Monday, November 02, 2009
|
|
Hillary to Mediate War Between Fox News, White House
|
|
Posted by:
Meredith Jessup at
8:58 PM
|
Either the White House is surrendering to Fox News, or Hillary Clinton is "going rogue." The Secretary of State will be appearing "On the Record" tonight with Greta Van Susteren. She will be discussing Afghanistan, Pakistan and the ongoing overseas contingency operation War on Terror.
I'm amazed the administration would send Secretary Clinton to appear on FNC since it's "not a legitimate news network."
|
|
|
I wonder what the "pre-conditions" were. |
|
so the head marxist is sending the second best marxist in thye administration to discuss things.
When has the missus clinton ever done anything but lecture others or make excuses for bubba and his stained dresses.
Wonder if she will again bring up the great vrwc that is working to bring down the messiah, who is just a poor misunderstood affirmative action hire |
|
|
Why not send someone from the WH that has some Huevos. May not like her, but gotta respect that she does have a pair. |
|
Ms. Clinton is going to be on Greta's show, "On the Record".
Greta is tough by other network's standards, but a relative pushover for Fox News.
Let's see the Wicked Witch of the State Department appear on OReilly.
Or even better yet, how about Hannity or Beck??
They'd really "give her the business". |
|
|
Hillary. Imagine my surprise! But, she took the Bammy Bait to get her problematical arse outta the Senate...Dug her own cave with eyes wide shut. Live with it, Babycakes. Bamster shut you up and Hubby too. Baa-Daa-Bing. Like Dat. |
|
FOX has made an "unprecedented" offer, like Natanyahu and Karzai before it, stared "president" pantywaist down, and gave in...not an inch.
Hillary will now put a game face on a loser administration's fiasco, maybe even haul one of them big red "reset" (or is "overcharge") buttons, and all can pretend that the "smartest" "president" does not look like a total moron. |
|
|
I forgot the superpower of Honduras; which also stared loser boy and his frat buddies down. |
|
Ha, what a couple of useless hacks to draw to,....one "Nor'Easter carpetbagger" and the other,a burnt out ambulance chaser.
Wonder who's the "lap dog"?
IMO, Fox made a mistake by hiring apologist lapdogs like Greta and Geraldo.
I can't stand to watch either one of those phonies.
Hitlery doesn't have the nerve to face Beck,...but Hannity would probably "jump right up" in her lap.
O'Reilly?....Blah, BS! |
|
"I'm amazed the administration would send Secretary Clinton to appear on FNC since it's "not a legitimate news network."
That's OK.
Clinton is not a legitimate SecState. So it kind of balances out.
We all know her appointment was a lovely parting gift.
And she fell for it.
She must of been having a flashback from taking fire in Bosnia when she agreed.
|
|
"and the other,a burnt out ambulance chaser."
LOL!
Don't forget. She made her bones with bad hair and bad eyes as part of the media frenzy handicapping the 1st OJ trial.
She was jsut as disgusting then but I have to admit, the hair and eyes do look better.
They sure couldn't have gotten worse.... |
|
"I'm amazed the administration would send Secretary Clinton to appear on FNC since it's "not a legitimate news network."
Shows you what they think of Hillary |
|
|
It is alright if Hillary appears on an illegitimate news program because she is an illegitimate secretary of state. Her clownish conduct and traipsing around the world screwing up are truly pathetic. Should be a good fit. |
|
Hillary will ditch Obama next year and try for another run for President. If she decides to do that she will need Fox. Remember she will have to run on him being too far left and his failed foreign and fiscal policies. Fox has a pretty good following when it comes to more moderate dems that could be beneficial to her.
She will use this time as Secretary to build up ammunition as to why Obama's policies are failing. CNN and MSNBC will never let her trash Obama but Fox will give her a chance to air her views. She knows exactly what she is doing. |
|
|
|
I half-agree with you about the uncoupling you posit will happen next year between Hillary and Obama.
I agree that one will ditch the other next year, after the mid-term elections - only I believe it will be OBAMA ditching HILLARY, not the other way around.
But I've been arguing this on this site since Election Day last year, and will continue to take this position, that ANY scenario under which Hillary would have any reasonably possible chance to become president in or by 2012 would require the death of Barack Obama.
Even if discontent with Obama is at a fever pitch by the 2012 primaries and Obama couldn't get elected dogcatcher that year, I argue that Obama's failures do NOT move Hillary one step closer to the White House - even if she COULD take the 2012 Democratic nomination away from him. How does one run against an incumbent administration THAT ONE WAS PART OF? And if Hillary COULD win the 2012 Democratic nomination, unless Obama obligingly decides not to pursue it (which I think is VERY unlikely), he'd force Hillary to have to take it away from him - an attempt that, even if successful, would certainly cost Hillary ALL support from the black community. Where would she make up those millions of lost votes in the general election? Anyone looking for a REAL change from Obama that year won't be flocking to her but to her GOP opponent.
My contention is that by going to work for Obama, Hillary effectively was throwing in the towel permanently regarding EVER being elected president. Like it or not, having been a part of his administration now, Obama's failures are HER failures - and don't move her one step closer to the Oval Office. She's hitched her wagon to Obama's star now - and she's stuck with that Faustian bargain. |
|
I understand your points but still believe Hillary could turn this around and use it to her advantage. She tried to claim she could handle foreign policy because of her stint as first lady but most did not buy into that. As a woman she had a little trouble convincing people that she was up to dealing with many of the world leaders. She can now claim she has done that. She can also claim that her new experience has shown her that Obama is far off base when it comes to foreign policy.
She will have an easy time bringing the dems back into the Clinton fold as more and more realize what a disappointment Obama has been. Those dems will happily look back to the Clinton years and start to adore the Clinton's, their once hero will quickly become their hero again. Clinton will find it easy to claim that she saw Obama's failures from the inside. If she pulls out soon enough she will be able to convince many that she wanted to make this administration work, that she stood firmly behind Obama but quickly knew that he was wrong for the country. I think she can use that to her advantage. The Clinton's had a difficult time fighting Obama the first time as he had no past to dispute, this time they have a lot of material to work with. |
|
I understand YOUR points - but I still believe that the hurdles Hillary would face to challenge Obama for the 2012 Democratic Party nomination would be ENORMOUS as long as Barack Obama is still alive by then, too enormous for her to succeed in the effort and still be able to keep enough of the Democratic Party coalition together to have any realistic hope of election in November 2012.
It's one thing to try to trash a first-term Senator, as Hillary was faced with in her primary fight with Obama last year. It's quite another to try to trash THE SITTING PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES, and especially the FIRST BLACK PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES.
Even if Obama is horrendously unpopular come the primary season of 2012, unless the Democratic Party big-wigs could talk him into standing down for the nomination that year (they'd certain try to do so behind close doors), if Obama forced someone (like Hillary) to have to take the nomination away from him in the primaries, the Democratic Party establishment and most high-profile leaders, like Pelosi, Reid, et al, would run the very real risk, by backing a challenger to Obama, of driving away the black vote from the Democratic Party, not just in 2012, but for a GENERATION to come, as blacks would decide that NEITHER party now represents their interests and simply decide there's no point in voting at all. And could you imagine the Democratic Party convention in 2012 crowning Hillary as its nominee? Think Obama would even ATTEND the convention - much less ENDORSE the person who took away the nomination from him? Want to talk about an awkward moment, THAT would be the poster child for it!
And I'd argue that a lot of the moderates and independents who voted for Obama last year but would want a complete departure from him in 2012 won't be looking toward Hillary but to the GOP candidate. |
|
I can agree with many of your points but I believe there will be a major shift in thinking.
First I do not believe that race will play such an important role. Hillary was in a very difficult position campaigning against the first black person running for President. Had Obama been white I would bet Clinton would have come out guns a blazing after his associations with the likes of Ayers, Wright, Jarrett, etc.. Although Clinton is liberal she is certainly not as far left as Obama and I think the Clinton machine would have been able to attack him on those issues.
I guess we will see but I do not believe the dems want to lose and if that means sacrificing Obama so be it. By the way I think that the black community would again rally around the Clintons if they had to chose between a repub and Hillary.
I believe that the democratic party will be in real trouble come next election. It is doubtful that the economy will recover anytime soon and people will be paying for this enormous health care bill long before they will see any of the so called benefits. I think they will suffer losses in the 2010 elections and will stand to lose even more come 2012.
|
|
I agree with a lot of the points in your 11:26am post, especially that there's likely to be a LOT of unhappiness with Obama by 2012 if he gets the health-care bill he desires through Congress in the very near future and people will have been paying the enormous taxes it will require for a couple of years by 2012.
But even a very wounded president is STILL very difficult to topple by a rival in his own party. Look at Jimmy Carter in 1980: even though he was very unpopular by the primary season, even such a revered figure in the Democratic Party as Ted Kennedy wasn't able to take the nomination away from him.
The problem I see is that by playing the race card to help get Obama into the White House, the Democratic Party has now painted itself into a corner with Obama and made a Faustian bargain for power which it is now stuck with.
Look at how last year the Dems were able to tie McCain to Bush - and the former never even WORKED for the latter's administration. So how much more in 2012 would the Republicans be able to put the albatross of Obama around Hillary's neck?
And what if Obama, being attacked by Hillary in the primary and general campaigns in 2012, decides not to passively sit back and take her assaults but lashes back at HER (as I believe he WOULD)? I'll bet he has PLENTY of information on her that he could really hurt her with - like unsavory tidbits about her performance as SoS that the public was hitherto unaware of.
I also very much disagree that if the Dems dump Obama in 2012, blacks will rally around Hillary even IF the alternative is a GOP president. I firmly believe they will decide instead that they've now been betrayed by BOTH parties and will simply not bother voting AT ALL - costing Hillary millions of votes. Not to mention dooming Democratic House and Senate candidates in districts/states in which they are dependent on the black vote for their margin of victory. |
|
|
I guess we must agree to disagree on this one. I don't see Obama surviving past 2012. His failed policies and his far left leaning minions will be exposed and it would be pretty tough to cram that down people's throats next time. I don't see Obama or his party taking the possibility of defeat. |
|
|
agreed to stop lobbing missiles into Fox territory, and Fox will cease building new settlements. Let's see how long that lasts. |
|
Actually, we ARE agreed that Obama will not be a two-term president. Pretty much all we disagree on is the means by which it will happen.
I think that Obama is much too much of a narcissist to stand aside gracefully in 2012 for another candidate even if all the polls show that he will take the Democratic Party down and down badly in 2012 if he is its nominee that year.
The Democratic Party made its bed with Obama in 2008 - and now has to sleep in it.
I also think that the Democratic Party has made itself too dependent on the black vote by now to be able to risk alienating that constituency even if it means accepting defeat in 2012. It may be a case by then of cutting its losses and sacrificing only ONE presidential election cycle rather than possibly sacrificing the next SEVERAL by driving away infuriated black voters en masse from the Democratic Party who would not forgive it for a long time if they thought it had thrown Obama under the bus in 2012.
HERE'S something to think about: if all the polls by, say, late 2011 show Obama is absolutely a dead man walking politically but he refuses to stand aside for re-nomination even despite intense pressure (publicly AND privately) by top-ranking and high-profile Dems, it's my contention that the left would at that point have a GREAT incentive to want to see Obama dead - and a GREAT incentive to artificially speed that denouement. Because then they would be rid of Obama the POLICY DISASTER and could now invoke Obama the MARTYR. |
|
I am afraid the scenario you have suggested would not be out of the realm of possibility. I would hate to even think that it could really happen.
Sadly the first black president will probably turn out to be a complete failure. Not because he is black but because his party chose a narcissist who has no experience and I believe has a goal to become a dictator, not a leader of a free country. So many well educated black leaders who could have done a great job and would have put racism to rest and the party chose this clown. I fear it will take a long time before we will see a black man or woman be able to overcome the damage Obama has done. |
|
"if all the polls by, say, late 2011 show Obama is absolutely a dead man walking politically but he refuses to stand aside for re-nomination even despite intense pressure (publicly AND privately) by top-ranking and high-profile Dems, it's my contention that the left would at that point have a GREAT incentive to want to see Obama dead - and a GREAT incentive to artificially speed that denouement."
Right-wing projection. If you clowns had an actual clue about the real world, you really would be dangerous. |
|
Oh, I see, and naturally you're going to tell me that political lefties wouldn't even THINK of sacrificing even one of their own who became an inconvenience - like Obama in the scenario I previously posited - or if they could gain even the slightest advantage from doing so, right?
Of course, it was TOTALLY UNKNOWN in the communist regimes for the communists to engage in ANY bloodletting, right? And the tens of millions who were slaughtered in those regimes in the last 90 years (not ALL of whom were hard-core anti-communists), this is just an historical myth, right?
Well, sorry, vladimir, I've KNOWN many liberals in my day, and I have barely met one YET who doesn't regard his/her OWN life as utterly INEXPENDABLE to the world - and the lives of EVERYONE ELSE, even those they claim to love and care about the most, as totally EXPENDABLE if it would gain them the slightest advantage.
You lefties think that if Obama IS assassinated during his term, only CONSERVATIVES would be dastardly enough to do it. Well, I say you LIBS would do it in a heartbeat if need be to further or maintain your power: as some conservative said on this site not long ago, POWER is the leftist's only true love. And we've seen in the last 90 years that there is NOTHING that people, ESPECIALLY leftists, won't consider for its sake - not even murder, not even MASS murder.
After all, since some of you libs were telling us in the wake of Ted Kennedy's death that it was worth the sacrifice of Rosemary Kopechne's life to allow Ted Kennedy to have the political career he did, what's the sacrifice of just one black man if it will further your objectives - especially one who will have outlived his usefulness? Hey, young black men are murdered in our nation EVERY DAY, right? So why get overwrought over one MORE? |
|
You are wasting your time trying to explain anything to Vlad. Before he jumps to correct you the name was MaryJo, not Rosemary. I really don't care as it was someone that Ted Kennedy sacrificed for his own career but Vlad will jump on it and try to make your entire post irrelevant because you used the wrong name.
Your rational is quite correct. These loons are so far gone that I would put nothing past them. They would sacrifice one of their own with no problem. Correctly you mentioned those who thought the death of MaryJo just might have been a worthwhile sacrifice to further Kennedy and his liberal agenda. Proved your point.
Ignoring Vlad is usually the best. His loony left fawning can get sickening after just one post. |
|
You're right, only just after I submitted my prior post did I realize that I had the first name of Ms. Kopechne wrong.
I actually hold out more hope than you, however, that even if Obama turns out to be the UTTER disaster many of us expect he will have shown himself to be by 2012 and becomes a one-term president, he will not irreversibly doom the possibility of a CONSERVATIVE black man from becoming president anytime in the foreseeable future.
I think a disastrous Obama presidency would doom the possibility of another LIBERAL BLACK MAN becoming president for a LONG TIME to come. But someone like, say, a Walter Williams or a Thomas Sowell or a Larry Elder or a Ken Blackwell or a J.C. Watts, I think, actually COULD get elected in America even in the aftermath of a disastrous Obama presidency. Such a conservative black man will not have played or BE playing the racial games liberals play; in fact, he'd all but certainly be called an Uncle Tom or a "house nig@er" by the radical left, which would only help to endear him to a lot of white people. And his policy beliefs would be as different from Obama's as night and day, again endearing him to a wide swath of voters.
To be sure, hard-core LIBERAL WHITES and probably even MOST BLACKS would never vote for such a black man - but hopefully in the aftermath of a disastrous one term by Obama, the hard left in our country will find itself utterly rejected by a nation that feels it suffered terribly during their watch and is not anxious for a repetition of the experience anytime soon. |
|
I rest my case. Only knuckle-dragging fanatics like you would expend so much time and energy explaining why Obama is likely to be assassinated.
Go back to your original premise: "if all the polls by, say, late 2011 show Obama is absolutely a dead man walking politically but he refuses to stand aside." If ANY president is crashing in the polls, there will be no shortage of candidates prepared to run against him or her in the primaries. This is not rocket science: Gene McCarthy challenged LBJ in 1968, Reagan challenged Ford in 1976, and Kennedy challenged Carter in 1980.
Meanwhile, the president is today enjoying very comfortable approval ratings, numbers that George W. Bush would have sold his daughters to have.
Of course, if you live your life inside the right-wing echo chamber, where your only contact is with tea baggers and birthers, and where every voice you hear screams about socialists and revolution, well, you might have a hard time facing up to simple reality. |
|
IF Obama is still around, and decides to run in the 2012 election, I guaranteee you THIS:
A N Y O N E
C O U L D
B E A T
HIM!!
AND I DO MEAN "ANYONE!!"
Hey, maybe I'll run!
|
|
I hope you are right. All of the conservative black men that you mentioned would be excellent candidates for President. I hope one bad apple does not spoil it for the rest.
As I said ignore Vlad and his moronic posts. I believe he spends his mornings over at Huffington looking for his days talking points. No reality for that man just a kool-aid drinking fool.
|
|
|
You are quite right. Anyone will beat Ovomit. |
|
I think SJA is probably right and trying to explain something to you is a waste of time, but I'll do it anyway, maybe not so much for YOUR benefit but to show anyone who reads this how much of a fool YOU are.
First of all, when did I ever say in any of my prior posts that Obama is LIKELY to be assassinated in office? All I said was that if it was all but a given that he would take down the Democratic Party as its presidential nominee in 2012, it would give the left an INCENTIVE for this.
You cited three examples of challengers to incumbent but unpopular presidents: McCarthy challenging LBJ in 1968, Reagan challenging Gerald Ford in 1976, and Ted Kennedy challenging Jimmy Carter in 1980. Well, THIS is not rocket science either, fool: WHICH OF THE THREE CHALLENGERS ACTUALLY WOUND UP WITH THEIR PARTY'S PRESIDENTIAL NOMINATION THAT YEAR?! NONE! SO WHO'S REALLY THE MORON HERE?!
You obviously failed to grasp - in fact, you're obviously INCAPABLE OF GRASPING - the argument I was making to SJA, that even a weak incumbent president is still very difficult to take down by an insurgent in his own party. I'll even throw in for your benefit a FOURTH example for you to illustrate my point: Teddy Roosevelt, who was practically a legend in his own time by then, challenging incumbent president William Howard Taft for the GOP nomination in 1912. Roosevelt failed in HIS attempt, too.
You said of Obama, "the president is today enjoying very comfortable approval ratings". What Kool-Aid-drinking leftist site did you get THAT notion from? |
|
Come on, Shiftingground, you post paragraphs about Obama being assassinated, and SJArch responds, "These loons are so far gone that I would put nothing past them. They would sacrifice one of their own with no problem," and then you wave your arms and say, "Who me? I never said he WOULD be assassinated."
And your original premise was that Democrats had reason to assassinate a president who wouldn't step aside. Since that has never happened, none of your historical examples prove a thing except your own obsession with violence, conspiracy theories, and the joy you receive from your own righteous anger.
"even a weak incumbent president is still very difficult to take down by an insurgent in his own party."
Well, any illiterate moron can see that! Even you! That was NOT your point. Your point was that Obama will, oops, MAY be assassinated by liberals. Which is still moronic. |
|
You brought out the best of Vlad. He really gets nuts when you try to explain reality to him.
Actually it was quite nice to have a back and forth discussion even if we both don't totally agree of the future of Hillary. You have given me lots of food for thought.
As far as poor Vlad is concerned he spends half of his time here calling the bloggers liars and nitpicking their spelling. The other half of the time he tries to convince others that he has not been soaking in a vat of kool-aid for the past 9 plus months. |
|
I'm not even going to bother to address vladimir estragon again on this subject. You're right, he's so deeply immersed in the Kool-Aid vat that he's totally oblivious to all else.
He claimed, for example, in response to my statement, "even a weak incumbent president is still very difficult to take down by an insurgent in his own party", the following:
"Well, any illiterate moron can see that! Even you! That was NOT your point"
It may not necessarily have been the point of my 2:00pm post, but even BEFORE I suggested the POSSIBILITY of Obama being assassinated by the left, I said in my 12:04pm post, "But even a very wounded president is STILL very difficult to topple by a rival in his own party". It's right there in cyberspace for all the world to see. Including vladimir.
vladimir sounds like a shining example of what our liberal-dominated public school system has been turning out for the last 25 years. He's probably another Peggy the Moocher: someone who voted for Obama because he figures that under Obama, his shelter and food and car payment and all his other expenses will be paid for by his Messiah.
But if Hillary DOES decide to challenge Obama for the 2012 Democratic presidential nomination, here's ANOTHER thing I'm sure we're agreed upon: let's hope it's a vicious, nasty, ugly, no-holds-barred, knock-down drag-out battle in which EACH side throws everything but the kitchen sink and fully airs all the other's dirty laundry. Because such a nomination fight would leave the Democratic Party in such tatters that the "winner" for the nomination would be road kill for the GOP candidate that November. |
|
|
Have a great evening. I will anxiously watch the election returns this evening. Hope the conservatives get some good news. |
|
|
|