yea, she's really gonna get people to vote for her sounding like that. . . .

Hillary's campaign has been negative since New Hampshire. It's been run like a RePUG campaign. It's disgusting. I can see calling the opposition party leadership delegates "Rove" or "Bush", but your own party member? What the heck is wrong with your staff of experts Hillary? Are they retarded? Go negative. Go for it and watch your "first woman president" dream flush down the toilet. You have ran a worse campaign than John Kerry and I thought that was all but impossible.

Hillary Retaliates, with Commercial on ‘Thelma and Louise’

who was that idiot in the background?

i'm beginning to hate hilary

blah, blah, blah... a woman scorned... and all that.

Ummm...Hillary...what would you call harping on Obama's "Present" votes? What would you call making plagiarism charges while using pieces of Bill's speeches? And what would you call trying to get the delegates from Michigan and Florida seated?

I live in Michigan, and I'm going to be angry if Hillary gets the nomination because of Michigan delegates. There was no real election here--I know plenty of people who stayed home because the other major candidates listened to the national party and pulled their names from the ballot. What a joke...the longer this campaign drags on, the less and less I like her.

What a shrill grandstanding performance she made.
She's way too emotional at times. I don't think America could stand a drama queen president. McCain would utterly destroy her if she became our whiny nominee. Please drop out for the good of our party HRC!

She even drew a comparison of Barack Obama's campaign to Karl Rove and Republicans... Who the frig does she think she is?! I hope this little rant backfires in her face.

"Every Democrat should be outraged!" Damn, I'm out of step again - cause I sure as heck ain't outraged.

It's almost sad to watch a candidate implode. Does Hillary Clinton really think that the country wants to see her jabbing her finger in the air?

The irony concerning Clinton's protestations is that both she and Obama are intent in keeping the insurance companies in the equation, thus ensuring that profit is held in higher regard then are the rights and concerns of the American people. This demonstrates that even the Democrats, the alleged party of the people, are just as beholden to the corporate interests as are the Republicans.

Dishonest framing? A bit strong. She was upset that the word "boon" was used, as that quoted an article and not her directly. The folks that wrote the article said they used the word "boon" becuase they felt that it summed up HER STATEMENTS, so even though the word "boon" was in quotes, it is not dishonest framing at all. Next, the flier about the healthcare was actually fairly acurate. Maybe a bit off on that one, but not quite what I would call dishonest - dishonest is a word I would use for the way Hillary is now constantly framing Obama as an empty shirt, etc - or that he has less experience. That is REAL dishonest framing, since he has more elected experience than she does, for one, and for two, he put forth extremely many more bills in the senate than her. The ones she had passed were all unsubstantial and she had problems finding backers. Many of His excellent ideas, however, are now law, and he had tons of backers by comparison. Hillary contuniues to make herself look like what I think she is and would be - bad for this country. She compares Obama to Bush? Is that honest? Who voted for the war?

Check out:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/2/20/201332/807/36/458633

sylvester mcmonkey mcbean @ 19:

Attacking an opponent at their strong point is a Rovian tactic.

This is just interesting because the attack is that the opponent is using Rovian tactics.

It's like an Escher print.

That made me smile. Thank you.

i will ask again....who are hillary's handlers?

she coulda called a press conference and noted that the mailer was fact checked and had inconsistencies...this woulda caused a blow to the obama campaign....maybe not a major blow, but it couldve been used at the next debate

by blowing her stack, she loses the upper hand

by blowing her stack she should make people question her ability to deal with attacks and misrepresentations of her and her policies should she become president

she shoulda cried again...woulda played better

Hillary's DEAN SCREAM moment?

Matt @ 25:

Desperation: it's an ugly thing.

Is she really upset at Obama or is she just showing outrage because Mark Penn told her to?

Penn and the rest of her magic campaign act should be kicked as far away from future administrations as possible. That looked like a clip from Jerry Springer.

Come on, people. No matter what I think about Clinton, she's got a legit complaint.

Obama's whole approach to health care -- policy and politics both -- stinks. We're never going to get universal coverage if we don't have a president who will fight for it. Obama's opposed to "mandatory" coverage, and he's saying things that will make it harder for anybody to do it in the future.

He's going to win the nomination. There's no need for him to do this kind of crap. And there's no reason for us to encourage it. The issue is more important than the guy. (I say that as somebody who already voted for Obama on Sup Tues.)

Rico @ 352:

mudshark @ 344:

blah,blah,blah.
yada, yada,yada.
The real question is.........(drum roll please).......................................................
Will You Vote For The Democrat Nominee? Regardless of who it is.
Say what you want about HRC. The fact remains, She's qualified to do the job.
And so is Obama,just not quite as qualified .The next question is..............................(again,...drum roll please)
Who can stand up and take what the repugs are going to throw at them?
Me,,, I side with HRC.

Yes, I'll support the Democratic nominee but you left out one very critical question. Who has demonstrated the leadership and ability to run a winning, national campaign?

Leadership,I'd give to both of them,Campaign.........I'd have to give that one to Obama.
I'm sorry,but theres something about him that just doesn't sit right with me.But he is a great speaker, I just feel he hasn't been around the federal level long enough.

mudshark @ 344:

blah,blah,blah.
yada, yada,yada.
The real question is.........(drum roll please).......................................................
Will You Vote For The Democrat Nominee? Regardless of who it is.
Say what you want about HRC. The fact remains, She's qualified to do the job.
And so is Obama,just not quite as qualified .The next question is..............................(again,...drum roll please)
Who can stand up and take what the repugs are going to throw at them?
Me,,, I side with HRC.

the question isnt whether she is quailified...the question is, will she be a good leader

she wont...she proved it with the above rant

Rico @ 352:

mudshark @ 344:

blah,blah,blah.
yada, yada,yada.
The real question is.........(drum roll please).......................................................
Will You Vote For The Democrat Nominee? Regardless of who it is.
Say what you want about HRC. The fact remains, She's qualified to do the job.
And so is Obama,just not quite as qualified .The next question is..............................(again,...drum roll please)
Who can stand up and take what the repugs are going to throw at them?
Me,,, I side with HRC.

Yes, I'll support the Democratic nominee but you left out one very critical question. Who has demonstrated the leadership and ability to run a winning, national campaign?

Finally, something not related to calling someone a name. I have been waiting for this meaningful moment to talk about substance. When it come down to it, we must unite after the primaries. All the name calling and promises to vote Republican if their candidate does not win the nomination does nothing for Democrats. It just lets me know we have Republicans among us, who find it easier to come on to this site and confuse the issues. I cannot bare to have another four more years of Republican rule. They are ruining our country around the world and domestically. If Bush can run this country in the ground and get the half measured support he has gotten, Barack or Hillary can do the same thing. I am willing to bet they would not run into the ground or start untold wars.

The other day John McCain wished Fadel Castro dead. Somehow I don't think that is the way to begin a post Bush era. This has not been the same country I grew up in. I remember having a limit to how we conducted our country in public. Republicans now think they can rationalize anything they say with a dysfunctional form of patriotism. Republicans must go.

Joseph

Joseph

People... Open your EYES! What has Clinton really done? She was part of an administration that brought us NAFTA. She didn't ever bring us universal healthcare. What's in her tax returns she wants to wait to show us... after she is the nominee?

She enabled Bush's war. Voted for a bankruptcy bill that strapped more debt to people struggling with medical bills. She voted for the Kyle/liberman amendment.

And you say, there's just something about Obama you can't trust? Open your eyes before it's too late. She just accused Obama of being like Bush. Wow. I think she voted more in line with Bush than he did.

If you vote to authorize a war then who is really niave? It seems to me if she has framed Bush as untrustworthy then why would she vote to authorize anything Bush wanted?

Obama is the real deal here. He may not have a bunch of Washington experience like her but he sure has shown better judgment.

This is so desperate. Obama has already publicly debunked this nonsense claim. [Deleted. Don't come to this site and scold us. And watch the video. The news is Senator Clinton's belated reaction to the mailers and the vehemence of it. If you have an issue with a story, drop John a line. The email link is near the top of the page on the left hand side-Sitemonitor]

Would THIS be a REAL reason for a FISHWIFE tantrum ? TRUTH is OUT !!! Booosh times will be remembered as relaxing if she gets a hold of the US..
.

Costly errors in judgment: Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s campaign finance report appeared to be a map of her management failings.

Spending by Clinton Campaign Worries Supporters

By MICHAEL LUO, JO BECKER and PATRICK HEALY
Published: February 22, 2008

Nearly $100,000 went for party platters and groceries before the Iowa caucuses, even though the partying mood evaporated quickly. Rooms at the Bellagio luxury hotel in Las Vegas consumed more than $25,000; the Four Seasons, another $5,000. And top consultants collected about $5 million in January, a month of crucial expenses and tough fund-raising.

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton’s latest campaign finance report, published Wednesday night, appeared even to her most stalwart supporters and donors to be a road map of her political and management failings.

Several of them, echoing political analysts, expressed concerns that Mrs. Clinton’s spending priorities amounted to costly errors in judgment that have hamstrung her competitiveness against Senator Barack Obama of Illinois.

“We didn’t raise all of this money to keep paying consultants who have pursued basically the wrong strategy for a year now,” said a prominent New York donor ..

cont....

“Obviously, some campaigns are more careful and wise with their money than others,” Jim Jordan, a Democratic consultant who ran John Kerry’s presidential campaign until November 2003. “But these budgetary post-mortems tend to follow a familiar pattern; winners are by definition smart, and losers are dumb and wasteful. In truth, campaign budgeting is hard and complicated and three-dimensional and just impossible to understand without the full time-and-place context of the whole race.”

Oh don't worry...

Some will allow it as their "TEAM" has won...

I however understand that the REAL price of FREEDOM is eternal vigilance!

I will ride whomever is elected President harder then ever..

Know that.

Now wait just one minute Hillary, she have been attacking Obamas health plan from the very beginning, even after he has corrected her on several of the debates, she continues to discredit his in favor of her own and now because he wants to send out news letters so that the good people of Texas really understands what his is about, she wants to now get low down and nasty.

If she wasn't demonizing his in the first place, it would not be necessary to have to explain it over and over, but because her worthless team of incompetent advisors, continue to tell her that the health care subject is a winner for her, she goes on this consistent joy ride of attacks on his plan and now finely he is fed up with it. I woundered what took him so long.

What the hell is wrong with this woman? What part of the mans plan that actually does cover everyone that wants coverage, and is far less expensive then hers, does she not understand?

Time and time again, you hear one thing in speeches and then you see a campaign that has the worst kind of tactics, reminiscent of the same sort of Republican attacks on Democrats. Well, I am here to say, that it is not only wrong, it is undermining core Democratic principles.

Hillary take a look in the mirror!

It's been your tactics and your behavior that has driven people away from your campaign and toward Obama ... there's been a flood over at DailyKos.

For Hillary to take this line when she let's Mark Penn go off and she has been employing Rovian tactics -- what HIllary, can't take a dose of your own medicine?

foreigner @ 372:

foreigner @ 334:

I guess i can no longer post here as a visitor since you appear to have to be a Hillary hater to do so and can not tolerate anything being said against Obama. I will remember that if he gets the Presidency to keep in mind exactly the type of people who put him in office and respect him accordingly with the same attitude as shown Hillary Clinton.

[Knock it off. That is patently untrue-Sitemonitor]

Excuse me for responding to my own comment and the only one added by a sitemonitor in 344 that I noticed, but after reading the 333 comments before mine, the only few discussing an adverse opinion to all the rest were trashed as being a Clinton worker, told GTFO which I think I know what that means, and I read comments with the likes of
-looking schizo, people apologizing to republicans for Hillary, 4 years of listening to that voice, I'll vote for Nader before Hillary, discount on hormone therapy, what a c*nt, pro-war money whore, ads with devil with blue dress on, f*ck Hillary, piece of sh*t......
Is it any reason for people to feel that you could post in this thread if you happened to want to say something positive or in support of Hillary and not get trashed? If I offended the site monitor with my opinion of how this thread was reading to a person who was non American, then I am sorry you got so offended. But I will not apologize for getting the impression that most on this thread happen to be Hillary haters by the comments displayed. You may ban me if you wish, but I do not feel my comment was out of line, used foul language or stated any opinion that was worse than what is already on this thread.

[Look. You can post here if you are in love with Hil and want to bear her children. And if people attack you personally for your stand and the Site Team sees it or is told of it, we'll take care of you. People are rude. I know the thread was rough and tumble there for awhile, but I am keeping an eye on it now. And what you haven't seen are the many comments that were rude to the Hillary defender that I removed without comment. Sorry if I sounded gruff. I just want you to know, you ARE welcome to post at this site-Sitemonitor]

Thank you very kindly for the clarification.

1. I wouldn't say her plan is for true "universal health care".
2. I still remember that bullshit a few months ago where her camp took a minor difference in responses to a debate question (Obama said he would be willing to talk to the heads of Iran and N. Korea; Clinton said she would only after having diplomats prepare the ground for talks) and blew it up to hurt Obama. Hard to feel sorry for her now.
3. But yeah, Dems should be careful about how they campaign against each other for nominations. That includes Obama as well as Clinton.

The term FishWife sounds skanky.

Once a republican, always a republican. Hillary just can't seem to shed all that we detest about the GOP methods of campaigning. By the day, she makes Obama more appealing.

I just watched Hillary's implosion twice. I had to watch a second time because I couldn't believe my eyes and ears the first time. Now the only question is whether this gets twice, three or four times as much repetitive cable TV play as the infamous "Dean Scream".

There is no longer a need to wait in suspense for the electoral verdict on March 4th. Game, Set, and Match for Barack Obama.

PS: Obama's ideal response: "As this extraordinarily tight Democratic race has developed between the two of us, it has been my fervent hope that whomever ends up realizing they are falling short of the nomination, that he or she would conclude with dignity and pride and end their quest on a high note. I hope Hillary sleeps on her earlier statement, and comes back with a more reasoned and dignified clarification. I will therefore withhold any comment until she has had a chance to think about what she said today and how she said it, and decides to made a further comment that better represents her fine candidacy."

clytemnestra @ 380:

VietVet8666 @ 36:

Truth B Told @ 30:

Hillary's DEAN SCREAM moment?

Hillary has self-destructed.

But look out for assassination.

Lived through 1963 and 1968. The feel now is much as same as in 1968 with RFK.

I thought I was the only one getting those vibes.

.

It's NOT just the vibes - these are FACTS (see below, Dallas - of all the places). we/ve been touching upon this here/C&L/ for a few days now. More pple ARE concerned. The opinion is that his protection is inadequate, and if anything untowards would happen to him, it would be not only a tragedy, but this country will explode. Unless that's how the current junta wants to gift us w/martial law.

I just observed a pattern watching his rallys in Wisconsin and Houston(?) -Texas. Great rallys, electric all. I was shocked how pple were mobbing him - even if friendly, there is not enough air in such crowds, and his security detail was clearly overwhelmed. I didn't see much of him earlier since I supported Edwards, and there are only 24 hrs/day.

Each of the Security guys were shorter than Obama - his head is ALWAYS sticking out, looking from anywhere, any angle - very easy target. I might have a little twisted mind since I did work w/high risk mission critical issues in private industries/govt, as well as w/UN, was involved w/security as the Mission chief. If they do not have enough agents, too short guys - HIRE THEM !! I don't agree one should not talk loud abt it - it's not going to go away.

Posted on Thu, Feb. 21, 2008

Police concerned about order to stop screening Obama rally participants

By JACK DOUGLAS Jr.
Star-Telegram Staff Writer

Barack Obama speaks Wednesday at a Democratic rally in Dallas' Reunion Arena. Police were told to stop screening people for weapons before the rally began.

DALLAS -- Security details at Barack Obama's rally Wednesday stopped screening people for weapons at the front gates more than an hour before the Democratic presidential candidate took the stage at Reunion Arena.

The order to put down the metal detectors and stop checking purses and laptop bags came as a surprise to several Dallas police officers who said they believed it was a lapse in security.

cont ...

NavyOfficer @ 390:

I went to the rally in Dallas at this was the first thing I noticed. It kind of ruined the rally for me.

Grammatical correction:

I went to the rally in Dallas and this was the first thing I noticed. It kind of ruined the rally for me.

DaveK @ 20:

It's almost sad to watch a candidate implode. Does Hillary Clinton really think that the country wants to see her jabbing her finger in the air?

After 8 years of Bush/Cheney, I do believe her campaign is exactly how to snatch defeat from what the pundits were calling once a sizable lead before the race even began in earnest.

I think the pundits are more full of shit than this faux outrage and idignation. It was another Xerox moment, this time with passion

I love it when Hillary goes balistic, shrewish and apoplectic all at once.
All those tears, near tears and "We'll be just fine" are scripted and so disengenuous. One dirty little secret: Behind all this vitriol, and more to come, is above all AIPAC, which views Obama as unpredictable regarding Israel's safety. They are sh*ing in their collective pants: With an Obama administration, the neocon wet dreams of a bombed Iran and the establishment of the Greater Israel from the Euphrates down to the Nile and who knows, maybe ---horror of horrors: shudder the thought--peace with a new Palestinian state !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Never!!!!!!!!!

Truth B Told @ 30:

Hillary's DEAN SCREAM moment?

Hillary has self-destructed.

But look out for assassination.

Lived through 1963 and 1968. The feel now is much as same as in 1968 with RFK.

Hillary's accusations so far:

"Obama is KKKarl Rove"
"Obama is Bush"
"Obama is a Xerox machine"
"Obama never ate his vegetables"
"Obama sticks gum under coffe tables"
"I'z gonna choke up here....."

Oh! No She Didn't

Hillary is absolutely correct in calling Obama on this. It's shameful behavior by someone who claims to be a Democrat, and claims to want to "change politics as usual." His empty rhetoric on this is complete bullshit.

On February 3 a physician, Dr. Irwin Redlener, posted a response to Obama's campaign tactic at Huffington Post: "Obama Hires 'Harry and Louise' to Attack Hillary's Plan for Health Care: Republicans Thrilled!"

Should Obama get the nomination, and win in the general election, we can all say good-bye to any HOPE of universal health care.

It's a stupid political move on Obama's part, and sadly we may ALL have to pay for it.

BAC

Inigo Montoya @ 34:

Come on, people. No matter what I think about Clinton, she's got a legit complaint.

Obama's whole approach to health care -- policy and politics both -- stinks. We're never going to get universal coverage if we don't have a president who will fight for it. Obama's opposed to "mandatory" coverage, and he's saying things that will make it harder for anybody to do it in the future.

He's going to win the nomination. There's no need for him to do this kind of crap. And there's no reason for us to encourage it. The issue is more important than the guy. (I say that as somebody who already voted for Obama on Sup Tues.)

what did he do?

he put out a mailer that left out some pertinent facts

hillary couldve addressed these facts calmly and pointed out that obama is engaged in bad politics

this wouldve scored huge points

if her anger was in response to a swift boat attack, that would be one thing....it wasnt

she just doesnt look good here

ConcernedCanuck @ 41:

.....maybe Obama could play the donkey

He certainly is acting like an ass.

BAC

I've said it before and I'll say it again, the posters on this site have to be for Obama because Oprah told them they have to be!
Oprah can't be wrong, can she?

Oh, brother. The woman who just spent a week talking about how Obama copied his speeches is offended that there are attacks in the campaign.

She's so damn fake and transparent. It's like you can SEE her lame-ass strategists typing this stuff.

Guitar Playing Bastard @ 254:

There's a lot of knee-jerk hand-wringing going on the the "progressive" blogosphere that anyone who dislikes Hillary Clinton is a misogynist.

Naturally, to this I say 'FUCKING BULLSHIT!'

I don't believe disliking HRC = misogyny. HRC has done little to endear herself to progressives and has done a lot to alienate them. I can't stand her at all, though there are a number of women I'd vote for if they were running.

I'll even hold my nose (and my stomach) and vote for her if she's the nominee, but I believe if she is, it's a clear path to the oval office for McBush. Hillary cannot win. Obama WILL win if he's nominated. To me, that's the difference.

I guess if that makes me a misogynist, I'll wear the t-shirt but Hillary has done far too much triangulating and supporting of Chimpy McClusterfuck's policies for me to ever be able to willingly support her. Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and then she teamed up with Joe Lieberman and voted for the Kyl-Lieberman Amendment. What's her problem? These are both chicken-shit positions where she is afraid of being called a Liberal by Fox News. And she want us to believe she has the guts to end the War in Iraq?

Sorry, not buying it.

That's my story and I'm stickin' to it.

I really have nothing to add, but I wanted to ask your permission to use "Chimpy McClusterfuck" from now on. See, I have to ask, because if I run for president some day, someone may accuse me of plagiarizing from you!

Seriously. Had to wipe the monitor off after that line. Bravo!

Also, for someone who is "pro-woman," Hillary sure doesn't seem too concerned about all those dead Iraqi women, does she? When does she shed her little tears for them?

Yes, but if you look at Obama's hypocracy on PACs. Or his links to people close or organized crime. Or how he.....

Oh, never mind. You Obamatrons are beyond repair.

Blah, blah, blah.

The usual parade of Obama-supporters and Clinton-haters take their predictable stances. Obama can do no wrong, and Clinton can never do right. She's wrong for crediting Lyndon Johnson for helping Martin Luther King II, she's wrong for mentioning that Obama worked for a slum-lord (even though he preceded that comment by bringing up her past with Wal-Mart), and now she's wrong for pointing out an obvious truth: Obama is using blatant attack-ad, misinformation-filled pamphlets to smear Clinton. As I pointed out somewhere else:

The information presented in [Barack Obama's] rhetoric-fuelled crap is dishonest at worst and disingenuous at best and I think that there's no disagreement there. So while I do think that Clinton did overreact a little, and she can come across as cut-throat, she certainly has a case and I'm a little saddened that it's going to be utterly ignored, of course, and Obama's inconsistencies will once again be overlooked. Instead, everyone will focus on how she's 'harpy' or 'a bitch' or 'an ice queen' or 'a naggy housewife.'

I like Obama enough, though I think he's unready to be President. Still, the endless attacks on Hillary Clinton make me sick. Her chief crime (aside from being a woman, if we're being honest) is that she's not nearly as charismatic as Obama and therefore she doesn't hide her ruthless ambition as well. If you think that makes Obama less ambitious, you're wrong. He's simply a better salesperson, and while I don't deny that can pay dividends politically for the nation if he's elected President, there's far more to a person than how good they make you feel or how much you want to kiss them.

#405: "..if (Obama's) elected President, there’s far more to a person than how good they make you feel or how much you want to kiss them".

Yeah!! What an incisive and brilliant idea!!!!!!! Like not supporting the Iraq invasion (which has killed 1 1/2 million people so far......) for starters? Yeah, judgement is SO unimportant.

Sorry, I forgot to mention some other colourful terms, but luckily they came up in this very thread. Words like "c*nt," "shrew," "whore," and most unsettlingly, "moist panties."

And this was only in the first half of the thread, because I stopped reading by then.

This very thread, as but a single example.

Think about it. That's all I ask.

mystic @ 407:

#405: "..if (Obama's) elected President, there’s far more to a person than how good they make you feel or how much you want to kiss them".

Yeah!! What an incisive and brilliant idea!!!!!!! Like not supporting the Iraq invasion (which has killed 1 1/2 million people so far......) for starters? Yeah, judgement is SO unimportant.

Having read the bill, I know for a fact that it did not support the invasion of Iraq as it occurred. It required, amongst other things, UN approval. Don't get me wrong - I was still opposed to the bill at the time. I simply become tired of hearing individuals like Clinton demonized while no one even considers blaming Bush anymore. It's like 'Boys will be boys!' but in this case people are shrugging their shoulders and saying 'Bush will be Bush!' and placing all of the blame squarely on accused Democrat 'enablers.' I think perspective has become a little skewed, don't you?

Would Hillary prefer it if Barack attacked her glaring weak spots? Or her personality? Or her husband?

Or maybe produce mailers that said Clinton had black babies out of wetlock. That's more of a Rovian tactic than attacking someone's strength.

Would that make you happier, Senator Clinton?

ConcernedCanuck @ 289:

snoozer @ 271:

Hail to the Chimp @ 256:

Obama's Response:

http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/obama.speech.cnn

Not working for me on Mac or Windows. Anybody seeing it?

Works for me http://www.cnn.com/video/#/video/politics/2008/02/23/obama.speech.cnn
Nice reply. No shrieking. No lying. Just an honest reply.

Ah, works for me now. Agreed.

I used to think Obama was a weak debater, but I thought he was great Thursday. That and this response to the "Rovian" charge have eased a lot of my concerns about how he would do against McCain. There's a certain kind of asshole that it's hard to debate against no matter how smart you are. I believe now Obama would be the best candidate I've seen yet to debate that kind of asshole. In Bill Clinton's day I would have said the same about him.

Remember during Kerry's campaign when he'd say or do something embarrassingly dorky and Jon Stewart would put up a clip followed by banging his head on the table? Gore could have that dorky quality too -- remember how SNL made fun of how he said "lockbox"? (I'm so glad that since then, Gore has found his voice, to borrow a line from Hillary.)

It is incredibly refreshing to see a candidate who does not embarrass our party. You will not see Obama driving a tank around like Dukakis. Obama always answers with dignity and respect, while making his point crisply and not taking any crap. I thought Dean had this dignified quality too, though he wasn't quite as sharp as Obama in crafting responses.

The sad thing is, it used to be Hillary who I thought of as the unflappable one, and the one who would be able to outbrain any asshole on the other side of the debate. Her "change you can Xerox" remark destroyed that image of her for me forever. What kind of judgment did it show to use that intellectually flimsy accusation of plagiarism? And now this.

Why can't you guys just report what she said and leave it to us the readers to decide its merits or demerits, without the subjective qualifiers from you? It looks like every progressive blogg out there has already decided to root for Obama, irrespective of how hollow and contradictory his speeches and actions are, and would use every opportunity to bash Hillary.

I am beginning to fear that unless Democrats/progressives put emotions aside, and begin to use their heads, John Mccain is going to win in November, and give us more of the same Bush-8 years! Is that what Democrats really want......?

Yes, Obama gives/makes fancy speeches, even if the words are often stolen, has a cult-like following, but I can't see him taking on the Republican and conservative talk radio smears that would be directed at him, should he be the Democratic party's nominee - not after the Republicans and talk radio have gotten people to associate him with "Hussein", "Muslim", "Osama", you name it.

Yes, Obama is great, but we need a Democrat in the White House, and it's not going to be a Republican if he's the party's nominee. Emotions don't win elections, especially a general election! We are too emotional, and that's going to be our party's downfall in November. Hillary, despite her media and republican assigned-faults, stands a better chance of blowing McCain out of the elelction than Obama.

Joseph @ 65:

This Gets Interesting

If Barack Obama keeps this up, Hillary Clinton's people will release the "ugly" on him. There is a nasty thing associated with Obama I think must be discredited, denied, challenged or admitted. Whatever happens, it must be worked out before the nomination process begins. The last thing I would like to see is this sort of "ugly" being used by the Republican swift boat types in our general election. It will bring him down very quickly, The link has been provided. You be the judge.

Joseph

PLEASE TELL ME YOU ARE NOT THAT STUPID

Obama Open to Private School Vouchers

"http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Barack+Obama"Senator
> > Obama
> > said this week that he is open to supporting
> private
> > school vouchers if
> > research shows they work.
> >
> > "I will not allow my predispositions to stand in
> the
> > way of making sure that
> > our kids can learn," Mr. Obama, who has previously
> > said he opposes vouchers,
> > said in a meeting with the editorial board of the
> > HYPERLINK
> >
>
"http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Milwaukee"Milwaukee
> > Journal-Sentinel. "We're losing several
> generations
> > of kids, and something
> > has to be done."
> >
> > Education analysts said Mr. Obama's statement is
> the
> > closest they have ever
> > seen a Democratic presidential candidate come to
> > embracing the idea of
> > vouchers. Vouchers are taxpayer-funded
> scholarships
> > that allow families to
> > opt out of public school and use their
> > government-allotted education dollars
> > to attend a private school instead. They are
> > despised by teachers unions,
> > powerful players in Democratic politics.
> >
> > When Mr. Obama filled out questionnaires for both
> > national teachers unions
> > last year, the American Federation of Teachers and
> > the HYPERLINK
> >
>
"http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=National+Education+Associatio
> > n"National Education Association, he told the
> unions
> > that he did not support
> > vouchers. But on Wednesday Mr. Obama opened his
> > remarks to the
> > Journal-Sentinel's question on vouchers by saying
> he
> > had to admit that he
> > has been a "skeptic" of vouchers.
> >
> > He said he was astonished to learn that a voucher
> > program in Milwaukee had
> > never been tested in a longitudinal study to find
> > out whether it had helped
> > children or not. "If there was any argument for
> > vouchers it was, all right,
> > let's see if this experiment works, and then if it
> > does, whatever my
> > preconceptions, my attitude is you do what works
> for
> > the kids," Mr. Obama
> > said.
> >
> > Told a current longitudinal study is ongoing, Mr.
> > Obama said he would
> > respond to its findings with an open mind.
> >
> > The executive director of the lobbying group
> > Democrats for Education Reform,
> > HYPERLINK
> >
>
"http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Joseph+Williams"Joseph
> > Williams, said the response was unusual for a
> > Democratic politician,
> > praising Mr. Obama for making his bottom line
> > helping children learn rather
> > than ideology.
> >
> > "I don't think anyone can call him a voucher
> > supporter out of this, but it
> > is an intriguing response," Mr. Williams said. "It
> > is a different kind of
> > answer than most of us are used to hearing from politicians."
> >
> > The president of the National Education
> Association, HYPERLINK
> >
>
"http://www.nysun.com/related_results.php?term=Reginald+Weaver"Reginald
> > Weaver, told The New York Sun today that he
> believes
> > Mr. Obama still opposes
> > vouchers. Mr. Weaver's union has not endorsed a
> > candidate yet. Mr. Weaver
> > said he was hoping to make an endorsement after
> the
> > February 5 primaries but
> > when a clear front-runner failed to emerge he
> > delayed an announcement. He
> > said he is hoping to continue conversations with
> > candidates about their
> > education plans before making an endorsement.
> >
> > He said that in conversations he expects to ask
> Mr.
> > Obama to affirm his
> > position on vouchers. Asked the same voucher
> > question by the Milwaukee
> > paper, Senator Clinton had a strong response,
> saying
> > she opposes vouchers
> > because they hurt public schools and could also
> open
> > up the possibility of
> > using taxpayer dollars to finance dangerous
> schools
> > including training
> > grounds for "jihad."
> >
> > Lots more really good stuff at HYPERLINK
> >

you people are unbelievable... to say someone has not cried for our wounded and dead is dispicable.

X @ 422:

Now that her political career is on the line, she should probably consider crying again; not that she did any of that on television when 20 year-olds were coming home from Iraq in rubber bags...

Also, Meat #405: No, her chief crime is that she enthusiastically endorsed the wholesale murder of tens of thousands of innocent Iraqis for cold, calculated political gain. Hey, all Bill did to show he was tough in the 1992 election was to fry a retard on death row, so at least she gets points for outdoing him! She knew that Dubya would use that congressional authorization to start the attacks, and if she didn't know that, then she is too fucking stupid and naive to be in public office.

Oh my, people are saying nasty things about Poor Lil Hil on a message board. What an atrocity!

If she wants to know what a real violation is like, let her live in Baghdad without a security detail for a week. Or Basra. I hear things are really "Girl Power!" there these days.

Also, isn't all the negative stuff supposed to be good for toughening her up? That's what all the Hilbots say when there are attacks on Obama. Unfortunately, Hillary is a fucking cupcake who has never faced real opposition in her life. Rick Lazio? Give me a break. She is not tough enough to stand up to a national election, and she has no idea how to run a nationwide campaign, based on her disastrous primary performance. Crying and pointing fingers won't cut it anymore for her.

michelle @ 423:

you people are unbelievable... to say someone has not cried for our wounded and dead is dispicable.

X @ 422:

Now that her political career is on the line, she should probably consider crying again; not that she did any of that on television when 20 year-olds were coming home from Iraq in rubber bags...

The fact of the matter is that she never shed a single tear in a public forum while discussing the meaningless death and human sacrifice taking place in Iraq. A war, by the way, that she voted for.
In fact, I believe that her crying in NH was the first time that she ever publicly shed tears on television. Note that she did not cry in front of the cameras after her husband was caught cheating on her. Nor did she cry when she faced the destruction brought on by the ravages of Hurricane Katrina. But, she did cry - for the first time - in front of the general public when she came to the realization that her political career was on the line. If this aspect of her character does not speak volumes...

myiq2xu @ 426:

Kerry Reid @ 424:

#409 Meat: If Hillary were a man, I would say her stance on flag-burning "gave her wood." But she's not.

In either case, it's intriguing that so many HRC apologists attack the rhetoric of those who oppose her, rather than defend her records.

Now, about those hundreds of thousands of dead Iraqis she helped eradicate . . .

This is sooo cliche'

Hillary did not cast the deciding vote to authorize the AUMF.

Unlike a lot of Obamaniacs, I was an adult in 2002 when the vote came up. Although the war is unpopular now, it wasn't back in 2002.

We had an election right after the vote, and the American people overwhelmingly supported the Congress members who voted yes on the AUMF.

And the AUMF was sold to us as a way to put teeth in the UN Iraq resolutions. It was stressed that it was NOT a declaration of war, although Bush subsequently treated it like one.

Yes, Obama gave a speech against the war, but once it started and while it was still popular he STFU and HE SUPPORTED THE WAR.

It's trendy now to claim you always opposed the war. Well, I was there and it was pretty fricking lonely in March 2003 to be anti-war.

kerplunk @ 51:

DaveK @ 20:

It's almost sad to watch a candidate implode. Does Hillary Clinton really think that the country wants to see her jabbing her finger in the air?

Chelsea's future husband better watch out when his mother in law comes over for dinner.

Actually speaking as another on of the adults in 2002, while I agree that the war was more popular, I marched with hundreds of thousands who knew in their hearts that it wasn't right. Popular doesn't mean right. If Hillary had done more soul searching as opposed to political career searching, I'm sure she would have come to the same conclusions.

The ones who marched against going to war with Iraq didn't do it because they thought it would get as bad as it is now, or that it would be as unpopular as it is now. We didn't march because we knew as many people would die as have died. We stood up against the war because it was wrong. Then and now. How it turned out was only a matter of competence, but it was never an issue of morality.

facta non verba @ 428:

This site has an Obama bias as does the Huffington Post, Daily Kos and TPM. All ironically run by men.

I gave up on this site about two weeks ago but tonight I actually want to see the comments on this story and the SNL skit by Tina Fey.

To bridge the gap with those who hate Mrs Clinton is not possible that is more a reflection of you than it is anything else. As an Edwards supporter, I have been very clearly disdainful of Obama and lukewarm on Mrs. Clinton. No longer. I like that fire. I want more of it. And I'll say this Obama supporters would be foolhardy to presume that a large number of the progressive left will tow the line and vote for a Centrist who says he is a Democrat but speaks and acts like a Republican.

I'll vote for Nader, no problem. See you in November.

this post was authored by nicole

the huffington post was started by and is run by ariana huffington (and while her ex apparently prefers men, and i have never seen her with her pants down, as she has given birth to children, im assuming she is all woman)

from the start of this campaign till now, i never got edwards supporters....sure, he talked a good game, but he is a born again populist, who ran on being the most conservative dem in the senate during 04

is hillary a progressive? sure as shit cant tell by her voting record

im not sure when you people will get it....most progressives would love to vote for a woman...as long as its the right woman

hillary based her campaign on two things....experience and inevitability

does she have more experience than obama? in the senate yes....but not in political life...being a first lady in the state and white houses doesnt make you an experienced pol, it makes you an experienced onlooker (unless you are elenore roosevelt)

as for the inevitablity crap....progressives dont like to be dictated to....none of us enjoyed being told since as early as her first senate campaign, that hillary was planning to run in 08 and would get the nomination

and you best get ready to vote for nader, cuz it looks like the clinton train has derailed, and its all over come march 5

Hillary Clinton condemns Obama's attacks, by making attacks of her own? Seems a bit self-righteous to me, and a little bit desperate.

She accuses Obama of attacking her health care plan, but then turns around and attacks him personally? I guess when someone is in capable of discussing policies they resort to personal attacks.

Is she filp floping? Decent person at the last debate, pissy person now? Not good, Senator Clinton.

BAC @ 46:

ConcernedCanuck @ 41:

.....maybe Obama could play the donkey

He certainly is acting like an ass.

BAC

BAC, Hillary started doing this with her flyers in New Hampshire long before the Obama team did. This is what happens when you go negative. You get stung.

fwffavvg @ 43:

This is just another tactic. She's trying to make out that after she reached out to Obama, he then stabbed her in the back. Bullshit, those flyers were out weeks ago. This was a pre-arranged bit of theatre and NOTHING said in those flyers we're false. Notice how she's attacking the "phrasing", now THAT is what you call typical Republican tactic's, attack the messenger and ignore the truth.

and thats the point

make her whole crying jag on how politcs is not a game seem very hollow

well, if texans and ohioans want her to be prez, more power to them....i just cant see voting for her come november

Ballot Bowl '08!!

What's the spread?

I'll vote for Nader before Hillary.

kerplunk @ 51:

DaveK @ 20:

It's almost sad to watch a candidate implode. Does Hillary Clinton really think that the country wants to see her jabbing her finger in the air?

Chelsea's future husband better watch out when his mother in law comes over for dinner.

Or invites him FOR dinner!!!

BAC @ 56:

marie @ 37:

OK, I know this is superficial, but do you really want to spend the next four years listening to That Voice? I realize that mentioning her voice is somehow supposed to be "sexist" but the same was said of Phil Gramm in 1996 and Joe Lieberman in 2004.

Over a liar? Absolutely. Haven't we had enough of the lies from the current administration? Why would anyone want another fours years of that?

BAC

His flyers really didn't lie and she didn't dispute that. She just called it dirty politics to show on paper exactly what she said, and then called him KKKarl Rove. Would Obama be considered sexist if he called her a whining bitch? Or compared her anger outburst to Michelle Malkin's tirades?

I loved it when Bill went off on the FOX news guy. He had good reason and a great response.

This Hillary going off? Not so much. They never learn.. Every time she goes negative on Obama, she LOSES. they cannot win by going negative on this guy.
If they had run a good campaign she would not be so far behind, she can try to pin it on something else but I guess the truth hurts. Sometimes having all the money cannot get you what you want.

The problem with people like Hillary Clinton is that she is obsessed with money, power and social status.

We all wanted John Kerry to stick up for himself when he didn't.

If he had, would it have looked like this?

John Wayne @ 57:

I'll vote for Nader before Hillary.

Well said. Nader will be on Meet the Press on Sunday, where he will perhaps be announcing his run for the presidency, which will offer a much better alternative than the two corporate candidates running for the Democrats.

Hillary is schizophrenic. And she's an uber poor loser.

BAC @ 331:

Barrett D @ 322:

on the plagiarism issue the point wasn`t to discredit hilary as a plagiarist (as she tried to do to him). he brings it up to point out that what he did was NOT plagiarism, as what hilary did was not plagiarism either. the point is he is saying if i`m a plagiarist then so are you, he does that to make her look foolish, not to make her look like a plagiarist.

I disagree, because in the end I think it only made HIM look "silly". I think his campaign staff panicked over Hillary's strong closing comment -- that received a standing ovation. In there panic, they made a very foolish mistake. Obama should have never allowed it to happen. That it DID suggests he is NOT about changing politics as usual, but engaging in the same politics as usual. (That his supports say they are against.)

He can't have it both ways.

BAC

It was the end of the debate. Both candidates received a standing ovation. Not her comment.

And his comment that his friend, and campaign co-chair told him to use those lines is not plagarism. He ablibbed that portion.

The Clinton campaign's latest tactic is to smear Barack Obama by claiming he plagiarized material in some of his speeches. As many pundits have noted, this was a move right out of Karl Rove's playbook - try to take an opponent's strength (in this case, Obama's eloquence) and turn it into a weakness. But when you consider the different approaches that Hillary Clinton and Obama took in writing their respective books, the Clinton campaign's attack is especially Rove-ian: When it comes to the issue of ownership of words, let's just say Obama is on much firmer ground than Clinton.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/02/22/opinion/main3865576.shtml

Smarmy @ 433:

Hillary is schizophrenic. And she's an uber poor loser.

.
I don't know what her diagnosis would be (try: multi ?), but sure as hell she is OFF her meds.
It's all over everywhere - CNN (translation: worldwide audience..) has the full video clip as well, says " ..Clinton jabbed the air with her hands .."" - pple around the world can see more and more shillary being just PAROCHIAL shrillself. My euro friends are laughing their heads off, are nervous will we get to have ANY GElection.

From the NYT and the ''expert'' in an article for idiot-sheeple: Somber Clinton Soldiers On as the Horizon Darkens

“A lot of her friends are just feeling, ‘How could this be happening to her?’ ” said James Carville, a friend of the Clintons and a former strategist to Mr. Clinton. “It’s just hard to understand...""" cont ..

Rascists have quite a dilemma: to vote for a 'black', or, an unmedicated liar-NUT ... The stroke statistics is going to shoot thru the roof this year - there will be less life-long shillbots by March 5, and the end of the year as well....

Erroll @ 22:

The irony concerning Clinton's protestations is that both she and Obama are intent in keeping the insurance companies in the equation, thus ensuring that profit is held in higher regard then are the rights and concerns of the American people. This demonstrates that even the Democrats, the alleged party of the people, are just as beholden to the corporate interests as are the Republicans.

Exactly why I don't like EITHER of these two. Not that I'll vote for McStain, no. These two are NOT the best of the pack. They represent the circus freak that the networks and debate sponsors wanted, hoping for a windfall of advertising money and a ratings bonanza. I think the only thing they would have liked better, would have been the elephant man vs the bearded lady.

Kucinich

Edwards

Dodd

Any of them would be infinitely better, than these two.