Hillary didn't reject the Independence Party line:

[ProSense]

Likewise, Mr. Buchanan has long since bolted the Republican Party and emerged as the likely Reform candidate, upgrading the risk status of the Independence line from potentially troublesome to potentially toxic. What is striking, though, is what has happened since then: In February, there was a meeting among the chairmen of the Conservative, Independence and Right to Life parties, to discuss the possibility of a consensus spoiler. Spooked by this, Mr. Giuliani mobilized to get that line. By contrast, Mrs. Clinton receded without retreating.

She could have taken a good look at the line, decided to say, "Yes, there are ideological risks here, but by getting this line, I will choke off Rudy before he gets chugging, so I'm going to go for it." This would have made some sense.

Alternatively, she could have taken a good look at the long-obvious specter of the Buchanan-Fulani problem, and said, "I cannot afford to offend one Jewish voter and besides, there are so many more Democrats than Republicans in this state, he's the one who has to scramble for third parties," turned on her heel, and stalked off toward the moral high ground. And this would have made some sense.

Instead, she has been riding those brakes. She has neither embraced the effort to secure the line, nor abandoned it. Her campaign was inviting Mr. MacKay to attend President Clinton's event in midtown Manhattan on Monday, April 23, even as it was downplaying the idea that they were wooing him. Called upon to show up at the forum, they had, as of the morning of Tuesday, April 25, neither firmly accepted nor declined, but, citing "First Lady duties" to Mr. MacKay, wished to explore the possibility of appearing via satellite from Washington, D.C. (Campaign sources deny that such conversations occurred at any operative level, giving currency to the idea that they do not really want this nomination–but also to the idea that the right hand is not on particularly chatty terms with the left.) This does not make sense–unless the strategy is to be cautious, defensive, non committal; never to be affirmative or bold or cogent.

As it now stands, Mrs. Clinton will probably not get the Independence line. She will probably survive not having the line. But she will definitely not be able to benefit fully from forfeiting the line.

To court or not to court, that was the question. But a really good answer would have had to come in a long time ago.

link

She took the line!

NYS Election Board PDF (on edit: this for the 2006 election)

She tried to make the comparison, but Farrakhan doesn't have his own party.

Here is what she said tonight:

CLINTON: I just want to add something here, because I faced a similar situation when I ran for the Senate in 2000 in New York. And in New York, there are more than the two parties, Democratic and Republican. And one of the parties at that time, the Independence Patty, was under the control of people who were anti-Semitic, anti- Israel. And I made it very clear that I did not want their support. I rejected it. I said that it would not be anything I would be comfortable with. And it looked as though I might pay a price for that. But I would not be associated with people who said such inflammatory and untrue charges against either Israel or Jewish people in our country.

And, you know, I was willing to take that stand, and, you know, fortunately the people of New York supported me and I won. But at the time, I thought it was more important to stand on principle and to reject the kind of conditions that went with support like that.

RUSSERT: Are you suggesting Senator Obama is not standing on principle?

CLINTON: No. I'm just saying that you asked specifically if he would reject it. And there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting. And I think when it comes to this sort of, you know, inflammatory -- I have no doubt that everything that Barack just said is absolutely sincere. But I just think, we've got to be even stronger. We cannot let anyone in any way say these things because of the implications that they have, which can be so far reaching.

OBAMA: Tim, I have to say I don't see a difference between denouncing and rejecting. There's no formal offer of help from Minister Farrakhan that would involve me rejecting it. But if the word "reject" Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word "denounce," then I'm happy to concede the point, and I would reject and denounce.

link

She in fact didn't reject their support!


Edited to date PDF.

[billyoc]

1. Reject their support, hell, she ran as THEIR CANDIDATE!

What a fucking liar. :rofl:

[EFerrari]

2. I was too tired to go look for it. Thanks. Predictable. n/t

[TheDonkey]

3. SHAME ON YOU!

for posting the truth. Meet me in Pennsylvania!

[MonkeyFunk]

10. Yes

shame on him for using 2006 data to prove a point about the 2000 race. It's very dishonest.

[Ravy]

4. Nice of you to switch years on your PDF. Distort and destroy Obama style

http://www.elections.state.ny.us/NYSBOE/elections/2000/wussen2000.pdf

[EFerrari]

6. That link does not address the OP. n/t

[Ravy]

8. Are you blind? The OP put in a 2000 article, but a 2006 PDF to

say that Hillary took the Independence line. I linked to the 2000 election results which clearly shows she didn't.

[EFerrari]

12. Excuse me? The OP made no effort to obscure anything.

He showed her tactics over time. And, no, I'm not blind, thanks.

[MonkeyFunk]

16. Clinton referred to the 2000 election

she was very clear about that.

Showing that she got their endorsement in 2006 is dishonest.

[EFerrari]

20. How? She didn't get their support in 2000 but got it in 2006?

Are we not supposed to know what she did to get re-elected in 2006?

[MonkeyFunk]

24. Lenora Fulani

was kicked out of the party in 2005. It was HER comments that Hillary wanted to disassociate herself with.

[EFerrari]

26. Yes, I understand that now but isn't that a pretty slender branch

to go out on?

How much can any party change in a window of a few years?

Oh, whatever. I can't wait until this is over.

[MonkeyFunk]

28. Not at all

She very specifically spoke about the 2000 campaign. It's the height of dishonesty to show 2006 data to try to disprove her point. She was NOT endorsed by the party in 2000.

And the elements that offended her in 2000 were out of the party by 2006. Yes, a 14 year old party certainly can change a lot in 6 years.

[karynnj]

63. Nothing in the OP says she accepted it in 2000, the link specifically say 2006

It's not a question of HRC lying - it's a question of her using this as a litmus test - that really didn't fit as Farachan had no party.

In 2000, it is clear that it was a political calculation as much as anything. The party was then toxic to many Jews - losing a small % of the Jewish vote was not worth gaining anyone they could give her.

[MonkeyFunk]

80. The OP edited his post

Clinton very clearly stated she was talking about the 2000 election. Posting something from the 2006 election to try to prove she's a liar just makes the OP the liar, not Clinton.

I'm not arguing the whys and wherefores of what happened, or her motives. I'm simply saying that using 2006 data to prove she's lying is dishonest. She did not receive their endorsement in 2000, which is what she said.

[karynnj]

66. Read the first link in the OP

It shows she did not reject the line - it was never offered. Those 140 some people aligned with her were still in the party in 2006.

The point is that HRC was using this as a cleaner than snow example for her in contrast to Obama. In fact, he has repeatedly denounced Farrachan.

[billyoc]

35. Kicked out, you say? Could you provide a link? I don't believe you.

In fact, I'm quite sure you're wrong. She was not kicked out of the party, and Hillary Clinton ran as that party's CANDIDATE in 2006.

[MonkeyFunk]

36. Here ya go

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/nyregion/metrocampaigns/19fulani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin


cocky bastard.

[billyoc]

39. I protest this link, it only shows that she was forced to give up her LEADERSHIP role

in the party. She was never kicked out, IIRC.

[MonkeyFunk]

41. oh for god's sake

this OP is a blatant lie, and now you're going to defend it.

You guys suck. You don't even care what lies you tell in the service of your candidate. And you use lies to try to prove that Clinton sucks because she lies.

Fucking lying assholes. How do you have any self respect?

[billyoc]

43. What happened, we were getting along so well there for a couple of posts.

You just made a mistake, thinking that Fulani had been kicked out of the party when she hadn't.

If it's any consolation, you can't *BE* kicked out of a political party in New York State easily.

[MonkeyFunk]

46. Right...

I'm a Democrat - if I register Democrat, I dont' think there's anything they can do to kick me out.


The fact is, Fulani lost her position in the party, and therefore it wasn't the same party that it was in 2000. The Independence party has gone through some pretty major swings in its short life.

The fact is, the OP tried to show that Clinton was lying, but failed miserably. She didn't lie about it - the OP lied about it, and it's frustrating to see people defending it.

[ProSense]

48. Hillary was grandstanding last night, the 2000 move was political.

The two are still leaders in the party. According to a September 2006 report, they were leaders in the party and Alan Hevesi was calling on their support for a project to be rejected.

[MonkeyFunk]

49. No

the article doesn't say they were leaders in 2006. It says they WERE leaders when the party endorsed Bloomberg twice (2001 and 2005).

The NYT article I linked to shows the party removed them from the executive committee in 2005.

Your OP remains a lie, and the thrashing going on here is pathetic.

Here's the summary: Clinton talked about 2000. You used info from 2006 to show she was lying. It backfired on you. Anybody who takes the time to read this thread will know who lied.

[ProSense]

50. You are trying to be coy, the move was politically motivated.

Fulani’s Victory
August 15, 2006 at 3:43 pm by Elizabeth Benjamin

The Daily News reported today that state Independence Party Chairman Frank MacKay’s efforts to get Lenora Fulani and her supporters excommunicated from the party - a move at least tacitly supported by a certain U.S. senator and a likely soon-to-be governor - aren’t going so well.

State Supreme Court justices in Brooklyn (last week) and Manhattan (yesterday) ruled MacKay and other party leaders can’t eject Fulani and her ally, Fred Newman, simply because of anti-Semitic statements they made two decades ago and have since refused to repudiate.

MacKay has vowed to appeal, according to his attorney, Jim Long.

Indy Party members are due in federal court tomorrow for a hearing on a February vote by MacKay and his allies to invalidate three county committees in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx that they allege Fulani controls.

The Manhattan decision, written by Justice Emily Jane Goodman, is a particularly interesting read.

She references the case of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a strict Catholic group that got sued when it refused to allow gays and lesbians to march in the annual NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade.

In that case, Goodman said, where the Hibernians were determined to be allowed to exclude people who don’t share their clearly-stated values. But the Indepdendence Party has “no enunciated standards or requirements” for enrollment.

Also, Goodman noted that MacKay & Co. didn’t provide any evidence of ongoing racism of anti-Semitism, and said the fact that the effort to push Fulani and her crowd out now - 20 years after the offending statements were made - ”appears to be more political than philosophical.”

Goodman refused to speculate on MacKay’s motives, but it has been widely reported that AG Eliot Spitzer and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, both sent strong messages that they wouldn’t accept the Indy line unless Fulani’s stature in the party was greatly diminished.

Spitzer, in particular, is key here. Without a big name to draw at least 50,000 voters to Row C this fall, the Independence Party would be in danger of losing both its line and party status - particularly since B. Thomas Golisano, who helped found the party and boosted its prospects by running multimillion-dollar campaigns for governor on its line in 1994, 1998 and 2002 - has declined to run a fourth time.

Posted here

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

53. Yes, The OP Is A Lie, And A Disgusting Distortion At That.

This thread should so be locked.

[karynnj]

65. The cocky one is you

She was kicked out of the leadership, not the party. She and her allies still control the Manhattan branch of the party.

[karynnj]

62. Not according to wikipedia - they wanted to kick her out

and they did get her out of the leadership - but they still control the NYC part of the party.


"Fulani and other Newman followers were ousted from the party's state executive committee in September 2005 as a result of media controversy over Fulani's refusal on cable news channel NY1 to disavow her now-infamous 1989 statement that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." Their opponents on the state executive committee received proxies from 75 percent of all state committee members for this move. But Fulani — whose comrades called the purge racist, sexist, McCarthyistic and even antisemitic — continues to be active in the party's Newman-controlled New York City machine, which is run on Newman's behalf by New York County chairperson Cathy Stewart and party strategist Jacqueline Salit. The New York City organization remains the most influential of the party's factions because of its small army of hard-working volunteers and the financial support it has received from prominent politicians and from Newman's own political and psychotherapy base.

On February 4 2006, the Executive Committee of the Independence Party of the State of New York dissolved the Interim County Organizations of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx which had been controlled by Newman and Fulani. It stated in its resolution that the action was a result of the antisemitism and racism espoused by Fulani and Newman, which are antithetical to the principals of the Independence Party.<2> One week later an attempt was made to suspend the chair of the Staten Island IP, a member of the Fulani group. The attempt was made at a meeting held during a blizzard, attended only by two IP members and a Young Republican. The resulting court action saw the Chair remaining in office, but giving the opposing faction the right to make party endorsements for several local offices in the 2006 election. Although the "Newmanites" still control the Manhattan county organization, the recent revolt has probably ended their ability to influence the selection of the party's nominees anywhere in New York State except the borough of Manhattan.

On June 4 2006, the State Chairman, Frank MacKay, started dis-enrollment hearings against Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, and almost 140 of their followers from the party, in order to seize control of the New York City county organizations. Three different judges, in three different counties, repudiated MacKay’s efforts to dis-enroll Fulani, Newman and the other 140 New York City leaders and activists.

In July 2006, more than 4,000 New York City Independence Party members created duly constituted County Committees in Staten Island, Brooklyn, Queens and Manhattan, so that the State Chair could not take away local control in New York City."

[papau]

13. but saying Hillary tells the truth and proving it is not allowed on DU

[ProSense]

15. It's a new party? They're no longer as bad a she claims? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

18. Correct

It was formed in '92.

Fulani was big in the party and it was her anti-semitic comments that Clinton wanted to separate herself from.

Fulani was kicked out in 2005.

[karynnj]

68. The 2006 article mentions that HRC and Spritzer

were assured her role was diminished - that means she is still there.

As to the importance of these 2 taking there line, it helped them meet the threshold to continue being a party with a line. They helped them achieve that.

[MonkeyFunk]

81. She was in the leadership of the party

she was kicked out of that position.

But it doesn't even matter, because the ONLY point to make here is that the OP was deliberateloy deceptive by posting 2006 information when Clinton was speaking of 2000.

[karynnj]

59. I take it as two seperate parts

The first shows that it was not as clear cut in 2000 as HRC seemed to say - it was not as though they were begging her to take the line. It also seems as though there was a political calculation. This was a small party. It's leader in 2000 was a rabid antisemite. How small a percent of the Jewish vote would it take to make this a bad bargain? It's clearly not the profile in courage moment HRC described - where she risked not getting as many votes because she had to stand on principle. (By the way, though the Jewish population is very Democratic, in 2000 HRC was not one of their favorites - partly due to unfair accounts of her hug of Mrs Arafat after she made anti- Jewish comments. She could not have afforded the bad publicity of getting this endorsement.)

It is important that she took their line in 2006. She didn't need it - this race was a shoo-in. It might be she wanted to do better than Schumer had, but though she had an unbelievable weak opponent she didn't. There was a change in leadership - but the antisemites seem to still have a stronghold in Manhattan.) Taking that line then does not mean she is antisemetic - it does mean that it took real chutzpah to use it.

[writes3000]

7. Did she actively and publicly reject this group

as she claimed she did? This article makes it seem like she danced with them for a good long while.

[Ravy]

14. I don't know, she said she did tonight.

It takes too much time debunking these types of threads for me to do that kind of research.

[goldcanyonaz]

77. Are you really surprised?

[writes3000]

5. Wow, is this true? The media will bust her if it is. Yikes. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

11. No it's not true

in 2000, she did not get their support.

In 2006, she did, AFTER Fulani was kicked out - the source of the anti-semitic comments she referred to.

Clinton was talking about 2000. The OP is using 2006 to dishonestly make a point.

[writes3000]

22. Did she ACTIVELY reject them or did she talk to them about gaining their support.

I understand that the PDF is incorrect but that doesn't answer my question.

This is about more than her just not getting their support. She claimed she did much more than "not get their support."

[MonkeyFunk]

25. Well they didnt' support her in 2000

so I guess she was successful.

[writes3000]

29. Sorry, not enough for me.

If she's calling out Obama for denouncing but not rejecting on national TV, I expect she AT LEAST made a public statement about her rejection of this group.

If she just "didn't get their support" then she deliberately exaggerated what she did tonight to try to skewer her opponent.

[MonkeyFunk]

31. LOL

I don't know what she said at the time - you go google it if you're so interested.

But the OP is a lie. A blatant lie. It's a cheap smear meant to show that Clinton is a liar, when all it does is show the OP is a liar.

She very clearly SAID it was about the year 2000. She did not receive their support that year.

Showing that she was endorsed by them in 2006 is just a smear. Fortunately, some of us questioned the OP and we showed it was a big fat lie.

[writes3000]

34. I agree that the OP made a mistake BUT...

The article the OP attached doesn't make it sound like Hillary soundly, proudly and publicly rejected them the way she said she did tonight.

Maybe she was telling the truth. Maybe she was exaggerating to make a point. I hope it was the former.

[MonkeyFunk]

9. You're mixing up two different elections

She talked about the 2000 election, you posted from the 2006 election, AFTER Fulani was kicked out.

[ProSense]

17. In six years, will it be okay to accept Farrakhan's support? n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

19. Don't be dense

you were deliberately dishonest.

Research the Independence party in NY and learn what changed between 2000 and 2006, and how it relates to Clinton's comment.

[sandnsea]

23. Who was involved in 2006

I think it's important to ask the question.

[MonkeyFunk]

27. What do you mean who was involved?

The elements that Clinton wanted to disassociate herself from in 2000 were out of the party by 2006.

[sandnsea]

32. In New York's Independence Party

Who was involved locally. How do we know ALL the objectionable people were out if nobody asks.

[MonkeyFunk]

38. I already said

It was Lenora Fulani and her supporters.

http://www.nytimes.com/2005/09/19/nyregion/metrocampaigns/19fulani.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

[ProSense]

44. September 2006:

Critics Fail to Stop City Panel From Voting to Aid Arts Group

By SEWELL CHAN
Published: September 13, 2006

Despite pleas by several elected officials to reject a $12.75 million bond-financing project for a nonprofit group founded by Lenora B. Fulani and Fred Newman, a New York City panel approved the deal yesterday in an unusually close vote.

Dr. Fulani and Dr. Newman, who as leading members of the Independence Party supported Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg's two successful campaigns for mayor, founded a nonprofit group, the All Stars Project, in 1981. Dr. Fulani has been criticized for making inflammatory comments about Jews in the late 1980's, while Dr. Newman advocates an unorthodox form of therapy that critics have likened to a cult.

On a 6-to-4 vote, the city's Industrial Development Agency approved tax-exempt bond financing that will allow the All Stars Project, which uses the performing arts to help low-income children, to make improvements on its Midtown headquarters and to refinance an earlier bond deal that the agency approved in 2002.

At a meeting in Lower Manhattan yesterday, the agency's chairman, Joshua J. Sirefman, who is also interim president of the city's Economic Development Corporation, told the board that he took the objections of other officials ''very seriously'' but that there was no sound basis to turn down the project.

''Based on our review of the All Stars Project, we have determined that the organization is in good standing, we found no evidence of misconduct of any kind by the organization, and we established that the project would benefit New York City,'' he said. ''We are aware that allegations of wrongdoing by individuals associated with the organization existed a number of years ago.''

Dr. Fulani, who trained as a psychologist, wrote in 1989 that Jews ''had to sell their souls to acquire Israel'' and, in the process, had to ''function as mass murderers of people of color.'' Dr. Newman, who has a doctorate in philosophy, last year acknowledged having intimate relationships with women who initially approached him for therapy.

On Monday, the state comptroller, Alan G. Hevesi, and three other officials urged Mr. Sirefman to reject the project. Mr. Bloomberg last year called Dr. Fulani's comments about Jews ''despicable,'' but he has donated money to both the Independence Party and the All Stars Project.

link

This all just pure hypocrisy!

[MonkeyFunk]

82. And you can't even read well enough

to parse that sentence. The article doesn't say Fulani was leading the party in 2006. It said she led the party when it endorsed Bloomberg in 2001 and 2005.

[karynnj]

71. No they weren't - they still controlled Manhattan

[karynnj]

70. The first articel is from 2000 - and it

does not describe the principled (I won't take this even if it hurts me not too) action she implied.

[sir_captain]

21. It was a bullshit argument anyway

considering that the best way to win an election in New York is to appeal to Jewish voters, duh (or so says this Jewish New Yorker)

Even on the state level, elections go as the City votes, and it would have been suicide for hillary to ally herself with perceived anti-semites.

It was really some pretty pathetic pandering.

[MonkeyFunk]

30. And 7 recs

from gullible people who believe any lie put forward, as long as it's against Clinton. Disgusting.

[ProSense]

33. Here is the story:

On May 28 2005, the Independence Party endorsed Michael Bloomberg for re-election. Bloomberg won by a wide margin. During the campaign a consulting outfit controlled by the Newman wing of the party received an additional $180,000 as a Bloomberg campaign subcontractor, according to the New York City Campaign Finance Board.

Fulani and other Newman followers were ousted from the party's state executive committee in September 2005 as a result of media controversy over Fulani's refusal on cable news channel NY1 to disavow her now-infamous 1989 statement that Jews are "mass murderers of people of color." Their opponents on the state executive committee received proxies from 75 percent of all state committee members for this move. But Fulani — whose comrades called the purge racist, sexist, McCarthyistic and even anti-Semitic — continues to be active in the party's Newman-controlled New York City machine, which is run on Newman's behalf by New York County chairperson Cathy Stewart and party strategist Jacqueline Salit. The New York City organization remains the most influential of the party's factions because of its small army of hard-working volunteers and the financial support it has received from prominent politicians and from Newman's own political and psychotherapy base.

On February 4 2006, the Executive Committee of the Independence Party of the State of New York dissolved the Interim County Organizations of Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx which had been controlled by Newman and Fulani. It stated in its resolution that the action was a result of the anti-Semitism and racism espoused by Fulani and Newman, which are antithetical to the principals of the Independence Party.<2> One week later an attempt was made to suspend the chair of the Staten Island IP, a member of the Fulani group. The attempt was made at a meeting held during a blizzard, attended only by two IP members and a Young Republican. The resulting court action saw the Chair remaining in office, but giving the opposing faction the right to make party endorsements for several local offices in the 2006 election. Although the "Newmanites" still control the Manhattan county organization, the recent revolt has probably ended their ability to influence the selection of the party's nominees anywhere in New York State except the borough of Manhattan.

On June 4 2006, the State Chairman, Frank MacKay, started dis-enrollment hearings against Fred Newman, Lenora Fulani, and almost 140 of their followers from the party, in order to seize control of the New York City county organizations. Three different judges, in three different counties, repudiated MacKay’s efforts to dis-enroll Fulani, Newman and the other 140 New York City leaders and activists.

link

[MonkeyFunk]

37. How does that mitigate the fact

that you dishonestly used 2006 information to disprove her claim about the 2000 election?

[ProSense]

40. What about your claim upthread that these people are longer with the party?

Fulani’s Victory
August 15, 2006 at 3:43 pm by Elizabeth Benjamin

The Daily News reported today that state Independence Party Chairman Frank MacKay’s efforts to get Lenora Fulani and her supporters excommunicated from the party - a move at least tacitly supported by a certain U.S. senator and a likely soon-to-be governor - aren’t going so well.

State Supreme Court justices in Brooklyn (last week) and Manhattan (yesterday) ruled MacKay and other party leaders can’t eject Fulani and her ally, Fred Newman, simply because of anti-Semitic statements they made two decades ago and have since refused to repudiate.

MacKay has vowed to appeal, according to his attorney, Jim Long.

Indy Party members are due in federal court tomorrow for a hearing on a February vote by MacKay and his allies to invalidate three county committees in Brooklyn, Queens and the Bronx that they allege Fulani controls.

The Manhattan decision, written by Justice Emily Jane Goodman, is a particularly interesting read.

She references the case of the Ancient Order of Hibernians, a strict Catholic group that got sued when it refused to allow gays and lesbians to march in the annual NYC St. Patrick’s Day parade.

In that case, Goodman said, where the Hibernians were determined to be allowed to exclude people who don’t share their clearly-stated values. But the Indepdendence Party has “no enunciated standards or requirements” for enrollment.

Also, Goodman noted that MacKay & Co. didn’t provide any evidence of ongoing racism of anti-Semitism, and said the fact that the effort to push Fulani and her crowd out now - 20 years after the offending statements were made - ”appears to be more political than philosophical.”

Goodman refused to speculate on MacKay’s motives, but it has been widely reported that AG Eliot Spitzer and U.S. Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, both sent strong messages that they wouldn’t accept the Indy line unless Fulani’s stature in the party was greatly diminished.

Spitzer, in particular, is key here. Without a big name to draw at least 50,000 voters to Row C this fall, the Independence Party would be in danger of losing both its line and party status - particularly since B. Thomas Golisano, who helped found the party and boosted its prospects by running multimillion-dollar campaigns for governor on its line in 1994, 1998 and 2002 - has declined to run a fourth time.

link

[MonkeyFunk]

42. Let's deal with one topic at a time

Why did you post 2006 information to prove she lied, when she clearly referenced 2000?

Why post such an obvious lie? Did you think nobody had rudimentary google skills to demonstrate your dishonesty?

[madrchsod]

45. denounce-reject

To condemn openly as being evil or reprehensible----denounce
To refuse to consider or grant; deny.--reject

just what is the difference?
.

[ProSense]

47. Politics! n/t

[dsc]

51. can you please specify where your sources come from when you link them?

I am at work and can't just click a random link. Thanks.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

52. What A Bunch Of Disgracefully Deceitful Bullshit. Way To Go Trying To Twist Reality Like That.

What disgusting behavior. Seriously.

[ProSense]

54. Here, this is for you:

A promise no Jewish liberal can ignore

After watching the debate this evening, I added some new remarks about it with parts of the feature I wrote Tuesday for the print edition.

<...>

I keep reminding myself of these numbers as I think about the constant noise made by people who are now trying to portray Senator Barak Obama as a Muslim. One has to conclude: If religious fluidity is such an American routine - then Obama's personal biography is even more representative of the American experience than anyone could have imagined.

<...>

Tim Russert started the debate by pressing Obama on the endorsement he got from the anti-Semitic African-American leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama said: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I did not solicit this support."

Enter Hillary Clinton.

If anyone had any doubt that Hillary's campaign is trying to score points against Obama in the Jewish community - today she gave us the proof, publicly. "You asked specifically if he (Obama) would reject it (the endorsement) and there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting", she argued. Meaning - Obama is merely denouncing Farrakhan instead of rejecting the endorsement.

What was she trying to say - that Obama is somewhat anti-Semitic? Let's assume she was just thinking that Obama was playing politics and is trying not to offend Farrakhan's supporters while he denounces his views.

In any case, in this exchange Obama got the upper hand: "If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce', then I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce (Farrakhan)" he said.

Obama spoke about this same issue a few days ago as he was meeting a group of Jewish activists in Cleveland. Some who attended the event and do not belong to his camp said he was very convincing. "At his best," one of them said. But in the debate he was even better and was able to score again on the same topic, elaborating on something of great importance to Jewish liberals.

Just recently we were all watching The Jewish Americans series on PBS, in which the story of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement was front and center - and the part describing how the bond between black Americans and Jewish Americans was breaking was almost puzzling.

Obama, talking about Farrakhan - and about anti-Semitism among African-Americans, which he also denounced in his speech on Martin Luther King Day - touched a sensitive nerve when he was talking about one possibility that's inherent to his candidacy: he has the chance to restore the alliance between blacks and Jews.

This will not necessarily get Obama the votes of every Jewish liberal in this country. But it is also one promise that no American liberal Jew can simply ignore.

link

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

55. What In The World Does That Have To Do With The Disgraceful An Intentionally Deceitful OP?

For you to intentionally set out to deceive people in such a way by blatantly being dishonest and distorting facts to make a story where one doesn't exist, makes you someone who has no respect for this board in my opinion. When you condemn your own OP, maybe then I'll consider you someone who cares about this community.

[ProSense]

56. Screaming doesn't change the facts. Hillary used a political play in 2000 to try to score political

points in 2008.

It didn't work!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

57. You're Right. Screaming Doesn't. Disgustingly Shameful Posters Who Intend To Deceive, Do.

[ProSense]

58. There Will Come A Time When You Will Have To Face Reality! n/t

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

60. I Face Reality With Every Breath I Take. And Again, That's Irrelevant As It Relates To

this intentionally deceitful OP. It is just quite simply shameful behavior to post such a thing intentionally. Nothing you can do or say can change that quite simple fact. You enjoy reality? There's your reality.

[ProSense]

61. Hillary's tactic was desperate: she tried to stake claim to being principled, but her motive

then and now, was political.

That's reality, face it!

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

64. Again, Irrelevant As It Relates To Your Intentionally Deceiving OP.

That's not what the context of your OP is. Instead, your OP is an intentional twisting of facts in such a way to be utterly deceitful and misrepresented, which is a completely disgusting and disgraceful approach to take.

That's what stands as reality in this thread, and that is the ONLY thing that stands as reality in context to this thread.

You're done. Your OP was exposed. Your tactics were something that should be shunned by our entire community. Buh bye now.

[ProSense]

67. Keep telling yourself that,

while Hillary's support erodes because people see through her blatantly political attempts.

"You're done. Your OP was exposed. Your tactics were something that should be shunned by our entire community. Buh bye now."

Is this your "Shame on you" moment?

It didn't work for Hillary, and it's not going to work for you.

[OPERATIONMINDCRIME]

73. Here's One Last Smack Of Reality For Ya Before I Go:

When an anti-Hillary OP can only garner 11 recommends, that's all the evidence you will ever need that the OP was in fact something shunned by our community, since if it contained anything of value whatsoever, its anti-Hillary basis in itself would've garnered you a good 30. But it didn't. It didn't because Obama supporters for the most part still have integrity, and the majority of them, along with the rest of us, know this OP is not using tactics that should be supported.

Nothing else you say can overcome that. You have a blatant anti-Hillary OP in a forum dominated by Obama supporters/anti-Hillary people. You only earned 11 recs. That speaks VOLUMES as to this communities level of respect towards your OP.

Feat on that reality for a while. Officially this time, see ya! :hi:

[ProSense]

75. "You have a blatant anti-Hillary OP in a forum dominated by Obama supporters/anti-Hillary people."

Damn, what a silly whine!

[Ravy]

69. Your tactic was desperate. And speak of political motives.... nt

[ProSense]

72. You can say whatever you want to. The thread is littered with facts about the party and Hillary's

tactics, for which the only rebuttal offered is "shame on you."

[rodeodance]

79. your OP is thrashy and shows diception.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

74. I'm confused...

Did Hillary Clinton fail to reject support recieved from anti-semites at any point in time?

[ProSense]

76. I'm not confused by Hillary's hypocrisy

She was grandstanding on a two-decade old quote in 2000 and tried to use it for political gain in 2008, implying that Obama's denouncement of Farrakhan wasn't enough.

It's a cheap tactic:

More specifically (to take a not-so-random example), Billy Graham, who made some unambiguously anti-Semitic remarks to Richard Nixon which ended up on tape, appears to have been a major figure in Hillary Clinton’s spiritual life (see also this speech made by Bill Clinton at the inauguration of Graham’s library last year). While nowhere close to Farrakhan’s league (he appears to have been a repentant and occasional anti-Semite rather than an unrepentant and consistent one), he was a direct influence on the Clintons rather than an influence-on-an-influence. I don’t recall Richard Cohen, or anyone else, muttering that there was no evidence that Hillary and Bill Clinton were anti-Semites, but that they needed to voice their outrage or else. And for good reason; any suggestion along these lines would have been treated as crazy. Knowing that Billy Graham was occasionally anti-Semitic doesn’t tell you anything about what Bill and Hillary Clinton believe.

link

The hypocrisy in all of this knows no bounds.

A promise no Jewish liberal can ignore

After watching the debate this evening, I added some new remarks about it with parts of the feature I wrote Tuesday for the print edition.

<...>

I keep reminding myself of these numbers as I think about the constant noise made by people who are now trying to portray Senator Barak Obama as a Muslim. One has to conclude: If religious fluidity is such an American routine - then Obama's personal biography is even more representative of the American experience than anyone could have imagined.

<...>

Tim Russert started the debate by pressing Obama on the endorsement he got from the anti-Semitic African-American leader Louis Farrakhan. Obama said: "I have been very clear in my denunciations of Minister Farrakhan's anti-Semitic comments. I did not solicit this support."

Enter Hillary Clinton.

If anyone had any doubt that Hillary's campaign is trying to score points against Obama in the Jewish community - today she gave us the proof, publicly. "You asked specifically if he (Obama) would reject it (the endorsement) and there's a difference between denouncing and rejecting", she argued. Meaning - Obama is merely denouncing Farrakhan instead of rejecting the endorsement.

What was she trying to say - that Obama is somewhat anti-Semitic? Let's assume she was just thinking that Obama was playing politics and is trying not to offend Farrakhan's supporters while he denounces his views.

In any case, in this exchange Obama got the upper hand: "If the word 'reject' Senator Clinton feels is stronger than the word 'denounce', then I'm happy to concede the point and I would reject and denounce (Farrakhan)" he said.

Obama spoke about this same issue a few days ago as he was meeting a group of Jewish activists in Cleveland. Some who attended the event and do not belong to his camp said he was very convincing. "At his best," one of them said. But in the debate he was even better and was able to score again on the same topic, elaborating on something of great importance to Jewish liberals.

Just recently we were all watching The Jewish Americans series on PBS, in which the story of Jewish involvement in the civil rights movement was front and center - and the part describing how the bond between black Americans and Jewish Americans was breaking was almost puzzling.

Obama, talking about Farrakhan - and about anti-Semitism among African-Americans, which he also denounced in his speech on Martin Luther King Day - touched a sensitive nerve when he was talking about one possibility that's inherent to his candidacy: he has the chance to restore the alliance between blacks and Jews.

This will not necessarily get Obama the votes of every Jewish liberal in this country. But it is also one promise that no American liberal Jew can simply ignore.

link

[Scurrilous]

78. K & R

:thumbsup: