Clinton falters, Obama confused
Hillary Clinton faltered in last night’s debate, and her opponents pounced.
John Edwards accused Clinton of dishonesty, saying voters “deserve a president of the United States that they know will tell them the truth, and won’t say one thing one time and something different at a different time.” She gave him ammunition against her during the debate itself, when she first defended driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants, then said, “I did not say that it should be done.”
Even Barack Obama said he was “confused” by Clinton’s answer. Pundits have been telling Barack Obama to toughen up, and it seems he listened. He questioned the fact that she locked up her private papers in her husband’s presidential library, and he called her secrecy a “problem:” “We have just gone through one of the most secretive administrations in our history.” He said Clinton is part of the political gridlock his campaign is trying to break: “Part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems like health care or climate change or energy.”
Republican candidates Mitt Romney and Rudy Giuliani then joined the bashing. Mitt Romney said Clinton was “tap dancing so much that I thought I turned it to Dancing with the Stars.” Rudy Giuliani was almost impressed: “By the end of the night, she took different positions in front of the same audience. It was pretty amazing. I mean, in politics I’ve never quite seen that before.”
One candidate came to Clinton’s rescue, however: Bill Richardson, who said Democrats should stay positive.




Learn it! Speak it! Live it!
Bring Christmas to a child in need!








Click to Print
Include Comments











back to top22 Comments to “Clinton falters, Obama confused”
Uh, what’s Obama looking at in that photo?
Report comment to moderator
Some thick ankles, maybe? Who cares?
I didn’t agree with Obama’s answer, but at least he gave one. You can’t chastise Hillary too much though – non-answer answers are par for the course in these sorts of things. Christopher Dodd’s answer I actually did agree with. Driver’s licenses are a privilege and not one we should extend to people here illegally – a word even Mrs. Clinton used to describe them.
She also said there “were” millions” of them in New York at any given time, but I shouldn’t expect her too be that accurate with numbers, should I?
Report comment to moderator
should be . . . were “millions”. . .
Any day now will have our Preview function back, right? ;-0
Report comment to moderator
Some thick ankles, maybe? Who cares?
Those must be some really thick ankles. And by the looks of it, Obama sure cares!
Report comment to moderator
“Part of the job of the next president is to break the gridlock and to get Democrats and independents and Republicans to start working together to solve these big problems like health care or climate change or energy.”
Holy cow! That’s the last thing we need!
The photo is priceless. I’m pretty sure he’s goosing her.
Report comment to moderator
Obama must appreciate thick ankles, fat thighs and wide rear ends as much a Wee Willy does. Perhaps we will get to see if Obama has a fetish for young, Jewish interns, 30 years his junior that have those same qualities. Naw, he would have to be sexual predator with a weak and submissive wife for that to happen
Report comment to moderator
#1: Uh, what’s Obama looking at in that photo?
The “kick me” sign someone taped to her back?
Wow, the nasty speculation is, well, nasty.
No wonder you people think it’s ok to discriminate. Just kidding. I understand it’s your humor that comes from your superior morals.
The funniest line was about Rudy. He is running on three words, “A verb, a noun and 9/11″. His only other mention was that he is the least qualified, except for Mitt.
They said Mitt’s positions are perfectly clear, since he has two positions on every issue, the one he has this week and the one he had last week.
Now, those were funny. And not even nasty.
In the last Republican debate, Iraq was only mentioned about 4 times, and the debate was about foreign policy. I guess since we occupy Iraq, it’s not really “foreign” any more. Iraq was mentioned many times last night AND ways to get out and other plans were discussed over and over again. You would think the Republicans would be the ones crowing about their “successful” venture into Iraq. Ooh, they made a theocracy. Well, it almost sounds like democracy if you leave off the first three letters. Ooh, they made an ‘ocracy!!!! Yea, that works. How about, they made a pile of ‘ocracy. You could replace ‘ocracy with money. Isn’t that what the Bush and Cheney friends made? Piles of money?
Is it true that what we pay in Iraq in a couple of months would pay for 10 million American children’s insurance for a year? Wow, misplaced priorities. Thinking of our children ahead of Iraq. And they said it’s ok to kill us. Yea, we need to be thinking about them.
Did anyone see the Bush Press conference yesterday? How dare those Democrats wanting to know where 9 billion unaccounted dollars went. Obviously, they aren’t patriotic, not like the Republicans. Say, where DID that 9 billion go? I lost a twenty once. I lost a 10 a couple of times. I never lost 9 billion. How is that possible?
Report comment to moderator
Hey, RDean, stay on topic. This is about Hillary. But did you notice that she mentioned GWB so many times during the debate? I mean, the man isn’t even running! So, even if the Bush Administration is the most secretive as Obama says (and I’m not saying I agree), but even if it is, it will be over Jan. 20, 2009. I notice RDean makes no comment about Mrs. Clinton secrets. Doesn’t Mrs. Clinton realize that she’s not running against Bush? Oh, she must just think all the Dem voters are stupid enough to believe she is. C’mon. But then again, maybe they are…..
Llama, as a woman of a certain age, though younger and thinner than Mrs. Clinton, in fairness, you had better be planning some remark about one of the guys running. (Okay, I confess I laughed.) That said, the thing that really gets me about Hillary is how she expects us to believe that she has judgment when she willingly went into a marriage to a guy she knew was cheating on her back in the day. I mean, she thought about it, she took her time. Then there were all the women throughout the years, then comes Monica. Yet we are supposed to believe her when she tells us she has judgment. If she couldn’t exercise good judgment where Slick Willie was/is concerned, why should we believe she’ll figure out bin Laden or Ahmadinejad?
The driving license comments are those of a typical lawyer who wants to cover every base and expects people to believe it all in the end. Not everyone is as stupid as Mrs. Clinton thinks.
After all the comments, rude, sarcastic, and downright vicious I have read about GWB from people on this blog, it’s more than surprising to read that anyone objects to the light teasing going on here.
Report comment to moderator
Who writes jokes for the Romney campaign? Whoever it is needs to be shot.
Report comment to moderator
By Cheney!!!!
Report comment to moderator
It’s nasty to say that she has thick ankles? OK. Sorry. But it’s not speculation. They’re thick. Oh, and she’s a conniving socialist, too.
I heard her talking about health care and “what are you going to do about all the unhealthy people in this country?” “Well, we need to get them moving. We need to study how companies motivate people to make healthy choices like paying employees to go jogging on their lunch hour. And putting in sidewalks.” (My paraphrase). Excuse me, I thought she was running for President of The United States. My mistake. She’s really running for CEO of Starbucks, Surgeon General and Mayor of a-small-town-with-no-sidewalks.
Report comment to moderator
Thick ankles, fat thighs, wide rearends and goosing? Come on you guys. Grow up.
Don’t you think there are legitimate concerns with her being our President.
Men constantly are showing themselves for the shallow cretins they are.
(Besides Obama was checking out the dandruff situation.)
Report comment to moderator
#8: stay on topic. This is about Hillary.
I’m sorry. I saw Rudy and Barrack in the title and the twelfth word in the article was “Edwards”.
#8: the man isn’t even running
And yet, he wants to set policy so we stay in Iraq for the next twenty years. Are you SURE he isn’t running? Has he been told? It seems that he may not be that familiar with the constitution. If you go by his actions.
#8: even if the Bush Administration is the most secretive
If???? (see Bush military record, see failed and bankrupt companies, see arrest record – and this is only BEFORE he got in office)
#8: no comment about Mrs. Clinton secrets
Well, the Republicans spent more than 40 million dollars of taxpayer’s money on endless investigations into every aspect of the Clinton’s personal lives. And what did they discover? Hidden money? No. Secret payments? No. They discovered Bill getting knees in the Oval Office. The most investigated two Democrats in the entire history of the United States and that was it? The Republicans have a right to be angry. They are angry because Bill wasn’t a dude. It was Monica, and she didn’t HAVE a smoking gun. Not like Jeff Gannon. We know he has a smoking gun. It’s been shown on the Internet. And Monica never spent the night in the White House. Unlike Jeff Gannon. Who spent more than a DOZEN nights in the White House.
All we have to do is find out who signed him in, and we can say where Jeff slept. But, shhh, it’s a secret.
Republicans point to all those investigations as proof that the Clintons are guilty of “something”. They were INVESTIGATED!! They MUST be guilty.
#8: After all the comments, rude, sarcastic, and downright vicious I have read about GWB
Oops, you mean about the Democrats from GWB. You know, cut and run? Come on, the majority of Americans believe Sadam was behind 9/11. I wonder where they got THAT from? Not from Bin Laden. Bin Laden who said, “I did it” and even put it on tape, and STILL the majority of Americans believe Sadam was behind 9/11. We KNOW the majority of Americans are Christian. Where did they get the idea that Sadam was behind 9/11? Come on, get real. Tell the truth. Be honest.
Report comment to moderator
Bill wasn’t a dude
Should be Monica wasn’t a dude.
Report comment to moderator
I think the daggers are finally out on HRC. If these men cannot honestly point out her flaws now and allow her to explain/justify/rationalize the secretiveness, the sealed records etc etc THEN SHE HAD BETTER BE PREPARED FOR THE SAME QUESTIONS FROM THE EVENTUAL R NOMINEE.
I have to agree with Barack. If Hillary wants to run on her record yet at the same time denies folks access to the documented proof of her role in the White House decision-making process…well what should we make of that?
I hope that from here on out, the names of donors to all Presidential libraries will have to be fully published along with how much they ponied up to the eprez. Sorry about that, Prince Bandar!
Report comment to moderator
I want to take back my comments about Hillary. She just retains a lot of water in all the wrong places
R Dean,
Tell the truth. Be honest – you said yesterday in the Obama looking at Hillary’s water retention tread yesterday.
Ok, let’s start with you but I will come clean first. I will take issue with just one of your less than truthful issues above to prove my point that foolish people should test their assumptions for facts before they draw erroneous conclusions from them.
You say that Bush was involved in failed and bankrupt companies. Not just one company, as so many on the left claim, you say companies – as in plural. This is of course a lie because the facts speak for themselves and why no, not one, reputable source has ever claimed that Bush was involved in a failed or bankrupt company.
The one company, and subsequently many others, the liars on the left like to sight was Bush’s oil company ‘Arbusto Energy’ that he founded when he lived in Midland Texas with a $20,000 family gift he received after getting his MBA from Harvard. Bush was not the majority stock owner of Arbusto, not even among members of Arbusto’s board but he did run it. It takes a lot more more money than $20,000 to start an oil company – even a tiny one like Arbusto. Arbusto never made money but it did not fail nor did it go bankrupt. This of course was true about the vast, and I mean vast, majority of Texas oil companies at the time.
In 1984 another oil company Spectrum 7, a larger one but still small, merged with Arbusto, they kept the Spectrum 7 name and Bush was named Chairman and CEO of Spectrum even though he was again a minority owner. The Bush name is legendary in the domestic and international oil business (not because of George) and Bush traded on his oil family name several times over the years. He also traded on another family name in baseball too – Walker – the founder and owner of the NY Mets when he bought 1.8%, a tiny amount, of the new Texas Rangers franchise. People trade on their names all the time – I do it myself when necessary – so it is wise to have a good one or two like Bush.
Spectrum 7 never made any money money (before or after Bush was involved in it) but it never failed nor was it bankrupt either. In 1986, Spectrum was bought by another oil company, Harkin Oil and Gas that was owned and controlled by George Soros (who would have guessed but business can make for strange bedfellows sometime)and George Bush was named President and board member with a salary of $120,000 a year. George Soros also gave Bush $600,000 worth of Harkin stock on top of buying out Bush’s small amount of Spectrum 7 stock. Soros is a very smart man and he gave Bush free Harkin stock for very good reason even though he had never met him. Soros needed the Bush name and international oil contacts but more on that later.
The Bush controversy for the left started in 1990 and had nothing to do with failed or bankrupt companies. It had to do with an SEC investigation of insider Harkin Oil and Gas stock trading by Bush on June 22, 1990. Bush sold the stock that Soros has given him at $4 a share netting $848,000 and two months later Harkin announced a $24 loss. Two years later, a full 2 years my friends, Harkin stock fell to $2.38, even though it rebounded to $3 the next day.
This became an issue for the left when Bush’s dad was running for re-election as President in 1992 and they were looking for any dirt they could on him or his family. The SEC had already done a full investigation of this stock trade which was initiated when Bush failed to file his closing SEC form 4 on time and submitted it 8 months late. Bush had notified the SEC he intended to sell his Harkin stock and why, had talked to the company lawyers to make sure that he would be following every SEC rule for the sale and that he would not fall afoul of insider trading regulations.
The reason that Bush needed to sell his Harkin stock was because he was asked to join the group of investors that were going to buy the Texas Rangers and he needed $600,000 to buy a 1.8% interest in the team and he only had $100,000 in cash to do so.
The majority future owners of the Rangers didn’t need Bush’s measly $600,000, they were all multi, multi millionaires but they needed his Walker family name and tight baseball connection to the powerful family members who owned the NY Mets in order to secure the next baseball franchise. When the team was secured from MLB and the franchise in hand, the real rich owners of the New Texas Rangers immediately gave George Bush what they considered a well earned reward of an additional 10.2% of team ownership, at no cost to Bush, bringing his total ownership in the team to 12% – which only cost him a total of $600,000. Bush, not so later, sold his 12% interest in the Rangers for nearly $15 million. Now back to oil.
What many people do not realize about the Texas oil business during the late 70’s until 1986, if they were not involved in it and or rich, is that the US income tax laws were quite favorable to extremely wealthy individuals, way more rich than George Bush, who could own limited partnerships involved in all kinds of things that lost money and be able to write off income profits in other businesses unrelated to their limited partnership interests – and save huge piles of money in income taxes doing so. Rich folks like doctors and lawyers formed limited partnerships that built and owned shopping centers, as example, where they could offset their real income being a doctor and a lawyer against losses they showed on paper in the their limited partnerships – and not pay any taxes. The 1986 tax law changed all that, alone with the ATM, of course and most of these limited partner tax shelters, but not all, are now IRS taboo.
I ask you two questions. When did George Bush start his first oil company Arbusto, later merge it with Spectrum 7 and what kind of oil business were these two oil companies in? Why, low and behold it was exactly between 1977 and 1986 when Spectrum 7 was sold to George Soros’ Harkin Oil and Gas. Arbusto and Spectrum 7 were companies that specialized in setting up oil and gas drilling limited partnerships for wealthy individuals for them to be able to write off the earned income in other ventures plain and simple. This was the basis of Bush’s oil companies and why they were formed.
I will ask another question. Who knows what particular topic Bush’s masters thesis was on when he received his MBA from Harvard? I will give you two hints. It wasn’t the double taxation of corporate dividends that Bush classmate Christopher Cox wrote about – fascinating reading by the way. Cox was a classmate of Bush who managed to graduate from Harvard with highest honors as editor of the Law Review while getting his MBA and Law degree at the same time – in 3 years! Bush appointed Cox Chairman of the SEC in June 2005.
My second hint is read as many MBA thesis’ you can – if you want to make money. That is how I stumbled onto Zahorcack’s, The Art of Low Risk Investing, as another fine example. Back to oil and Bush.
As you might guess, without researching the facts like I have, the goal of Bush’s oil companies was to lose money. I know it sounds crazy but there was big money for the owners of Bush’s companies, Bush was never anywhere close to a majority owner in any of them, and huge tax write offs for the wealthy individuals who bought ownership rights in the limited partnerships that Bush’s companies were in the business of selling.
There is one lose end I would like to tie up with another question that also deals with the Bush oil company name and their contacts. Why would George Sosros’ Harkin Oil and Gas want to buy Bush’s Spectrum 7 in 1986, when the entire thrust of Spectrum 7 was to lose money in the oil business for tax purposes – when the tax laws were changing at exactly that time to stop this tax shelter practice? Sounds like Spectrum was soon to be toast business wise as the IRS was putting them out of business and no one would want it. Wrong, of course. Don’t forget George Soros was and is one very smart cookie and was one of the richest men in the world in 1986 and he was in the oil business too.
George Soros was working very hard in 1986 to land the rights from Bahrain to drill for oil in Bahrain for Harkin Oil. Sounds big in Soros terms and just right for him, way beyond little Bush’s Spectrum 7 that was losing money on purpose. But it is even better than that. These were not just drilling rights in Bahrain – they were exclusive drilling rights, meaning no one else could drill there. This was very big oil league. Soros didn’t even know George Bush or had even ever heard about his tiny spectrum 7 oil company (according to George Soros’ own public testimony) but he did know that the Bush family had the very best oil business contacts in the world – inside the Bahrain Oil Potentate.
According to Soros and no one else, buying Spectrum 7, giving Bush the Presidency of Harkin along with $600,000 in Harkin stock was the price Soros had to pay to gain the exclusive oil business access that the Bush family had in the Bahrain monarchy. Soros wasn’t leaving anything to chance when it came to exclusive Bahrain oil drilling rights and he covered every base, dotted every i and crossed every t – like the smart business man he is. He made a killing when he sold his huge amount Harkin stock for $9 a share – all thanks to George Bush and his name he traded fairly – quite frequently and well each and every time.
So your little lie about Bush’s failed and bankrupt businesses is fully exposed for all to see. He actually did quite well for himself, his investors, limited partners, majority company owners, his family, baseball and even a sworn enemy – George Soros.
So, it is quite obvious, that Bush was never associated with any failed or bankrupt business of any kind in his life – and you were not only duped into thinking he was but plaid like a pawn to repeat someone else lies. Now who would do that to you.
So KDEAN to leave you with more than you started with I will give you a piece of advice – for free. I will warn you that ideologues on the left will spin webs of lies to pawns like you who they know will repeat them because they know you are too lazy to test out the facts, assumptions and conclusions they swill to their piggies.
Don’t be taken for a fool and be a piggy.
That’s about all the truth and honesty I am will come clean with today for you but I may take up some of your other repeated lies later:-)
Almost forgot, for you non Illegal Aliens – Arbusto is Bush in Spanish and Bush could speak it well even back in 1977
Report comment to moderator
And the silence from RDean is deafening . . .
Report comment to moderator
TO #16: You might want to rethink bringing up these issues:
FROM THE NY Times Archives:
Mr. Bush claims that he was ”vetted” by the S.E.C. In fact, the agency’s investigation was peculiarly perfunctory. It somehow decided that Mr. Bush’s perfectly timed stock sale did not reflect inside information without interviewing him, or any other members of Harken’s board. Maybe top officials at the S.E.C. felt they already knew enough about Mr. Bush: his father, the president, had appointed a good friend as S.E.C. chairman. And the general counsel, who would normally make decisions about legal action, had previously been George W. Bush’s personal lawyer — he negotiated the purchase of the Texas Rangers.
The Guardian UK reports :
“George Bush quashed evidence in the insider dealing inquiry he faced a decade ago, it was claimed yesterday, further undermining White House efforts to restore some confidence in Wall Street. A memo has emerged that was sent by lawyers in 1990 that warned executives of the energy firm Harken, for which Mr Bush was a director, against cashing in stock if they had any negative information about the company. Harken was undertaking financial engineering to keep it afloat at the time. A week later the president cashed in $848,000 of shares. The sale triggered an inquiry by the Securities and Exchange Commission which ended in August 1991. No action was taken against the president who claimed to have been unaware of the problems facing the business. The letter from Haynes and Boone was not given to the SEC until a day after the inquiry ended.”
Democratic request from 2002:
George W. Bush’s questionable activities and profits during his years as a director of Harken Energy Corp. (1986-1993) have come under a fair amount of scrutiny from the media. Mr. Bush has thus far avoided responsibility for those activities, thanks to a compromised investigation by the SEC during his father’s presidency, as well as Mr. Bush’s stubborn refusal to provide details of those deals.
But an investigation by Democrats.com has uncovered the possibility that one Harken transaction – the cancellation of an estimated $230,375 in debt in 1993 – may have been structured to help Mr. Bush evade income taxes. Further analysis by The Anonymous CPA suggests that Mr. Bush may have filed false tax returns every year between 1986 and 1993. Income tax evasion and filing false returns are both crimes.
Democrats.com therefore calls upon Mr. Bush to release his tax returns for 1993 and 1994, and to provide the other documents required to fully understand this shady deal.
Report comment to moderator
What is particularly funny. I mentioned that the Republicans spent 40 million dollars of taxpayer money going after the Clintons and all they found was Monica. Some articles put the figure up at 70 million. 70 million for a chubby white girl.
The Clintons didn’t have daddy getting them into Harvard because their “C” average wasn’t enough. No one helped them at the SEC. Neither Clinton was ever arrested and convicted of a crime, unlike Bush.
Sure, Bill signed an affidavit. But it was never used. Bush signed an affidavit saying he had never been arrested or convicted of a crime. Every candidate signs one. It’s a promise to the American people. Well, it wasn’t the LAST time Bush lied, right? The majority of Americans believe Sadam was behind 9/11. Even with Bin Laden sending videotapes loudly proclaiming, “I did it”, still the majority believe it was Sadam. Where on earth did they EVER get an idea like that? Well? If it wasn’t from Sadam, and it wasn’t from the Democrats, where did the idea that Sadam was behind 9/11 come from? Where?
Report comment to moderator
Oh, I just had a horrible thought.
Are you going to say that the liberal media connected Sadam to 9/11? Please don’t.
So, what do you think happened to the 32 TONS of 50 and 100 dollar bills handed out in Iraq? Were they seperate from the 9 BILLION that have simply disappeared? You know, up in smoke?
You want to accuse the Clintons, and Bush lost 9 BILLION. Gee, I wonder how much insurance we could have bought for children with 9 Billion?
Report comment to moderator
Heh. And the diversion quite loud and clear.
Report comment to moderator
Diversion?
Report comment to moderator
back to topJoin The Conversation
You need to be a registered user of WORLDonTheWeb.com to "join the conversation."
If you are not a member yet, what are you waiting for? Register / Login Now!