New heated report claims Hillary’s Bosnia lies go much deeper

Tori,
Why couldn't race be a legitimate reason to back Obama over Clinton, all things being equal? That is to say, if their policy positions are not fundamentally different, why couldn't one reasonably vote for Obama on the basis of a desired, anticipated social/cultural impact?

See, this is exactly the kind of story that no one asks any other proof for. Where is the proof of this? And don't you think it speaks volumes of how much of a threat Clinton seems to represent to Obama if his supporters keep putting up nothing but this instead of focusing on John McCain? I mean, if he is so far ahead and has clinched the nomination already and all of this is now just going through the motions to let people vote, why the need for this constant barage? And how did she win a Senate seat without all this coming out?

If you peruse this site you won't see reams of entries like this on Obama on the whole the way certain people constantly attack Hillary Clinton. How does this move issues into the dialogue? This is nothing but the same status quo poltiics Obama claims to be against, no? If this is true where is the proof besides a heresay column written by a known drunk with a grudge whose ramblings are taken seriously simply based on the fact that it is about someone so many seem to hate?

BooksBrown,
I agree, all else equal, race (or gender for that matter) is a fine reason to support a candidate. I just don't think people should vote for either Clinton or Obama *solely* based on their race (some people will vote for Clinton based on race (ie voting against Obama) while others vote for him for his race) or their sex (again for Clinton or, for those who would vote against a woman, for Obama).

I totally agree Tori.

the fact is, this country owes a greater debt to the black community than to the female community. Women were never shackled and shipped from their homeland to do backbreaking work for rich white plantation owners. And as far as I know, women were never routinely lynched.

http://www.amnestyusa.org/Womens-Human-Rights/Violence/page.do?id=1108440&n1=3&n2=39&n3=739

Violence against women (which encompasses ALL races): A fact sheet. And I would say having your breasts and genitals cut out and off is on par with lynching as well. And many of those who did that back breaking work for rich white farmers were women who were sold into slavery by black men in their homeland. I don't see how you can place one above the other. Torture in any form against anyone regardless of race or gender including slavery is an abomination. Why is it however, that women even getting a mention seems to make so many uncomfortable? Beatings, rape, torture, and slavery against women is still going on in this world, and that includes right here in America.

The lynching was done in America, the genital mutilation in North Africa to blacks, and the women sold into slavery were black. So although you're right about suffering of women, the blacks still get the worst end of it all.

Why is this a contest of suffering to so many people here? You're right though. No people in the history of the world have suffered more. I then take it back and apologize for even thinking that women in this world and even in this country could ever have been abused on a magnitude even close to that, and whatever suffering they have endured because of gender regardless of race, it could not compare. ok?

This story is true or false, doesn't matter when Hillary herself accepted about "Mis-spoken" what I call "Lie".

If she can Lie to get the President's office, what will she do to keep it afterwards?

It's time Americans start identifying the people before making their Presidents, Bush has already done enough good for you and your country for many years to come.

Just because of this Bush Father and Son, most of the world hates Americans who have nothing to do with his policies....

Jasmine Rafique
http://www.PakistanHousing.pk

it's not a contest of suffering. But if Helen Thomas wants to go there, and promote voting for Hillary because she's a woman and because women have been historically disenfranchised, then to that I simply say that blacks have been disenfranchised MORE.

That is NOT the reason I voted for Obama by the way.

Whoa there JanforGore,

Although I completely agree torture sucks in general and truly for the the recipients, trying to compare slavery to anything else or how blacks have been treated historically is probably not a good idea - to say the least.

Not too say it's a valid reason to choose a candidate either way or should it be used as a crutch or excuse but is should never ever be diminished or remotely trivialized in any way shape or form.

It's hard to quantify "suffering" to see which race or gender has endured more. It's pretty subjective -- though I would have to classify African genital mutilation as the winner. Ouch!

Slightly off topic (okay, a lot off topic) but since we're talking about unequal treatment of certain races or genders it blends in with Obama's recent speech on race -- wherein he made reference to "creating ladders of opportunity." Which the media generally interrpreted to mean a continuation of Affirmative Action policies.

Now some people think Affirmative Action should be abolished. Even some African-Americans think so to eliminate any doubts that they achieved their success on their own merits. Others argue that it must remain in place so that the advances made over the last few decades aren't erased.

The question is: we have affirmative action, but how much longer should we?

Some people make the case, "It's served its purpose" while others say, "We're still not there yet."

Should we keep it? And if so, for how much longer? Will we still have Affirmative Action 25 years from now? 50? 100? And by what method will we know if we've finally achieved equality?

Who is triviliazing it? And I didn't compare it, stephen did originally by stating that we owed a greater debt to the black community than the female community as if women have contributed nothing to this society. I simply illustrated that all of the suffering of all peoples is abominable. Of course, people here seem to like nothing better than taking words and intentions and twisting them. No one least of all me is trivializing what blacks have gone through in this country. However, the persecution of people who dare to cite any other group's suffering as not being 'politically correct' is downright ridiculous.

"as if women have contributed nothing to society."

not my words Jan, not even close.

It's truly not a contest and it works both ways for the most part. When speaking of the horrific treatment of blacks in the past a "yeah but..." is never appropriate. Yes women and other minorities have suffered as well and a "yeah but..." isn't appropriate in those contexts either.

The situations simply are not interchangeable or offsetting in any way shape or form. "Simply pointing out" women have had poor treatment in the past as a response is where things went sideways for you and wasn't politically in correct so much as flat out wrong and offensive in many ways.

i saw it coming, hehe as soon as i read your first post stephen i said to myself this is going down.

um, ,i understood what u meant n y u said it, but i knew most people wouldn't.

u guys r all right, by the way.

I don't really want to wade into the who has suffered more debate. Seems a little bit off topic here. But I think it's only fair to point out that there are a lot of people who are both women and black. How do you parse that? As if anyone should.

I have a hopefully more on topic point to make. Jan you have argued many times on this site how ridiculous it is for people to call for Senator Clinton to step down, and I agree with you. But if she’s in the race, then she (and her supporters) should be tough enough for some critical analysis. I think it was Bill who made the football analogy over the weekend. If Hillary is “in the game”, it’s hard for me to understand your complaints about her getting “tackled”. It’s yet another double standard…which is exactly why I think so many people are turned off by the Clinton campaign. Do you disagree with Hitchens’ facts? If so which ones and why? Do you not like his conclusions? Okay…how about telling us why? But to play the victim (something that seems to be the centerpiece of the Clinton campaign right now) doesn’t hold much water for me.

Speaking of things that don’t hold water. You assertion that “if you peruse this site you won't see reams of entries” attacking Obama is ridiculous. Try searching under maltesetitan sometime. Compared to those this looks like a puff piece. Not to mention the fact that Hitchen’s article in Slate called Blind Faith (that tears Obama a new one over Pastor Wright) was cited on current more than once…Hell, I’d bet you even commented on it.

Double standards. Playing the victim. Politics as usual.

And you wonder why people want change.

"Of course, people here seem to like nothing better than taking words and intentions and twisting them."

Do you even realize that you just did to steventhompson what you're accusing "everyone else" of doing Jan?

In fairness to Janforgore. Blind Faith by Christopher Hitchens, was cited several times on another site and not, to my knowlege, on current.

Sorry Jan.

He is, however, as critical of Obama in that piece as he is of Clinton in this one. I don't have any information on whether or not he's a drunk.

Now I know why Cosmo Plavix no longer posts here.

Stephen, my comment:

"And I didn't compare it, stephen did originally by stating that we owed a greater debt to the black community than the female community *as if* women have contributed nothing to this society."

As if being the operative words here as in my impression of your words, not saying you said them. There is a difference.

krag: And if you notice I didn't respond or engage in that or the "Obama Girl" crap either. I have only either started threads about stories in reptuable ( or as reputable as we know ) sources, and specifically on policy. I simply don't see the advantage of posting exactly what we see on mainstream media day in and day out and then saying that Current is a revolutionary form of media. It isn't if we parrot the same garbage we can find on FOX news and the Drudge Report. It also serves no purpose towards discussion of issues that are ignored.

And eldamon: There is nothing offensive about posting the truth of what is happening to women in this world today in response to someone else, and if you think it is, then it is not my judgement that is in question.

janforgore, even your use of *as if* is way inaccurate.

I stand by my very-easy-to-understand comment, which I'll paraphrase again just for you:

if Helen Thomas encourages people to vote for Hillary simply for being a woman, and because women have had it hard, then her logic actually points in favor of Obama, since it is African Americans who have had it harder.

I dont see how you could think I'm insinuating that women have contributed nothing to society.... LOL. that's almost non-sequitur.

Um...okay.

So Christopher Hitchens is not creditable? I don't agree with everything he says (far from it), but Slate is a long way from Fox News or the Drudge Report. Again...what specifically do you refute in the article that is the topic of this thread? Senator Clinton is the one who made Bosnia an issue in this campaign. If I remember right, she was making a point about her qualifications to be commander in chief. Is that not an issue you think is worthy of discussion all of a sudden?

Or was your only point how unfair it was to question Senator Clinton at all?

Krag: Read my first response here to get your answer. Again, where is the proof of the allegation made ny Hitchens besides just his word?

And Stephen, sorry, I misnunderstood you. I also don't think anyone should vote for Clinton or anyone because they are a woman... but then, I also don't believe it is right to not vote for someone because they are women either. Same goes for race. And sorry, but I think we owe a debt to blacks and women in this country. And if you really want my honest opinion, Native Americans deserve much more than that from us.

I'll concede on this point:

Were I black or female, I might have voted differently. Who am I to judge someone for wanting to see one of their own in office? I can understand that.

Yes, and as much as I want a girl to be prez, hillary, darling, you're just not up to the challenge.

Jan I read you original post. That’s why I asked the question (now for the 3rd time) what specifically do you object to in Hitchens' article?

You said “See, this is exactly the kind of story that no one asks any other proof for.”

Proof for what exactly? That Clinton said in 1992 that Bosnia would be priority? Proof that Hillary was against the US getting more involved in what she saw as another “Vietnam”? You call the article the ramblings of a drunk. What specifically does he state in the article that shows he’s biased or out of touch with reality?

Again, you complained about the unfair treatment of Senator Clinton. You say in your first post “How does this move issues into the dialogue?” The issue Hitchens is talking about is Senator Clinton’s qualifications to be commander in chief. As I’m sure you would even concede, this is an issue that Senator Clinton was running on. Remember the whole “Ready on Day One” stuff? So why is it all of sudden so unfair to critically examine a subject that the candidate herself brought up?

Or should the press only be talking about how much of a fighter she is?

Jan,

I think in some odd way we are on the same side of this particular part of this particular discussion. Maybe if I put a more personal point on it you can see it a little better, albeit a bit off topic.

Suppose you come home from what has turned out to be your absolute worst day ever and you tell your parents, spouse, friends, sig. other all about it and all you get back is "wow sucks to be you, my day was pretty bad to." I'm going guess that wouldn't be the response you were looking for or really wanted to hear at that point.

Women have suffered, agreed and there's nothing wrong about posting that - unless it's in response to some other groups suffering. The key phrase being "in response" once again.

Now to put it on point a bit, if for some odd reason who has suffered more is the criteria you use to choose a candidate consider this. It's a pretty good bet Sen. Obama, being a mixed race, left handed child of a single parent and named Barack Hussein Obama has had to deal with a tad more grief then Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton has in her privileged life.

Moreover, no one is really attacking her because she's a woman as much they are attacking the kind of person she happens to be. The spin is coming from her side so that whenever she is attacked she spins it to seem like "they're" picking on a girl.

Look at the culture as a whole, how many overt sexist issues have come up recently that come to mind immediately? Now consider how many racist things have come up, Biil O'Reilly having dinner in Harlem, Geraldine Ferraro's comments, Don Imus (although that may be a point for both sides depending on how you spin it).

Many groups have suffered at the hands of others women, blacks, Asians, Native Americans, Jews, etc. and it was all bad respectively, no need for comparison or justification. The real question should be who are these "others" - what's the common denominator there?