Kathleen Willey Attacking Clintons; Thinks Bill Has Dementia; Loves Fiorina
Kathleen Willey, like Clinton accuser Paula Jones, is coming out swinging against the Clintons on a right-wing radio show, picked up by conspiracy website.
“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey said.
“After watching [Bill’s] performance with [NBC News’ Cynthia] McFadden, when he said that I’ve gotta pay my bills, I think he’s showing early signs of dementia or something. He’s not the old Bill Clinton that we all remember. I mean, he was all over the place. Now you’re seeing clips of [Hillary] talking to herself all the time. I think that I want somebody in there who knows what they’re doing, and money isn’t the No. 1 issue for them. They have enough money. They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”
Willey prefers a deadbeat who was fired from her job and took 30,000 to the unemployment line with her:
Willey has high praise for Republican presidential candidate Carly Fiorina, the former CEO of Hewlett-Packard.
“When it comes down to my choice, the more I hear Carly Fiorina talk, the more I like her. I mean, there’s a role model for you,” she said.
“I would love to work on her campaign. She doesn’t hedge when she’s asked questions, she gives you straight answers, she’s direct, she’s not afraid of anybody. … I mean, she’s just got more cajones than everyone in Washington combined. … I think she’s great, I think she’s wonderful. …
Mike Watkins May 31st, 2015 at 11:19 pm
“They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?” This goes to prove republicans say anything
madjayhawk June 1st, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Republicans don’t have say a thing. The Washington Post and just about every major news outlet in the world says it. Over and over and over again. The Clintons rake in a lot of money. $26 million in 2013. To me that is not bad or illegal on the face of it, except if it can be shown if that money was a quid pro dough type of arrangement when Hillary was at the State Department hiding her emails.
Just one of 100s of articles about the somewhat obscene amount of money these people make just for showing up and talking (Chelsea even gets $75,000 a speech for talking about diarrhea): http://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/how-the-clintons-went-from-dead-broke-to-rich-bill-earned-1049-million-for-speeches/2014/06/26/8fa0b372-fd3a-11e3-8176-f2c941cf35f1_story.html The Washington Post is not a Republican news outlet.
Like I said, like most things with the Clintons nothing has been found to be illegal about what they have done and are doing so far. If there is they will be in jail. It just doesn’t look right to most people – look at the list of donors and ask yourself why are these particular people (countries, banks, Wall Street, even FIFA) pumping a lot of money into the Clinton Foundation? Bribery like obstruction of justice and lying in a federal court proceeding is highly illegal. We all know what Democrats would say if a front running Republican candidate was doing the same thing or went from being dead broke, Hillary’s words, to being filthy nasty rich almost overnight.
OldLefty June 1st, 2015 at 8:14 pm
1) The Clintons are allowed to make money, like everyone else, in spite of Scaife’s Arkansas Project, aka the “Scam Scaife Project” by the low lifes who wanted to pick up some Scaife money.
(Seems that Republicans hate people who came from nothing).
2) The WaPo IS a neo-con newspaper.
3) Mainstream media Clinton rules;
Clinton Rule #1;
If you can blow enough smoke, you can say there’s fire.
Clinton Rule No. 2 ;
What is business as usual for every politician since Cato is a work of
dark magic when practiced by either Clinton.
Clinton Rule No. 3
If you have blown enough smoke, you then can claim that there is a “climate” of fire.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 12:58 am
And if you’re Newt Gingrich, you can claim Clinton’s economic plan will lead to a severe recession and say the responsibility for the results rrests solidly with Clinton and the Democrats and derisively refer to it as “Clintonomics.”
But when it eliminates the deficit years ahead of schedule and takes unemployment down to 3.8%, if you’re Gingrich you can claim “Clintonomics” was named after you.
OldLefty June 2nd, 2015 at 7:00 am
Yep. It always amazes me that the facts are there, yet we can not agree, (and sometimes it is actually sincere).
I think the same will be true of the TPP.
My guess is that it is not as good as it’s supporters claim, and not as bad as it’s detractors claim, and no matter what happens, both proponents and opponents will say, “Told ya”!
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 8:20 pm
I can’t help but get a little giggle when I use that line about Gingrich thinking Clintonomics is named after him.
Yes, I know doing so and saying so is egotistical, but I can’t help it. It’s a rough spot on my character I’m going to have to sand down one of these days, but not just yet….
thinkingwomanmillstone June 2nd, 2015 at 8:27 am
You can also, if you are Gingrich, call for Clinton’s impeachment for his sexual conduct with Lewinsky while having an ongoing multi-year adulterous affair with your staff member whom you eventually marry after divorcing sick wife number 2.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 8:25 pm
As I recall, the former wife was his schoolteacher in high school, which is wierd.
I think they married just a few months after he graduated.
Then the plot goes from wierd to nasty when he had a staffer inform her of the impending divorce so he could marry the secretary he had been knocking the bottom out of. As I recall, the first wife was in the hospital, locked in a fight for her life with cancer when the staffer served her with papers.
thinkingwomanmillstone June 2nd, 2015 at 8:49 pm
His first wife was his school teacher. He was cheating on wife number two for years with his office staffer , Calista, aka current wife.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 10:06 pm
The one with space helmet hair?
thinkingwomanmillstone June 3rd, 2015 at 8:07 am
Dwendt44 June 2nd, 2015 at 12:30 am
the Clintons make a butt load of money giving speeches because they are popular with the public and well thought of in many circles.
Corporations pump money into their and other charity because they want to. Most corporations and large companies give to charities. The Clinton Foundation does good work overseas in under developed countries.
Not that facts enter into your thinking, but the was no quid pro quo while Clinton was the SecState.
Mike Watkins May 31st, 2015 at 11:20 pm
“They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?” This proves the republicans will anything.
NW10 May 31st, 2015 at 11:24 pm
whatthe46 June 1st, 2015 at 12:52 am
i stilll DON’T have an icon to attach a pic to my posts! it makes me so angry.
Hirightnow June 1st, 2015 at 8:12 am
See a pic somewhere on the web that you like? Right-click it, choose “View Image”. When it pops open, copy the URL in the address bar, and substitute it for the link in the example. Change the text between the “>” and “<", too. Post the result
Alternately, just put the link at the end your post; Disqus will usually (not always) show it on Liberaland.
Anomaly 100 May 31st, 2015 at 11:33 pm
“[Hillary] is really looking awfully haggard these days,” Willey said.
STFU, you cow.
whatthe46 June 1st, 2015 at 12:23 am
so, they would pick a candidate based on “looks” and not brains? makes sense. considering they don’t operate with any functional brain activity. and if they want to go there, Mrs. Clinton, looks beautiful and didn’t require any plastic surgery to contain her GOD given grace.
Dwendt44 June 2nd, 2015 at 12:23 am
You’d be surprised how many right wing nut jobs put looks first when considering women for political office. Right wing nut job women of course.
rg9rts June 1st, 2015 at 1:23 am
Who???? And who cares what she says??
William June 1st, 2015 at 1:57 am
“They have enough money. They made $30 million … in the last 15 months on speaking engagements. Isn’t that enough?”
OldLefty June 1st, 2015 at 6:20 am
“When it comes down to my choice, the more I hear Carly Fiorina talk, the more I like her. I mean, there’s a role model for you,” she said
The perfect role model for failing upwards.
When she can train the McDonald’s gives the employee who screws up and gets fired, 12 x their average salary, just for the privilege of firing them… THEN they get fired from or don’t get other jobs they apply for, and THEN…. makes approximately $80K in speaking fees…..
She might be on to something!
allison1050 June 1st, 2015 at 6:36 am
“I mean there’s a role model (Fiorina) for you”..are you certain? ;o(
Budda June 1st, 2015 at 6:51 am
This from a woman who lied to the FBI about a supposed “affair” with Bill. She is a shill for the haters.
Suzanne McFly June 1st, 2015 at 7:20 am
Ya, cause Fiorina is so great, she has to hire trolls who falsely accused Clinton of sexual harassment so she can cash in.
madjayhawk June 1st, 2015 at 11:32 am
Is Alan conducting a War on Women? This sort of article is red meat for all the leftwing women haters. He seems to only like overweight, shrill, foul-mouthed, 67 old female partners-in-crime for some reason.
Talibandrew Breitbot June 1st, 2015 at 3:11 pm
Like Imogen Lloyd Webber… wait… what?
(Picture below is a sketch of madjayhawk.)
BillTheCat45 June 1st, 2015 at 4:06 pm
You sound upset. Does baby need bankie?
arc99 June 1st, 2015 at 4:19 pm
Amazing how right wingers view quoting someone verbatim is an “attack”.
Perhaps that is an indicator as to how repulsive right wing ideas are.
As for the shrill foul-mouthed 67 year old female, Sarah Palin is not 67 and does not appear to be overweight. Otherwise, your description is dead-on accurate. Please pay closer attention.
OldLefty June 1st, 2015 at 4:57 pm
That’s the dumbest thing I ever heard.
Conservatives really have a problem with reality, don’t they?
tracey marie June 1st, 2015 at 8:29 pm
are you still here whining and lying, damn.
AnthonyLook June 1st, 2015 at 11:16 pm
There’s no such thing as leftwing women haters; just a figment of your propaganda.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 1:00 am
Madjayhawk, please post here more often. It’s starting to get funny….
JimmyPete June 1st, 2015 at 12:16 pm
Her 15 minutes of fame is now 15 minutes of shame, who gives a good God Damn
Talibandrew Breitbot June 1st, 2015 at 3:06 pm
it should have been 15 seconds, followed by a sitcom laugh track,
pignose4.0 June 1st, 2015 at 3:36 pm
Kathleen wants to lick Carly all over……….
Talibandrew Breitbot June 1st, 2015 at 3:41 pm
Congratulations. You have made hot girl-on-girl action a total grossout.
BillTheCat45 June 1st, 2015 at 4:06 pm
Who? Sorry if I have no clue who this nobody is.
cvryder2000 June 1st, 2015 at 5:42 pm
Who is Kathleen Willey and why should I care?
LoisB June 1st, 2015 at 6:21 pm
My first thought also.
madjayhawk June 1st, 2015 at 7:44 pm
Note that most of the responses here are ignorant, hate-filled attacks on a woman the writers do not know. Do any of them know or care what happened to Willey who was a long-time Democrat activist and White House volunteer at the time she said she was fondled by the President of the United States? Of course not. To help out those interested in what happened at that time here’s a good article: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/willey031598.htm
And it doesn’t matter that what Willey said in the interview was either 100% true or just her opinion to the haters here. At last check everyone is entitled to an opinion in this country and has a right to say whatever they please, even the women haters on this website who seem to attack every woman except one who they can’t seem to ever find anything nice to say about except for the poor soul who thinks Hillary Clinton looks beautiful.
OldLefty June 1st, 2015 at 8:09 pm
Methinks thou dost project too much.
You seem to be the biggest hater.
Just because she says so doesn’t make it true. She made a lot of false claims, and trashing the Clintons was big business.
That is why we have due process.
tracey marie June 1st, 2015 at 8:28 pm
she said she was kissed, did her orginal story change, why did she lie and sue because clinton released all the personal writings to him from her begging him to fk her?Protecting a liar because you are a hater makes me believe you are a teabag
madjayhawk June 1st, 2015 at 11:27 pm
How does what I say make me a hater? Did I say something to you that was hateful? Did I say anything that was not true? If so what?
I am merely saying that Willey has a right to say whatever she wants just as you do. Is that so hard to understand? Was the Washington Post article untrue? The Washington Post, if you did not know, is a left-leaning newspaper.
Read the posts on this website: one talks about one woman licking another. Another commenter calls Willey a ‘cow’. More than one calls her a liar. She was never prosecuted for perjury so calling her a liar is merely some die-hard leftist’s opinion which is about as valuable as a bag of snot. There are quite a few people on this website that hate women. All you have to do is look at the disrespect that they constantly show women.
If I say Hillary Clinton is an overweight, shrill, foul-mouthed old woman it is because she is. Case closed. Do yourself a favor and read something about the woman instead of just reading her press releases. You will see why half the country does not like her and does not trust her.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 12:11 am
madjayhawk: “How does what I say make me a hater?”
If you will read the post you are replying to she tells you.
You get a fail for comprehension to go wityh your fail, above, where I showed you resorting to fiction to make your argument.
Now you are resorting to more fiction with your claim that the Washington Post is a left wing newspaper.
Sure, their editorial board tends to lean to the left, but you refer to their reporting, which has been in the lead in exposing many scandals involving liberals.
I’m chalking this one up to ignorance.
The Washington Post is frequently used as source material by Limbaugh, Hannity, leVin, Ingraham and just about all the rest of the right-wing pundits who simultaneoussly claim it is unreliable because of its alleged bias. What you fail to see is these commentators on the Right disparage any such source who does not agree with them.
Bottom line, according to them, only the far Right is reliable for news reporting.
What they fail to tell you in their propaganda is the difference between editorial opinion, which is what they and the WaPo editorial board put out, and news reporting, which is walled off from the editorial board of the Post and every other major newspaper.
The chain of command is separate, the editors do not give orders of have any authority over news reporting.
The readership of the Washington Post consists of huge numbers of people whose politics are right of center.
They also won’t tell you that at Fox, which uses pundits from right-wing organizations to “report” what they claim is “news,” knowing their ignorant viewers will largely fail to read the fine print at the bottom of the screen identifying the “reporter” as being from Breitbart, Heritage Foundation, or other right wing site with an agenda.
Fox was formed with the declared mission of warping the news to give it a right-wing spin. Murdoch said this clearly, and then hired a Republican honcho in Roger Ailes to run the “news” division.
Back about 1980 Rush Limbaugh began the campaign to try to smear journalists with more credibility than him, and to drive listeners to his program. His mission was to erase the divider between journalist and pundits and it appears he was successful in your case.
madjayhawk June 2nd, 2015 at 1:52 pm
Finally a decent response. You made some good points without resorting to name calling.
It is very hard to debate with a intelligent person. It is impossible to debate with a stupid person. Calling someone names is not debating. That is usually what goes on here. I do it too. On purpose, for a reason.
I am aware of the theoretical divide between the editorial/reporting departments. I don’t think it exists in reality especially if they are in the same building using the same cafeterias and the same restrooms. If one department was in CA and the other in NYC, I might believe that they are independent.
Slanting the news can be done directly like Fox and MSNBC does without trying to hide it. Or it can be done subtly like most of the media does. I have never found a news outlet that does not slant the news. The only ones that have come close when reporting US news are the British newspapers not named The Guardian.
Slanting the news can be done like the reporter did on Al Jazeera did the other night. In an article about Global Warming he casually and snarkily threw in a comment about “a political party in Washington” that had nothing to do with the story he was reporting on. The interviewee had no opportunity to react to that. Why did he do that? His credibility went out the window with me. He probably got pats on the back that night at a cocktail party.
Read and watch critically and you will see what I mean. Look for little things like facial expressions, the selection of guests and topics, the language used, and even facial expressions. And who is on their panels. There are lots of ways to slant the news other than directly saying something.
A lot of news outlets will have 3 hard leftwing panelists and one namby-pamby RINO and call that balanced.
I do not mind if a news outlet is biased. I just think that they need to be out-front with it. I think you’d have to be a total idiot not realize Fox and MSNBC, for example, aren’t biased most/all of the time. Fox has Alan Combes on for years and still does. He is about as leftwing as it gets and does a great job in effectively presenting the other side of an issue. That is good. Makes things interesting. Anyone who can be in the same room with a weirdo like Hannity for more than a week deserves our respect.
What is funny is that leftists always contend that ‘their’ networks and newspapers are unbiased and the ‘otherside’s’ aren’t. They ALL are. Rightwingers can be just as numb.
Here’s a good example of bias: a reporter says “The GNP rose 3.2% this month, BUT that was the slowest rise in the GNP in 25 years.” They then put little negative qualifiers on what is good news to make it sound almost as if it was bad news. They do this all the time. I first heard this little trick when Gloria Borger was a radio news reporter. She did it on almost every broadcast when Bush I was in office.
Or another trick is to put up Glamour shots of a candidate that you favor and terrible ones of his or her opponent. Just try to find an unflattering shot of HC in a liberal media outlet. Can’t be done. At the same time Right-wing media outlets use unflattering shots of her regularly. They are both biased. Face it, not glammed up, HC is a chunky 67 woman with some very unattractive features. Her chipmunk grin and expensive clothes are her greatest assets. Most people aren’t all that attractive when it gets right down to it. The media puts a lot of thought into those photos and use them to tell a story because that’s what draws the eye. Both sides do it.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 9:32 pm
At the Washington Post the separation between the editorial part and the reporting part is not theoretical. It is factual. I’ve been reading it since the Kennedy administration and am well aware of how it is run and can name quite a few writers off the top of my head.
One of the reasons why the Post, NY Times, and LA Times are nearly always in the lead when it comes to reporting that unearths scandals involving public figures on the Left and Right is because they give reporters freedom and do not dictate to them the way ideologically-based papers like the Washington Times. These alleged left-leaning papers are therefore able to recruit the best reporters from the leading journalism schools and so you find them staffed with Pulitzer Prize and other decorated journalists.
I don’t bother with TV news much because it’s not where I get news from. I read, and I do not depend on ideologically-based sites to get information. You won’t see me posting links to Daily Kos, for example.
One thing you should be aware of is this alleged bias is not believed by the majority of Americans who are right of center.
Just look at the numbers.
When it comes to all TV viewers in the news hour, Fox gets what, about 5% of the total viewers? Most who are right of center are divided among CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN and the others.
The reason why is taught the first day of Business 101, but not by conservative pundits.
On day 1 the professor writes the word “corporation” on the blackboard and asks the class what a corporation is and what is its function.
The answer is a corporation’s function is to generate profits for shareholders. In TV and radio, these profits are determined by viewers and listeners, and with newspapers by subscribers. More eyes and ears on product leads to higher ad rates.
So to meet their first priority, these newspapers and other media outlets spend a great deal of money researching how to appeal to the most people and they do so, across the political spectrum.
Fox is different, because Rupert Murdoch is not concerned with profits as much as he is concerned with projecting an ideological spin. Therefore, Fox has fewer viewers than CBS, NBC or ABC when they are just a click away. For decades the WaPo has given the numbers and Fox is nearly always mired in fourth place. Other outlets separate cable from broadcast numbers. This made sense in the 80s but no more.
From the little I see, the broadcast networks are far more balanced than Fox. Recently I was at someone’s house watching Fox “news” and counted 6 pundits in a row from ideologically-based outfits presenting “news” stories.
When it comes to commentary, Alan Colmes and Juan Williams are always outnumbered.
Your point about finding an unflattering picture of Hillary Clinton “can’t be done” is demonstrably false. For at least a decade the Washington Post has printed little else. She always has her mouth open looking angry and nothing like what you imagine. Someone lied to you on this point.
Your need to attack her physical appearance speaks poorly of you and this kind of crap will drive voters to her. You guys already got creamed when it came to the female demographic in the last presidential election and this kind of rhetoric will make it worse for the next GOP nominee. The GOP is fighting a losing battle by alienating not only the largest demographic, but others such as people of color, which are growing faster than the only demographic the GOP can rely on – white males.
The GOP will eventually wake up and change significantly, leaving the current party in history’s dustbin.
madjayhawk June 3rd, 2015 at 1:49 am
Pundits have been saying for the past 50 years that Republicans are heading for the good old dustbin. But then we have 2010. Like we had 1994. Hell, even someone like George Bush was elected, and reelected beating the Democatic Party’s best and brightest leaving the Democrats to endless whine about him stealing the election that they tried mighty hard to steal themselves.
As a political neophyte I was elected County Republican Chairman some years ago when Nixon was President. That opened the doors to ‘directives’ from Nixon’s people in Washington who assumed I was like the previous chairman and would toe the line. The state people thought the same thing. They were surprised when at the state convention when my delegation voted 8-2 for the approved candidate. When I sent the 2 votes for the non-approved candidate to the floor, a guy rushed back to me and sternly asked me if that was right. I said sure it was. The vote was something like 250-2 for the approved candidate. We all laughed. I was the only chairman who didn’t tell his people how to vote.
My son, 1990s, was pulled into the principal’s office for saying in class that Hillary Clinton was a crook and I was called in to listen to the principal and 2 teachers lecture me about this and to, I think, hear him apologize. Two days later my son was in a charter school where union members who loved the Clintons weren’t running things.
I didn’t vote for Nixon. I knew that he was a criminal and I don’t vote for criminals and I resigned after the vice chair, at the behest of the state committee, asked me to stand up at a district meeting and give a speech to support Nixon. I haven’t been involved in politics since. There are many kinds of conservatives believe it or not. I am a libertarian-small government conservative. There is only one social issue I care about – abortion.
If Fox is a non-factor in the news business why do the liberals waste a lot of time belittling it as you have done? Everyone knows they are biased. Just as everyone knows the other outlets are as well. If you can’t see that then there is not much I can say. MSNBC and Fox are more biased in many ways than the others, but the others are definitely biased. Just look at surveys of reporters and see how lopsided their support for liberal causes and candidates is. To think that their attitudes about everything liberal doesn’t creep intentionally or unintentionally into their stories is naive. Studies were done after the last election to measure the number of negative/positive stories there were done on the candidates. There was a huge difference. The media was overwhelmingly for Obama. The Obama Benghazi foul-up was at first trumpeted and then buried after the truth about the ‘protesters’ was known while Romney’s infamous 47% remark got 31 stories and 90 minutes of coverage for 3 days after he made it.
I agree with you. The GOP is cooked. There are so many people who are on entitlements now that the GOP’s main meat-and-potatoes issue, shrinking government, is a dead issue. All those people on entitlements will never vote for someone who will cut them. Expanding those receiving entitlements has been a goal of the Democrats for as long as I can remember for exactly that reason. That number has reached a tipping point. Helping out people? Don’t make me laugh. The Democrats know how to buy votes – with OPM. It works.
The GOP had a chance at one point to fundamentally change the direction of government and they did not do it.
With Democrats in power government, government employee unions will eventually take over the functioning of government and act without any checks and balances. They will be like a fourth branch of government. They are the real threat to our country in my view. We now have government agencies fundamentally making and changing laws and I can’t see liberals ever stepping up and stopping that.
The only hope to keep unions in check is to have the GOP, conservatives in the GOP,to take the presidency while holding on to congress for a couple of cycles, appointing good judges, and reversing a lot that has happened. That is assuming that there is decent GOP leadership. There is none now. The GOP has no leadership right now.
There is a good chance that Hillary will not be elected because so many people hate and mistrust her. She couldn’t win her party’s nomination in 2008 for a reason. Now that she has it all to herself we will see. Honestly I do not know one Democrat who likes her except for a bunch of crazy old women who want a woman to be elected no matter who it is. She reminds me of Nixon in many ways and others sense that too. I honestly think that she is a evil person the same way Nixon was. I don’t say that about many people even Obama. Read some thing about her that weren’t written by leftists.
burqa June 3rd, 2015 at 10:26 pm
I don’t think the GOP is about to go away, but increasingly they are becoming a regional, rather than a national party.
In ’94, they got a majority in Congress with running against the Clinton tax increases a major issue for them. Once they got in office, they saw the deficit shrinking so fast and the economy recovering so quickly they hopped aboard the Clintonomics bandwagon and now they’re trying to take credit for it.
Bush won against opponents who ran 2 of the lousiest campaigns I have ever seen. In 2004, Kerry conceded so many states that all Bush had to do was pull 18% of the rest of the vote to win.
Since the 1988 election, the GOP has only had the most votes in 1 presidential election.
The GOP is going to have to change significantly. The fastest-growing demographics strongly favor Democrats and they are busy trying to increase the Democratic Party’s advantage with women voters.
Sorry about what happened with your child.
I very well understand that Republicans and conservatives have considerable variation. Here in Va., for years I have socialized with the top GOP players in the state. I was there when some of them were discussing the formation of a third party. One thing that may have derailed that was the corruption scandal involving Gov. McDonnell.
Seeing our own fringe kooks on the Left has me concerned that we may be seeing a Tea Party of our own forming. Having seen how the GOP made mistakes I hope we do not make the same mistakes and have such a group get the sort of influence the Tea Party has in the GOP.
In 2008, Hillary ran a poor campaign. I think if she gets the nomination she will beat whomever the GOP runs. It will play out as they usually do. Each party can count on 35% of the vote, maybe 40, but the center will decide. The demographics are shifting more and more each year in the Dem’s favor.
As far as Dems who like her, there are many here who do and I would not call them “a bunch of crazy old women.”
Again, the way you speak of her, while common on the Right, is just the sort of misogynistic-sounding rhetoric that has given the Democrats a significant majority of the voters in the largest demographic – women.
Bet on conservative pundits to drive even more women to vote for Hillary by using such talk. I sense that women are really fed up with that kind of disparaging talk where their appearance is criticized and other cheap shots are taken instead of being engaged purely on issues and ideas.
burqa June 2nd, 2015 at 9:55 pm
To go with my post, below, this whole trope about an alleged left-wing bias in the media can be traced back to Nixon. Yes, the sliminess of Nixon continues to plague us.
Back then, when the WaPo and NYT exposed the crimes of Watergate, conservatives with character like Barry Goldwater stood tall and placed blame where it belonged – on the crooks.
The Republicans then got savaged in the next election and those with lesser character than Goldwater began looking for ways to cravenly duck responsibility and decided to shoot the messenger by blaming the media, but the American people weren’t buying it.
Then about 1980 Limbaugh saw there was an audience among these lesser sorts and he began pushing the same idea.
For Limbaugh, this was a good move because the more he could get people to go to him for “news” the higher his ratings would go and he began to attract the craven conservatives. At the same time he came up with this bias notion and the same craven conservatives lapped it up. They not only lacked the character of a Barry Goldwater, they also lacked his perception. All along for 35 years now, they have been too damned stupid to notice that Limbaugh’s show is stuffed to the gills with reporting from sources he claims are unreliable.
Take away the reporting from the LA Times, Washington Post, New York Times and the major broadcast media and there would be so little left he would have to go back to hawking ugly ties.
The following will come in handy whenever you are tempted to go to Breitbart, Heritage, American Family Council, etc:
BURQA’S FOURTH LAW OF POLITICS:
Conservative pundits have an S&M relationship with their audiences. Being sadists, the pundits deliberately distort and omit information on various subjects, because they know their audience will repeat it unthinkingly. They enjoy watching their masochistic audience present their half-truths in forums such as this and get creamed, which appeals to their masochism.
Both derive pleasure from being wrong.
burqa June 1st, 2015 at 11:47 pm
So, according to you, “most” of the people posting here advocated censoring Willey and anything she had to say about the Clintons?
Please name them and we can add-em up and compare to get a percentage and see if your statement is valid or just a bunch of fiction you made up…..
Oh, and speaking of rights like free speech, the accused has the presumption of innocence in this country and ther accuser has a right to file charges and prove them in court.
Willey didn’t, which is the bottom line, which leaves you with a 5 gallon bucket of squadoosh and the need to resort to fiction to make an argument….
AnthonyLook June 1st, 2015 at 10:57 pm
So Kathleen Willey thinks Bill Clinton has dementia and her choice as the Republican presidential candidate is Carly Fiorina; is that like irony or black kettle stuff or what?
whatthe46 June 1st, 2015 at 11:47 pm
LOL. it sounds worse than dementia that’s for sure.
burqa June 1st, 2015 at 11:41 pm
Last I heard anything about Willey she was being paraded around the country in a tour financed by some gross rich right-winger.
madjayhawk June 2nd, 2015 at 4:34 pm
Kathleen Willie? What does it matter?
liberalMD June 2nd, 2015 at 9:52 pm
“I think she’s great, I think she’s wonderful. …”
Kathleen, have you asked Carly to talk about her accomplishments yet? She might be able to talk the talk, but she definitely can’t walk the walk.