VOTE REPUBLICAN
Sarah Palin: Barack Obama should
have picked Hillary Clinton
as running mate
Telegraph [U.K.], by Tim Shipman
9/13/2008 3:55:09 PM
Sarah Palin has mocked Barack Obama's decision not to pick Hillary Clinton as
his running mate, rubbing salt into an open wound that still haunts many
Democrats. The Republican vice presidential running mate used the third of her
television interviews with ABC News, her first outing with the national media,
to make an audacious pitch for the votes of Mrs Clinton's supporters, who
commentators say hold the key to the election.
Sarah Palin: Barack Obama should have picked Hillary Clinton as running mate
Sarah Palin has mocked Barack Obama's decision not to pick Hillary Clinton as
his running mate, rubbing salt into an open wound that still haunts many
Democrats.
By Tim Shipman in Wasilla, Alaska
Last Updated: 11:13AM BST 13 Sep 2008
A 2012 general election between Mrs Palin and Mrs Clinton is distinctly
possible Photo: EPA
The Republican vice presidential running mate used the third of her television
interviews with ABC News, her first outing with the national media, to make an
audacious pitch for the votes of Mrs Clinton's supporters, who commentators say
hold the key to the election.
Mrs Palin, who may not have been picked by John McCain if the former First Lady
had got the nod over Senator Joe Biden, reflected on the transformation in
Republican fortunes since she was selected.
"I think he's regretting not picking her now, I do," she said of Mr Obama. She
then praised Mrs Clinton: "What determination and grit, and even grace through
some tough shots that were fired her way, she handled those well."
Many senior Democrats are in a state of near despair at Mr Obama's plunge in
the polls over the last 10 days, from a comfortable lead to a deficit of around
three points to Mr McCain. Many of them wish he had picked Mrs Clinton.
Both parties are heavily wooing the ageing white women and blue collar workers
who supported Mrs Clinton during the primary election process.
Democratic Congresswoman Debbie Wasserman Schultz, an ally of Mrs Clinton, was
quick to rubbish Mrs Palin's words, seeking to remind voters of previous, less
sympathetic comments the Alaska Governor has made.
"Sarah Palin should spare us the phoney sentiment and respect," she said.
"Governor Palin accused Senator Clinton of whining. John McCain and Sarah Palin
represent no meaningful change, just the same failed policies and same
divisive, demeaning politics that has devastated the middle class."
On social issues, Mrs Palin reiterated her opposition to abortion except in
cases where the mother might die. She admitted that she believes women should
be denied the right to an abortion even in cases of rape or incest, a position
that is popular in conservative circles but is unlikely to endear her to Mrs
Clinton's supporters.
But when confronted with the question of whether she can be vice president and
raise five children at the same time, she gave the sort of no nonsense reply
that appears to have won over some white women voters.
"Of course, you can be the vice president and you can raise a family," she
said. "I'm the governor and I'm raising a family. I've been a mayor and have
raised a family."
Mrs Palin refused to say whether she believes homosexuality is the result of
genetic heritage or a personal choice. "Oh, I don't know," she said, "I'm not
going to judge someone on whether they believe that homosexuality is a choice
or genetic. I'm not going to judge them."
And the governor, a keen hunter, reiterated her opposition to a ban on
semi-automatic assault rifles. "That's kind of inherent in the people of my
state who rely on guns for not just self-protection, but also for our hunting
and for sports," she said. "It's a part of a culture here in Alaska. I've just
grown up with that."
Interviewer Charles Gibson also pressured her on her record of opposing
wasteful public spending, an issue that is central to her and Mr McCain's
claims to be maverick reformers who will stamp out corruption in Washington.
He put her on the spot over the so-called Bridge to Nowhere, a spending project
to build a link to a virtually uninhabited island that Mrs Palin first
supported and the opposed.
Mrs Palin said she is now committed to opposing similar abuses.
She said: "The poster child for the earmarks was the bridge to nowhere. We
killed that earmark. We killed that project." She vowed to help Mr McCain end
abuse of the earmark system.
"It's un-American, it's undemocratic, and it's not going to be accepted in a
McCain-Palin administration," she said.
--- On Sat, 9/13/08, kangaroo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
From: kangaroo <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Subject: Re: Khmer kids Got deported back to cambodia documentary!
To: "Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org"
<[email protected]>
Date: Saturday, September 13, 2008, 12:38 PM
It's not a loophole anywhere.
Those people committed crimes. And they are not US citizens.
So they can be deported under the US immigration law.
Look! It should not be the discussion of the legality. It should be on
the responsibilities of people who live in the US legally including
the US citizens.
Those people committed crimes against the law of the US.
They live under the US immigration authority.
That is the law of the land.
They were deported because they committed crimes. They are not
innocent people.
They are not victims of anything but their own acts.
The US would rather spend a set amount of money to send these people
back to Cambodia instead of spending endlessly to put them in jail.
That is a great atrategy. And we get rid of criminals out of the
society.
On Sep 11, 7:56 pm, rattanakiri <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> it is not the question if these people are fault, it is question of
decency of the US government part. The US constitution protects US goverment
from sending into exile but the government found a loop pole, these guys are not
US citizens, even though they are practically the product of US society. The
US government would rather dump these guys on the poor Cambodia instead of
dealing with them because they could...not because it is right thing to do.
> DAZ wrote:Dude, you just dont know what you are talking about. Especially
saying that its their fault.
> The thing in this documentary says that americans took them in as
refugees!
> They shouldve educated them and helped them out instead of leaving them in
the ghetto.
> You dont know how it feels to be a victim, so why think you have choices
when they were push to defend their own family and themselves?
> Like i said, you probably rather be someones mexican bitch, but many
cambodians that fled the country has had enough of being looked down upon and
treated like dirt!
> It doesnt matter if they were us citizens!! They ARE REFUGEES!! and came
to the country legally!
> If you put a good person in a bad neighbourhood! The good person will
eventually turn bad! With these cambodian youngsters,
> they grew up seeing their communities, with drug, gangs, corruption.
> I dont think you have been to these kinds of neighbourhoods to judge!
> So I can not agree to your words!
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Cambodia Discussion (CAMDISC) - www.cambodia.org" group.
This is an unmoderated forum. Please refrain from using foul language.
Thank you for your understanding. Peace among us and in Cambodia.
To post to this group, send email to [email protected]
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/camdisc
Learn more - http://www.cambodia.org
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
