Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : DEMOCRATIC NIGHTMARE - 2008 CANDIDATES -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (546)	5/26/2007 3:27:50 PM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 654

rudy has duped many a person, including hannity who would rather see chavez elected before hillary. he has many of the liberal republicans fooled..... but...more on the clintonistas. Clintons' secret deal for power A new book claims the Clintons made a presidential job-sharing pact. Photo / Reuters Race for the White House Awakening ghosts of the past Bush's approval rate falls to 28 per cent: Newsweek Bill and Hillary Clinton drew up a secret plan 15 years ago under which each of them would occupy the White House for eight years, according to a new books about the leading Democratic presidential candidate. According to the book - dismissed by Hillary Clinton's aides - even before they were married the couple had formulated a plan to reinvent the Democratic Party and get to the White House. That blueprint was updated, after the 1992 election that Bill Clinton won, with the proposal that Hillary would run once her husband left office. The claim adds to the perception of the methodical, driven nature of the Clinton campaign for the presidency, a race in which Hillary is now her party's front-runner. With other allegations contained in a separate book, it also boosts a widely held belief in political circles that by the late 1980s the ClintonS' marriage had become little more than a mutually beneficial political arrangement. The claims, reported by the Washington Post, have been dismissed by Hillary's campaign team. Spokesman Howard Wolfson said: "The news here is that it took three reporters a decade to find no news. Two overwhelming Senate victories in the toughest media market in the country demonstrated that voters have put these issues behind them." Advertisement AdvertisementThe allegations are contained in two forthcoming books. A Woman in Charge, by former Watergate reporter Carl Bernstein, says that in 1989 the Clinton couple almost divorced as a result of his infidelity and desire to be with another woman. Hillary apparently refused to divorce him, telling her husband's then chief-of-staff: "There are worse things than infidelity." The second book, Her Way: The Hopes and Ambitions of Hillary Clinton, is written by two reporters for the New York Times. It claims, among other things, that during the 1992 presidential campaign, a team overseen by Hillary hired a private investigator to undermine Gennifer Flowers, a former Arkansas television reporter who claimed to have had a 12-year affair with Bill Clinton. Bernstein's book also portrays Hillary as going to great lengths to keep her husband's alleged infidelities secret. It claims when he was running for the presidency, two partners who had worked with her at the Rose Law Firm were hired to represent two other women claiming to have had affairs with her husband. It says the lawyers obtained signed statements from the women that they had never had sex with Mr Clinton. On one occasion Hillary was present when the women were questioned. The book also questions whether Hillary read the 2002 National Intelligence Estimate on Iraq before voting to authorise war - a vote that has caused her political problems. spokesman for Hillary told the newspaper that the aspiring President was "briefed multiple times by several members of the administration on their intelligence regarding Iraq, including being briefed on the NIE". The comment appeared to confirm Hillary had not personally read the document, which contained caveats from elements of the intelligence community who were less than certain as to whether Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. The book by the New York Times reporters quotes a former girlfriend of Bill Clinton, Marla Crider, as saying she had once seen a letter on his desk written by Hillary outlining the couple's long-term political plans. She says the couple referred to this as their "20-year project". Polls suggest Hillary is only part of the way to realising that plan. Most recent polls give her more than a 10-point advantage over her closed Democratic rival for the party's nomination, Senator Barack Obama. But pitched against Rudy Giuliani, the Republican front-runner, her fortunes appear much less clear. One poll in late February suggested former New York mayor Giuliani had a nine-point lead over the former First Lady nzherald.co.nz

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (546)	5/28/2007 11:07:30 AM
From: CYBERKEN	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 654

Welcome to the era of the Leninist gang-bang: Someone puts out a left wing ptopaganda concept (no matter hw absurd it is on its face): Walmart is bad for it's employees. Bush lied. Saddam had nothing to do with 911 and there were no WMD's. Katrina was "poorly handled" by the administration. Global warming is man-made. ...and the entire domestic enemy complex jumps on it and lights up like a Christmas tree. You hear the same phrases, even the exact same WORDS, repeated over and over in every corner of the media until the idiot populists pick it up as something "everybody KNOWS", and Orpahamerica is too overwhelmed to be skeptical. It worked for Goebbels, Lenin, Carville, and so many others of their ilk. And we never seem to learn...

To: Tadsamillionaire who wrote (546)	5/29/2007 8:05:29 AM
From: PROLIFE	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 654

WashPost: Stephanopoulos Said Hillary Engaged In 'Jesuitical Lying' on Travelgate The Washington Post took a second bite out of the forthcoming MSM-originating Hillary Clinton biographies on Sunday, in an article titled "Unflattering Books Cause Barely A Ripple." Reporters Dan Balz and Perry Bacon Jr. stressed that (Democrat) voters in the Iowa towns of Algona, Charles City, Mason City and Emmetsburg didn't have book-related questions. The reporters dropped another fun quote from one of the books: [Former WashPost reporter Carl] Bernstein's book, for example, reports that then-White House adviser George Stephanopoulos described to unnamed colleagues Clinton's responses to the White House Travel Office case and other scandals as "Jesuitical lying." Stephanopoulos, now anchor of ABC's "This Week" program, declined to comment when reached Friday. Isn't it a little early for Balz and Bacon and the Post to call it a day on the "ripples" these books will have when they have yet to be released? Before the authors hit the talk shows? Will Stephanopoulos put them on his show? Will CBS's 60 Minutes publicize the Hillary books with the same fervor that they've shown for books the Bush people didn't like? If the major media decided to make a ripple, they could make one easily, even among Democrat partisans. It's a classic liberal media tactic (certainly a common one back in 1992) to presume that if liberal Democrat primary voters aren't concerned about a scandal, then there isn't one. Unless these liberals in Iowa seriously challenge her past, will reporters continue to aid Clinton campaign spokesmen in suggesting there's no ripple in their happy ice cream bowl? The Balz-Bacon piece includes some skepticism about Hillary's scandal-plagued candidacy (from GOP consultant Mike Murphy and some unnamed Democrats), but the conservatives were tagged in the story as "Clinton haters," when "Bush hater" is not a common Washington Post term: Even some Republicans agreed with Clinton's team that the books will have minimal effect on Clinton's campaign. For Clinton haters, one strategist said, the books will reinforce what they believe already, but they will change no minds. Democratic strategists not attached to Clinton's campaign offered harsher assessments, although they spoke on the condition of anonymity because they do not want to get into a public fight with the former first couple. One Democrat called the books a reminder of "the tawdriness of the Dogpatch days," while another said, "It's not a deal killer, but it reinforces people's preconceived notions about her." He said his rule of thumb for her campaign is this: "The more the conversation is about the past, the worse for her. The more it's about the future, the better for her." newsbusters.org