Jay Tea is marginally better at debating, but not by enough to actually win an argument.

Guys, you hate Hillary. Fine. Now, get a life.

Why not mention anyone by name?

“One of her most important fundraisers”
“One of her biggest foreign policy advisors”

It’s criticisms that lack detail always come off as suspect to me. Of the “She once had a third cousin who’s high school roommate moved to New York to become (gasp!) a thespian!” vague accusation type of attack.

If you can point to a particular person then why not do so? Why not provide the substance instead of the vagueness?

Valid?

3) She has never accomplished a single thing in her life that can not be attributed to her husband’s accomplishments.

Already discussed this one. In short: She is an accomplished woman. (First student to speak at commencement exercises for Wellesley College, law degree from Yale, Congressional legal counsel, first female partner at her firm, listed as one of the most influential lawyers in America in 1988 and 1991, etc …) And yet you consider saying she hasn’t accompished “a single thing in her life” on her own to be a “valid” criticism.

4) Her “Health Care Task Force” was stopped before she could nationalize a full one-seventh of the nation’s economy.

It was a complex plan which is impossible to summarize in a few words, let alone one. Yet you consider dismissing it as a plan to “nationalize” to be a “valid” criticism. Was there nothing in the 1,000+ pages of the plan worth considering?

“Misplaced” her billing records from the Rose Law Firm when they were subpoenaed, only to “find ” them in her White House residence a couple of years later.

Do you have some proof that this was an intentional hiding of records? Or are you suggesting that unproven accusations are a sufficient basis for a “valid” criticism?

More to the point, the records were found so what did they show? Did they reveal some inpropriety in her billings? That would be a stronger basis for a “valid” criticism, yet instead you can complain only about, what?, her filing system?

9) Played a prominent role in establishing Media Matters For America (see her address at the most recent Yearly Kos gathering).

In the words of my grandfather, “Yeah? So?”. She played a role in establishing something. So what? Wouldn’t a more “valid” criticism be what it’s used for? So-and-so set up a PAC. Yeah, so? So it’s been indicted for money laundering for drug cartels. Ah, now you have a point.

So, Jay, want to rationally debate what makes a “valid” criticism and which ones may legitimately be made of Clinton (and which not)? Or would you rather just point out that I didn’t respond to all of your 9, and thereby avoid supporting your view?

There are legit criticisms of Sen. Clinton to be made, criticisms even I have made, but then I’m supposed to be one of her stormtroopers so maybe that’s reverse psychology mind control on our part. We are Borg.

Perhaps if the people on your side got past calling her a “bitch” we could talk.

Non-point #1, a fundraiser (Ho) is elevated to “one of the most important” status, and then no point at all is made about how his legal issues affect Hillary in any way. It’s not like Hillary knew about his problems and still covered for him and then recommended him for a major position, like, say Director of Homeland Security.

Non-point #2, Sandy Berger did not steal and then destroy documents concerning 9-11. He made unauthorized copies and destroyed those. No originals were taken and no data was lost. Mrs. Clinton has already stated that he has no official position on her campaign. Is he working in an unofficial capacity and should she cut all ties to him, formal or otherwise? That would be the question you didn’t bother posing.

Non-point #3, Hillary is a pale shadow of Bill. Misogyny defined. A senator for 7 years and it’s all her husband’s doing. Nice.

Non-point #4, Hillary’s original health care plan never called for the nationalization of anything. That’s just “dirty commie” right wing buzz talk to discredit the idea that the “free” market is ruining our health care. Was her plan expensive? Yes. So is the military, which consumes more than 60% of our annual budget before factoring in supplementals (among other things). Want to debate military welfare? I didn’t think so. Bitch about the cost or pick at the plan itself, but give me a break with the transparent “commie” winger crap.

Non-point #5, She looked for the low hanging fruit when she wanted to get elected to the Senate…errr, so what? She was still lawfully elected (forget, too, that it was Bill who was from the South, not her). What is the point here?

Non-point #6, She hasn’t come down with a clear answer on the driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants debate. Of course, the problem here is that the question originally arose in relation to illegals in New York, which brought about her first answer which was to support Govenor Spitzer. The question was later framed as a question of national policy and she came out somewhat against the plan. So as it currently stands, she appears to oppose driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants. You can complain that she hasn’t been firm enough, or that she appears to be flip flopping (which might indicate an effort to come to an effective answer rather than dig in your heels and stubbornly refuse to consider new evidence that may put your original position in a bad light…but enough about Bush), but you can’t say that she hasn’t come out with a position. Considering the amount of flack she has taken over this issue, I wouldn’t say it has become moot at all. So what is your point? Flip flopper? Too easy on illegal immigrants? Too harsh?

Non-point #7, The now ancient history story of her fantastical profits from “insider” trading. Simply put, never proven, like the VAST majority of Clinton winger fiction.

Non-point #8, More Whitewater nonsense. How many times does this crap need to be knocked down? A minimal amount of time billed by a law firm and filed away and forgotten. So they eventually showed up, so what? They don’t prove any more now then they did then. If she was the evil mastermind the right claim she is, why keep any copies at all?

Non-point #9, Guilt by association, kill the messenger, whatever you call it, it’s just misdirection.

You may want to soak your ass in ice until the swelling goes down.

Conspiracy theories, nit picking, and cries of political speak. OOOOOOOOO. Those 8 points were the best you have? Now tell us the 8 most negative points for all the other candidates on both side.

1) “Debunk” means “proven wrong.” Just saying over and over that something is crap doesn’t prove a thing.

2) I listed eight valid criticisms of Hillary Clinton, then tossed in #9 to see if you’d rise to the bait when I made a dig at your employer. Your response? Bring up something I never mentioned (Vince Foster) and use THAT to discredit the first nine. It’d almost be clever — if it wasn’t so juvenile and transparent.

I suppose a fair rebuttal would be to go to one of your pieces on Rudy Giuliani and say “oh, come on. The man’s on his third wife, so he’s obviously a raging heterosexual. And the only times he’s been seen dressed as a woman has been for public gags — what’s next, you gonna say half the Monty Python guys were transvestites?” and utterly ignore whatever the substance of your hit on Giuliani is.

But I don’t play those games, Oliver. In fact, I’ve stuck up for Hillary Clinton on a couple of occasions. But your pathetic attempts to deflect legitimate criticism of her makes me seriously wonder if her claim to have helped found Media Matters (made publicly at the last Yearly Kos) wasn’t simple braggadocio — and wonder if Media Matters isn’t wholly in the tank to protect her and help get her elected.

Stranger things have happened…

J.

Jaytea: Media watchdog coverage follows media coverage. Sen. Clinton is the frontrunner and arguably the most famous active pol in the country. Media Matters would be remiss if we didn’t combat the conservative misinformation about her just to satisfy some right-wing nutjobs just like what was written about John Kerry and the election in 2004 when Media Matters was brand new. I’m not going to do a point by point rebuttal of your accusations versus Sen. Clinton because they’ve been debunked, you know that, but you don’t care. You probably think she killed Vince Foster too. I can’t help that brand of stupid.

And I’m sorry, but the misogyny accusations are being used as a way to temper valid criticisms against her.

She’s running for President of the United States. Not Home Economics President.

Are you the same Jay Caruso who often complains that others won’t debate an issue “on the merits?”

“Tu quoque, monsieur” ain’t just a cheese sammich.

Do the same to him with regard to an outfit like that cesspool, Democratic Underground and he’s starts stuttering, “B..bb..bbbut….that’s not representative of most Democrats.”

Now we follow up with, “Yeah Jay. DU is not representative of the majority of Democrats but FreeRepublic is representative of the majority of Republicans.”

And blah blah blah blah blah blah blah blah….

It’s the same old shit. Different day. Hillary’s got ideas issues she has ethical issues, but her suck-ups can dismiss that because they can simply lay whatever problems she has at the feet of the GOP and their modern day He-Man Woman Haters Club.

588 articles? Wow. One would think that Media Matters has a vested interest in defending her or something…

Hey, I think you just helped prove one of my points for me. Thanks, Oliver!

J.

Go to Kos or DU. Search for Condi, Coulter or Malkin (actually, search Malagang. It’s 72.8% more racist that way!) You’ll find just as many “bitch”, “lesbian”, “c___” references.

Now seriously talk to my face and say that isn’t misogyny…

Attributing a wife’s success to her husband’s efforts could be construed as misogynistic.

“Never a single thing” Does she get no personal credit at all of anything she has achieved?

I’m reminded of a joke from Bill Clinton’s first term. The Clintons are driving thru Arkansas and stop at a gas station. Hillary recognizes the attendant as an old high school boyfriend. Bill says, “Just think, if you’d married him instead of me you’d now be the wife of a gas station attendant instead of First Lady.” To which Hillary replied, “No, I’d be First Lady.”

Perhaps Bill’s accomplishments are largely due to her. Would you ever consider that?

Hm, not sure how to measure the amount of spam on a daily basis, but I’ll take that as hyperbole on your part.

But a (very unscientific) quick use of Google to see who has had more hat written about them gets:
- hate “Karen Hughes” ==> 9,200 hits
- hate “Condi Rice” ==> 93,000 hits (see note)
- hate “Hillary Clinton” ==> 125,000 hits

Clinton wins.

Note: This is a grand total using “condoleezza”, “condi” and popular misspellings of her name. Using variations of “Hilary” would add another 15k hits to Clinton.

1) One of her most important fundraisers was a wanted fugitive while he was posing for photo ops with her.

2) One of her biggest foreign policy advisors is a convicted felon who pleaded guilty to stealing and destroying 9/11 materials from the National Archives, and was stripped of his security clearance.

3) She has never accomplished a single thing in her life that can not be attributed to her husband’s accomplishments.

4) Her “Health Care Task Force” was stopped before she could nationalize a full one-seventh of the nation’s economy.

5) She pulled a “Bobby Kennedy” and went shopping for her Senate seat, instead of running from somewhere she has significant roots — Arkansas or Illinois, for example.

6) In one recent debate, she came down on both sides of the drivers’ licenses for illegal aliens within a few minutes — and didn’t take a firm stand on the issue until after it was moot.

7) In her one dabbling in the futures market, she managed to convert $1,000 into $100,000 by having an insider manage her trades — “manage” meaning “give her all the profits and absorb all the losses.”
“Misplaced” her billing records from the Rose Law Firm when they were subpoenaed, only to “find ” them in her White House residence a couple of years later.

9) Played a prominent role in establishing Media Matters For America (see her address at the most recent Yearly Kos gathering).

I don’t think a single one of those reasons depends on Senator Clinton’s plumbing, but feel free to disagree with me.

But gosh, it makes a convenient excuse to not answer real questions, doesn’t it?

J.