Hillary wasn't lying - Bosnia footage discovered

Technorati: Hillary Clinton

It Just Keeps Getting Worse....

Senator Clinton seems to just be imploding!! She's resorting to mocking Senator Obama and now she's playing the woman card for further sympathy. As if it's not difficult for a half-black man with the middle name Hussein (who is on a roll). And no, I don't have anything against either her being a woman or his heritage. We're all Americans here and until we get past reminding ourselves of our past sins, we haven't gotten anywhere. Who cares if she's a woman or that he's black? You shouldn't! Senator Obama isn't running on his race - why is Senator Clinton running on her gender?

For what it's worth, I don't believe there is a dime's worth of difference in the substance of these two candidates - except that Senator Obama has shown a ton more integrity in running his campaign. Even if I don't agree with his policies, he still has my respect for how he's been top drawer in running his campaign!!

I can't wait until he comes out on top next Tuesday and this blog will be history...

Technorati: Hillary Clinton

Pithy

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Election 2008

Lost Inevitability...

Great article today by Charles Hurt at the New York Post. Could this be a glimmer of hope for all of us who have thought for a long time that a second Clinton presidency wouldn't be good? It's possible.

Awaiting her coronation here last night, Hillary Rodham Clinton instead faced a seething revolt within her own party.

More than 70 percent of Iowa Democrats rejected her bid to get back into the White House.

And so, after 15 years of domination, the Clinton dynasty has finally lost its grip on the Democratic Party.

More than anything else, Clinton's campaign was built upon the aura of inevitability.

That's now shattered and left in Iowa's frozen cornfields.

What's devastating to her is that she lost so badly to such a political novice.

Sure, Barack Obama is an incredibly impressive and appealing figure. He has magically turned the nasty politics of race on its head here in a state with a less than 3 percent black population.

His hopeful determination to end the sordid politics that the Clintons are such masters of has even lifelong Republicans eager to vote for him.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Iowa Caucus

Let The Conversation Begin

This was a great video seen on HotAir TV:


Technorati: Hillary Clinton

I Will End This War

If there was ever any question that Senator Clinton is a cut-and-run Democrat, then here is the proof:

"You have to have 60 votes to cap troops, to limit funding to do anything. If we in Congress don't end this war before January 2009, as president, I will."

There you have it. Mark my word - she will to do anything to just get out of Iraq and appease to groups like Code Pink.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton

Condolences to the Clinton Family

I would like to express my condolences to the Clinton family on the loss of President Clinton's stepfather, Richard Kelley, yesterday. I know this must be tough on your family.

Senator Clinton's Shifting Views On Iraq...

...Or the "I was for the war before I was against it" routine.

In the news today:

“This was his decision to go to war with an ill-conceived plan and an incompetently executed strategy,” the Democratic senator from New York said her in [sic] initial presidential campaign swing through Iowa.

"We expect him to extricate our country from this before he leaves office" in January 2009, the former first lady said.

Emphasis mine. I'll pass over the last statement - Mrs. Clinton does not want to have to deal with the war when (as she hopes) she takes office in January 2009. Note that she said that the decision was his to make. She states elsewhere

"'This is not a vote for pre-emptive war.' I said that on the floor of the Senate. I said that we should not go to war unless we have allies... If we knew then what we know now, there never would have been a vote. I never would have voted to give this president that authority."

Note that Senator Clinton said that we should have allies and that she was misled by the information provided by President Bush. As I have posted elsewhere, President Bush inherited his Iraq policy from President Clinton and since we know that Bill and Hillary were "two for the price of one", she most likely knew the same things that her husband did. If nothing else, she believe the same faulty intelligence that President Clinton gave to the American people

But let's take the YouTube Delorean (see video below) back to March 6, 2003 when Senator Clinton meets with a group called Code Pink just after voting to authorize President Bush to go to war with Iraq and just weeks before the Coalition's invasion.

First of all, I love their opening theme song!!! Senator Clinton enters at 1:41 into the video. Note how she wears BLUE to speak to the Code PINK group in 2003... And the spokes-lady talking at 4:00 in has Hillary's name spelled wrong on her shirt (Hilary)!

Now, compare Hillary's comments there regarding her research into the war (8:52-9:20) - stating that she voted as she did "after carefully reviewing the information and intelligence I had available, people whose opinions I trusted" with the current statements. This flies pretty squarely in the face against what the Senator is telling us today - that she was misled by one man and one man alone!

See also the question at 10:14 and 11:06 where Hillary is asked if the US should go in unilaterally. Hillary's answer begins at 11:15. Hillary is strong and doesn't give way to the disagreement by Code Pink. The question is basically "Whose responsibility is it to disarm Saddam?" Senator Clinton said (11:47) that

"I do not believe that, given the attitudes of many people in the world community today, that there would be a willingness to take on very difficult problems were it not for the United States' leadership. And I'm talking specifically about what had to be done in Bosnia and Kosovo where my husband could not get a Security Council resolution to save the Kosovar Albanians from ethnic cleansing. And we did it alone as the United States , and we had to do it alone. It would have been far preferable if the Russians and others had agreed to do it through the United Nations. They would not."

At 14:30ish they started railing on the Senator as she was leaving!! Wow! - it's good to see how Senator Clinton was trying to distance herself from that group - she wouldn't even take one of their pink shirts. I will give her some credit for that!


Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Iraq

The Cheney Family on Hillary Clinton

From a Newsmax story, we have the following quotes:

[VP Dick] Cheney, asked in an interview on CNN whether Clinton would make a good president, replied, "No, I don't."

Why not? "Because she's a Democrat. I don't agree with her philosophically and from a policy standpoint."

I think that's one of my fundamental issues with Senator Clinton. But the Newsmax article also referenced a quote by Liz Cheney, the Vice President's daughter. That story can actually be found at The Union Leader. I like this quote in particular:

Anyone who has watched her remarkable trajectory can have no doubt that she'll do whatever it takes to win the Presidency. I wish she felt the same way about the war.

In fairness, Clinton, with her proposal for arbitrary caps on troop levels and hemming and hawing about her vote for the war resolution, has company on both sides of the aisle. Sen. Joseph Lieberman is the only national Democrat showing any courage on this issue. We Republicans -- with help from senators such as Chuck Hagel -- seem ready to race the Democrats to the bottom.

She then goes on to list some considerations for those who are wanting to cut and run.

This is what we here at Anybody Buy Hillary are about. We have nothing against the Senator personally. We just feel that she does not represent the direction we should take for this country.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, CNN

I'm in. And I'm in to win.

Saturday, Hillary Clinton announce that she is definitely running for the Democratic nomination for President in 2008. The text of her statement can be found here. It's probably just a formality as she will likely beat out her opponents with ease. She's already possibly started to profile Barack Obama as a muslim - and this from the party of tolerance!

Of course, Senator Clinton's announcement doesn't surprise us here at ABH. We expect a torrent of "criticism" aimed at Senator Obama and John Edwards in the coming year and a half. Since there isn't really anything fundamentally different in the politics of the candidates, the race can't really be about the substantive differences. Senator Clinton is planning to highlight health insurance. If I were a betting man, I would bet that she will level her sights against John Edwards shenanigans as a lawyer and claim that is causing health care to skyrocket.

In other news, President Bush began to outline his plans for health care reform in his Saturday morning radio address. He believes the government should only provide free healthcare for those who are most in need of it. He believes that people at small businesses or who have to buy their own insurance should be able to get a tax break similar to those who work for larger companies (the insurance comes out pre-tax so this is very similar to a tax break since it lowers the income bracket).

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Fox News

A Renewed "Calamitous Attempt"

Senator Clinton is listing what she hopes to see the Democratic-controlled Congress tackle:

In her remarks, Clinton outlined a range of challenges she said Democrats would tackle in the coming months, such as trimming the federal deficit (via tax increases), reducing dependence on foreign oil(If we want less foreign oil we need more domestic oil!), and improving the image of the United States abroad. (via multi-lateral talks with Iraq and unilateral talks with North Korea)

(emphasis mine)

But the article also states that Senator Clinton is wanting to fix healthcare:

"Health care is coming back," Clinton warned, adding, "It may be a bad dream for some."

I do like how the AP writer described the HillaryCare efforts of 1993: Senator Clinton "led her husband's calamitous attempt to overhaul the nation's health care system."

Unless Senator Clinton has some better ideas than those she had just 13 years ago, she may want to focus on something else instead of tripping up on healthcare again.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton Acknowledges White House Run

I guess it's on. In a debate in New York with her Republican opponent for the Senate, Senator Clinton acknowledged that she has thought about the White House in 2008. I love what John Spencer asked:

"I'm the only one standing on this platform who wants to be a United States senator for New York for the next six years"

Senator Clinton did state that she has thought about that and then the junior Senator replied:

"As you might guess, I've been asked that a few times before. I am focused on this election. I am focused on my work in the Senate. Obviously, people are talking about whether I will or should be running for president, and I'm flattered by that."

"Flattered?" This isn't a high school student body race. Everything Senator Clinton has been doing is done with her eyes on the White House. As we have stated here before, she has too many public "appearances" around the country and not in New York. Was she even in New York City on 9/11? I never saw footage of her there in her "home state".
Now that the cat is out of the bag, it will be fun to watch the citizens of New York elect a Senator who is only planning on holding office for 2 more years out of her 6 year commitment.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton

Senator Clinton - The History Revisionist

After former President Clinton's tirade on Fox News last week, Senator Clinton has now come out in support of her husband's policies on Al-Qaeda. Specifically, Senator Clinton stated:

"I'm certain that if my husband and his national security team had been shown a classified report entitled 'Bin Laden Determined To Attack Inside the United States' he would have taken it more seriously than history suggests it was taken by our current president and his national security team."

But, it sure didn't take long for the vast right-wing conspiracy to call her out on that. For we can quickly find the following document signed by President Clinton in 1998: "The Intelligence Community has strong indications that Bin Laden intends to conduct or sponsor attacks inside the United States."

I guess that's just another one of those surprises that Senator Clinton has been hit with by her husband. It's really sad. America, do you want a President like Senator Clinton who is in such denial that she would try to rewrite history in this manner to save the legacy of her name? I hope to hear that she retracts her statement after it's been brought to light that her husband not only saw an intelligence document but signed it - he was well aware of Bin Laden's aspirations with 2 years to go in his final term. And there would still be the USS Cole attack. This is pure political posturing. With less than 2 months to go until the mid-term elections, the Democrats are really trying to show that they "tried" to do something about terrrorism. The DNC knows that they need to appear as war hawks or they will lose again. If they want to win, I don't think they need to focus on their incompetence at handling the "law & order" problem that they perceived terrorism and Bin Laden as being before 9/11.

Further, I still think the best way to defeat Senator Clinton in 2008 is to defeat her in 2006! How is her campaign going in New York? Anyone wish to comment on that? I haven't heard much about it.

Technorati: Hillary Clinton, Fox News

It's The ......Poll Train

Ok..I know. I just showed my age by trying to make a word play on the old Soul Train tv show.

It's kind of ironic that the Clintons (both Bill and Hillary) live by the polls; however, the polls haven't been to friendly to Senator Clinton as of late.

In a recent post I cited a Siena College/Hearst Newspapers poll. Interestingly, a recent Siena Research Institute contains additional information that doesn't seem to bode to well for Senator Clinton's 2008 aspirations. Although the poll's main headline is "Attorney General Eliot Spitzer Still Crushes All Republican Opponents", the most important information is sitting right in the first few paragraphs. Yeah, yeah...there's other data in the article about Clinton still leading her opponent John Spencer by 25 points, but read further.

In the next paragraph, it reads as follows:

"“While six in ten New York voters think Hillary is running for President in 2008, only slightly more than one-third think George Pataki is running for President,"” said Joe Caruso, Director of Polling for the Siena Research Institute (SRI). "“Only 20 percent said they would vote for the Governor if he ran for President,...

Now, that's where the major media outlets will stop...but that sentence continues.

...and Hillary did not fare well with New York voters either, with only 36 percent saying they would vote for her and 48 percent saying they would not."

Did you catch that, only 36 percent of NEW YORKERS would vote for Senator Clinton if she ran for President. Now the pollsters are quick to point out that only 48 percent stated they would not vote for Senator Clinton. But, that just doesn't add up...48 percent plus 36 percent does NOT equal 100%. Wouldn't it have been more accurate to state that in all 64 percent of NEW YORKERS would vote for another candidate for President.

Now, if NEW YORKERS (Please note the use of capitals in each reference for emphasis) vote are responding this way, I believe it is important to note that some of the most liberal voters in the nation will only vote for Senator Clinton for President at a rate of 36 out of 100. Remember fair reader, that's in a BLUE state. How do you think the rest of the RED states are going to vote?

The People Are Speaking

Considering that Bill Clinton never did ANYTHING without first checking recent polling data, I figured we might as well continue with more recent polling data.

In a recent Siena College/Hearst newspapers poll, 44% of respondents now say that Senator Clinton should NOT run in 2008. That's almost 10 points higher than the 37% last year. The number of respondents that believe Senator Clinton should still run has dropped to 51% from 53%.

Now, asking the same questions to respondents about Condoleeza Rice yields different results. A year ago, 42% said that Condi should run. However, this year, that has risen to 48%. The number of respondents saying she should NOT run has dropped from 41% to 39%.

Interesting... The angry Senator Clinton that seems ever present in the media these days just doesn't seem to be helping the poll numbers. I guess it's back to the drawing board.

Even McCain Could Beat Senator Clinton

Although this poll originally came out in June of 2005, this HAS to hurt if you're Senator Clinton.

John McCain (R)	52%
Hillary Rodham Clinton	37%
Not sure / other	11%

Source: Zogby International
Methodology: Telephone interviews with 1,013 likely American voters, conducted from Dec. 6 to Dec. 8, 2005. Margin of error is 3.1 per cent.

If you read the results of the poll closely, McCain not only lead Clinton but would also quite nicely beat Kerry in a theoretical race. Strangely enough, press reports in recent days indicate that Kerry just can't seem to let it go and is still holding out hope for 2008. I wouldn't worry though, Clinton supporters will find a way to ensure that French citizen wanna-be Kerry will sit firmly on the sidelines after Senator Clinton declares her presidential bid.

Senator Clinton is already working on those 2008 votes

On December 19, Senator Clinton visited New Orleans. Of course, Sen. Mary Landrieu D-LA was there to shepherd the Senator around...oh, and be seen by the media. During the tour, Senator Clinton was quoted:

"There is a need to go back and find out what went wrong. What more do we need to do to protect this area?"

She went on to express concern that repair efforts on the levees may not protect New Orleans from future hurricanes. Now, you might ask yourself, "What is a Senator from New York doing touring the damage from a hurricane in Louisiana?" Last I checked, New York and Louisiana are quite a distance from each other so another hurricane hitting Louisiana would PROBABLY not affect New York.

My theory? Think about it. New Orleans is a major US city (well...used to be) that has a very high percentage of the population on public assistance. As stated in an OpinionJournal article on September 13, 2005, Brendan Miniter writes:

Anyone who has taken a non-drinking-binge tour of New Orleans, venturing outside the French Quarter and Garden District, might have noticed that New Orleans was a failing city. Tourism kept it, well, afloat, but large swaths of the city were mired in poverty for decades. One out of four New Orleans residents was living below the poverty line, and tens of thousands of people were living in public housing. These are the people who were left behind in the flood and who have long been left behind by failing schools, lack of economic opportunity, and crime well above the national average.

Now...Senator Clinton represents the Democratic party. Remember, the political party that is highly dependent on the continuing existence of a poverty class? These citizens are highly dependent on the federal government for their everyday existence. Therefore, Senator Clinton comes in as the Government Savior to fix everything and ensure that everyone goes back on the dole.

Why? Keep government dependents happy, and they'll be sure to vote for you in 2008 - as many times as possible. Please, unless the Democratic party from New York gets desperate, these New Orleans citizens won't be voting in 2006 in New York. This has GOT to qualify as vote buying somewhere.

Senator Clinton...so exactly what DO you propose?

The Washington Post carried this story on Saturday.

Senator Clinton was in Kentucky at a Democratic fundraiser trying to help the Democrats reverse the Republican control of the state. Her usual talking points included President Bush "ignoring an ailing health care system" and giving tax cuts to the wealthy. Tired talking points, but Democrat standards nonetheless. By the way, Senator Clinton will revive healthcare as one of her major platform issues in 2008. You watch and see.

But neither of those issues are up for consideration here. During her speech criticizing President Bush on the war in Iraq she stated:

"The time has come for the administration to stop serving up platitudes and present a plan for finishing this war with success and honor. I reject a rigid timetable that the terrorists can exploit, and I reject an open timetable that has no ending attached to it."

"Instead, I think we need a plan for winning and concluding this war, and the president can begin by taking responsibilities for the false assurances, faulty evidence and mismanagement of this war."

Ok, this is nothing we've heard before right? Or is it? Look at the second sentence...closely. Exactly what DO you propose Senator Clinton. Either you have a rigid timetable for leaving Iraq or you have a more open timetable that is dependent on the conditions in Iraq. Or did you forget your comments from November where you stated that we needed to wait on the results of the December 15 elections in Iraq?

Exactly, where is your plan Senator Clinton? You voted to approve the actions in Iraq based on the same intelligence that the President had been looking at. And before you start criticizing the intelligence, remember that HINDSIGHT is the only vision that is truly 20/20. Lastly, on the issue of mismanagement, um...shouldn't your criticism be aimed at the Generals actually waging the war? I mean, they're the ones on the ground actually managing the war. Ohhh...but accusing them of mismanaging the war would mean you don't support the troops. Can't have that, now, can we?

Blaming Bush for your own vote to go to war is FAR easier than taking responsibility isn't it?

Senator Clinton agrees with President Bush... or does she?

This story from the AP is interesting:

RYE BROOK, N.Y. - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton said Monday that an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq would be "a big mistake."

Say what? I thought Senator Clinton disagreed with the Bush Administration on the whole Iraq war.

Well, she does:

"It will matter to us if Iraq totally collapses into civil war, if it becomes a failed state the way Afghanistan was, where terrorists are free to basically set up camp and launch attacks against us," she said.

Or does she?

At the same time, Clinton said the Bush administration's pledge to stay in Iraq "until the job is done" amounts to giving the Iraqis "an open-ended invitation not to take care of themselves."

Now wait a minute, I'm confused. Which is it? Is Senator Clinton FOR our actions in Iraq or AGAINST our actions thus wanting the US to pull out. Wait a minute, the end of the article....what's that?

Clinton, who is running for re-election to the Senate and is seen as a likely presidential candidate in 2008, suggested that the United States wait for Iraq's Dec. 15 elections for an indication about how soon the Iraqis can take over.

"Until they vote for a government, I don't know that we will have adequate information about how prepared they are," she said.

Ohhhhh, now I get it. Senator Clinton is pulling plays from her husband's playbook. She's not quite sure which position to take until she sees which way the wind is blowing. So watch the news. Depending on the results of the Iraqi election in December, and depending on how the press reacts to that AND DEPENDING on how Senator Clinton can use if for her eventual Presidential bid, we should eventually know where she stands....maybe.

Senator Clinton Believes Government Should Control Private Business

On October 25, Senator Clinton delivered a speech to the conference of the Cleantech Venture Network. In this speech, Senator Clinton stated:

...ensure that we re-invest the tremendous drain that higher energy prices are exacting on middle-class families and the economy in a better energy future...

Anybody have a clue what that government double speak really means? I'm betting it's another redistribution of wealth strategy. But of course, in perfect fairness. Let's listen a little further.

I believe that we need to assess the oil companies an alternative energy development fee to be put into the new Strategic Energy Fund

Ok....so how's the government going do that? Where's that fee going to come from? Shhh...listen:

...so it is taken solely out of unanticipated profits from the sky-high oil prices and ensure that it is not passed on to consumers.

Say what? What exactly is an "unanticipated profit" and why would the government develop a fee based on an unexpected source? Secondarily, how is the GOVERNMENT going to "ensure that it is not passed on to consumers"? In case you don't already know, businesses don't pay taxes. YOU DO! Whenever there's an increase in fees or taxes for businesses, these increases ultimately get passed on to the end consumer. (For an EXTREMELY good explanation of all of this, please read Neal Boortz's book The FairTax Book.)

This "fee" of course would be temporary:

...temporary, lasting just long enough to kickstart the alternative energy market that we all know is out there.

We...which we? Look, if alternative energy sources were profitable, don't you think companies would be developing products and services as quickly as possible?

Finally, at the bottom of all of this the truth comes out. It's all about taxes.

...reform our energy taxes so that large oil companies which reap huge benefits over the next two years will pay a portion of their profits to fund new tax incentives for consumers and companies who want to do what we believe is the right thing...

What WHO believes is the right thing? Ohhhh, I get it, because Senator Clinton believes that alternative energy is the "right thing", that perfectly justifies a new tax...excuse me, fee to prop up this energy. Does this sound like the whole government subsidized Ethanol program going on today?

Just remember this in 2008. Anything Senator Clinton deems as "the right thing" or "good for the people", will become part of her campaign platform to increase your dependency on the government. Willingly or Unwillingly.