Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
jarvis c
Yes, all the research was done a few years ago when the idea was fresh, but now it is old school and some what steal. There was much info at the website and might still be there if you poke around.
http://www.qbid.net
Hey John
I don't even think the 24/7 angle is of any use. There is an old saying "TOO MUCH OF ANYTHING IS NO GOOD". The shows I mentioned in my other post are just the tip of the iceberg. With their success more will follow. I love watching Will and Grace. It is a great sitcom.
Little by little more of this type of programming is appearing in the main stream media.
I believe it was MTV and Valcom who decided to put a hold on their GAY oriented channel. Can it be they are thinking the same way I am about the popularity of this programming?
It is like some of these reality shows. First there was SURVIVOR, then suddenly reality TV was all over the place.
Man, I hope I am wrong and LIVE to see QBID sky rocket.
IMHO
PS.. I don't know about that Wesson Oil thingy.
An Observation
As of late I have noticed that the main stream networks are now picking up on the GAY/Lesbian theme. WIll and Grace and the new Bravo Show Queer Eye and a few others are BIG hits on network and cable TV. If this trend continues and more shows and movies start appearing on standard cable and network television, then why would anyone need Triangle or any other GAY specific television network.
I am of the opinion that Triangles unique idea has lost its flair. With all this programming becoming available why would anyone need Triangle.
This is just my opinion and hope to see some constructive dialogue. Please leave the RB garbage at RB.
It has been a while since I posted my opinion here, but I felt this had to be said.
FLIP FLOP HILLARY HAS FLIPPED OUT
Hillary Trashing Bill's Bud Tony Blair on Uranium Claim?
New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has finally weighed in on the media-generated scandal over President Bush's reliance on a British intelligence report that said Iraq sought uranium in Africa, in comments that are sure to sound like a slap in the face to Bill Clinton's bosom buddy British Prime Minister Tony Blair.
Calling for an independent investigation into the uranium flap, Mrs. Clinton told the New York Daily News on Tuesday, "I think it's more than fair, in fact its imperative to ask about how this president proceeded to exercise the authority that I and others in the Congress gave him" to make war on Iraq.
Sen. Clinton had nothing to say, however, about Mr. Blair's insistence last week that the British intelligence cited by Bush was 100 percent accurate – an interesting omission, considering ex-President Clinton's recommendation last fall that the world should follow Blair's lead when it came to the threat posed by Iraq's weapons of mass destruction.
"As a citizen of the U.S. and the world," Mr. Clinton told a Blackpool Labour Party conference in October, "I am glad that Tony Blair will be weighing the risks and making the calls."
Mr. Clinton also praised Blair as "the only man in the world capable of bringing America and the rest of the world to a common position" on Iraq.
But now that Sen. Clinton has questioned Bush's reliance on Blair's judgment regarding Iraq's nuclear ambitions, apparently all bets are off.
OT : Ron2W
Great job moderating. Keep it up. The RB attitude is not needed or wanted here.
The (Anti-)Feminist Movement
Tammy Bruce
Tuesday, July 15, 2003
For me as a feminist, there’s nothing more frustrating than watching the destruction wrought by the leftists who have hijacked the feminist establishment. The last few months have been a veritable Coney Island experience for the posers in charge. Hillary Clinton. Patricia Ireland. The “new” Ms. magazine. Need I go on? Yes, we may have to reach for the Pepto, but only at first. While it is entirely reasonable to get increasingly frustrated at the carnage wrought by cultural parasites, their folly serves as perfect examples for decent people about what not to let continue.
Let’s start with feminist elite darling Hillary Clinton. Just last week the book her three ghostwriters wrote for her, “Living History,” (which would be more appropriately titled “How I Sold My Soul for Power and a Man with No Pants”) went audio and is close to selling 1 million copies. That’s not surprising. Millions of Americans love fiction. What is disturbing is the presumption that Clinton is the Grand Dame of authentic feminism. For those of us who would love to see a woman as president of the United States, it is appalling that the woman of choice for the feminist elite contradicts everything authentic feminism stands for.
Isn’t it just slightly ironic that those who chant and march for women’s safety and dignity are in a rapturous hysteria over a woman who has enabled placing specific women in her husband’s reach in danger while assaulting the dignity of women everywhere with her sycophantic support of a man who has cuckolded her in front of the world? Go, girl, go!
Let me be clear: Hillary Clinton is the anti-feminist. I consider her one of the most dangerous people in the nation, specifically because she has power and the reach to sell 1 million books. Because she has managed to enthrall a nation by pretending to be something she’s not. As a feminist, Clinton disgusts me because she single-handedly has managed to tell women the world over that no matter what your husband does – humiliate you, betray you, lie to you, abuse other women, sexually harass other women, intimidate women, even possibly be a rapist – you should not only not leave him, you should forever support and enable that behavior.
While on the topics of hypocrisy and moral relativism I would be remiss if I didn’t discuss ex-National Organization for Women president Patricia Ireland. I was guest hosting for a national radio program a couple of weeks ago and railed against Ireland and her appointment as the CEO of the YWCA. While conservative religious groups have understandably assailed this event, I know Ireland and was a leader in NOW while she ran it into the ground.
A caller to that program opined that it sounded like I had “an ax to grind.” You bet I do. It’s having watched Ireland hijack NOW and change a feminist organization into one of “social justice,” a code phrase among Socialists for the Leftists’ agenda, primarily focusing on “racism” and perpetuating the pit of victimhood. This debasement of NOW’s initially noble agenda of empowerment into one of promoting hopelessness and alienation has understandably repulsed millions of Americans.
After the YWCA appointment, Ireland refused to say whether or not she’s a Christian (she’s not), and then finally stated in the New York Times (April 30, 2003) that the YWCA would no longer be a Christian organization, but one of – surprise! – Social Justice. That does not bode well for the tens of thousands of little girls and their families who rely on the YWCA.
The last piece of recent drivel regurgitated by the feminist establishment is the supposedly new and improved Ms. magazine. It’s neither, by the way. On the cover of the Summer 2003 issue (http://www.msmagazine.com) is Janeane Garofalo (where are they selling this tripe? Mars?). Garofalo is featured in a story with “Susan Sarandon, the Dixie Chicks and all your favorite free speech stars.” Really? They’re not my favorites. They’re not the favorites of the majority of feminists or anyone else in this nation. Is Ms. finally simply trying to prove how desperately hypocritical and out-of-touch the feminist establishment really is?
After all, who can forget the obscene attack on the free speech of a Jewish woman who dared to speak her mind a few years ago? She was attacked by the New Gestapo for using an unapproved-of word. There was a very public attempt to destroy that woman, professionally and personally, because she dared to speak her opinion about serious social issues. Gee, kinda like what Sarandon and the Dixie Chicks are claiming.
Was she featured in Ms. magazine? Is her case discussed in their article about the assault on freedom of expression? Of course not, because the woman I’m speaking of is Dr. Laura, and the gang that flew into a jihad to destroy her was the gay establishment, along with the help of the Feminist Elite and hypocrites like Susan Sarandon. The double standard is stunning, and exposes nothing less than the partisan Leftist agenda, which has been masquerading as feminism for far too long.
What would a truly feminist magazine have included in its content if its goal were to represent women in all our independence and uniqueness? While stories about Garofalo and Sarandon are fine, a story about Dr. Laura would have been welcomed. And what about a profile of Condoleezza Rice, the most powerful woman in the nation (OK, in the whole world) and who also happens to be black? Oh, but I forgot. Rice has committed two unforgivable crimes: She doesn’t live in either the black or feminist ghettos the Left has set up for her “type.” No, she’s her own woman, is decent, doesn’t lie to people, and isn’t a victim. How dare she!
Instead of lamenting the state of affairs, tell yourself, your mother, sister, daughter, that while there isn’t an authentic feminist movement at the moment, that can change. In the meantime, don’t be fooled – choose your own feminist heroes (like Dr. Laura and Condoleezza Rice), don’t expect (or want!) to agree with them on every single issue, but appreciate those women and so many others who are true to themselves and their principles. Lastly, look at appalling negatives – like Clinton, Ireland and the individuals and myopic agenda featured in Ms. magazine – as benchmarks of what not to become.
Jarvis
Many launches have seemed imminent. This is one of many promised launches.
Ferrgus and I along with many others have been lied to one time too many. Time for us to move on and hope nobody else gets burned on this one. Thanks Frank for all you have done. Whatever you do, DO NOT call me ever again with your lies and broken promises.
Jarvis
I had a great reply but decided to keep it clean. Good luck here. I been through the mill one time too many to get excited on this one. Maybe one day we will be surprised. The only question is what day/year.
This is too funny. Typical CLINTOON
AND JUST HOW LONG SHOULD THIS IDIOT STAY IN JAIL
Some moron threw a cherry bomb from the upper deck at the Oakland Coliseum yesterday. A young boy on the lower level was hurt when it exploded. He’ll be OK, just some minor burns.
Now … two things:
1. They have the idiot who threw the cherry bomb. He should spend no less than one solid year in jail. Not this community service nonsense; send him to jail, to prison. Show the nation some video of him crying as he’s led into the prison to serve his time. And no soap-on-a-rope.
2. Expect some frantic fanatics to step forward now and insist that we need to start searching and screening all people who go into sports stadiums. Maybe we need to establish the SESA, the Sport Event Security Agency. These people would have to be federal employees, of course, because otherwise they wouldn’t be “professional.” Oh .. and they would have to be unioninzed.
As Always QBID keeps on ticking
Found this post on Raging BullChit
By: stervc
07 Jul 2003, 08:29 PM EDT Msg. 12316 of 12317
(This msg. is a reply to 12315 by redflags0.)
Jump to msg. #
OT:Redflags0 & ALL, Important...
I've had someone dear to me that had passed away and I have been away from much as of late. I think I'm mentally ready again to press forward.
As for NXCDQ, I am still here and still believe.
As for QBID, I confirmed today with AOL/Time Warner corporate offices that the 10 year contact deal is legitimate. Heck, what a way to get back in to the thick of things again. I will be posting the details and what I was told shortly. Also, the links, name, and numbers of how I had finally gotten in contact with someone to confirm the deal with QBID.
And "NO" I am not gay!!!
Opportunity is knocking for those who are willing to answer. I did pick up a few million shares at .0001 and I will be changing my limit to sell order from .01 cent to something much higher. It will depend on the pending PR release. From my conversation today with AOL/Time Warner, I think that .01 cent is a gimme.
I know I had stated before that I would not post on any board outside of this board until I felt that closure had transpired here with NXCDQ. I am confident that closure is here with NXCDQ and that we will be rewarded. Though I have not made my key contact to confirm certain information from the company I still believe in NXCDQ very much.
Besides, this confirmation with QBID is to powerful to let go unknown. Many would continue selling at these levels in fear of QBID's previous history. Many must be made known all of the facts as much as possible before making their final decision.
Sterling
(Voluntary Disclosure: ST Rating- Strong Buy; LT Rating- Strong Buy)
Hillary: I Loved Being a Homemaker
A series of bizarre comments uttered by New York Sen. Hillary Clinton to British interviewers continue to go unreported across the Atlantic, including several revealing exchanges with BBC "Woman's Hour" host Martha Kearney on July 4th.
In America, for instance, few knew how much Mrs. Clinton enjoyed her role as First Homemaker, especially given her boast eleven years ago that she rejected the role of "baking cookies and having teas."
While in England, however, the top Democrat proclaimed, "I liked the traditional duties of keeping a house . . ."
"I'm not the greatest at it in the world," Mrs. Clinton told the BBC. "But I loved doing it. I mean, it was inviting people to come to your home and therefore it mattered to me what china we used, what the flowers looked like, what the menu was."
Asked about critics who derided her as "Chillary, Lady Macbeth, Heil Hillary, and Shrillary," Mrs. Clinton said the attacks were a reaction to her being a feminist role model.
"Well, I think that there's a lot of debate about the issues that I present - not only the ones you're referring to, but certainly to being the first professional woman to be in the position of first lady," she told the BBC.
"For most people who make a profession out of opposing me and setting up Web sites and all that they do, it really comes down to a very different view of what our country should be," Clinton explained.
Her opponents were also reacting to her criticism of President Bush, she contended.
"I think it's a tragedy that our country has squandered the fiscal responsibility that my husband left it," she told Kearney. "I think this administration has done a terrible disservice. And people hear that and that, of course, causes the opposition to get upset."
But the top Democrat complained, "They can't really take me on, on the issues, because it's hard to argue in favor of deficits and debt and so they practice what I call the politics of personal destruction. And, well, that's their choice."
Mrs. Clinton also gave an unusual response to Kearney's question about whether she, like her husband, had "caused pain" in their marriage.
Rather than issue a flat out denial, she replied, "Well, I think that every one of us has, you know, all kinds of issues. I think that I've learned a lot about myself in life during these long years of marriage. And, you know, I hope that I'm a better person, a better wife, a better mother every single day."
There was even here a hint that the Clintons' marriage may not last forever. Asked how her husband would "cope with being First Man," Sen. Clinton told the BBC, "Well, I don't know that he'll ever have the chance to figure that out."
skunksyard
Other then the phone number being the correct one for their Connecticut offices, I have no further information.
If any of it is true, it will appear that our bubble has been burst once again.
Good Luck
Wal-Mart Broadens Anti-Discrimination Policy
Wednesday, July 02, 2003
NEW YORK — Wal-Mart Stores Inc. (WMT), both praised and pilloried in recent weeks for its conservative values, said on Wednesday it broadened its policy prohibiting discrimination to cover gay and lesbian workers.
"We've had race, gender, age, disability. We're now including sexual orientation," said Tom Williams, a spokesman for the Arkansas-based retailer, which is the world's biggest company and largest private-sector employer.
Wal-Mart has drawn plaudits from conservative Christian groups (search) but scorn from others for banning sexy magazines and covering up sexually suggestive headlines on magazines in its checkout aisles in recent weeks.
Broadening its anti-discrimination policy puts it squarely at the center of a hot-button issue in corporate America. Gay rights groups and shareholder activists have been putting pressure on major companies to adopt similar policies.
Shareholders of Exxon Mobil Corp. (XOM), for example, have repeatedly voted down proposals calling on the oil company to explicitly state its opposition to discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. The company has said its policy prohibits discrimination in any form.
Wal-Mart, which is facing several lawsuits alleging sex discrimination, said the new policy goes into effect immediately, and store employees will be notified of the change today.
Wal-Mart's employee handbook will also include new language covering sexual orientation, and the retailer will offer a computer-based training session promoting respect for people, regardless of their sexual orientation.
The move comes after a series of discussions with gay rights groups, including Seattle-based Pride Foundation (search), which have been urging Wal-Mart to take steps to protect gay workers. However, Williams said the company had been considering such a policy change for some time.
Steven Sprenger, a partner with Washington, D.C., law firm Sprenger and Lang, which specializes in employment discrimination, said the policy is a good start, but Wal-Mart needs to make sure it is enforced.
"Everybody has a policy, so simply adopting a policy doesn't provide any protection," he said, noting that Wal-Mart also has policies banning sex discrimination and yet faces a likely class-action sex discrimination lawsuit in California.
The California case alleges the company discriminates against women in promotions, pay, training and job assignments. If it is granted class status, the case could represent more than one million women who have worked for the the retailer since 1998.
Gay rights groups have made significant headway in recent weeks, in particular the U.S. Supreme Court (search)'s decision to strike down a Texas sodomy law.
Tony77057
And please - no morons
So Much for that.
John
Have a great 4th and God Bless you, your family and of course AMERICA.
foxy
Seems it was short lived. Too bad.
Baghdad Bob and Hillary – Strange Bedfellows
When former Iraqi "information" minister Mohammed Saeed al-Sahhaf, better known as "Baghdad Bob," appeared on Abu Dhabi television this past week, he once again raised his profile and led us to make some remarkable observations.
"Bob" became famous for his outrageous lies and statements during the Iraqi war.
For instance, he claimed on April 7 that there were no U.S. troops in Baghdad even though tanks could clearly be seen on television in the capital. The city fell two days later.
With the recent re-emergence of Baghdad Bob, NewsMax’s inquisitive staff was struck by the many similarities between the one-time Saddam Hussein spokesman and former first lady and New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton.
Bob's sympathetic appearance on Abu Dhabi television reminded some of Hillary Clinton's similarly sympathetic appearance on ABC with Barbara Walters.
And like Hillary, Bob has stood by his statements and insisted that he was always convinced of what he said.
It may surprise people how two individuals, Bob and Hillary – who have come from such diverse backgrounds – could share so much in common. What a small world it is.
Many of the similarities were taken from the known record of Baghdad Bob's press conferences and the known statements of Hillary Rodham Clinton, many of them compiled by researcher Tom Kuiper and now made into NewsMax's hilarious "Deck of Hillary" playing cards. [In case you missed the Deck, Click Here Now.]
Here's what our top-notch staff gleaned from the known record in drawing the strange coincidences between Baghdad Bob and Hillary Rodham.
Baghdad Bob said he loved Iraq; Hillary Rodham said she loved Arkansas.
Bob fled Iraq; Hillary fled Arkansas.
Bob called Saddam a "great human being"; Hillary called James Carville a "great human being."
Bob said Saddam was telling the truth; Hillary said Bill was telling the truth.
Though Saddam was caught lying, Bob stuck with him; though Bill admitted lying, Hillary stuck with him.
Bob said he prefers Democratic presidents; Hillary definitely prefers Democratic presidents.
Bob left Iraq with $8 million stuffed in a mattress; Hillary left the White House with $8 million concealed as a book deal.
Bob must continue to answer for Saddam's legacy; Hillary must continue to answer for Bill's legacy.
Bob believes President Bush is a villain; Hillary believes President Bush is a villain.
Bob is a favorite target for late-night hosts; Hillary is a favorite target for late-night hosts.
Bob said he has always been a Yankees fan; Hillary said she has always been a Yankees fan.
Bob received favorable treatment from the New York Times; Hillary receives favorable treatment from the New York Times
Bob said Jimmy Carter is a friend of his and Iraq; Hillary says Jimmy Carter is her friend too.
Bob vowed to torture Saddam's accusers; Hillary vowed to "crucify" Gennifer Flowers.
Bob says he was briefly interrogated by American troops and let go; Hillary was briefly interrogated by Ken Starr and let go.
Bob claimed the museum pieces were removed on the night of Saddam's disappearance; Hillary had Vince Foster's papers removed on the night of his disappearance.
Bob said he turned over all of his documents to the Coalition; Hillary said she turned over all of her Whitewater documents to Ken Starr.
Bob said nasty things about Jews; Hillary said demeaning things about Jews.
Bob praised Arafat; Hillary praised Arafat's wife.
Bob was interviewed by propaganda organ Al-Jazeera; Hillary was interviewed by propaganda organ ABC in a program hosted by Barbara Walters.
Bob said he was the victim of a vast American conspiracy; Hillary said she was the victim of a vast right-wing conspiracy.
Bob called American GIs "snakes"; Hillary called the Secret Service "pigs."
Bob says he was convinced he was telling the truth; Hillary is convinced she is telling the truth when she says she won't run for president.
Of course, there are many other similarities between the former first lady and the former Iraqi information minister, too many to detail for this article.
But there are some notable differences as well.
Bob told Abu Dhabi TV he was happy he did not make the Pentagon's Most Wanted Iraqi cards. But Hillary must be thrilled that a whole deck has been named after her.
Bob is at a loss for what he will do next; Hillary has definite plans as to her next career move.
The New York Post recently reported on Bob's unemployment situation, and quoted top experts in the PR world as to what he can do next. Guess what? They said he should move to New York and cash in – just as Hillary did.
Citing Bob's media background, the Post suggested Bob might join the venerable New York Times as a replacement for former Timesman Jayson Blair.
That might work. NewsMax has a suggestion: Bob as Hillary's press secretary. She needs someone with a sense of humor on her staff, and Bob has experience battling George Bush.
No Matter what color
She is still one ugly SOB
TRANSFORMATION: HILLARY, WHAT BEAUTIFUL, BLUE EYES YOU HAVE
Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton has settled on a fresh bright baby-blue hue for eyes in recent photoshoots and public appearances -- a dramatic transformation from her natural hazel tint!
The former first lady opted for baby-blue eyes last month when she was captured exclusively for TIME magazine [right].
The cover shot marks a dramatic departure from Clinton's appearance during her Arkansas years [left].
"She started experimenting with different blazing blue colors at the White House," an insider confided to the DRUDGE REPORT. "She even tried turquoise contact lenses once, but it was not a great look for her."
One Ugly Bitch
Enough already!!!!!
Bill & Billary have to be the funniest comedy team since Abbott and Costello. Have any of you seen this?
Der Schlick's New Chick Upstages Hillary
June 19, 2003
The New York Post's Page Six: "Bill Clinton and his 'close friend,' sexy Canadian billionaire Belinda Stronach, seem to be enjoying one another's company more and more - and sightings of them together have north-of-the-border media types buzzing." My friends, is Bill Clinton not a married man? He is. Are we not told that it's none of our business what goes on in the Clinton family's private life? We are. So why is it that we get these weekly stories about Bubba rocking the casbah with some new babe?
At the very least, he could keep a low profile during her book tour instead of pulling Fredos all over North America. He's sucking up all of Hillary's press oxygen! Canada's National Post gushed that Stronach looks like a younger, prettier version of Hillary, but hastens to mention that Bill has been fastened to his wife's side during her book promotion tour. Fastened where and to whom? One caller suggested that Hillary engineered these stories so she can blame the vast right-wing conspiracy. Maybe so. She gets her highest poll numbers when she plays victim. But can't anyone in the press ask Hillary about this, or ask her for the last time she spent a full day with her husband? I just find these stories treating him like a single man in really poor taste.
Listen to the Mighty RUSH!!!!!!
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/03/06/061903_3_billsgirl.as...
Here's some good reading on the man who Invented the Internet LMAO
Al Gore's Secret Admirer: Rupert Murdoch
The press is buzzing over the news that former Vice President Al Gore wants to start up a Democrat alternative to Fox News Channel, apparently to combat the impact of notorious Fox right-wingers such as Geraldo Rivera, Alan Colmes and Greta Van Susteren.
Fox's ample liberal balance notwithstanding, there's another detail about the network that Gore doesn't much like to discuss: his friendship and political alliance with the man Democrats regard as the Darth Vader of the Republican right, Rupert Murdoch.
Gore actually had the nerve to complain earlier this year about conservative news outlets that are "financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media" and put Murdoch's cable news network at the top of his list.
The ex-veep never mentioned, of course, that he was only too happy to accept Murdoch's support during his 2000 presidential campaign.
In September 2000, for instance, the Aussie-American press baron served as vice finance chairman for a big-bucks Gore fund-raiser in New York City - and even contributed $50,000 to Gore's presidential bid.
"Rupert Murdoch, the global media mogul, has been a longtime darling of political conservatives on practically every continent," reported Newsweek.com at the time. "These days, though, Murdoch is backing a candidate of a different sort: Democratic nominee Al Gore."
Newsweek continued:
"Perhaps hedging his bets post-November, Murdoch served as 'vice chair' for the Vice President's Sept. 14 fundraiser at Radio City Music Hall and contributed $50,000 himself. Moreover, Newsweek has learned, Murdoch had a secret meeting with Gore last spring, at which they apparently discovered common ground on several unspecified issues."
And that's not all.
Murdoch's support for Gore included lending a helping hand a month before, in a move that reportedly amounted to a multimillion-dollar in-kind contribution to the veep's Democrat party.
The 2000 Democrat convention was held in Los Angeles in part because owners of the Staples Convention Center agreed to allow the party to use the facility at no charge. As a co-owner of the arena, Murdoch had to sign off on that deal, which, according to the Los Angeles Times, saved Gore and his party up to $10 million.
Gore's brief 2001 stint as visiting lecturer at Columbia University's journalism school offers further evidence of the warm relationship between the failed presidential candidate and the "ultra-conservative billionaire." While at Columbia, the ex-veep chose a select handful of guest speakers to address his class - Fed Chairman Alan Greenspan, TV host David Letterman and - you guessed it - Rupert Murdoch.
Gore has also apparently forgotten that, without Murdoch's Fox News Channel, George W. Bush likely would have won the 2000 race in a walk.
It was FNC's Carl Cameron who took an ancient police report documenting Bush's 1976 DUI encounter with Maine cops and turned it into a national scandal just four days before the election.
Gore should be especially grateful to Fox because the network decided to spotlight the story even after reporters for the Associated Press and other news outlets had taken a pass on the information.
It turned out that Cameron's news judgment was right - the DUI story was huge. It rocked the Bush campaign as well as the voting public, 25 percent of whom said in exit polls that the story factored into their voting decision.
With 2000's presidential race as close as it was, there's no question that FNC's decision to run with the DUI story robbed Bush of a clean victory and probably single-handedly turned Gore into the supposed winner of the popular vote (if you don't count all those "votes" from dead people, illegal aliens and the other usual examples of Democrat vote fraud).
When it comes to Fox News Channel, Al Gore has little to complain about. In fact, the ex-veep and the Democrats who supported him should be thanking Murdoch and Fox for giving Gore a shot at the White House that he otherwise never would have had.
http://www.newsmax.com/showinsidecover.shtml?a=2003/6/19/114207
I cannot believe all the FLIP FLOPPING the Liberals do to satify their agenda. Check out this John Kerry story.
DRUDGE REPORT XXXXX THU JUNE 19, 2003 13:02:58 ET XXXXX
Kerry 2003: Bush Misled Americans On War; Kerry 1997: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities
In New Hampshire yesterday, Democratic presidential candidate John Kerry said President Bush broke his promise to build an international coalition against Iraq's Saddam Hussein and then waged a war based on questionable intelligence.
But 5 years ago, Sen. Kerry seemed to warn of Saddam's nuclear and biological capabilities as he argued the U.S. must do what it has to do, with or without other nations!
MORE
From the official congressional record: Warned Of Saddam Nuclear And Biological Capabilities:
"It is not possible to overstate the ominous implications for the Middle East if Saddam were to develop and successfully militarize and deploy potent biological weapons. We can all imagine the consequences. Extremely small quantities of several known biological weapons have the capability to exterminate the entire population of cities the size of Tel Aviv or Jerusalem. These could be delivered by ballistic missile, but they also could be delivered by much more pedestrian means; aerosol applicators on commercial trucks easily could suffice. If Saddam were to develop and then deploy usable atomic weapons, the same holds true." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Use Of Force Against Saddam Justified To Prevent WMD Production:
'[Saddam Hussein] cannot be permitted to go unobserved and unimpeded toward his horrific objective of amassing a stockpile of weapons of mass destruction. This is not a matter about which there should be any debate whatsoever in the Security Council, or, certainly, in this Nation."(Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
Military Force Should Be Used Against Suspected WMD
"In my judgment, the Security Council should authorize a strong U.N. military response that will materially damage, if not totally destroy, as much as possible of the suspected infrastructure for developing and manufacturing weapons of mass destruction, as well as key military command and control nodes. Saddam Hussein should pay a grave price, in a currency that he understands and values, for his unacceptable behavior. This should not be a strike consisting only of a handful of cruise missiles hitting isolated targets primarily of presumed symbolic value." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
U.S. May Have To Go It Alone To Stop Saddam:
"Were its willingness to serve in these respects to diminish or vanish because of the ability of Saddam to brandish these weapons, then the ability of the United Nations or remnants of the gulf war coalition, or even the United States acting alone, to confront and halt Iraqi aggression would be gravely damaged." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
U.S. Must Do What It Has To Do, With Or Without Other Nations:
"[W]hile we should always seek to take significant international actions on a multilateral rather than a unilateral basis whenever that is possible, if in the final analysis we face what we truly believe to be a grave threat to the well-being of our Nation or the entire world and it cannot be removed peacefully, we must have the courage to do what we believe is right and wise." (Sen. John Kerry, Congressional Record, 11/9/97, pp. S12254 -S12255)
AKvetch
Feel free to use it any where. Anything for a good cause.
trkyhntr
I been saying that since it was first released. But after a person lies so much, their lies are their reality.
Billary has to watch out for two people. America's Mayor Rudy Gulliani running for NY Senate in 2006, which Billary will Loose and CONDI in 2008 which Billary will also loose. I think it is safe to say we will be CLINTOON free sooner then expected.
Wednesday, June 18, 2003
By Jennifer D'Angelo
NEW YORK — No woman has ever received a major party nomination for the presidency, but some have speculated that in 2008, not one, but two women could be competing for the White House.
In recent interviews, New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton (search) said she had “no intention” of running for president in 2008 -- but did not rule it out, leading many to believe a race is possible. And if the former first lady were to run, some say National Security Adviser Condoleezza Rice (search) would be the perfect Republican to pit against her.
“I’ve been speculating on that [match-up] for a year and half,” said GOP strategist Cheri Jacobus. “The greatest strength Hillary has is she’s a woman in what many consider a man’s world. If the GOP candidate were a woman as well, she’d have to run on merit, not on ‘I’m a woman hear me roar,’” Jacobus said.
Both women have plenty of merits. Born in Chicago on Oct. 26, 1947, Clinton grew up in Park Ridge, Ill., and is a 1973 graduate of Yale Law School. She worked as an attorney while her husband was governor of Arkansas, and performed the duties of the nation's first lady for eight years. On Nov. 7, 2000, Clinton became the first first lady to be elected to the U.S. Senate. She is also an advocate of women’s rights and public works projects for her state of New York.
Born Nov. 14, 1954, in segregation-era Birmingham, Ala., Rice got her Ph.D. from the University of Denver's Graduate School of International Studies in 1981. A former political science professor and provost of Stanford University, she was President George H.W. Bush’s adviser on Soviet affairs before becoming the current President Bush’s national security adviser.
On the issues, Hillary is regarded by many as a liberal who tried and failed to nationalize health care.
“The worst thing the Democrats can do is to nominate Hillary. She’s so far to the left that the center would be turned off,” said Republican strategist Paul Pelletier.
While Rice is hawkish on foreign policy, her stance on other issues doesn't necessarily fall into line. In 1999, she described herself to the San Francisco Chronicle as a "pro-choice evangelical.” Later that year, in an interview with National Review, she told the magazine she was "mildly pro-choice."
This latter position would lead "single-issue" abortion voters to lean toward Clinton, speculated Democratic strategist Scott Segal.
“Single-issue voters are not interested in someone who mildly holds a position, who would put limitations on it,” Segal said.
Jacobus added that Rice’s pro-choice position could help her against Clinton, but could hurt her in the GOP primary.
Democratic strategist and former Gore-Lieberman presidential campaign spokesman Doug Hattaway said Rice's gender would be a big bonus for the Republicans in a race against Clinton, but added that he doesn’t think a contest between the two females would focus on topics like abortion and family leave.
“I don’t think a campaign between two women would turn much on women’s issues. It would turn on who has a better vision for the country, on who would better lead the world’s only superpower.”
Pelletier, a former adviser to the first President Bush, agreed, saying women’s issues are among those that have been pushed to the back burner since Sept. 11.
“The war on terror and Iraq are front and center due to 9/11. Rice is a woman who successfully prosecuted this war, controlling the outcome of what our soldiers were doing in the field. That’s no small feat for a woman even in today’s society,” he said.
Rice, however, has never held elected office, and has never revealed an inclination to do so, said Segal.
“She’s primarily a creature of an academic office. There’s no proof she has the toughness or inclination to run. We don’t know anything about her position on most issues,” he said. “Hillary was first lady, has been active in campaigns. She had to fight the charge of carpetbaggerism, and defeated an ethnic New Yorker with long roots in his community,” he said.
But Pelletier feels Rice’s background is more impressive than Clinton’s.
“She pulled herself up by her boot straps, making herself somebody of incredibly high education. Hillary has ridden on the tails of her husband. There’s no way she’d be in the Senate without him,” he said.
As for the race card, experts speculate that a black Republican candidate like Rice could throw a wrench in the Democrats’ African-American support base.
“It would be a slight factor. Blacks do like the Democrats more — it’s a failing of the Republican Party,” Pelletier said.
However, Pelletier said the Democrats could easily shoot themselves in the foot on the issue.
“They would try to make Rice seem like an 'Uncle Tom' or not a real black, like they have with [Secretary of State] Colin Powell. This could be perceived as racism,” he said.
Hattaway said the fact that Rice is black would force African-American voters to take a closer look than usual at the GOP candidate.
“It’s a big bonus for the Republicans. That said, African-American voters are not going to be won over that easily. They didn’t rally around Clarence Thomas (search) just because he’s black,” he said.
But in Jacobus' mind, there would be "no contest" between the two women.
"I think Condi would beat Hillary handily," she said.
Limbaugh: Hillary's Book Sales Don't Add Up
America's No. 1 talk radio host, Rush Limbaugh, whose 1993 book "See, I Told You So" holds the record for the best-selling nonfiction book in publishing history, is challenging claims by Simon & Schuster that Hillary Clinton's book "Living History" is now the fastest-selling nonfiction work ever.
"My book printed 2 million original copies, [which was] the first time in nonfiction it had ever been done - it has not been done since," Limbaugh told his listeners on Wednesday. "And those 2 million books sold in eight weeks."
He noted that the first-printing run for Mrs. Clinton's book was half that number.
Limbaugh was reacting to the claim yesterday by Simon & Schuster CEO Jack Romanos that Mrs. Clinton's book has already broken sales records.
"This is the fastest-selling nonfiction book in the history of our industry," Romanos told the Fox News Channel's Neil Cavuto. "It remains to be seen – we'll know certainly by the end of the year – whether it is the best-selling nonfiction book."
Limbaugh noted that both his first book, "The Way Things Ought to Be," and his record-breaking follow-up work were also published by Simon & Schuster, on the Pocket Books imprint.
"All I know is that Jack Romanos was at Simon & Schuster when my book printed 2 million original copies," he said.
Noting the speed with which "See, I Told You So" sold out its first printing, Limbaugh added,: "I don't know what's happening with Mrs. Clinton's book but I'll guarantee you, it isn't that. And Simon & Schuster knows it. ... It's well known in the publishing industry."
Limbaugh said that he isn't the only one Hillary will have to catch in order to truly break records, explaining: "There are a lot of other authors at Simon & Schuster who have done better than Hillary's doing. Howard Stern is one. And Simon & Schuster knows it."
Limbaugh said that accurate sales figures for Mrs. Clinton's book wouldn't be available for weeks. "I know. I've been there," referring to the delay in obtaining sales reports for his two best sellers.
A spokeswoman for the Borders book chain told NewsMax.com yesterday that its store's sales had lived up to Simon & Schuster's boast that "Living History" is the "fastest selling" book it had ever handled.
When asked, however, if sales had indeed outpaced Limbaugh's book, she replied, "I'll have to get back to you on that."
First there was The FOX News Channel, then came THE NOLIB THREAD
Now look what they will counter with. BORE NEWS CHANNEL They just keep digging themselves deeper and deeper.
Will We See Gore TV?
The former Veep looks at creating a liberal alternative to conservative talk radio and television
By KAREN TUMULTY
Wednesday, Jun. 18, 2003
Look out, Rupert, here comes … Al?
Since deciding not to make another race for the White House in 2004, former Vice President Al Gore has been devoting considerable time to another dream, one he shares with many Democrats these days — creating a media enterprise that could challenge the dominance of conservative voices in cable television and talk radio. Numerous sources in Hollywood and Washington tell TIME that Gore has been quietly sounding out potential financial backers for a cable television network that would feature "progressive" viewpoints. Additionally, Gore has helped arrange meetings between key Hollywood figures and a wealthy Chicago couple who have publicly announced plans to invest $10 million in a liberal radio network.
What role Gore himself would play in any of these ventures is still far from clear. "He can pull out at any time," says one associate who has spoken to him about the concept. "He can say, 'This isn't my deal.' But he's interested." Gore has been exploring and encouraging several types of possibilities in recent months, and consulting closely with Joel Hyatt, the founder of Hyatt Legal Services, a nationwide chain of low-cost, storefront legal clinics. (Hyatt ran for Senate from Ohio in 1994, unsuccessfully seeking the seat that was vacated by the retirement of his father-in-law, Howard Metzenbaum.) One entertainment industry source who met with Gore and Hyatt earlier this year said that, at that time, part of what they envisioned youth-oriented programming, "putting video cameras in the hands of kids."
Gore is also making his influence felt in other ways in Hollywood, a place where he has not always been warmly received. When the former Vice President attended the Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, earlier this year, he arranged a series of private meetings with politically oriented entertainment industry figures. One session was with a handful of people from the Environmental Media Association, a group that promotes the idea of incorporating environmentalist story lines into movies. "He was very interested in what we are doing, because he is very interested in media," says Debbie Levin, the group's executive director.
Gore has also been helpful to Chicago venture capitalists Sheldon and Anita Drobny, who announced in February that they planned to fund a liberal radio network to counterbalance such conservative commentators as Rush Limbaugh. Several sources said Gore has helped introduce the Drobnys to such Hollywood political forces as producer-director Rob Reiner. Comedian Al Franken, author of the book "Rush Limbaugh is a Big Fat Idiot," is considering hosting a show on the Drobnys' network, and added that the couple has approached Gore to do regular essays. Anita Drobny declined to comment about any venture involving Gore, telling TIME: "I'm not at liberty to say anything about that. As far as Vice President Gore, you'll have to call him to ask him about his project and what they are doing." Gore and Hyatt did not respond to repeated requests for an interview.
Gore has long been interested in the nexus between politics and media. His 99-page senior thesis in college was titled "The Impact of Television on the Conduct of the Presidency, 1947-1969." Before running for Congress in 1976, Gore worked as a newspaper reporter for the Nashville Tennessean.
The ascendancy of conservative outlets such as Rupert Murdoch's Fox News Channel — and particularly such ratings powerhouses as commentator Bill O'Reilly — have been a growing source of frustration for Democrats. And while liberal commentators such as former Texas Agriculture Commissioner Jim Hightower have made a stab at syndicated talk shows, they have by and large been unsuccessful. In March, the MSNBC cable news network canceled Phil Donahue's talk show after a disappointing six-month run against The O'Reilly Factor. However, some liberals point to the success of Hillary Clinton's just-released memoir as evidence that a marketplace exists for their viewpoint.
Gore has shared their frustration. In an interview last December with the New York Observer, he described the conservative outlets as a "fifth column" within the media ranks that injects "daily Republican talking points into the definition of what's objective."
"The media is kind of weird these days on politics, and there are some major institutional voices that are, truthfully speaking, part and parcel of the Republican Party," Gore said. "Fox News Network, The Washington Times , Rush Limbaugh — there’s a bunch of them, and some of them are financed by wealthy ultra-conservative billionaires who make political deals with Republican administrations and the rest of the media."
When will it end.
I guess TW is a wash?? IMHO
This is too fuuny
I have tears running down my face. LMFAO
Now she is talking out of the other side of her mouth. Man I hate this bitch!!!!! Now she is calling for an inquiry over Iraq. Hillary explain this to me please!!!!
Hillary Clinton calls for inquiry over Iraq
Hillary Clinton has called for independent inquiries to review the credibility of the intelligence used to justify war in Iraq.
The New York senator joined the mounting pressure in both Britain and the US to investigate allegations that details of Saddam Hussein's weapons of mass destruction were exaggerated.
On Wednesday, Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would not appear before the Foreign Affairs Select Committee to give evidence on alleged misuse of reports in the so-called 'dodgy dossier'.
But Senator Clinton said that although the jury was still out on whether weapons would ever be found, it was essential to discover what happened with the intelligence in both nations.
In an interview with Sir Trevor McDonald in Washington, she said: "I hope that in both our countries we have independent inquiries that get to the facts about the intelligence."
Asked if she thought there was a problem, she said: "I think there could be.
"What is important is that we really do find out what the truth was because this is not just about the past, whether or not the intelligence was either wrong or skewed for whatever purpose, but going forward."
Mrs Clinton said she did not know if people were misled but said: "That is why this cannot be left unanswered.
"I voted for the Iraqi resolution, and I did it in large measure based on the intelligence that I was privy to."
Does this mean you will call for an Inquiry on William Jefferson Clinton as well?? Remember this HILLARY?? Am I crazy or are you a complete compulsive self serving LIAR?
WASHINGTON (CNN) -- From the Oval Office, President Clinton told the nation Wednesday evening why he ordered new military strikes against Iraq.
The president said Iraq's refusal to cooperate with U.N. weapons inspectors presented a threat to the entire world.
"Saddam (Hussein) must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said.
Operation Desert Fox, a strong, sustained series of attacks, will be carried out over several days by U.S. and British forces, Clinton said.
"Earlier today I ordered America's armed forces to strike military and security targets in Iraq. They are joined by British forces," Clinton said.
"Their mission is to attack Iraq's nuclear, chemical and biological weapons programs and its military capacity to threaten its neighbors," said Clinton.
Clinton also stated that, while other countries also had weapons of mass destruction, Hussein is in a different category because he has used such weapons against his own people and against his neighbors.
'Without delay, diplomacy or warning'
The Iraqi leader was given a final warning six weeks ago, Clinton said, when Baghdad promised to cooperate with U.N. inspectors at the last minute just as U.S. warplanes were headed its way.
"Along with Prime Minister (Tony) Blair of Great Britain, I made it equally clear that if Saddam failed to cooperate fully we would be prepared to act without delay, diplomacy or warning," Clinton said.
The president said the report handed in Tuesday by Richard Butler, head of the United Nations Special Commission in charge of finding and destroying Iraqi weapons, was stark and sobering.
Iraq failed to cooperate with the inspectors and placed new restrictions on them, Clinton said. He said Iraqi officials also destroyed records and moved everything, even the furniture, out of suspected sites before inspectors were allowed in.
"Instead of inspectors disarming Saddam, Saddam has disarmed the inspectors," Clinton said.
"In halting our airstrikes in November, I gave Saddam a chance -- not a license. If we turn our backs on his defiance, the credibility of U.S. power as a check against Saddam will be destroyed," the president explained.
Strikes necessary to stunt weapons programs
Clinton said he made the decision to strike Wednesday with the unanimous agreement of his security advisors.
Timing was important, said the president, because without a strong inspection system in place, Iraq could rebuild its chemical, biological and nuclear programs in a matter of months, not years.
"If Saddam can cripple the weapons inspections system and get away with it, he would conclude the international community, led by the United States, has simply lost its will," said Clinton. "He would surmise that he has free rein to rebuild his arsenal of destruction."
Clinton also called Hussein a threat to his people and to the security of the world.
•Timeline
•Maps
•Where They Stand
•Flashback 1991
•Forces in the Gulf
•Bioweapons Explainer
•Message Boards
•UNSCOM Documents
•Related Links
{b}"The best way to end that threat once and for all is with a new Iraqi government -- a government ready to live in peace with its neighbors, a government that respects the rights of its people," Clinton said.
Such a change in Baghdad would take time and effort, Clinton said, adding that his administration would work with Iraqi opposition forces.{/b}
Clinton also addressed the ongoing impeachment crisis in the White House.
"Saddam Hussein and the other enemies of peace may have thought that the serious debate currently before the House of Representatives would distract Americans or weaken our resolve to face him down," he said.
"But once more, the United States has proven that although we are never eager to use force, when we must act in America's vital interests, we will do so."
Source: http://www.cnn.com/US/9812/16/clinton.iraq.speech/
Also, Ms. Smartass Lady in the World, explain me this:
No, I didn’t watch Hillary’s interview on Larry King Live last night. There are some things I just don’t think I could endure. I did hear some excerpts this morning, however. One stands out. Hillary actually tried to say that all of the media attention aid to the Monica Lewinsky matter kept her “husband” from paying full attention to his efforts to get Osama Bin Laden.
So, is Hillary trying to say that September 11th might not have happened if people hadn’t spent so much time picking on her poor husband?
Mrs. Clinton Writes About The Maha Rushie
June 10, 2003
Mrs. Clinton mentioned your humble host five times in her book, which New York Newsday reports set a one-day, nonfiction sales record at Barnes & Noble. The Associated Press story on this claim of 40,000 copies sold is woefully incomplete, as is the headline. That leads me to believe that they're spinning. The latest USA Today/Gallup Poll found only 5% of people were "eager to read" the book. Thirty-four percent "don't plan" on reading it and 21% wouldn't "even if paid to."
A CNN.com poll - which like all online polls is not accurate - found overwhelming apathy. I share the New York Times review panning this work in the audio below, and in my related story: Libs - Hillary Too Dumb to Be President. Kevin Canfield at the Hartford Courant lists various people and things mentioned in the book: "Talk-radio host Rush Limbaugh, who devoted hundreds of hours of programming to the Lewinsky scandal, is mentioned five times in 562 pages." I first appear in a story I've told you people often about the note I left in the Lincoln Bedroom on the last night of Bush 41's presidency.
I found out that Arkansans Harry and Linda Bloodworth-Thomason (producers of such shows as Hearts Afire) would be spending the next night there as Clinton's regime began. The note, among other friendly things, read: "Dear Linda, I was here first - and I'll be back." I can't believe Hillary put this in the book twice: on pages 128 and 166. She also wedges me into the story about her throwing a lamp at Bill in the White House, which she discounts.
More: "Rush Limbaugh routinely told his 20 million radio listeners that Whitewater is about health care, and I finally understood that, yes, it was. The ongoing Whitewater investigation, despite Fisk's findings, was about undermining the progressive agenda by any means. Limbaugh and others rarely criticized the contents of the health security act or any other policy the Democrats introduced. If you believed everything you heard on the airwaves in '94 you would conclude that your president was a communist, the first lady was a murderess and that together they had hatched a plot to take away your guns and force you to give up your family doctor if you had one for a socialist health care system." This must have really gotten to her, because of course I did nothing but go into detail on her plan. That's why people rejected it!
Listen to El Rushbo
http://mfile.akamai.com/5020/wma/rushlimb.download.akamai.com/5020/clips/03/06/061003_6_hillarybook....
Iraqi Museum Looting Was Fan Dance In Sand Pants
June 10, 2003
Let this be a lesson, folks, not only for you, but for the liberals as well. Remember when this great museum of the fabulous Iraqi culture was supposedly looted, thieves broke in there, stole everything, under the watchful eyes of the U.S. military, and the press and everybody was just going bonkers? My response was, "What great Iraqi culture? There is no Iraqi culture." Everyone said I was being insensitive.
But, I asked, what does Iraq export to the world that anybody wants? What's the Iraqi automobile, for example? Where do you go buy an Iraqi car? You don't. Anyway, there was a general panic. How could we have let this happen? Why, the annals of the first-ever recorded human civilization are gone, all because of the U.S. military invasion.
Well, guess what? It never happened! The Washington Post says that U.S. officials have estimated the actual number of exhibition-quality artifacts that are gone at 47. Donnie George, director general of research and study of the Iraqi state board of antiquities disputes the number. He said there are only 33 pieces from the main collections that are unaccounted for, not 47. Some more pieces have been returned. Museum staff members had taken some of the more valuable items home and are now returning them.
Reuters says that the museum will reopen next month. Its headline reads, "Iraq museum to reopen displaying lost treasure." There was no lost treasure! The whole story was amplified and ballooned way out of proportion by the media and the liberals. The stuff was never really stolen. Well, this leads to the weapons of mass destruction discussion Journalists love irony, and if they think they can put irony in a story, they think they've hit a home run in terms of journalism standards. They ran with the museum story, and it turned out to be bogus, and the same thing is happening now with WMD.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A32129-2003Jun8.html?referrer=emailarticle
The DECK of Billary
And now the moment that you have all been waiting for: the winner of the 2003 Sgt. Schultz Golden Mug award for best performance in denial, deception and disinformation.
This year's winner has been awarded the Schultz Mug before. Although the field was full of people who have taken the art of lying to new heights, there is no one who can match the artful dodging, deceit and downright lies spun by Hillary Clinton.
Mrs. Clinton's latest publication, "Living History," is so full of Schultz moments that it must be classified as a work of fiction.
Mrs. Clinton managed to declare under oath that she could either not recall, not remember or simply forgot the entire 1990s. In fact, Mrs. Clinton holds the record of forgetting 250 times while under oath. It is impossible to write a book about "living" history if one has no memory to begin with.
Clinton's new book leaves out so many events and details that it is an instant Schultz comic book. No mention is made of the White House Travel Office scandal, the raid on Vince Foster's office by Hillary's underlings after his death, how Craig Livingstone came to the White House, how John Huang got his top secret clearance, what really happened to the Whitewater billing records, or her frequent meetings with dark underworld figures.
To prove my point I need only to cite photographic evidence. It is often said that a picture tells a thousand words. However, Hillary's pictures not only tell stories left out of her book but they also netted $10,000 each for the DNC in illegal donations.
Her picture with Moctar Riady is certainly damning evidence of a relationship that spanned several bank accounts and two decades. Her photo with husband Bill and Ng Lapeng, Macau millionaire and brothel owner, is worse. The all-time favorite is, of course, her photo in front of the White House Christmas tree with convicted cocaine smuggler Jorge Cabrera.
Mrs. Clinton's performance has taken to the air, the land and the sea. She has done more interviews in the past two weeks pumping her $8 million sci-fi horror novel than she has done in the past two years.
Mrs. Clinton is continuing to deny the obvious to America, and for that she deserves the Sgt. Schultz Golden Mug award. In an interview for Time magazine, she was asked if she plans to run for the White House in 2008.
"I have no intention of running for president," stated Hillary firmly.
Hillary: I Never Cheated on Bill
Sen. Hillary Clinton insists she never had her own variation of a Monica Lewinsky or Gennifer Flowers or ...
Quizzed by reporters before the wildly hyped signing of her book in Manhattan, the Democrat U.S. senator "at first did a little dance," the New York Post reported today.
"I think it's fair to say that in every marriage, there are moments of having to ask forgiveness for a multitude of things," she said. "I'm not going to answer specifically to all the many issues that come up in a marriage."
When pressed if she had always been faithful, she replied, "Yes."
(Does that depend on what your definition of "faithful" is?)
Then the flustered former first lady said she shouldn't have answered the question.
"I believe in a zone of privacy," the tale-telling pol claimed. "I think it is important for us to get back to some common sense in this. I don't think we've ever elected a saint to any office.
"I don't think personal, private matters should be necessarily made public. I can think of many, many examples of people who made mistakes in their private lives, who were magnificent leaders when their country needed them."
Not as Popular as a Disc Jockey
The Post noted that Hillary's ballyhooed book-signing bash was nothing compared to ... shock jock Howard Stern's. Way back in 1993, the author of "Private Parts" drew a crowd many times larger than her 1,200 fans.
"For Stern, 10,000 people showed up. They had to close down Fifth Avenue," recalled Mary Ellen Keating, mouthpiece for Barnes & Noble.
Hillary’s Book Backfires
Christopher Ruddy
Tuesday, June 10, 2003
Despite the media frenzy helping to put Hillary’s new book, “Living History,” onto the best-seller lists, her PR efforts have backfired on her political ambitions.
The intent of Hillary’s “Living History” was to rewrite history and create a fairy tale version of her life with Bill Clinton – a story that would mask her and her husband’s greedy climb to power.
The purpose of this rewrite of history was also clear: to recreate Hillary as her own “lady” – a viable presidential candidate of her own.
But the publicity so far for “Living History” indicates that she and her handlers may have badly misjudged public opinion.
For one thing, the book has reminded Americans that she was, and remains, in the shadow of her husband, an impeached former president.
Bill Clinton’s coattails did not work well for Al Gore, who should have glided into the White House in 2000.
Gore lost, and press reports say that Gore and his wife, Tipper, blamed Clinton and his scandal-riddled administration for the loss.
Watching Barbara Walters, one might believe that the Clinton “scandals” were all about sex. During my years covering the Clinton White House, I never reported on Clinton’s bedroom politics.
But the litany of real Clinton scandals are almost endless: Travelgate, Vince Foster’s death and office cover-up, Waco, Whitewater, Madison Guaranty, Chinagate, Lippogate, illegal fund raising, Cattlefutures-gate, Ron Brown’s death, pardongate and on and on.
Even the so-called “sex scandal” was really no such thing: The scandal was about a sexual harassment lawsuit and the Clintons' efforts to obstruct justice in that case.
As it turned out, it was a minor scandal, but one a very timid and inept prosecutor named Ken Starr latched onto.
While Hillary and her husband were never indicted, it is outrageous for her to claim, and for reporters like Barbara Walters to meekly accept, that the investigations “never found anything.”
As it turned out, dozens of the Clintons' aides and associates had to resign, were indicted, went to jail or were referred for criminal indictment.
Hillary would like to whitewash this chapter in her and her husband’s history.
But her new book does serve to imbed in the public’s mind that Hillary Clinton, both as first lady and now as senator, was upstaged by a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.
This book gave Hillary a tremendous opportunity. It was time for her to have the public forget about Monica and focus on her own achievements.
Instead, Hillary put Monica back into the headlines, with all of Bill’s women problems.
For sure, Hillary is smarter and more disciplined than her husband. It was clear to me, during my years covering the Clintons, that she actually ran the White House. Bill Clinton was too busy with other matters, as the Monica transcripts so well demonstrated.
The spin from this book should have been a repositioning of Hillary. It should have revealed her as the gray power behind her husband – and by doing so, subtly suggesting to the American people that she, too, could be president of the United States.
But Hillary bungled this one.
Even her critics must admit that Hillary has shown remarkable political skills. She helped her husband become governor of Arkansas and stay in office. She helped him win the presidency in 1992 and salvaged his presidency during his first term.
She herself then ran for Senate in a state she had no connection with – and won in a landslide, beating a well-financed Republican. Hillary even won in many Republican districts.
Make no mistake about it: Hillary is a force to be reckoned with, but her book may have just laid the groundwork for her undoing.
MORE ON HILLARY’S BOOK
No, I haven’t read it. You folks know I’m willing to go to great lengths to make the show as entertaining as possible and to keep you informed. There is a limit, however, and reading that 800 page ghost-written pack of lies and political positioning is way beyond that limit.
Actually … there’s no need for me to read it. Same for you. We have others out there willing to suffer the pain for us. They will tell us about the interesting parts in their articles or broadcasts.
So … here are a few interesting things we’ve learned since yesterday:
There is absolutely nothing in the book about the presidential pardon scandal that hit at the end of Clinton’s term. There wasn’t even an mention of the pardons of those Jewish businessmen that led almost an entire Jewish community in upstate New York to vote for Hitlary in her run for the Senate.
You also won’t read anything about Bill Clinton’s rape of Juanita Broaddrick. Remember --- Bill Clinton has never publicly denied Juanita’s charges that he raped her.
There is one line in the book I think is just incredible. When The Smartest Woman in the World learned of the Monica Lewinsky rumors she said “I couldn’t believe that he would do anything to endanger our marriage and our family.”
Say what? After Gennifer Flowers and the rest of Clinton’s little escapades Hillary wants us to believe that her so-called “husband” would never do anything that would endanger their marriage? Who is she trying to kid? The people she wants to vote for her in 2008, of course!
SHE SAID WHAT SHE HAD TO SAY
Now, about Hillary’s reaction to Monica. This entire segment of her book was crafted carefully – not to divulge the truth, but to protect her political viability. The truth is Hillary has long known about and tolerated Bill’s womanizing. Her concern was never any threat his actions would pose to their marriage or family. Her concern was of a possible threat to their political future.
Hillary wants to run in 2008. To do that she may want reelected in New York in 2006. If the polls show that reelection is unlikely she will “opt not to run” so that she can concentrate on some “future plans.”
If the voters in this country suspect that Hillary stuck with Bill because she was determined to ride his coattails, through affair after affair, to political power they will send her packing. Her best political bet is to position herself as the wrong woman bravely facing the fact of marital infidelity while working hard to save her “marriage” and family.
Some reviewer out there proclaimed Hillary’s book to be her personal “communist manifesto.” There’s no doubt it is primary positioning paper for a run for higher office.
http://www.boortz.com/nealznuz.htm
This is too FUNNY:
Juanita Broaddrick Dares Hillary
Clinton rape accuser Juanita Broaddrick took to the radio airwaves on Friday to challenge Hillary Clinton's claim that she didn't know about her husband's philandering - and virtually dared Sen. Clinton to contradict her on the eve of the publication of Clinton's book, "Living History."
In a dramatic phone call to nationally syndicated radio host Sean Hannity, Broaddrick said there was no doubt in her mind that Sen. Clinton is lying.
Asked about the former first lady's claim that she initially believed Bill Clinton's denials about Monica Lewinsky, Broaddrick told Hannity, "No she didn't. She didn't believe him."
"She wants everyone to think that she believed him, but she did not believe him," the Clinton rape accuser insisted.
Then Broaddrick charged that Mrs. Clinton also knew about the sexual attack she suffered at the hands of her husband in 1978.
"She knew very well what happened to me and turned away from it. I knew that she knew when I went to that gathering about three or four weeks after [the attack] that I was already committed to.
"[Hillary] came up to me and said the things that she said, you know. And looked me in the eyes and told me how much she appreciated everything that I did for them."
Broaddrick said, "It was a very stern look in your eye, like, 'Thank you for being quiet.'"
The key impeachment witness also revealed that there are other women who'd been victmized by Mr. Clinton who have yet to come forward, saying that they had contacted her privately.
"You have no idea how many others there possibly were," she told Hannity.
Broaddrick's radio call is the first time she's spoken out in a broadcast interview since Feb. 24, 1999, when NBC News ran 24 minutes of a five hour interview she granted investigative reporter Lisa Myers.
Her account to investigators working for the House Judiciary Committee was stored in a secret evidence room on Capitol Hill during the Clinton impeachment proceedings. The story was so powerful it convinced moderate Republicans who had preferred censuring Mr. Clinton to instead make him the first elected president in U.S. history to be impeached.