Recent Trackback: Right Truth

You Decide: Who won the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas?

November 16th, 2007 Urban Conservative

So, who really won the Democratic Debates in Vegas? HmmmI will probably get a lot of heat for this, but if I had to choose a democrat to vote for, I would hands down vote for Biden. He is the most intelligent of them all; even though he is a complete idiot!

Technorati: joe biden, hillary clinton, bill richardson, democratic debates, barack obama, chris dodd

Posted in Debates, Politics, Polls

12 Responses to You Decide: Who won the Democratic Debate in Las Vegas?

  1. I voted........and will put it out on bulletin.

    November 16th, 2007 9:13 am GOP Latina
  2. haha yeah good post

    i like Biden too -- he's got experience and says sensible stuff unlike Kookinich.

    Obama could have done better but i like where he stands on certain issues better than the rest of them. If I HAD to vote for a Dem it would be one of those too. But then again, I'm conservative....and I live in Canada LOL

    November 16th, 2007 12:43 pm Shey
  3. eeek...a conservative in Canada? Never knew such thing existed. jk.

    November 16th, 2007 12:50 pm Urban Conservative
  4. Very nice site! Anyone is better than Hillary.


    November 16th, 2007 3:23 pm Ryan
  5. Democratic Debate in Las Vegas-Obama's Turn

    What is it about the issue of driver's licenses for illegal aliens that gives Democrats so much pause? To me, it is a no-brainer-a lousy idea. To them, it's all so complex and confusing. For the last two weeks, Barack Obama has torn into Hillary Clinton for her inability to give a straight answer to that question in the Philadelphia debate. Then, he turns around and outdoes her.

    After Hillary's debacle in Philadelphia, she spent the next two weeks changing her position on the issue, digging herself deeper in the process. First, she supported Governor Spitzer. Next, she said it should be left to the states. Finally, as Spitzer announced this week that he was dropping the plan, she has now come out against drivers licenses for illegal aliens. (You don't think she and her campaign put any pressure on Spitzer to drop the plan do you?)

    So after going to school on Hillary's gaffe for two weeks, Obama comes out and outdoes her on the very same issue. First, he opened up with an attack on Clinton that went like this:

    "What the American people are looking for right now is straight answers to tough questions, and that is not what we have seen from Senator Clinton on a host of issues."

    But when Wolf Blitzer directed the same question to Obama, he proceeded to twist himself into knots, stating that when he was in Illinois, he supported training for illegal aliens, licenses,...., public safety issue, etc...., and Bush has failed to......., and this and that and the other thing. If you think Clinton did badly in Philly two weeks ago, that was nothing compared to Obama. Finally, Blitzer pointed out that it was a yes or no question- Did he support it or not, to which Obama finally answered, "Yes." Handed the same question, Clinton said, "No". Of course, Blitzer passed on a great chance for a follow up question to Hillary on her evolving positions.

    Hillary also was prepared with a few pre-packaged one-liners that fell in with the anticipated topics. She said that she was not being attacked because she was a woman, but because she was ahead. Or how about this one; "I'm not playing the gender card here in Las Vegas. I'm trying to play the winning card." Cute. Then there was this hardball from a female member of the audience:

    "Which do you prefer, diamonds or pearls?".

    Hillary, of course, knocked it out of the park- stating that since so many people were claiming she had problems making choices, that she would take them both. (Was anyone seen handing the young lady a slip of paper before she rose to ask her question?)

    From that point, the debate quickly calmed down to a drone. Another difficult question for the candidates was whether Human Rights or National Security was the higher priority. Bill Richardson chose human rights. Obama stated that the two concepts "were not contradictory". Meanwhile most of the other candidates stood around patiently waiting to be asked a question so they could answer said question by talking about how Bush had messed up on the particular issue.

    Predictably, after the debate, the CNN talking heads were beside themselves talkng about Hillary's great performance ("Hillary's back!!!") Great performance? Because Obama screwed up? Because she gave a new answer on the drivers license issue that was completely different from what she said in Philadelphia? True, she didn't step in it this time, but that doesn't mean it was a great performance.

    As for Obama, the consensus was that Obama is not good in debates, but does much better in his own speaking appearances, blah, blah, blah. Nonsense. Obama is an empty suit who has no qualifications for being president, just like Clinton, just like Edwards (who flew to LA after the debate so he could march on the TV writers' picket lines today. Maybe Edwards never thought about other lowly workers in the TV industry whose own work is being lost due to this strike-the "Other America" if you will).

    To this obviously biased observer, there was nothing surprising in this debate. Maybe next time, someone will ask Dennis Kucinich about his views on drivers licenses for illegal aliens. The guy may be a far-left kook, but at least he is honest about what he is and straightforward on his views. If asked that question, he might just pledge that if nominated, he would have an illegal alien for his running mate.

    gary fouse

    November 16th, 2007 4:37 pm fouse, gary c
  6. Personally, I don't like any...I mean, do I REALLY have to CHOOSE?! Gosh! ;-)

    November 16th, 2007 5:39 pm eliathanrobe
  7. yeah, they all suck and why couldn't they answer the simple question of ....

    Would you appoint a Supreme Court Justice that was against abortion?

    The answer: well, I support the right to privacy.

    They stand for nothing!!!

    November 16th, 2007 6:22 pm Urban Conservative
  8. The Clinton Library- Built on Bribes?

    I recall a time either in the last days of the Clinton Administration or shortly afterward when Bill Clinton was being interviewed. (I don't remember who the interviewer was.) Mr Clinton was asked how he envisioned the Clinton Library (not yet built). His answer was (I am paraphrasing) that he envisioned the library as a "beacon of hope" for the poor and dispossessed of the world. My immediate, sarcastic reaction was to imagine a poor homeless beggar on the streets of Calcutta looking into the sky, seeing the shining beacon of the Clinton Library and thinking that a better day was coming. Yeah, right. Now that the (165 million dollar) library has been built, and certain information has leaked out, the question begs to be asked: How was this library built and on whose money? Consider the following.

    The Marc Rich Pardon

    In the last days of the Clinton presidency, one of the beneficiaries of a Clinton pardon was the fugitive finncier, Marc Rich, subject of an international arrest warrant, but living in Switzerland. The pardon was arranged by Rich's ex-wife, Denise Rich, a comely lady who dropped some $450,000 dollars for the Clinton Library into Bill's lap (and who knows what else).

    The pardon was especially controversial since the Justice Department (which was actively trying to capture Rich) had not signed on to the pardon, as is normal procedure. In fact, the pardon caught them completely by surprise. According to an article by the BBC dated 2-10-01, Mrs Rich made 3 donations from July 1998 to May 2000. Mr Rich was pardoned on Clinton's last day in office. Mrs Rich subsequently took the 5th Amendment before Congress. Also taking the 5th was the finance chair of the Democratic Party, Beth Dozoretz, who was involved in brokering the pardon.

    Pardon of Rick Hendrick

    An article in the Charlotte Observer dated 2-27-2001 by Peter Wallsten reported on Rick Hendrick, a Charlotte car dealer, who had pleaded guilty in a bribery case and was later pardoned by Clinton and the possible connection to a donation made to the Clinton Library by Hendrick. In his pardon application, Hendrick reportedly included a reference from his longtime friend and Bank of America CEO, Hugh McCall Jr., also a political ally of Clinton. Hendrick's pardon was issued on December 22, less than 3 weeks after the Bank of America Foundation made a $500,000 donation to the Clinton Library. According to the story, Hendrick's lawyer denied any connection between the donation and the pardon.

    Global Crossing

    This venture group was founded by Gary Winnick and three other associates in 1997. In spite of its rapid rise worldwide, the company filed for Chapter 11 bankrupcy in January, 2002, one of the biggest bankruptcies in American history (see Wikipedia). In the aftermath, Winnick's profligate spending habits came under scrutiny. It has been reported that Winnick was instrumental in helping former DNC chairman and Clinton crony, Terry McAuliffe of turning a $100,000 investment into a $18,000,000 profit. McAuliffe sold his shares of Globing Crossing shortly before the company went bankrupt. Along the way, Winnick reportedly contributed $1,000,000 to the Clinton Library.

    Bill Lerach

    Lerach was involved with an unscrupulous securities firm called Milberg Weiss, which has been indicted as a "racketeering enterprise", and which engaged in perjury, bribery, fraud and obstruction of justice while representing phony clients who claimed to have been cheated as investors (see syndicated column by George Will dated 11-19 07). Lerach has recently pleaded guilty and is facing jail time, according to Will's column. (He was, until his plea, a fundraiser for John Edwards.) More importantly to this article, Lerach was another one of those famous Lincoln Bedroom guests during the Clinton Administration and contributed $100,000 to the Clinton Library fund. According to Will's article, shortly after Lerach's visit to a White House dinner, Clinton vetoed a bill that would have restricted class action lawsuits.

    In spite of all the questions (or perhaps because of the questions), the Clinton Library has, to this point, not opened its records as to the contributors who helped build the library. (Presidential libraries are built by private donations, not public funds, and there is no legal requirement to identify donors.) According to the above-mentioned BBC article, Congress, in its investigation of the pardons, wanted to obtain a donor list for the library, which Clinton attorney lawyer, David Kendall resisted. A compromise was eventually reached, by which a partial donor list was provided.

    In an article in the Chicago Tribune by Mike Dorning dated 11-12-07, almost 3 years after its opening, only a few records have been opened for the public's inspection at the Clinton Library. This, of course, also includes any records pertaining to Mrs Clinton's involvement in the Administration that she continually quotes as qualifying experience in her quest for the presidency. According to the article, only 23 requests filed under the Freedom of Information Act have been granted (out of a total of 397 requests). These requests would also help clear up questions of monies paid to Hillary's brothers, Hugh and Tony Rodham by recipients of Clinton pardons.

    To be perfectly honest, I don't much care for the idea of presidential libraries to begin with. The idea is good, to be a source of valuable historical research, but it seems that many of these places exist for the primary reason of immortalizing and glorifying the particular president in question. That they would also be a method of accepting money for political favors and pardons is really troubling. I don't doubt that many of the contributions came from people of good intentions. The Clinton Library, however, reminds me of so many of those luxury hotels built in Mexico on drug money.

    gary fouse

    November 20th, 2007 3:40 pm fouse, gary c
  9. We NEED Obama!

    November 24th, 2007 5:42 pm Obama2008
  10. Gary, why don't you run for president?(such high qualifications)

    November 24th, 2007 6:33 pm gary fouse's daughter
  11. Yes, we need Obama to beat Hillary in the primaries!!!

    November 25th, 2007 10:57 am Urban Conservative
  12. Reply to Gary Fouse's daughter,

    You don't want me to be your president.


    Be home by midnight.

    February 7th, 2008 8:08 pm fouse, gary c

Leave a Reply

Built By Blog Design Conservative Blog: Urban Conservative 2.0 2008
E-mail It