for the Clintonites

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: for the Clintonites

Will Rush Limbaugh Be Indicted for Voter Fraud?

http://www.alternet.org/democracy/80392/?page=1

But...you know...maybe he ran afoul of the FCC! I don't know much about federal communications law, but I wonder if it's possible that he committed a regulatory infraction by encouraging ("inspiring") illegal behavior. If so, it's possible that he or his broadcasters might get in hot water (fine or something). It wouldn't be a federal criminal beef, but it would be a headache for him.

Maybe...?? This is way beyond my area of legal expertise. I am only thinking aloud.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: for the Clintonites

Hey, I looked around the Internet for a couple of minutes to see if there were are better articles analyzing the issue of whether Limbaugh could be charged. I didn't really see much. Most of the articles were editorials (or, more accurately, personal weblogs) and the writers almost always started out on an incorrect legal assumption: that it is illegal to encourage someone to commit a crime (unless you're a cop entrapping someone, inspiring criminal activity isn't illegal--it's just low character).

I saw a couple of sites that posted the Ohio state law (I guess the issue is whether Limbaugh broke state, not federal, law?). But it related to the act of the voter--not a third-person. And the voter, ultimately, is the one committing the crime, regardless of where they got the idea.

I didn't see anything on Mother Jones or some of the other reputable leftie sites, which makes me think there's not much meat to this idea. The left intellectuals would have been all over this, if it had merit, I'd think.

Re: for the Clintonites

say what you will about Bill & Hillary Clinton, but I think they raised a very well-adjusted young woman with poise and class.

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

[SuzySunshine]

Re: for the Clintonites

I saw that clip tonight and I agree, that was an awesome answer!

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: for the Clintonites

I saw that clip tonight and I agree, that was an awesome answer!

I thought it was a legitimate question, but with an answer so self-evident that the question was not intellectually worth posing. (What new insight could be gained by discussing this? Either HRC was blind to her husband and duped by his lies, or she knew all along, lied to the public, claimed a "vast right wing conspiracy, and tried to play the public for fools. Either way, it calls into question her judgment and her ability to read people.) Therefore, the question could not have been posed for real discussion purposes; it was posed to be antagonistic toward the speaker, who clearly would have been taken aback--since, in most social contexts, people probably go out of their way not to mention the scandal to Chelsea.

It seems to comment most profoundly on the character of the question poser. Yeah, Chelsea put herself out there, by stepping out from behind her previous "no talk, only-in-the-background" practice at public appearance, to advocate for her mom. So she should expect to have to field tough, embarrassing, or banal questions. But that question didn't move the ball down the field at all. It was just petty.

While I admired her ability to stay composed and poised, substantively, I didn't think her response wasn't very good. "I don't think that's any of your business?" That response sounded like she was dodging answering a question by claiming that it was a purely private matter. The judgment of the woman who wants to be President is completely our business and not a private matter--even though her judgment is being called into question related to her husband's infidelities. It would have been better to have turned it back on the questioner, and called him out for the doofus that he is: "I've known my mother for 25 years, and seen her judgment in both personal and professional situations. It is beyond reproach. Yours, however, seems to be in question."

[Momo]

Re: for the Clintonites

ITA w/ Abigail

[SuzySunshine]

Re: for the Clintonites

*** UPDATE *** AP reports, "The college student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal said Wednesday he's a Clinton supporter who was trying to get her to show 'what makes Hillary so strong.'

"Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school's newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president."

"I'm a supporter of Hillary. I love Hillary," Strange said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "He said he asked the question because his friends 'always bring up that scandal. It's not something I asked to cause trouble but to show those people what makes Hillary so strong.' He said that by brushing him off, Chelsea Clinton missed an opportunity to show her mother's strength.

" 'I was very surprised' at the rebuke, Strange said. 'I can see where she'd get a little defensive because of the question and hearing Lewinsky over and over again, but I would like to hear her say something about Hillary rather than dismissing the question.'"

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: for the Clintonites

*** UPDATE *** AP reports, "The college student who got a stinging brushback from Chelsea Clinton when he asked about the Monica Lewinsky scandal said Wednesday he's a Clinton supporter who was trying to get her to show 'what makes Hillary so strong.'

"Evan Strange, a Butler University student who works on the school's newspaper, The Butler Collegian, said he had asked Chelsea Clinton her opinion "on the criticism of her mother that how she handled the Lewinsky scandal might be a sign of weakness and she might not be a strong enough candidate to be president."

"I'm a supporter of Hillary. I love Hillary," Strange said Wednesday on CBS' "The Early Show." "He said he asked the question because his friends 'always bring up that scandal. It's not something I asked to cause trouble but to show those people what makes Hillary so strong.' He said that by brushing him off, Chelsea Clinton missed an opportunity to show her mother's strength.

" 'I was very surprised' at the rebuke, Strange said. 'I can see where she'd get a little defensive because of the question and hearing Lewinsky over and over again, but I would like to hear her say something about Hillary rather than dismissing the question.'"

Oh, that's just hysterical! That question was supposed to have been a softball??! Essentially, a set-up for Chelsea to hit out of the park? Wow, if that's the case, the questioner did a really bad job pitching. I heard him ask it; it did not sound like a softball. I would have read the question just as Chelsea did--as an implied attack.

If he wanted to ask a question to show HRC's strength of judgment despite her reactions when her husband was caught philandering and lying, he could have asked something like: "Your mom was criticized--essentially, by strangers--for her judgment related to some of personal difficulties your family endured during your dad's presidency. You, however, are familiar with your mom's judgment better than almost anyone else in the world, so I am guessing that you completely disagree--and have good reason to. Could you describe your mom's method of assessing problems and weighing options...that is, what makes her a person of solid judgment?"

She could have responded by affirming that her mom used terrific judgment during her personal scandals--a judgment that was based on love, forgiveness, and personal faith. Or she could have given examples of how her mom has made judgment calls professionally while in the Senate. Or she could have told a warm, personal story--like if her mom was ever judgmental about a boyfriend or something.

[mommax3]

Re: for the Clintonites

That college campus thing with Chelsea happened at my alma mater.

I was wondering what HRC supporters think about this latest deal to hit the media.....where HRC (as an example of her vast experience obtained while her husband was in office) has recalled landing in Bosnia (I think?) under "sniper fire" and having to run across the tarmac to safety. Several reporters who remember being along on that trip have countered with their own recollections, which are decidedly different and include HRC listening to a child sing her a song and several other ceremonial activities that occurred immediately after landing. HRC's response is that she was tired and mis-spoke, but she seems to have mis-spoken several times, because she has made reference to that "harrowing" experience more than once.

This, in a nutshell, is why I have never liked her. She has always reminded me of my (now ex-)stepmother, who is a shameless self-promoter and is not above bending the truth if it casts her in a better light. There is probably nothing anyone could say that would change my opinion of HRC, but I am honestly curious about how the above item affects those of you who support her.

Re: for the Clintonites

That's a lovely campus Sally. DH best friend went there, and we visited several times.

I think the kid who thought it was a "softball" question was stupid. If he wanted to do that, he should have said "Many of my friends cite Hillary being duped by Bill (or whatever) during the Lewinsky scandal when they speak to her lack of judgement. What would you say to that?" The way the question was posed, it would obviously put Chelsea on the defensive, and I still maintain that she handled herself well. Of course there may have been "better or snappier" answers, but the young woman was on the spot, and was asked a rude, intrusive question.

As to HRC's Bosnia "story" - I've just found myself rolling my eyes and wondering WHY????? I'm not a huge supporter, but have always liked her / found her to be intelligent. In this instance HOW could she have thought NO ONE would say "uh - I was on that flight and, uh, we landed and walked calmly to the welcoming ceremony." It simply can't be an "I misspoke". She can't claim to have "confused" it with the other times she had to land in a corkscrew and dodge sniper bullets. It's an out and out lie to make herself seem more "seasoned" and I think it was just plain dumb.

[GrayMatterWife]

Re: for the Clintonites

As to HRC's Bosnia "story" - I've just found myself rolling my eyes and wondering WHY????? I'm not a huge supporter, but have always liked her / found her to be intelligent. In this instance HOW could she have thought NO ONE would say "uh - I was on that flight and, uh, we landed and walked calmly to the welcoming ceremony." It simply can't be an "I misspoke". She can't claim to have "confused" it with the other times she had to land in a corkscrew and dodge sniper bullets. It's an out and out lie to make herself seem more "seasoned" and I think it was just plain dumb.

Oh, this is kind of funny. I detest HRC, but I am giving her more of the benefit of the doubt than a lot of her fans I know. I just can't imagine that she would have out-and-out intentionally lied on something like this. It must have been a stupid but honest mistake. Surely, she's experienced enough to realize that she would have been busted. Her claim included that: (1) her husband sent to to a war zone that was too dangerous for him to travel to (heroic, Bill); (2) the army was not prepared to provide her with a safe entrance; and (3) the Secret Service allowed her to be subject to this danger. Essentially, she called into question the judgment and protection of every person at least in part responsible for her welfare. How could she just lie about that?

[mommax3]

Re: for the Clintonites

How could she just lie about that?

That's the million dollar question, isn't it? Maybe because she's had lots of practice at it? :huh: Don't flame me, please.....I am really not trying to start a debate, but this incident illustrates exactly what my issue has always been with her, and with Bill for that matter. I don't believe they are truthful people.

If a Republican politician struck me the same way, (and I am sure there are many out there that would.....I'm just not aware of them) I would be the first to say so!

Sally

[fluffhead]

Re: for the Clintonites

Sally makes an excellent point about trust. The thing is, it's a moot issue for me - I'm jaded and cynical enough not to trust a thing any of these candidates (except maybe Ron Paul?) says. They're all full of spin and fluff, and they'll say whatever their handlers at the moment think will project the image their campaign is putting forth.
Now, given that a president really does have the good of the nation at heart and wants to go down in history as a successful leader, my idea of a good candidate is one who has the brains and the experience to be able to pull it off.

Of course, somebody whose campaign is putting forth ideas with which I strongly disagree is not somebody for whom I'm going to vote. But by their platforms, none of the current three are repugnant to me.
I'm not crazy about Hilary, and if it's her and McCain I'm not really positive which direction I'll take.
But I'm definitely not voting for somebody who last year gave tens of thousands of dollars to a church which publishes editorials supporting terrorists. If he didn't know about Wright's political leanings, he's an idiot, and if he did know, then he's lying about his policies.

Re: for the Clintonites

Obama could know about Wrights political leanings, disagree with Wright, and be honest about his policies. :huh:

I've not read / watched more than a few clips about Wright. He seems like a loose/nutty cannon to me, and I disagree with what I've heard him say. I will say that I haven't come across anything I'd consider 'terrorism', but I also haven't looked at the Wright thing closely. It may be that I'm not personally religious, so I give less weight to what a pastor says insofar as what it means a member of the congregation might believe and/or agree with. What I have heard about the church is that it also does the (IMO) true work of a church: helping the community. If Obama gave money towards that end, I've got no problem with it.

[Momo]

Re: for the Clintonites

Sorry for the hijack!
Jane this is the "terrorist link"/editorial, that Fluffhead is referring to.
It is an article written by a leader in Hamas.


This is the "pro Hamas editorial" that was reprinted, from the 7/10/07 LA Times. It appeared in the bulletin of the Trinity United Church of Christ, in Chicago IL.

L.A.TIMES
Hamas' stand
An official of the movement describes its goals for all of Palestine.
By Mousa Abu Marzook, MOUSA ABU MARZOOK is the deputy of the political bureau of Hamas, the Islamic Resistance Movement.
July 10, 2007

Damascus, Syria — HAMAS' RESCUE of a BBC journalist from his captors in Gaza last week was surely cause for rejoicing. But I want to be clear about one thing: We did not deliver up Alan Johnston as some obsequious boon to Western powers.
It was done as part of our effort to secure Gaza from the lawlessness of militias and violence, no matter what the source. Gaza will be calm and under the rule of law — a place where all journalists, foreigners and guests of the Palestinian people will be treated with dignity. Hamas has never supported attacks on Westerners, as even our harshest critics will concede; our struggle has always been focused on the occupier and our legal resistance to it — a right of occupied people that is explicitly supported by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
Yet our movement is continually linked by President Bush and Israeli Prime Minister Ehud Olmert to ideologies that they know full well we do not follow, such as the agenda of Al Qaeda and its adherents. But we are not part of a broader war. Our resistance struggle is no one's proxy, although we welcome the support of people everywhere for justice in Palestine.
The American efforts to negate the will of the Palestinian electorate by destroying our fledgling government have not succeeded — rather, the U.S.-assisted Fatah coup has only multiplied the problems of Washington's "two-state solution."
Mr. Bush has for the moment found a pliant friend in Abu Mazen, a "moderate" in the American view but one who cannot seriously expect to command confidence in the streets of Gaza or the West Bank after having taken American arms and Israeli support to depose the elected government by force. We deplore the current prognosticating over "Fatah-land" versus "Hamastan." In the end, there can be only one Palestinian state.
But what of the characterization by the West of our movement as beyond the pale of civilized discourse? Our "militant" stance cannot by itself be the disqualifying factor, as many armed struggles have historically resulted in a place at the table of nations. Nor can any deny the reasonableness of our fight against the occupation and the right of Palestinians to have dignity, justice and self-rule.
Yet in my many years of keeping an open mind to all sides of the Palestine question — including those I spent in an American prison, awaiting Israeli "justice" — I am forever asked to concede the recognition of Israel's putative "right to exist" as a necessary precondition to discussing grievances, and to renounce positions found in the Islamic Resistance Movement's charter of 1988, an essentially revolutionary document born of the intolerable conditions under occupation more than 20 years ago.
The sticking point of "recognition" has been used as a litmus test to judge Palestinians. Yet as I have said before, a state may have a right to exist, but not absolutely at the expense of other states, or more important, at the expense of millions of human individuals and their rights to justice. Why should anyone concede Israel's "right" to exist, when it has never even acknowledged the foundational crimes of murder and ethnic cleansing by means of which Israel took our towns and villages, our farms and orchards, and made us a nation of refugees?
Why should any Palestinian "recognize" the monstrous crime carried out by Israel's founders and continued by its deformed modern apartheid state, while he or she lives 10 to a room in a cinderblock, tin-roof United Nations hut? These are not abstract questions, and it is not rejectionist simply because we have refused to abandon the victims of 1948 and their descendants.
As for the 1988 charter, if every state or movement were to be judged solely by its foundational, revolutionary documents or the ideas of its progenitors, there would be a good deal to answer for on all sides. The American Declaration of Independence, with its self-evident truth of equality, simply did not countenance (at least, not in the minds of most of its illustrious signatories) any such status for the 700,000 African slaves at that time; nor did the Constitution avoid codifying slavery as an institution, counting "other persons" as three-fifths of a man. Israel, which has never formally adopted a constitution of its own but rather operates through the slow accretion of Basic Laws, declares itself explicitly to be a state for the Jews, conferring privileged status based on faith in a land where millions of occupants are Arabs, Muslims and Christians.
The writings of Israel's "founders" — from Herzl to Jabotinsky to Ben Gurion — make repeated calls for the destruction of Palestine's non-Jewish inhabitants: "We must expel the Arabs and take their places." A number of political parties today control blocs in the Israeli Knesset, while advocating for the expulsion of Arab citizens from Israel and the rest of Palestine, envisioning a single Jewish state from the Jordan to the sea. Yet I hear no clamor in the international community for Israel to repudiate these words as a necessary precondition for any discourse whatsoever. The double standard, as always, is in effect for Palestinians.
I, for one, do not trouble myself over "recognizing" Israel's right to exist — this is not, after all, an epistemological problem; Israel does exist, as any Rafah boy in a hospital bed, with IDF shrapnel in his torso, can tell you. This dance of mutual rejection is a mere distraction when so many are dying or have lived as prisoners for two generations in refugee camps. As I write these words, Israeli forays into Gaza have killed another 15 people, including a child. Who but a Jacobin dares to discuss the "rights" of nations in the face of such relentless state violence against an occupied population?
I look forward to the day when Israel can say to me, and millions of other Palestinians: "Here, here is your family's house by the sea, here are your lemon trees, the olive grove your father tended: Come home and be whole again." Then we can speak of a future together.

I understand that there are many people who would prefer to never read or hear anything from the Hamas or even the Palestinian side of the conflict. I understand that there are those that feel that allowing Hamas to be "heard" is a grave mistake. What is so damning about reading an editorial/opinion piece concerning the "other side" of ANY major conflict/struggle???

I wanted to post this here, because regardless of your feelings about the editorial, I believe that it is important to read about & research both sides of any conflict.

I like that Obama recognizes the fact, that as a powerful country we should, at the very least, be willing to talk to/hear hear from more than one side.


BTW I'm a Muslim but I am NOT a supporter to any group that utilizes terrorist tactics!