How Obama is like Teddy Roosevelt.
Posted By: Let me count the ways...sm on 2008-10-25
In Reply to: RE: Your last line....Obama is absolutely nothing compared toTeddy R....nm - nm
1. Attended both Harvard and Columbia.
2. Shared interest in and promotion of civil service.
3. As an author: http://www.newyorker.com/talk/comment/2008/10/13/081013taco_talk_editors "Not since Theodore Roosevelt has an American politician this close to the pinnacle of power produced such a sustained, highly personal work of literary merit before being definitively swept up by the tides of political ambition."
4. Candidate of change/reform. http://obama4usa.wordpress.com/2008/10/25/major-endorsements-for-barack-obama/October 19, 2008, Bryan College Station Texas Eagle newspaper endorsement: "Every 20 or 30 years or so, a leader comes along who understands that change is necessary if the country is to survive and thrive. Teddy Roosevelt at the turn of the 20th century and his cousin Franklin Roosevelt, John F. Kennedy and Ronald Reagan — these leaders have inspired us to rise to our better nature, to reach out to be the country we can be and, more important, must be. Barack Obama is such a leader.” http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/331720/barack_obama_following_the_foot_steps.html?page=2&cat=8 "Barack Obama Following the Foot Steps of Theodore Roosevelt Who was a Reformer"
5. Champion of worker's rights: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Obama_endorsements#Labor_unions to check out Labor union and union leadership endorsements. http://www.aflcio.org/issues/politics/obama_wrights.cfm to find a nifty summary of Obama's initiatives and policies on worker's rights.
6. Advocate of "ordinary citizen." Obama's appeal to the middle class is legendary and the current bone of contention on the McCain Joe the Plumber campaign trail. 'Nuff said.
7. Obama on Trustbusting: http://www.antitrustinstitute.org/archives/files/aai-%20Presidential%20campaign%20-%20Obama%209-07_092720071759.pdf
8. On corporate corruption: http://www.barackobama.com/issues/ethics/
9. On regulation: http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-03-27-economy-speech_N.htm "Fix Markets Regulations." Specifically relative to interstate commerce, the following are bills either sponsored or co-sponsored by Obama: Senate Bill (SB) 767 and SB 768 on fuel economy, SB 1306 on product safety and hazardous materials, SB 2132 on product safety prohibiting lead content . Regulation in E-commerce, credit card, banking, mortgage lending sectors.
10. Universal health care and national health insurance. Well known support, as is his support for conservation and the environment.
11. Judicial reform that would restore integrity of judicial discretion.
Complete Discussion Below:  marks the location of current message within thread
The messages you are viewing
are archived/old.
To view latest messages and participate in discussions, select
the boards given in left menu
Other related messages found in our database
And Teddy Roosevelt is turning over in his sm
grave about the so-called Republicans nowdays...
Maybe because she is not Teddy Roosevelt and it isn't 1900?
How Palin pales in comparison to Teddy Roosevelt.
Let's start by describing Roosevelt's accomplishments by age 42:
1. Graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Harvard in 1880, 22nd out of 177, after which he enrolled in Columbia Law School. He was reputed to have a photographic memory.
2. New York Assemblyman 1881, where he served for 3 years, distinguishing himself as an ardent reformer. Wrote more bills than any other state legislator.
3. At age 23, published his first book, The Naval War of 1812, establishing him as a respected author. He would go on to pen 35 books, 4 of which were written before age 42, including an exhaustive 4-volume historical account of westward expansion.
4. Appointed by President Harrison to Civil Service Commission (age 31), later to become its president, 1889-1895.
5. Director of NY Police Department, 1894-1897.
6. Assistant Secretary of the Navy under President McKinnley, 1897 in preparation for the Cuban War.
7. Went to Cuba as lieutenant colonel of a volunteer cavalry where he became famous as the leader of the Rough Riders, returning as a Spanish-American War hero.
8. Governor of State of New York, 1898, which was not avast wilderness, even at the tturn of the century.
9. Vice President, 1900.
10. Succeeded to presidency after McKinley assassination.
More striking differences become apparent when examining what KIND of republican reformer he was:
1. He was a PROGRESSIVE reformer in regard to workers' rights and ordinary citizen in general.
2. He distrusted wealthy businessmen and dissolved 44 corporate monopolies....can you say trust busting regulation? Was never accused of being a SOCIALIST. We could use a healthy dose of a modern version of that traditional American approach in the 21st century.
3. Square Deal advocated FAIR negotiations between workers and business/industry and REGULATION of interstate commerce.
4. First US President to call for UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE and NATIONAL HEALTH INSURANCE. Nope, he was not a communist either.
5. Promoted conservation movement and not once tried to block endangered species designation.
6. Sought judicial reform with regard to their bias against labor unions (gasp).
7. Fractured republican party via Bull Moose party to the point that democrat Woodrow Wilson won the presidency in 1912.
8. Nobel Peace Prize recipient 1906.
When attempting to compare Palin to a great American leader, you might want to choose someone a tad less like Obama next time.
omg. Lincoln and roosevelt. Nuff said. nm
nm
LOL.. yeah, Roosevelt was "on television"
nm
Roosevelt is the reason we're in this mess
xx
Interesting to read the promises Roosevelt made when SS was created.
It's just like farm subsidies and so many other things that government gets into and then makes a mess out of.
The promises, incidentally, were basically "our older citizens will not have to live in poverty". Now, SS is nothing more than institutionalized poverty for anyone who has nothing else.
And, incidentally, some of the rhetoric around the time SS was created dealt with the objections some had to the withholding by saying "This way, you won't have to put money into risky stocks because this is guaranteed". In other words, the implication was that you didn't have to provide otherwise for your retirement. The message was very powerful for a generation that had seen the Crash of 29 and the market's performance throughout the Great Depression. Stocks risky! Social Security safe!
I've forgotten the exact age, but I think when SS was formed the average life expectancy was 60 or less. In other words, it counted on most recipients dying off before they collected much if anything!
Well...you can add it up for yourself. We have people living much longer than SS had ever anticipated. We have a climate where you can't reduce benefits and you can't increase withholdings. And we have not allowed people (other than federal employees!) to opt out of SS so they could invest the withholdings in things that might have performed much better. (Notice how right this minute YOU are probably thinking about our own crash, but the fact is that SS has not even done that well).
I agree that it sounds good to introduce means-testing so wealthy people aren't receiving benefits, but on other grounds I can't go along with what would just be another example of treating some people differently than others.
Thanks Teddy :-)
I appreciate that and I hope someone can respond to the questions I raised.
Teddy
For Immediate Release: December 28, 2006
Contact: Carol Goldberg (202) 265-7337
HOW OLD IS THE GRAND CANYON? PARK SERVICE WON’T SAY — Orders to Cater to Creationists Makes National Park Agnostic on Geology
Washington, DC — Grand Canyon National Park is not permitted to give an official estimate of the geologic age of its principal feature, due to pressure from Bush administration appointees. Despite promising a prompt review of its approval for a book claiming the Grand Canyon was created by Noah's flood rather than by geologic forces, more than three years later no review has ever been done and the book remains on sale at the park, according to documents released today by Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER).
“In order to avoid offending religious fundamentalists, our National Park Service is under orders to suspend its belief in geology,” stated PEER Executive Director Jeff Ruch. “It is disconcerting that the official position of a national park as to the geologic age of the Grand Canyon is ‘no comment.’”
In a letter released today, PEER urged the new Director of the National Park Service (NPS), Mary Bomar, to end the stalling tactics, remove the book from sale at the park and allow park interpretive rangers to honestly answer questions from the public about the geologic age of the Grand Canyon. PEER is also asking Director Bomar to approve a pamphlet, suppressed since 2002 by Bush appointees, providing guidance for rangers and other interpretive staff in making distinctions between science and religion when speaking to park visitors about geologic issues.
In August 2003, Park Superintendent Joe Alston attempted to block the sale at park bookstores of Grand Canyon: A Different View by Tom Vail, a book claiming the Canyon developed on a biblical rather than an evolutionary time scale. NPS Headquarters, however, intervened and overruled Alston. To quiet the resulting furor, NPS Chief of Communications David Barna told reporters and members of Congress that there would be a high-level policy review of the issue.
According to a recent NPS response to a Freedom of Information Act request filed by PEER, no such review was ever requested, let alone conducted or completed.
Park officials have defended the decision to approve the sale of Grand Canyon: A Different View, claiming that park bookstores are like libraries, where the broadest range of views are displayed. In fact, however, both law and park policies make it clear that the park bookstores are more like schoolrooms rather than libraries. As such, materials are only to reflect the highest quality science and are supposed to closely support approved interpretive themes. Moreover, unlike a library the approval process is very selective. Records released to PEER show that during 2003, Grand Canyon officials rejected 22 books and other products for bookstore placement while approving only one new sale item — the creationist book.
Ironically, in 2005, two years after the Grand Canyon creationist controversy erupted, NPS approved a new directive on “Interpretation and Education (Director’s Order #6) which reinforces the posture that materials on the “history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism [and] Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes.”
“As one park geologist said, this is equivalent of Yellowstone National Park selling a book entitled Geysers of Old Faithful: Nostrils of Satan,” Ruch added, pointing to the fact that previous NPS leadership ignored strong protests from both its own scientists and leading geological societies against the agency approval of the creationist book. “We sincerely hope that the new Director of the Park Service now has the autonomy to do her job.”
Read the PEER letter to NPS Director Bomar
View the NPS admission that no policy review on the creationist book has occurred
See the 2005 NPS Director’s Order #6 on Interpretation
8.4.2 Historical and Scientific Research. Superintendents, historians, scientists, and interpretive staff are responsible for ensuring that park interpretive and educational programs and media are accurate and reflect current scholarship…Questions often arise round the presentation of geological, biological, and evolutionary processes. The interpretive and educational treatment used to explain the natural processes and history of the Earth must be based on the best scientific evidence available, as found in scholarly sources that have stood the test of scientific peer review and criticism. The facts, theories, and interpretations to be used will reflect the thinking of the scientific community in such fields as biology, geology, physics, astronomy, chemistry, and paleontology. Interpretive and educational programs must refrain from appearing to endorse religious beliefs explaining natural processes. Programs, however, may acknowledge or explain other explanations of natural processes and events. (Emphasis added)
Trace how the creationist book controversy started and grew
Look at tax dollars used to support the Bush administration program of “Faith-Based Parks”
Teddy...sm
I've been on break from the board too. Seems the older I get the less patience for time for ad nauseum reposts. Life is too precious.
Teddy...
You don't have to change anything unless, of course, you want to. This is the liberral board and you can post anything (except of course, anything derogatory about W). I meant to post this yesterday but just did not get around to it. It is difficult to be in the middle of a barrage of slams. I know I will try to answer a post, then get 2 more posts that are going on about something else and then I try to answer those and then they are telling me I never answered their posts, and then they talk about you to each other on the board and say **you didn't answer my question. That is what the left does.**It is hard to keep up and keep a civil tongue (keyboard) when you are alone amongst the opposition. However, do not give up or leave. Sometimes I find it necessary to take some time away from here, but at the very least I can say I kept up with them....rather than **I'm done with you. You are delusional. I am not talking to you any more.** I get a lot of that. You are not alone here.
Why Teddy...did not know you were such a fan...
why didn't you post what those posts were in REPLY to? Talk about your selective posting. LOL.
Whatever, Teddy, whatever...
you trot out the condescending prattle, I get really tired. Bottom line, I don't believe you. If you think that means I am calling you a liar, that is your problem. Why you cannot get a simple explanation is beyond me. Do you think if a person lies about one thing, that makes a person a liar? I save the term "liar" for a person I know lies continuously. Every one of us on this board has lied at one time about something. Does that mean we are all liars?? Get a grip.
Tired Teddy....
You need to get a new shtick. The condescending has passed onto obnoxious...in other words, its gettin' tired, Teddy.
Yep...believe it or not, I really do know there is a written record of all posts. I just don't know how I am going to sleep at night worrying about how you feel about my posts. <--that last sentence was meant to be facetious, just to help you recognize it.
If you are trying to come across as snooty, you nailed it.
Have a good night.
Pardon me, Teddy....
but just because someone posts here what they do, does not mean they do it. And if I do not choose to blow my own horn and brag about all the wonderful things I do, please do not interpret that to mean that I do not do something. I am retired and therefore can no longer serve, that does not mean I have never served or if I was able to serve I would not be right there. Please do not preach to me about involvement. And please to answer my question. Why do you not take this peacenik talk to the people who threaten the peace? Unless of course you are a terrorist apologist who thinks the United States is the big bad wolf who causes all the problems. If you believe that, then you should be on the first plane out.
Last time I looked, I and no other American had flown a plane into a building and killed 3000 people in one day. Last time I looked, I or any other American had not bombed embassies, bombed the Cole, downed the plane over Lockerbie, bombed the World Trade Center the first time...you are sooo typical of the angry liberal...and so typical...*my boyfriend says* *Michael Moore says* *Lurker says* Have you ever, my friend, had an independent thought while your butt is sitting there comfy in in YOUR chair??
And please to do the research...there are a great many in Congress who have children serving right now. I know people personally who are serving right now or have children serving right now. You might want to jump back down off that high horse and check out your rancid statements.
As long as we are on butts...you make mine hurt.
Have a good day!!
Dear Teddy....
you are So very angry, because you are so frustrated. And the way you post is far from *sassy.* I will leave it at that.
I am going to go out on a limb here, Teddy....
We both believe what we say, even though total opposition. We are both convinced we are *right.* We are both worried about the future of the country. You get frustrated, I get frustrated. You can't imagine why I believe what I believe, I can't imagine why you believe what you believe....and so it goes. You get frustrated and lash out and I become the enemy. I get frustrated and bite my knuckles.
Let me try to make you understand where I am coming from on Bush and on the military. First let me say...I give due respect to anyone holding the office of the Presidency while they are in office, and I will until they disgrace it...like Nixon did by breaking the law, like Clinton did by breaking the law. I condemn both and let neither slide. The point being...now Bush is President. Congress authorized use of force and he did it. We have soldiers fighting as we speak. I support our military. I support our military no matter WHO is President. I supported our military during Nam and we had a Dem President also during that time, and when John Kennedy sent more troops to Nam I supported him. It is not necessary that the President not be a Democrat for me to support decisions. Understand this about me if you do not understand anything else...even if I did not think Congress was correct to authorize use of force, even if I did not think Bush was correct to exercise that right and send troops, the fact remains, THEY ARE THERE, and I will support them AND their mission until they come home, because their morale and their safety and their ability to win is more important than my personal opinion of the Congress or the President, whoever he (or she) might be.
I hope this somewhat clarifies where I come from at least on that issue.
No it doesn't Teddy. sm
I can see examples of not agreeing on the very first page and they are still there.
Bye, Teddy....until the next time....
you do a drive-by attack. Wish I could say it was good to see you again.  You have a GOOD day now!
You're a class act, Teddy.
I hope you decide to stay. 
Excellent post, Teddy!
Thank you for your eloquent post. Hopefully, the trolls won't come out to tell you that you are guilty of treason and should leave the country because YOU are not willing to avert your eyes and do not pretend we do not commit atrocities.
You are in good company:
*Injustice anywhere is a threat to justice everywhere* Martin Luther King
*The world is a dangerous place. Not because of the people who are evil; but because of the people who don't do anything about it* Albert Einstein
Another wonderful post, Teddy.
Obviously, no human being on earth can say with any degree of credibility that agnostics call out to Jesus when the time is near. Nobody can possibly know what every other person on earth calls out, if anything.
For some, peace comes from religion. Others are able to find peace within themselves. Some never find it. Each person must follow their heart and brain and find the niche that works best for them.
I guess Islamic fascists aren't the only ones who try to force their religion on everyone else. The difference is that the United States isn't supposed to favor one religion over another. We're supposed to be a nation that has religious freedom.
This is especially dangerous during a time when war with religious fanatics is involved. To pledge undying, unquestioning loyalty and support of Israel in political matters (even if some feel they have acted badly) soley for personal religious reasons (to insure one's place in heaven) is very dangerous to the United States and the rest of the world. This is why politics and religion don't mix, and this is why the United States is becoming such a scary place. :-(
You started the condescending, Teddy...
read your post again. It was very condescending. You talked down to me, and I thought it might be fun to respond from down there where you put me. You talked down to me and you were rude. You know it and I know it. I was just giving it back to you. Now that we are past the kid stuff, could you please answer my question, and enlighten me as to what the *big picture* was that I missed and leave the condescending attitude out of it. As to being a dumb condescending Polack...your words, and not mine...it is so hilarious to me the parallels. My guy is of Polack/German ancestry and he is standing behind me as I type, and we are enjoying a good laugh, so thank you from this Choctaw/Cherokee/Irish gal and her dumb Polack guy. LOL. We are looking forward to the *big picture* point, though.
Sorry....I meant for the above to post under Teddy's...
post below titled Viet Nam and WWII...sorry.
Teddy, give it a rest already. sm
We have, through the years, LONG before you were posting here, made a distinct difference between liberals and leftists. If you would actually read the posts, instead of reading Ann Coulter, which for some reason you feel a Clockwork Orangish type of inescapability to read, you would see that. But instead in post after post after post you go on and on with a litany of wrongs against the poor liberals on the conservative board. Give it a rest already. As far as your assertion that Vietnam and Korea were civil wars, well, I am not quite sure how to address that gigantic historial distortion. I won't even try.
Teddy, you are not the board moderator. sm
And liberals are posting on the conservative board and do you see us ordering them off? You really have no tolerance. And by the way, the little article about dissention in the ranks, it seems all isn't what it appears to be. Shocker there.
http://newsbusters.org/
If anyone knows who Lifelong Democrat is, Teddy...
it would certainly be YOU. Funny how the posts and attitude are so SIMILAR. If anyone cares to, they can go back and compare. The alter egos all like to do the same thing....hide behind different monikers and take pot shots. It is easy to tell, looking at all the postings here, what is going on. As to sarcasm, accusation and putdown...anyone who reads my initial post and then those of LLD and now this one can tell who is the queen of that mode. I would invite anyone to check out the LLD and Teddy posts, among others, and they will know the truth. Most of the posters here on the Liberal board are not of that mindset.
I never said all the posters on the liberal board were one person, and I did not say it last night. Funny how when it was mentioned *Teddy* showed up. I know its you and you know its you. Most of the other posters know its you. And for some reason you have a real problem with me and love to swoop in and attack, and the posts are always the same. Condescending, holier-than-thou....it's like a signature. Methinks she doth protest too much.
For the record, Teddy/Taiga....
the rest of the post said when it wasn't in response to what had been thrown at me first. Methinks you are very guilty of what you always accuse me of....cutting and pasting out of context. Teddy is taking over again.
Yes, I did, Teddy....read the whole post.
I said show some that were not responses to baits or barbs thrown at me by piglet primarily. That is exactly what I said. Again, out of context.
As to Teddy/Taiga...I knew you only as Teddy (and a few other monikers by style of posting), and I do lean back toward that moniker when the posts lean in that direction, because under that moniker is when you were more likely to bait, demean, and ridicule. In short, "Teddy" seemed to be more "cranky" more often than does "Taiga."
As to posting as Observer....I don't know about that. No one was posting as Observer when I started posting using that moniker. Which has been quite some time now.
As to when someone does it first, why respond in kind? For a long time I did not. But I guess, like you, after a prolonged period of being baited, demeaned, and ridiculed, I got "cranky" too and responded in kind. So I guess we have that in common. Like I said...I am learning at the feet of the masters.
Some who post here tho, do not appear to be "cranky." Baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing seem to be in their nature (hence the Ann Coulter of the liberal board comment). I don't appreciate Ann Coulter's brand of humor either, by the way. I don't find baiting, demeaning, and ridiculing amusing. By anyone, on any side of any aisle.
Brunson...remember Teddy?
Teddy and Taiga are one in the same, though she adamantly denied it until she tripped herself up and finally had to admit it. However, the truth eventually catches up and she just had to be her...if you know what I mean. Would not surprise me if she was the one hounding you. The Teddy side of the personality definitely has/had a mean streak.
Not even close Teddy/Taiga....
not EVEN close. lol.
Teddy wrote books about something other than himself!
You can hardly compare Obama's narcissistic biographies with Teddy's books where he researched and wrote about something other than himself!
Applauding your fantastic post Teddy. (NT)
:-)
Teddy...dear....please read your own posts...
You were bashing ME by saying that talking to me was like trying to talk to your mother who had a personality disorder...thereby also bashing your mother. Again...YOU said it, YOU brought it up. I did not say anything about mental illness or any disease...this is a politics board...why do you find it necessary to make personal attacks and use your mother's mental illness as a vehicle to do so? The post is there for all to see, and they can read. Let each reader decide who was bashing who and who used whose mother to do so. They can also see who among is the most miserable. Don't you have a pink hat and boa you could be wearing and a meeting you could be attending?
Have a good evening.
geez. Teddy Kennedy left a woman to drown....
walked off from the scene of an accident where a death occurred....and we all know he has had his problems over the years while drunk. His son had substance abuse problems. If you Google senators and reps who have had DWIs no telling what you would find. The man is probably going to release everything up to and including the last time their dog burped to keep you vultures from digging it up and feasting on it. Sheesh. Why not heed your candidate's statement and stop already? lol
This post really makes me WANT to vote for Obama. I am undecided, but this pushes me closer to Obama
...Thanks for the info!
Obama was cool, while grouchy man steamed. Obama!!!
I'm so happy. The dippy people on here who are haters and racists and mccain lovers must be so po'd today. HAHAHAHAHAHA
If Obama gets elected, then it was meant to be! Go, Obama!
nm
Go Obama/Biden! I don't like it and will VOTE OBAMA/BIDEN!
Obama has shown great judgment in the people who surround him. He picked a great VP choice, and his wife is impeccable as a helpmate and is a fantastic role model for the American children.
Obama
I believe Obama has an awesome political future. He sure is a bright light, and he would be someone I would seriously consider voting for.
Someone I like even better is Rep. Harold Ford from Tennessee. Every time I hear this man speak, I like him more and more and more.
I think there are lots of good candidates out there who don't fit the profiles you outlined, which I also believe to be true, and I think we're well overdue in considering those candidates because, in my opinion, what we've been offered in the last several elections -- on BOTH sides -- has been pretty pitiful. The "box" isn't working, and it's time to look outside of it.
Obama is the man!!!
I think he will make an excellent president some day. Maybe Hillary/Obama would be a good ticket choice.
obama
FYI - he never attended a midrasha. This was later corrected.
Obama 08...nm
Obama et. al.
If we get Obama or any of the other candidates we will get more of the same. War and taxes. Empire building. If you like that kind of stuff, vote for any of the candidates EXCEPT.......... RON PAUL. The only candidate for peace, limited government and minding our own business.
Obama
As I posted on the other board, it is crazy that in one breath people are freaking out saying he is a Muslim, and in the next one, they are freaking out because of his stand on abortion. Being pro-choice really does not go with being a Muslim.
I like Obama, and I like his stance on choice. I really could care less if he is a Muslim. But, he belongs to a Christian church and has for over 20 years, before he had a political career.
People never cease to amaze me!
Obama
My husband just returned from Iraq, we support the war-- but if I had to vote democrat, definitely Obama, please!! But I vote republican, hee hee.
Go Obama!
What a great victory for Obama!
Did anyone see the Kennedy’s endorsement for Obama and his speech this morning? I have never been more excited and inspired in politics. In my life I’ve voted both sides (usually not voting for a candidate but rather voting for the other side as a vote against a candidate). I usually tune out in politics because of outright lies. Barack is the first candidate that I finally understand what he stands for, what his plans are, and he is someone who can connect with everyone in every walk of life. He is a trustworthy, inspiring, and humble person and his voting record and other aspects of his government life give me the confidence that he would be a great president. Listening to his speeches gives me hope for a better country/future for everyone.
I respect everyone’s choice for who they think would be a better president, but I’m sick to death of Clinton and what she stands for. All you have to do is read up on the history of her and what she did when she resided in Oakland California (who her mentors/ colleagues were and what her motives/plans are). She claims to have all this “experience” but doesn’t have it. She takes what her husband accomplished and if it was something good she claims credit to it and if it was bad she had nothing to do with it. Meanwhile her husband is so consumed/greedy (not sure which word best suits him – maybe consumed with greed) to get back into the white house that he is purposely destroying the opponents (even Ted Kennedy had to call and admonish him), but that is the Clinton legacy, destroying other people’s lives. Then when someone does call him on something he will point his finger at them in a threatening way and plays the victim role. It makes me ill just thinking of having someone as corrupt as both of them back in the white house.
If Bill was such a great president they should bring up all the great things that happened under his presidency, but we are not hearing any of it, why? Because there is none. In my opinion he was one of the worst presidents in history. Not one thing he did was for the good of the country. And if anyone believes that she was such a “good wife” while he was out messing around with other women think again. She had her mind set on being president a long time ago. She just uses him to get what she wants. Everything she does has always been calculated.
As for his presidency, I think people are forgetting….he lied under oath and he was impeached for it. Which brings me to another question…why does anyone believe anything he has to say now? Remember the phrase “that all depends on what the meaning of is, is”. Then there was Waco Texas – people were burned alive. But they called them members of a cult, so I guess that made it okay. Then let’s see…Somalia, Bosnia, Monica (and no it wasn’t just about having an affair with her or all the other women), receiving illegal contributions, Vince Foster, and the list goes on and on and on.
An article I just read said it better than I can….
“The problem for Hillary Clinton is that, as usual, she wants it both ways. She wants to be judged on her own merits and not be treated as Bill's Mini-Me. But she also wants to reap the benefits of Bill's popularity, and offers voters the reassuring suggestion that if there's a crisis while she's in the White House, there will be someone around who really does have executive branch experience - namely, Bill - to lend a hand. But the Clintons are playing a dangerous game. The more they remind us of what we liked about Act I of the Bill and Hillary Show, the more they also remind us of what we hated.
If you are interested in reading the whole article this is the link…
http://www.courant.com/news/opinion/op_ed/hc-brooks0128.artjan28,0,7018385.story
Obama
He would be better than the one that has been there for 8 years. No matter who is elected, it will take a long time to fix what Bush as screwed up!
<3 Obama too!!
:)
Obama
If she keeps lying from today until November she might actually catch up with Obama!
Go Obama
Haven't seen any posts here for awhile. Very excited about the outcome of tonight's election. I am so glad to see that people are not buying the "gimmicks" Hillary proposed. Gas tax holiday?...give me a break! Someone needed to ask her, "So what happens when the holiday is over", you charge back up the gas price!
The big joke is that Bill Clinton raised the gas tax in his first year in office. It was included in a package of tax increases that amounted to the biggest tax increase in history. It was raised by 4.3 cents. Not only did he raise the gas tax, but he wanted to raise it even higher.
So you should all get this straight...Hillary is "claiming" she would give drivers 3 whole months (wow - imagine that) 18 cent a gallon cut after her husband forced drivers to pay an extra 5 cents for 15 years.
Unfortunately there were some people who bought into her pandering (which by the way is another word for lying), but thank goodness enough people with an education and most important most of the with common sense could see right through her lies.
Way to go North Carolina - I'm so pleased. And Indiana too. It was a close race thank goodness.
Now she needs to step down. Why? Because its the right thing to do. Do the numbers. There is no way she can win and anyone who believes so needs to wake up. What we need is for her to support Barack Obama (that is if she's telling the truth about the most important thing is nominating a democrat for president). Somehow though I do not believe she has the best interest of the party or the american people in mind. Her goal is to serve herself. She needs to graciously bow out and put all her efforts into getting a democrat in the office.
P.S. - Note to the "ditto heads". Maybe we should rename Limbaugh followers "dumbo heads". Not only did your little plan fail Mr. Limbo, but it failed badly. In a poll taken (and yes I know polls can be misleading), but not only did the republicans change parties to vote for a democrat but the majority of them voted for Obama. Then on top of that over 75% of republicans that voted as democrats said that Obama could be McCain (or as I am hearing him being referred to as McBush), but only around 25% said they believed Hillary could win. So not only does Hillary need to do the math, so does Mr. Limbo.
|
