bastard.
Hilary did not earn 100 million last year.
Bill and Hilary earned 109 million over the last EIGHT years. The great majority of that being
earned by Bill.
Hillary, in fact, earned 11 million in the last 8 years, 10.5 of that being from sales of her book over the past 5 years (or an average of about 2 million per year book royalties).
Meanwhile, Barack earned over 4 million last year on the sales of his two books.
Also, as a percentage of salary, the Clintons gave more to charity than the Obamas.
So by what standard can anyone try to portray one or the other as being MORE out
of touch with the common people? At the time of the end of Bill's presidency, the Clintons
had never owned a house and thanks to the republicans, were 5 million dollars in debt
for impeachement legal costs. Their wealth is exclusively from being former residents of
1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
You don't feel that he should be accountable for someone he knew when he was 8 years old.
Fair enough. But, he is accountable, as an adult, for having a professional relationship with that same man over the course of 4 years during which that man supported his (Obama's) run for political office. The man was a terrorist in the 60's who called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government. People in office, if they are smart, denounce any connections to people of questionable character and that in no way implies Hilary probably hasn't had her share of very
similar relationships in business and politics in the last 35 years. But is another public example of Barack not doing so.
But one can't complain about being called out on a factual event and evading questions about it by simply throwing the accusation back. That does nothing to educate the American voter.
Criticism of anyone is fair game, and so is mudslinging. If it is truthful. There is enough dirt on both (all three, actually) candidates that trying to score points by debate semantics is fairly futile.
ps - for the record, I do not support Hilary or Obama - but may, if enough republicans are stupid enough to support McCain, vote Obama as the lesser of 3 evils.
This time of the election cycle is when I pretty much google "fact check" on any report or quote I read regarding candidates, LOL!bb.
If you still want explanation here's the short version:
1- talk about "real issues" and grand notions
2- regress into "fact" emotional personal attacks
3- loop back and tie it all up
Media in action.
Well-missed.
your exagerations and misrepresentations do nothing to further the process which is the very thing you railed against. how does that make sense?
you say 1- talk about real issues, then reference things that are not true
2 - regress into fact - I'm not certain if you left out a word or not - did you mean to put "not" or "avoid" emotional personal attacks? again, your own post contradicts that advice by doing the opposite
and 3 - loop back and tie it all up - your referencing media, sure, but this was a debate that the players had their own opportunity to shape - its not the fault of the media when the opponents continue to repeat the same false claims, which was my final comment.
well-missed yourself.
"You don't feel that he should be accountable for someone he knew when he was 8 years old.
Fair enough. But, he is accountable, as an adult, for having a professional relationship with that same man over the course of 4 years during which that man supported his (Obama's) run for political office. The man was a terrorist in the 60's who called for the violent overthrow of the U.S. government."
I don't believe he actually knew him when he was 8. Barack said.....
"And the notion that somehow as a consequence of me knowing somebody who engaged in detestable acts 40 years ago when I was 8 years old, somehow reflects on me and my values, doesn't make much sense."
I wouldn't necessarily agree with this, if it wasn't for the fact they were both on the board of an Anti-Poverty charity... I don't see that being the worst thing in the world. And by supported, if you mean gave $200, I guess you are right. It isn't like he financed his entire campaign or anything. It is just another thing that Clinton shouldn't have brought up. It will only come back to hurt her.
That is pretty out of touch with the common man. Few educators are making over $102,000... I mean, come on! That is supposed to be common knowledge. Our educators are notoriously underpaid.... haha.
At least Obama had a good reply which showed he wasn't quite so out of touch...
"most firefighters, most teachers, you know, they’re not making over $100,000 a year. In fact, only 6 percent of the population does."
yet that is how brocklafayette chose to portray it, not how I did.
It was more than "a" campaign contribution, it was a professional relationship and even if not intimate, at some level it was a personal relationship. William Ayers held a meet and greet in his home for younger local candidate Obama as well as fundraisers for "many" of Barack's campaigns.
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2008/04/16/obama-asked-about-william-ayers-in-tonights-debate/
You are absolutely right about Clinton in regard to that particular issue, but I'm sure if I cared, I could find equally damning quotes and votes by Obama (we won't even go to the "bitter" controversy since I pretty much agreed with the intent of his comment, LOL!). Which just goes to my point of how can anyone pretend to be a judge of whether one person is "in touch" when they very likely will relax their standard of proof for the person they support (can you say "Ron Paul"?).
No, as I said, fact-checker sites are the best things around these days to help cut through the mud. But too many voters only care about the headline and not the content, they care about peripheral things such as vague associations and out of context quotes instead of things like voting records, long established alliances, and proven (or not) track records in dealing with a variety of people, whether they be fellow senators, international politicians, or world leaders.bb.
I don't know... I think that if Barack wants to play the "out of touch" game, he should totally press what was said at this debate. She completely failed to be "in touch" with the incomes of police officers and teachers... you know... educators and protectors. haha. America's median household income is around $50,000... ranging from $35k - $65k... which is just about the same range of the average teacher's incomes.
It might be possible to find a similar situation with Obama... I just haven't seen it yet.
The William Ayers issue is essentially null for a few reasons.
Chicago has obviously forgiven the man because he is on anti-poverty charity boards and is a professor, constantly asked to be at events for his educated opinion in Chicago. Not exactly the most radical man any more.
I'm not trying to downplay it by calling it "a" contribution, but pointing out that his contribution isn't really what matters. It wasn't a big contribution. It was the same sort of donation that thousands and now millions have made. I refuse to make that aspect any more important that the others.
The article you sent makes it sound like Ayers was a mass murderer. He was an anti-war terrorist (not exactly the worst kind, I suppose) and the only people that ever died from the Weather Underground bombs were members of the Weather Underground. I don't have a problem with the man, really... he was a radical, I don't really agree with his actions, but ONCE AGAIN people are portraying a man as if there is nothing else to him but Weather Underground. Now he is a professor, he hangs out with the other Chicago social intellectuals. So what?
Of course, it really isn't so bad that you and I are talking about it, but that Clinton would try to make it an issue, when Bill commuted the sentence of one member of weather underground and pardoned another. She isn't winning any points for smart campaigning herself.
In the end, I guess the question is... What does it mean if he associated with Ayers? Is that important? He doesn't really seem like the worst person in the world.
I swear by fact-checker sites. I have three on speed dial... haha. That is where I typically get my information about the latest and greatest political "gaffe".
And I agree - we are not a democracy but a representative government. If we were a democracy, then every vote would count - not delegates who supposedly represent us.
But I kind of disagree on another point. Just when I was losing total faith in We the People, and feeling that Will Rogers was totally correct when he said that we get the government we deserve, I read everyone's posts on here yesterday and I was heartened. I might disagree with some of the posts, but most of them were extremely thoughtful and thought-provoking. It gave me hope. However, I am a half-full type of person. Keep up the great blogs.
Just when I dare to hope, Mindsay crushes my soul again.
Okay.
Not that it would make a difference becasue I have no respect whatsoever for him, but for once, I'd like to hear the man actually give me a plan, rather than just attack Hillary and John, and just answer the damn question about the flag lapel pin already - you know?
Who gives a flying fuck about a $1 piece of jewelry??? Seriously...a lapel pin??? As if that's the burning issue facing this country. He did give an answer...that a lapel pin is no measure of patriotism, and that people who use that as the litmus test for a presidential candidate are missing the point.
I'd call them hopelessly myopic.
Yes, I can finally hear something other than inspirational hogwash, but how different is it than Hillary? Not much. And I'll be honest - I DO give a flying fuck about a lapel pin, becasue it's the American flag that he refused to wear. The American flag and all it's symbolism - he refused to wear. He wants to be the leader of a nation founded by hero's and men and women with a dream - yet he refuses to wear the very symbol which stands for that - the flag pin. I DO question his patriotism and I'll questions ANYONE'S patriotism who would refuse to wear something that means so much - it's an honor, not a shame.
Of course, I see that he now wears the pin. Guess the wind blew too hard and he caved.