Kill Bill Volume V
QuestionGirl December 3rd, 2007 - 1:26 pmFrom the Huffington Post:
By claiming that he had “opposed Iraq from the beginning” — when the record clearly shows otherwise — the former president served voters a piping hot reminder that the Clintons have frequently had an on-and-off relationship with the truth.
What made Clinton’s statement infinitely worse, was that it came at the very moment when Karl Rove was being pilloried for his attempt to rewrite history on Iraq, with even Andy Card, his fellow member of the White House Iraq Group, rejecting his claim that Congress had pushed Bush into war. And just as Rudy Giuliani is being challenged for his penchant for playing fast and loose with the truth.
This should have been a week when Democrats could have asked voters: Have you had enough of all the lies? Are you ready for someone who will tell you the truth? Especially on the single most important issue of our time — the war?
Instead, the public is left with the sour taste of “they’re all the same” in its mouth.
No wonder Hill is lashing out at Bill. What the hell was he thinking?
December 3rd, 2007 at 1:49 pm
What’s that line again? Oh yes, “…snatching defeat from the jaws of victory”.
December 3rd, 2007 at 7:05 pm
It’s interesting to me that Mr. Clinton was staying out of the campaign spot light for the most part, playing more of a subdued supporting role, hosting lavish birthday party/campaign fundraisers, raising money for his foundation, hobnobing with the likes of British Billionaire Richard Branson, but as soon as Mrs. Clinton’s poll numbers started to slide he’s out front and center campaigning for her on his own. After reading a couple pages of comments after AH’s story, one of the debates seems to be whether a vote for Mrs. is really just a vote for Mr. Mrs. uses her “partnership” with Mr.’s time in the WH on her resume, but at least initially in her campaign she (with minimal visable support from Mr.) tried to show her independence and her own leadership qualities apart from Mr.’s. I think her campaign has now shifted gears on what Mr.’s role should be in her campaign. Has Mr.’s outspoken support shifted from being a liability to an asset? If she played such a prominent role while he was Pres.(as she herself claims on her resume) then wouldn’t it be naive or unrealistic to think that he wouldn’t if she is Pres? It looks to me as if they want it both ways, whichever suits her campaign agenda and the polls. “What the hell was he thinking?”. Bill was thinking how can WE have it both ways? Bill: I can say something that Hillary will “lash out at Bill” for, making her look strong and independent of me and distract from my newly pronounced, outspoken support of her, yet still portray her as a victim. Who is she gonna be victimized by next, Chelsea? Isn’t this Hillary being the victim shit getting old fast? Do we really want to go from a Pres. who victimizes others to one who wants to be portrayed as the victim of others? Maybe if you consider weakness to be a strength you do. Where AH, did you “hear” Hill is ready to kill Bill, from one of Hill’s campaign spin doctors maybe? You seem to have conveniently omitted your source. The Clintons, they’re all the same. Reality TV show to follow.