story book can't handle the truth and it's understandable, who likes to be wrong.
Go suck down some more wine you bigots
Study the symptoms not the virus...
He got knocked down in the spring for his constant, psycho trashing of Hillary from months before she declared. (Go back and watch the video tape.) So he promised to be a good guy. Now he just asks on people who will parrot his insanity about Hillary and he hides behind that.
Look, I did support Hillary, but I think the right person won. Hillary wasn't as much of a leader as Barack. She couldn't even keep discipline within her campaign. No, I don't think she would have won except for sexism, because she was beaten from a few angles. But the trivial, psycho sex-baiting practiced by Matthews et al should be banished from our dialogue. It's insufferably stupid.
Hillary for State!
Bare knuckled my ass. Clinton isn't being knocked for running a "bare-knuckled campaign", she's being faulted for lying about Barack Obama. Obama didn't do this to her. Sorry, she ran the same kind of primary campaign, only a little less strong, than McCain ran in the general. Let's drop partisan excuses and speak the truth. Clinton lost because Democrats (enough of them) have some standards.
No Signs of Change in Obama's Middle East Policies
The Irresponsibility of Appointing Hillary Clinton Secretary of State
By BILL and KATHLEEN CHRISTISON
In 2005 Hillary Clinton stood in Palestine and praised the apartheid wall that the government of Israel was building with large amounts of U.S. aid in furtherance of the Zionist goal of destroying one of the world’s peoples -- the Palestinians. This is the wall that the United Nations’ World Court has declared contrary to international law. And this is just one example of Hillary Clinton’s total support for all of Israel’s policies to oppress and eventually expel whatever elements of the Palestinian population remain west of the Jordan River..........
ENTIRE ARTICLE - http://www.counterpunch.org/christison1118200...
PS. Senator Russ Feingold for Chairman of the U.S. Senate Committee on Foreign Relations (replacing Biden)
Please puncture this trial baloon
by Jerimiah Haber (nom de plume) @ "The Manges Zionist"
The Washington Post and other media outlets suggest that the Obama transition team is considering Hillary Clinton Secretary of State. The Chicago Tribune reports that the Obama transition team will not confirm this.
If Hillary became Secretary of State, it would be a disaster for the Palestinians, hence, for the Israelis.
Let's be clear: Hillary Clinton is virtually a Jewish senator; ever since moving to New York she has kow-towed entirely to her Jewish constituency.......
ENTIRE POST- http://themagneszionist.blogspot.com/2008/11/...
Here is a video of the Sec. of the Army confirming that Hillary Clinton was told on the plane to “run, duck” and more because Bosnia was a "hot zone, a serious zone, a combat zone”, but that Sinbad probably would not have been told what Clinton was told about the danger (approx. 3:45 minutes long):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jB97_FMYVC4
Here is a video of the 1996 CBS News report by the same CBS reporter who supposedly "outed" Hillary Clinton on her recent claims (note Clinton's Black Hawk helicopter arrival in the opening shot as opposed to the only landing we saw of the initial fixed wing aircraft landing in the recent media hit job. Why didn’t we see videos of any Black Hawk helicopter landings in the recent flap, not one?). For security reasons, Sinbad would not have accompanied Clinton on these more dangerous legs of the trip (approx. 1:45 minutes long).
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pef5AUt-tic
Here are a couple of contemporaneous print reports of Hillary Clinton's Bosnia trip stating that sharpshooters were utilized for protection in a military zone:
[[Hillary’s trip to Bosnia marked the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt that a first lady traveled to a potential combat zone. Accompanied by singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, Mrs. Clinton traveled to this northwestern Bosnian town on a morale-boosting tour for the 18,500 U.S. troops participating in the NATO-led peacemaking operation. She heard a poem of peace from a Bosnian girl and praised U.S. troops for 'showing what American leadership is.'…This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone. During World War II, Roosevelt toured the devastated streets of London and the southwestern Pacific, bringing cheer to U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 3/26/96]
Hillary was 'protected by sharpshooters' in a 'military zone' when she visited troops in Bosnia. "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal 'thank you, thank you, thank you' to U.S. troops. 'They're making a difference,' the first lady said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others have visited hot spots…" [Charleston Gazette, 3/26/96]]]
Here is a statement from a U.S. Ambassador under Bush and Clinton who was on the Bosnia trip confirming the dangers of that trip and that his recollection was that the larger "greeting ceremony" was indeed moved indoors due to security concerns:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/news/2008/03/clinton...
Comments are closed on this entry