What a total fraud

[Real World]

This is what I mean about her being the most disengenuous, fony, finger in the wind politician out there. What a fraud.

This is today with a Northerly wind.


Clinton Says No to Licenses for Illegals

Nov 14, 5:26 PM (ET)

By DEVLIN BARRETT

WASHINGTON (AP) - Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton on Wednesday came out against granting driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after weeks of pressure in the presidential race to take a position on a now-failed ID plan from her home state governor.

Clinton has faced criticism from candidates in both parties for her noncommittal answers on New York Gov. Eliot Spitzer's attempt to allow illegal immigrants in his state to receive driver's licenses. Spitzer abandoned the effort Wednesday.

"I support Governor Spitzer's decision today to withdraw his proposal," Clinton said in a statement. "As president, I will not support driver's licenses for undocumented people and will press for comprehensive immigration reform that deals with all of the issues around illegal immigration including border security and fixing our broken system."

Clinton stumbled when asked about the issue during a Democratic debate two weeks ago, and her new position comes the day before another debate where opponents are expected to raise the issue again.

http://apnews.myway.com/article/20071114/D8STND5O0.html

[Real World]

This was last week with the wind blowing toward the East.


November 5, 2007

Clinton 'broadly supports' states' efforts to license illegals

CLINTON, Iowa (CNN) — Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-New York, Sunday sought to further clarify her position on New York Gov. Elliot Spitzer’s controversial plan to give driver’s licenses to illegal immigrants, a position which she said she’s already made clear on “a number of occasions.”

The issue was brought front and center at Tuesday night’s Democratic debate. At the time Clinton said the plan “makes a lot of sense" but stopped short of endorsing it. Former Sen. John Edwards, D-North Carolina, claimed her answer was inconsistent and Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, has since said that her answer to that question and others “left us wondering.”

Asked by reporters Sunday why it’s taken so long for clarification Clinton admitted she “wasn’t as clear as [she] should have been” but added, “I broadly support what governors like Elliot Spitzer are trying to do.”

http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com...ense-illegals/

[Real World]

Well, I guess the day after the debate the wind was blowing East too.


Clinton backs N.Y. driver's license plan for illegal immigrants

Tries to steady her stance after debate stumble

By Sasha Issenberg, Globe Staff | November 1, 2007

Hillary Clinton came out yesterday in support of a plan by Governor Eliot Spitzer of New York to offer limited driver's licenses to illegal immigrants, after she appeared tripped up by a question on the subject in Tuesday night's Democratic debate.

"Senator Clinton supports governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform," her campaign said in a statement. "As president, her goal will be to pass comprehensive immigration reform that would make this unnecessary."

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/ar...al_immigrants/

[Patters]

All she's said was that her view is contingent on the federal situation, but obviously that wasn't good enough for some people. When she's president, she'll support legislation that makes the issue of driver's licenses moot, but in the meantime she supports "governors like Governor Spitzer who believe they need such a measure to deal with the crisis caused by this administration's failure to pass comprehensive immigration reform." We're in a soundbite society. If a candidate answer a complex issue using more than four words, it confuses people.

But, this is good practice for her. Especially in the general election, she's going to have to talk in soundbites like it or not. Reagan and Clinton were great at doing that, and even Bush II isn't bad at it. Kerry was dreadful at it, and Gore was pretty bad too.

[BelichickFan]

Originally Posted by Patters

blah, blah, blah

At least Republicans admit when their candidate sucks.

[Patters]

Originally Posted by BelichickFan

At least Republicans admit when their candidate sucks.

Their candidates are worse than the Democratic ones, that's for sure, but the Democratic ones aren't so hot either. Hillary is pure professional politician. Obama is another Kerry, way too serious. Edwards has a weak presentation. Hillary's a awfully good candidate, but that doesn't mean she's a good person. It just means that she has the best political skills of the lot. She's sort of a Tom Brady, but Republicans still have the Bill Belichick in Karl Rove, someone I admire even more than I despise.

[wistahpatsfan]

Originally Posted by Patters

Their candidates are worse than the Democratic ones, that's for sure, but the Democratic ones aren't so hot either. Hillary is pure professional politician. Obama is another Kerry, way too serious. Edwards has a weak presentation. Hillary's a awfully good candidate, but that doesn't mean she's a good person. It just means that she has the best political skills of the lot. She's sort of a Tom Brady, but Republicans still have the Bill Belichick in Karl Rove, someone I admire even more than I despise.

No they're not!
Both parties (or the "Party" - republicrats), like the last election, have given us what amounts to the most intellectually lazy and least courageous candidates again! They have done it for the previous two elections.

Comparing Tom Brady to Clinton and Bill to Rove is...is....I can't find the words.......

[PatsFanInEaglesLand]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

Comparing Tom Brady to Clinton and Bill to Rove is...is....I can't find the words.......

BLASPHEMY..................

[Patters]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

No they're not!
Both parties (or the "Party" - republicrats), like the last election, have given us what amounts to the most intellectually lazy and least courageous candidates again! They have done it for the previous two elections.

Comparing Tom Brady to Clinton and Bill to Rove is...is....I can't find the words.......

I meant in terms of political skills, nothing more. At least in the Democratic Party, Hillary has done an outstanding job at building an organization, building a base, and presenting an image. If the only idea is to win, then Hillary is like Tom Brady and Rove is like Bill Belichick. But, I do a agree with you absolutely that if the idea is to educate, then none of these candidates are good.

[STFarmy]

Originally Posted by wistahpatsfan

No they're not!
Both parties (or the "Party" - republicrats), like the last election, have given us what amounts to the most intellectually lazy and least courageous candidates again! They have done it for the previous two elections.

Comparing Tom Brady to Clinton and Bill to Rove is...is....I can't find the words.......

I'd have to say that they are different, but I know what you mean. They are mostly all cut from the same, awful, political mold.

Your boy Ron Paul is making quite the stir though eh?