Vetted?

Given that Hillary's main argument is that she's "vetted" and that people on this site seem convinced that we must be aware of all possible right wing talking points against Obama, I was wondering what HRC supporters suggest should be said about Hillary's defense of a Child-raping Pedophile, and her attack on the monster's 12-year old victim?

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ ny-usark2455899997feb24,0,2670956.story

Now, I will admit, that since she was court-appointed she has a very good defense here (I do this because unlike some HRC and Obama supporters here, I think that reasonable discourse should be preserved) but I ask you what would she say to those Americans who are obviously going to be disgusted by this?

Tags: Child Rape, Election 08, Hillary Clinton, pedophilia (all tags)

Comments

42 Comments

Re: Vetted?

No deal. Hillary was doing her job...even the victim holds no anger towards her. Let it go.

by americanincanada 2008-02-24 05:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

For context, I am a lawyer in New York. A lawyer certainly is obligated to zealously defend their clients. HOWEVER, there are limits placed on your advocacy -- both by common decency, morality and laws. In this case, Clinton ultimately got a reduced sentence due to evidentiary issues. She WAS NOT REQUIRED (and indeed lawyers today routinely DO NOT) attack the rape victim unless there is a demonstrated rather than manufactured basis to do so. For her to call herself a champion of women's rights but yet attack a TWELVE YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM is abhorrent and ridiculous.

In her defense of an accused rapist (who certainly deserves a lawyer) Hillary Clinton forcefully impugned the 12-year-old rape victim, implying that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men". Asked about it now, the rape victim said "It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped."

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

You don't know what basis she had.  What do you do if the defendant raises that defense?  Tell him to fuck off on feminist grounds?

by HEAP 2008-02-24 08:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

She was court appointed; you'd be surprised how many people will understand - I'm always surprised when I meet people who understand that from either knowing a case like that or being somehow involved in a case like that (a case with a court appointed attorney, not necessarily child rapists).

She needs to be diplomatic about how she does it, but she could spin it to demonstrate her unrelenting loyalty to the principles that America stands by (including right to trial by jury, etc.)  It would be wiser, however, to simply say she was court appointed and let it go.

by ejintx 2008-02-24 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?
So, in the first case you admit that your whole diary is nothing but a Troll post:
'Now, I will admit, that since she was court-appointed she has a very good defense here'
by devans 2008-02-24 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

She has a good defense among thinking people, the smae people who will see through crap like the Ayers stuff or the Obama= Muslim smear, but among a large portion of the electorate, this won't fly.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-24 06:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

I am always amazed by the number of Obama supporters who think the American people are idiots. Is it some kind of unconscious projection?

by souvarine 2008-02-24 06:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Well given that HIllary's campaign has pushed the Ayers thing they must agree.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-24 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?
Yep... Russ Feingold, Ted Kennedy and me. Bunch of idiots.

Rube.

by PhilFR 2008-02-24 06:38PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

We can agree on the last of the three:-).

Just kidding, Lighten up.

by Sandeep 2008-02-24 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Excuse me but Russ Feingold and Ted Kennedy have a lot of respect for the American people. You won't catch them saying: "She has a good defense among thinking people ... but among a large portion of the electorate, this won't fly."

Based on your two weeks of comment history I can't yet judge how you view the electorate.

by souvarine 2008-02-24 07:45PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

The american people are idiots at time.  they voted for bush twice and look how many obama has gotten to drink the kool aid just by preaching somebody elses words.  heck, they can't even name his accomplishments.  i am so disappointed in the public right now.  thought we were smarter than this.  i have faith in TX and OH.  

by Scope441 2008-02-24 06:55PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

So, are you admitting that a large portion of the electorate who support Obama are not 'thinking people'?

by devans 2008-02-24 06:20PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Your link doesn't work - here's the real one:

http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

by animated 2008-02-24 06:00PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Thanks.

by Socraticsilence 2008-02-24 06:05PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Michelle Obama has not yet apologized for her unpatriotic statements.

by truthteller2007 2008-02-24 06:05PM | 0 recs
is this a snark?

by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 06:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

P.S. It's an interesting story, of which this is the only part I found really disturbing:

Rodham, records show, questioned the sixth grader's honesty and claimed she had made false accusations in the past. She implied that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men" like Taylor, according to a July 1975 affidavit signed "Hillary D. Rodham" in compact cursive.

I realize she thought she was doing her job, but was that part of the defense really necessary - towards a 12-year-old?

by animated 2008-02-24 06:05PM | 0 recs
She was in it

to win it.

by bigdcdem 2008-02-24 06:19PM | 0 recs
Re: She was in it

For context, I am a lawyer in New York. A lawyer certainly is obligated to zealously defend their clients. HOWEVER, there are limits placed on your advocacy -- both by common decency, morality and laws. In this case, Clinton ultimately got a reduced sentence due to evidentiary issues. She WAS NOT REQUIRED (and indeed lawyers today routinely DO NOT) attack the rape victim unless there is a demonstrated rather than manufactured basis to do so. For her to call herself a champion of women's rights but yet attack a TWELVE YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM is abhorrent and ridiculous.

In her defense of an accused rapist (who certainly deserves a lawyer) Hillary Clinton forcefully impugned the 12-year-old rape victim, implying that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men". Asked about it now, the rape victim said "It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped."

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 06:32PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

I want to see a less biased story about this. What, EXACTLY, did she say to the girl? The articld simply says she implied something. Is that the author's interpretation or Clinton's or that of the record. I doubt it is of the record snce saying someone implied something is a very personal interpretation.

by americanincanada 2008-02-24 07:04PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

BO's comments on Meet the Press (7/27/04) in response to Russert's questions about the Iraq war:

"I'm not privy to the senate intelligence reports. What would I have done? I don't know."
"There's not much of a difference between my position on Iraq and Bush's position at this point."

And for your viewing pleasure, here's the entire transcript (if you need help with the big words try dictionary.com)...

http://today.msnbc.msn.com/id/21738432/p age/2/

Help spread the word...

by Levon 2008-02-24 06:19PM | 0 recs
Viciousl out of context, read Obama reply:


SEN. OBAMA:  Now, Tim, that first quote was made with an interview with a guy named Tim Russert on MEET THE PRESS during the convention when we had a nominee for the presidency and a vice president, both of whom had voted for the war.  And so it, it probably was the wrong time for me to be making a strong case against our party's nominees' decisions when it came to Iraq.

Look, I was opposed to this war in 2002, 2003, four, five, six and seven. What I was very clear about, even in 2002 in my original opposition, was once we were in, we were going to have to make some decisions to see how we could stabilize the situation and act responsibly.  And that's what I did through 2004, five and six, try to see can we create a workable government in Iraq? Can we make sure that we are minimizing the humanitarian costs in Iraq?  Can we make sure that our troops are safe in Iraq?  And that's what I have done. Finally, in 2006, 2007, we started to see that, even after an election, George Bush continued to want to pursue a course that didn't withdraw troops from Iraq but actually doubled down and initiated the surge.  And at that stage, I said, very clearly, not only have we not seen improvements, but we're actually worsening, potentially, a situation there.  And since that time I've been absolutely clear in terms of the approach that I would take.  I would end this war, and I would have our troops out within 16 months.


by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 06:46PM | 0 recs
Re: can you spell P-A-R-S-I-N-G ??

Out of context?  You mean that 'correcting' the record years later, when it was politically convenient for him to do so, MEANS the same thing as 'out of context'?  Very weak.

by Levon 2008-02-24 06:57PM | 0 recs
years later?

how did he correct it?

Did you read the quote? Because it answers this comment too.

by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 07:30PM | 0 recs
Re: years later?

Yes I read his P-A-R-S-I-N-G of his original response.  He's trying to 'correct' the record by parsing his original answer to mean something that it originally DID NOT.  He's engaging in the same 'politics of parsing' that he accuses his opponent of doing, and that's called being a hypocrite.  Since his entire campaign is built on this anti-war stance, I just find it amazing that any reasonable person can read that comment and still take him seriously.

Look, I respect your right to support whomever you want, for whatever reasons you want, but I despise hypocrisy and know it when I see it.  I cannot in good conscience support someone who demonstrates it.

by Levon 2008-02-24 08:01PM | 0 recs
I might argue you are

PARSING his response.

Please layout your proof how he was for the war. Surely if you are right then there must be a nice amount of additional collaborating evidence.

by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 08:30PM | 0 recs
that was the point of my original post...

The proof is in the original post, and we have now officially gone full circle ;)

by Levon 2008-02-24 08:33PM | 0 recs
Well that covers the first sentence
but as I said:
"Surely if you are right then there must be a nice amount of additional collaborating evidence."
by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 09:04PM | 0 recs
OK, this is where I get off the merry-go-round

That's the beauty of his original response.  It's so concise and to-the-point that no other evidence is necessary.

by Levon 2008-02-24 09:12PM | 0 recs
so let me tell you my read on it,

and if you would be so kind tell me if it makes sense to you:

But first please let me know what point are you trying to make? That Obama is a hypocrat and is/was for the Iraq war, I am assuming?

in 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, 2006 and 2007 he was against the war.

In 2004 he did not voice his opposition to it strongly enough at the time of Kerry run.

From what he tells, in the interview, at that point he was trying to figure out if the Iraq situation can be salvaged,a political process set up, given how we were already entangled in it.

It seems, to me, Obama was trying to figure out how to solve a complicated situation. Which is not surprizing giver the chaos in Iraq at that time.

I think an important point is the following:


The first hearing that I had was with Condoleezza Rice in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee.  This was a few months after I had been sworn in as senator.  And I told her at that point, we need to wind this war down.  It is true that my preference would not be to end this war simply by cutting off funding.  My preference would be for the president to recognize that we needed to change course, and that was what I continually pushed for. At the point where we realized the president was not willing to change course, I put forward a very clear timetable for when we should remove our troops. And, when that was vetoed, I then suggested that the only way to get the president to the table to negotiate how we're going to move in a different direction in Iraq is by not giving him a blank check when it comes to funding.

Please note he still favors phased, rather then immediate, withdrawal link.

by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 09:40PM | 0 recs
I would like to add

That in my own opinion Clinton has done even worse the Obama with respect to supporting the war.

by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 09:50PM | 0 recs
Re: so let me tell you my read on it,
follow up:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EhpKmQCCw B8
by kindthoughts 2008-02-24 10:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

For context, I am a lawyer in New York. A lawyer certainly is obligated to zealously defend their clients. HOWEVER, there are limits placed on your advocacy -- both by common decency, morality and laws. In this case, Clinton ultimately got a reduced sentence due to evidentiary issues. She WAS NOT REQUIRED (and indeed lawyers today routinely DO NOT) attack the rape victim unless there is a demonstrated rather than manufactured basis to do so. For her to call herself a champion of women's rights but yet attack a TWELVE YEAR OLD RAPE VICTIM is abhorrent and ridiculous.

Here is the article: http://www.newsday.com/news/nationworld/ ny-usark245589997feb24,0,2670956.story

In her defense of an accused rapist (who certainly deserves a lawyer) Hillary Clinton forcefully impugned the 12-year-old rape victim, implying that the girl often fantasized and sought out "older men". Asked about it now, the rape victim said "It's not true, I never sought out older men - I was raped."

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 06:30PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

Please: Crawl back into your hole. We do not need to hear from filthy right wing lawyers trying to obfuscate the issues.

by devans 2008-02-24 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

"Right wing lawyer"?  What site are you reading?

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 06:49PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?
Ok, sorry for that insult. You are not right-wing.
But this is where I think you are naive, your statement:
'As Obama has said, this is ultimately less him and more about us.'
Any objective observer will find this laughable.
by devans 2008-02-24 06:56PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

I suggest you read my article in which I make that quote before casting aspersions.  As you'll noted, my article was based on a quote from esteemed presidential historian Doris Kearns Goodwin: http://weneedobama.blogspot.com/2008/02/ how-obama-can-effect-change.html

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

This was my original expansion on my article in response to a reader comment:

Essentially, what I think Doris Kearns Goodwin (an unflappable nonpartisan expert on this particular topic) was making the point that really, at its root, his movement is more about the people and their desire at this moment (especially after 8 years of Bush) for significant progressive change and, ultimately, he has been chosen by this movement as their standard bearer.  The change movement is tied to him as a figure but exists as well as an independent force that has him as the catalyst for their coming together. As a result, it doesn't really matter whether the movement preceded a president's candidacy (like with Kennedy) or happened while the President was already in office (like LBJ to some extent).  Very interesting stuff, I'm glad she was able to put it into historical context.

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 07:09PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?
if you want to demonize hillary that it was not true
your reliance on the client shows you have nothing
by awayer 2008-02-24 07:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

I don't really understand what you're saying

by oregonkcg 2008-02-24 07:10PM | 0 recs
Re: Vetted?

we saw this the first two times. why keep re-posting?

by pgnyc 2008-02-24 08:37PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads