Posted on 11/17/2007 5:45:49 PM PST by justiceseeker93
Americans need and deserve the whole Hillary story.
From the moment Hillary Clinton walked onto the national stage, the media hailed her as a woman on the verge of history, a feminist trailblazer, a pioneer of women's liberation, like a female Neil Armstrong landing on the moon in Guccis. If her husband was elected president, she would be the first First Lady to have an "independent" career of her own. The many liberals and feminists now in the press corps could visualize one of their own as a White House spouse, chafing at the demand to glue on a plastic smile and pretend she lived for the annual Easter Egg Roll, choosing instead to use her honorary office to stricke blows for "social justice." Empathy for Hillary's pioneer plight oozed between every sentence of the Woodstock generation media accounts.
It's a pattern we have seen repeated again and again in the 15-plus years since
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, the national media have abandoned their duty as a supposedly independent, dispassionate press. They have shamelessly served as cheerleaders for Mrs. Clinton from the moment she emerged on the national scene in 1992...
(Excerpt) Read more at article.nationalreview.com ...
Much thanks for your concern. We don't need socialized medicine - single payer here any more than you did. Unfortunately you are stuck with it, while we still have an opportunity to say NO!
Yup. The same goes for Obama. We could soon have the first Muslim President...HERE IS HOW WE MAY HAVE OUR FIRST MUSLIM PRESIDENT OR VICE-PRESIDENT..through delusion, lack of due diligence or scholarship or denial or wishful thinking or STUPIDITY...Barack Hussein Obama (he adopted his fathers’ name)... Obamas’ history and a small amount of common sense is necessary, in my mind, to completely disqualify him for the Presidency. Obama is a clear National Security Risk with regard to Islam and the worldwide ongoing jihad. Start with this, a CONTINUALLY updated site on Obamas’ history.
http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm
And, then, think about THIS: “ Muslims view Obama as first a Muslim and then as an apostate Muslim. He faces the death penalty in nearly the entire Islamic world”..excerp from the above link. He was a Muslim for 27 years under the name Barry Soetoro, and ‘coverted’ from Islam to Christianity as an adult..his church may not have been a legitimate Christian church. Lots of info on his church in the above link, and its disturbing creed. He adopted his fathers’ MUSLIM name about the time he became ‘Christian’ as it had been recommended to him as a child to convert if he wanted to become the first US ‘black’ President, why did he not retain his previous name?.....read the link. Here are some sobering thoughts: Barack Hussein Obama, identifying himself for some years as a Christian, was a Muslim for 27 years. His conversion to Christianity is murky AND, ask the question ‘Is there anything to prevent him from potentially converting back to Islam shortly after taking his Presidential oath on a Bible/Koran? NO!! (Rep. Ellison of MI was allowed to take his oath on Thos. Jeffersons’ personal Koran (Jefferson had studied Islam in an attempt to understand the enemy during our first war as a country, the Barbary Wars). As an APOSTATE Muslim, any Imam in the world or thousands of Imams can issue a demand for his return to Islam, and, on refusal can issue a fatwa for his death... as POTUS there might be a tsunami of such calls from the Muslim World...the political leverage in either case is a clear, MASSIVE national security issue for the United States. One has to question the motives of the Dim party for presenting him for the candidacy. Other disturbing features of his life and social interactions are a potential dynamite keg as well. Read the above link. While our currency is debasing rapidly, nations are dumping our currency and not loaning us $1 trillion every 15 months by buying Tbills, the next administration will be financial beggars..and, Muslim political demand and pressure will be exponentially high. Dems and Reps and independents may be shocked if Obama is presented with conversion demands from the whole Muslim worldwide, and...and...succumbs to them. The potential is rather jolting.
sSI’ve always said the the Clinton’s are pure Teflon, nothing, NOTHING sticks to them.
Hillary is the biggest phony ever. I just can’t believe that anyone takes her seriously.
Hillary is the end of America, Western civilization and the world. Totally evil witch.
When it comes to Hillary Clinton, the national media have flagrantly abandoned their duty as a supposedly independent, dispassionate press.
So, what else is new?
The national media are not -- and probably never have been -- "independent". And, far from being "dispassionate", they are blatently partisan. Not to mention dishonest...
The national media want Hillary to be President in the worst way. And they will do everything they possibly can to make it happen. Irrespective of the consequences to America!
It's up to us -- and the alternative media -- to make sure it doesn't happen.
We should expect no "independence" nor any "dispassionate" reporting by the national media to aid us in this chore.
I wouldn't doubt it.
But so is HRC connected to Islam and the jihad via her close "indispensable aide, Huma Abedin. According to postings here in FR, Ms. Abedin is a 32 year old Muslim feamle whispered to possibly be (1) HRC's lesbian lover, (2)a Saudi agent, (3)her chief advisor on the Middle East, and (4)a relative of several individuals with ties to al Qaeda!!!
RICO laws for some reason, don't apply. Between the Clinton leftovers in the justice department and the Clinton appointed (or otherwise symPATHETIC) judges, the Teflon has been firmly applied.
Thanks for the ping!
Right On! As the years go by the neutered children via this public school system & the absolute corruptness of this "Two-Party Cartel" shows me that it all has to collapse before it can get better. These pols know it - that's why they are getting their bucks anyway they can before the collapse.
What really tees me off is that the national media were more "dispassionate" and "independent" and honest during my own lifetime, and I've seen them morph into cheerleaders for the destruction of America before my very eyes.
“a politician of striking compassion”...sort of get the picture here, don’t you? Striking..., and compassion mixed together because somehow it was her compassion that caused her to strike us....
Well said!!!
Speaking of the infamous “vast right wing conspiracy” nonsense, the author of that hoax, one Sidney Blumenthal, has been reported to have joined the HRC campaign a few days ago. Blumenthal is the quintessential HRC apparatchik, capable of a lot more damage than creating a new vocabulary.
Thanks, j93.
Ping.
Don't be so sure.
I clearly recall the sainted Walter Cronkite blowing smoke up my ass about Tet in 1968 -- though I didn't realize it at the time.
My view is a.) they've always been partisan, b.) which didn't become apparent until the Viet Nam War and now c.) they've thrown all pretense of being "independent" and "dispassionate" to the wind, becoming outright cheerleaders for the liberal cause.
Sadly, it wasn't until talk radio or the internet that we began to have our suspicions confirmed...
What I was thinking about even more than network TV news was the old newspaper, which separated news (dispassionate, interest in conveying objective facts) from opinion, which was placed on segregated op-ed pages. Of course, many of the MSM newspapers in those days were acually owned by entrepreneurial individuals and families, and quite a few major ones were unabashedly conservative and Republican on their editorial pages. With the contraction of the newspaper industry and the shifts in ownership of the newspapers that now survive, there is very little diversity in either news coverage or opinion in the major metro dailies, and it is rare to see a story that is “dispassionate,” “independent,” and objective.
Allow me to inject another interpretation into the discussion.
Howard Fineman of Newsweek wrote an extremely interesting column in the wake of the 2004 election. In it, he admitted that there were actually three parties in Washington -- the Democrat party, the Republican party and the Media party.
In the column, he was lamenting the fact that the Media party had gone all out for Kerry...but had somehow failed. And that this might mark a historical watershed, where the Media party could no longer automatically get what it wanted.
I thought this was a very illuminating revelation by Fineman. And it led me to consider the question of "Who's leading who? when it comes to Democrat politics".
The Media Party and the Democrat Party are definitely allied. But which one is the senior member? Who serves as the majority of one?
Are we now seeing a three-way struggle for control of the Democrat Party? A triangular battle between the Media Party, Soros and the nutroots, and national Democrat leadership?
God only knows the Democrat rank & file no longer have any say in party affairs.
Don’t forget that CLINTONS’ KILL.
The same people who did the killing for Bush. Remember the Clintons are hooked together, at the hips, with the Bush’s.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.