Hillary should stick to Lesbian Awards shows

greenspun.com : LUSENET : Unk's Wild Wild West : One Thread

PUBLIC RELATIONS DEBACLE AFTER SEN. HILLARY JEERED AND BOOED BY HEROES

Senator Hillary Clinton's inner circle is furious at MIRAMAX king Harvey Weinstein after the former first lady suffered through a public relations nightmare during Saturday's AMERICA: A TRIBUTE TO HEROES concert in New York City.

Hillary Clinton was jeered and booed by thousands gathered at Madison Square Garden as she took to the stage -- unannounced -- to introduce a movie clip.

VH1 cameras captured firemen and police heroes wildly booing Clinton, who attempted to raise her voice above the shouting crowd.

"Get off the stage! We don't want you here!" yelled one New York City police officer just feet from the senator.

Anti-Clinton slurs spread and intensified throughout the Garden, with many standing near the stage lobbing profanities.

Event-planner and close Clinton friend Harvey Weinstein was visibly shaken as he heard the crowd erupt with boos and jeers, according to an eyewitness.

The junior senator from New York ending up giving the shortest presentation of the evening, clocking in at under 20 seconds.

"How could we not know this would be the wrong forum for Hillary?!" shouted one confidante. "These are cops and firemen who listen to right-wing talkradio. They still think she killed Vince Foster, for Christ sake!"

Other New York politicians received warmer welcomes during the 5-hour concert which featured Paul McCartney, Mick Jagger, Elton John and others.

Former President Bill Clinton, who took the stage minutes after his wife, worked over scattered boos with talk of the rescuers' heroism.

Following the Clintons, James Taylor soothed the heroes with an acoustic FIRE AND RAIN.

The concert raised millions of dollars for September 11 relief efforts.

Fair use, for educational purposes.

Last edited by Deb Mc on 10-22-2001 at 12:31 AM

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 22, 2001

Answers

"These are cops and firemen who listen to right-wing talkradio." Actually they don't. NY, NJ and PA are all so very very liberal. This 'confidante' didn't know. This 'confidante' was as surprised as I was over the reaction from the group. But what it does say is that people, liberal and conservative, have come together on this issue.

Did you see Richard Gere getted booed as well? I almost expected rotten tomatoes to get thrown on stage.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 22, 2001.


hmmm 'getted'? Magic fingers!

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 22, 2001.

You know it is this kind of blind hatred, fed by mass media and rightwing propaganda for a decade that the CIA taught Bin Ladin and other terrorists to use. Seems the conservatives in this country used the same instruction book in their effort to advance their agenda.

What happened to all of the "coming together" of all Americans? Where does the song say "God bless America" as long as you are not a liberal? This makes me sick. All of the false accuasations spouted by the right wing were proven to be false, yet the masses sat on the edge of their seats to watch the next installment of Clinton's cock while he was trying to fight Bin Laden, the Taliban and terrorism, with virtually no backing by the "proud American's" who were screaming "wag the dog" in their ignorant ranting which parroted like good little sheep the words of right wing extremists. It was this kind of blind attacks on Clinton's efforts to take out Bin Ladin and the Taliban that forced him to back down because he had absolutly no support from the Congress or American media and American PEOPLE in this country. Had any of these bothered to inform themselves instead of spouting blind hatred, Bill Clinton might just have been able to do HIS JOB and in the long run, prevented what happened on September 11.

If the conservatives who have influence in Saudia Arabia bothered to BACK THEIR PRESIDENT and used their influence to pressure the Saudi's into taking Bin Ladin when he was being offered to them.

Is all this terrorist like propaganda and hatrid that feeds upon itself going to continue to blind the masses in this country to other threats?

Look at the propaganda, look at your words and actions against an American president and his wife and anyone who doesn't agree with your way of thinking. It sounds just like the crap Bin Ladin spouts. The actions are the same, and unfortunatly the goals are the same, destroying anyone who thinks differently than they do. Shouting down ideas that are different than theirs. Attempts to deny others the right to do and say what they choose. Attempts to force others into a narrow view of the world.

People scream it is anti american to say anything negitive against President Bush, especially at this time of war against a threat to our country and way of life. Well HELL!

Bill Clinton declaired war on terrorism, Bin Ladin and the Taliban early in the 1990's and that didn't stop the agenda of extremist right wing terrorists like Rush Limbough and just about every republican and conservative in the country. When will American's put a stop to the terrorism that has been attacking our country for the past 10 years. No wonder the Bin Ladin felt he could wage a terrorist war against us, we allowed it to happen openly, blatently and without a fight against our own fairly elected President. Listen to yourselves...... don't you even realise how you have been manipulated into believing what someone wants you to belive, without question? Just what in the Hell did Hillory Clinton do to deserve the treatment she was given? Exist? Don't you think that in the middle of this horror some media had to reach to clock how long she clapped her hands? That her facial expression wasn't exactly how someone decided it should be? That Rush screams this crap and you lap it up and regurgitate it on command?

If you want to talk sedation, look at that man, what he has done and gets paid for is so unamerican that in another time in this country he would have been shot in public in the midst of cheers. What kind of patriate condems their own president on the rumors and gossip of people who are publicly announce their intention to ruin him in any manner they can?

Except for him saying he didn't have sex with Monica, what did Clinton do wrong to earn such blatent hatrid? Some one said he emasculated the CIA, But it is the FBI that is charged with gathering intellegence about threats to the country and he doubled their budget and gave them extroidenary powers in the effort to bring Bin Laden and the Taliban down. Every time some right wing screamer vomits a lie about Clinton, all of you sheep rush to parrot it in screams as if it were a matter of life and death without even bothering to find out if it is based in fact or an out and out lie. Clinton impliminted mass efforts in his war on terrorism and brought incredable programs to prepare the country in the case of bioterrorism or other acts of mass distruction. What did your conservative buddies have to say about these programs? Oh there Clinton goes, spending more of citizens hard earned tax dollars on MORE government programs. They faught him tooth and nail every inch of the way. But even with all the crap he was getting from every corner of this country, he managed to get these programs set in place to help save the asses of those people who were ripping him apart. Amazing how many people have blinded themselves to the things Clinton did for this country while the very people he was doing it for did nothing but tear him down. If Bush is "doing a good job" with these threats of terrorism, it is because of the work Clinton did to prepare us for the possibilities. I haven't heard of one thing Bush has come up with to do anything. All we get from him ae vague retoric, rallying cries of uniting the nation (huh-still ok to bash the Clinton's though) and other people making the decisions as well as dictating the words that come out of his mouth. Hell the republican heavy House followed Bush's leadership example and headed for the hills the moment their own asses were in danger of harm. They spout all this crap about go spend money, fly, get back to normal but the administration demands they get extra special treatment of having armed guards on their flights and run like scared rabbits instead of going about their jobs.

The media and more and more people every day are opening their eyes and beginning to ask questions about why so much effort was spent going after Clinton instead of taking care of the people (as opposed to the corperate interests) in this country. Yeppers, it's not such a criminal act for government to have programs in place and spend money for our safety and security.

-- Cherri (jessam6@home.com), October 22, 2001.


I don't think this was any blind hatred of the Clintons. Many people are just sick of having them show up at every public event related to 9-11. Why is Bill Clinton even there?

As for the rest of Cherri's rant, well, more power to ya Cherri, but I think you are overreacting.

-- Buddy (buddydc@go.com), October 22, 2001.


Huh?

Cherri, your undying love for all that's Bill has got you into a real lather. If you'll notice, the article was about Hillary.

Personally, I see nothing wrong with attacking Bush even now. But socialists like yourself would have us ignore what happened to over 5,000 people instead of fighting back simply because you dislike Bush so much [what makes you any different than all the Clinton-bashers?? - absolutely nothing].

-- libs are idiots (moreinterpretation@ugly.com), October 22, 2001.



I would rank ‘blind ignorance’ above ‘blind hatred’ Cherri and you are suffering from both. Your blind hatred of President Bush drives your blind ignorance in your continual excuse making for the Clinton’s, most specifically Hillary in this case. She is without a doubt one of the most despicable human beings to ever emerge on the national political scene. Her reception at this benefit concert was just a conformation of how low her public acceptance has fallen and it will get worse for her and her trailer trash husband. But then, you have proven yourself to be a common liar and hopeless public assistance poster child. Supporting these scum would come naturally to you.

-- Head (for@the.hills), October 22, 2001.

Two comments Cherri:

"It was this kind of blind attacks on Clinton's efforts to take out Bin Ladin and the Taliban that forced him to back down because he had absolutly no support from the Congress or American media and American PEOPLE in this country." First, Clinton had no clue what to do. If he needed to 'take out Bin Ladin' why did he cut the military? He would have had congressional support to up military spending with only a hint of a war against terrorism. Truth is, he had no clue what to do. He used the military as a police force, constantly sending them on 'humanitarian' missions. If he had set out any kind of military mission, I would have given him my full support. He had no clue.

"we allowed it to happen openly, blatently and without a fight against our own fairly elected President" Well of course, that's the meaning of democracy. The people are allowed to openly speak out. Remember 60% of the people voted against Bill.

The other thing to note is that the audience here voted for Hillary. And besides, the concert was to honor those who lost 400 of their friends and co-workers trying to save others. It wasn't about the Clintons and who gives a hoot about them at this time of mourning.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 22, 2001.


Hillary is a smart and confidant woman and that frightens all you hate-filled right-wing troglodytes. She is our hero, she is the wind beneath our wings. We love Janet Reno and Donna Shalala too.

-- (Rosie and Ellen @ lesby.friends), October 22, 2001.

Maria,

You keep harping that Clinton cut the military budget and therefore destroyed it and its capabilities. If this was such a terrible thing to do then why did Congress (they actually approve the federal budget you know) go along with this? Are you equally critical of those traitors? How did one man (who doesn't even vote on budget appropriations) accomplish this? Where do the other 538 elected federal officials figure into this?

BTW, CLinton WON the popular vote in the 1996 election so your statement about 60% of the population voting against him is a little bit misleading. By your standards should we be villifying George Bush the Second because 52% of the people voted against him? Clinton garnered 50.1% of the popular vote so that makes him more "legitimate" right?

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 22, 2001.


Oh come on JBT,

"who doesn't even vote on budget appropriations" I know you know better than this. (well, maybe not). The president has the almighty pen, a pen that can say yes or no. How many times does the repub congress put a bill before him that they know he will veto? Yet if there ever were the slightest hint that Clinton wanted more military spending to support going after Osama (as Cherri suggests), the repub would have been 'johnny on the spot' with the right bill.

Also you need to get your numbers straight. In the last election approximately 100M voted and only 500K (about 1/2%) more voted for Gore than Bush, not quite 52%. During the previous two elections, it was approximately 41-39-20 for Clinton-Bush/Dole-Ross 'would you let me finish, can I finish' Perot. Where did you come up with 'Clinton garnered 50.1'?

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 22, 2001.



Maria,

I take it you are implying that Clinton would veto anything that he didn't like. That may have been true but if enough of the elected representatives felt that the military appropriations were that critical they could override his veto. My point here is that it is not just one man. That is not how our government is set up, it takes more than ONE to achieve or block anything in our federal government. You may very well be right as far as Clinton's political priorities go however HE alone did not achieve what you blame him for. Where is the outrage at the others who assisted in this process?

I alsao disagree with your assertion thaty the Repub congress would have been Johnny on the spot with funding for any propopsal that Clinton might have put forth. Number one, none of can say how such a "what if" proposal would have developed. My own personal opinion is that Clinton was subject to immense political posturing by the Republicans so I am not as optimistic as you are that funding would have been provided for any such initiative by Clinton.

Consistency in political ideology was not something that bothered the Repubs in their all consuming quest to "get" Clinton, as evidenced by the moral outrage over Clinton's private "affairs" which was followed by the revealation of questionable moral actions by some of those expressing the most outrage. A clear case of what I do in private is okay but what you do in private will lead to the end of civilization as we know it.

As far as the election numbers go, I believe that I do have my numbers straight. In the 2000 election you are forgetting about our old friend Ralph Nader. The 2000 election vote was as follows: (If you believe any numbers that is)

Total votes cast - 104,147,981

Bush - 50,456,169 (48.4%)

Gore - 50,996,116 (49.0%)

Nader - 2,695,696 (2.6%)

For the 1996 election we have the following totals:

Total vote cast - 94,683,948

Clinton - 47,401,185 (50.1%)

Dole - 39,197,469 (41.4%)

Perot - 8,085,294 (8.5%)

These figures came from this site:

http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/results/restable.html

This was the first listing in a search I did on Yahoo for presidential election results. Two things are interesting about the 1996 results. The first being that Clinton did win the porpular vote, a fact that I was pretty sure I remebered but seems to be convveniently forgotten by Clinton critics. The second is that Dole's vote total was virtually the same as Bush Sr.'s in 1992 while Clinton gained 2.5 million votes over that time period. This would not indicate top me that Clinton was as unpopular as you might like to think.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 22, 2001.


Even with Perot's votes, Daddy Bush couldn't have beaten President Clinton. Amazing.

-- (wow@wow.wow), October 22, 2001.

First, Clinton had no clue what to do. If he needed to 'take out Bin Laden' why did he cut the military? He would have had congressional support to up military spending with only a hint of a war against terrorism. Truth is, he had no clue what to do. He used the military as a police force, constantly sending them on 'humanitarian' missions. If he had set out any kind of military mission, I would have given him my full support. He had no clue. ***snip*** Yet if there ever were the slightest hint that Clinton wanted more military spending to support going after Osama (as Cherri suggests), the repub would have been 'johnny on the spot' with the right bill.

Maria, I would appreciate it if you would be honest with me about this. Are you actually willing to read what I want to show you that proves, absolutely PROVES beyond any possibility of a doubt, with documentation you (and anyone else) would believe, that proves over and over again the extraordinary efforts Bill Clinton took while in office to protect us against terrorism and track it down and eliminate to the best of our ability.

Are you willing to read a few things I will post, even if they show that you are mistaken in your beliefs about Bill Clinton and his administrations actions?

Will you give me the opportunity to post without assuming the information comes from a biased, liberal source?

Thanks... I am willing to put differences aside and have a calm, rational debate without personal insults and attacks, if you are.

-- Cherri (Jessam6@home.com), October 22, 2001.


Please. Do any of you really believe this tripe? Weren't any of you watching the show? Didn't you see the footage this morning on the news?

There was a hell of a lot of cheering for Hillary. Hell, she won New York by a huge margin, and NYC by an even larger margin. The vast majority of these people love Senator Clinton.

-- (you@wish.com), October 22, 2001.


Just a bump for Maria. Just in case you didn't see my response on the election numbers for 1996.

-- Jack Booted Thug (governmentconspiracy@NWO.com), October 23, 2001.


JBT, I was mistaken on 1996 elections.

Cherri, sure let's have a serious discussion.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 23, 2001.


Wow you need to read.

-- Maria (anon@ymous.com), October 23, 2001.

Ok, I'll start a new thread with your claims about Clinton to start.

-- (Jessam6@home.com), October 23, 2001.

Moderation questions? read the FAQ