Thursday, March 13, 2008

Hillary Clinton Spews More Lies in NPR Interview

In an NPR interview that aired today, Hillary Clinton offered more lies and distortions about Barack Obama and the Democratic Primary. Listen Here.

It is clear to me that there might be something pathologically wrong with this woman.

She suggests that the results from the ceremonial Florida and Michigan contests should be counted as is (because she "won"). She goes on to play the victim by suggesting that it was not her fault that Obama took his name off the ballot and didn't compete in the States.

In response to the issue of Barack Obama's name not being on the ballot in at least one of the two States, Clinton says:

(taking his name off the ballot)

"That was his choice".

There she goes again....attempting to mislead voters and play the victim. But those of us who have been paying attention all along understand that when the DNC stripped Florida and Michigan of their delegates, that part of the punishment was to have candidates avoid competing in the two States. Obama was not the only candidate who took his name off the ballot (as if that matters). But she is clearly trying to trick voters into believing that Michigan and Florida were normal primaries and that the results should be counted. She is also trying to send the message that she was somehow robbed of her delegates.

From ABC News: (regarding the Florida and Michigan results)

The results were meaningless since the elections violated national party rules. The DNC stripped both States of their delegates for holding the primaries too early, and all Democratic candidates — including Clinton and rival Barack Obama — agreed not to campaign in either state. Obama's name wasn't even on the Michigan ballot.

Source (page 2)

So the idea that the results in Florida and Michigan were fair and should be counted (since they were in her favor) is utterly ridiculous. How on earth can delegates be fairly and properly allocated in States where all of the candidates did not compete on a level playing field...and in States that the candidates were in fact told to avoid by their Party leadership? Her "i'm the victim" routine is also absurd, and it's getting a little old.

Here is the agreement that Hillary Clinton broke.

It is ironic that during the interview...when Hillary Clinton is caught lying, she ends up telling even more lies to cover up the lies she has already told. Talk about a tangled web.


CGrayton said...

I am really disappointed. I thought that she had character than this. It is evident that she is becoming more and more desperate and will say anything to win. On the issue of her experience (3 am call type issues) she was not the lead or in the room negotiating therefore the experience is no more than a someone putting that they were involved with a project on their resume. But her involement had nothing to do with the ultimate outcome. If she wins I will have some tough decisions to make. Some decisions I thought I would never have to entertain in terms of party voting.

Daisy said...

I think she's at the point she really will do anything to win. Not a pretty sight at all.

Luke G. said...

after reading this i linked it to my blog. what do you guys think? after loosing she runs as an independent. horrible though isn't it?

Big Man said...

I'm finding it hard to function in my regular job.

This election shit is getting to personal. It's like, all the drama of being black in America is playing out on a national stage, but it's involving one of the most "race neutral" black people on the planet.

I mean, this cat gets along with white people, he's friends with them, he doens't discuss the past with them too often. And he's getting treated like crap.

Now, how am I, a brother who has no white friends, who is always putting things in a historical context and who doesn't get along that well with many white folk, supposed to make it in this world. What does this mean about my chances to achieve any sort of position of prominence in American society?

That's got to be a a question that black folks everywhere are contemplating.

rikyrah said...

big man,

those were some deep thoughts you dropped here, and I do believe Black folk are indeed questioning a great deal. It's also why we're watching this like a hawk.

please come back to MOA and post again.

cgrayton, you gave her more credit than I ever did.

run as an independent? that would be hilarious. seriously hilarious. she wouldn't do it.

Leurnid Hand said...

She is a desperate shrew who has invested all of her life toward the accumulation of power, first by enduring a troubled marriage to a political charismatic, and then by selling out any and all principles in order to keep her senatorial approval rating up in troubled times.

She works secretively to compromise people and force them to her agenda. While some compare bill's reckless remarks to McCarthy, she can only be compared to Hoover.

james d granata said...

Senator Sociopath

To want anything as much as MRS Clinton wants the presidency lowers it to the level of an addiction. And what do we do with addicts; we wean them from their addictions. I don’t think there is anything she would not do or say to seal the nomination but as the public learns more about her bogus claims to experience, and reviews her record (or lack of) the country will vomit her up.

There is no way to categorize her as anything but a sociopath as she perfectly fits the profile. A sociopath is defined as a person with a sense of entitlement who is unremorseful and apathetic to others, takes no personal responsibility and is manipulative and conning. They tend to be affectively cold and socially irresponsible, non-conforming to norms and are often grandiose.

She entered the race with more advantages than any candidate in our history and because of arrogance and poor judgment has run her campaign into the ground. Hillary unlike, her opponent, is not intelligent but merely well-educated, not creative or spontaneous for if it's not planned she's paralyzed. Yet her greatest flaw politically is that she is running on the credentials of another: basically her qualifications are Hype, Hubby, and Hyperbole.
And her experience lies in lying.

Peggy McGilligan said...

A leopard never changes her spots. That being said, I go back to this recent but telling story. It’s about Mr. Zeifman firing Hillary. As you may know, Jerry Zeifman fired Hillary for unethical practices during the Watergate Investigation. Why exactly was Hillary fired? “Because she was a liar,” Zeifman said in an interview last week. “She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality.” Zeifman’s story is important. Not only does it go to character, it goes to a lifelong pattern of lying and obfuscation. And, it took Zeifman twelve years to get it aired. After Watergate, Zeifman could not recommend Hillary for any subsequent position of public or private trust, nor furnish her with a letter of recommendation. Again, Hillary Clinton is a bold-faced liar, who will stop at nothing to get what she wants. Should anyone doubt Mr. Zeifman's veracity regarding the Clintons:

The Clintons corrupted the soul of the Democratic Party. -Henry Ruth, lead Watergate courtroom prosecutor.

james d granata said...

should we give the spewing shrew points for consistency?
Sadly, she exemplifies the 'it's not what but who you know that counts'. luckily for the united states the more one is exposed to her the more her deceitfulness become apparent.
I, for one, owe dick Morris an apology for when I read his book 'rewriting history' I thought he exaggerated due to his hostility towards the Clintons but he did not.
yet how could she have come this far?