Clinton’s a veteran child-advocate

For more than 35 years, the private nonprofit Children’s Defense Fund has worked to ensure a healthy, fair, safe and moral start in life for every child. From her days as staff attorney for the CDF, Hillary Clinton has worked as an advocate for greater opportunities for all children.

As an educator for most of my life, I have been impressed over and over with Hillary’s understanding of the needs of educators and the children so easily overlooked and shortchanged! I do believe that when the dust settles and she is our commander-in-chief, she will bring our country back to the very thing that will make the most difference in strengthening America—quality education for all of our children.

— Bonnie Habel
Asheville

SHARE
About Webmaster
Mountain Xpress Webmaster Follow me @MXWebTeam

Before you comment

The comments section is here to provide a platform for civil dialogue on the issues we face together as a local community. Xpress is committed to offering this platform for all voices, but when the tone of the discussion gets nasty or strays off topic, we believe many people choose not to participate. Xpress editors are determined to moderate comments to ensure a constructive interchange is maintained. All comments judged not to be in keeping with the spirit of civil discourse will be removed and repeat violators will be banned. See here for our terms of service. Thank you for being part of this effort to promote respectful discussion.

46 thoughts on “Clinton’s a veteran child-advocate

  1. entopticon

    This letter is confounding in light of the Clintons’ constant bashing of educated people throughout this campaign. It is a fact that educated people overwhelmingly favor Obama.

    Hillary has done good things for children, but her record is far from spotless. In 1975, Hillary got a man off for brutally raping a 12 year old girl by attacking the character of the girl.

    Hillary argued that the 12 year old had a thing for older men and was asking for it. The girl was devastated by the trial and tried to kill herself not long after. To this day, she says that Hillary’s attack on her was unfounded.

    Personally, I understand that everyone deserves a legitimate defense, but I don’t think it is ever OK to argue that a 12 year old girl was asking to be raped.

    I think Hillary carried the same ruthless disregard for the welfare of young women when she repeatedly attacked the character of the women that her husband harassed, even after he was convicted of lying under oath in a court of law about his infidelities.

    The only message that sends to young girls is don’t report sexual harassment or the boss’s wife will drag your name through the mud and destroy your career.

  2. travelah

    entopticon, do you have a reference for this case? Additionally, are you advocating that a defense attorney not do everything they can on behalf of their client to establish reasonable doubt?

  3. bobaloo

    It is a fact that educated people overwhelmingly favor Obama.

    There’s your elitism right there, buddy.

    As for the rest of your post: Rovian, Rovian, Rovian.

  4. entopticon

    travelah, there are numerous articles on the subject that I am sure you can easily find on a google search. Here is the first one I pulled up on a quick google search:
    http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

    Yes, I am advocating that it is not reasonable for a defense attorney to attack the character of a 12 year old girl by saying that she had a thing for older men etc.

    Everyone has the right to a competent defense, not an unethical defense.

  5. entopticon

    bobaloo… you can say Rovian till you turn blue in the face, and it won’t make it any truer. This story is true.

    For it to be Rovian, I would have had to have made it up, or have suggested that she played some role in it that she didn’t. There is just no way to reasonably argue that sharing the facts is Rovian on my behalf.

    It is bizarrely hilarious for you to say that it is elitist to point to the incontrovertible fact that educated people overwhelmingly favor Obama. It is not an opinion. It is an unassailable fact.

  6. bobaloo

    Rovian also means repeating a piece of negative propaganda, such as Obama’s extensive connections to his mentor (who he promptly threw under the bus once he made an a$$ of himself), until you’re blue in the face.
    Such as: Hillary is an enemy of feminists and a bad example for women.

    I would love to have known known how you felt about President Clinton before this election cycle. Were you a big supporter of the impeachment proceedings? Did you cheer on Ken Starr’s investigation?
    I bet not. Not till it’s politically convenient for you, anyway.

    As for elitist, the base of your claim suggests that McCain and Clinton are supported by the uneducated. Essentially, if your not supporting Obama, it’s because you’re too ignorant.
    That comes across as elitist.

  7. entopticon

    Wow bobaloo, that was an exceptionally poorly argued point.

    Yes, it would be Rovian if I just said that Hillary was a poor role model for women without backing it up with concrete examples.

    The problem is, I provided examples, and very compelling ones at that. It is cheap and ridiculous for you to call any attack Rovian.

    It is bordering on despicable of you to say that anyone who has a problem with a person assassinating the character of sexual harassment victims is Rovian.

    To answer your question, I never liked Bill Clinton. The only major legislation that he managed to pass was originally right wing extremist legislation such as NAFTA, free trade with China, Don’t Ask Don’t Tell, and welfare reform.

    Yes, I had a problem with Ken Starr’s investigation, but I also had a problem with a President of the United States lying under oath in a court of law.

    Your claim that I said that Clinton and McCain’s supporters are “the uneducated” was flat out disingenuous. What I said was that educated people overwhelmingly favor Obama, which is an incontrovertible fact. It is a shame to see how Hillary supporters such as you constantly manipulate the facts.

    Hillary saying “Screw ’em” when asked what to do about declining support from working class Southerners was elitist. My contention that educated people overwhelmingly favor Obama is an icontrovertible fact and there was nothing elitist about it whatsoever.

  8. bobaloo

    Here’s why it’s dishonest entop:
    He was never found guilty of sexual harassment, yet over and over you’ve alluded that he was. No guilty verdict, no victims. You’re using right wing propaganda for your arguments. I’m not calling any attacks “Rovian”, just yours.

    Good Lord man, the “screw em” thing carries no weight whatsoever with anyone besides the most ardent Obama supporter as a deflection to Obama’s statements about religion, guns, xenophobia and racism being a symptom of the economics of the middle class.

    Manipulating facts indeed.

    I’m not a Clinton supporter either. They’re all lame ducks. It’s a forgone conclusion that Obama is the nominee (it’s dishonest of anyone to say otherwise) and, more than likely, I’ll support him once it’s official.
    If it’s Hillary, will you do the same?

  9. entopticon

    The difference is that I believe his many accusers over him, especially in light of the fact that he was caught lying under oath in a court of law about his infidelities. Siding with his victims does not make me Rovian, and it is pretty sick for you to suggest that it does.

    You can say that the “screw ’em” comment doesn’t carry weight with anyone, but the fact is that it was vastly underreported in the mainstream media. If the news gave even a tenth as much attention to it as they did Obama’s “bitter” remarks, many people would have been shocked and it definitely would have had a strong effect.

    If you think that that wasn’t an elitist thing to say, you are being extremely intellectually dishonest. Her statement about what to do about fading support from working class Southerners: “You don’t owe them a thing, Bill. They’re doing nothing for you; you don’t have to do anything for them,” was a heck of a lot worse than anything Obama ever said.

    If Hillary pulled off a miracle and won every single remaining contest by astronomical margins in order to win the contest fair and square, I might support her.

    I am deeply concerned about the fact that her healthcare proposal would have the same effect it did last time; it would set the cause back another 15 years.

    I am also concerned that as Michael Moore stated, she has been fanning the flames of racism by exploiting Wright, Ayers, and Farrakhan.

    I am also deeply concerned that the immense animosity that she has built up with Islamic people and Russians, would guarantee a great deal of terror and warmongering.

    I am also deeply concerned that the fact that she has taken more money from arms dealers than all the other candidates from both parties combined, would guarantee that her military policies would reflect the fact that she is hopelessly in their pockets for the rest of her political career.

    They didn’t give her all of that money out of the kindness of their hearts. She didn’t earmark more money for arms dealers than all of the other candidates from both parties combined out of the kindness of her heart.

    Frankly, I think she would be a nightmare.

  10. travelah

    entop, I wrongly assumed you were familiar with the legal case itself. Based on the various opinions expressed in the article you provide, Hillary performed her role as defense attorney as expected.

  11. bobaloo

    The difference is that I believe his many accusers over him, especially in light of the fact that he was caught lying under oath in a court of law about his infidelities. Siding with his victims does not make me Rovian, and it is pretty sick for you to suggest that it does.

    Well at least you finally admitted it.
    Personally, I think it’s pretty sick for someone to vilify Hillary Clinton based on accusations (directed at her husband) that have no proof. Even the courts ruled Paula Jones had no case.

    She (allegedly) said “screw ’em” 13 years ago when she was pissed over the Congressional elections in a back room with advisers.
    What does it illustrate to me? It shows she can be emotional and petty. Duh. That’s about it.
    What does it illustrate for you? Well, if Obama hadn’t been excoriated for a much more specific, intentional and (to me) offensive remark, it wouldn’t register at all to you.
    Now it’s just the best defense you can come up with to deflect Obama’s statement without having to actually argue the merits of it.

    Don’t like the term Rovian? Quit throwing it all over Clinton. She’s a politician and she’ll take what she can get, just like any other politician.

    The rest of your comment I won’t argue, because mostly they are relevant concerns, depending on your priorities.

  12. entopticon

    I finally admitted it? Admitted what? I wasn’t aware that I was hiding something. If you think random people just happen to be constantly accused of sexual harassment in the work place, I have a bridge to sell you.

    I don’t mind the term Rovian, but like any term it should be used correctly, and you clearly just don’t get it. Seriously, you should start by trying to read up on the subject a bit before you take such a bold stance that you obviously know very little about.

    A good place to start might be with James Moore’s books, Bush’s Brain, and the Architect: Karl Rove and the Master Plan for Absolute Power. Moore is widely considered to be the world’s leading scholar on Rovian tactics. In Moore’s own words about Rove and Hillary, “sadly, the similarities are so brutally obvious as to be disturbing.”

    Any criticism is not automatically Rovian, as you consistently paint it. Hillary’s guilt by association tactics are a good example of a classic Rovian tactic.

    As evidenced above, I have the world’s leading scholar on Rovian tactics strongly agreeing with me, which might be a good sign that I have a point when I say that Hillary
    s tactics are Rovian. I don’t just throw the term around like you do.

  13. bobaloo

    Well, at least I know the true definition of “Rovian”.
    I’m not going to be pedantic on the the term. How about “mud slinging”?
    As in: “Slandering Clinton over unproven allegations is mud slinging.”

    In any case, I was using (or abusing) the term because you’ve been so casual in it’s use towards Clinton.

  14. entopticon

    Again, it seems ludicrous to say that I am casual or misplaced in my characterization of Hillary as Rovian, when the world’s foremost expert on Rovian tactics argues the same. If the world’s foremost expert on the subject claims that she is Rovian, it is pretty safe to say that my usage of the term for her is completely appropriate.

    Here is a brief article where Moore is describing Hillary’s Rovian tactics: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/jim-moore/colorcoded-hillary-alert_b_91035.html

    If any of the women involved were your sister, or your daughter, you might not feel that it is slanderous to question Bill Clinton’s actions or Hillary’s attacks on his alleged victims.

    I think there is a pattern, and I am inclined to believe the victims, even if they weren’t able to win in court. You can believe whatever you want, but it is not fair for you to say that it is mud slinging if I am inclined to agree with the women.

    I think most feminists are inclined to side with the victims, especially when there is such a long history. It’s a very hard thing to prove in court, especially against someone with the resources of a sitting governor and President, but that doesn’t mean nothing happened.

    Siding with the victims doesn’t make me a mud slinger.

    If you need another concrete example of why Hillary is a poor role model for women, consider the fact that while other politicians returned campaign contributions to International Profit Associates in light of their involvement in one of the biggest sexual harassment suits in history, Hillary refused to give the money they gave her back.

  15. entopticon

    New evidence of the Clinton campaign’s Rovian tactics was reported today. Sydney Blumenthal, a high-level aide from the Clinton administration has been disseminating right wing guilt by association articles for months.

    According to the article on the Huffington Post: “now acting as a senior campaign advisor to Senator Clinton, Blumenthal is exploiting that same right-wing network to attack and discredit Barack Obama. And he’s not hesitating to use the same sort of guilt-by-association tactics that have been the hallmark of the political right dating back to the McCarthy era.”

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/peter-dreier/sidney-blumenthal-uses-fo_b_99695.html

  16. spartan

    bobo-I was a big Hillary supporter until I have seen how she behaved over the last year. And furthermore, I am amazed that the same Dittoheads who were loathe to repeat her name a year ago, are now her biggest supporters on the MX blogs.

    The Dittoheads want hillary in power, not the Democratic party.

  17. I’m not a parent, and don’t generally follow education issues as closely as parents or teachers might, but I really like Obama’s message reported yesterday in the Wall Street Journal (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120960254267657915.html). Here’s just a little excerpt — read the whole article:
    *****
    “If you’re a parent, you’ve got to turn off the TV set. Make sure your child is doing their homework…. Have a curfew so your child’s not out all hours of the night,” he says, before delivering a line that often gets the crowds roaring: “If your child misbehaves in school, don’t curse out the teacher.”

    Leandra Roche, a 31-year-old cosmetologist in Gary, Ind., attributed the enthusiastic response to people not hearing Sen. Obama’s message loud enough from leaders in their communities. “When he says, on one hand, the government will help you, but on the other hand, you have to help yourself…that’s how we feel,” she says.
    *****

    Additionally, as an Iraq war veteran who has actually BEEN under direct fire in a combat zone, I cringe at Ms. Habel’s prediction that Sen. Clinton will eventually be our commander-in-chief. It rightly offends me, and every other military member, that a contender for our nation’s highest office would blatantly make up stories for the cameras, thereby cheapening our very real sacrifice on the battlefield.

    ~~SSG Cheryl Kopec, Pierce County Veterans for Obama

  18. NC Granny

    LuckyCharm-

    Thank you sincerely for your service. You’re rightly offended by Hillary’s lies. And we all should cringe at the thought of her leading our military. What a Bush-type egomaniachal blow-hard she’s proven to be.

  19. bobaloo

    spartan,
    I’m not a big Hillary supporter. As a matter of fact I think it’s in the interest of the Democratic party if she were to drop out.

    My arguments are purely out of fairness, as I think it’s despicable to say she’s a bad example for women based on unproven allegations aimed at her husband.

    Unproven allegations that the Right has been playing up for years.

    Even entop agrees that the allegations are unproven, but forges on none the less with the attacks on her character.
    It’s not very difficult to find other valid criticisms of Clinton, but this one seems too easy for entop to pass up.

  20. bobaloo

    The Dittoheads want hillary in power, not the Democratic party.

    I’ll point out that the last thing Conservatives want is her in power. They want her to be in the general election, as they view her as much easier to beat.
    That’s the point of “Operation Chaos”.

  21. travelah

    bobaloo, you actually have this backwards. Most conservatives view Hillary as the more formidable candidate which is why we would prefer to see Obama lead your ticket. Policy wise, there is little difference between the two. Rush’s mythical “operation chaos” is nothing but hype looking to see the Democrats go into their convention with as much chaos as possible and so far the hype has a lot of Democrats worried about their convention.

  22. entopticon

    bobaloo, I don’t base my entire criticism of Hillary on her role in Bill’s sex scandals. Not even close. If it were a conservative, Obama, or even Dennis Kucinich, I would still be seriously concerned about a pattern of allegations of sexual harassment in the work place spanning decades.

    What disturbs me about Hillary is not the fact that her husband was constantly hitting on staffers for decades. It was the times that she actively participated in the character assassination of his accusers.

    Even if the allegations hadn’t been true, that still sends the message to young women that if you report sexual harassment in the work place, the boss’s wife will drag your name through the mud and destroy your career.

    I see a clear pattern of character assassination in her political career, and it is very disturbing. In 1993, when Hillary was crafting her healthcare plan she met with Democratic congressman Jim Cooper, widely considered to be one of the nicest, most thoughtful people in congress, who had been working on healthcare reform for some time.

    Cooper’s healthcare plan was more bipartisan because he wanted to get it passed so that people could actually benefit from it. Hillary saw his plan as a threat and set out to destroy Cooper’s reputation. This NY Times article about it is worth checking out:
    http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/05/opinion/05brooks.html?scp=1&sq=david%20brooks%20jim%20cooper&st=cse

  23. bobaloo

    entop, I didn’t say your entire criticism was based on that, did I?

    But then you go ahead and use the same slanderous accusations anyway with no actual proof.

    You’re never gonna get it, so I suggest a stalemate on this particular argument.

  24. bobaloo

    travelah,
    Not according to most of the conservative pundits I read.
    You really think Obama will be the easier to beat? Obama, I predict and the polls agree with me, can out-charisma McCain pretty handily.
    Hillary has got so much baggage, real or imlplied, that I believe her to be an easier target.

    We’ll see.

    By the way, neither of these is my candidate of choice.

  25. travelah

    bobaloo, I see both candidates with heavy baggage but if I could determine the ticket, it would be Obama and not because I support him, obviously. He lacks the character and good judgement to be an effective President. Additionally, he is not a coalition builder. Quite the opposite, his voting record is 100% to the left and there is nothing in his past minimal record to suggest he can forge the coalitions needed to govern this country. Now, I realize that leftists and liberals in general are not going to heed whatever I have to say about him but I will state this. If Obama is the head of the Democrats ticket and wins, he will be a one term President much like Carter and bring ruin to his party. He is not savey like Clinton and he is beholden to leftist elements that cannot govern from the center.
    I do not believe he is going to be elected and I will do everything I can to work against him. Personally I think Clinton can be elected although it looks like her party is committing suicide by allowing the leftists to dominate.

    If not one of these three, who would be your candidate?

  26. entopticon

    bobaloo, no offense, but I think you are the one who doesn’t get it. I get it perfectly well. As someone who has studied feminist issues at the graduate level, I am well aware of the fact that allegations of sexual harassment are very serious whether they were proven or not, because the vast majority can’t be proven. A pattern, spanning decades should be taken very seriously whether you like it or not. Most any serious feminist would.

    Whether or not the allegations about Bill were true, I am not making slanderous accusations about Hillary. It is well documented that Hillary participated in the character assassination of Bill’s accusers. Even if they were all lying, that still sends a terrible message to women.

    I don’t think they were lying. Bill Clinton was accused of lying under oath in a court of law about his infidelities. When you lie under oath, particularly in a court of law, that makes you untrustable.

    If you choose to believe someone who has been convicted of lying under oath over the women who have accused him of inappropriate behavior, that’s your business, but don’t tell me that that makes me slanderous, because it doesn’t. It makes me honest.

  27. Angela Becker

    Hillary does care about children and working families. Obama is an elitist who only appeals to the limosine liberal elites, idealist college students who lack the life experience to make an informed decision, and those who want to tear down this country and turn it into another Cuba.

  28. William P Miller

    Traveler, I support Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton because she will easily beat John McCain, the war monger.Senator Barack Hussein Obama will be easy for McCain to beat. We need a democrat in the white house more than ever to stop this war and give us health care. I’m voting for the winner, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton!

  29. travelah

    William, according to most polls, there would be nothing easy about Clinton beating McCain but to be fair, it is much too early to make such predictions. As for McCain being a war monger, I think that is an unfair characterization coming from the Clinton camp given she voted to authorize the war in the first place and has voted to fund it ever since. However, compared to Obama, it is reasonable for Republicans to have Obama win the nomination because he is indeed an easier target given the questionable judgment and character he brings to the table after this Rev. Wright fiasco.
    As for health care, neither she or Obama is going to do anything substantial in that regard. McCain had an excellent idea the other day. He proposed a $5,000 tax credit for health care but I do not know the details yet. That would purchase catastrophic coverage for any family.

    Isn’t chaos fun?

  30. entopticon

    Angela Becker, do you have any idea how ludicrously ridiculous everything that you said is?

    The Clintons both went to Ivy league Universities, as did the Obama’s. I did as well. The Clintons have more than 40 times the money that the Obamas do.

    The Obamas only finished paying their student loans off a couple of years ago, because as opposed to the Clintons, they worked their way through college.

    Even though he could have been making a huge salary, Barack Obama spent years working for $8k a year in the South side of Chicago working with out of work steel workers and the poor.

    Tear down this country and turn it into Cuba? Do you even know anything about Obama and Hillary’s policies whatsoever? Clearly not, because what you are saying is beyond ignorant.

    Hillary’s gas tax proposal is not only asinine according to every single leading economist, it is also more socialistic than anything Obama ever proposed.

    Hillary’s mandated health care program is far, far, more socialistic than Obama’s. That is why Republicans and many Democrats have already made it clear that her plan would stand absolutely no chance of making it through the legislature.

    The Clintons have taken far more limos than the Obamas could ever dream of. Just this year, Bill Clinton got $31 million for brokering a nuclear ore mining deal with the brutal dictator of Kazakhstan for a Canadian Billionaire.

    Bill also made $800k lobbying for the Columbian government, who have been complicit in the murders of hundreds of union leaders, for the trade deal that Hillary supposedly opposes.

    Your ludicrous aspersions aren’t backed up by the facts at all.

  31. entopticon

    William P Miller… Hillary is not going to be the winner unless she wins every single remaining contest by astronomical margins, which is not going to happen.

    After 16 years as the lightening rod of the far right, Hillary is the worst conceivable person to run against John McCain. The one and only thing that could reunite the currently fractured Republican party is Hillary Clinton.

    This race will be decided by who gets the most crossover votes. Hillary’s numbers with Independents and moderate conservatives are abysmal. John McCain’s are extremely strong, but Obamas are even stronger.

    The only person who can beat John McCain is Barack Obama, which is good, because he is undoubtedly going to be the nominee.

  32. Eli Cohen

    “T” “Operation Chaos”??? If you think that drug addled windbag (rush limbag) can actually do anything to change the outcome of this election, you are far more deluded than I thought. Why don’t you just pray to Jesus…I mean, son of god will take care of everything for you. Ol’ Jesus loves war profiteers and rich white people. He won’t let them take your guns away and you know how he feels about them tax collectors…ooooweeee start yo prayin’ “T” Say help me Jesus! Keep me safe from dem do good-er liberals…

  33. travelah

    entop, you are a propagandist. The person that wins the nomination will be the one that the super delagates give the nod to. Obama does not have enough support or delagates at this point to win the nomination either.

    The idea that Obama has more than extremely strong numbers of crossover votes is a ludicrous statement. Obama is a leftist who has not demonstrated any ability to govern from the center and as such he cannot win a national election. But, I am hoping he makes it to the top of your ticket. :)

    Big E, are the trucks on your bidge rattling your house again?

  34. NC Granny

    The Clintons will keep their “winners” charade going right up to the rope, no matter how hollow or destructive to the party, simply because the secret contributions to their “foundation” have tripled since she’s been running… all, undoubtedly, in anticipation of the Clinton’s further shafting of American workers and tax payers when they’re back in position to do so.

  35. entopticon

    As usual travelah, you are either severely ignorant or just plain lying. Actually, I am pretty sure it is both.

    The numbers don’t lie, but apparently you do. Obama gets strong support from Independents and Republicans, and that is an incontrovertible fact.

    Your denial of that is not only ludicrous, it is a flat-out lie.

    Obama has an extensive and undeniable history of cosponsoring significant bipartisan legislation including Obama-Luger and Obama-Coburn that have actually passed, so once again, you have been caught in a flat-out lie.

    It is pathetic how you constantly just make things up from your ignorant and biased impressions of how things are, rather than simply researching the facts first.

    You have no idea what a leftist is, but keep misusing it because it cracks me up every time.

  36. travelah

    entop, you are a leftist propagandist. Obama has voted a straight Democrat line since entering the Senate. Please identify the time he crossed his party line to build a coalition with Republicans. Don’t give me this trash you mentioned earlier. Those were Democrat initiatives. The fact remains Obama is a leftist who has no history of building bipartisan coalitions. That means he cannot govern form teh center and is an outside shot at winning the Presidency.
    Love the chaos.

  37. travelah

    NC Granny, you received a captial gains tax cut under Bill Clinton. What are you talking about?

  38. bobaloo

    Bill Clinton got $31 million for brokering a nuclear ore mining deal

    entop,
    To be fair, the $31 million was donated to the Clinton’s charity. As far as I know, he received no personal reimbursement.

  39. entopticon

    bobaloo, true, the money was donated to the Clinton Foundation. I haven’t heard it called a charity before, but that may be technically the case. Most of the things that I read say that it was for building the Clinton library. Either way, I’ll gladly start a foundation if you want to donate $31 million.

    My main point, aside from the fact that it was certainly a questionable use of his position, the Clintons are hardly strangers to big money, so it is pretty ridiculous to call the Obamas elitists.

    Obama has been on food stamps. Hillary has not. It is despicable for her to pretend that all of a sudden she’s a whikey drinkin’, gun totin’ blue collar worker. If you saw Tom Tomorrow’s cartoon in this week’s Mountain XPress, it calls her and McCain out on their hypocrisy on the elitist issue very adeptly.

  40. entopticon

    travelah, do you huff gass while you are posting? Clearly you are talking out of your butt, but do you type with it too?

    I just gave you two solid examples of BIPARTISAN legislation that Obama has cosponsored with REPUBLICANS, and there many more where that came from.

    Simply go to http://thomas.loc.gov and see for yourself rather than constantly blathering on about something you clearly know virtually nothing about.

    Just because your mouth-breathing right wing extremist blowhards tell you that Obama doesn’t work across the aisle doesn’t make it true, because the facts are overwhelmingly against you, as usual.

  41. travelah

    entop, your hot air is growing cold. You provided examples of DEMOCRAT initiatives for which REPUBLICANS crossed the aisle and sought a coalition. Do you get anything right? Don’t worry, the campaign will still be in chaos after tomorrow. :)

  42. entopticon

    Operation chaos, which you are so fond of will fail. You think operation chaos is a Christian thing to do? Shame on you and your pathetic hypocrisy.

    Those were not Democratic initiatives, they were bipartisan. Keep making things if that makes you feel better, but you will lose in the end despite your cowardly campaign of disinformation.

  43. travelah

    You poor man, “operation chaos” is a myth, a radio chit chat toy. The chaos has been created by your own party and it’s terrible leadership choices.
    I don’t think you get it. I win regardless of who you put on your ticket but I’m hoping it’s Obama because there isn’t anybody else that will be as effective at destroying decades old Democrat coalitions as him.

  44. entopticon

    Seriously, could you be any more transparent? You spend all of your free time, day after day bashing Obama, trying to convince people not to vote for him because you secretly want him to be the nominee?

    That is ludicrously simple-minded, even for you. Not only are you a liar, you are a really, really bad liar.

  45. entopticon

    If there are any Democratic voters that remain undecided, you should see the story about the newly discovered footage of Hillary saying that she agreed with John McCain that we should stay in Iraq as long as it takes, even if that means 50 more years.

    Bad timing for her to be caught in the ultimate flip-flop. First, when her first lady records were released we found out that she had nothing to do with the SCHIP legislation that she constantly claims credit for.

    There was not one single SCHIP related meeting on her schedule, and Orin Hatch, one of the bill’s two main sponsors said she had nothing to do with it whatsoever. The other main sponsor, Ted Kennedy, has remained silent on the issue. Here is a link to the original article:
    http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2008/03/14/clinton_role_in_health_program_disputed/

    From the first lady records that were released, we also found out that her supposed opposition to NAFTA as first lady was a complete lie. The records showed that she convened over at least 3 pro-NAFTA strategy meetings, was the keynote speaker at a major NAFTA lobbying event, and worst of all, they showed that she fought environmental and union opposition to NAFTA.

    Her infamous “shame on you comment” was in reference to Obama’s claim that she had supported NAFTA as first lady. It turns out, the shame is all on Hillary.

    In the CBS news interview, Hillary said:

    “Senator McCain made the point earlier today, which I agree with, and that is, it’s not so much a question of time when it comes to American military presence for the average American; I include myself in this. But it is a question of casualties,” said Clinton. “We don’t want to see our young men and women dying and suffering these grievous injuries that so many of them have. We’ve been in South Korea for 50-plus years. We’ve been in Europe for 50-plus. We’re still in Okinawa with respect to protection there coming out of World War II.”

    Here is a link to the full article:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/05/05/clinton-in-2005-i-agree-w_n_100168.html

    For the only option with the honesty and integrity to effect real change, vote for Barack Obama today.

Leave a Reply

To leave a reply you may Login with your Mountain Xpress account, connect socially or enter your name and e-mail. Your e-mail address will not be published. All fields are required.