Ask Not What Hillary Wants. Ask What Hillary's Supporters Want.

HC was NOT fired by Zeifman, a claim that was first promoted by conservative writer Dan Calabrese, Rush Limbaugh, and Neil Boortz, but is false.

"Limbaugh made these claims while apparently reading from a March 31 article by conservative writer Dan Calabrese, which asserts: "When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation." Calabrese cites Zeifman as his source. But Zeifman's reported claim is undermined by his own previous reported acknowledgement that he -- Zeifman -- did not fire Clinton and did not have the power to do so. Limbaugh also touted other unsubstantiated claims by Zeifman about Clinton's work on the Watergate committee."
http://mediamatters.org/items/200804040011?f=s_search

Oh .... and Zeifman? Hahahahaha .... a notorious Clinton hater who's book was panned:

"[The book] will surely excite conspiracy buffs on the lookout for sinister coverups in high places. But those wary of such unsubstantiated theories (myself included) will find Zeifman's book an unconvincing, if imaginative, tale of intrigue…The lack of evidence makes this theory hard to swallow. Zeifman's most reliable source -- his diary -- contains few revelations and seems little more than a chronicle of his suspicions and speculations." [Washington Post 2/18/96]

Oh .... and bottom third of her law school class? Says who? She was an editor of the law review! Even if she had graduated in the bottom third of her class, do you know how many lawyers would be happy to graduate in the bottom third of the class at YALE LAW SCHOOL? Hahahahahah!

Some morons actually believe this stuff.

... actually convince HC supporters that they have to vote for Obama, you probably want to avoid the idiotic claim that they're supporting her because they want a woman to be President - (guess people who support Obama only do so because he's African-American, right?). Secondly, you probably want to leave the argument to someone else. Someone who hasn't spent the last few months on anti-Hillary rants (she's become a "joke", "more conservative than McCain (hah!), "Hillary as the anti-Christ", "an insane, power hungry person" at the "loony farm", etc.). Someone like you just has no credibility with any HC supporters.

On the other hand, if you just feel the need to further insult HC and her supporters, regardless of the fact that it is precisely these kinds of rants that drive them away from voting for Obama, well ..........................

.............. keep up the great work.

Of course, someone might tell you ...... How was it you phrased it? Oh yeah ....

"Grow up and act like a Democratic American. Think and act like you care about the important things in America."

... if you made any sense, Bettysdad, but you don't. What is your point?

Hey - Still looking for your promised condemnation of Obama for his campaign tour with Donnie McClurkin. I must have missed it.

Where in the post does it say "Mrs. Bill Clinton did not make gender an issue"? Is English your second language? What I said was "you probably want to avoid the idiotic claim that they're supporting her because they want a woman to be President." All of the candidates want the women's vote. They're the majority of voters. But HC's supporters are supporting her for a number of reasons, not just because she's a woman. Are you only supporting Obama because he's AA?

Wow ...... for a "professional" writer, Bettysdad, you'd think you'd have basic reading comprehension skills. Hey, are you one of the guys that writes the stuff on the back of the cereal boxes?

Oh - and your promised condemnation of Obama .............. guess you were just lying about that .........

...............again.

Peter Paul? The four time convicted felon and conspiracy nut? Hahahahahahaha.

Paul's case against Hillary was dismissed on motion and he was even forced to pay her attorney fees (i.e. rarely happens except in cases with absolutely no merit). His "looting" case (not election fraud, as you claimed earlier) against Bill Clinton continues, but it's bogus.

If anyone wants the facts
http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/crooked_claims_about_clinton.html

... on all kinds of sites, including major newspapers - Factcheck was just the easiest summary. How about the AP/San Diego Union Tribune:

October 16, 2007

LOS ANGELES – An appellate court on Tuesday denied a motion to reinstate Sen. Hillary Clinton as a defendant in a lawsuit that claims she, former President Clinton and others induced a former supporter to finance a 2000 fundraising gala.
The 2nd District Court of Appeal upheld a lower court's decision to remove the New York senator and Democratic presidential candidate from a lawsuit filed by Peter Paul. The three-judge panel also said Clinton can recoup legal costs. ...

Superior Court Judge Aurelio Munoz dismissed Hillary Clinton from Paul's lawsuit in April 2006, citing a California statute aimed at reducing frivolous lawsuits ...

The appellate panel called Paul's argument “fatally flawed,” and noted a FEC audit found that neither Clinton nor her Senate campaign accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser.

In fact, the record as presented to us strongly suggests Senator Clinton's and Clinton for Senate's conduct was perfectly legal,” the appellate court wrote in its decision."

Would you like a dozen more citations? It's fun demonstrating what an idiot bettysdad is!

See my post above. Anyone can file a lawsuit ... it means nothing. Peter Paul is a four-time convicted felon (drug dealer, securities fraud) and conspiracy nut.

"Paul alleged that Clinton was deceitful in this,[33] and retained public interest law firm, and frequent Clinton opponent, Judicial Watch to represent him in a series of civil and criminal lawsuits against the Clintons, the Clinton campaign, and ultimately the Federal Election Commission (which he charged was negligent in failing to convict Mrs. Clinton).[34][35][36][37] These charges were delayed, as courts held that Paul could not bring charges against the Clintons as he fought extradition from Brazil,[38] but proceeded once he was returned to the States.[39]

Paul's claims have not found traction. An audit by the Federal Elections Commission found that neither Senator Clinton nor her Senate campaign had accepted any illegal funds in connection with the Hollywood fundraiser[40], though the campaign was asked to pay $35,000 in fines for having underreported the cost of the party.[41] Paul's suit against the FEC was thrown out; his attempt to bring ethics charges against Clinton were rejected,[42] and his fraud charges against Senator Clinton were tossed out in April 2006.[43] Paul continued to press civil charges against Senator Clinton and former President Clinton for "looting"[44] his business, but the courts refused to allow him to sue Senator Clinton, with the appellate court specifying that her behavior had been "perfectly legal," and allowing her to recoup her legal fees from Paul.[40]

Finding no luck in the courts, in 2007 Paul sponsored and promoted a thirteen and a half minute video titled "Hillary Exposed: The Case of Paul v. Clinton," attacking Senator Clinton. Her office responded "Peter Paul is a professional liar who has four separate criminal convictions, two for fraud. His video repackages a series of seven-year-old false claims about Senator Clinton that have already been rejected by the California state courts, the Justice Department, the Federal Election Commission, and the Senate Ethics Committee."[45] In January 2008, he also re-filed his complaint with the FEC.[46]"

^ Paul appeared on ABC's 20/20 with allegations against Hillary Clinton
^ Paul's civil fraud and coercion suit against the Clintons
^ "U.S. fugitive tied to Clintons caught in Brazil", The Washington Post, August 4, 2001, p. A12.
^ FEC Litigation Release, "Judicial Watch Inc. and Peter F. Paul v. FEC (1:01CV02527)", August 30, 2003.
^ "Court upholds dismissal of fugitive's lawsuit against Clintons", Metropolitan News-Enterprise, December 12, 2002.
^ "Court allows suit against Clintons", San Francisco Chronicle, P. B 2, October 21, 2004.
^ a b "Court says Hillary Clinton shouldn't be defendant in lawsuit," Greg Risling, Associated Press, October 16, 2007
^ [1] MUR 5225 "In the Matter of New York Senate 2000 and Andrew Grossman, in his official capacity as treasurer, Conciliation Agreement", December 19, 2005.
^ Ethics Committee Won't Hear Clinton Fund-Raising Case," The New York Sun, June 14, 2006, p.4
^ "White House 2008 -- The Democrats," National Journal Group Hotline, April 10, 2006
^ "Producer accuses Clintons of 'looting'; Complaint will be heard today," Washington Times, September 25, 2006, page A01
^ "Anti-Clinton Video Draws Web Audience," Jim Kuhnhenn, Associated Press, October 30, 2007
^ "Former Clinton Donor Files FEC Complaint Seeking Further Investigation Of 2000 Event," National Campaign News, January 8, 2008.

Really?!?! Wow!!!!

You'd be surprised if the sky was blue.

He'd take you up on it. Bettysdad HAAAAAAAATES her.

How Barack Obama Played the Race Card and Blamed Hillary Clinton

"The New Republic is very much against the Bush tax programs, against Bush Social Security 'reform,' against cutting the inheritance tax, for radical health care changes, passionate about Gore-type environmentalism, for a woman's entitlement to an abortion, for gay marriage, for an increase in the minimum wage, for pursuing aggressively alternatives to our present reliance on oil and our present tax preferences for gas-guzzling automobiles. We were against the confirmation of Justice Alito."

Yeah, sounds real "right-wing lunatic" to me... In your dreams...

and, yes, Sean Wilentz was a Clinton supporter, but he is also a respected historian and journalist, so there might just be something to what he is saying...

"Racist! Racist! Racist!" .......... yawwwwwwwn.

Reality .... from someone who believes conspiracy theories about the the Trilateral Commission and Council on Foreign Relations.