Bill Clinton: Liability?

he is running for the third term. why to take a long vacation? you guys dont understand politics.

Ben Smith, at Politico:
Newsday’s Glenn Thrush has that rarest of things: A new chapter to the Hillary’s biography, and one that cuts sharply against a central part of her image: That she’s spent her whole career fighting for children:
[T]here is a little-known episode Clinton doesn’t mention in her standard campaign speech in which those two principles collided. In 1975, a 27-year-old Hillary Rodham, acting as a court-appointed attorney, attacked the credibility of a 12-year-old girl in mounting an aggressive defense for an indigent client accused of rape in Arkansas – using her child development background to help the defendant.
[snip]
[Clinton's] account leaves out a significant aspect of her defense strategy – attempting to impugn the credibility of the victim, according to aNewsday examination of court and investigative files and interviews with witnesses, law enforcement officials and the victim.
Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader’s honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out “older men” like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed “Hillary D. Rodham” in compact cursive.
Clinton’s aides point out, accurately, that she was bound to present her indigent client the best defense available, which she did: He was able to plead down to a much lesser offense.
But read the whole story. Thrush reconstructs the crime, Clinton’s role as a legal “bulldog,” and her defense through court and police documents, and interviews a range of parties, including the alleged victim.
It’s really an astonishingly good piece of reporting.

LAWYER HILLARY GRILLED 12-YEAR OLD OVER ‘RAPE’; attacked child’s credibility…
Yes, typical Drudge report title, but the actual story is pretty shocking.
Follow the link at Drudge to GLENN THRUSH’s remarkably documented article at the Newsday site.

I said it a month ago, and I’ll say it again here. When the history of this nomination is written, in the final summation it will all come down to two simple words: “fairy tale.”

If Clinton was an Asset Obama should have been stopped on Super Tuesday or in South Carolina. Hillary was doing very well until Bill came along and ran his big mouth. I guess you guys know the rest of the story.

Since so many of you think that the press is hating on Hillary, have you ever stopped to think how come? Did you do any investigating into why the occassionally contentious association between the press and the Clintons developed? I suggest some of you do that and then you will realize that sometimes things have to travel the long way around before they arrive back to bite you in the rear. The old saying that you reap what you sow might be used here also.
The press has a long memory right Jake?

It’s a shame that the media has not done their job and applied the same scrutiny concerning Barack Obama’s past as they have Hillary Clinton’s past. It seems that ordinary citizens have done more to uncover facts (which are not all good) about this man than the cable news stations or local newspapers. Hmmm I wonder why that is? When I hear “garbage stuff” about Barack Obama I donate to Hillary (HillaryClinton.com) Go Hillary! Can’t wait to see her debate in Ohio, and again prove why she should be our 44th president’

Hey Mr. Al Cum-ba-ya guy,
You have to agree that Hillary has more experience. If you don’t agree with this then you haven’t done your homework. You have to agree that Obama has a lightweight record in the Senate. Again, homework. You also have to agree that McCain wants to keep us in Iraq for 100 years, which would mean many trillions of our money. Shall I say homework one more time. The right candidate is undoubtedly Hillary Clinton. If you can’t arrive at that determination after completing your homework, then you get an F.

The best political gift of the day for Barack Obama’s campaign has been served up by Iowa’s Des Moines Register, the largest newspaper in the swing state that put the Illinois senator on top in possible head-to-head match-ups in the fall election.
The poll shows Obama ahead of Republican nominee John McCain by a substantial margin, 53-36. A head-to-head match between McCain and Hillary Clinton shows McCain is the preferred choice, 49-40.

No! The Obama people might check out what he did for this country! Rather than slander and president.
http://www.whitehouse.gov/history/presidents/bc42.html
Hillary is best choice!

No rest, no best! Clinton camp is gone, outdated…it is just an ‘OLD WINE IN THE NEW BOTTLE’ …new promises from Hillary & Bill are no where to move Americans dreams now…
Obama is the only clear-cut option for American inspiration.

TO JIm…
Glad to see your post. Too bad some people won’t even bother to look. They are so close minded and only go with the flow, instead of looking up facts. No matter where you go, you will be insulted if you show facts. They won’t look. They don’t care. They just want a savior, a unifier, a cool president. Very scary! Good luck!

ONCE AGAIN, JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF OBAMA AND NAFTA…
Today, Sen. Obama said the following:
And yesterday, Senator Clinton also said I’m wrong to point out that she once supported NAFTA. But the fact is, she was saying great things about NAFTA until she started running for President.
This is false. Hillary criticized Sen. Obama for sending out a mailer that claimed she said NAFTA was a “boon to the economy” when she never did. Today, the University of Pennsylvania’s FactCheck.org concluded “We do judge that the Obama campaign is wrong to quote Clinton as using words she never uttered, and it has produced little evidence that she ever had strong praise of any sort for NAFTA’s economic benefits.”
Also, Hillary has been critical of NAFTA long before she started running for President. For example, here’s Hillary in March 2000:
What happened to NAFTA I think was we inherited an agreement that we didn’t get everything we should have got out of it in my opinion. I think the NAFTA agreement was flawed. The problem is we have to go back and figure out how we are going to fix that. [Working Families Party, 3/26/00]
Sen. Obama touts his consistent opposition to NAFTA. But speaking in Illinois in 2004 Obama said the United States “benefited enormously” from exports under NAFTA and talked about the need to continue to pursue trade agreement like NAFTA that support “a system of free trade in this nation that allows us to move our products overseas.”
2/24/2008 1:50:58 PM #

Obama is the first presidential candidate to officially declare his/her support for the NAFTA expansion moving through the Congress. His announcement is not necessarily surprising, considering he was the keynote speaker at the launch of the Hamilton Project — a Wall Street front group working to DRIVE A WEDGE between Democrats and organized LABOR on globalization issues. His announcement comes just days after a Wall Street Journal poll found strong bipartisan opposition to lobbyist-written NAFTA-style trade policies. Clinton and Obama vote for Peru NAFTA
deal
Vote for Barack Obama if you want to, but please do it with your eyes open and with the knowledge that Rupert Murdoch — possibly the worst corporate media CEO around — has endorsed Obama and is using all the resources of his media empire to help Obama and destroy Hillary Clinton (one has to wonder what Rupert Murdoch hopes to gain from an Obama presidency and fears from a Clinton presidency). And bear in mind that Obama chose as his senate “mentor” the loathsome Joe Lieberman, whose gleefulness in voting with the Republicans and against the Democrats
made Lieberman (at the time Obama chose him as his mentor) one of the most despised Democrats in the senate.
So, to sum up: When Barack Obama had the chance to vote against NAFTA, he voted, instead, to expand NAFTA.

Bill needs to “get a life”………….does he really believe he is running for his third term?

This is a quote from a bestseller biography written by one of the same reporters who investigated Watergate and co-authored another famous book that was made into a popular movie. You have probably heard him talk about her on tv very recently, and if so know that he is far from always speaking favorably of her. However this passage from his book I think speaks for itself as to her faith: “Aside from her family, Hillary’s Methodism is perhaps the most important foundation of her character. As one of her aides said during the winter’s night of the lewinsky epoch, “Hillary’s faith is the link…It explains the missionary zeal with which she attacks her issues and goes after them, and why she’s done it for thirty years. And, it also explains the really extraordinary self-discipline and focus and ability to rely on her spirituality to get through all this…She’s a woman of tremendous faith. Again, not advertised. She’s not one of those people who’s out there doing the holy roller stuff. But that’s how she gets through it: some people go to shrinks, she does it by being a Methodist.”

Hillary can toss insults about the skies opening when Obama speaks. Still won’t get her elected.
She should stick to the issues – if she can’t win on those, than it’s her own fault.
As for following that link to Drudge, I don’t think I can handle that story if it is true. Wish a ‘real’ paper would investigate it. But then, a ‘real’ newspaper investigated the McCain Drudge story, and look where that got them…

Short answer: YES!

I suspect something. Bill did everything to let GORE fail. Now he is doing the same with his own wife – he is cheating her for a second time. Bravo, BILL, your EGO is so big.!!!!

catmacdee, why are you just quoting lines without doing any real research to test the validity of your statements. read Hillary’s book and you will find that she did praise NAFTA. Explore her alleged quotes from Obama a little closer and you will see that on her flier she cut and pasted without the entire truth to misrepresent Obama. And her mockery of his speeches show her as being a little unstable.