"Democats need to speak up!!!!" Hillary Clinton

pbslmo

Lincoln LS rules
Joined
Dec 18, 2004
Messages
449
Reaction score
0
Location
St. Louis, Bevo area
Sen. Clinton Urges Democrats to Speak Up By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago



WASHINGTON - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday accused Republicans of "playing the fear card" of terrorism to win elections and said Democrats cannot keep quiet if they want to win in November.

The New York Democrat, facing re-election this year and considered a potential White House candidate in 2008, said Republicans won the past two elections on the issue of national security and "they're doing it to us again."

She said a speech by presidential adviser Karl Rove two weeks ago showed the GOP election message is: "All we've got is fear and we're going to keep playing the fear card."

In that speech, Rove suggested Republicans can prevail in 2006 by showing Democrats had undermined terrorism-fighting efforts by questioning Bush's authority to allow wiretapping without getting court approval first.

Clinton said a convention of United Auto Workers that Democrats should not be afraid to question Bush's handling of the war.

"I take a back seat to nobody when it comes to fighting terrorism and standing up for national homeland security," she said.

Referring to fugitive al-Qaida leader Osama bin Laden, Clinton said, "You cannot explain to me why we have not captured or killed the tallest man in Afghanistan."

She added, "Since when has it been part of American patriotism to keep our mouths shut?"

White House spokesman Ken Lisaius responded: "It sounds like from reports that the political season is certainly starting early for some."

President Bush, he said, wants to address rising health costs, energy costs and the war in Iraq in a bipartisan way "and keep the political bomb-throwing to a minimum."

Clinton also said the Bush administration was allowing U.S. manufacturing to wither away and that the only way for workers to protect those jobs was by electing Democrats.

She was cheered by the auto workers, a few of whom shouted, "Hillary for president."

The bulk of her 30-minute speech focused on economic issues and the troubled U.S. auto industry, which is losing market share to foreign manufacturers and bracing for tens of thousands of layoffs.

Clinton said the administration has not done enough to keep America globally competitive. She urged a new long-term effort by the government and private oil companies to fund research and development, particularly in energy-saving technologies.

Speaking to an enthusiastic Democratic crowd that increasingly sees jobs moving overseas, Clinton said Thailand should not be granted access to the U.S. auto market.

The U.S. is in negotiations with Thailand on a trade pact that might eliminate or reduce a 25 percent tariff on trucks made there.
 
That's right, Hillary. You and your LWWs keep getting more shrill and angry, and you run on that platform.

This is the best gift the Republicans could hope for. ;)
 
fossten said:
That's right, Hillary. You and your LWWs keep getting more shrill and angry, and you run on that platform.

This is the best gift the Republicans could hope for. ;)

You know, it's "LUG HEADS" RWWr's, who REFUSE to see things from a different angle that angers the American public. They seem so pompus and narrow minded to not look at the bigger picture. If they would listen and read between the lines, because of the quick slick talk in politics today, they would see that in order to fund the "war on terror" (which will never end, because the U.S. continues to pissing off so many people), vital services are being slated for the deep 6. For instance... Veteran Benefits, our soldiers are coming home to less benefits than the guys from Vietnam (in todays standards).
 
Yes, Hillary. Listen to Maureen. Please.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006 11:18 a.m. EST

Maureen Dowd: Hillary Clinton 'Not Angry Enough'

Bush-bashing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is warning that Hillary Clinton may not turn out to be her party's next presidential nominee unless she finds a way to combat charges that she's "too angry."

But instead of calming down, the flame-haired scribe suggests bizarrely that Mrs. Clinton needs to lose her temper more often in public.

"Hillary's problem isn't that she's angry," insists Dowd in her Tuesday column. "It's that she's not angry enough."

The tart-tongued Timeswoman complains: "From Iraq to Katrina and the assault on the Constitution, from Schiavo to Alito and N.S.A. snooping to Congressional corruption, Hillary has failed to lead in voicing her outrage."

Chatting with radioman Don Imus Tuesday morning, Dowd said Mrs. Clinton's leadership meltdown may cost her the 2008 presidential nomination.

"It's just interesting what's happening in the Democratic Party in the last few weeks," she declared. "I think people are realizing that she's not the inevitable candidate."

Democrats are starting to fear "that it would be kind of a lemming situation if they just go with her," Dowd said.

And while GOP claims that Hillary is too angry are unfair, the Times scribe acknowledged they have her boxed in.

"Republicans are doing this really blatantly misogynistic thing and painting her as 'Angry Woman' because then that puts her in a box," Dowd told Imus. "Because if she criticizes [Bush] she's a shrew, you know. And if she doesn't she's timid and girlie."

Despite her defense, Dowd blasted Hillary for nodding along as she stood beside her husband as he spoke at Coretta Scott King's funeral on Tuesday.

"She shouldn't have been up there," the Timeswoman said. "That bobbleheaded thing was annoying."

This from the woman who wrote a book entitled, "Are Men Necessary?" LOL. This is perfect. Keep up the good work.
 
pbslmo said:
Sen. Clinton Urges Democrats to Speak Up By DEVLIN BARRETT, Associated Press Writer
12 minutes ago

Good article, thanks for the post... I hope she doesn't run in 2008 though, she would lose I think.
 
fossten said:
Yes, Hillary. Listen to Maureen. Please.

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Wednesday, Feb. 8, 2006 11:18 a.m. EST

Maureen Dowd: Hillary Clinton 'Not Angry Enough'

NewsMax loves to sprinkle each article with at least one insult huh? I think it's their mission statement. The 'Bobblehead' line was funny though.
 
95DevilleNS said:
NewsMax loves to sprinkle each article with at least one insult huh? I think it's their mission statement. The 'Bobblehead' line was funny though.

I must have missed that. Where was the 'insult?'
 
95DevilleNS said:
NewsMax loves to sprinkle each article with at least one insult huh? I think it's their mission statement. The 'Bobblehead' line was funny though.
Do you know who Maureen Dowd is???
 
fossten said:
I must have missed that. Where was the 'insult?'

Here........

Newsmax.com said:
Bush-bashing New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is warning that Hillary Clinton may not turn out to be her party's next presidential nominee unless she finds a way to combat charges that she's "too angry."

But instead of calming down, the flame-haired scribe suggests bizarrely that Mrs. Clinton needs to lose her temper more often in public.

"Hillary's problem isn't that she's angry," insists Dowd in her Tuesday column. "It's that she's not angry enough."

The tart-tongued Timeswoman complains: "From Iraq to Katrina and the assault on the Constitution, from Schiavo to Alito and N.S.A. snooping to Congressional corruption, Hillary has failed to lead in voicing her outrage."

But of course your shrub colored glasses make you blind to that. THOSE are Newsmax's words. However, the "Bobblehead" comment was Maureen's, Newsmax hasn't earned the credit for that one.

SCORE: Deville 1 / Fossten 0. Game over.
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Here........



But of course your shrub colored glasses make you blind to that. THOSE are Newsmax's words. However, the "Bobblehead" comment was Maureen's, Newsmax hasn't earned the credit for that one.

SCORE: Deville 1 / Fossten 0. Game over.

There's not ONE SINGLE INSULT in that article.

She DOES bash Bush and is proud of it. Not an insult.

Score 1.

She IS flame-haired, in case you didn't know it. She's a redhead.:rolleyes:

Score 2.

She DOES have a tart tongue, and she's proud of it and even admits it herself. Not an insult, in fact, she probably would take it as a compliment.

Score 3.

David 3, [edit] Deville 0.

Game never got started.
 
Thank you for glorifying you and your brain-center's (Newsmax.com) obvious slant/border-line-hateful view of the world. Unlike the even questionable "fair and balanced" Fox News, Newsmax takes the backhanded INSULT to a new level. I was always taught that if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all. You and the editors at Newsmax have apparently missed that memo.

Newsmax could have said that she was "critical of Bush", but instead they chose the word "bashing" and used it in a demeaning way. INSULT.

Newsmax could have left the whole irrelevant reference to her hair color out completely, but instead they chose the words "flame-haired" and used it in a demeaning way to imply that "she's crazy because her hair is on fire!!". INSULT.

Newsmax could have said that she was "outspoken", but instead they chose the word "tart-tongued" and used it in a demeaning way. INSULT.

But then again, why do I bother spelling this all out for you? "Pearls before swine", as you've said.
 
Impressive:

r469963390.jpg
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
Thank you for glorifying you and your brain-center's (Newsmax.com) obvious slant/border-line-hateful view of the world. Unlike the even questionable "fair and balanced" Fox News, Newsmax takes the backhanded INSULT to a new level. I was always taught that if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all. You and the editors at Newsmax have apparently missed that memo.

Newsmax could have said that she was "critical of Bush", but instead they chose the word "bashing" and used it in a demeaning way. INSULT.

Newsmax could have left the whole irrelevant reference to her hair color out completely, but instead they chose the words "flame-haired" and used it in a demeaning way to imply that "she's crazy because her hair is on fire!!". INSULT.

Newsmax could have said that she was "outspoken", but instead they chose the word "tart-tongued" and used it in a demeaning way. INSULT.

But then again, why do I bother spelling this all out for you? "Pearls before swine", as you've said.

Obviously we have a difference of opinion, but it's nice to see you taking a dose of your own medicine for a change. The so-called insults you are waxing apoplectic over are NOTHING compared to the tripe your LWW MSM spouts on a daily basis, a fact you've never even bothered to recognize.

Guess we know who the swine really represents.
 
David, is the Republican party that you agree with so unconditionally, a cult? If so..You might as well sided with David Korsh and joined the Waco pact.
 
pbslmo said:
David, is the Republican party that you agree with so unconditionally, a cult? If so..You might as well sided with David Koran and joined the Waco pact.

Who's David Koran?

Your attempts at slur are pathetic, partly because you lack finesse, partly because your only focus is on attacking one particular person instead of debating the issues, and partly because you don't know what you're talking about.

You just proved that you know nothing about me, newbie. If you paid attention you would know that I criticize the Republican party more than you criticize your own LWW Dem Party. So you are, in fact, projecting your own fallacies onto me. Et tu, Brutus?

But you don't pay attention, do you?
 
fossten said:
Who's David Koran?

Your attempts at slur are pathetic, partly because you lack finesse, partly because your only focus is on attacking one particular person instead of debating the issues, and partly because you don't know what you're talking about.

You just proved that you know nothing about me, newbie. If you paid attention you would know that I criticize the Republican party more than you criticize your own LWW Dem Party. So you are, in fact, projecting your own fallacies onto me. Et tu, Brutus?

But you don't pay attention, do you?

David, I apologize. ;) Your right, I don't know you well enough to criticize you personally. However, when I do post, you seem to resort to name calling, nit-picking and Blasphemy. Not just again myself but others. I feel compelled to resort to giving you some of your own medicine.:D "Can't we all just get along?"
 
JohnnyBz00LS said:
I was always taught that if you can't say something nice, don't say nothing at all.
There is not enough bandwidth on this site to post all the demeaning crap that is said about Bush and this administration on a DAILY basis.

Are far as I see it, Newsmax is just dishing some of it back. What? Can't take some of your own (lib media) medicine?
 
pbslmo said:
David, I apologize. ;) Your right, I don't know you well enough to criticize you personally. However, when I do post, you seem to resort to name calling, nit-picking and Blasphemy. Not just again myself but others. I feel compelled to resort to giving you some of your own medicine.:D "Can't we all just get along?"

it is well documented that I do not resort to name calling unless and until it has been directed at me for a substantial amount of time. I simply don't have to use it to make my point. If you go back and read entire threads you'll see that that is almost always the case.

Nevertheless, if you ease off the attacks, I will respond in kind. Don't be like johnny or barry. Think on your own and debate the issues.
 

Members online

No members online now.
Back
Top