Video: Bought and paid for, Vilsack attacks Giuliani’s personal life for Hillary
posted at 11:32 pm on September 21, 2007 by Allahpundit
Share on Facebook | printer-friendly
Remember him? Former governor of Iowa, ran a brief presidential campaign earlier this year that went nowhere, amassed almost $100,000 of debt that he couldn’t get rid of, then dropped out and apparently sold his endorsement to the Clinton money machine to pay off his creditors. I’d call him a rent boy but that term has connotations I don’t want to impute to him, so let’s call him an errand boy instead. Here’s the errand boy repaying the Glacier’s kindness by dumping on Rudy’s personal life so that she doesn’t have to do it herself and give the right even more of an excuse to revisit BJ’s endless sex scandals. That’s okay. All in due time. As for what he says about Hillary leading all Republican candidates head to head, while that’s true at the moment, it also happens to be true that both Obama and Silky lead the Republican field by even wider margins than she does. It’s not a Hillary thing, in other words, it’s a Democratic thing. If anything, she’s weighing them down.
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages:
What’s that old joke? Never trust a guy with ’sack’ in his name. Guess we need to pull some never was out of retirement to respond to this outrage…somebody get Linc Chaffee on the phone.
austinnelly on September 21, 2007 at 11:36 PM
Does the Hillary campaign really want to go down this road?
The simplest response to an attack like this:
“You’ll wanna put a little ice on that.”
By election day every voter in America will know what that implies.
billy on September 21, 2007 at 11:42 PM
Here is the trash but I don’t wanna to talk about it.
Yep they think the public is stupid…..they may well be right.
Limerick on September 21, 2007 at 11:43 PM
Confucius’ nephew say – She who lives in glass marriage should not throw plates.
MB4 on September 21, 2007 at 11:45 PM
Did I hear that one of the issues facing America is “income disparity?”
I guess that means that they wanna take my “income” and give it to someone in “disparity.”
Tennessee Dave on September 21, 2007 at 11:56 PM
Anyone in the Clinton-camp preaching about ‘good marriage’ is like Britney Spears or Madona advocating for virginity.
Entelechy on September 21, 2007 at 11:59 PM
good little toady here is your cookie
Mojack420 on September 22, 2007 at 12:02 AM
State obvious play on his name….. Now!
Mazztek on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 AM
Next up, the Sunday talk shows where these tabloid talking points will be repeated ad nauseum. It will be fun to watch these vile Democrats slipping this info in at every opportunity, no matter how much off topic it is.
Buy Danish on September 22, 2007 at 12:03 AM
‘Sack Attack!
Instead of errand boy for Shrillary, how about waterboy? (With all due respect to Bobby Boucher.) He’s carrying water for her, and a lightweight like the ’sack certainly has no business playing on the field.
ReubenJCogburn on September 22, 2007 at 12:05 AM
Tom Vilsack, bought and paid for by Hillary Clinton. Does that make him a ho or a gigolo?
Terri on September 22, 2007 at 12:06 AM
Tom Vilsack comes out about this same time every year to remind people that he is still out there. And the general reaction is about the same each time, namely one collective yawn.
pilamaye on September 22, 2007 at 12:15 AM
gigoho?
MB4 on September 22, 2007 at 12:17 AM
Shillsack
Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 12:33 AM
Ugly.
VolMagic on September 22, 2007 at 12:39 AM
Didn’t he quit the Republican party?
krabbas on September 22, 2007 at 1:58 AM
Fillasack-a-dookie! Do I win anything?
Now, it would seem that Vilsack is rubbing his hands at the prospect of Rudy being the Republican nominee, because then they could just go hogwild on him and his more than one marriage, life not-custom-made for Presidency, so forth and so on. In other words, Democrats are trying to sound like they want Guiliani to be the GOP nominee for no other reason than to play dirty pool with campaigning. But I wonder, if we knew how many skeletons the Clintons had in their closet in ‘92 instead of what we found out by ‘98, would they have gotten into the white house, let alone been re-elected? I ask that mostly because my memory of politics in the early 90’s is mildy fuzzy, given that I was in middle school.
Spc Steve on September 22, 2007 at 2:01 AM
I read your speech – it was excellent. I am not a social Conservative but everything you said made perfect sense to me, very well written/put.
AprilOrit on September 22, 2007 at 4:42 AM
Boy,Mr.Vilsack sure blew thru the Homeland Security issue as an aside.Call me wacky,but,If Homeland Security(that includes the illegal issue)isn’t the #1 priority,all other issues will eventually become moot.(..or not so eventually..)
Regney on September 22, 2007 at 7:36 AM
A point Rudy has made on more than one occasion.
Battles over health care and minimum wage pale in comparison to the battle for life and liberty. Vilsack is living in a 9/10 world and has, therefore, removed himself from any participation in a serious debate regarding the future of our country.
Wingo on September 22, 2007 at 9:29 AM
Well, we knew about Gennifer Flowers back when he was campaigning in 1992, and Clinton still got elected. But even then he always came off as sleazy to me, while Hillary always came off as shrill.
Knowing what we know now, it should be more of a reason to not elect Hillary because I would not want to see the White House turn into a personal brothel for Bill.
ScoopPC11 on September 22, 2007 at 9:33 AM
Unless there is a criminal element involved, I strongly object to bringing anyone’s family life into a campaign and that even includes Hillary’s(rats!rats!) If anything, it turns me against the person making the remarks and for the person villified. I cannot be alone in this point of view. Whomever is behind this needs to re-think.
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 9:51 AM
I’m sorry, but your family/”private” life goes directly to questions of character.
Just like questions about your religion.
Face it, these are big fundamental life altering things which the voters need to know about.
To say they are dirty pool, or mean nothing, puts another person like Bill Clinton in the White House.
I want my President to have integrity… because not matter what they say on the campaign trail, its fundamental beleifs which come into play when there is a crises.
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 11:13 AM
Thank you. I guess I’m a social conservative at heart, but much less of one in my own mind.
Spc Steve on September 22, 2007 at 11:49 AM
He’s jealous!
He never had a chance to wear a dress on national TV like Rudiani. And, Rudiani’s position on abortion: Baby killing is OK as long as no one gets hurt. Moron.
saved on September 22, 2007 at 12:01 PM
Vilsack commenting on Rudy:
“There’s his number of marriages”
“And his relationship with his children”
Then he says ….
“We ought not be focusing on scandals”.
.
Libs. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Supporting BJ’s wife. HAHAHAHAHEEHEEHEEHEE
This is going to be fun.
fogw on September 22, 2007 at 12:04 PM
Romeo: Do not agree. Matters of “character” when applied to ones family are subject to too many interpretations to be reliable criteria. They are also often surrounded by incomplete facts and hastily drawn conclusions and vicious gossip and colored by others perceptions of what “ought to be”. Granted,there are times when events are irrefutable, but, in general, how ones children “turn out” or the number of failed marriages one has racked up, or how one has dealt with elderly relatives, or why one stays with one partner or another, or your wife is 30 years younger and similar are subject to so many outside factors and events, I, personally, do not judge by them.
jeanie on September 22, 2007 at 12:27 PM
Hahaha heheh. There’s a lot to be said about Mayor G
that the country doen’t know but New Yorkers do.
Hahahah..
Typical move-on soros smears–t
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tom_Vilsack
– - – The national co-chair for Clinton’s presidential campaign.[3]
Texyank on September 22, 2007 at 12:50 PM
Up to you… but your contention to me if flawed.
Face it, politicians take, and change, stances as the political winds blow. They sell votes. They trade votes. They do things for reasons they do not tell us, but all we have to go on is their voting record.
For a Congressman, I look at their record, and what they say… but here we’re talking about the President the US. One of the few men in the world with the ability to make decisions on the fly that can chage world event… the Commander in Cheif of the most powerful military ever.
The President is NOT there to run an agenda… he’s the guy in charge who makes decisions when the Feces impacts the rotating airflow device…
When in the crunch, its ALL about character, and your personal life is a window into what kind of character you have…
One flaw, or one ding? Not a big deal. But when your personal life is a constant disaster, its a danger sign. Its an indicator of potential character flaws which need to be looked into.
Romeo13 on September 22, 2007 at 1:44 PM
here’s just some of what we had to put up with in Iowa..
Tom and the legislature negoiated an education bill that included performance pay that he was going to sign. But at the signing ceremony he informed the republicans he line item vetoed the money for the performance pay part and was creating a “study committee” to look at the idea!!
Stay classy Tom!!
uniclone on September 22, 2007 at 2:17 PM
He did and no one noticed, or cared.
Shillsack’s timing is awful.
Entelechy on September 22, 2007 at 2:25 PM
Fartsack needs a new squirrel for his head.
Wade on September 22, 2007 at 3:50 PM
Hey Tom, go home and slop the hogs…no, not Hillary…the real ones!
sabbott on September 22, 2007 at 3:52 PM
Comment pages: