In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
« Will Spitzers Resist? | Main | Obama-Clinton? (Clinton or Obama) Nope, Says Pelosi. » Sinbad's Ready From Day One11 Mar 2008 02:29 pm Comments (19)
OMG hillarious!!!!! 
Now that we're checking Hillary's references, it seems her resume is a bit puffed up.
having Real Sinbad way in Holy homonyms, Batman!
Real Sinbad sounds an awful lot like Fake Sinbad...
I find it interesting that Barack Obama never answers with his own foreign policy experience. Instead, he sends someone out to make fun of the service of the First Lady of the United States. Why doesn't Obama simply respond with his OWN foreign policy experience, instead of sending someone out to tear another person down?
HILLARY: "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." SINBAD: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'" I think Hillary is right on this one. May be Bill Clinton wanted to put her in danger! Who Knows.
I gave you guys the opportunity to run with this story! On TPM I called you all out - Yglesias, Ambinder, Sullivan, CNN, ABC, the AP, NYT - the whole lot of you! But you sat on the story. Who gets the last laugh, now? Me, Sinbad! Sinbad is back in the spotlight, baby! Clinton/Sinbad '08 - DO WE EAT HERE OR AT THE NEXT PLACE?!
Yeah, we ARE talking about president Bill Clinton here. Sounds plausible. Just for the sake of balance - I believe I am ready to be commander in chief since I had the good judgement to oppose the war from the beginning. Maybe Sinbad can say the same.
Jan -
Jan, given how much time Clinton is spending trying to tear him limb from limb (politically), I don't think Obama can afford to stand by and say nothing about Clinton any longer. I hear all the pundits every day talking about how Obama isn't "tough" because he can't play "dirty politics." I personally don't think dirty politics is an accurate measure of toughness, but apparently the people who matter think otherwise, and they're the ones the voters hear. I don't see why Hillary Clinton should have a free pass on all of her specific claims of experience if they aren't true -- and unfortunately, if the Obama campaign doesn't point this stuff out, it'll never be brought to light. Sinbad -- I love the new slogan! Do you think I can get that in a bumper sticker?
Jan: First of all, Obama didn't "send" Sinbad out to make fun of Hillary. Sinbad, being one of the three "under sniper fire" during the Bosnia trip, decided on his own to clarify and make sure everyone knew Hillary was exaggerating. On your "why doesn't Obama talk about his experience" point: Barack Obama has less Washington experience than Hillary Clinton or John McCain. The case he is making is that JUDGMENT is the relevant measure, not experience. His JUDGMENT on Iraq (not just stating his opposition, but also accurately predicting the consequences - read the entire speech) makes him a superior candidate. His judgment not to hand Bush another blank check with the Kyl-Lieberman vote on Iran makes him a superior candidate. Look, Dick Cheney has more CiC experience than virtually anybody. Would you want him to be President? Of course not, because his experience shows him to be a war-monger. Hillary Clinton's "experience" and John McCain's experience show that they are also likely to opt for more war, whereas Obama is more likely in a future conflict to look to diplomacy. That's why he talks about judgment, and not experience, as the real measure of a true leader.
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady." In all seriousness, what does this mean? Is this really a rule of thumb for presidents? "Hmm, it's a war zone. The Secret Service says they can't guarantee my safety. A surprise, six-hour Thanksgiving visit isn't an option. I know, let's send my wife, my teenage daughter, and America's greatest living comedic treasure."
You can see why the right wing is just waiting for a crack at Hillary. She's a freaking train wreck hurtling down the rails.
Jan, I'm curious. In 1860, the Republican candidate for President had only two years' experience in the House of Representatives, but was known as a fine orator. Do you believe Abraham Lincoln had insufficient experience to be President of the United States?
Judy, do you seriously believe a statesman like Abraham Lincoln would actually come out like Obama did and disparaged the service of a First Lady to her nation? Obama attacks the service of others instead of presenting his own foreign affairs experience. If he has none, he should simply admit it and give Clinton her due, like a man. Your attempt at comparing Barack Obama with Abraham Lincoln is just another example of how embarassing it is to watch Obamanaics.
I do believe he would do such a thing, since he managed to disrespect his own constitution and suspend the rights of his citizens. But that is hardly the point. You didn't answer Judy's question, Jan. Did Lincoln have insufficient experience to be President? Don't respond with more Ad Hominem.
Don’t believe one optimistic word from any public figure about the economy or humanity in general. They are all part of the problem. Its like a game of Monopoly. In America, the richest 1% now hold 1/2 OF ALL UNITED STATES WEALTH. Unlike ‘lesser’ estimates, this includes all stocks, bonds, cash, and material assets held by America’s richest 1%. Even that filthy pig Oprah acknowledged that it was at about 50% in 2006. Naturally, she put her own ‘humanitarian’ spin on it. Calling attention to her own ‘good will’. WHAT A DISGUSTING HYPOCRITE SLOB. THE RICHEST 1% HAVE LITERALLY MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. Don’t fall for any of their ‘humanitarian’ CRAP. ITS A SHAM. THESE PEOPLE ARE CAUSING THE SAME PROBLEMS THEY PRETEND TO CARE ABOUT. Ask any professor of economics. Money does not grow on trees. The government can’t just print up more on a whim. At any given time, there is a relative limit to the wealth within ANY economy of ANY size. So when too much wealth accumulates at the top, the middle class slip further into debt and the lower class further into poverty. A similar rule applies worldwide. The world’s richest 1% now own over 40% of ALL WORLD WEALTH. This is EVEN AFTER you account for all of this ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS from celebrities and executives. ITS A SHAM. As they get richer and richer, less wealth is left circulating beneath them. This is the single greatest underlying cause for the current US recession. The middle class can no longer afford to sustain their share of the economy..... Their wealth has been gradually transfered to the richest 1%. One way or another, we suffer because of their incredible greed. We are talking about TRILLIONS of dollars. Transfered FROM US TO THEM. Over a period of about 27 years. Thats Reaganomics for you. The wealth does not ‘trickle down’ as we were told it would. It just accumulates at the top. Shrinking the middle class and expanding the lower class. Causing a domino effect of socio-economic problems. But the rich will never stop. They will never settle for a reasonable share of ANYTHING. They will do whatever it takes to get even richer. Leaving even less of the pie for the other 99% of us to share. At the same time, they throw back a few tax deductible crumbs and call themselves ‘humanitarians’. Cashing in on the PR and getting even richer the following year. IT CAN’T WORK THIS WAY. Their bogus efforts to make the world a better place can not possibly succeed. Any 'humanitarian' progress made in one area will be lost in another. EVERY SINGLE TIME. IT ABSOLUTELY CAN NOT WORK THIS WAY. This is going to end just like a game of Monopoly. The current US recession will drag on for years and lead into the worst US depression of all time. The richest 1% will live like royalty while the rest of us fight over jobs, food, and gasoline. Crime, poverty, and suicide will skyrocket. So don’t fall for all of this PR CRAP from Hollywood, Pro Sports, and Wall Street PIGS. ITS A SHAM. Remember: They are filthy rich EVEN AFTER their tax deductible contributions. Greedy pigs. Now, we are headed for the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time. SEND A “THANK YOU” NOTE TO YOUR FAVORITE MILLIONAIRE. ITS THEIR FAULT. I’m not discounting other factors like China, sub-prime, or gas prices. But all of those factors combined still pale in comparison to that HUGE transfer of wealth to the rich. Anyway, those other factors are all related and further aggrivated because of GREED. If it weren’t for the OBSCENE distribution of wealth within our country, there never would have been such a market for sub-prime to begin with. Which by the way, was another trick whipped up by greedy bankers and executives. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. The credit industry has been ENDORSED by people like Oprah, Ellen, Dr Phil, and many other celebrities. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. Now, there are commercial ties between nearly every industry and every public figure. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for their ‘good will’ BS. ITS A LIE. If you fall for it, then you’re a fool.. If you see any real difference between the moral character of a celebrity, politician, attorney, or executive, then you’re a fool. WAKE UP PEOPLE. THEIR GOAL IS TO WIN THE GAME. The 1% club will always say or do whatever it takes to get as rich as possible. Without the slightest regard for anything or anyone but themselves. Reaganomics. Their idea. Loans from China.. Their idea. NAFTA. Their idea. Outsourcing. Their idea. Sub-prime. Their idea. The commercial lobbyist. Their idea. The multi-million dollar lawsuit.. Their idea. $200 cell phone bills. Their idea. $200 basketball shoes. Their idea. $30 late fees. Their idea. $30 NSF fees. Their idea. $20 DVDs. Their idea. Subliminal advertising. Their idea. Brainwash plots on TV. Their idea... Prozac, Zanex, Vioxx, and Celebrex. Their idea. The MASSIVE campaign to turn every American into a brainwashed, credit card, pharmaceutical, love-sick, couch potatoe, celebrity junkie. Their idea. All of the above shrink the middle class, concentrate the world’s wealth and resources, and wreak havok on society. All of which have been CREATED AND ENDORSED by celebrities, athletes, executives, entrepreneurs, attorneys, and politicians. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. So don’t fall for any of their ‘good will’ ‘humanitarian’ BS. ITS A SHAM. NOTHING BUT TAX DEDUCTIBLE PR CRAP.. In many cases, the 'charitable' contribution is almost entirely offset.. Not to mention the opportunity to plug their name, image, product, and 'good will' all at once. IT MAKES THEM RICHER. These filthy pigs even have the nerve to throw a fit and spin up a misleading defense with regard to 'tax revenue'. ITS A SHAM. THEY SCREWED UP THE EQUATION TO BEGIN WITH. ITS THEIR OWN DAMN FAULT. If the middle and lower classes had a greater share of the pie, they could easily cover a greater share of the federal tax revenue. They are held down in many ways because of greed. Wages remain stagnant for millions because the executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, and entrepreneurs, are paid millions. They over-sell, over-charge, under-pay, outsource, cut jobs, and benefits to increase their bottom line. As their profits rise, so do the stock values. Which are owned primarily by the richest 5%. As more United States wealth rises to the top, the middle and lower classes inevitably suffer. This reduces the potential tax reveue drawn from those brackets. At the same time, it wreaks havok on middle and lower class communities and increases the need for financial aid.. Not to mention the spike in crime because of it. There is a dominoe effect to consider. So when people forgive the rich for all of the above and then praise them for paying a greater share of the FEDERAL income taxes, its like nails on a chalk board. If these filthy pigs want to be over-paid, then they should be over-taxed as well. Remember: The richest 1% STILL own 1/2 of all United States wealth EVEN AFTER taxes, charity, and PR CRAP. A similar rule applies worldwide. There is nothing anyone can say to justify that. Anyway, there is usually a higher state and local burden on the middle class. They get little or nothing without a local tax increase. Otherwise, the red inks flows like a waterfall. Service cuts and lay-offs follow. Again, because of the OBSCENE distribution of bottom line wealth in this country. I can not accept any theory that our economy would suffer in any way with a more reasonable distribution of wealth. Afterall, it was more reasonable 30 years ago. Before Reaganomics came along. Before GREED became such an epidemic. Before we had an army of over-paid executives, celebrities, athletes, attorneys, investors, entrepreneurs, developers, and sold-out politicians to kiss their asses. As a nation, we were in much better shape. Lower crime rate, more widespread prosperity, stable job market, free and clear assets, lower deficit, ect. Our economy as a whole was much more stable and prosperous for the majority. WITHOUT LOANS FROM CHINA. Now, we have a more obscene distribution of bottom line wealth than ever before. We have a sold-out government, crumbling infrastructure, energy crisis, home forclosure epidemic, 13 figure national deficit, and 12 figure annual shortfall. ALL BECAUSE OF GREED. I really don't blame the 2nd -5th percentiles. No economy could ever function without some reasonable scale of personal wealth and income. But it can't be allowed to run wild like a mad dog. GREED KILLS. Bottom line: The richest 1% will soon tank the largest economy in the world. It will be like nothing we’ve ever seen before. and thats just the beginning. Greed will eventually tank every major economy in the world. Causing millions to suffer and die. Oprah, Angelina, Brad, Bono, Drew, and Bill are not part of the solution.. They are part of the problem. THERE IS NO SUCH THING AS A MULTI-MILLIONAIRE HUMANITARIAN. EXTREME WEALTH HAS MADE WORLD PROSPERITY ABSOLUTELY IMPOSSIBLE. WITHOUT WORLD PROSPERITY, THERE WILL NEVER BE WORLD PEACE OR ANYTHING EVEN CLOSE. GREED KILLS. IT WILL BE OUR DOWNFALL. Of course, the rich will throw a fit and call me a madman. Of course, their ignorant fans will do the same. You have to expect that. But I speak the truth. If you don’t believe me, then copy this entry and run it by any professor of economics or socio-economics. Then tell a friend. Call the local radio station. Re-post this entry or put it in your own words. Be one of the first to predict the worst economic and cultural crisis of all time and explain its cause. WE ARE IN BIG TROUBLE. By the way. Save the jealousy, envy, socialist, communist crap. My God people. Look a little deeper. I didn't even write this. I just happen to agree with most of it.
|
Subscribe to this blog by Email Twitter || On Facebook || QIK Live Channel  Recent Posts
Monthly Archives
|
| 
Copyright © 2008 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
In the span of just a few days, we've gone from having Fake Blog Sinbad commenting on this race to having Real Sinbad way in. This might be the best presidential race ever.
What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.
I don't know, but it sounds like an awesome movie.
Posted by Jeff Larson | March 11, 2008 2:46 PM