Clinton campaign gets new conservative nod

[Gunny]

(CNN) – Hillary Clinton's campaign is pointing to its Pennsylvania primary endorsement Sunday morning by the Pittsburgh Tribune-Review - the latest in a stunning series of recent rapprochements with previous conservative media foes.

"For Pennsylvania Democrats, the smart choice Tuesday is Mrs. Clinton," writes the paper's deeply conservative editorial board in a piece e-mailed to reporters by her campaign Sunday. "She has a real voting record on key issues. Agree with her or not, you at least know where she stands instead of being forced to wonder.

"Many of her views on domestic issues are too liberal for us, but on others she seems to have moderated. ."

more ... http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/

Hillary for GOP candidate ..

 

[Dogger]

The Tribune-Review is owned and published by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife, who rabidly accused Hillary of murdering her friend, Vince Foster.

Obviously, Scaife has changed his mind. Is he now saying that Hillary didn't kill Vince Foster, or is he saying that Foster had it coming?

 

[RetiredGySgt]

The Tribune-Review is owned and published by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife, who rabidly accused Hillary of murdering her friend, Vince Foster.

Obviously, Scaife has changed his mind. Is he now saying that Hillary didn't kill Vince Foster, or is he saying that Foster had it coming?

He is saying she is a better choice then Obama. Pretty clear to me. He is saying IF a democrat wins it would be better for this country if it is Hillary, then Obama, something I happen to agree with, by the way.

Of course since Republican conservatives won't be voting in the democratic primary he is providing this opinion to the undecideds that may be voting and have conservative views but vote democratic.

 

[Dogger]

Your grasp of the obvious is better than your sense of humor, RGS.

 

[rayboyusmc]

You are catching on, Dogger.

She was interviewed by Scaife and his editorial board a week or so ago. She apprently did quite well in their opinion. After the interview, Mr. Scaife stated that his opinion of her had improved.

Hillary as prez, Obama as VP for eight years. Then Obama for prez and Chelsea for VP for another 8

Rush, Coulter, Savage etc would love that. Hell, Clinton's tours in the Whitehouse made Rush what is today. Well, besides the druggy stuff.

 

[Gunny]

The Tribune-Review is owned and published by conservative Richard Mellon Scaife, who rabidly accused Hillary of murdering her friend, Vince Foster.

Obviously, Scaife has changed his mind. Is he now saying that Hillary didn't kill Vince Foster, or is he saying that Foster had it coming?

I think he's saying that Hillary is the more conservative of the two between her and Obama.

 

[Gunny]

Your grasp of the obvious is better than your sense of humor, RGS.

Kinda like your grasp of the irrelevent?

 

[Dogger]

It just seems odd to me that Scaife thinks her conservative cred outweighs his belief that she's a stone cold killer.

I know there's a debate as to whether Scaife is pro-life or pro-choice, but I always thought the right-wing's position on first degree murder was clear.

 

[jillian]

It just seems odd to me that Scaife thinks her conservative cred outweighs his belief that she's a stone cold killer.

I know there's a debate as to whether Scaife is pro-life or pro-choice, but I always thought the right-wing's position on first degree murder was clear.

Scaife didn't believe the "Hillary murdered Foster" thing any more than he believed the swiftboat liars were telling the truth. He has an agenda. Part of me thinks he's supporting Hillary because he thinks McCain will have an easier time beating her. The other part of me would like to think that he was just impressed with her because she had huge nerve just walking in to that interview...

But who knows?

 

[Gunny]

It just seems odd to me that Scaife thinks her conservative cred outweighs his belief that she's a stone cold killer.

I know there's a debate as to whether Scaife is pro-life or pro-choice, but I always thought the right-wing's position on first degree murder was clear.

The "right wing," huh? Odd I never heard of this so-called "representative" of the "right wing" before today. Must be a REALLY important dude.

It WAS rather kind of Foster to kick the bucket at the most advantageous moment for the Clintons, wasn't it?

Did they ever find the getaway broom Hillary used.

 

[Gunny]

Scaife didn't believe the "Hillary murdered Foster" thing any more than he believed the swiftboat liars were telling the truth. He has an agenda. Part of me thinks he's supporting Hillary because he thinks McCain will have an easier time beating her. The other part of me would like to think that he was just impressed with her because she had huge nerve just walking in to that interview...

But who knows?

The swiftboaters are liars because *you* say so?

You lefties are so busy looking for something sinister you can't see the blatantly obvious. It's not a matter of who McCain can or cannot beat.

Quite simply, Hillary is the better choice for President between the two.

She has the experience edge, and she knows how to get around in Washington to get things done, and she's more pragmatic than Obama.

Obama thinks he's going to ride into town guns blazing and change the system. He'll just end up alienating himself.

 

[jillian]

The swiftboaters are liars because *you* say so?

You lefties are so busy looking for something sinister you can't see the blatantly obvious. It's not a matter of who McCain can or cannot beat.

Quite simply, Hillary is the better choice for President between the two.

She has the experience edge, and she knows how to get around in Washington to get things done, and she's more pragmatic than Obama.

Obama thinks he's going to ride into town guns blazing and change the system. He'll just end up alienating himself.

No. The swiftboaters are liars because they're liars....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

As for Hillary. I agree. And I voted accordingly in the primary. But doesn't look like she's going to be the nominee. So it'll be Obama if he is the one who gets the nod.... at least in my house.

 

[Gunny]

No. The swiftboaters are liars because they're liars....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

As for Hillary. I agree. And I voted accordingly in the primary. But doesn't look like she's going to be the nominee. So it'll be Obama if he is the one who gets the nod.... at least in my house.

I see. So Swiftboaters are liars because someone says so. Okay.

Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama does.

 

[jillian]

I see. So Swiftboaters are liars because someone says so. Okay.

Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama does.

No. Because Snopes is the fact checkers who have no ax to grind. And I've never seen where they weren't accurate. So.. suck it up. Sometimes I don't like their conclusions either.

I agree... but I'm not a superdelegate, unfortunately.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I'm waiting for the headline

Clinton Campaign Gets New Candidate

Then maybe her campaign will have a chance.

 

[Gunny]

No. Because Snopes is the fact checkers who have no ax to grind. And I've never seen where they weren't accurate. So.. suck it up. Sometimes I don't like their conclusions either.

I agree... but I'm not a superdelegate, unfortunately.

Nothing TO suck up here. I never listened to nor read what they had to say to begin with ... other than what got posted on message boards. Guess YOU will just have to suck THAT up.

I accept no single media source as absolute proof of anything. Snopes or not.

 

[Gunny]

No. The swiftboaters are liars because they're liars....

http://www.snopes.com/politics/kerry/swift.asp

As for Hillary. I agree. And I voted accordingly in the primary. But doesn't look like she's going to be the nominee. So it'll be Obama if he is the one who gets the nod.... at least in my house.

After further review ... Snopes doesn't say the Swiftboaters are liars. It says that their comments cannot be evaluated as true or false. It says their comments are opinions that cannot be classified as right or wrong.

Then it goes on to offer more opinions from people whose opinions disagreed with the Swiftboaters' opinions.

In other words, it's a pager long article that proves absolutely nothing.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

After further review ... Snopes doesn't say the Swiftboaters are liars. It says that their comments cannot be evaluated as true or false. It says their comments are opinions that cannot be classified as right or wrong.

Then it goes on to offer more opinions from people whose opinions disagreed with the Swiftboaters' opinions.

In other words, it's a pager long article that proves absolutely nothing.

I know, when given the choice of believing 8 guys Kerry paid to hob nob with him or over 200 Officers and enlisted that served with him also, who should we believe? Remind me again how he was in Cambodia on Christmas eve , sent there by a man not even President yet ferrying a special ops guy no one can find. That memory was SEARED into him. Of course when one checks the facts they find out that on Christmas eve he was actually in a base camp miles from cambodia. Even the 8 guys he paid agree he is wrong on that one.

Who should we believe? A Naval Officer that ADMITTED he covered up war crimes ( or he is lying about it), failed to report them ( or he is lying about it), used fake vets to back up his claims... or over 200 Officers and enlisted that were REALLY there and never saw the war crimes and never saw Kerry's heroics?

Who should we believe? A Naval officer that illegally met with an enemy of the Country and discussed how to thwart US goals with them and bring about a "peace" on terms the enemy would find acceptable.... or over 200 Officers and enlisted that never did anything quite so despicable?

I guess it depends on whether or not "winning" is all that matters.

 

[Swamp Fox]

I know, when given the choice of believing 8 guys Kerry paid to hob nob with him or over 200 Officers and enlisted that served with him also, who should we believe? Remind me again how he was in Cambodia on Christmas eve , sent there by a man not even President yet ferrying a special ops guy no one can find. That memory was SEARED into him. Of course when one checks the facts they find out that on Christmas eve he was actually in a base camp miles from cambodia. Even the 8 guys he paid agree he is wrong on that one.

Who should we believe? A Naval Officer that ADMITTED he covered up war crimes ( or he is lying about it), failed to report them ( or he is lying about it), used fake vets to back up his claims... or over 200 Officers and enlisted that were REALLY there and never saw the war crimes and never saw Kerry's heroics?

Who should we believe? A Naval officer that illegally met with an enemy of the Country and discussed how to thwart US goals with them and bring about a "peace" on terms the enemy would find acceptable.... or over 200 Officers and enlisted that never did anything quite so despicable?

I guess it depends on whether or not "winning" is all that matters.

 

[jillian]

After further review ... Snopes doesn't say the Swiftboaters are liars. It says that their comments cannot be evaluated as true or false. It says their comments are opinions that cannot be classified as right or wrong.

Then it goes on to offer more opinions from people whose opinions disagreed with the Swiftboaters' opinions.

In other words, it's a pager long article that proves absolutely nothing.

Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiiight...them saying that the men who trashed Kerry didn't work with him or have any first hand knowledge couldn't possibly be relevant....