'Mudslinging' against Clinton: This is 'milquetoast'

But “I do believe that we have to weed that corruption out of the system and make it work for the majority of Americans.’’

That will leave Washington empty.

It isn't mud if it is true.

The New York Daily News analyzed the transcript of the Democrat debate on CNN, and found discouraging news on national security:

"Whew, that was a close one. We suffered a big attack and were in mortal danger for a while, but we are safe now. Thank God, the war on terror is over. There are no Islamic extremists. Homeland security is not an issue. The only problem in Iraq is how to get out.

Wait, this is news to you? Then you didn't watch the Democratic debate Thursday. Or maybe you did watch, but since those unpleasant topics were completely or mostly ignored, you assumed the war was over and went to bed believing peace is at hand and Santa Claus is busy making toys at the North Pole.

It's not your fault. It's the Democratic presidential candidates who are sleepwalking through history.

As befitting a scrum with too many people and too little time, the debate touched on everything and illuminated nothing. Sen. Hillary Clinton made headlines by defending herself and for finally taking a position against driver's licenses for illegal immigrants, but the gaping hole was the absence of any serious reference to the war on terror. It's long been that way on the campaign trail, and now Dem debates reflect the dangerous drift.

A New York Times language tracker tells the tale. Neither "homeland security" nor "war on terror" were mentioned. Osama Bin Laden was a no-show and Al Qaeda got one mention. "Terrorism" got three, two of them by audience members asking questions, as did "extremists," with two of those in a single answer by Illinois Sen. Barack Obama. On the other hand, "health" got 45 mentions and "education" 20."

Read it, and weep.

You just don't criticize presumptive nominees. You just keep quiet and let them dance around issues and cackle, do a snow job on slow thinking people and cackle, and pretend to not play the gender game and cackle. Hillary/Bill, Bill/Hillary. Same difference they don't like anybody who expresses an opposing view. I sure hope her opponents don't back off one bit.

The event in Las Vegas was not a debate. Wolf Blitzer should be ashamed of his high-schoul quality performance. Where was his follow-up? Why did he accept platitudes instead of pressing for specifics as to how and at what cost the candidate's goals would be accomplished?

Unfortunatly, most Americans accept the promises wihout knowing the costs. If CNN is a qualified media outlet, they CNN should know better.

Let's have the next Democrat debate on Fox. Oh, I forgot, the Democrat candidates declined to appear because they did not want a qualified journalist to ask them questions. And they think they can conduct foreign policy for the US?

Edwards has kept the debate issues oriented. H. Clinton is just attempting to distract from her many weaknesses on the issues by crying "mud." Not only has Edwards been truthful and accurate, he has never been personal in his comments.

H. Clinton, however, has been snide, personal and contemptuous of her opponents in comments comparing them to Republicans.

The best qualified candidates
were Biden, Dodd, and
Richardson. They are not
the "cutsy" candidates.
They actually know what they
are talking about.

Joe Biden is the only candidate who has a history of working with Republicans to actually get things done. He is respected on both sides of the aisle. With 35 years of experience in the Senate and 20 years on the foreign relations committee he is the best qualified to lead us in this very dangerous world. I'm hoping the so-called "top three" that the media has been pushing down our throats will implode so people can start looking at what real experience looks like.

I am comfortable handing the keys to the White House to John Edwards. I trust him to restore middle America. And to tell us the truth--even if we can't handle it.
paul wertz
eugene, oregon

Johnny,

go get 'em. Sounds a lot like me. Oh, one thing, populists usually get shot if they win. I know.

W.Stark

Don't blame the candidates for the asinine questions asked by the submarine commander or tweedy bird.

Bruce...Very different from those on the right who can "only" talk about the "war on terror". Since terror has been here for hundreds if not more years, how long do you wish to keep fighting it with all our treasure and lives? Till we're ruined? Great plan. Not to mention that there isn't a snowballs chance in hell that any of this will help us down the road with Iraq. You really think the Iraqi government will remain our ally if they can remain in power in their own country? What the heck is going to come out of this whole mess? A stable Iraq? When has Iraq ever been stable? unless you count Saddam. This was a total screw-up from concept. Then it got worse.

When is the so-called " Main Stream Media" going to let ALL the candidates have a chance to express their positions on the things important to all voters, instead of pandering to the "Front Runners". These are the candidates they have annointed, not the candidates that have something enlightening to say!!

Edwards, Obama, and every Republican are going to spend the next 46 days reminding everybody of the same thing:

how depressed they'll be once they see that Clinton, if elected, can't break the W-style gridlock to get anything done.

I need to get my hands on a copy of that much talked about handbook. It gets more plug-ins in the media than the candidates themselves. It must be a must read, for sure.

I think the moderators should not be news readers. They are too full of themselves and highlight who the network head honchos want to sell that day. It is all about advertising money, not who will be the best person to run America the next 4 years...I guess that's a little too early. This should be happening next year...

On another note.

Here's a New York Times Compilation of Mr. Bushes State of the Union Addresses.

http://www.nytimes.com/ref/washington/20070123_STATEOFUNION.html

You can look up the
"war on terror" (16) "national security" (2)
"terrorism" (8) "extremists" (8)
"homeland security" (9) "health" (79)
["health care" (35)]
and "education"(16)
["children" (66) ] etc.

You can see the distribution over the years, compare it to other words, and see every example of the word you chose. Children is most often used in the context of education reading writing etc.

Now I'd say in 7 years or so of addressing the nation of its status Bush is in the same ball park of 1 democratic debate; as far as where we he wants to take the nation over the course of 7 years and where the democrats want to take the nation in the course of one debate (relying on word count).

Fun fact 9/11 came up only twice.

Billions of things need to be take into account. The source, the accuracy, the subject (state of the union v. debate), the choice of word education vs children (what side uses words for what)etc. As someone who has read regular Bush speeches there is no doubt in my mind that 9/11, war on terror, homeland security, yada yada come up more often than it did in the address. Yet, I have also read democratic speeches before committees and national security does come up; the difference is is that it is not rooted in the fear mongering typical trigger words of Republicans (9/11, war on terror, etc. )

Either way I thought I'd play around with it. Couldn't let Bruce have all the fun.

While the anti-Clinton are making a lot of noise about her "inability" to work across the aisle, I think they know she has shown a great capacity to do just that. Contrary to the hype, Hillary has shown herself to be a shrewd and reasonable 'moderate' on the issues. I've been pleasantly surprised with her since her term in the Senate. I hope others take a careful look at what she's been able to do and rely less on the silly 'fear' and 'hate' mongering the extreme right are trying to fill the airwaves with. Most of us are 'centrists' when it comes to politics -- because we know its the only way to get things done -- and Hillary (and Bill) seem to "get this" better than anyone.

John Edwards is a desperate candidate at this point. Makes me wonder who on earth is running his campaign.

I can't for the life of me envision him as President and according to polls, it seems many agree with me.

We ought not to muddle the difference between mudslinging and debate. The root of "debate," from Latin de-battere, "to beat or knock down," denotes something less gentlemanly than the polite exchange of opposing views, whereas, mudslinging involves unjust insults or accusations aimed at defamation.

Hence, the forum for debate is more suited to a boxing ring and a good fight -- as correctly noted by the press's ubiquitous pugilisms -- than Hillary's "kitchen," where, at home on the range, she slings al dente tidbits to see what will stick. Had her "kitchen" kitsch come from the men, it surely would have been construed as a sexist slur and mudslinging.

To muddy-up the punchy jabs of Obama or Edwards and call them mudslingers is plain old mudslinging. As Hillary -- lobby suffragan -- knows: slings and arrows an outrageous fortune make. She wants in the boxing ring, but scolds the boys to stay out of the kitchen.

Thought semi bodacious of Hillary to sling some to muddy up fellow Dems by accusaton THEY were taking pages from Gop playbook..LOL and do figure that CNN "debate" was no "debat, Wolf and CNN should be somewhat ashamed (especially due to stacked audience allowed to boo/hiss/etc...)and saw a comment whre mentioned should have FOX do a debate , worded as if THAT would be by REAL reporters who give it FAIR AND BALANCED stage time, now that one was a major guffawable GBO, LOL for sure..Guess Fox will put something or other together to showcase Rudy but not likely to showcase others fair or balancedky and that has been quite apparent for way too long for any that have indeed paid attention !!!

We ought not to muddle the difference between mudslinging and debate. The root of "debate," from Latin "de-battere," "to beat or knock down," denotes something less gentlemanly than the polite exchange of opposing views, whereas, mudslinging involves unjust insults or accusations aimed at defamation.

Hence, the forum for debate is more suited to a boxing ring and a good fight -- as correctly noted by the press's ubiquitous pugilisms -- than Hillary's "kitchen," where, at home on the range, she slings al dente tidbits to see what will stick. Had her "kitchen" kitsch come from the men, it surely would have been construed as a sexist slur and mudslinging.

To muddy-up the punchy jabs of Obama or Edwards and call them mudslingers is plain old mudslinging. As Hillary -- lobby suffragan -- knows: slings and arrows an outrageous fortune make. She wants in the boxing ring, but scolds the boys to stay out of the kitchen.

Oh, bruce, you're priceless. Mr. flawless, Mr. fair and balanced, Mr. media watchdog.

If it's a "speculative", "baseless" accusation involving a republican it's:

Someone planting questions for John McCain?;

If you have facts, Ms. Zuckman, why didn't you present them?

Because this is just speculation. Baseless accusation.

The kind of fact-free speculation that journalists aren't supposed to do, and refrain from doing if one of their fellow Democrats is involved.

Dig up some evidence of planting before you slime Senator McCain. Better still, follow up on the mounting evidence that EVERYTHING at that CNN Democrat "debate" was phony, including the questions and the so-called undecided questioners. Here's a link to yet more evidence of CNN/Clinton News Network shenanigans:
http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html

Posted by: Bruce | November 18, 2007 11:37 AM

But if it's speculative, baseless accusations involving a democrat it's:

Obama, Clinton clash over 'scandalous information';

The Clintons are the masters of the smear. This anonymous smear is only the latest in a long line of Clinton smears, and is right out of the Bill/Hillary/DNC playbook.

Posted by: Bruce | November 18, 2007 11:42 AM

Thanks for applying your double standard bruce, you know, to keep things on an even keel.

I'm glad to see that Edwards finally had the opportunity to respond to Hilliary's attack from the debate. It's a real shame that Wolf Blitzer failed to give him the opportunity during the debate when she attacked him by claiming he was mudslinging for talking about their difference on the issues.

My comment concerning this particular article is more of a question for Mr. Silva.

Here are his words -

“I think they’re looking for the candidate who they believe is ready to be president,’’ Edwards said, without mentioning Clinton by name.

Mr. Silva why would you think Edwards would need to mention Clinton? Surely you're not implying that Senator Clinton is the only candidate ready to be president. If you are I couldn't disagree with you more. If I'm reading this wrong then I apologize. But for me and millions of Americans we believe that John Edwards is more than ready to be our president because he gets that being president is about working to ensure our government serves all of the people not just the privleged few. I'm not so sure that Hilliary Clinton quite understands that idea. She may talk a good game but her votes and her attitude toward embracing the status quo do not show this voter that she gets it.

American politics; Jeez.
We are in deep deep trouble kids.
Looks like Rudy is pulling it off with 'the base'.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11/18/opinion/18dowd.html?_r=1&ref=opinion&oref=slogin

Which one of these rimjobs said "Fox News has real journalists"...?

Friggin idiot...

Tuesday, November 20, 2007

NEWSFLASH---Mike Huckabee Supported Bill to Give Driver's Licenses to Illegal Aliens

I appreciate you posting my video of Mike Huckabee beggin for a tax increase the other day.

I'd email you this, but I'm unable to locate your email address on your blog.

I have the exclusive on Mike Huckabee supporting driver's licenses for illegal aliens.

http://arkjournal.com/2007/11/newsflash-mike-huckabee-supported-bill.html

$,
Henry