"Stop Hillary Clinton" Now the Largest Political Facebook Group
| Tue Sep. 25, 2007 11:06 AM PDT
It's Facebook day here on MoJoBlog! The two posts we've had about it today (here's the first) may be two more than we've ever had.
Here's the occasion for the second post: The candidate-based Facebook group that had the most members for many, many months — "Barack Obama (One Million Strong for Barack)" — has finally been topped. And it's been topped by Hillary Clinton, but not in a good way for the New York senator.
The group "Stop Hillary Clinton (One Million Strong AGAINST Hillary)" has more than 418,000 members, which beats Obama's 355,000 members. And it crushes any pro-Clinton groups, the two biggest of which combine for just under 10,000 members.
So Hillary Fever isn't catching on with the kids. Obama's campaign is very aware of the advantage it has among this demographic, and has made it a crucial part of its Iowa strategy. From an internal Obama campaign memo that Marc Ambinder nabbed:
On a related point, polls consistently under-represent in Iowa, and elsewhere, the strength of Barack's support among younger voters for at least three reasons. In more than one survey, Barack's support among Iowa young voters exceeded the support of all the other candidates combined. First, young voters are dramatically less likely to have caucused or voted regularly in primaries in the past, so pollsters heavily under-represent them. Second, young voters are more mobile and are much less likely to be at home in the early evening and thus less likely to be interviewed in any survey. Third, young voters are much less likely to have a landline phone and much more likely to rely exclusively upon cell phones, which are automatically excluded from phone surveys. So all of these state and national surveys have and will continue to under-represent Barack's core support – in effect, his hidden vote in each of these pivotal early states.
Update: It was Rudy Giuliani's daughter's membership in the Barack Obama Facebook group mentioned above that tipped the media to the fact that she disagrees with her dad's politics.
Continues Below
Continued From Above
Comments
Submitted by Stephen Fox (not verified) on Thu Sep. 27, 2007 8:43 AM PDT.
After everything is said and done in this election, a few insightful folks may soon recognize the Iraq War as the most serious thing threatening the future of the USA. I hope your readers have read New Mexico Governor Bill
Richardson's op/ed piece from the Washington Post on how and why we must get out of Iraq, from two weeks ago.If not, here it is, in full, after one introductory remark by me:
There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really
slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post and please take the time to read it:
_______________________
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so
quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years ? a tragic mistake.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal ? not a
drawn-out, Vietnam-like process ?would be the most responsible and effective course of action.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including
Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage & professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border ? not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few
months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse ? including even greater refugee flows over
their borders and possible war.
The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations ? including oil-rich Muslim countries?to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
My plan is realistic because:
It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on
Sept. 11.
By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam?with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing ? the communists took over as soon as we left.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Submitted by Stephen Fox (not verified) on Thu Sep. 27, 2007 8:43 AM PDT.
After everything is said and done in this election, a few insightful folks may soon recognize the Iraq War as the most serious thing threatening the future of the USA. I hope your readers have read New Mexico Governor Bill
Richardson's op/ed piece from the Washington Post on how and why we must get out of Iraq, from two weeks ago.If not, here it is, in full, after one introductory remark by me:
There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really
slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post and please take the time to read it:
_______________________
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so
quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years ? a tragic mistake.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal ? not a
drawn-out, Vietnam-like process ?would be the most responsible and effective course of action.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including
Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage & professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border ? not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few
months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse ? including even greater refugee flows over
their borders and possible war.
The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations ? including oil-rich Muslim countries?to help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
My plan is realistic because:
It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on
Sept. 11.
By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnam?with disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing ? the communists took over as soon as we left.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
That's all well and good, but the memo simplifies to the point of falsehood. No firm in their right mind would "automatically exclude" cell-phone-only respondends; they just can't reach them because of DoNotCall.gov and commerce laws (cell phone costs are assumed to be per-minute, even though that's less common now, and any pollster or solicitor would have to have a mechanism for reimbursing cell phone users for "costs" they incur on the call). Correcting for this omission is very complicated, but it hasn't really been worth it yet because young and mobile people don't vote anyway. There's no reason this cycle should be any different - all of Obama's hype is great, but it'll be useless to him if he can't get us to the polls on primary day.
I dont' think you Hillary people understand... Adults and therefore kids who listen to there parents talk, have such contempt for Clinton, that she is going down fast..!!! No matter what you think and try and talk yourself into,"If she can't keep her own house, how can she keep the Whitehouse:.. is very on the mark..!!! The kids know that if she could not keep tabs on her own husband, when he was being gaurded by the Secret Service 24/7, then how do you think WE THE PEOPLE can trust her to keep tabs on the world night and day..? No one trusts her to to monitor the FREE World, and I don't think you people will ever get it till election night.. When once again, you will say that all the polls showed her leading, but she lost...HUH..? We all hate her and her husband, but you just dont get it do you..??? They have polled kids in every state and she is losing...!!! The only place whe wins is in the concentrated Urban centers, and i think that the Electoral College, that you hate so much, makes that another loss..??? WHAT SAY YOU..???
YOU LOSE AGAIN.. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH
Bill..!!!
Well, i just visited Facebook, poked around that group and a few things I noticed:
Most of the members are hiugh school students, some as young as 14.
Also, I noticed that there are double entries and plenty of profiles with no content; They were opened with the sole purpose of inflating the count as all you need to open a Facebook account is a valid email.
FInally, I was surprise to find a hefty number of members who were either non-US citizens or living overseas.
Yeap. Just looked at the group. Most of it just high school kids. I think Bill is right in that thay are mostly kids in rural/ small town USA. Mighty7 was also right to the fact quite a few of the profiles look like fakes and double entries.
I guess all the GOP has left is their Youth Batallions. How...1943 ???
So wait.. That is 455 Thousand members. Let's say that only 10% of those are legit members and voters. I know I am one, my brother is one and I have a few friends on there who are also voters who joined this group. I think 10% is extremely conservative. So we have 10% of 455 Thousand and that makes 45.5 thousand members. This is compared to the 10 thousand members that belong in a Pro-Hillary group.
With a Four-Plus to One Ratio, I think that may be Facebook might have something come next primary.
We also must keep in mind that in the US, we like to tear each other down rather than build each other up. So perhaps we should find out how many are in a Anti Obama group .
Which means that only really 10% are true Stop Hillatry Clinton people.
OK? Hey' I'll throw in an extra 10% for charity
So out of 100%, only 20% is real.
Sounds like a GOP strategy to me: All FUD, no substance.
Yet, the fact that most are high school kids shows you how despearte the GOP is becoming.
The Hitler Youth movement run by the far-right facist wing of the GOP has sprung into action on Facebook!
Being serious now, it is sad to see how much hatred can be taught to kids by their parents ... political, racial, sexual orientation, etc. I didn't know hatred was such a family value in Christian GOP'ers
Submitted by Vigilante (not verified) on Tue Sep. 25, 2007 7:53 PM PDT.
Andrew Sullivan says it all:
"The conservative Washington Establishment is swooning for Hillary for a reason. The reason is an accommodation with what they see as the next source of power (surprise!); and the desire to see George W. Bush's invasion and occupation of Iraq legitimated and extended by a Democratic president (genuine surprise). Hillary is Bush's ticket to posterity. On Iraq, she will be his legacy."
everyone is missing the point. even conceding the point that up to 20% of the Fb group is high school students or other people who don't live in the country, this is still a demographic which pollsters discount for reasons other than the fact that they can't be reached on their cell phones. the CNN/USA Today and Gallup polls only poll LIKELY voters. Because the 18-24 year old demographic (the demographic best represented by the Fb group) is the LEAST likely to vote, you're looking really at about 15-20% of the 20%, so more like 9,000 tops in terms of people who will actually remember to go vote. Moreover, those rates are for general elections. Getting the 18-24 demographic to caucus or vote for a primary is a bit like herding stray cats. You can sure try to get out the vote, but don't get mad when it disappoints and the author of that internal memo gets fired in a post-Iowa "shake-up."
Submitted by owl (not verified) on Tue Sep. 25, 2007 8:36 PM PDT.
Hillary Clinton is a winner. She started out as poor white trash in Arkansas, the most backward, bumf*cked state in the Union in 1950. She proceeded to Graduate college, go to law school, and... become the first female president of the Arkansas Bar Association. Then she got her husband elected Governor of Arkansas. Then, she got her husband elected President of the United States. When that started to peter out, she got herself elected to Senator from New York State, not Arkansas! Folks, this is the most effective Southern Biatch that ever lived. You think Republicans wage war well? Take a look the Clintons: they Bombed Serbia's armies into dust, crushed their attempts to take over Bosnia, and did so with Allied approval and with total success and almost no loss of American lives. This is the only central european or asian "war" that has been won in 60 years. Clintons, most notably Hillary Clinton, is a superior winner. Any fool that does not understand this is living on another planet.
The Arkansas Bar Association. Woe. Man, Obama was president of Harvard Law Review. She knows little about consensus building nor does she care to learn. Obama is a leader. He's a quarterback. Hillary is no team player. As we learn more about Obama we will concede his experience is superior to that polarizing panderer dreaming only of her coronation.
I am basically of the Opinion that Obama would be like Jimmy Carter: noble, yet ineffective. He has no party base. The problem with our party is that the idealists vote for losers, and thus lose everything to the republicans. LOL. They voted for Nader, throwing the election to Bush. They spent all of the last election apologizing for Kerry. When they DO elect folks, like Clinton, they let them hang in the wind, taking flack for such non issues as blowjobs and third party corrupt fundraising. Meanwhile, the republicans slaughter our youth, destroy whole countries. Our idealistic Dems feel like that's not enough, they need to try to tear down the democratic front runner, because, "Obama" is going to save us. Forget that Hillary has been in the trenches since 1960 in the worst part of the country. Forget that there are NO HONEST PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES. Instead, let's PRETEND that Obama, a SURE loser in the general election, is HONEST. What a joke. Folks, there is one thing that republicans apparently understand: Presidents are not "honest," and liars are still good presidents. Democrats, on the other hand, Pretend that they support "honest" politicians. If one of them somehow blows that cover, it's like the whole world has caved in. When Ronald Reagan said that trees pollute the environment, that he flew as a pilot in ww2 and that "he couldn't remember," it had ZERO effect on his constituency. On the other hand, when Gary Hart tried to hide an extramarital affair, or the same with Clinton, most of his "allies" in the party hung him out to dry, and then blamed him for failure in the committees of congress. He still managed to come out smiling, and his wife, despite a constant vomit of invective against her, managed to retain her political power beyond the Presidency. Anyone who claims Hillary isn't a 'team player' is clearly not on the Democratic team. The point of this next election is to WIN the election, not blather over who's "honest," or "experienced." I want a vicious, effective political winner. I want someone who beat a homeboy on his own turf as a carpet bagger for the US senate. That's Hillary Clinton. Face it, who would you rather fight in a ring: Obama or Hillary. Answer: Obama: not as likely for him to beat you. Hillary will rip your throat out. She is a dangerous, cunning biatch. Just what Dems need in a president, not another milktoast like Carter.
You think Hillary is good for the democrats. Obama's sway is what catapulted the democrats to take the house and senate. Hillary is to the democrats what Bush was to the republicans. Barry Goldwater would turn in his grave. Owl you drink the backwater of Lee Atwater an Carl Rove. Leaders bring people together. Leaders are not necessarily cunning throat rippers. Don't get me wrong, Obama is no dove. I bet he'd kick your ass but maybe Hillary and you would be a pretty good fight.
who cares what the kiddies think? They didn't bother to vote in significant numbers in the last two elections. Maybe if there was online voting they would matter, but they're politically irrelevant and pretty much have been for decades.
Luke C: Maybe if "the kiddies" looking at the political scene in recent elections had thought their choices were something better than "Evil Candidate A" and Evil Candidate B" they might have been more enthusiastic about casting a vote.
Maybe that helps explain the appeal of a Very Different type of candidate, Ron Paul, among "the kiddies" on the internet?
THAT's one they seem to be showing enthusiasm for!
[owl wrote: "Hillary Clinton is a winner. She started out as poor white trash in Arkansas, the most backward, bumf*cked state in the Union in 1950...
Folks, this is the most effective SOUTHERN Biatch that ever lived.
...
Any fool that does not understand this is living on another planet."]
Say WHAT?!?!
From www.Whitehouse.gov:
"Hillary Diane Rodham, Dorothy and Hugh Rodham's first child, was born on October 26, 1947. Two brothers, Hugh and Tony, soon followed. Hillary's childhood in PARK RIDGE, ILLINOIS, was happy and disciplined."
Another planet, huh?
How 'bout an entirely different REALITY?!?!
Park Ridge, Illinois: With a white population in excess of 95% TODAY, (no doubt higher in 1950) and a median income of $73,302, which is more than one-and-a-half times the national average of $48,201.
Friend, if you want to stump for Hillary Rodham Clinton, you'd better get your facts in order and stop trying to sell her as something she's most definitely NOT, and never Was!
Otherwise, you're exhibiting the 'honesty' typical of a POLITICIAN!
Submitted by Stephen Fox (not verified) on Thu Sep. 27, 2007 8:43 AM PDT.
After everything is said and done in this election, a few insightful folks may soon recognize the Iraq War as the most serious thing threatening the future of the USA. I hope your readers have read New Mexico Governor Bill
Richardson's op/ed piece from the Washington Post on how and why we must get out of Iraq, from two weeks ago.If not, here it is, in full, after one introductory remark by me:
There is a much larger scale confrontation with Bush from the candidates regarding the Iraq War and the problems it is continuing to cause, after six years of Halliburton and Brown and Root and Blackwater corporate kleptocracy. Only one candidate, it is abundantly clear to me, is really
slamming the truth and providing the logistics and rationale for ending this disastrous war: Bill Richardson. This article was printed in the Washington Post and please take the time to read it:
_______________________
Why We Should Exit Iraq Now
By Bill Richardson
Saturday, September 8, 2007; A15
Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John Edwards have suggested that there is little difference among us on Iraq. This is not true: I am the only leading Democratic candidate committed to getting all our troops out and doing so
quickly.
In the most recent debate, I asked the other candidates how many troops they would leave in Iraq and for what purposes. I got no answers. The American people need answers. If we elect a president who thinks that troops should stay in Iraq for years, they will stay for years a tragic mistake.
Clinton, Obama and Edwards reflect the inside-the-Beltway thinking that a complete withdrawal of all American forces somehow would be "irresponsible." On the contrary, the facts suggest that a rapid, complete withdrawal not a
drawn-out, Vietnam-like process would be the most responsible and effective course of action.
Those who think we need to keep troops in Iraq misunderstand the Middle East. I have met and negotiated successfully with many regional leaders, including
Saddam Hussein. I am convinced that only a complete withdrawal can sufficiently shift the politics of Iraq and its neighbors to break the deadlock that has been killing so many people for so long.
Our troops have done everything they were asked to do with courage & professionalism, but they cannot win someone else's civil war. So long as American troops are in Iraq, reconciliation among Iraqi factions is postponed. Leaving forces there enables the Iraqis to delay taking the steps to end the violence. And it prevents us from using diplomacy to bring in other nations to help stabilize and rebuild the country.
The presence of American forces in Iraq weakens us in the war against al- Qaeda. It endows the anti-American propaganda of those who portray us as occupiers plundering Iraq's oil and repressing Muslims. The day we leave, this myth collapses, and the Iraqis will drive foreign jihadists out of their country. Our departure would also enable us to focus on defeating the terrorists who attacked us on Sept. 11, those headquartered along the Pakistan-Afghanistan border not in Iraq.
Logistically, it would be possible to withdraw in six to eight months. We moved as many as 240,000 troops into and out of Iraq through Kuwait in as little as a three-month period during major troop rotations. After the Persian Gulf War, we redeployed nearly a half-million troops in a few
months. We could redeploy even faster if we negotiated with the Turks to open a route out through Turkey.
As our withdrawal begins, we will gain diplomatic leverage. Iraqis will start seeing us as brokers, not occupiers. Iraq's neighbors will face the reality that if they don't help with stabilization, they will face the consequences of Iraq's collapse including even greater refugee flows over
their borders and possible war.
The United States can facilitate Iraqi reconciliation and regional cooperation by holding a conference similar to that which brought peace to Bosnia. We will need regional security negotiations among all of Iraq's neighbors and discussions of donations from wealthy nations including oil-rich Muslim countriesto help rebuild Iraq. None of this can happen until we remove the biggest obstacle to diplomacy: the presence of U.S. forces in Iraq.
My plan is realistic because:
It is less risky. Leaving forces behind leaves them vulnerable. Would we need another surge to protect them?
It gets our troops out of the quagmire and strengthens us for our real challenges. It is foolish to think that 20,000 to 75,000 troops could bring peace to Iraq when 160,000 have not. We need to get our troops out of the crossfire in Iraq so that we can defeat the terrorists who attacked us on
Sept. 11.
By hastening the peace process, the likelihood of prolonged bloodshed is reduced. President Richard Nixon withdrew U.S. forces slowly from Vietnamwith disastrous consequences. Over the seven years it took to get our troops out, 21,000 more Americans and perhaps a million Vietnamese, most of them civilians, died. All this death and destruction accomplished nothing the communists took over as soon as we left.
My position has been clear since I entered this race: Remove all the troops and launch energetic diplomatic efforts in Iraq and internationally to bring stability. If Congress fails to end this war, I will remove all troops without delay, and without hesitation, beginning on my first day in office.
Let's stop pretending that all Democratic plans are similar. The American people deserve precise answers from anyone who would be commander in chief. How many troops would you leave in Iraq? For how long? To do what, exactly? And the media should be asking these questions of candidates, rather than allowing them to continue saying, "We are against the war . . . but please don't read the small print."
The writer is governor of New Mexico and a candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination.
Yeah, Hillary was from Illinois. Anyone who reads her bio can tell you she grew up in a rich part of Illinois. But...The bottom line is she moved to Arkansas and married her boyfriend in the 70's. From the perspective of anyone in the North, she was southern. Clinton grew up in serious poverty, and Hillary joined Clinton after he'd escaped it, but, she was at the bottom of a very funky heap when she moved to AR. She still managed to come out of it wealthy, powerful and the wife of a governor and president. In a very real sense, she chose to move into a situation that was "poor and trashy," and made it into a massive power situation for herself. Yeah, you can reframe and say, "hey, she grew up in a wealthy suburb of Chicago," but you know what, that's Obama's story too. Let's see if Obama can move to New York and win the senate seat there against a homeboy republican with a massive war chest. I doubt it.
O, and by the way, I'm pretty sure that if Hillary does win, posters like the one above will spend the entire administration bitching and complaining, claiming that "it makes no difference" whether Hillary or Bush is in office. What a joke. As if the 8 years of Clinton's rule were somehow "the same" as the last 8 years. Uh...I seem to remember a surplus, a victorious army and a pleased Western Alliance. I guess the Clinton's really screwed up. They should have had angels dancing for us on our TVs. What, with all those insanely rational appointments, all that bi-partisanism and all, you'd think they were democrats! But, according to our "purists" they are nothing but republocrats, hell-bent on taking away our freedom, being "evil" and destroying our society. Uh...no. They are high powered DEMOCRATS. They do not agree with everything all of us think, but, THEY WIN ELECTIONS and THEY ARE NOT REPUBLICANS. Now, if you feel like voting for a loser Democrat, who will LOSE the general election, you just go right ahead. I, on the other hand, feel like WINNING the next election, not explaining why I SHOULD have won, or why Ralph Nader was the only "real" choice.
Way to Spin It, Owl!
YOU'VE been taking lessons from Hannity & O'Reilly, haven't you?
Yeah, anyone who READS her bio DOES know she started out in a wealthy white town in Illinois, with parents who could afford to send her to Wellesley College in Mass, and then Yale law school (that Out-Of-State tuition is a KILLER, too, to say nothing of housing expenses!).
Maybe YOU should have read her bio BEFORE you came on here with a B.S. story like:
"She started out as poor white trash in Arkansas, the most backward, bumf*cked state in the Union in 1950..."
Chances are she had never been within 200 miles of Arkansas in 1950!
Some folks can just NEVER admit they were wrong about what they said, even after their story has been set right for them, and the rest of the world sees it clearly.
(George Dubya Bush / Iraq WMDs comes to mind...)
O, by the way:
"she was at the bottom of a very funky heap when she moved to AR."
You mean: After graduation, Hillary ... joined the impeachment inquiry staff advising the Judiciary Committee of the HOUSE of REPRESENTATIVES. After completing those responsibilities, she "followed her heart to Arkansas," where Bill HAD ALREADY BEGUN his Political Career.
They married in 1975. She joined the faculty of the University of Arkansas Law School in 1975 and the Rose Law Firm in 1976."
Yeah. Yale law grads who've been in the employ of the US House of Representatives; are faculty members at a University Law School as well as being employed at a law firm and married to a politician (Arkansas Attorney General in 1976, a year after they got married, and Governor in 1978) are at the BOTTOM of a Pretty Funky Heap!!!
LMMFAO
Just keep selling that "Poor Little Hillary" story.
People who don't think to look into the reality of What They'd LIKE to Believe, if they're hearing it, are just going to EAT That Up!
i am active in politics, i dont have that many friends who actually vote. I know plenty of people who say that can not stand hillary clinton. that is all fine and dandy but when none of them go to cast votes against her what does it really matter?
owl... your lack of information is stunning. First its Clinton who is a poor white trash cracker from Ark., now Obama is a rich suburban Chicagoan!!! Do you follow politics? Obama's upbringing was by his mother's parents in Hawaii-his grandfather wasn't successful selling furniture, but they worked hard. Obama was a scholarship student to Colombia Univ and Harvard Law School. His wife's father worked his whole life for the City of Chicago, his mother-in-law stayed home. Very middle class. Please read up on your facts before you post such nonsense.
Hillary is spreading falsehoods in black church speeches claiming that she was for the civil rights movement when in fact she was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
GOOGLE: 'Hillary Against Civil Rights Act'.....Learn the Facts.....We're glad Hillary changed her views but please tell her to stop lying in black churches about her past !!!
The wife of monica lewinsky's ex-boyfriend is suffering from attention anxiety. The clintons were so used to controlling the media during "their" time as president, that they are completely lost as to how to function when the media now holds them to a higher standard of accountabilty. This couple by they actions during the 2008 campaign have shown that they both probably over inhaled .
I WANT A PRESIDENT WHO REPRESENTS ALL AMERICANS
Here is Pastor Wright's 'Black Value System'
posted at his website. This is what Barak Obama
pledged an oath to for the past 20 years:
http://www.tucc.org/black_value_system.html
Pastor Wright gave Louis Farakan a life time
achievement award. Here is what Louis Farakan believes:
Posted at his own website.
http://www.noi.org/muslim_program.htm
AMERICANS JUDGE FOR YOURSELVES ...
Submitted by Peggy McGilligan (not verified) on Sun Apr. 20, 2008 7:10 PM PDT.
"Screw 'em," Hillary Clinton told her husband. "You don't owe [Southern working class whites] a thing, Bill. They're doing nothing for you; you don't have to do anything for them."
The January 1995 Hillary Clinton "screw 'em" admonition, is a more than apt representation of character. Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther, and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Particularly telling, is the fact that Leon Panetta was present during Hillary's "write them off: screw them" remark. While Hillary sees herself as the "champion of the oppressed," there's always a kind of "good guy versus bad guy mentality." But Hillary has treated and continues to treat all working class Americans as a species apart, and screw them she did: http://theseedsof9-11.com
Ps. Say goodbye to the small blond man with breasts, boys.
