msm & bho: was it just puppy love?
Poor precious. I know you’re hurting.
It can’t be easy going from annointed media darling to target of vile attacks disguising as “satire” seemingly overnight. For the record, this PUMA thinks the New Yorker cover stinks like last week’s catch of the day.
Why, you are probably thinking, would someone so dedicated to derailing my coronation nomination be defending me? Well, Sen. Obama, PUMAs know a thing or three about faux satire. We are all too familiar with people saying hateful things about us and our candidate, then pretending it was all a joke. (If I had a dollar for all the times I’ve heard the complaint, “But I was only joking! You’re too sensitive!” I’d have the kind of wardrobe and shoe collection that would make Carrie Bradshaw seethe with envy.) When you’re on the receiving end, however, you know the difference between a joke, no matter how awkwardly delivered, and a hit. It’s not fun, is it?
We feel your pain, really. Jokes and jabs involving your genitalia
The kind of tripe now masquerading as serious satire on the New Yorker cover does PUMAs no favors. First, real PUMAs don’t fall for silliness like that. And second, it makes it far too easy for your more vociferous supporters to lump any legitimate criticism of you together with racist, hateful effluvia. Enough PUMAs have been falsely accused of racism that I take any false, baseless accusations seriously. If the mag really wanted to satirize the rumors now vexing you and your wife, they could have, oh, let’s see, run a pointed headline with the cartoon? Or better yet, run a different cover??
Even though I think you should have expected things to get this ugly, it must still be a shock when the true ugliness falls on you like an anvil falling on Roger Rabbit’s head. Anybody familiar with Hillary Clinton’s public life can sympathize with you on that. That poor woman was excoriated for her alleged hidden sexual orientation—except when she was supposedly sleeping with Vince Foster, whom she later had killed. She was called every name under the sun and a few new ones for having the temerity to use her First Lady role to do more than host White House teas. And let’s not forget the stories about how she breathed fire and ate live babies for breakfast. And that’s all before she started running for president!
Funny, though. Despite living through one of the most ugly, sustained smear campaigns in American public life, Hillary Clinton still commanded the respect of 18 million voters in the primaries. She let it roll off of her with grace under fire and inner strength, impressing voters in states Democrats need to win the White House in November (you know, those states where you didn’t do so well?). As you just barely amassed enough delegates to claim you’d won the nomination,* Hillary’s trend was surging upward. Even funnier, her fundraising has been remarkably strong during the “suspension” of her campaign, especially compared to yours as the presumptive nominee.
Maybe that’s because while you’re only now dipping your toes into the crucible of American presidential politics, Hillary’s already survived it over and over again. Come to think of it, that’s one of the big reasons I supported her: her demonstrated ability to stand tall and proud against the ugliest politics imaginable.
Good luck with that.
* I’ll believe it when the votes are tallied
on July 14th, 2008 at 8:43 pm
yep lets see how the goldenboy holds up .rember this is only the begining looks like the REP attack machine is just warming up.
go pumas
go hillary
on July 14th, 2008 at 8:46 pm
indeed ’scary one’…..
actually - obama’s the scary one…you’re a good boogieman - why do u call yourself that again?
Princess wanted to know
on July 14th, 2008 at 10:09 pm
Boogie sista would like to know to…
Keep up the sass minxie!
— scl
on July 14th, 2008 at 10:48 pm
hmmm good qusetion princess its a nickname i picked up a few years back.someone called me the boogieman once dont even rember who she was.
but i thought it was a cool nickname.
so iv been the boogieman ever scince.
hope that satisfies princess,s curiosity
on July 14th, 2008 at 11:16 pm
just to be clear girls i dont change shapes at midnight or anything like that.
lol
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:52 am
morning all fuzzy was a little exausted yesterday and hit the ol’ rack at 630 pm also my allergies have been acting up. Time to get the Netty Pot out so I will be lurking and posting as I can….gotta go to work and keep the lights burning.
Saw my first Obambi for America not on a major network but on HGTV last night during Househunters…some one get me a vomit bucket like they cut and pasted in obambi on a Hillary advert. I guess this will be his outreach to the woman and LGBT community putting commercials on HGTV.
strange how my allegies came back after that obambi commercial? could I be allergic ti “the one”?
thank goodness for the mute button!
have a good day all,
fuzzybeargville
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:59 am
Manolo Said in her post: “Hillary Clinton still commanded the respect of 18 million voters in the primaries. She let it roll off of her with grace under fire and inner strength,”
Perfect, Manolo!!
on July 15th, 2008 at 8:55 am
I am appalled that Barack Obama still cannot clearly present who is and what he stands for. The link below is to a short video that depicts how Barack Obama is a “Great Imitator!”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?
v=YuB_W8o_UsU
POC PUMA NY . . . JustSayNoDeal.com . . . Clintons4McCain.com
on July 15th, 2008 at 8:58 am
After years of lurking in the ball park near the visitors’ bullpen, one discovery resonnates: major leaguers’ fans have a hilarious take on the game. This is the beginning of fair game. Let the fans have a go at the rock star. May the grace of pee wee herman be with you! Seen any funny cartoons lately?
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:04 am
Do you not understand that once a person becomes the party’s presumptive nominee, he generally faces greater scrutiny from the media?
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:09 am
Hillary Clinton has NEVER stood tall for anything especially her claim of being a strong, independent woman. She’s hidden her past behind a wall of secrecy that even the Bush administration would envy. If the Clintons want to stand tall, let’s see them release ALL the information pertaining to Bill Clinton’s financial dealings. After all, in any Hillary White House, Bill would be the co-president since Hillary really isn’t that strong, independent woman she claims to be.
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:12 am
Great post minxie….and it looks like his affair with his own supporters coulda been puppy love too!!!!! (this from Ricki Lieberman’s Electability Watch) ….
*********McCain is now viewed favorably by 56% of voters, Obama by 54%. Obama receives unfavorable reviews from 44% of voters while McCain is viewed unfavorably by 41%. McCain earns favorable ratings from 32% of Democrats while Obama is viewed favorably by 22% of Republicans. Among unaffiliated voters, McCain is viewed favorably by 58%, Obama by 54%.**********
Polls show Obama and McCain tied
… now is the time to remind all the Super Delegates and party officials that if they want to take back the White House, Hillary Clinton is the electable candidate…”
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:16 am
Hana - Hillary was bill’s co- prez —- u obviously haven’t read the history books!!!
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:31 am
It takes a strong woman to recognize another one!!
on July 15th, 2008 at 9:48 am
hana do you live in the twilight zone. you dont think hillarys a strong women.. .hana i think you need help. after the attacks the she withstood . she one of the strongest women out there period>
go hillary
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:00 am
hanna you said that hillary never stood tall for anything
. whats obama stand for? why did you vote for him.?& please dont give me that hope & change BS .
go hillary
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:08 am
whell to be fair he did promise hope & change.
and he changeing his postion on just abought everything . & looks he hoped he,d that you’d buy all that BS he was promising
looks like he hoodwinked you hana .
go hillary
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:38 am
In the White House, Hillary was the wife in denial who stayed in her office while her husband committed adultery down the hall.
If Hillary Clinton was a strong woman - and not one who continued in a marriage with a serial adulterer husband to stay close to power - she’d have divorced him years ago. Attack? I understand Clintonistas interpret any legitimate criticism of Hillary as an attack, but that is simply a character flaw of the Clintons and Clintonistas.
As for voting, I didn’t vote for Obama and wouldn’t vote for him because, similar to Hillary Clinton, he supports confiscating the wealth of some Americans and giving it to someone else. In my opinion, that’s insane.
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:42 am
http://www.presidentpolls2008.com/
July 11, 2008
Number of electoral votes based on the latest polls for each state:
Barack Obama - 309
John McCain - 229
Appears Ricki’s poll is an example of wishful thinking.
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
Hana, yesterday you posted we need to get over it, and stop throwing temper tantums..(what better advice to follow but your own) and you have been blasting everyone, callling us racist, leftist, and promiscious….if you are not not here to convince us to vote OB, what is your purpose?
on July 15th, 2008 at 10:44 am
http://www.inthesetimes.com/article/3129/why_women_hate_hillary/
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:19 am
did you for anyone hana
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:20 am
do u plan on voteing
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:21 am
“Hana, yesterday you posted we need to get over it, and stop throwing temper tantums..(what better advice to follow but your own) and you have been blasting everyone, callling us racist, leftist, and promiscious….if you are not not here to convince us to vote OB, what is your purpose?”
Since I don’t support Obama, it would be foolish to convince you to vote for him.
However, I simply don’t understand the lovefest you, and others, have with a woman who is a proven liar. Some have feigned outrage over the lies of Bush, Obama or McCain but are strangely silent on the lies told by Hillary Clinton. Such silence makes no sense if one is, indeed, concerned about the veracity of a political candidate.
Neither Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama will do anything for my family except punish Americans like us who save, invest and build estates for our children. The Clintons, and Clintonistas, support socialistic polices of weath confiscation and redistribution. That fact is why I used the word ‘leftist.” I doubt you could claim to be a supporter of Hillary Clinton’s policies and not be a leftist.
Hillary Clinton doesn’t represent change and neither does Obama. How could they when they support the same old policies of discriminatory affirmative action, high punitive taxes, and socialistic health care plans?
I have said, repeatedly, that Hillary Clinton and Bill Clinton are racists and they exhibited racism during the primaries. You can, of course, support sleazy people, but I don’t believe the Clintons represent the best of the Democratic Party nor do I believe Obama represents the best of the party.
The feigned outrage of Hillary’s supporters is, in part, amusing and reveals either a complete lack of understanding the political process or being naive.
I’m confused as to why so many women have been bamboozled by Hillary Clinton. She doesn’t care about issues important to women except, of course, the judge-discovered ‘right’ to do away with your unborn child. Supporting Hillary, or any other candidate for this reason, in my opinion, is an example of shallowness and crass narcissism.
I don’t believe a woman can claim to be strong and independent yet remain married to a serial adulterer. I don’t personally care whether she’s married to him but STOP claiming she’s strong and independent when the facts state otherwise. Believe me, should my husband ever commit adultery, I’ll divorce him.
My reference to a temper tantrum was in response to the whining that poor — worth $100 million Hillary — was somehow mistreated by the media or, worse, a whining that Hillary simply didn’t get her way. In my opinion, such whining is beneath strong, independent women who should know better.
I’ll pose this question to you. Instead of being the anti-Hillary media conspiracy some in this blog have suggested, isn’t it possible that a majority of Americans are simply tired of the Clintons, as well the Bush family, and want someone else to lead the country. Remember this! Since 1980, in every presidential election, either a Clinton or Bush has been on the ticket.
1980 - Bush - VP nominee
1984 - Bush - VP nominee
1988 - Bush - Presidential nominee
1992 - Bush/Clinton - Presidential nominees
1996 - Clinton - Presidential nominee
2000 - Bush - Presidential nominee
2004 - Bush - Presidential nominee
It’s get pretty tiresome!
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:22 am
Yes, I plan to vote. The big question is who is worthy of my vote. At present, NO ONE!
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
if your not voteing for obama & u dont like hillary either. i guess that your a McCain fan.?
go hillary
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:24 am
Hana, You are wrong on so many levels. I think I speak for many of us when I say that your attacks on Sen. Clinton are “old news” and largely baseless. The so-called “hatred” that many feel, men and women, toward clinton is almost always expressed because it’s vogue to take up that tract. but when you scratch beneath the veneer of urbanity one always finds….nothing. It’s always exciting to be “in the know,” by repeating a mantra that was heard “somewhere.” I believe one should know before speaking. The real reason people “hate” clinton and the “clintonistas” is because they stand for and work for reasonable protections to all americans and that includes, in large part, regulation of business including banking and foreign money interests. read some information about Geroge Soros and do some real research on why we are now experiencing bank failures and the scourging of worker’s pensions by mega-corporations before you take up the banner of clinton-hating. If I were a speculator and wanted free reign of currency, oil or real estate speculation I would “hate” clinton, too.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:25 am
It’s truly a sad moment in American history when the best either party can offer is Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton or John McCain.
There are serious problems facing this country, and neither party appears ready to offer a candidate serious enough to solve those problems.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:30 am
If Hillary Clinton was a strong woman - and not one who continued in a marriage with a serial adulterer husband to stay close to power - she’d have divorced him years ago. Attack? I understand Clintonistas interpret any legitimate criticism of Hillary as an attack, but that is simply a character flaw of the Clintons and Clintonistas.
Hana, well, umm, no, on several counts.
First, I see Hillary Clinton as a strong woman. You don’t. Guess we have different interpretations. There is no single definition of “strong woman” that depends solely on your opinion, or mine, of how she behaves in her marriage. So you’d leave a guy in that circumstance. She chose not to. It’s not my call or yours. I see her as strong because she continues to be a vital presence in public life despite having more mud thrown at her than any public figure (save her husband, perhaps) that I can ever remember…and I’m just old enough to remember Watergate (though I was a wee minx at the time).
Second, you must be new here, or you’d be well aware of my dissatisfaction with Hillary on more than one issue. (I thought she made a serious strategic mistake hiring Mark Penn and then keeping him when he was torpedoing her campaign, and I’m still disappointed that she voted to okay the Iraq war, just for two.) However, seeing as Hil is made out to be Madame Satan on most of the non-PUMA blogs in the left blogosphere, we come here to have a safe space to rally for our cause.
So there. Agree or disagree, but there youare.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:31 am
woodhull - please, I posted the lies of Hillary Clinton which are well documented.
What ‘reasonable protections’ do you believe Clinton supports? She certainly doesn’t support reasonable protections - namely, the elimination of the death tax - that will reasonably protect the future of my children.
I oppose Hillary Clinton because she is a liar, and she has done absolutely nothing for this country.
Name one thing the Clintons have done for black Americans! I posed this question is another blog and, thus far, no response.
As for corporations, the rich, etc., who in the world do you think supports the Clintons?
In the Clinton administration, who was Secretary of the Treasury?
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:39 am
And in the latest of the Bushista war on women:
“The Bush administration wants to require all recipients of aid under federal health programs to certify that they will not refuse to hire nurses and other providers who object to abortion and even certain types of birth control.”
Translate?
To get federal health care aid, medical providers would be required to hire people who won’t give appropriate medical care.
http://www.feministing.com/archives/009733.html
google moral refusal laws or conscience laws
Where do the current candidates stand on these?
Where do you, the readers/writers of hireheels, stand on these laws?
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:40 am
Heels check out this story. “Anti-Obama Bloggers Question Why Google Froze Their Accounts”
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,382452,00.html
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
manolo minx - finally, a comment from a Clinton supporter that makes some sense.
I’d have more respect for her if Hillary stopped playing the victim. From her infamous, and in my opinion ill-advised, comment about a “vast right-wing conspiracy” to her continual whining, Hillary plays the perfect victim. She could be a ‘heroine’ on Lifetime Television.
Another thing I find troubling, especially from women, is the almost cult-like following of Hillary and, in general, the Clintons. The same could be applied, in my opinion, to the Obama crowd. I believe history warns us of the dangers posed by such cults of personality.
What is the cause? Finding solutions to problems or paying off a debt that Hillary created and should pay herself if she is truly that strong, indepedent woman?
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:41 am
Hana, Change for change sake is using uniformed, wishful thinking. Your statement that people just want someone new to take the leadership of our country doesn’t make any sense at all. You say that you are not an obama supporter, but I think your statement is very telling. As for your timeline showing bush and clinton as candidates/presidents over time, you are forgetting that Hillary clinton is not her husband, bill clinton. That is also very telling. Not only do I not believe that you are not an obama supporter, I do not believe you are a woman. You have naively assumed that anyone who is a regular member of this blog would agree that sen. clinton is merely an extension of her husband when nothing could be argued more strenuously. And if you are a woman then perhaps you are like some women who just can’t believe that a woman could possibly be a president. In that case I encourage you to do some reading about Ellen Johnson-Sirleaf, president of Liberia. She is known as the “Iron Lady of Liberia” and as far as I can tell, she has one of the toughest jobs on the planet. Sen. clinton shares most of the great qualities of any good leader, including Ellen. And that, Hana, is an example of why intelligent, thoughtful women here and across the country believe hillary clinton is, across the board, the most qualified candidate for president.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:42 am
Hana - first it was Robert Rubin, then Larry Summers.
Why do you ask?
as an aside - how the heck do you get caps to work on this site?
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:44 am
IName one thing the Clintons have done for black Americans! I posed this question is another blog and, thus far, no response.
According to this, African-Americans did significantly better economically in the 1990s under Clinton than they have under Bush. The study also said, “Associated with the strong economy of the 1990s, there were significant declines in the black violent crime rate and the black teen pregnancy rate. Between 1993 and 2001, the black violent crime rate declined by 60%.6 Between 1990 and 2004, the black teen pregnancy rate declined by 46%.7 These improving trends have ended, and it is likely that the worsening economic conditions of African Americans since 2001 have played at least a partial role.”
Don’t say I didn’t bother to answer. I may not have all day to blog here, but I’ll do what I can to document anything worthwhile whenever I can.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:45 am
Whoops. Sorry, dropped html tag foul. My bad!
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:47 am
Justzisguy, I think those laws reek.
Hana, no candidate can pay off a campaign debt from a personal fortune. Illegal. They have to raise money from donors. They can loan money to their campaigns, but campaign finance law requires it be paid back with donations.
Amateurs.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:50 am
Hana,
One more thing. It turns out that while Bill certainly made his share of bad decisions, there was, in fact, a systematic effort by several rich ultra-right-wing opponents (hello, Scaife, anyone?) to fund a takedown of the first President Clinton. Did you not read David Brock’s Blinded By The Right?
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:53 am
Minxie - I, too get fed up with fools who don’t know enough about how the process works regarding campaign finance.
Hana, while I appreciate your disapproval of all of the various candidates, you really need to go out and get educated on how campaign finance works.
Just like I cannot give over a certain amount to any one candidate, the candidates cannot spend their own money on their campaigns, or else we would have campaigns only run by people with Bill Gates’ or Rupert Murdoch’s pockets.
take some time and get educated about the topics whereof you speak.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:56 am
Hana: is your estate worth 2,000,000 plus?
on July 15th, 2008 at 12:03 pm
Hana: This from MS Encarta: Throughout most of his presidency, Clinton maintained a strong core of support from those who had elected him, principally African Americans, women, and blue-collar workers in the Northeast and Midwest. Among all American presidents, he was one of the most forceful champions of civil rights for minorities and equality for women. He appointed record numbers of minorities and women as federal court judges, Cabinet members, and other government officials.
This from Media Matters (in response to a journalist’s charge that Bill Clinton did not appoint as many minorities and women as GW):
NBC News quantified the dramatic increase in minority cabinet appointments under Clinton during its special coverage of “The Clinton Years” in December 2000: “Where his predecessor, George [H.W.] Bush, could find only one qualified woman, one African-American and two Hispanics for his Cabinet, Clinton nominated three black men, a black woman and two Hispanic men to join nine white Cabinet nominees — three of them women. George W. Bush’s push for diversity in his own Cabinet this year [2000] can be seen as an affirmation of Clinton’s work on that front.”
NBC News noted a similarly stark contrast in the number of minority court appointments under Clinton as compared to his predecessors: “In [former President Ronald] Reagan and [George H.W.] Bush’s 12 years in office, of the 545 federal judicial appointments, 65 were women, 22 Hispanic, two Asian American and 17 African American. In Clinton’s eight years, of 366 federal judicial appointments, 104 were women, 23 Hispanic, five Asian American, one American Indian, and 61 African American.”
Although George W. Bush has nominated minorities for some of the highest positions in government (such as outgoing Secretary of State Colin Powell, national security adviser and Secretary of State nominee Condoleezza Rice, and Attorney General nominee Alberto Gonzales), Bush has actually appointed far fewer minorities than Clinton overall. Newsday reported in an August 30 article titled “Bush not strong on diversity” that an analysis of federal personnel records for September 2000 and September 2002 concluded that “[b]lacks held 7 percent of administration jobs under Bush, less than half of the 16 percent they held under Clinton,” and blacks held only 6 percent of “senior executive posts” under Bush compared to 13 percent under Clinton. As Newsday observed, Bush “has assembled the most diverse cabinet and top-level officials requiring Senate approval of any Republican president, creating a profile that nears the record-setting diversity of Clinton. … [But] just below those highly visible positions — in the hundreds of little known but important appointments to senior executive posts that don’t need Senate confirmation — the diversity of the Bush administration fades.”
Our next door neighbor is one of the female fed judges appointed by Clinton.
on July 15th, 2008 at 12:57 pm
I’ll answer several posts at once.
First, do you seriously believe that ALL women support Hillary Clinton? I have stated very clearly I don’t support Barack Obama because he is, in the end, the same type of ultra-liberal, confiscate wealth candidate as Hillary Clinton.
I believe a woman will be president but it won’t be Hillary Clinton. She’ll be a more centrist candidate and, perhaps, a Republican.
I understand campaign finance laws perfectly and Hillary proved she is incapable of managing a budget. Furthermore, her selection of campaign staff seriously questions her judgment. My comments regarding Hillary and her debt is she shouldn’t have created it in the first place. It wasn’t responsible.
One has to be amused when Clintonistas assume things not supported by facts. I couldn’t care less whether you believe I’m a woman because I understand your blind allegiance to Hillary Clinton clouds your judgment. Not all women support Hillary Clinton and, in a general election, I doubt Hillary Clinton would garner the support of a majority of women voters. This type of nonsense is common among Clinton supporters because they simply cannot believe that a woman wouldn’t blindly follow Hillary Clinton down the road to financial ruin.
As for the blacks appointed by Clinton, all very well for the elitist ultra- liberal blacks who support the Clintons but what have the Clintons done for the majority of blacks who are not liberal and elitist? Yes, you posted some information but what’s the source. Let me guess; an ultra-liberal website? Furthermore, I don’t believe a person should be given a position simply based on race or gender. I believe one should be given a job/a promotion/a nomination based on merit. Of course, Clinton’s supporters would have us believe all went downhill for blacks following 2000. It’s an absurd claim.
Regarding my estate, it’s none of your business. I’ve stated very clearly what Clitnon and Obama would mean for my family and my children.
on July 15th, 2008 at 12:58 pm
Also, I think 90% support among blacks for the Democratic Party is an example of either a cult-like following or a complete lack of understanding the history of the Democratic Party.
on July 15th, 2008 at 1:01 pm
“Regarding my estate, it’s none of your business. I’ve stated very clearly what Clitnon and Obama would mean for my family and my children.”
Actually, hana, you keep claiming that the so-called death tax is going to punish you and your children - but it doesn’t affect any single person with realized assets under 2 million, or a couple under 4 million.
so, unless you have assets like that, your arguments against the so-called death tax don’t carry any weight.
on July 15th, 2008 at 1:03 pm
hana: I apologize if you thought I mean for you to answer that. It was a thought. Most states don’t even have an inheritance tax. And unless you are planning to give your children over $100,000 each, they are only going to pay less than 10%.
on July 15th, 2008 at 1:08 pm
Thank you, American. I didn’t mean to be rude or invasive, or even for her to actually answer on this blog.
on July 15th, 2008 at 1:48 pm
Hana: It appears, based on your comments, that you hate hillary clinton because of what you believe she will do to your wealth. If her proposals for health care or other social programs is driving your thinking, perhaps you should look closer at these proposals and the ways in which she proposes financing them. Also look at the costs incurred by American taxpayers for the wars in Afganistan and Iraq and the costs of the “war on terror.” These are not social programs, nonetheless they have their costs to all of us, our estates and our children. No American, unless you are incredibly wealthy, will escape the future of taxes needed to pay off our deficit and keep the infrastructure of this country intact (think bridges, roads, water systems, power grids). One could argue quite persuasively that the this administration’s Iraq war could have paid many times over for universal healthcare, basic education and re-education for those whose jobs have disappeared, many times over. There has to be a middle ground and at least Clinton now seems to be most representative of that.
What bothers me most about your comments are your attacks on “liberal elites”. I am a centrist democrat who values fiscal responsibility and sound social programs for Americans. I do not support a broad brush “robin hood” approach to tax and spend government. You, on the other hand, sound like you are very reactionary to the idea of giving hard-working Americans a hand up (not a hand out) in a time when, as you say, we are facing very difficult times.
Sen. Clinton’s whole campaign platform is based on strenthening America’s middle class workers in order to offset the effects of what is certain to be enormous taxation to all people. The far left liberals you seem to fear are not Hillary’s supporters. Without such strengthening of these Americans, and with current and future tax cuts to the most wealthy americans, we have no tax base from which to protect our country from either terrorist attacks or from which to provide much-needed social programs that enrich the lives of those who cannot earn enough to lift themselves out of a grinding cycle of poverty that benefits no one.
On Clinton’s yea vote for HJ Res 114 / Use of US military in Iraq: This resolution passed on a vote of 77 to 23. 30 of those yea votes came from democratic senators across the country, a large contingent of the 77 who voted in favor of using military force in Iraq. It doesn’t forgive Sen. Clinton’s vote, but it may ameliorate her decision to some extent. There are two ideas that have made it into the mainstream consiousness: 1) that Sen. Clinton was the only democrat to vote in favor of that resolution and 2) that Sen. Obama voted against it. As we know, the first idea is untrue because of what I’ve just told you and the second idea is untrue because Obama wasn’t in the senate at the time this vote took place. That hasn’t stopped him from misleading people on that issue.
If you’d like to check my facts to ensure I’m not getting them from an ultra-liberal website, go to: http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&vote=00237&session=2
As for your charge that the figures on president clinton’s appointments is coming from an “ultra liberal website”: These are figures drawn from several sources including research done for a nationally televised program for PBS and restated by NBC news who did their own independent research of government records.
Now a question for you: What is it about Sen. Clinton’s proposed programs that cause you to think that she will lead us “down the road to financial ruin.” Supporting facts, please.
on July 15th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
FlowerChild2 - thank you for the apology.
My complaint is the unfairness of the death tax. It punishes those who save, invest and create an estate for their children. The value of a house, alone, in some parts of the U.S. would qualify some people for the death tax. Punitive taxes based on one saving for the future, planning an estate for children, etc is, in my opinion, completely alien to anything American.
I have no doubt Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama would support higher taxes on inherited estates. I don’t understand penalizing Americans who create wealth and wish to pass wealth on to their children. Isn’t it enough the government already takes tremendously huge sums of money from us in the form of income taxes, capital gains taxes, state taxes, and the list grows longer all the time.
If that’s not enough, my twins are subject to the kiddie tax. Imagine, the government taxing 4 year old children! Not to worry, it’s gets worse. Depending on the situation, a child could be taxed at the parents’ tax rate which is as high as 35%. It’s insane.
While definitely aimed at the weatlhy, the kiddie tax negatively impacts middle income parents attempting to save for college educations; this definitely makes a lie of the claim that liberals want to help middle-income parents. The kiddie tax is an example of government gone mad as is the Alternative Minimum Tax.
on July 15th, 2008 at 3:15 pm
woodhull - due to the length of your post, I’ll need to post my response a little later. I do appreciate your comments.
on July 15th, 2008 at 3:29 pm
Hellooo HH!! I came accross this over on the riverdaughter blog and it reminded me of T-bone and thought you might enjoy. There are some documents were recovered during the summer cleaning of dormitory housing of a nearby state college. regarding bloggers for Obama (from David Axelrod)
http://riverdaughter.wordpress.com/2008/07/15/email-tale/
on July 15th, 2008 at 3:54 pm
“The value of a house, alone, in some parts of the U.S. would qualify some people for the death tax.”
If that house were sold prior to death, would it be subject to a capital gains tax? If so, and it isn’t sold, but it is inherited, it should be subject to some form of tax, either a capital gains tax, or the estate tax.
many large fortunes do not represent taxed income or savings, that wealth is not being taxed but merely the transfer of that wealth, and that many large fortunes represent unrealized capital gains which (because of a step up in basis at the time of death) will never be taxed as capital gains under the federal income tax.
Frankly, I think i agree with you in opposing capital gains taxes etc, as they may disincentivize investment in real property.
Then again, my mom actually testified before a congressional subcommittee saying the tax laws are overly complicated, and had a stack of _just the changes_ that was over three feet tall, on the table next to her while she testified.
But, if you agree that income tax is legal, then why shouldn’t profits from sales of things be considered income, for tax purposes?
on July 15th, 2008 at 4:25 pm
woodhull and americansoldier have posed valid questions. I will respond later in detail but, for the moment and in response to how Clinton policies negatively impact my family, my brief response is:
Isn’t it true she supports the death tax, higher income tax rates, the alternative minimum tax, and capital gains taxes?
How in the world can she propose new government programs and not raise taxes?
What’s her stance on double taxation of dividends?
Would she support reducing the taxes on Social Security for those earning more than $34,000. Her husband increased the taxes on Social Security payments. At least one person has made the argument that Senator Clinton’s policies are not her husbands. Reducing this punitive tax would, in the least, indicate her policies are different than her husband’s?
Does she support the extremely high marginal income tax rates?
Regarding her vote for the Iraq war, I don’t believe she should be let off the hook, but I don’t believe Barack Obama on this one either. Of course, he can claim he opposed the Iraqi war but how would he have voted in the Senate. We have no way of knowing other than what he says. In this regard, his criticism of her is, in the least, unfair. I do, however, agree with him that the Iraqi war was/is a distraction from the real war on terror, namely apprehending and prosecuting those responsible for 9/11. Military courts have been used in the past, including by FDR, to prosecute spies and were used during the Civil War. We can debate that issue but where does Senator Clinton stand on this issue? No one has to answer that one now since we focused on economic/taxation issues.
More later.
on July 15th, 2008 at 4:37 pm
I shall give you but one example of the stupidity infecting every Democrat and one Republican in the state where I live. It’s HB 4627 which will give the state of Michigan the power to create a Commission on Pay Equality and, using a “commission on pay equity,” the power to set guidelines for pay equity between different occupations.
This is insanity of the highest level and, furthermore, is the type of socialistic social engineering common among leftists.
Not one representative I contacted could name one instance in which this type of insanity has ever worked, but I have no doubt that should it reach her desk our ultra-liberal governor will sign it.
And they wonder why the economic situation in Michigan is so dire. It’s this type of insanity, combined with the unreasonable and economically unhealthy power of unions, that is destroying the Michigan economy. What party do unions usually support?
on July 15th, 2008 at 5:12 pm
good read of the NYorker, hireheels.
on July 15th, 2008 at 5:41 pm
Three things:
1. hana asked what Bill Clinton ever did for Black folk. Others have responded, but I want to add something. This particular thing wasn’t about improved incomes or crime rates, but a gesture the spoke volumes about basic human decency and dignity. Bill Clinton APOLOGIZED for the Tuskegee experiments. There was a formal ceremony and medal presentation to the lone survivor, I believe.
2. There are other places that acknowledge the contributions of HRC around the globe. Here is one video compilation of SOME of them:
Hillary Clinton’s Accomplishments (by iLEwoman)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qG-dkgaJ_7I&feature=user
3. Anyone interested in HRC’s inclusive words this year made into lyrics can visit http://wordsnmusic.homestead.com/lyrics.html and scroll down to the files labelled, “In her own Words”. One is a pdf with lyrics and chords; the other is an audio file (mp3). The instrument in the recording is a requinto, so the key of the song is off by a third or fourth.
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:35 pm
The rasmussen poll is still polling hillary against McCain and guess what she has a 8 point lead in the poles against McCain “outside the margin of error” Obama against McCain only 3 pts “inside the margin of error”.
This may be the frists measure of the “puma/justsaynodeal” effect and many people are beginning to believe that a majority of clinton democrats may not come home to Senator obama in november.
if the pollers start polling the puma/justsaynodeal effect then it is possible that come august a few hundred superdelegates may pause before throwing there weight behind obama.
can obama win with out 9 million hillary clinton voters? that is the question….and who is to say that a reverse lemming effect may be occurring with clinton supporters? more and more media coverage showing the other 9 million that they do not have to support obama could start a stampede.
senator obama may have refuse to see the righting on the wall but seasoned superdelegates sure will.
fuzzybeargville
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Fuzzybear: Did I hear Fox right when I came through the door. No one else was listening….did they report that Senator Clinton raised 23,000,000 since she suspended and all her contributors will be getting a letter to choose how they want their money allocated, i.e., to the Senate race; the next presidential race, etc
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:50 pm
two principle of taxation that have been the conerstone of our democracy-benefit and ability to pay.
the benefit principle is those who benefit should pay. surely, you can agree that the superwealthy those making more than $ 1 million a year benefit more from the government built infrastructure of this country the laws that grease the rails of commerce and insentives to encourage the entreprenueral spirit. and these are just 3 things off the top of my head.
the ability to pay principle states any tax structure that does not take into account the ability to pay of each member of that society would eventually rot into despotism or anarchy. niether of these would be good for society as a whole. taxes are the price we pay for civil society-police for internal security and a military force to protect from external forces is an example.
a tax rate of 39.6% was not picked out of thin air it was established because it was believed to be the highest level of taxes people would be willing to pay with out affecting productivity and industry.
is our tax system messy complicated and unfair? yes it is but if it is equally unfair to everyone then maybe its not so bad. of course it cold always use improvements
just random toughts for hana/americansoldier/woodhull.
on July 15th, 2008 at 6:51 pm
flowerchild i missed it but will ck when i get back fm stak nite with the boys
fuzzybeargville
on July 15th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
Hana: Obama is the candidate who plans on raising the dreaded Capital Gains Tax. Clinton and McCain do not. He’s gotten quite a bit of
criticism of that proposal since most economists agree that raising the CGT decreases not increases revenue.
If you Will you home to your children, and your children sell the home after your death, their sales proceeds are not subject to CGT. After age 55, CGT on home puchases do not apply. This does not include sales of investment properties though.
on July 15th, 2008 at 7:54 pm
as one who has paid every kind of inheritance tax there is to pay i am going to suggest that hana go research who was president when the laws were enacted to begin raising the minimum non-taxable estate. let me give you a big hint - you might appreciate President Clinton a whole lot more….
here is another way to look at it. How much was the minimum in 1998? in 2002? in 2005? …. and when did that ball roll?
other than that, I respectfully suggest we have more interesting and entertaining things to chat about than hana’s under-informed rants at us.
on July 15th, 2008 at 7:58 pm
Indeed akron— i’d like to discuss:
Flower’s “fuzzybear: Did I hear Fox right when I came through the door. No one else was listening….did they report that Senator Clinton raised 23,000,000…”
It’s sooo much sexier…
—scl
on July 15th, 2008 at 8:30 pm
Okay, so was that what I heard??? Did fox say, 23,000,000…I agree…I’m burned out on taxes.
on July 15th, 2008 at 11:02 pm
true I would not be suprized if it is true it’s almost as much as obama raised w/out suspendending his campaign….I bet the puma/justasynodeal alliance is responsible so obama should not even begin to think she is syphoning $$$ fro m the dnc nor obama for america(i want to vomit every time i say that/he ripped it off of westwing-remember leo’s napkin which said bartlett for america)
fox would most likely get that kind of news leaked to it from hillary’s campaign because they would put it out there! of course she already had $ 20 million in her presidential campaign fund. I wonder if they got the primary and general election funds mixed up….
fuzzybeargville
on July 16th, 2008 at 12:48 am
thats awsome news 23 MIL wow!
go hillary
on July 16th, 2008 at 2:17 am
Anybody up for a game of “guess that tax law?”
on July 16th, 2008 at 2:28 am
guess that tax law?
on July 16th, 2008 at 6:33 am
nah-wrote my masters thesis on tax law reform-24 years ago- still tired of the conversation….
fuzzybeargville
on July 16th, 2008 at 10:22 am
Of course, the Clintonistas wouldn’t want to discuss taxes since Hillary has proposed so much new spending taxes will surely be increased.
As you requested, I examined many of Hillary Clinton’s proposal and, to my shock, they’re worse than described by the talking heads media. All these proposals negatively impact my family and our financial future because all, eventually, mean bigger, more intrusive, more expensive government and, in the end, socialistic redistribution of wealth.
Health Care
She proposes spending $100 billion for her plan. It’s a plan that even leftist policy institutes call fiscally irresponsible (see http://www.mcclatchydc.com/226/story/22108.html for quotes from Len Burman of the Tax Policy Center and Lee Farris of the leftist United for a Fair Economy). The latter calls her plan “deficit-worsening.”
Of course, to pay for her plan, Hillary proposes doing something that Burman and Farris would support, namely ending the Bush tax cuts or, in other words, increasing the taxes of American taxpayers. When questioned at what level of income she would increase taxes, Clinton and/or her aides have suggested $200K. This is a classic example of the “class warfare” approach of leftists such as Hillary Clinton. It’s a soak-the-rich mentality that is shallow, non-productive and, essentially, does damage to the American economy. Already, the government redistributes wealth downward from the top 40% to the bottom 60% with many of the latter not even taxpayers due to changes in the tax code. More simply stated, non-taxpayers are being rewarded with the hard-earned money from the minority who pay approximately 70% of all federal income taxes. This is unfair and un-American.
Clinton’s New Propsoed Spending
If it wasn’t enough to increase taxes on American taxpayers, Hillary Clinton proposes new federal spending as follows (source - same as above):
Health Care - $100 Billion
Retirmenet - $20-25 Billiion
Energy - $10 Billion
Family leave/child care - $1.75 Billion
Tuition assistance - $8 Billion
Transporation/transit (meaning I pay for NY’s mass transit system) - $2.5 Billion
Education - $% Billion as though the federal government didn’t spend enough already
Scientific Research - $2.8 Billion
Other Proposed Spending
Energy $50 Billion
Foreclosure Assistance - $1 Billion
Passenger Rail - $1 Billion
Affordable Housing - $1 Billion
In 2005, she proposed $20 Billion in new fees for oil companies thereby proposing a huge disincentive for oil companies to invest in new production and/or research. I don’t understand why leftists like Hillary Clinton hate energy companies so much! If Hillary is so concernd with the cost of oil, perhaps she should embrace walking instead of riding in gas-guzzling SUVS.
According to the New York Sun, Clinton proposed, prior to the New Hampshire primary, a 9-point plan that included eliminating the Bush tax cuts thereby increasing taxes, higher taxes for energy companies thereby providing a huge disincentive, requiring oil companies to invest in alternative energy thereby inserting government intervention in the free market and, in the process, making energy companies less profitable and more likely to layoff workers and government scrutiny of corporate CEO salaries which is essentially socialism at work. Why is it, that politicians like Hillary Clinton, believe the solution to every problem is more government and more power for the government? Bigger, more powerful government means less freedom for Americans.
I don’t know how anyone who values fiscal responsibility could possibly support Hillary Clinton’s quest for bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government. Doing so, means higher taxes, less productivity, more layoffs, and a stagnant economy. Government doesn’t produce wealth and never has! It’s not the solution to all problems. If Hillary Clinton is serious about helping Americans, the last thing to propose is increasing taxes during tough economic times.
If a parent wishes to save money for children, it’s quite easy to create a bank account and set aside money each month or, better yet, create an education trust fund for children. My husband and I save for our childrens’ education and, in my opinion, that’s one of our parental responsibilities.
Why does Hillary Clinton believe my husband and I should pay child care for children other than our own? Doesn’t Hillary read the social science research regarding daycare? A Wall Street Journal Europe article - 14 January 1998 - stated the obvious:
1) “a 1974 study in the journal Developmental Psychology reported that children who entered day care before their first birthday were ’significantly more aggressive’ and more physically and verbally abusive of adults than other children.”
2) “In 1995, the National Institute of Mental Health published a joint US-Israeli study that found children raised in Israeli communes known as kibbutzim, who received 24-hour day care, were at significantly greater risk of developing schizophrena and other serious mental disorders.”
In 2001, The Catholic Education Resource Center published an article by Eve Tushnet (see http://www.catholiceducation.org/articles/parenting/pa0051.html) concerning a 10-year study conducted by the National Institute for Child Health and Human Development that found “children who spend long hours in non-maternal child care are more likely to be aggressive and disobedient, and less likely to have strong relationships with their mothers.” As the other states, this study fits well with other studies such as a Pediatrics magazine September 1999 study indicating that young children in day care centers were more likely to get a variety of respiratory illnesses. Responding to the leftist criticism that the Pediatrics was anti-working mother, Jay Belsky cited the carefully controlled factors of the study and said, “For the most part, the results remained…” regardless of the quality of the day care, mother-child relationships, family income, the temperament of the child or a mother’s depression.
No one study should be taken as being the definitive answer; however, the evidence suggest day care is not that great an environment for children. Of course, when one believes, as does Hillary Clinton, that it takes a village to raise a child, it’s no wonder she’d support government-run, government-paid child care. Personally, I don’t want my children raised in any village where Hillary Clinton leads.
Hillary Clinton is a financial disaster for my family and millions of other American families. We simply cannot afford her bigger, more expensive, more intrusive government and we’re tired of having our money confiscated through taxes and passed on to those who didn’t earn it. Furthermore, we’re tired of the whining from certain people/groups. The United States affords every American the opportunity to succeed, and the American dream can be realized by any person willing to work hard, abide by the rules and who takes responsibility for his/her own life and decisions.
Hillary Clinton is a socialist as heart and believes income should be redistributed.
on July 16th, 2008 at 8:13 pm
http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Politics%20and%20Culture.html