|
Comparte este tema
Imprime el tema
Subscríbete al RSS del foro
<< Ver más temas en el foro
+ Crear nuevo tema
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Comparte este tema
Imprime el tema
Subscríbete al RSS del foro
<< Ver más temas en el foro
+ Crear nuevo tema
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|  |
| |||||||||
|
sirjohn
Miembro - Zafiro Mensajes: 88971 Registrado: 12/15/05  |
|
1/4/08 09:31 AM
(57 visitas)
WHY HILLARY LOST It was inevitable, the media and her vast army of consultants, aides and hired attack dogs assured us, Hillary Clinton would walk all the way to the presidency with easy victories over a slate of lackluster rivals in the primaries. To hear them tell it you would have thought her campaign was a powerful locomotive speeding down the rails to the White House, unstoppable. Thursday night it came off the tracks, derailed by the equivalent of the little train that wouldn’t say no. Barack Obama, a relative newcomer to national politics, a year ago largely unknown, not only defeated Hillary Clinton in their first face-to-face encounter, he walloped her, winning about 36 percent of the vote while Hillary was fighting to climb out of a third place finish, locked in a neck-and-neck battle with John Edwards, with each getting about 30 percent. The results of tonight’s contest in Iowa confirm the speculation that Mrs. Clinton’s closet full of skeletons would emerge to haunt her as the contest developed. As early as last April, beep Morris and Eileen McGann wrote that Hillary was rapidly losing her lead over Obama, while the number of people who viewed her unfavorably was steadily increasing. “Hillary isn’t wearing well,” Morris and McGann wrote. “It seems as if the more people see her, the less they like her. Now, for the first time, her low likeability levels are costing her votes.” Her attempts to soften her image and shed the popular image of herself as a vindictive, cold, calculating opportunist and remake her image into that of a soft caring human only served to convince much of the public that they are watching a contrived performance meant to conceal her true nature which on the record shows she is anything but the kind, warmhearted human being she wants the voters to think she is. Too many remember her shocking displays of ruthlessness, such as her cold hearted dismal of the White House Travel Office staff, or her use of thuggish private detectives to harass and slander the women who had been sexually mistreated by her husband. Barack Obama cleverly tapped into the public’s weariness with the White House being occupied by only two families since 1988, the Bush family and the Clintons. He recognized the public’s desire for new faces and new policies and he made change his rallying cry and rode it to victory. Hillary Clinton underestimated the public’s resentment against her, and discounted their revulsion with the sleazy conduct she and her husband displayed in the White House, typified by their attempted swiping of White House furnishings and artifacts when they left the mansion, and her husband’s last minute pardoning of the likes of fugitive felon Mark Rich. Lincoln put it best “You can fool some the people all of the time, and all of the people some of the time, but you can’t fool all of the people all of the time.” Iowa may not mark the end of Hillary’s White House dreams, but it is inevitable that it is the beginning of the end. | |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
solarenaymar2002
Miembro - Papel Mensajes: 1047 Registrado: 7/19/07 Visita Mi Página |
|
1/4/08 02:38 PM
(57 visitas)
  | |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
sirjohn
Miembro - Zafiro Mensajes: 88971 Registrado: 12/15/05 |
|
1/4/08 06:31 PM
(57 visitas)
BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA/ JESSE JACKSON, LA CANDIDATURA DEMOCRATA INVENCIBLE CLINTONS NO LONGER THE LIFE OF PARTY By CHARLES HURT January 4, 2008 -- DES MOINES, Iowa - Awaiting her coronation here last night, Hillary Rodham Clinton instead faced a seething revolt within her own party. More than 70 percent of Iowa Democrats rejected her bid to get back into the White House. And so, after 15 years of domination, the Clinton dynasty has finally lost its grip on the Democratic Party. More than anything else, Clinton's campaign was built upon the aura of inevitability. That's now shattered and left in Iowa's frozen cornfields. What's devastating to her is that she lost so badly to such a political novice. Sure, Barack Obama is an incredibly impressive and appealing figure. He has magically turned the nasty politics of race on its head here in a state with a less than 3 percent black population. His hopeful determination to end the sordid politics that the Clintons are such masters of has even lifelong Republicans eager to vote for him. Still, Obama has four years less experience in the Senate than Clinton. And he didn't spend eight years in the White House as first lady like she did. He hasn't met one-tenth of the world leaders that she's met. Whatever. Adding insult to Clinton's real campaign injury is that she also lost to John Edwards, a retread loser from four years ago running a nasty class-warfare campaign that ultimately won't do any better this time than it did last time. It's certainly conceivable that Clinton can go on to stage a dramatic comeback in New Hampshire just as her husband did in 1992, forever billing him the "Comeback Kid." She maintains a solid lead there. But the same dynamics that worked in Iowa are now at work in New Hampshire. Carrying high the flag of "change," Obama will again attract all those people who are just sick and tired everybody in Washington. Add to the mix that Clinton goes there as a fallen star and Obama goes there as a rock star. The problem with caressing the jewels of the crown before the coronation is that it's really embarrassing when it turns out that the coronation goes to someone else. Clinton's invincibility has turned into inadequacy. She stumbled from Almighty to also-ran. The only question that remains now is whether she will be able to recover enough to go on. But does she really want to spend the rest of her viable political career on the national stage tearing down the man who is poised to become America's real first black president? churt@------------- | |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
sirjohn
Miembro - Zafiro Mensajes: 88971 Registrado: 12/15/05 |
|
1/9/08 03:10 PM
(52 visitas)
LOS CLINTON INSULTAN A LOS NEGROS QUE APOYAN A OBAMA Brazile on Bill: 'Depressing' On CNN today, Donna Brazile lit into Bill Clinton with a vehemence that raised eyebrows in both of their circles:
| |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
dquban222
Miembro - Platino Brillante Mensajes: 18721 Registrado: 6/1/07 |
|
1/13/08 10:02 PM
(47 visitas)
Who Hates America?
01/11/2008 ET “If Barack Obama is elected president, I daresay America will present a new face to the world, will restore, simply by his election, hope – not just within the United States, but from all corners of the world, that America’s claim to moral authority is back on track and that our leadership in world affairs will see a renaissance.” So said U.S. Representative William Delahunt (D-MA) at a recent campaign event in which the leading Democratic foreign policy voice endorsed for president a candidate who admits: “the strongest experience I have in foreign relations is the fact I spent four years overseas when I was a child in Southeast Asia." Well. His gratuitousness aside, Delahunt’s statement echoed the conventional wisdom about the most urgent task awaiting the next president: to repair America’s sullied image abroad. But take a closer look at the evidence, and a different reality emerges. The idea that America’s reputation is in a state of disrepair was put forward in a Washington Post op-ed this week by Clinton Secretary of State Madeline Albright. She wrote that President Bush has embraced a “culture of fear that has driven and narrowed our foreign policy while poisoning our ability to communicate effectively with others.” But such fierce criticism of the White House’s foreign policy isn’t limited to knee-jerk liberals. Moises Naim, editor-in-chief of Foreign Affairs magazine, claims “The world wants America back” and suggests the “powerful anti-American sentiments around the globe” are the result of a White House whose foreign policy has been defined by “more power than brains and whose legitimacy is undermined by regular displays of incompetence, recklessness and ignorance.” Even Republican presidential candidates -- including Mike Huckabee, who chided the Bush Administration for what he called an “arrogant, bunker mentality” -- have parroted the leftwing line that our nation has been tarnished for its “ugly American” image abroad. The list of America’s alleged transgressions is as varied as it is well known. It includes: Bush’s “cowboy diplomacy” and the resultant “illegal” war in Iraq, abuse of prisoners at Gitmo, failure to sign on to the Kyoto protocol and, of course, the administration’s support for Israel. But while it is true that in some parts of the world the U.S. and the Bush administration are unpopular, by one standard, at least, the U.S. is doing as well as it ever has. The governments of the world are shifting decidedly in our direction. Consider Europe, where anti-American sentiment is supposed to run as high as it’s ever been. In Great Britain, Prime Minister Gordon Brown has made strengthening transatlantic ties a top priority, and Labour Party insiders insist Brown is more pro-America than pro-Europe. Brown may be pulling British soldiers out of Iraq, but he also wants to maintain the “special relationship” with the U.S. Brown even vacations in Cape Cod. What about “Old Europe”? In France, Nicolas Sarkozy (“Sarko the American”) calls America the world’s “greatest democracy” and recently appointed a pro-American foreign minister. In Germany, meanwhile, Chancellor Angela Merkel ascended to power in 2004 pledging to reinvigorate trans-Atlantic cooperation with the United States and said shortly after taking office that Germany “does not have as many values in common with Russia as it does with America.” How pro-America is Europe? A recent survey of members of the European parliament found that seventy-seven answered ‘yes’ when asked whether or not it was desirable that the U.S. exert strong leadership in world affairs. Such a shift in sentiment forced even the New York Times to admit: “So old Europe has warmed toward the United States.” New Europe -- Central and Eastern Europe -- has traditionally been very supportive of the nation that played a crucial role in bringing down the Soviet regime that dominated them for so long. Poland, Romania, Hungary and the Czech Republic all support the war in Iraq and have provided troops and assistance there. In Albania, a recent six-hour visit by President Bush prompted the parliament to unanimously approve a bill allowing “American forces to engage in any kind of operation, including the use of force, in order to provide security for the president.” President Bush and America are so popular in the predominantly Muslim nation that one newspaper published a headline that read: “Please Occupy Us!” Georgia has been a close American ally, contributing 2,000 troops to Iraq, the third largest contributor, after the U.S. and Great Britain. The popular Georgian government even named a street after George W. Bush. Can you feel the love? Such appreciation for America doesn’t end in Europe. America’s relations with Australia, Canada and Japan are very strong. And a 2005 Pew survey found that 71 percent of Indians had a favorable view of America, and a majority had either some or a lot of confidence in President Bush’s ability to conduct world affairs. And while the anti-American governments in Venezuela and Bolivia get all the headlines, they are outliers in Latin America. Brazil, Chile, Peru, Uruguay and Mexico all have strengthened their relationships with the U.S. since President Bush took office. And in no continent is America more beloved than Africa. President Bush has given the continent the most sustained attention of any president in recent memory, condemning genocide in Sudan (and recently signing ground-breaking legislation allowing state and local governments to divest from companies that do business with Sudan) and sending aid to war-ravaged Liberia. The Bush Administration has allocated $15 billion to fighting HIV and AIDS in Africa and $1.2 billion to prevent the spread of malaria. Even in the Middle East, where anti-American sentiment remains strongest, President Bush has re-engaged with countries like Libya, which ceased its search for WMD with Bush’s urging. None of this is to say that America does not have enemies. (Name one historical superpower that did not.) There will always be First World elites who look down their noses at America’s unrivaled abundance and prosperity, and there will always be Third World dictators who find in America a convenient scapegoat for their nations’ instability and underdevelopment. The fact is, however, that no other nation in history has been as benevolent or charitable as the United States. Many in the world insult us, but when crisis comes, it is to the United States that the world turns for assistance. So, while the United States may not always be loved, most of the world recognizes that we are indispensable. It’s important not to get caught up in campaign hype. And it’s time to recognize that, in many important ways, the United States is well received in the world because we promote a foreign policy that keeps us, and thus the world, strong.
| |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
dquban222
Miembro - Platino Brillante Mensajes: 18721 Registrado: 6/1/07 |
|
1/21/08 08:11 PM
(43 visitas)
LOS NEGROS POR OBAMA Y LOS HISPANOS POR HILLARY Y EL PARTIDO DEMOCRATA AL BASURERO DE LA HISTORIA... OBAMA CALLS BILL CLINTON WASHINGTON UNTRUTHFUL - AP on Yahoo ^ | 1/21/08 | Larry Margasak - ap Barack Obama challenged Bill Clinton's truthfulness Monday in a deepening feud with the husband of Obama's Democratic presidential rival. Obama's rebuke of the former president, who is still extremely popular with Democrats, came on the holiday honoring Martin Luther King Jr., when both Bill and Hillary Rodham Clinton focused on the civil rights leader. In an interview on ABC, Obama twice questioned Bill Clinton's veracity. "I have to say just broadly, you know, the former president, who I think all of us have a lot of regard for, has taken his advocacy on behalf of his wife to a level that I think is pretty troubling. You know, he continues to make statements that aren't supported by the facts, whether it's about my record of opposition to the war in Iraq, or our approach to organizing in Las Vegas. "You know, this has become a habit. And one of the things that I think we're going to have to do is to directly confront Bill Clinton when he's not making statements that are factually accurate." The former president recently has accused Obama of exaggerating his anti-war record and handing out undeserved praise to Republicans. Clinton said he personally witnessed Obama's union forces intimidating Nevada caucus voters and said an Obama radio ad suggested how Democrats could keep votes from his wife. In a King Day interview that aired on NBC's "Today" Show on Monday, Bill Clinton agreed that King would be excited about Obama's candidacy. "A great speaker, a smart man, someone who loves our country," the former president said of the Illinois senator. The former president said King "would get a kick out of the fact that it appears the nominee of the Democratic Party would either be an African-American senator who's profoundly eloquent, or a woman senator who got her Methodist youth minister to take her to see Dr. King when she was a young high school student, who shared his lifelong commitment and who idolized him." Clinton said he and his daughter, Chelsea, witnessed voter intimidation in Nevada, prior to the caucuses that his wife won on Saturday. He said a representation of the Culinary Workers Union, which endorsed Obama, was "following along behind us going up to everybody ... saying, 'If you're not gonna vote for our guy we're gonna give you a schedule tomorrow so you can't be there.' So, is this the new politics? I haven't seen anything like that in America in 35 years." The Las Vegas Sun said it checked out potential intimidation and concluded it depended on who was talking. The Sun's column, by Michael Mishak, said, "After the Sun worked the story for two hours, this much is clear: What exactly happened this afternoon (Jan. 16) at Paris Las Vegas depends on whom you talk to. To hear Clinton's campaign and her supporters tell it, the union intimidated a member into caucusing for Obama, demanding that she sign a pledge card — or face exile from the caucus. "To hear the alleged victim tell it, it was much more of a misunderstanding." The union denied engaging in any intimidation. Bill Clinton has criticized an Obama radio spot, saying, "There's a radio ad up in the northern part of Nevada telling Republicans that they ought to just register as Democrats for a day so they can beat Hillary and go out and be Republicans next week and vote in the primary. Doesn't sound like the new politics to me." Obama's ad did say Nevada independents and Republicans could switch their registration, but it did not mention Hillary Clinton. The former president also criticized Obama for his comments about Republicans. He contended that Obama "said that since 1992, the Republicans have had all the good ideas. ... I can't imagine any Democrat seeking the presidency would say they were the party of new ideas for the last 15 years." Obama did praise Republicans, but criticized them in the same comment. He said, "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you've heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they're being debated among the presidential candidates and it's all tax cuts. Well, you know, we've done that, we tried it. That's not really going to solve our energy problems, for example. So, some of it's the times." Earlier this month, Bill Clinton had harsh words regarding Obama's stance against the Iraq war. He said Obama "got to go through 15 debates trumpeting his superior judgment and how he had been against the war in every year, enumerating the years, and never got asked one time, not once, 'Well, how could you say that when you said in 2004 you didn't know how you would have voted on the resolution, you said in 2004 there was no difference between you and George Bush on the war, and you took that speech you're now running on off your Web site in 2004, and there's no difference in your voting record and Hillary's ever since." When Obama was the keynote speaker at the 2004 Democratic convention, he focused on the conduct of the conflict. "When we send our young men and women into harm's way, we have a solemn obligation not to fudge the numbers or shade the truth about why they're going," said Obama. "... And to never, ever go to war without enough troops to win the war, ------------- the peace and earn the respect of the world." When Obama spoke to the Chicago Tribune in July 2004, he did comment on his ------------- and that of Bush, but clearly qualified his remark. "There's not that much difference between my ------------- and George Bush's ------------- at this stage. The difference, in my mind, is who's in a ------------- to execute." Both Hillary Clinton and Obama have voted against legislation that paid for the war but lacked a timetable for troop withdrawal. Obama has supported withdrawal of combat troops in 16 months. | |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| |
| |||||||||
|
dquban222
Miembro - Platino Brillante Mensajes: 18721 Registrado: 6/1/07 |
|
1/21/08 09:09 PM
(42 visitas)
Give Hillary her wish
Posted: January 17, 2008 1:00 a.m. Eastern By Joseph Farah © 2008 Hillary Rodham Clinton compares life in the White House to life in prison. Asked by political scientist Tyra Banks this week if she ever got lonely during her eight years as first lady, Hillary responded: "I don't feel lonely. But I do feel isolated. Because when you are in these positions that I have been in, it can be very isolating. It is one of the reasons I put on the dark glasses and the baseball cap and go out of the White House. President Harry Truman once said that the White House was like the crown jewel of the American penal system because you feel so confined." Nevertheless, Hillary is working furiously to break back in. I have a suggestion. Let's grant her wish. No, I don't mean elect her to the presidency. I mean let's incarcerate her – for a long, long time. I admit it: I'd love to see her frog marched right into the penitentiary. I know it's a pipedream, but, if there were real justice in the world, this would be her fate: "Hillary Rodham Clinton, you have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can and will be used against you in a court of law. You have the right to an attorney. If you cannot afford an attorney, one will be provided to you." (Column continues below) Why isn't someone from the FBI reading Hillary her Miranda rights? How many times do we have to witness her blatantly commit election fraud with donors who wind up behind bars while she derives all the benefit? First there was the Peter Paul case. The Hollywood fundraiser charges Hillary has continued to file false reports – a total of four – in an attempt to distance herself from him after a Washington Post story days after the August 2000 fundraiser reported his past felony convictions. Clinton then returned a check for $2,000, insisting it was the only money she had taken from Paul. Clinton, Paul asserts, continues to hide from the public false statements about his contributions and her relationship with him, made to the Post through her spokesman Howard Wolfson. Clinton vowed publicly she would not take any more money from Paul, but one month later, she demanded another $100,000, to be hidden in a state committee using untraceable securities. In May 2005, Sen. Clinton's former finance director, David Rosen, was acquitted for filing false campaign reports that later were charged by the FEC to treasurer Andrew Grossman, who accepted responsibility in the conciliation agreement. Paul points out the Rosen trial established his contention that he personally gave more than $1.2 million to Clinton's campaign for the fundraiser and that his contributions intentionally were hidden from the public and the FEC. The case is the subject of a video documentary largely comprised of intimate "home movies" of Hillary Clinton and her Hollywood supporters captured by Paul during the period. Then there was the case of Norman Hsu. He, too, is a convicted felon and was a fugitive from justice for 15 years when Hillary accepted cash from him – at least $100,000. Hillary isn't commenting, but her attorney, Howard Wolfson, explained: "Norman Hsu is a longtime and generous supporter of the Democratic Party and its candidates, including Sen. Clinton. During Mr. Hsu's many years of active participation in the political process, there has been no question about his integrity or his commitment to playing by the rules, and we have absolutely no reason to call his contributions into question or return them." What? He's a convicted felon. As such, he doesn't even have a right to participate in the American political process. And by fraternizing and dealing with him, aren't Hillary and her attorney aiding and abetting a known fugitive? Where's the FBI when we need it? But it gets worse – much worse! Not only did Hsu give lots of ill-gotten gains to Hillary and other Democratic politicians. He also arranged for major contributions from ordinary citizens who couldn't possibly afford to make them on their own. Take the Paw family of Daly City, Calif. William Paw is a mail carrier. His wife is a homemaker. They live in a small house near the San Francisco airport. The seven adults in the family, who never made a political contribution before 2004, managed somehow to give $213,000 to Democratic candidates since. That includes $55,000 to Hillary. Curiously, the Paws' modest home was once listed as Hsu's California residence. Whatever happened to the old adage that it takes two to tango? Why is it in American politics that only the guy illegally offering the money goes to jail and not the politician who accepts it? Let's give Hillary her wish. Indeed, isolate her from the general populace. But not in the White House – in the Big House. | |||||||||
|
Reporta este mensaje |
|||||||||||
| Saltar la página: 1 · 2 · 3 · 4 · 5 · 6 · 7 · 8 | Próxima página |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Mi Página |
 | Averigua si tus amigos tienen páginas en Univision | Encontrar amigos por nombre, ciudad o país de origen |
