musicman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Clinton, Obama clash over GeffenThe sun was not yet up on Wednesday, and members of Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign team were confronted with the kind of attack that most infuriates them: one questioning the character of Clinton and her husband.To make matters worse, it came from David Geffen, the Hollywood producer who was once a big supporter of the Clintons but has since turned on them and is now backing Sen. Barack Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination.What followed was a remarkably caustic exchange between the Clinton and Obama campaigns that highlighted the sensitivity in the Clinton camp to Obama's rapid rise as a rival and his positioning as a fresh face unburdened by the baggage borne by Clinton, the junior senator from New York. The Clinton camp seemed also to be sending a warning to mud-slinging critics that they would be dealt with fiercely.It began with a column in The New York Times by Maureen Dowd, in which Geffen said the Clintons lie "with such ease, it's troubling" and that the Clinton political operation "is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective." Geffen called Bill Clinton a "reckless guy" and suggested that Hillary Clinton was too scripted.In a statement, the Clinton campaign called on Obama to sever his ties to Geffen and return the $1.3 million that Geffen helped raise at a reception on Tuesday."While Sen. Obama was denouncing slash-and-burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Sen. Clinton and her husband," Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign communications director, said.Bill Burton, a spokesman for Obama, quickly responded with a statement, saying it was ironic that the Clintons had no problem with Geffen when he was "raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."This sure was a hot topic on this morning's news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Glenn Beck had an excellent piece about the Clintons on Monday night. He was asking how the women in this country could stand behind a woman that would let her man cheat on her time and time again, and suffer the slings and arrows of what was once thought to be a vast "right-wing conspiracy" on her husband, then finding out the whole time that it was all true, even before the Monica Lewinski blow-up ? How can women stand behind a woman who appears to really have no backbone ? I would pose the same question to the women on this forum. Would you keep taking the embarrassment of your husband's extramarital affaris time and time again, or would you cut his Willie off in the middle of the night ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 Glenn Beck had an excellent piece about the Clintons on Monday night. He was asking how the women in this country to stand behind a woman that would let her man cheat on her time and time again, and suffer the slings and arrows of what was once thought to be a vast "right-wing conspiracy" on her husband, then finding out the whole time that it was all true, even before the Monica Lewinski blow-up ? How can women stand behind a woman who appears to really have no backbone ? I would pose the same question to the women on this forum. Would you keep taking the embarrassment of your husband's extramarital affaris time and time again, or would you cut his Willie off in the middle of the night ?IMO, it's not that she lacks backbone. It was a calculated position to make her a more sympathetic figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Parrothead Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 It was a calculated position to make her a more sympathetic figure.Correct-o-mundo. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 IMO, it's not that she lacks backbone. It was a calculated position to make her a more sympathetic figure.Interesting perspective. I like your thinking.........I'm gonna be watching you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
musicman Posted February 22, 2007 Share Posted February 22, 2007 IMO, it's not that she lacks backbone. It was a calculated position to make her a more sympathetic figure.the way she was responding to the david geffen attacks this morning, she sure isn't getting much sympathy. i'm sure the dogs nearby could hear her teeth grinding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 24, 2007 Share Posted February 24, 2007 Can anyone satisfy these people?Christian Right Labors to Find Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeebus Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I'm somewhat late coming into this conversation, but I overheard on the news last night about a poll that put Rudy Giuliani five points ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls.What are the board's thoughts on Giuliani as a candidate? All I really know about the guy is that he cleaned up Manhattan & handled 9|11 as well as he did. I'd like to hear both sides, liberal and conservative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 25, 2007 Share Posted February 25, 2007 I'm somewhat late coming into this conversation, but I overheard on the news last night about a poll that put Rudy Giuliani five points ahead of Hillary Clinton in the polls.What are the board's thoughts on Giuliani as a candidate? All I really know about the guy is that he cleaned up Manhattan & handled 9|11 as well as he did. I'd like to hear both sides, liberal and conservative.I'm not adverse to the guy but I don't see how he can get past the strength of the far right in the primaries. He is pro-choice and pro-civil unions just like Sen. Clinton. I just don't get how he can get the nomination unless the Republicans blow off the far right Christian fundalmentalists-and if they do that, they loose the election anyway. It's not a bias on my part...it's just political reality. The Christian right has been a key element in the last two Presidential elections but now they have no viable candidate to back. They won't back a flip-flopping McCain or a flip-flopping Morman like Romney or a liberal Guliani. So who is left to support? I have yet to hear a concrete consensus from the Republican base. Like yourself, I am truely interested in what others here have to say. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Rom...Born_Citizen.3FNatural Born Citizen?Romney was born in Mexico, which raised the issue if he was eligible to be President, which is constitutionally limited to a "natural born citizen" of the United States. Both his parents were American citizens, and he returned to the U.S. before he turned 21. That was sufficient for him to be a U.S. citizen, but not necessarily to pass the "natural born" test (which only applies to presidents). The issue was never tested in court and contrasts with the cases of Barry Goldwater, who was born in the Arizona Territory, and John McCain, who was born to American parents in the Panama Canal Zone at a time it was part of the U.S. and his father (a naval officer) was assigned to duty there. The Romneys had purposely left American legal jurisdiction.Is this a constitutional conumdrum? Should McCain and Romney be disqualified? Romney is clearly not a natural born citizen; McCain is questionable at best.I just found all this out today and have always been intrigued about the Constitutional requirements regarding the Presidency. Where do we draw the line?My gut tells me to draw it at the original intent of the Constitution.Thoughts anyone? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Rom...Born_Citizen.3FIs this a constitutional conumdrum? Should McCain and Romney be disqualified? Romney is clearly not a natural born citizen; McCain is questionable at best.I just found all this out today and have always been intrigued about the Constitutional requirements regarding the Presidency. Where do we draw the line?My gut tells me to draw it at the original intent of the Constitution.Thoughts anyone?I guess it depends on what your definition of "natural born citizen" is.Is it a term that is officially defined anywhere and is in use by the government?What is your take on the original intent? Here's the actual text:No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States.Does the "or a Citizen of the United States" leave some wiggle room there?To me, it seems to mean someone who was a citizen since birth. That seems to apply to McCain, IMO. But what about Romney? Did he not become a citizen until he returned to the U.S.? Where do we draw the line there? What if your mother lives in Detroit and is visiting her sister in Windsor for the day when she goes into labor. You are born in Canada but you're a U.S. citizen who's lived all but 24-48 hours in the U.S. Are you ineligible for the Presidency? Seems absurd to me.Interesting case, indeed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Rom...Born_Citizen.3FThoughts anyone?Romney is a natural-born U.S. citizen because his grandparents were U.S. citizens. The rule is 'blood or soil'.He's got the blood. There is no controversy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this ConstitutionDoes the "or a Citizen of the United States" leave some wiggle room there?There's no way he or any of us could have been a citizen at the time of the adoption of the Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Agreed, but looking at the sentence structure, it loks like the "at the time of adoption" would apply to the "natural born citizen" part as well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedScare Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Romney is a natural-born U.S. citizen because his grandparents were U.S. citizens. The rule is 'blood or soil'.He's got the blood. There is no controversy.Talk about pulling one out of your a$$! There is no provision in either the US Constitution, or any of the Supreme Court cases interpreting it that looks at one's grandparents when deciding the issue of "natural born citizen". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 Talk about pulling one out of your a$$! There is no provision in either the US Constitution, or any of the Supreme Court cases interpreting it that looks at one's grandparents when deciding the issue of "natural born citizen".Jus sanguinis and jus soli. These are the basis for citizenship at birth.Parentage is absolutely a consideration. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted February 28, 2007 Share Posted February 28, 2007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_W._Rom...Born_Citizen.3FIs this a constitutional conumdrum? Should McCain and Romney be disqualified? Romney is clearly not a natural born citizen; McCain is questionable at best.I just found all this out today and have always been intrigued about the Constitutional requirements regarding the Presidency. Where do we draw the line?My gut tells me to draw it at the original intent of the Constitution.Thoughts anyone?Nmain, are you talkin about Mitt Romney or George Romney ? Mitt was born in Detroit, Michigan as a "natural born citizen." How could he possibly be disqualified ? Crackhead ! The only reason Schwartzenegger can't be President is because he was born in Austria, it doesn't matter where your parents are born, it matters where YOU are born. What the hell do you think an "anchor baby" is ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 I just reread the part about McCain being born in the Panama Canal area. Yes, Nmain, he qualifies also, it is like someone being born in Guam who's father is in the military, or being born on a military base in Germany. Those are considered U.S. soil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Romney is a natural-born U.S. citizen because his grandparents were U.S. citizens. The rule is 'blood or soil'.He's got the blood. There is no controversy. Ah!!! The Pedant is now a Constitutional Scholar!!! Nmain, are you talkin about Mitt Romney or George Romney ? Crackhead ! The only reason Schwartzenegger can't be President is because he was born in Austria, it doesn't matter where your parents are born, it matters where YOU are born. Opps!...guess I picked the wrong day to start using crack. My mistake. I agree it's all about where you were born-not your parents or great-grandfather and his five wives or your great-great-grandfather and his 12 wives. I just reread the part about McCain being born in the Panama Canal area. Yes, Nmain, he qualifies also, it is like someone being born in Guam who's father is in the military, or being born on a military base in Germany. Those are considered U.S. soil. I tend to agree with you there as the Canal Zone was under US control at the time. Maybe we should ask The Pedant for his Proffesional Out of his Ass Constitutional Ruling because that RedScare guy clearly doesn't know ANYTHING about the law! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TJones Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Well, I was scratchin my head there for a second, becuase I was like, why the hell are they talkin' about a dead guy? Then I thought, well, the Dems. did choose John Kerry to run for President last time, so maybe the Republicans were gonna take a stab at it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CDeb Posted March 2, 2007 Share Posted March 2, 2007 Well, I was scratchin my head there for a second, becuase I was like, why the hell are they talkin' about a dead guy? Then I thought, well, the Dems. did choose John Kerry to run for President last time, so maybe the Republicans were gonna take a stab at it...... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nmainguy Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 What to do...what to do! I have a question for the Republicans: How do you deal with your flip-flopping, Liberal front runner when it comes to immigration? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/polit...iuliani.html?hp Do you A: attempt to rationalize his flip and flop or B: hang back until a Thompson or more extreme far right-wing "christian" whack-job knocks the pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro civil unions Guliani off of his pedestal made of sand? After several years of dominance by extremist primary voters, where do they turn to now? Maybe a third party? Maybe they'll be too busy at Baptist Bingo on election day? Inquiring minds want to know! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheNiche Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 What to do...what to do! I have a question for the Republicans: How do you deal with your flip-flopping, Liberal front runner when it comes to immigration? http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/22/us/polit...iuliani.html?hpDo you A: attempt to rationalize his flip and flop or B: hang back until a Thompson or more extreme far right-wing "christian" whack-job knocks the pro-gun control, pro-choice, pro civil unions Guliani off of his pedestal made of sand? After several years of dominance by extremist primary voters, where do they turn to now? Maybe a third party? Maybe they'll be too busy at Baptist Bingo on election day? Inquiring minds want to know! Local and national political positions and their respective powers differ markedly. Policy decisions should reflect that, and Guliani seems to 'get it' at both levels. It is unfortunate that you are correct that many people won't understand, and will regard it as a flip-flop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted April 22, 2007 Share Posted April 22, 2007 Aight, I know there's a lot of political turmoil within HAIF. What better way to exploit that by having a thread dedicated to who you think or want to become president of the USA in 2008. This month is where it all begins; when the hopefuls announce their intentions. Those who have announced the indeed are running for president are:Democratic Hopefuls: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lockmat Posted August 2, 2007 Share Posted August 2, 2007 Charlie Rose had Rudy Guiliani last night. A very good conversation. But make sure you have time. It's an hour long.<embed style="width:400px; height:326px;" id="VideoPlayback" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" src="http://video.google.com/googleplayer.swf?d...57000&hl=en" flashvars=""> </embed> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Toggle3 Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 I hate to admit this, but looking at the field I am --at this time-- torn between Obama or Giuliani. They are both very pragmatic and real. They look at issues and seem to say "what makes sense here." Whoa there Nelly! You're going to be voting based on personalities? Barak and Rudy are in completely different ideological camps. Liberalism and Libertariansim are close but no cigar. How can you fluctuate so profoundly between supporting a candidate on the hard Left and a candidate that's closer to being a Conservative? One is for big government, lots of social programs (help me take care of myself Daddy) and one is for small government, fewer programs (Leave me alone, I'm a grown-up). These candidates are the antithesis one from the other. It makes no sense to equate the two because they both have palatable public personas. Make no mistake, both are pandering. (And those're all my "p" words for today! ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
houstonmacbro Posted August 4, 2007 Share Posted August 4, 2007 Whoa there Nelly! You're going to be voting based on personalities? Barak and Rudy are in completely different ideological camps. Liberalism and Libertariansim are close but no cigar. How can you fluctuate so profoundly between supporting a candidate on the hard Left and a candidate that's closer to being a Conservative? One is for big government, lots of social programs (help me take care of myself Daddy) and one is for small government, fewer programs (Leave me alone, I'm a grown-up). These candidates are the antithesis one from the other. It makes no sense to equate the two because they both have palatable public personas. Make no mistake, both are pandering. (And those're all my "p" words for today! ) I like both of them. What can I say ... There are issues I have with both, but on purely subject matter, I really do like some of, both of their positions, Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.