Bill Clinton Says He Will Support Hillary If She Seeks Presidency

[mtnsnake]

Just thought I'd let you know.

[evlbstrd]

1. There's a shocker. nt

[Deep13]

2. Bill Clinton announces he will not sleep on the couch.

[Ian_rd]

3. Barack Obama Says He Will Support Himself If He Seeks Presidency

Just thought I'd let you know.

This could be a fun thread :)

[Radical Activist]

40. So will his kids.

[mentalsolstice]

4. Glad that's settled. I was really worried he wouldn't! eom

[Catherine Vincent]

5. Of course he will.

But he's got to know there's goanna be alot of crap thrown at his wife if she decides to run, even more than when he ran. Will they be able to put up with that?

[MonkeyFunk]

12. they've put up with it

for almost 20 years now. They can handle it.

[MH1]

6. That's too bad...

I'd thought better of Bill than that. Still, it is his wife...

[TayTay]

9. Gee, I think Teresa Heinz Kerry supports her husband's career as well.

Gee, who'd a thunk it? What a shocker!

[demnan]

7. What do you bet

Elizabeth Edwards supports John Edwards!

[blm]

8. Of course. Clinton1 closed books for Bush1. Clinton2 needs to close books for Bush2

and secrecy and privilege will remain for the powerful.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[k_jerome]

10. wahhhh. nt.

[mtnsnake]

11. hehe

:evilgrin:

[blm]

14. Yes. Knowing Clinton covered up so MUCH for BushInc makes many Dems cry.

Except those traitorous Democrats who SUPPORT secrecy and privilege over open gonvernment.

[paulk]

15. traitorous?

So now supporting Bill Clinton makes one a traitor?

Not to mention, by inference, Bill Clinton himself is now one, in your book.

That's taking it a bit far, I think.

[blm]

20. Democrats who support secrecy and privilege OVER open government are

traitorous to the constitution. Democrats who support secrecy and privilege of Republican administrations are traitors to the Democratic party.

I believe my use of the word traitor is fair.

[mtnsnake]

23. You're obviously jealous that Big Dawg had 2 great terms as President

which is something that your favorite candidate, John Kerry, can only dream about. You're also worried that Bill's wife might keep Kerry from having another shot at it. Otherwise, you wouldn't spend every waking minute of the day running down two of the strongest Democrats in our Party as if they were garbage.

I've got some news for you. There is no further need for you to worry anymore because it's not just Hillary that Kerry has to worry about....it's Obama and it's also all of the mainstream Democrats in America who share the exact opposite views as you do and they'd never support another Kerry run again after what everyone witnessed the last time.

[blm]

25. You'd be wrong. I WANT Hillary in the debate about the direction of the country

because she will be representing the coverup wing of the Democratic party.

I REALLY want her to run. It opens the doors to what Bill Clinton did for BushInc and what we can expect from another Clinton who believes in secrecy and privilege.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

It's time the anti-corruption, open government wing of the Democratic party drop the anvil on the coverup wing of the party.

[mtnsnake]

27. LOL, in your next chapter of spinnerama you'll be claiming Hillary belogs to Skull & Bones

Good golly miss molly.

[blm]

29. You go overboard and attack others so much because you can't defend the HISTORIC record.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

If you sincerely believed that Kerry was a harmless factor to Clinton, and such a dead horse, you wouldn't continue to beat that dead horse, would you? Wouldn't you have much more SERIOUS threats to counter?

[talk hard]

30. historic record?? you mean blog blatherings

man, I hope you are getting paid for the all the propaganda you bring here

[blm]

34. So YOU are declaring Robert Parry's report is propaganda? Gary Webb's, too?

But, you never manage to refute a word in Parry's commentary. And you have never refuted a word of Webb's reporting on the CIA drugrunning, either.

[mtnsnake]

35. Read his post again.

It sounded to me more like he was referring in general to "ALL the propaganda you bring here", not just today's chapter. See for yourself. It would be hard to disagree with him.

[blm]

52. Considering that I post about Parry and Webb's work, and focus on IranContra,

BCCI, Iraqgate, and CIA drugrunning, and the FACT that Clinton would not pursue any of those outstanding matters, please explain the 'propaganda' charge.

[talk hard]

56. your Counterpunch crap is duly noted

for the propaganda it is ---- try working for the Democrats for a change

[blm]

61. Since you don't know the difference between Parry, Webb, the congressional record and Counterpunch

then that would explain your inability to recognize historic fact from conspiracy theory.

Please post the chapters in Clinton's book where he explains his pursuit of the outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning.

[Imagevision]

63. mtnsnake, do you know who Gary Webb the pulitzer prize write was???

if you reply yes , you had me fooled...

[mtnsnake]

66. uhmmm, Gary Coleman's brother? BTW, why are you calling blm "mtnsnake"?

Just wondering.

mtnsnake, do you know who Gary Webb the pulitzer prize write was???

First tell me what a "pulitzer prize write" is and I'll let you know. :evilgrin:

[blm]

71. It must be in SOMEONE'S interest that Parry and Webb's work be labeled 'propaganda'

at political forums, so.....WHO would benefit from that perception?

Is it just coincidence that Webb's work is being mislabeled at internet forums after BET debuted the documentary American Gangster that followed Webb's 1996 investigation last month and some powerful DC elite have questions to answer to this country and especially to the African American community?

Is it coincidence that Parry reposted his article Democrats, Truth Matters, last Novemeber after the election, and there are attempts here to label his work as not credible?
http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

I don't believe in coincidence.

[mtnsnake]

31. There was no attack. Your imagination obviously is running wild.

But tune in same time, same channel tomorrow, for another dose of spin by you in your incessant witch hunt against the Clintons, those two "traitors" as you refer to them, all in a lame effort to make your guy look like the one who should win the Primary. Good luck!

[talk hard]

44. whining about personal attacks is a debate style for some

some attack good Democrats 24/7 and then ball up in the fetal position when opposed

[mtnsnake]

16. First of all, the Clintons are great, loyal Democrats, not traitors

even though you'd like your minions to believe they are traitors. Even most of your minions aren't biased enough to believe that load.

Second, the Clintons support secrecy and privilege over open government IN YOUR MIND ONLY.

[blm]

21. So you have a detailed explanation of why he covered up CIA drugrunning for Bush?

And am I the nly person who has never seen that detailed explanation?

[k_jerome]

22. that would require starting from the premise that you are not full of crap. nt.

[blm]

24. No - it would require reading reports from the National Security Archives and congressional record

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

Face it. Some Democrats DO believe in covering up for secrecy and privilege - Bill Clinton and Lee Hamilton have turned it into an artform.

[mtnsnake]

26. Subscibing to your nonstop jibberish is like listening to all the Skull & Bones theorists

after the election.

Keep us all posted, though, when Kerry has two fantastic terms as President under his belt like Bill Clinton does. :smoke:

[blm]

54. I'm fully aware that anti-corruption Democrats have a harder time than Coverup Democrats

and that the trickle down effect of a Coverup Democrat's terms will be more of the fascist agenda, just like we got from Bush2.

[talk hard]

57. whatevah --- enough of the tin foil Counterpunch crap, thanks

why don't you work FOR the Democrats instead of always against them with your nonstop propaganda?

[blm]

58. Read Clinton's book. If he wrote about how he pursued the outstanding matters

in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, then please post those chapters.

It was GOOD Democrats who uncovered and exposed those matters. It was GOOD, Pulitzer Prize winning reporters, not propagandists, who helped uncover those matters - the same people you accuse of being counterpunch writers.

[k_jerome]

17. so many that they would flock to the polls to reelect THE MAN...

I heard that Bill thinks you are a traitor.

[talk hard]

42. why don't YOU stop the personal attacks on the Clintons?

hmmmmmm ?????

[blm]

53. Big difference between pointing out Clinton's ACTIONS as president and making personal

attacks on another poster.

If you believe that the Robert Parry article is wrong, then show why you believe the article is wrong. If Clinton actually DID pursue the outstanding matters in IranContra, Iraqgate, BCCI and CIA drugrunning, then point out in his book, My Life, where he recounts his actions. Because somehow, many of us missed those chapters.

[laugle]

79. blm, you don't like it when

people attack Kerry, so you should fully understand how other people feel when you attack their favored democrats.

Frankly, this crap is getting very old and does nothing to improve relations with other members.

Why can't we all at least try to respect each other's opinion's? We all have our favorite dems and others less favored.

Sometimes I read these threads and realize that people get so heated that they are not listening to each other at all, it's such a waste.

If you want to improve the discourse on the Kerry threads, (and that's a tall order) why not lead by example and not engage in useless attacks on other favorite dems?

And of course when all else fails, I guess we will be using the new "ignore" button, hopefully not too often!

[blm]

81. Is it an attack to say Clinton messed up by not pursuing serious matters or is

it a truth that needs to be dealt with by the party?

Is it an attack to say Clinton supported Bush on too many major policies throughout his first term which was no help to the Dem candidates running in 2002 and 2004?

I don't 'attack' Clinton as an 'attack' or in a vacuum. I state what he did, and its effect on this country, and it is all a matter of public record.

When people claim Kerry never answered the swifts, I provide the data from the research forum that proves he did.

When I point out Clinton's failure to pursue outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning which enabled a Bush2 administration to come into power in the first place, there is a concerted effort to attack ME and the reporters but never any show of evidence to refute what we state.

When should plain old TRUTH matter to the citizens of this country? When are voters going to be RESPECTED as citizens who can handle the truth of what has occurred in our name over the last 4 decades that has led us to every serious matter we are facing today?



Sorry, laugle, and I understand your overall point, but I love this board for its openness, and love this country too much to pretend truth DOESN'T matter. It does.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html

[AtomicKitten]

82. well, not exactly

Truth about Kerry you summarily dismiss as trashing and, not ironically, the trashing you do of others you piously consider truth.

And the cycle of discord continues ...

[mtnsnake]

83. Once again...

you say it so well and accurately...and in so few words.

[blm]

84. I have no qualms when FACTS are posted. Kerry made some mistakes. It's the

exaggeration of the few mistakes while ignoring that the entire campaign was a four year quest and not one that could be turned around in 6 months SOLELY by the efforts of only ONE person. The inordinate amount of focus and scapegoating on just ONE person who actually performed successfully in his crucial matchups while blaming him for the failures of the many involved in the OVERALL Dem party and its 4 year strategy and failures in that strategy prompts the defense.

Kerry's mistakes were not insurmountable campaign mistakes. The DNC failing to spend four years securing the election process for ALL Dem candidates WAS an insurmountable mistake.

If people would be more accurate and fair in their postings, then there would be less need to reply.

And if anyone can come forth with a solid refutation of Parry's article, then please post it instead of shooting the messenger.

[AtomicKitten]

85. well, again not exactly

an example

you said this today:

If people would be more accurate and fair in their postings, then there would be less need to reply.

but said this:

He told the joke a hundred times before - campaigning every day for candidates

here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=132&topic_id=2929725#2930915

which was disproved

So, I reiterate:

Truth about Kerry you summarily dismiss as trashing and, not ironically, the trashing you do of others you piously consider truth.

And the cycle of discord continues ...

Best to let sleeping does lie.

[blm]

86. Joke said in some form many times, but why nitpick semantics leaving SERIOUS issues unrefuted?

If Parry article is just considered a false attack on Clinton, then REFURE his article with the evidence that made you believe Parry's article was a false attack.

[mtnsnake]

87. You claimed he told that joke a hundred times when he never told it even once before

Sorry, but "some form" of it doesn't qualify for previous unfounded claims. However, even if he did tell that joke in "some form" of it, which I highly doubt, I'll bet you can't supply us with a link of it that shows a similar joke to the one he botched.

[blm]

88. THAT's your way of dealing with Parry's article? That's your way of CARING about good governance?

.

[Imagevision]

45. Bill has been hangin with the Bush clan so much, Babs said she's inherited another president

and that's a quote!!

[bigdarryl]

13. Whats the fucking news hear. of coarse he's supporting her JESUS!!!

[mtnsnake]

18. Calm down, BigD. It's just a goof on that other thread that was a non-news issue, too

lol

[karynnj]

36. It was not a non-news item - Patrick had strong ties to 3 possible candidates

Bill Clinton can be said to have vested interest. (It gets him back into the WH) There is no exact parrallel, but the closet would be if Teresa Heinz Kerry announced that she was backing her husband.

[mtnsnake]

37. It absolutely was a non-news item and with little significance at this time

That's why that thread only has 11 votes to Greatest Page so far. Normally, meaningless threads about Kerry get 20 or 30 votes. Must be some of the Kerry brigade isn't around today, but then again, I'm sure it'll rack up some more points before it's all said and done. ;)

[karynnj]

48. I didn't vote it for greatest page

though I assume I am still a member in good standing of the "Kerry Brigade". There is, of course, a gap between "non news" and greatest page worthy. But, as you are now suggesting it could make me less of a Kerry supporter - I will vote for it. Thankd for expaining how it works.


i assume though that had Patrick said he liked all of them, but (Obama, Hillary) were his choice it would be news. Just as the distorted story - Kennedy no longer backs Kerry - was. (In spite of the fact that Kennedy said if Kerry took too long he might back someone else, which meant he was , at that time, backing Kerry. I seem to remember you had no problem with that story.

[mtnsnake]

50. There is still time

But, as you are now suggesting it could make me less of a Kerry supporter - I will vote for it. Thankd for expaining how it works.

Aww, I wasn't suggesting anything like that, but I'm glad you are deciding to vote for it in the end. Does that mean you decided not to vote for it before you decided to vote for it? :evilgrin:

I seem to remember you had no problem with that story.

You have a good memory. :)

[acmavm]

19. And now he starts to pay her back for 'standing by her man'

during the Monica fiasco. And the Paula fiasco. And the Gennifer...

[Bake]

28. The word "traitor" gets thrown around an awful lot

It used to just be from the RWers, using it in reference to US. Now it's apparently fashionable to use it for ANYBODY, for ANY reason.

Let's just agree that from now on, the word "traitor" means "anybody who disagrees with me."

Bake

[talk hard]

32. you've got that about right

and it's usually thrown in the direction of Democrats here ---- sometimes I think I've wandered onto Freeperland

[Bake]

33. I propose a new version of Godwin's Law

Whoever first uses the word "traitor" loses the argument.

Bake

[talk hard]

47. right on!

I'd subscribe to that.

[Cameron27]

60. Count me in.

[AtomicKitten]

62. me too

[mtnsnake]

65. Good idea. I'm in to

:smoke:

[Cameron27]

67. Hey, where's the jumping purple mousie?

LOL, I do like the re-elect Al avatar though:)

[AtomicKitten]

68. threats on his life

have caused him to go into hiding ...

[Cameron27]

69. Oh damn.

x(

[zulchzulu]

38. That's a good choice, Bill

Otherwise....

[wisteria]

39. Well thats a shocker! What made up his mind for him? n/t

[Imagevision]

41. Really? I thought Bill would back Barack Obama...

[Radical Activist]

43. Who is Monica Lewinsky supporting?

just wondering.

[talk hard]

46. ooooh -- a peripheral attack on Bill Clinton

haven't you got anything better to do than crap on good Democrats?

[Imagevision]

49. Bill beat Poppy, he wouldn't have beaten shrub, Bill would have folded like Kerry did...

That's how far I believe Iraq was in the planning...

[talk hard]

55. riiiiiiiight ---- your tin foil hat is on 2 tight

[HuffleClaw]

51. thats hardly newsworthy

[AtomicKitten]

59. I'll alert the media.

[Minnesota_Lib]

64. I have heard buzz that Elizabeth Edwards might opt to support John Edwards.

[SaveElmer]

70. Well then Bill and I have something in common...nt

[rniel]

72. We need to start a letter campaign

to Bill.

Dear Bill Clinton,

Please don't support your wife.

[blm]

73. I actually WANT Hillary to run - I think it opens up a great opportunity to revisit

what actually went on during the Clinton years that helped to assure that another Bush regime would rise more powerfully than the first.

Bush2 didn't 'just' happen.

[AtomicKitten]

74. Here's what happend during the 1990s.

A favorite sport continued by you and a few others here at DU currently.

[blm]

75. Not accurate - many Dems, including me, vociferously defended Clinton even when

we disagreed with what he did and did so throughout his term, and still do whenever the RW machine gins up a lie about him.

Clinton was ABLE to become president because some Democrats worked hard to oppose and EXPOSE Bush1's extraconsitutional actions throughout his term.

Clinton was able to STAY president because Democrats SUPPORTED him whenever he was attacked, and did so without his asking. Very FEW Democratic lawmakers failed to back him up when he needed it, so that cartoon isn't quite accurate.

What you are loathe to acknowledge is that Clinton's OWN choice of failing to pursue the outstanding matters in IranContra, BCCI, Iraqgate and CIA drugrunning came back to hurt his presidency more than ANY action by any other Democrat, because it kept all the GOP power players in the game and they used that time to GAIN STRENGTH which they used against the entire Dem party and brought us the Bush2 administration.

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2006/111106.html


I must have missed all those Larry King Live programs where Democrats supported Republican moves against Clinton, but I did see a number of Larry King Live shows where Clinton very assertively supported Bush's major policy decisions from 2001 thru 2004.

Can you provide the transcript of all those important Dem lawmakers who you believe supported Republicans or BushInc OVER Bill Clinton during his terms?

[AtomicKitten]

76. Although you consider Mr. Parry's work gospel,

he draws some pretty broad brush, at times unreasonable conclusions that merely feed into your proclivities to undermine the Clintons at every opportunity.

[blm]

77. I deefended them at every opportunity for 12 years - Their wrongdoing earned

the criticism of them now.

Refute Parry's article if you can - Clinton's own book doesn't.

[Imagevision]

78. Oprah recently stated she would be supporting Barack Obama 110%...

[Vidar]

80. Duh.