blogsNH - RE: "Hillary Clinton Is The Democrat's Best Choice" endorsement by the Concord Monitor - Comments

You don't have to believe

joeanne — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 06:54:54 -0400

You don't have to believe in the government! You have to believe in your own country. Because politicians prefer going on Mediterranean Cruises than doing a good job running the country. I don't blame`em , but still, some work should be done.

That Means?

Bill Bunker — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 06:33:07 -0500

I guess that means you think Hillary is qualified to be president but she has no experience.

Her 'agenda' is what worries me and doing it right away also does. "We're going to have to take some things away from some people"

Listen to yourself!

How Foul.....Monitor I fully support you....

LRich — Tue, 8 Jan 2008 04:23:22 -0500

If you all would sit back and just listen to yourselves for a moment, most of you would realize that you sound irrational. All I keep hearing is that you want CHANGE,CHANGE,CHANGE, but have you actually thought about what you are getting yourselves into? Just ask yourselves if you would like to have an Electorate that would be able to go right into office and have an agenda to at least start to help this country, or would you like someone who could take months if not years trying to learn what to do. And still haven't learned. You see what happened the last time that you tried that. Didn't it backfire? I think we are all witnesses to that.

Not Hillary

Bill Bunker — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 22:35:34 -0500

If you would like, I can do the same to Hillary.

Lieberman is a man of principle trashed by wacko left winger extremists. They should be ashamed not Obama.

John Murtha is a despicable hypocrite who accused Marines of murder and now, they have been and are being acquitted of the crimes Murtha accused them of. Murtha gets the most pork barrel spending and earmarks. He is no one that anyone should ally themselves with.

Obama placed a great vote on the bankruptcy bill...good for him!!!!!!!!!

Hillary has no experience and she is unqualified.

Let's Look at the Facts

Amy Dugan — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 21:52:46 -0500

Since the mainstream media only let these facts live 10 min or half of a day, I will post them.

Concerning Obama

He supported an Energy Bill in 2005 that gave tax breaks to oil companies was larded with all kinds of special interest breaks, giveaways to the oil companies. Hillary voted NO!

Senator Obama's chair in New Hampshire is a lobbyist. He lobbies for the drug companies

Four years ago he was for single-payer health care. Then he moved toward a rejection of that, a more incremental approach. Then he was for universal health care; then he proposed a health care plan that doesn't cover everybody.

He said he would vote against the Patriot Act; but came to the Senate, and voted for it. He said that he would vote against funding for the Iraq war; but came to the Senate and voted for $300 billion of it.

Let us look at Barack's accomplishments in the Community Organization in Illinois and the Illinois State Senate as well as the U.S. Senate. This info contained in articles from the Sun-Times, Chicago Tribune, boston.com - Mar 2006, The Nation Jun 2006, and Politico.com - Nov 2007 However these stories only lived 10 minutes.

He has been friends with Rezko on a social level for 10 years and was approached by Rezko re joining in a real estate venture while he was working to establish low income housing through the community group. He declined. However, when it turned out that Rezko was a slumlord in Obama's district, Obama pled ignorance.

He has been after Hillary to release papers from her husband's administration. Yet he has ignored requests from the Sun-Times and the Chicago Tribune to do the same for his time in the Illinois Senate. He now says he gave them all to his successor.

He voted against the Bankruptcy bill in the U.S. Senate but also voted against an amendment that would have capped interest rates at 30%.

He voted FOR the class-action "reform" bill which limited "frivolous" lawsuits which was denounced by the Democratic Party and most major civil rights and consumer groups.

He supported Joe Lieberman's re-election over Ned Lamont (an activist and anti-war candidate). Lieberman has been his mentor since he has been in the Senate.

Last but not least, after he was elected to the Senate, he was pretty mum on the war until until late in 2005 when John Murtha gave his press conference calling for troop withdrawal. Obama, five days later, came out calling for a drawdown in 2006 but pulled back on this when he appeared on Meet the Press in January, saying - as the neocons were - that withdrawing troops "would be irresponsible" - but then in May 2006 again reversed himself and attacked the "stay the course" policy.

PLEASE USE MySpace/Facebook, meetup to spread the word.

Consider This

Bill Bunker — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 18:40:27 -0500

I agree with you on Obama and Edwards but think again about Romney.

I lived in Massachusetts for several years and I can tell you that a Republican in Massachusetts has it pretty tough. But, with that said, to be able to survive you have to be a pretty good manager.

Romney was piled on last night and he had a hard time answering the questions. McCain was smug, Thompson was terrible from a standpoint of charisma, Huckabee impressed me for a while but is vague. McCain wants amnesty and I say that as I have been saying it since he tried to ramrod the bill through.

The greatest threat to us here in the United States is illegal immigration and the failure of the government to do something about it makes us less secure. McCain wants to reward those who have crossed illegally. All of the fines, etc. lead to amnesty no matter how you cut it.

I agree about the mill story and the 'two Americas" it rings hollow from a multi millionaire. When he says 'two Americas" he does not mean Donald Trump and you or I; he means the guy making $80,000 versus the guy making $100,000-$150,000. That is creating class envy.

The big question is who has the experience. It is a short list: Richardson-ultra liberal and thinks everything can get fixed through negotiations, Guil;ani-Ran NY and got luck with 9-11 as it thrust him in the spotlight; McCain-As a senator but illegal immigration and lack of tax cut support; Romney-Great experience and would be a manager; Huckabee-Executive experience and could manage.

Clinton has no experience, Obama has no experience, Edwards is a lawyer (should be automatic disqualification for any office), Paul is a conspiracy theorist, Thompson needs a personality.

Experience matters but remember; Hillary claiming 35 years of experience...where is it???????????

Good luck deciding.

Hillary Clinton

Terry10 — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 16:58:33 -0500

My take is:

Mitt Romney is not who he appears to be, he couldn't answer Fred Thompson's question on whether or not the people of MA are going to be penalize for not getting on the health care plan that he set forth.....which is true, they will be penalized if they don't get on the healthcare plan.

He did not do a good job at running the state of MA.

Obama is a phoney he lectures to much like he is preaching to the quire, shouts out like a protester, and when he does one of his lectures there is no substance to back it up. My question is what has he done that is significant to warrent a stay at the White House.

Where's the Beef Obama?

All I can say about John Edwards is......if he tells that "mill story" one more time I am going to scream! I am sooo sick and tired of hearing his "mill story"! His talk is cheap....he talks about his mill story and then goes and gets a $400.00 hair cut.....damn..what clown, which by the way he never explain.

I don't know who I am going to vote for.....but it won't be these "three clowns".

I also wish they'd stop this "change" nonsense - no matter who is elected there will be a change,and a woman president would be a HUGE change, as would a black man. And since when is experience a negative when applying for this job? Do we really want a president who doesn't know how to get things done? I want a president who knows how to work with Congress because, despite Bush's efforts, this is not a dictatorship.

I will most likely vote for Hillary or a republican.

Great Points!

Bill Bunker — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 13:05:16 -0500

They believe that way on the Left because everything is 'relative' including when life begins.

Don't you find it hypocritical that they stand for sexual freedom and expression but do not want to face the consequences when someone becomes pregnant. Then, it needs to be terminated.

The head of Planned Parenthood in NH called today by recording telling us to vote for Obama.

My view on abortion is this: If a woman chooses to have one that is her decision and she will have to live with that for the rest of her life. I don't want to pay for the abortion, know about it, have it done as partial birth nor do I want to pay for the counseling she wil need when the guilt hits her 10 or 20 years from now. It is her choice though.

Unless if is for the fact that a woman will die or the fetus will have life threatening defects; ANYONE who chooses a partial birth abortion is really a sick puppy.

I read an article a couple of years back about some feminist who was having twins and decided that she only wanted one child so she had one aborted. To me, she is mentally ill to have done anything of the sort. To feminists, she is a hero.

That sums up the progressive agenda. Everything is about social choice but only if defined in their narrow agenda.

Thanks for blogging.

Partial Birth Abortion America's Holocaust

camere01 — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 12:44:31 -0500

Not long after the Clinton's got in office they decided to make Partial Birth Abortion a legal procedure. This was done mostly at the behest of MS Clinton. I would suppose that some people would consider murdering the most innocent of innocents as a form of power. When the Clinton's first rolled this procedure out they claimed that only three hundred of these procedures would be performed per year and that they would only be done to protect the life of the mother. Six months later the yearly number was on track for 5000 per year and all of these procedures were being done as a form of birth control. I always hate talking about PBA because the procedure is so unbelievably horrible. Later on the medical community stated that there was no known medical condition that would require this procedure. Over the ten years that this procedure was legal at least fifty thousand of these procedures were performed. Yes Bill this is probably the biggest reason that anyone could ever have for not supporting this person for president.

Full Of Bunk

Bill Bunker — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 09:45:43 -0500

Well birdflewover, you tried to intelligently respond. My comments are posted in bold print below:

You Wrote:

Hillary Clinton has more integrity in her little finger than all of the Republican candidates put together (excluding Ron Paul of Course and a younger McCain) yet she is probably not as capable as Obama or Edwards in taking on corporate corruption. Experience is not an issue, they are all equally experienced, what is important is the ability to lead, to give the people the courage to fight for their rights and the courage to make America a moral society again.

Read camere01's post on this blog and then talk to me about integrity. None of them have experience. Morality includes not taking the life of the unborn or otherwise your morality is relevant to your views.

You Wrote:

I really like Hillary she'd make a better President than her husband for sure and she'd be the best President we've had since Roosevelt or Truman or Kennedy. Yet Obama seems to have that JFK appeal, he can sure give a great speech and he's super smart, he quips and retorts like JFK, he's tough as nails and Kucinich gave him the nod so he must have progressive credentials that we can trust he will live up to and fight for.

Roosevelt wanted to be a monarch, Truman was a great president, JFK we will never know as he did not have a long enough time in office. He supported tax cuts though and was a conservative by todays standards.

Kucinich is not qualified nor an option and has little to show for his time in office.

I will be happy with any of the Democrats yet we have the chance to really change this country with Obama or Edwards for the better. Clinton may not be able to cut her corporate puppet strings off she seems like she will be too moderate , too in the middle, she is not left at all , she is center right, Obama and Edwards are straight down the middle , Kucinich we could call a true liberal or progressive.

Edwards is a lawyer. They are second only to corporations from a greed standpoint.

You Bill call anything that is not outright fascist , the left, you are so confused. Most of the Democratic party is towards the right , bowing down to Corporate power, very few Democrats will fight for the people, the unions, health care, stopping war, immigrants rights, etc., Hillary is not Bill, but Bill Clinton was way to the right, he should have been a Republican, his sanctions against Iraq starving half a million children over 10 years is pure Republican, his bombing of a Sudanese drug manufacturer cutting off 50% of the medical supplies to poor African children just to send a message, is pure Republican perversion. Sure he didn't torture thousands like Cheney and usurp our liberties at home like Bush but Bill Clinton did a lot of horrible right wing things.

Who uses the fascist word...why you birdflewover and yes, you are on the LEFT! Democrats are about telling everyone how they should live..for that they need to be defeated.

I see that you are trying to introduce the word pervert to make your points now, fascism must be getting old.

America is known around the World thanks to Republicans and some right wing Democrats as a force of destruction, stealing resources from the third world and killing and torturing anyone who gets in our way including children, this has got to stop. Hillary is not Bill maybe she can stop this but somehow I think Obama or Edwards will stop the American war machine quicker. Progressives will make this country great again , will make us energy independent, will make us a leader of human rights again. Republicans are sick war mongering perverts who torture and steal from the poor third world because they are cowards because they can. Of course there are a few good Republicans like Ron Paul but very very few, the vast majority of Republicans are sick perverts like Bush, Cheney, Romney and Guiliani.

Your ranting and raving illustrate your ignorance and lack of understanding of the world outside of your well rehearsed dogma and doctrinaire brainwashing.

Bill you are so full of Bunk

birdflewover — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 09:33:56 -0500

Agree and Disagree

Bill Bunker — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 08:59:03 -0500

Well XMARKSPOT,

I agree that we need to keep Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson as far away from even visiting the White House as possible. They cry about racism and they are perhaps the most racist individuals on the planet. Still, progressive lemmings give them a free pass and consistently fail to call them out.

Our economy is stronger than in the 1990's and there are less poor, less homeless and wage earners pay less taxes. Our reputation in the world should be "Don't Tread On us" and put America first, then take care of the rest of the world.

Sharpton, a mail order minister, is hateful and does not exemplify any characteristics of a religious leader. Jackson is just a sham and has no moral leadership.

However, Clinton has NO EXPERIENCE and especially NO MANAGEMENT EXPERIENCE; her experience is in "politics". We need people with executive experience.

Read Camere01's piece on the Clinton which is right on the mark. We don't need more Clinton corruption in the White House.

Lets Examine MS Clintons Rich History

camere01 — Sun, 6 Jan 2008 07:16:52 -0500

One thing about MS Clinton is that she has quite a history. Lets examine some of the moments that define her character.

Before Bill Clinton ran for the highest office in the land MS Clinton got involved in a prearranged cattle future deal. She made 100k off of this deal and this deal was a much more serious crime than the one that Martha Stewart went to jail for.

Not long after Bill Clinton was elected president the entire white house travel staff (seven people) were fired for what turned out to be trumped up charges. MS Clinton’s cousin who also ran a travel office replaced the travel staff. An investigation into the matter determined that it was MS Clinton who initiated the firings. The people who were fired later successfully sued the government for a large amount of cash that came from both poor and rich people (US Taxpayers). I now know why she did a likeability tour in Iowa.

After her foray into the travel biz MS Clinton decided she needed to review some raw FBI files on her political opponents. Craig Livingston was the White House's Director of the Office of Personnel Security. He obtained over 900 raw FBI files and stored them at the white house. These files were used to dig dirt on MS Clinton's political opponents. Orrin Hatch (a very honorable senator from Utah) charged that the White House conducted what appears to be a "definite effort to find dirt on Republicans." MR Livingston was a former bar bouncer and his mother is a close friend of MS Clinton.

When Vince Foster was killed MS Clinton illegally had all the contents of his office removed. These files were never recovered. Obviously there could have been charges of obstruction of justice associated with this action. It should also be noted that MS Clinton was known to have had a very close personnel relationship with MR Foster.

When the Clinton's term in the White House expired it took six semi-trucks to remove all of their personnel effects. It was later determined that three of the semi-trucks actually contained government owned furniture and had to be returned in the dark of night. Without a doubt attempting to steal white house furniture is a serious crime.

During the Clinton White House years anyone who had any adversity with the first family could be assured that their income taxes would be audited. Some famous people who had their income taxes audited were Paula Jones, Billy Dale (head of white house travel office), Linda Tripp (last person to see Vince Foster alive), Juanita Broderick (accused Bill of rape), Gennifer Flowers and Elizabeth Gracen (former lover of Bill).

The Concord Monitor has endorsed MS Clinton as their preferred candidate. I find it amazing that any newspaper in the country would endorse MS Clinton for president because of her rich history in controversy. I also find it amazing that anyone would want an accused sex offender (Bill) returning to the white house. What could this newspaper possibly be thinking?

Open Your Eyes !

Xmarkspot — Sat, 5 Jan 2008 23:32:56 -0500

Who Likes Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson ??

Obama Is Best Buddies With Al Sharpton And Jesse Jackson, So No Votes For Obama !!!

Forget About Character And Who's Charming And Who's Not. Look To See Who's The Most Qualified Just Like In Todays Jobs..duh !!

If You Vote Towards Character w/ Little Or No Exp. Over Full Experience, That Is A Very Poor Way Of Voting/Hiring. It Is Exactly What Happened With The Last Election, Now We Have A Knucklhead In The WhiteHouse.

This Country Is In Such A Mess Right Now, We Need Experience 100% Of The Way. America Cannot Afford "Lack Of Experience" At This Day And Time. This Country Needs A Great Economy Like It Once Did Back In The 90's When The Clintons Were In Office And Gain America's Reputation Back In The World As Well, Lets Get Bill And Hillary Back The White House Again !!!

If Barack Obama Is President, I Will Not Be Surprised To See Al Sharpton Or Jesse Jackson As Vice President !!!!!

Concern about Obama

James — Sat, 5 Jan 2008 11:06:56 -0500

I agree with Hillary Clinton that Obama is inexperienced and there is a concern there.

My obversations of Obama: I had started supporting Obama in 2004! in Texas, and did alot to talk him up here and at the University of Texas. I had photographed him 3 times in close quarters, and talked to him directly for a few minutes at one. I had made contributions to him the first 2 quarters of 2007. I was not the only one who put in ALOT of work to help him. Has his campaign found ways to get us involved or showed appreciation for our efforts? NO! His support in Austin has eroded in large areas, and his last rally here was MUCH smaller than the large Feb. 07 rally, that drew 20,000 people. His only contact with those of us, like myself who wanted to support him - has been "give me money" email and "hey come out to my rally!" email.

When I tried to give my concerns to the Obama people repeatedly!! by email and by phone, it was largely disregarded. When my concerns to a phone solicitor hit home at the time, and she gave me the national phone number, that national person's attitude was "hey there are too many people for us to follow up with" and we are focusing on the first 3 states. There was a strong arrogance with the person, as if Obama knows all and doesn't need any input on things from anyone. Is this giving a voice to those who are not lobbyists? Granted, the top person can't hear from everyone (despite Obama's rhetoric), but most campaigns understand that you need levels of leadership in a campaign to fully engage people nationally. This same mechanism is also required as President - since you need more than a podium and TV to truly engage people. While Obama gives lip service to this notion, his action and follow through are horribly lacking afterwards. Obama's is so restricted at the national level, they don't even engage voluntary groups like "Texans for Obama" - despite their efforts to help him.

There is a local young candidate here for city council who was like that, great initial candidate with charm and apparent charisma - but after winning he was largely dismissive of those that supported him. That city councilman has turned out to be one of the worst office holders in Austin. He tried to be friend to everyone, and he has come out to be friend to no one. Why? Inexperience! While Obama wants to have everyone have a voice equal to lobbyists and insiders, he is achieving this by excluding most everyone from input. While he has courted Iowa, NH, and SC closely, do not be mistaken - after you vote you won't hear or have any way to contact or be involved in his campaign, in my opinion - other than repeated "give me money" emails.

Having met all the top D candidates and also McCain on the R side, the two candidates that I think are the most personable when they are not wanting something from you are - Hillary and McCain. I was within the Secret Service bubble with Hillary for 3 hours and she was incredibly gracious and willing to listen to anyone. Obama was a rock star (in a negative way) in a similar position, and pretty much gives a smile, great giving speeches, but far LESS effective one-on-one than Hillary.

McCain also was willing to talk to people honestly, and I think also is someone that has incredible experience - and is not a gamble. I saw McCain get hit with a tough, emotional question from an audience member about health care, and he intently listened, and then gave his answer starting with, "you probably won't like my answer, but here it is ..." While I don't agree with McCain on all issues, he is genuine and capable. For those independents who do not like Hillary, I might suggest strongly giving a second look to McCain.

As an independent moderate, I hope my insight from Texas can help you all in NH better judge these candidates from a different perspective - the back side of their campaigns (the side you all don't see!). Take care.

RE: "Hillary Clinton Is The Democrat's Best Choice" endorsement by the Concord Monitor

Bill Bunker — Sun, 30 Dec 2007 10:07:38 -0500

Although the Monitor has the right to endorse any candidate and as a true believer in free speech and freedom of the press I would never criticize the right of the editor’s to express the political view of those on staff; I take exception with some of the conclusions of their latest endorsement: “Hillary is the Democrats Best Choice”.