No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

**Lorn** · February 21, 2007, 10:13:22 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Off with there heads!

**subterFUSE** · February 22, 2007, 07:15:42 AM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by Lorn

Off with there heads!

their

**superdave** · February 22, 2007, 01:18:52 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Hillary is upset because Obama doesn't know his place according to her. I'm glad Obama and the Democrats like Geffen are standing up to the Clintons.

She shouldn't just be given the Presidency because she's a Clinton. I dislike her more now because her huge ego is being shown clearly. I've said before and I'll say again that we need to quit electing politicians because they have a name. No more Clinton or Bush candidates for President for a long time unless they deserve it. This is America not a monarchy of royalty where power stays in one or two families. I don't recall Clintons and Bushs being annointed to run this country.

**toasty** · February 22, 2007, 01:25:40 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Honestly, I don't understand Hilary's beef with Obama vis-a-vis Geffen at all. Geffen used to be a Clinton supporter. He isn't any more, and now directs his support to Obama. And Obama is obligated to return that money why? Just because someone once supported you does not entitle you to their future support, nor does it prohibit them from supporter other people. It doesn't entitle you to shit beyond the support as it exists at any one moment in time.

It seems so self-evident to me. "I had him first, so now no one can" is just such an incredibly lame argument. Honest question, is there more to the story? Seems ridiculous to me.

**subterFUSE** · February 22, 2007, 02:14:20 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by toasty

Honestly, I don't understand Hilary's beef with Obama vis-a-vis Geffen at all. Geffen used to be a Clinton supporter. He isn't any more, and now directs his support to Obama. And Obama is obligated to return that money why? Just because someone once supported you does not entitle you to their future support, nor does it prohibit them from supporter other people. It doesn't entitle you to shit beyond the support as it exists at any one moment in time.

It seems so self-evident to me. "I had him first, so now no one can" is just such an incredibly lame argument. Honest question, is there more to the story? Seems ridiculous to me.

The story goes like this:

David Geffen used to be a close Clinton friend, and supporter. He raised $18M for Bill Clinton over the years, hosting various fundraisers, etc.... The Clintons had Geffen stay in the White House, Lincoln bedroom. He was clearly on their good side.

Fast forward to today... Geffen now supports Obama, and he publically criticized Hillary, saying that the "Clintons lie with such ease it's troubling." and that "Hillary is such a polarizing figure" etc....

Well, Hillary got mad and said that Obama should drop Geffen, and return all the money Geffen helped him raise.

Obama has just laughed at Clinton, saying that Hillary had no problem when Geffen was on their side, and raising money for them.

I'm with Obama on this one.... good for him.

Hillary is a whiney cunt.

**toasty** · February 22, 2007, 02:22:39 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Originally posted by subterFUSE

Well, Hillary got mad and said that Obama should drop Geffen, and return all the money Geffen helped him raise.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I understood, and I'm still scratching my head on why Hillary feels like she would be entitled to bitch. Her opponents have to return money given to them by people that don't like her? Where does she get the ego?

**thesightless** · February 22, 2007, 02:31:18 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

if the citizens had a brain, we would beg for a law where we set the budgets for these people and prevent outside media amrketing.

i.e every presidential candidate can only, and has to use say, 2 million dollars, and no swift boat groups could put up commericals or billboards. 2 million to every candidate from clinton to kuch to guiliani. no more, no less. no fundraisers, nothing. and a complete ban on outside sources. this way it becomes less about donations and the resulting interests in lobbying, and more about doind what is right.

**toasty** · February 22, 2007, 03:39:55 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

^^ yeah, that whole first amendment thing is overrated

**thesightless** · February 22, 2007, 03:48:39 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

oh please, get over it james, our government is now a candidate of the highest bidders as opposed to quality candidates. no one said to stop ppl from doing anything under the free speech or press, but stopping ppl from buying candidates isnt a bad idea. oh wait, this time around it affects someone you are into..... why the hell do we allow outside groups to sway public opinion with half truths and outright lies. they should be equal from the start and we should be able to vote on facts, not heresay and speeches, but the real stuff is swept right under the carpet from the start,.

**toasty** · February 22, 2007, 05:16:51 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Nah, you're missing my point. I agree with your criticism of the election process, lobbyists, etc. Election/fundraising/lobbying reform is different from prohibiting people and groups from expressing their views, though.

Compare this:

Originally posted by thesightless

if the citizens had a brain, we would beg for a law where we set the budgets for these people and prevent outside media amrketing.

i.e every presidential candidate can only, and has to use say, 2 million dollars, and no swift boat groups could put up commericals or billboards.

with this:

Originally posted by thesightless

ono one said to stop ppl from doing anything under the free speech or press...

I don't like "swiftboating" as that term has now come into usage any more than you do, but a complete ban on any groups using commercials or billboards to push their message, well that is the very definition of restricting free speech, press, and expression. Can't remember the case off the top of my head, but there is a Supreme Court case out there that recognizes that political speech is protected under the first amendment. It just is. Just as it is my right to stand on my lawn and yell to the world about how much I hate President Bush, it is my right to form a group of like-minded people and buy airtime or a billboard to express that view.

In short: Reform, yes. Banning the participation of anyone other than the candidates, no.

**thesightless** · February 23, 2007, 01:22:41 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

if they can regulate things like tobacco and alchohol and adult content on tv, then they can regulate politics. you know who had the largest impact on the bush kerry election? michael moore. and if anyone thinks he did even a remotely truthful job, well, then that person should have thier right to vote revoked.

**day_for_night** · February 24, 2007, 01:28:56 PM

Re: No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

ya clinton's actions seem a little McCarthy-esque. "If you're not with me, your not American!"

No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

No One Dare Criticize Hillary Clinton

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Comment

Today's Birthdays

[ms] Statistics