Two and Half Famous Denials - On Video
* Gary Hart Denies Donna Rice
* Bill Clinton Denies Monica Lewinsky
* John Edwards Almost Denies Rielle Hunter
Three politicians, two presidential contenders, one president and three affairs: we thought we'd present these videos of their denials for readers to compare.
First, Gary Hart making the case that the National Enquirer's pictures of model, Donna Rice, sitting on his knee was a publicity shoot.
Next, Bill Clinton denying sex with Monica Lewinsky--before the National Enquirer produced the stained blue dress.
Over 35 DBKP stories and growing:  |
Lastly, John Edwards is finally asked by a reporter--albeit, timidly--about the Rielle Hunter affair in LA, when the National Enquirer's reporter caught him leaving the tryst.
The similarities of the video denials?
All were politicians; all were involved in extra-marital affairs; all were tortured, in one way or another, by the National Enquirer.
The difference in the three videos--other than the facial expressions during the denial (or near-denial in Edwards' case; he stops himself in mid-sentence and switches to attacking the Enquirer instead)?
The first two occurred when the Mainstream press fulfilled its adversarial duties. In the case of Clinton, it had to be dragged grudgingly to the labor.
Readers can make up their own minds by watching the videos.
To paraphrase Roger Simon of Pajamas Media: It's good to remember that these are politicians and politicians lie.
It's the nature of the beast. It's what they do. The job of the press is not to suppress the news: it's to report it and let readers/viewers sift the facts.
Much of the press needs to relearn that lesson from Journalism 101.
by Mondoreb & LBG
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
--author unknown
For the past 32 years, the election cycle has revolved in a most familiar way.
Every sixteen years, the Democrat candidate for president has been a relatively-unknown who campaigned as an agent of "CHANGE!"
"One reason why this constant mantra of “CHANGE! HOPE!” is so irritating is that they’ve been peddling this snake oil for decades."
--Charles Johnson, Little Green Footballs
Thirty-two years ago, it resulted in a squeaker of an election that wasn't decided until the next day. Jimmy Carter became just the second Democrat since 1944 to convince a majority of voters that the country needed "CHANGE!" Carter received 50.1% of the popular vote.
He was the last Democrat who's managed that trick.
Carter's term was disastrous and, after four years, the U.S. had had enough of his "CHANGE!"
Many Americans saw Carter as an inept leader who had failed to solve the worsening economic problems at home, and had made the US look weak abroad. The election was held on November 4, 1980. Ronald Reagan with running mate George Bush beat Carter by almost ten percentage points in the popular vote. Republicans also gained control of the Senate for the first time in twenty-five years on Reagan's coattails. The electoral college vote was a landslide, with 489 votes (representing 44 states) for Reagan and 49 votes for Carter (representing 6 states and the District of Columbia).
Sixteen years after Carter, Bill Clinton--another relatively-unknown Democrat--convinced 43% of American voters that the country needed a "CHANGE!"
In 1996, Clinton almost got a majority of the vote: 49.4% voted for him. Both times, Clinton won a comfortable margin in the Electoral College.
Clinton's "CHANGE!" included failed attempts to nationalize health care and forcing the military to change its policy on homosexuals, as well as an endless parade of scandals.
In the 2000 election, Clinton's vice-president Al Gore lost the election (he received 48.38% of the popular vote, though), even though the US economy--always an important issue--was strong.
Sixteen years after 1992, Barack Obama--once again another relatively-unknown Democrat--is campaigning on "CHANGE!"
Every sixteen years, another group of Americans--who are unfamiliar with Carter or Clinton and the results of their "CHANGE!"--enter the voting booths. It is this group of historically-ignorant voters that Democrats rely on to win national elections. 2008 is no different.
Carter and the "misery index" are unknown to these voters. That's the combination of the unemployment rate plus the rate of inflation. It reached 21.98% in June 1980, Carter's last year.
Currently, it is 8.94%.
"Monica Lewinsky", "Hillary's health care task force", "Buddhist temple fund raisers", "the selling of sensitive technology to China" and "the selling of the Lincoln Bedroom" are just names and phrases to those who were too young to recall the Clinton years. The consequences of Clinton's selling of US military technology to China are still being felt.
Newly declassified documents show that President Bill Clinton personally approved the transfer to China of advanced space technology that can be used for nuclear combat.
The documents show that in 1996 Clinton approved the export of radiation hardened chip sets to China. The specialized chips are necessary for fighting a nuclear war.
Two years ago, Democrats took over Congress by campaigning--again--on "CHANGE!"
What have been the results of Nancy's Pelosi's "CHANGE!"?
We'll let the reader come to his own conclusion.
The Obama campaign is wise to target these (mostly) young voters, who don't remember those previous promises "CHANGE!" from a relatively-unknown Democrat presidential candidate. If Obama is to be president, he absolutely needs these votes. If John McCain is to win, he needs some of these votes, as well as those of Independents.
It promises to be another close election.
"The more things change, the more they stay the same."
To paraphrase another famous quote by philosopher George Santayana which carries much the same message:
"Those who cannot remember "CHANGE!" are condemned to repeat it."
To paraphrase
by Mondoreb
Source:
* 1980 election in the United States
* Clinton Gave China Chips for Nuclear War
* Jimmy Carter 1976 Election Ad: Change!
Obama's "change" sounds like the "same old, same old" from Jimmy Carter and Bill Clinton.
Doug Ross has performed a much-needed public service.
Must watch video: Barack Obama Promises to Disarm America
Doug posted the above video and information on what "hope" looks like--through the eyes of Democrat presidential candidate, Barack Obama.
The above video and Doug's list of how Obama has voted in his short time in the Senate on important issues is must-read for anyone thinking that they might vote for the junior senator from Illinois.
Highlights from the video ...I will cut investments in unproven [sic] missile defense systems......I will not weaponize space... ...I will slow development of Future Combat Systems... ...and I will institute a "Defense Priorities Board" to [prevent] unnecessary spending... ...I will set a goal of a world without nuclear weapons... ...and to seek that goal, I will not develop nuclear weapons... ...I will seek a global ban on the development of fissile material... ...and I will negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off hair-trigger alert... ...and to achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals... Barack Obama's plans for America in a dangerous world. |
Should Obama make it to the White house, it would seem that after his above "changes", America's best defense would consist of: hope.
Hope that Iran doesn't nuke us.
Or Russia.
Barack Obama is for "change". But his rhetoric sounds like the same old Democrat line whenever it comes to defending American interests.
After Jimmy Carter, the American military had to re-tool. After Bill Clinton's "peace dividend", the same was true.
When you take military and defense options away from yourself, you leave little room to maneuver in an emergency.
Neither president had much of a will for a strong defense.
Carter's response to the invasion of Afghanistan was to boycott the Olympics. His military response to the Iranian hostage crisis was--do you really have the time?
Clinton's response was always to bomb and fire rockets--sometimes at empty buildings.
Re-watch the video and read the Doug Ross story.
And think about Obama's "change" in America's national defense.
Does the U.S. military have time in this dangerous world to recover from an Obama presidency?
by Mondoreb
image: michael ramirez at ibd
Source:
* Must watch video: Barack Obama Promises to Disarm America
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Four videos.
Total length: Two minutes and forty-six seconds long.
One might ask the question, "Why have so few 'reporters' asked hard follow-up questions of the Clintons about their lapses in telling the truth?"
Reminders of what a return of Bill and Hillary Clinton means.
UPDATE: BW (of the iwasrunning blog) suggested we add the following Hillary video. We agreed it was a good one. "...this vast, right wing conspiracy that has been conspiring against my husband since the day he announced for president." Of course, why the gears of the vast right wing conspiracy would turn to grind up an obscure, skirt-chasing Arkansas governor who finished sixth in Iowa when he announced for president, she doesn't say. |
Those were the days?
by Mondoreb
image: hillary2008
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
Bill Clinton and The New York Times are both definitive.
The New York Times, defines the term "unintended understatement" while reporting on the man who defined "is".
Meanwhile, Bill informs the American public of his latest version of what he did when, how and to whom:During a campaign swing for his wife, former President Bill Clinton said flatly yesterday that he opposed the war in Iraq “from the beginning” — a statement that is more absolute than his comments before the invasion in March 2003.
Before the invasion, Mr. Clinton did not precisely declare that he opposed the war. A week before military action began, however, he did say that he preferred to give weapons inspections more time and that an invasion was not necessary to topple Saddam Hussein.
At the same time, he also spoke supportively about the 2002 Senate resolution that authorized military action against Iraq.
Former Soviet misinformation specialists are at this moment taking notes.
Conversations between Bill and Hillary Clinton must take on a Kafka-esque hue whenever they discuss their stands on--anything?
Mom always advised to look on the sunny side, however. So one can take heart in the thought that the Clintons are safe from terrorist kidnapping plans.
Any attempts at extracting information from either would turn the tables on their would-be torturers.
by Mondoreb
We're not CNN--But we got video proof!
Or rather PPP's got proof. Political Party Poop serves up a trio of Clinton Golden Oldies!
* Hear what he said!
* See him say it!
* Scratch your head in Utter Amazement!
Clinton Flatly Asserts He Flatly Opposed the War at the Start
Breath-taking Clintonian Powers of Prevarication in Living Color!
Posted by a Pundit in Living Color!
Bill Clinton Flatly Asserts He Opposed War From the Beginning
Death by 1000 Papercuts Front Page.
as told by
Rosie O'Donnell
It's a classic Democrat love story involving Bill Clinton and Rosie O'Donnell. It takes all the twists and turns of any good story. First, Bill has Rosie's love, then he loses it. Finally, all is well: Rosie breaks down and Bill is begging for forgiveness, not just from Rosie, but from himself.
The tales as told by the New York Post:ROSIE O'Donnell says Bill Clinton had her bawling like a baby during an emotional chat in which the ex-president apologized for cheapening the Oval Office with his Monica Lewinsky sexcapades.
So one supposes that it has ended well for the both of them: Rosie's no longer crying and, from most reports, Bill's forgiven himself.
The sapphic supernova, doing stand-up at the New York Comedy Festival Tuesday night, told the audience how Clinton sent her a card after she slammed him during a performance at the Mohegan Sun Casino Hotel five years ago, The Post's Mandy Stadtmiller reports.
"He disgusts me," O'Donnell recalled saying at the casino show. "And I know I'm not supposed to say this because I'm a good Democrat, but I didn't want to [talk] to him because he lied to me when he said, 'I did not have sexual relations with that woman,' and then put the scarlet-letter [bleep]-job on her for the rest of her life . . . I still hate you!"
When the corpulent comic called the phone number Clinton included with his note, Bubba himself picked up, she said.
"My knees got weak. I was like, 'Can I [bleep] you?' No, I didn't say it, but I felt it - I was like, 'Whoa! Whoa!' And he said, 'I was at your show the other night, and I was sorry that you didn't come over and say hello to me. And I know that you're still harboring some hard feelings,' " O'Donnell related.
"And I said, 'You know, listen, here's the deal, dude. I've been disappointed by men my whole life. I loved JFK, my mother loved JFK, and you were the JFK to me. And you let me down, man. You killed me and that hurt me a lot, and when you hurt me, I don't know, I didn't expect that out of you and I thought you could do better for your wife, for the country and just in general."
Clinton then worked his charm on O'Donnell. "He goes, 'I'm sorry for all the men who ever hurt you, I'm sorry that I hurt you. Everything you've said to me, I've said to myself, and I hope one day you can forgive me, and I hope I can forgive me.' "
Clinton's mea culpa quickly had O'Donnell's faucets opening up. "I'm hysterical crying," she recalled.
A good example of why love stories--even the Democrat ones--always make people cry.
Sniff.
by Mondoreb
[image:e-graphics]
Back to Front Page.
Bill Clinton let sex interfere in the carrying out of his Presidential duties? Others, including departed ex-president Gerald Ford, took notice of it? And this is news?
Marketing types at book publishing houses have to drum up business and reporters have to report on something. So Bill Clinton's habits are back in the news. Ford not only had thoughts on Bill Clinton's sex addiction, but also on dumping Dick Cheney. More about Ford's musings from the New York Daily News:
Gerald Ford was disturbed by Bill Clinton's skirt-chasing ways - and thought he should check into a sex addiction clinic.
A new book on the late 38th President reveals he had strong views about the Clintons: He thought Hillary wore the pants and that Bill couldn't keep his zipped.
"He's sick - he's got an addiction. He needs treatment," Ford told Daily News Washington Bureau Chief Thomas M. DeFrank, author of "Write It When I'm Gone: Remarkable Off-the-Record Conversations with Gerald R. Ford."
Also weighing in on the subject was CNN, which had obtained an advance copy of "Write It When I'm Gone," and interviewed author Thomas DeFrank. More from CNN:
Ford privately gave New York Democratic Sen. Hillary Clinton high marks, saying she was "tougher and stronger" than her husband, who Ford said he had mixed feelings about, DeFrank said.One suspects the thought might have occurred to more than just Ford. Ford then voiced his concern on Vice-President Dick Cheney.
While Ford thought Bill Clinton was the best pure politician he had ever seen, he felt Clinton needed therapy for sex addiction.
"He thought Bill Clinton had a serious addiction here and he needed help," DeFrank told CNN. "And Jerry Ford didn't have a vengeful bone in his body. I think his comments about the addiction business were heartfelt on his part."
Former President Gerald Ford suggested to a reporter in 2004 that Vice President Dick Cheney should be dumped from the Republican ticket, according to a new book to be published Tuesday.Somewhere in the New York Times building, a lightbulb goes on over the head of a certain columnist.
Ford preferred former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani because he feared Cheney had become a "liability" to President Bush, according to the book's author.
Ford revealed that people within the Republican party had called him inquiring if there was a move afoot to dump Cheney from the ticket.Pictures of Maureen Dowd jumping up-and-down in glee while trying to pen her next Evil Dick Cheney column could not be obtained. The book is sure to be worth another thread in the web Dowd continuously weaves in her attempts to snare the despicable, despisable, detestable, disgusting Dick Cheney.
"Ford said to me, 'And they asked me the question in a way that makes it sound like they want me to help make that happen, which I'm not gonna do,'" DeFrank recalled Ford telling him.
"Ford loved Dick Cheney till the day he died. He loved Dick Cheney. And he was not going to be part of a cabal to get rid of Cheney."
Gerald Ford had a lot of opinions, it seemed. Ones he wanted told after he was gone. And they say: Dead men tell no tales?
by Mondoreb
[image:billc.m8]
Back to Front Page.
For those of you reading about U.S. Foreign Policy and wondering "What the @$#*&!"? RAPH offers a reassuring view at the inner workings of America's approach to the thorny Israeli-Palestinian problems.
And now, a collective sigh of relief is heard.
Back to Front Page.
by Mondoreb
Hard to believe one's eyes reading MSNBC's First Read:
Over the past 10 months, the national media have reported on almost every angle possible in this presidential race, especially as it relates to Hillary Clinton. But few -- outside of the books by Sally Bedell Smith and Carl Bernstein, and a May 2006 New York Times piece -- have examined the Clintons’ marriage.First Read can be excused if the American Specatator isn't on its preferred reading list over there. AmSpec has published countless observations, views and remarks about the Clinton's marriage, or "marriage" as it's often referred to over at the center of the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy.
Not in the last 10 months, but certainly a look at the Clinton's marriage occurred in Christopher's Buckley's novel, "No Way to Treat a First Lady", for those who were looking. Way back in '04, Powers That Be was talking about how "No Way to Treat a First Lady", and how it was a thinly-disguised take on the Clinton marriage:
Chris Buckley's novel, which was a parody of the Clinton marriage, "No way to treat a first lady", has won the James Thurber Prize for humor. Since the Clinton marriage is already a parody, Buckley's accomplishment is monumental indeed. A parody of a parody is tough to pull off, but this book has done just that.Whether the Clintons have a marriage or a "marriage" is sure to get more attention the closer the election cycle draws to its climax. Why all this talk about Hillary calling her husband "romantic"?
Isn't that how a "marriage" should be?
Back to Front Page.
