Huffington Has New Tape: Hillary Bashing Moveon.org

[Kathianne]

And the hits keep coming, links at site:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MjkyZDI2ZjZmODM0ODEwNGQ5OGUzZTcyYWUzMWY1M2E=



Hillary vs. MoveOn (And MoveOn vs. the Truth) [Stephen Spruiell]

The Huffington Post has obtained another audio recording from a private fundraiser, and this time it was Hillary Clinton who got caught on tape saying what she really thinks about Democratic voters. She complained about "the activist base of the Democratic Party," which she claimed turned against her after MoveOn.org endorsed Barack Obama. "MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan," Hillary told her donors. "I mean, that's what we're dealing with."

MoveOn's executive director Eli Pariser told the Huffington Post, "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim."

Back in 2005, when Pariser first denied that MoveOn opposed the war in Afghanistan, NR's Byron York debunked their debunking: "Despite Pariser's contention, there is solid evidence that MoveOn did in fact oppose the war in Afghanistan, and that MoveOn founders Joan Blades and Wes Boyd hired Pariser in significant part because of his activism against the war."

04/19 11:20 AM

[Abbey Marie]

Great find, Kath.

This buttresses my argument that Obama is a whole level scarier than Hillary. Perhaps because of her experience in the White house, I think she is somewhat of a realist when it comes to foriegn affairs at least. Do you remember their differences on meeting with foreign leaders with no conditions? Obama Hussein has said he will meet with anyone, terrorist nations, etc., and requires none. Hillary disagreed.

[Gaffer]

The amazing thing is the clintons founded moveon.org. It was suppose to be her answer to the right wing conspiracy.

[Kathianne]

Great find, Kath.

This buttresses my argument that Obama is a whole level scarier than Hillary. Perhaps because of her experience in the White house, I think she is somewhat of a realist when it comes to foriegn affairs at least. Do you remember their differences on meeting with foreign leaders with no conditions? Obama Hussein has said he will meet with anyone, terrorist nations, etc., and requires none. Hillary disagreed.

I agree. His record is so thin, even in Illinois all one can glean is that he is very, very liberal. Yet, he has run and is profiled in the MSM as a moderate. So many though see what they want to see in him. I think part of this is just a hunger for change, part is he looks and sounds great.

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1207159750412&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter


Obama is no moderate: His radical position on 'abortion' after birth
Abraham Katsman , THE JERUSALEM POST Apr. 3, 2008

...

Reasonable people may differ in their opinions regarding abortion and thorny questions of precisely when life begins. Jewish doctrine, with its focus on the health of the mother, may differ from Christian or other religious positions over the circumstances under which abortion may be permitted. But once a baby is born, even prematurely, there is across-the-board agreement that a new human life exists. Certainly, there is no longer any threat to the health of the mother. Abortion is no longer an option, as there is no longer a pregnancy to terminate.

So, what are we to make of Obama's votes against protecting the right to life for living babies who have survived attempted abortions? Such babies are sometimes born alive as a result of late-term induced labor abortions, often sought when babies are believed (sometimes in error) to have genetic defects such as Down syndrome.

Earlier this decade, such living, breathing, babies who survived labor were "shelved" - left to die and disposed of with other medical waste, or were "aborted" - killed outside the womb. The practice was ultimately banned by unanimous Congressional votes, as even the most pro-abortion Senate Democrats - including every defender of partial-birth abortion - recognized that killing these breathing babies is no longer abortion in any real sense. It crosses the line; it is infanticide. Yet, incredibly, Obama repeatedly worked to deny these living babies any right to life.

Jill Stanek, an Illinois nurse, testified in the US Congress in 2000 and 2001 - and before Obama's Illinois Senate Judiciary Committee - about how induced labor abortions were handled at her hospital, relating this story: "One night, a nursing co-worker was taking an aborted Down syndrome baby who was born alive to our Soiled Utility Room because his parents did not want to hold him, and she did not have the time to hold him. I couldn't bear the thought of this suffering child lying alone in a Soiled Utility Room, so I cradled and rocked him for the 45 minutes that he lived." Powerful stuff. Obama, however, was reportedly "unfazed" by her testimony.

Various state and federal attempts ensued to curb the gruesome practice, including the federal Born-Alive Infants Protection Act, passed unanimously by both the House and Senate in 2002 (It did not immediately become law.)

In essence, these acts state that, whether wanted or not, once a baby is fully born, it is recognized as fully human and is entitled to equal protection of the law under the 14th Amendment. Even pro-abortion Democrats supported the BAIPA because it contained explicit language that it would not infringe on any abortion rights. Democrat Barbara Boxer, arguably the Senate's most zealous pro-choice advocate, agreed that, with this language, the "amendment certainly does not attack Roe v. Wade."

But not Obama. In March of 2001, Obama's Illinois Judiciary Committee considered a law substantially identical to the BAIPA. It passed the Committee, with Obama voting against. In front of the full Illinois Senate, Obama was the only senator to speak against the bill, arguing that life protection extended to any (!) preterm babies (ponder that) could jeopardize abortion rights. He voted "present," tantamount to a "no" vote. In March of 2002, Obama's Committee passed the Induced Birth Liability Act, requiring medical care for babies who survive induced labor abortions - Obama again voting "present," arguing that the Act would "create one more burden on women, and I can't support that."

In 2003, the Democrats took control of the Illinois Senate, and Obama became Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee. A Committee member sponsored an Amendment that would adopt the exact same language in Illinois's proposed BAIPA that Senator Boxer was satisfied did not curtail any abortion rights in the federal BAIPA. But as Chairman, Obama unilaterally killed the bill by never allowing a Committee vote, thereby preventing it from being voted on by the full Senate and becoming law.

Obama's position essentially boils down to this: a woman who contracts for an abortion is entitled, one way or another, to a dead baby. A dead baby must result, even if that baby had already been a distinct living being. The killing of some live babies is just part of the price we must pay in order to keep the sacred right to an abortion supreme and absolute, beyond any shadow of a doubt....

[red states rule]

Operation Chaos is exceeding all expectations!!!!!

Should Hillary win big in PA on Tues, this war will get even more dirty

[PostmodernProphet]

it doesn't get any better than this.....

[red states rule]

it doesn't get any better than this.....

It will be even better after Hillary cuts Barry a new one in PA