IF B(ill) J(efferson) CLINTON AND HITLARY CLINTON DESTROY THECAMPAING OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL T

[HarryHype@excite.com]

IF B(ill) J(efferson) CLINTON AND HITLARY CLINTON DESTROY THE CAMPAIGN
OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL THE DUSKY SONS OF AFRICA REFUSE TO VOTE
FOR HER?

Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- And
a 'Miracle' Hillary Even Has a Chance to Win Iowa

By Greg Mitchell

Published: December 14, 2007 11:55 PM ET updated 8:15 am

NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his
PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared
that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than
her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not even close" -- but that
voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the
latter.

Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the
Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters
were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a
gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less"
experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out
that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his
first term in the U.S. Senate.

Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she
even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling
you." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be
preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there.

He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but
repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other
candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about
that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when
he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he
was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on
international business issues. Viewers could draw their own
conclusions.

Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated
that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly
because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at
Obama.

Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the
best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is
not as important as substance."

He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped
get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that
because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors,
the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."

One more dig at Obama? He said that Edwards had first run for
president after just a few years in the Senate, but then completed his
term and went out and conducted a serious study of poverty.

"I guess I'm old fashioned," he said, in wanting a president who had
actually done things for people. He said some people could "risk"
taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose.

When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that
people would be "rolling the dice" if they picked Obama, the former
president replied: "It's less predictable, isn't it?"

If a call had gone out from his wife's campaign to pull back any
critiques of Obama, her husband clearly did not get the memo. Marc
Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com writes today that Clinton's people were in
the control room at the Rose show urging him to cut the interview
short.

Clinton attributed his wife's decline in Iowa to the press overplaying
her poor answer to one debate question on driver's licenses for
illegal aliens. He did say that he gets "tickled" watching Obama
because of his attractiveness and political skills. "I like all these
people," he said. "I have nothing bad to say about him or anyone
else."


http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003686025

 

[Vic Eisendecker]

<HarryHype@excite.com> wrote in message
news:4970fded-fce5-42cf-8ae8-92dc62bad4bc@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> IF B(ill) J(efferson) CLINTON AND HITLARY CLINTON DESTROY THE CAMPAIGN
> OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL THE DUSKY SONS OF AFRICA REFUSE TO VOTE
> FOR HER?
>
This is the worst a conservative can come up with: playing childish
games with Democrats' names. Nothing substantive here.

 

[Frank.Etch@gmail.com]

HarryH...@excite.com wrote:
> IF B(ill) J(efferson) CLINTON AND HITLARY CLINTON DESTROY THE CAMPAIGN
> OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL THE DUSKY SONS OF AFRICA REFUSE TO VOTE
> FOR HER?

If the alternative to voting for her is helping a candidate of your
chosing get elected, what's your guess?


>
> Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- And
> a 'Miracle' Hillary Even Has a Chance to Win Iowa
>
> By Greg Mitchell
>
> Published: December 14, 2007 11:55 PM ET updated 8:15 am
>
> NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his
> PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared
> that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than
> her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not even close" -- but that
> voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the
> latter.
>
> Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the
> Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters
> were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a
> gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less"
> experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out
> that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his
> first term in the U.S. Senate.
>
> Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she
> even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling
> you." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be
> preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there.
>
> He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but
> repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other
> candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about
> that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when
> he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he
> was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on
> international business issues. Viewers could draw their own
> conclusions.
>
> Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated
> that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly
> because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at
> Obama.
>
> Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the
> best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is
> not as important as substance."
>
> He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped
> get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that
> because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors,
> the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."
>
> One more dig at Obama? He said that Edwards had first run for
> president after just a few years in the Senate, but then completed his
> term and went out and conducted a serious study of poverty.
>
> "I guess I'm old fashioned," he said, in wanting a president who had
> actually done things for people. He said some people could "risk"
> taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose.
>
> When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that
> people would be "rolling the dice" if they picked Obama, the former
> president replied: "It's less predictable, isn't it?"
>
> If a call had gone out from his wife's campaign to pull back any
> critiques of Obama, her husband clearly did not get the memo. Marc
> Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com writes today that Clinton's people were in
> the control room at the Rose show urging him to cut the interview
> short.
>
> Clinton attributed his wife's decline in Iowa to the press overplaying
> her poor answer to one debate question on driver's licenses for
> illegal aliens. He did say that he gets "tickled" watching Obama
> because of his attractiveness and political skills. "I like all these
> people," he said. "I have nothing bad to say about him or anyone
> else."
>
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003686025

 

[Topaz]

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.

It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

 

[Topaz]

Goebbels speech on March 18, 1933:
"German women, German men !
It is a happy accident that my first speech since taking charge of the
Ministry for Propaganda and People's Enlightenment is to German women.
Although I agree with Treitschke that men make history, I do not
forget that women raise boys to manhood. You know that the National
Socialist movement is the only party that keeps women out of daily
politics. This arouses bitter criticism and hostility, all of it very
unjustified. We have kept women out of the parliamentary-democratic
intrigues of the past fourteen years in Germany not because we do not
respect them, but because we respect them too much. We do not see the
woman as inferior, rather as having a different mission, a different
value, than that of the man. Therefore we believed that the German
woman, who more than any other in the world is a woman in the best
sense of the word, should use her strength and abilities in other
areas than the man.

The woman has always been not only the man's sexual companion, but
also his fellow worker. Long ago, she did heavy labor with the man in
the field. She moved with him into the cities, entering the offices
and factories, doing her share of the work for which she was best
suited. She did this with all her abilities, her loyalty, her selfless
devotion, her readiness to sacrifice.

The woman in public life today is no different than the women of the
past. No one who understands the modern age would have the crazy idea
of driving women from public life, from work, profession, and bread
winning. But it must also be said that those things that belong to the
man must remain his. That includes politics and the military. That is
not to disparage women, only a recognition of how she can best use her
talents and abilities.
Looking back over the past year's of Germany's decline, we come to the
frightening, nearly terrifying conclusion, that the less German men
were willing to act as men in public life, the more women succumbed to
the temptation to fill the role of the man. The feminization of men
always leads to the masculinization of women. An age in which all
great idea of virtue, of steadfastness, of hardness and determination
have been forgotten should not be surprised that the man gradually
loses his leading role in life and politics and government to the
woman.

It may be unpopular to say this to an audience of women, but it must
be said, because it is true and because it will help make clear our
attitude toward women.

The modern age, with all its vast revolutionary transformations in
government, politics, economics and social relations has not left
women and their role in public life untouched. Things we thought
impossible several years or decades ago are now everyday reality. Some
good, noble and commendable things have happened. But also things that
are contemptible and humiliating. These revolutionary transformations
have largely taken from women their proper tasks. Their eyes were set
in directions that were not appropriate for them. The result was a
distorted public view of German womanhood that had nothing to do with
former ideals.

A fundamental change is necessary. At the risk of sounding reactionary
and outdated, let me say this clearly: The first, best, and most
suitable place for the women is in the family, and her most glorious
duty is to give children to her people and nation, children who can
continue the line of generations and who guarantee the immortality of
the nation. The woman is the teacher of the youth, and therefore the
builder of the foundation of the future. If the family is the nation's
source of strength, the woman is its core and center. The best place
for the woman to serve her people is in her marriage, in the family,
in motherhood. This is her highest mission. That does not mean that
those women who are employed or who have no children have no role in
the motherhood of the German people. They use their strength, their
abilities, their sense of responsibility for the nation, in other
ways. We are convinced, however, that the first task of a socially
reformed nation must be to again give the woman the possibility to
fulfill her real task, her mission in the family and as a mother.

The national revolutionary government is everything but reactionary.
It does not want to stop the pace of our rapidly moving age. It has no
intention of lagging behind the times. It wants to be the flag bearer
and pathfinder of the future. We know the demands of the modern age.
But that does not stop us from seeing that every age has its roots in
motherhood, that there is nothing of greater importance than the
living mother of a family who gives the state children.

German women have been transformed in recent years. They are beginning
to see that they are not happier as a result of being given more
rights but fewer duties. They now realize that the right to be elected
to public office at the expense of the right to life, motherhood and
her daily bread is not a good trade.

A characteristic of the modern era is a rapidly declining birthrate in
our big cities. In 1900 two million babies were born in Germany. Now
the number has fallen to one million. This drastic decline is most
evident in the national capital. In the last fourteen years, Berlin's
birthrate has become the lowest of any European city. By 1955, without
emigration, it will have only about three million inhabitants. The
government is determined to halt this decline of the family and the
resulting impoverishment of our blood. There must be a fundamental
change. The liberal attitude toward the family and the child is
responsible for Germany's rapid decline. We today must begin worrying
about an aging population. In 1900 there were seven children for each
elderly person, today it is only four. If current trends continue, by
1988 the ratio will be 1 : 1. These statistics say it all. They are
the best proof that if Germany continues along its current path, it
will end in an abyss with breathtaking speed. We can almost determine
the decade when Germany collapses because of depopulation.

We are not willing to stand aside and watch the collapse of our
national life and the destruction of the blood we have inherited. The
national revolutionary government has the duty to rebuilt the nation
on its original foundations, to transform the life and work of the
woman so that it once again best serves the national good. It intends
to eliminate the social inequalities so that once again the life of
our people and the future of our people and the immortality of our
blood is assured..."


http://www.ihr.org/ http://www.natvan.com

http://www.thebirdman.org http://www.nsm88.com/

http://wsi.matriots.com/jews.html

 

[zzpat]

HarryHype@excite.com wrote:

>
> He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped
> get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that
> because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors,
> the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."
>


156 members of Congress got it right. They voted against "use of force."
On top of that even more quickly opposed the war after they learned
Bush had lied his ass off.

So, in Clinton's world, the people who were right should be ignored and
the people who were wrong should lead us for another four years.

Clinton should shut up. He's making a fool out of himself. Defending
his wife is like defending Bush.

--
Impeach Bush
http://zzpat.bravehost.com/

Impeach Search Engine:
http://www.google.com/coop/cse?cx=012146513885108216046:rzesyut3kmm

 

[JSM]

On Dec 15, 7:54 am, HarryH...@excite.com wrote:
> IF B(ill) J(efferson) CLINTON AND HITLARY CLINTON DESTROY THE CAMPAIGN
> OF BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA WILL THE DUSKY SONS OF AFRICA REFUSE TO VOTE
> FOR HER?
>
> Bill Clinton, on 'Charlie Rose' Show, Suggests Obama Not Ready -- And
> a 'Miracle' Hillary Even Has a Chance to Win Iowa
>
> By Greg Mitchell
>
> Published: December 14, 2007 11:55 PM ET updated 8:15 am
>
> NEW YORK In a surprisingly frank interview with Charlie Rose on his
> PBS show late Friday night, former President Bill Clinton declared
> that his wife was not only far better prepared to be president than
> her chief rival Sen. Barack Obama -- "it's not even close" -- but that
> voters who disagreed would be taking a "risk" if they picked the
> latter.
>
> Repeatedly dismissive of Obama -- which could come back to haunt the
> Clinton campaign -- the former president at one point said that voters
> were, of course, free to pick someone with little experience, even "a
> gifted television commentator" who would have just "one year less"
> experience in national service than Obama. He had earlier pointed out
> that Obama had started to run for president just one year into his
> first term in the U.S. Senate.
>
> Clinton also said, surprisingly, with a laugh, "It's a miracle she
> even has a chance" to win in Iowa, adding he was not just "low-balling
> you." He said John Edwards might well win -- which would certainly be
> preferable, from the Clintons' perspective, to an Obama win there.
>
> He praised Obama's intelligence and "sensational political skills" but
> repeatedly suggested that, unlike his wife and some of the other
> candidates, he might not be ready for the job. Asked directly about
> that, Clinton refused to state it bluntly, but did point out that when
> he was elected president in 1992 at about the same age as Obama, he
> was the "senior governor" in the U.S. and had worked for years on
> international business issues. Viewers could draw their own
> conclusions.
>
> Later he said that his friends in the Republican party had indicated
> that they felt his wife would be the strongest candidate, partly
> because she had already been "vetted" -- another subtle slap at
> Obama.
>
> Also: He said the most important thing to judge was who would be "the
> best agent for change" not merely a "symbol for change....symbol is
> not as important as substance."
>
> He also hit back at the charge that experienced politicians had helped
> get us into the Iraq war, saying that this was "like saying that
> because 100 percent of the malpractice cases are committed by doctors,
> the next time I need surgery I'll get a chef or a plumber to do it."
>
> One more dig at Obama? He said that Edwards had first run for
> president after just a few years in the Senate, but then completed his
> term and went out and conducted a serious study of poverty.
>
> "I guess I'm old fashioned," he said, in wanting a president who had
> actually done things for people. He said some people could "risk"
> taking someone who had served just a year in the Senate if they chose.
>
> When Rose said that all this seemed to add up to Clinton hinting that
> people would be "rolling the dice" if they picked Obama, the former
> president replied: "It's less predictable, isn't it?"
>
> If a call had gone out from his wife's campaign to pull back any
> critiques of Obama, her husband clearly did not get the memo. Marc
> Ambinder at TheAtlantic.com writes today that Clinton's people were in
> the control room at the Rose show urging him to cut the interview
> short.
>
> Clinton attributed his wife's decline in Iowa to the press overplaying
> her poor answer to one debate question on driver's licenses for
> illegal aliens. He did say that he gets "tickled" watching Obama
> because of his attractiveness and political skills. "I like all these
> people," he said. "I have nothing bad to say about him or anyone
> else."
>
>
> http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_...

I don't understand why anyone would vote for such phoney liars. The
stupied electorate i sware, if Saddam had a high voice and **** he
would be electable to the Democrates.