Political Punch
Power, pop, and probings from ABC News Senior National Correspondent Jake Tapper
Jake Tapper is ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau. He writes about politics and popular culture and covers a range of national stories.
RECENT POSTS
- The "Electable" Candidate Admits Affair
- The Trouble with Lobbyists Running Your Campaign
- The Wit and Wisdom of Toby Keith
- Stumbles
- New Pentagon Report Uses Language Kerry Used in 2004 that Bush-Cheney Called "Dangerous" and "Naive"
- Deconstructing Hillary
- Exxon [Hearts] Obama
- Obama Wades Into Ugly Tennessee House Primary
- This Sunday on This Week
- Obama is Spiderman, McCain the Dark Knight
MONTHLY ARCHIVES
« Obama-Backing Senator Attacks McCain's War Experience | Main | Surrogate Watch, Part 676 »
Hillary Clinton Calls for Bush to Boycott Olympic Opening Games; Bill Clinton Gave Spielberg Opposite Advice
April 08, 2008 3:46 PM
On Monday, Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-NY, called for President George W. Bush to refrain from personally participating in the opening ceremony of the Beijing Summer Olympics to protest China's record on human rights.
The circumstances are dramatically different. But the dilemma of whether or not a public figure should lend his credibility to the China Olympics occurred last year, when firm director Steven Spielberg sought the opinion of former President Bill Clinton (among dozens of others) as to whether he should remain an "Overseas Artistic Director" for the opening and closing ceremonies for Olympics despite his serious concerns about China's role in the genocide in Darfur.
In 2007, knowledgeable sources say, the former President advised Spielberg to participate, that he could be an effective agent for positive change by working with China. Spielberg wasn't sure. He didn't sign his contract with the Beijing Organizing Committee for the Olympic Games.
Clinton's wife on Monday took the complete opposite approach.
"The violent clashes in Tibet and the failure of the Chinese government to use its full leverage with Sudan to stop the genocide in Darfur are opportunities for Presidential leadership," Clinton said in a written statement. "These events underscore why I believe the Bush administration has been wrong to downplay human rights in its policy towards China. At this time, and in light of recent events, I believe President Bush should not plan on attending the opening ceremonies in Beijing, absent major changes by the Chinese government."
Is this an example of the shifting landscape of these international politics? The crackdown in Tibet? A disagreement between the power-couple (one where Hillary Clinton is either more hawkish or more of a human rights activist than her husband, depending on your point of view)? The substantial difference between a boycott by President Bush and one by Steven Spielberg? Or the difference between being a president and trying to become one?
That's unclear, and the Clinton campaign did not respond to questions about the matter. But this possible contradiction illustrates the differing views on the best way to get China's cooperation when it comes to Darfur, Tibet, and human rights within its own country, and how for many in the foreign policy establishment there are no any easy answers on this issue.
**
Throughout 2007, Spielberg tried to work within the system, meeting with Chinese Ambassador Zhou Wenzhong and Special Envoy Liu Guijin, writing to President Hu Jintao to urge him to pressure the Sudanese government to let United Nations peacekeeping troops into the region.
It was not always easy. Actress and Darfur activist Mia Farrow wrote an op-ed in the March 28, 2007, Wall Street Journal, warning Spielberg that he might "go down in history as the Leni Riefenstahl of the Beijing Games," a reference to the infamous Nazi propagandist.
On April 2, Spielberg wrote to President Hu Jintao, saying that "the government of Sudan is engaged in a policy which is best described as a genocide. I have only recently come to understand fully the extent of China’s involvement in the region and its strategic and supportive relationship with the Sudanese government. I share the concern of many around the world who believe that China should be a clear advocate for United Nations action to bring the genocide in Darfur to an end."
In July 2007, Spielberg was heartened with China's support of United Nations Security Council Resolution 1769 creating a joint UN-African Union peacekeeping force.
But the government of Sudan put up roadblocks to the deployment of that force. Humanitarian officials were expelled from the country and violence stepped up against the people of Darfur.
On November 15, Spielberg wrote to President Hu Jintao once again, noting that since the passage of Resolution 1769, "the situation in Darfur has deteriorated and while China's earlier efforts were encouraging, its silence in the wake of Sudan’s recent actions and the resulting chaos on the ground has been disturbing. ...This week the United Nations warned that unless Sudan quickly accepts the hybrid peacekeeping force and key countries contribute critical equipment needed for the peacekeeping efforts, the force will not be prepared for deployment in January 2008 - already two long months away. So I write to you now with a renewed sense of urgency in the hope that China will redouble its efforts to pressure Sudan to join in a fair peace agreement and, at last, bring an end to the genocide."
He ended his letter, saying, "The world needs China to lead here. So many lives are at stake."
Less than three months later, with no action by China, Spielberg resigned from the Olympics, writing in a statement that the Sudanese "government bears the bulk of the responsibility for these on-going crimes but the international community, and particularly China, should be doing more to end the continuing human suffering there."
**
Kenneth Lieberthal, the senior director for Asia on the National Security Council for then-President Bill Clinton from 1998 through 2000, says that Sen. Hillary Clinton's call for President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies would be counter-productive.
"I think that there is a question of whether you want to do this in a way that is more likely to lead to real progress rather than more likely to lead to the Chinese digging in their heels because they're losing face in very public fashion," Lieberthal told ABC News.
Lieberthal says the Chinese government feels it has worked really hard to make the Olympics successful and have met its obligations. Chinese officials are likely to look at the recent outbreak of violent between the Chinese and Tibetans and "see how the initial violence by Tibetans against the Chinese was downplayed in the western media…and see western governments jump on board the bandwagon, and they're likely to feel that no matter what they do the West will not think of them as major players."
His suggestion for President Bush would be to not boycott the Olympics, "not to publicly say, 'I'm not going unless…' which would make it very difficult for President Hu Jintao to bend," but to tell President Hu Jintao that, "the way the Chinese government is handling, say, the Tibet issue is eroding the ground from under him, and he'd like to see following take place, and get Hu working with him. It would be more effective to do it that way. As opposed to being very public and making a big media splash that's counterproductive. Like a lot of things in foreign policy, what you might want to do turns out not to be most effective thing to do."
Lieberthal said he has not talked to President Bill Clinton in the last year. Based on what he knows of the former President, I asked him what he thought the former president was likely to think about boycotting the Olympic games' opening ceremony.
"I'll put it this way," Lieberthal said. "If you look at the evolution his approach to China over the two terms of his presidency, his evolution was in the direction of what I indicated President Bush ought to do."
- jpt
April 8, 2008 | Permalink | User Comments (116)
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/t/trackback/433071/27905652
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Hillary Clinton Calls for Bush to Boycott Olympic Opening Games; Bill Clinton Gave Spielberg Opposite Advice:
"...a handful of mistreated Tibetans..." ??? How about the entire country of Tibet was conquered by the Chinese Communists in 1950 and since then monks have been slaughtered, thousands of temples have been destroyed and the entire country has been oppressed and brutalized? The Tibetan Buddhists are suffering religious persecution as well as the Christians in China. They can escape persecution if they renounce their religion - sound familiar? If the Dalai Lama had not gone into exile he would be in prison or dead. As Christians, we have a special obligation to get our facts straight, understand history and appreciate the suffering of others even if they aren't Christians. I am not denigrating the plight of Christians in China - it's terrible. What I am doing is protesting the ignorant dismissive tone of Tony's letter. Come on, Tony, I expect more from you.
Posted by: Ken Whiton | Apr 11, 2008 8:26:56 PM
Posted by: sabine | Apr 10, 2008 10:37:04 PM
Compare recent China’s crackdown of criminals in Tibet with American’s crackdown of rebels of its puppet Iraqi government killing thourands of thourands Iraqis, destroying Infrastructure of a country leaving their people living in death and horror conditions, who should be pointed by fingers for human rights? American, of course. Saddam and Bush are killers, now Hillary is calling them to joint her - to change regimes again perhaps…
Posted by: Arthur | Apr 10, 2008 4:05:07 AM
Bill Clinton was right about "an effective agent for positive change by working with China".
Effective leaders/leading countries demonstrate/prove a right way to success, to better life, to a better society. Other people/countries/societies will follow willingly sooner or later without the use of forces in any ways by any parties.
Murderers, arsons, and vadals should always be punished by law in any lawful countries, no excuses. Any medias in EU and US showed the minimum synpathy to the Chinese (including Muslin Chinese) who were murdered, vandalized, burnt down in Tibet. Hardly!
Are the medias in EU countries and US successful in convincing Chinese people on the issues of Tibet and the need to boycott Olympic Games? I mean ordinary Chinese people and please leave the Chinese government aside for the moment. I will say hardly. The current events, especially the roles some media agencies in the free world are playing, are convincing the ordinal Chinese worldwide in just the opposite way. This is already causing the negative effects.
Confrontations, especially bloody confrontations, usually lead to even worse confrontations. It does not solve problems.
There are better and smarter ways.
Posted by: AATB | Apr 9, 2008 9:03:10 PM
For those saying Hilary is right on saying to Boycott, why is it fine for Her and under Bill to give our rocket technology to China, for her to receive campaign donations from China, She is a hypocrit.
And to the question below does Obama think the same as his wife, YES, read his book he is not proud of the country thats why he wants change to Socialism.
We should not Boycott the Olympics nor should the President, the Olympics were created to bring peace. We are not in any type of war with China (ie cold war or such) We should make it clear as Pres. bush has that we do not support their actions against the Dali Lama.
But what I find disheartening is the people who say we should pull out of Iraq and not get involved any place are the first to be calling for Pres. bush to Boycott! because of an internal strife in China.
but then again they are Hypocrites that let millions die because of their inaction!
Posted by: spock | Apr 9, 2008 3:56:57 PM
I don't give much time to the Olympics,because so much $$ is spent on the set up in the cities/countries that participate. All these $$ are poured out like water, while people are starving.
I stand on my take, which is for the betterment of the morals and life of mankind.
Everything else will pass away anyway. I'm just a nobody trying to tell everybody about somebody who can save anybody.
Posted by: Concerned for America | Apr 9, 2008 2:51:57 PM
Need I remind everyone that the purpose of the olympics is not to show which country has the best athletes, or criticize other nations, it's to sit next to our foreign brothers and sisters for a game of tennis... I think we should impose more economic restrictions with China, but can't we put aside our differences for 2 weeks, like these games were made to do?
Posted by: Brendan | Apr 9, 2008 2:17:00 PM
Need I remind everyone that the purpose of the olympics is not to show which country has the best athletes, or criticize other nations, it's to sit next to our foreign brothers and sisters for a game of tennis... I think we should impose more economic restrictions with China, but can't we put aside our differences for 2 weeks, like these games were made to do?
Posted by: Brendan | Apr 9, 2008 2:16:53 PM
It matters not what Clinton does or does not say or do. Her lack of ethics and morals has been cast! She's a liar, shady, un-ethical. Bill is also a proven liar! I've got to believe we can do much better than this for a President! You get them both if she wins!Sure would like to see the donor list for the library!
Posted by: TJ | Apr 9, 2008 12:07:33 PM
It matters not what Clinton does or does not say or do. Her lack of ethics and morals has been cast! She's a liar, shady, un-ethical. Bill is also a proven liar! I've got to believe we can do much better than this for a President! You get them both if she wins!Sure would like to see the donor list for the library!
Posted by: TJ | Apr 9, 2008 12:07:28 PM
After all these info. The Solutions Express should be called the Double Speak Express, end of story. Read the extracts from the ABC news website.
If only Penn were the end of the story. Guess who else supports the Colombia pact? Politico's Ben Smith scares up the quote (translated from Spanish) from June 2005: "I am in favor of the free trade agreement," said former President Bill Clinton (the one strategist who cannot be demoted).
This is where the (thick) rubber of the Clintons' financial entanglements hits the (icy) road of presidential politics. Huffington Post reports that Bill Clinton was paid $800,000 in 2005 by a group "tasked with bringing investment to the country and educating world leaders about the Colombia's business opportunities."
The Clinton campaign confirms the former president's support for the trade deal. "The acknowledgment adds new hurdles to the New York senator's bid to woo Democratic voters in Pennsylvania and elsewhere who believe free trade agreements have eliminated thousands of U.S. jobs," the AP's Charles Babington writes.
And it's not the only area where Bill Clinton, again, has his wife's campaign off-message. ABC's Jake Tapper reports that Clinton last year advised Steven Spielberg not to sever ties with the Beijing Olympics; Sen. Clinton this week made headlines by calling on President Bush to boycott the opening ceremonies.
Clinton's = Deceit.
Posted by: Owen | Apr 9, 2008 12:02:13 PM
It all depends on the audience I guess.
Posted by: LongT | Apr 9, 2008 10:29:35 AM
Hypocrites. As usual. When a Clinton's mouth is moving, you know they are lying.
Posted by: AG | Apr 9, 2008 10:27:40 AM
Bill Clinton is wrong on NAFTA and this China Olympic's thing. Hillary Clinton is correct in her position. As Chelsea said, Hillary will make a better president than Bill was. Hillary is right and a seperate person from Bill. What 2 married people are in agreement on everything? What 2 married people are merged into one mind? I am a staunch democrat and my husband is a stubborn Republican - many fights occurred over our differences. We are 2 independent free thinking individuals. So are Hillary & Bill. This is Hillary's presidency.
Posted by: this election counts | Apr 9, 2008 10:12:21 AM
To sarnorton, Hillary was always pro nafta.
In 2004 she said to a business group that nafta on balance had been good for america.
The Clintons lie so much that people don't even notice it.
Hillary sat on the walmart board. She never spoke up about their anti work practices.
Hillary helped pass nafta, she had meetings on it in the white house. To say she was just for it after it was passed is wrong.
Hillary in her book called nafta a great success.
The Clintons lie and take the public for idiots and they are right the public are idiots to believe the clintons.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 9, 2008 8:13:48 AM
Clinton two weeks ago said she didn't have an opinion about the boycott issue.
Then she jumps on bandwagon and takes credit for it herself when pelosi was the one pushing it.
This shows Hillary at her worst making an issue of someone else her own when two weeks ago she had no opinion of it. She did this to change the subject.
And the media played along. ABC isn't showing how two weeks ago Clinton said she didn't have an opinion on it.
Posted by: Jason | Apr 9, 2008 8:09:40 AM
People need to stop saying how bias the media is when it comes to Hillary. If she would just stop her lying about everything maybe the media would leave her alone. When you are running for president, anything you say or do is scutinized by the media. So stop your whining and let her (Hillary) know that when you lie you will be talked about.
Posted by: Iva | Apr 9, 2008 7:54:58 AM
Like Spielberg didn't know about how the Chinese treated Tibet when he first signed up for the gig. Come on. And since when is B. Clinton the moral compass of the nation that Spielberg should seek his wisdom on the matter? What a joke.
Posted by: stop2think | Apr 9, 2008 7:39:26 AM
Withthis article you can see why Hillary talks about media double standard.
Posted by: libre | Apr 9, 2008 5:14:28 AM
Aren't Barack and Michelle Obama in disagreement about pride for the US? or Does Barack agrees with Michelle on that?
Posted by: libre | Apr 9, 2008 5:09:52 AM
Money from China? what is wrong with that? The whole government is working with Cina's money. The whole Iraq war is funded with loans from China. What about: Rezko is accused of getting straw donors to kick money into Obama's 2004 campaign fund. That's when Obama was running for U.S. Senate. The money allegedly came from a kickback scheme.
Posted by: libre | Apr 9, 2008 5:07:15 AM
The Clinton's aren't split on the issue at all, because to be split would assume that they had each formulated an opinion and taken a position - They haven't. They're just telling their respective audiences what they want to hear, which is standard Clintonese.
Posted by: NamakoOH3 | Apr 9, 2008 4:49:05 AM
There was a time when America would have already boycotted the games and would have been the first. were in to deep with them, debt that is. We have given them IOU's or bonds they could buy every forclosed home in America if they want.
Posted by: MS.JLW | Apr 9, 2008 4:03:55 AM
It might be an idea to close down Guantanamo Bay before we start talking again about human rights and the rule of law against other countries.
Posted by: marian | Apr 8, 2008 10:12:15 PM
Hillary will say what she needs to win. Reality is that they have several Chinese contributors. They have connections with Chinese healthcare system. They receive a huge amount of income from Canada. Get informed. Look at their tax returns. Google their limited partnerships. Find out the type of people they are associated with and ask yourself if we can honestly put them back in the White House.
Posted by: DB | Apr 8, 2008 9:57:45 PM
Johnny in Jacksonville
We're lucking if George W Bush knows where Europe is. Unless there's oil there.
Posted by: Explorateur | Apr 8, 2008 9:25:20 PM
when my husband puts money in the bank i spend it i know where he get's so therfore i am part of how he his getting this money.if he was selling drugs we would both be gulity so bill is sealing the country so hillary is guilty
Posted by: monica | Apr 8, 2008 9:24:09 PM
Boycotting the opening ceremony is not boycotting the Olympics.
And besides, China doesn't want us to listen to the Dalai Lama
Posted by: Chef White | Apr 8, 2008 9:23:51 PM
"I'm glad Hillary will be president."
Hillary's done.
She's just to dumb to know it.
Posted by: Chef White | Apr 8, 2008 9:22:39 PM
I'm glad Hillary will be president. She had the best ideas regarding the Olympic games. Looks like Obama is still looking for Tibet on the map.
Posted by: cindy | Apr 8, 2008 9:19:17 PM
Well believe it or the Dali Lamai of Tibet himself has asked countries not to boycott the Olympics in the face of the crack down and unrest in Tibet.
"The 14th Dalai Lama himself reiterated that he was against any boycott, saying Chinese people should not be blamed for the situation in his homeland. He said Beijing needs to be "reminded to be a good host" of the Summer Games."
Posted by: Uretha | Apr 8, 2008 9:15:10 PM
Obama couldn't find Tibet on the map and with two additional aids and still no luck. Finally a Secret Service Agent came to the rescue. So much for the experience factor. What a story, I wish this could be emailed to Hillary.
Posted by: Johnny in Jacksonville | Apr 8, 2008 9:14:36 PM
Sounds like a war in th clinton house. She's against NAFTA, he is for NAFTA. She's against Comonbian free-trade deal, he's for the deal. She pleads with Bush to boycott olympics, he pleads with Holywood not to boycott olympics. Are they still married, or is that in question as well.
Posted by: Sylvia | Apr 8, 2008 9:14:24 PM
"Obama should drop out of the race before it's too late. "
Carlson, he's winning.
Posted by: Benoused | Apr 8, 2008 9:11:05 PM
"he is better at foreign relations than Hillary or McCain"
Well, Hill's too busy dodging sniper fire to be a diplomat, and McCain's too busy shooting them.
Posted by: Benoused | Apr 8, 2008 9:09:40 PM
Obama should drop out of the race before it's too late. If he's nominated, McCain will show the world what an inexperienced empty suit he is and ruin his political career and the democrats. Hillary is the only hope, as it was proven today discussing Iraq and the Tibet situation, she is knowledgeable.
Posted by: carlson | Apr 8, 2008 9:08:44 PM
"I heard Obama couldn't find Tibet on the map."
You Republicans are a hoot. Eight years of the most geographically illiterate president this country has ever had, and suddenly it's important to you
Posted by: Netserf | Apr 8, 2008 9:08:17 PM
Just ask Obama and he will tell you, that he is better at foreign relations than Hillary or McCain. Now, Obama thinks he is a comedian. I always wondered why Obama followed in Hillary's foorsteps.
Posted by: Art | Apr 8, 2008 9:03:47 PM
Good call Hillary. Let'em know your not happy, but don't ruin the games. I heard Obama couldn't find Tibet on the map. It was rather funny, Obama was looking near Iraq on the map, maybe Hillary could help him...
Posted by: Akitisha | Apr 8, 2008 8:54:03 PM
"with her we know what we're getting."
Darn right. And I know it's something I don't want
Posted by: Bill K | Apr 8, 2008 8:50:00 PM
I'm noticing a very tangible trend amongst hillary supporters' posts in the last few weeks. it USED to be that, when the media reported something negative about clinton, her supporters would argue about why this accusation was wrong or unfounded or whatever. they used to argue policy and experience points.
now that she's stuck her foot in her mouth more times than anyone can count, all these posts have devolved into "this is crappy reporting" or "this isn't news" or "but what about rev. wright?" of "obama's supporters are big meanies!"
it used to be that they tried to offer explanations or another side to the story. now it's all sour grapes and frustration and trying to put the focus somewhere else because, after all, her own supporters know they can offer no defense for her lies and examples of poor judgment.
good luck with that.
Posted by: Sean in DC | Apr 8, 2008 8:42:07 PM
"It's all very well to tell Mr. Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies"
China has said it's about sport, not politics. But this Olympic torch relay has involved one important political figure after another, all hoping to bask in reflected glory. If it's about sport and not politics, let the athletes go, let the athletes compete. But do NOT give a political blessing to human rights abuses by attending the opening ceremonies. Mr Bush is NOT a sportsman.
If it's REALLY not about legitimizing China's behavior, the presence of politicians is not important, so call them on it.
Posted by: Sinologist | Apr 8, 2008 8:41:25 PM
"but with the delicacy of international relations can US afford to estrange the Chinese Government "
Yes. Or are we only going to care about human rights in countries smaller than us?
Posted by: Pro-Tibet | Apr 8, 2008 8:38:00 PM
It's all very well to tell Mr. Bush not to attend the opening ceremonies but with the delicacy of international relations can US afford to estrange the Chinese Government - I agree with Bush he might attend for the purpose of discussing the tibet situation and encouraging the Government to respect human rights and could voice that in an acceptable way while there. The situation is not as easy as it looks. Sure American can afford to loose another friend? right? There are ways of doing things other than being outright rude.
Posted by: Jerry | Apr 8, 2008 8:35:00 PM
... I've been called MANY things,
but NEVER a Republican.
Yuck!
Posted by: EYES OPEN | Apr 8, 2008 8:27:27 PM
Birds fly over the rainbow...why, then, oh why, can't I?
Posted by: ssmolly | Apr 8, 2008 8:10:43 PM
When I read the level of political awareness of most of the comments here, I can see certain merits of dictatorship over democracy.
Posted by: Pensacola | Apr 8, 2008 8:09:15 PM
"which, as of April 3rd, was up to 68 "and counting"."
Most of those are specious, from Republicans who either can't hear or can't read.
And we lost count of Hillary's lies a decade and a half ago.
Posted by: Abe Akers | Apr 8, 2008 8:06:07 PM
"Thier is a big difference between a President and a film maker"
I wish. We already had one who was a second-rate actor.
Posted by: 24 Frames | Apr 8, 2008 8:03:58 PM
"Now, one thing you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she is her own person, she has proved that many times."
Yep. She'll do anything to advance Hillary Clinton.
Posted by: Pundit | Apr 8, 2008 8:03:02 PM
libre :
IF you're looking for substantial information on Obama, you might want to the "OBAMA LAUNDRY LIST OF LIES" which, as of April 3rd, was up to 68 "and counting".
It's on line, and you might find it rather revealing.... but don't tell Grace. ;-)
Posted by: EYES OPEN | Apr 8, 2008 8:01:45 PM
Eyes Open: There's Good History. The there's BAD History! We've had enough BAD for the past eight years. CHANGE!
Posted by: abcdebate | Apr 8, 2008 7:40:57 PM
They seem to be having trouble remembering which Clinton is running for President. The media seems to be having the same trouble. In either case: Open mouth, insert foot!.
Posted by: abcdebate | Apr 8, 2008 7:38:58 PM
I don't understand the people who don't want Hillary to be president simply because Bill was a president and there have been two Bushes in the WH. As if our country hasn't had this type of tradition in the past. Since our country began, there have been times when relatives have been presidents at different times. Also, if a congressman dies in office, doesn't his wife sometimes take his place. Basically, when a VP becomes President after having been VP for 8 years, that is a continuation of a dynasty of a sort. From a historical perspective, I think it would be great to have a woman as President for the first time and at the same time to have a current President who also is the wife of a past President. I certainly don't see it as a reason to keep someone who is otherwise qualified out of office.
Posted by: sarnorton | Apr 8, 2008 7:37:23 PM
Is anyone surprised?
The Clintons are Duplicidous Liars!
Posted by: reaganfan | Apr 8, 2008 7:25:44 PM
Barack needs to schedule another debate with Hillary as he has run out of ideas.
Posted by: BikernAz | Apr 8, 2008 7:22:06 PM
They don't communicate, their never seen in the same room together. Hillary needs a man. A man that can make her feel like a woman once again.
Posted by: Vic Ferrari | Apr 8, 2008 7:18:52 PM
Hillary is an idiot----ONLY,Hypocrite~
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
FREE JAPAN
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted by: Amanda | Apr 8, 2008 7:17:32 PM
amazing! polar opposites? NOT - one of these two is full of it - and I think it's probably the one running for office - ummm...maybe not, maybe the other one... no, they are both full of it -
now we learn that Bill is in bed with the colombians even deeper than Penn...
so what else is new - bunch of self-serving duplicitous snakes.
Posted by: lettie | Apr 8, 2008 6:46:58 PM
Boycott to the opening ceremony officially makes sense. Hillary is right. Spielberg is not President so, you can not compare Bill Clinton's position on this to Hillary's with Bush. People have the right to disagree.I disagree with Obama's support for Rev. Wright ad for calling himself a civil rights lawyer when all he did was research and write memos.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 6:39:35 PM
Libre, this is my last message to you unless you have information about the story posted or about the information that we've discussed before. First of all, Obama's healthcare plan is better than Hillary's plan. And Obama is in far better position to pass his healthcare plan than clinton is. And in the case of rev. wright, obama has explained himself in every way and just because you choose not to here him does not mean that he hasn't addressed it. And please for goodness sake learn to read. I don't want to see tax dollars being wasted.
Posted by: Grace | Apr 8, 2008 6:38:28 PM
Personally, I don't give a darn whether Bill or Hillary agree on anything or not. I don't care if they have knock down, drag out fights. I could care less, BUT
When one of them is a former President who doesn't seem to understand or accept HE CAN'T BE PRESIDENT AGAIN and still thinks he should run this country, and the WIFE of this EX-PRESIDENT is trying to BECOME our next President I VERY MUCH CARE.
I very much care that Bill Clinton is making backdoor trade deals while his wife is out saying something else to the world. Unfortunately we have to put up with both of them during this campaign.
The Clintons would sell this country out in a heartbeat with shady business dealings. Case in point, regardless of what Hillary SAYS about Colombian trade, PENN is STILL VERY ACTIVE in her campaign.
Having Bill in the White House again with no legal restriants on his business dealings would be sheer lunacy. I very much want a better nation for my grandchildren and I pray there are a lot of other voters who will agree.
I think some of the bloggers here are paid for their comments. No one with half a brain can be that blind.
Posted by: I Very Much Care | Apr 8, 2008 6:29:42 PM
Another reason why this disfunctional pair do not need to be in the White House again.
Posted by: Sherrie | Apr 8, 2008 6:27:39 PM
I'm not sure what the point of this article is. Bill and Hillary can and do have differences of opinion and, further, people can change their minds.
NAFTA is a classic example where one was for and one wasn't. Once NAFTA did pass, Hillary like most good politicians tried to work with it to make it a better agreement. Now she'd like to with on it some more.
Posted by: sarnorton | Apr 8, 2008 6:27:11 PM
Grace I am back I could not find any substantial about Obama, I hope he is preparing for the debate to avoid looking so dumb again.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 6:25:32 PM
libre, honey the story is about Hillary and Bill. But since you want to be ignorant i will try my best to make you think. What important and substantial issues has obama not put an effort to learn and plan for? Now off and go do your research. Good luck in finding something.
Posted by: grace | Apr 8, 2008 6:23:01 PM
If Hillary is the one running for president, why do we care what Bill's opinions are? Is this a prelude to her four years in office?
Posted by: soose | Apr 8, 2008 6:16:43 PM
Can we keep the politics out of the olympics. Maybe she/they should be more worried about human suffering in this country.
Posted by: Ray | Apr 8, 2008 6:14:19 PM
Now, one thing you can say about Hillary Clinton is that she is her own person, she has proved that many times. About Obama I do not know, he really is unelectable.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 6:13:10 PM
Drpepperspray,
If your an Obama supporter, I am not sure what grounds you have to stand on about retorhic.
That is all Obama has.
His words are all retorhic.
Now experiance to back a single one.
Posted by: tejasoutlaw | Apr 8, 2008 6:12:50 PM
Grace, ha that is funny, everything that Obama does is calculated, it is a shame he does not put an effort to learn and plan for the important and substancial issues. They are politicians you know?, but they are also human and have the right to disagree.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 6:10:19 PM
Who edits your copy? You're supposed to be a professional and I saw three typos in it. Do you even go back and read what you wrote?
Posted by: Jessica | Apr 8, 2008 6:03:24 PM
Its very simple. Bill was paid by China to get Speilberg's signature. Bill failed. Go Speilberg!!!!
Posted by: matt | Apr 8, 2008 6:02:25 PM
Manda,
What is the date today?
So, what is it you people want?
Should we not try and get people interested in trade.
Should we not demand that there government stop oppressing their people before we do?
Posted by: tejasoutlaw | Apr 8, 2008 6:01:22 PM
Why Obama's supporters are so hateful and call Hillary all sorts of names? I do not call Obama names, just point to the fact that he is unexperienced, does not stand for anything but his spiritual leader and he is unelectable.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 5:58:41 PM
Why Obama's upporters are so hateful and call Hillary all sorts of names? I do no call Obama names, just pint to the fact that he is unexperience, does not stand for anything but his spiriyual leader and he is unelectable.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 5:57:25 PM
I take it by Her Comment To Bush to Boycott She will too?
Posted by: Lauren | Apr 8, 2008 5:56:45 PM
For those who think getting Hillary is getting bill back is simply wrong.
Is this an example of the shifting landscape of these international politics? The crackdown in Tibet? A disagreement between the power-couple (one where Hillary Clinton is either more hawkish or more of a human rights activist than her husband, depending on your point of view)?
So i now know it Will Be Her White House
I was Wrong.
But I stii want Obama
Posted by: Lauren | Apr 8, 2008 5:55:01 PM
Maybe world leaders should follow the Dalai Lama's own words: "The Olympic Games do not take place in Lhasa. The Olympic Games take place in Beijing," he said. "It is illogical to blame millions of Chinese." There are other logical ways to address Tibet and Darfur than boycotting the ceremonies or the games.
Posted by: Cindy | Apr 8, 2008 5:53:24 PM
I think that difference of opinion between Bill and Hillary is another proof that Hillary is Independent,strong and the right person to be our President. About Obama, I do not even know if he has an opinion, he always agrees with Hillary in politics,and does not stand on anything on his own. I imagine he agrees with not being proud of the Country with Michelle.
Posted by: libre | Apr 8, 2008 5:51:06 PM
So What!
Posted by: SadStateOfAffairs | Apr 8, 2008 5:47:47 PM
Drpepperspray,
Heres another word.
Politician.
If definition of politician doesn't have hypocrit it should.
Obama is the bigest Hypocrit of all the politicians left in the race.
Wait a second, I am white and said race.
I must be a racist like Hillary, Bill, and Ferraro.
Please!!!!!!
Posted by: tejasoutlaw | Apr 8, 2008 5:44:23 PM
It would be better if Barack Obama disagrees with Michelle about pride for the US