Hillary Campaign - Updated

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hope is a great thing but by itself it doesn't put any food on the table.

Neither does a candidate who can't even manage the finances of her own campaign. Yeah, she'd be a great fit from an economic standpoint.

Oh look, another "demonizer".

Following your logic we should just make the richest person president and be done with it.

 

[theeedude]

Well, if there is dirt on Obama, it should come out now, because it certainly will come out come November.

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hope is a great thing but by itself it doesn't put any food on the table.

Neither does a candidate who can't even manage the finances of her own campaign. Yeah, she'd be a great fit from an economic standpoint.

Oh look, another "demonizer".

Following your logic we should just make the richest person president and be done with it.

But it would help to have someone that understands basic economics, no?

Besides, Buffet/Gates could probably fix the economic issues that plague the country way better than any bureaucrat.

 

[Vic]

I'm gonna say this is just a rumor. For Hillary to go ugly negative with nasty dirt against Obama now will only destroy both their chances in November.

 

[1EZduzit]

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hope is a great thing but by itself it doesn't put any food on the table.

Neither does a candidate who can't even manage the finances of her own campaign. Yeah, she'd be a great fit from an economic standpoint.

Oh look, another "demonizer".

Following your logic we should just make the richest person president and be done with it.

But it would help to have someone that understands basic economics, no?

Besides, Buffet/Gates could probably fix the economic issues that plague the country way better than any bureaucrat.

Quit trolling. The ability to raise money has nothing to do with ones understanding of economics.

 

[GodlessAstronomer]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The ship has sunk. She needs to get out of the race for the good of the democratic party.

Yep, it's actually over, the only thing keeping it alive is the media.

Yeah, and all those people who keep voting for her. When she wins PA blame the media, not the voters. The overwhelming majority of voters expect Obama to win the nomination, and still half aren't voting for him. That's not the media, that's lack of voter confidence.

What you call lack of voter confidence I think is more fanatical commitment and a fear that only a fighter who demonize the opposition can win. Hope scares the cynical.

Right, if they're voting for your guy it's because of hope. But if they're voting for the other side it's fanatical. You're a hypocrite Moonbeam.

No, I don't think I'm being hypocritical. I think there's a general leaning in the directions I suggested. I think people who believe in fighting are more inclined to Hillary and those who are looking for change in the direction of consensus are more for Obama. Are you trying to tell me that people pick their candidates out of a hat with nothing they say or stand for affecting anybodies position? Maybe you feel insulted to know you're hopeless instead of proud to be a fighter, no?

I don't support Hillary Clinton (I'm not even American) but nice try. All you did was assert generalisations about Clinton supporters with no evidence. Your previously interesting ranting has taken a sharp decline in quality since you became yet another blind partisan hack. It's a shame really.

 

[palehorse]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hope is a great thing but by itself it doesn't put any food on the table.

Neither does a candidate who can't even manage the finances of her own campaign. Yeah, she'd be a great fit from an economic standpoint.

Oh look, another "demonizer".

Following your logic we should just make the richest person president and be done with it.

But it would help to have someone that understands basic economics, no?

Besides, Buffet/Gates could probably fix the economic issues that plague the country way better than any bureaucrat.

Quit trolling. The ability to raise money has nothing to do with ones understanding of economics.

how about going way over budget, or making poor financial decisions? Are those fair game?

if so, then she's surely fooked!

 

[Bitek]

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The ship has sunk. She needs to get out of the race for the good of the democratic party.

Yep, it's actually over, the only thing keeping it alive is the media.

Yeah, and all those people who keep voting for her. When she wins PA blame the media, not the voters. The overwhelming majority of voters expect Obama to win the nomination, and still half aren't voting for him. That's not the media, that's lack of voter confidence.

What you call lack of voter confidence I think is more fanatical commitment and a fear that only a fighter who demonize the opposition can win. Hope scares the cynical.

Right, if they're voting for your guy it's because of hope. But if they're voting for the other side it's fanatical. You're a hypocrite Moonbeam.

No, I don't think I'm being hypocritical. I think there's a general leaning in the directions I suggested. I think people who believe in fighting are more inclined to Hillary and those who are looking for change in the direction of consensus are more for Obama. Are you trying to tell me that people pick their candidates out of a hat with nothing they say or stand for affecting anybodies position? Maybe you feel insulted to know you're hopeless instead of proud to be a fighter, no?

I don't support Hillary Clinton (I'm not even American) but nice try. All you did was assert generalisations about Clinton supporters with no evidence. Your previously interesting ranting has taken a sharp decline in quality since you became yet another blind partisan hack. It's a shame really.

Maybe you are not that keyed into American politics then? HRC is bitterly partisan, has talked at length during the campaign about fighting the Republican's, has fought bitterly with them in the past. There is a good deal of a "vengence to vast right-wing conspiracy" that seems to seep in her campaign.

I think its entirely fair and accurate to say those Dems who want to fight the Rs and get back at them for the last however many years tend to be strong HRC supporters. Obama and supporters have a more post-partisan consensus and negotiate
POV.

The two candidates really do differ on this issue, and thus attract the like-minded supporters.

 

[Jhhnn]

From Vic-

I'm gonna say this is just a rumor. For Hillary to go ugly negative with nasty dirt against Obama now will only destroy both their chances in November.

I agree, and hope that the Clinton faction sees it that way.

Carl Bernstein has come a long, long ways from his days of Watergate, hasn't he?

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Hafen

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: GodlessAstronomer

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose

Originally posted by: BarneyFife
The ship has sunk. She needs to get out of the race for the good of the democratic party.

Yep, it's actually over, the only thing keeping it alive is the media.

Yeah, and all those people who keep voting for her. When she wins PA blame the media, not the voters. The overwhelming majority of voters expect Obama to win the nomination, and still half aren't voting for him. That's not the media, that's lack of voter confidence.

What you call lack of voter confidence I think is more fanatical commitment and a fear that only a fighter who demonize the opposition can win. Hope scares the cynical.

Right, if they're voting for your guy it's because of hope. But if they're voting for the other side it's fanatical. You're a hypocrite Moonbeam.

No, I don't think I'm being hypocritical. I think there's a general leaning in the directions I suggested. I think people who believe in fighting are more inclined to Hillary and those who are looking for change in the direction of consensus are more for Obama. Are you trying to tell me that people pick their candidates out of a hat with nothing they say or stand for affecting anybodies position? Maybe you feel insulted to know you're hopeless instead of proud to be a fighter, no?

I don't support Hillary Clinton (I'm not even American) but nice try. All you did was assert generalisations about Clinton supporters with no evidence. Your previously interesting ranting has taken a sharp decline in quality since you became yet another blind partisan hack. It's a shame really.

Maybe you are not that keyed into American politics then? HRC is bitterly partisan, has talked at length during the campaign about fighting the Republican's, has fought bitterly with them in the past. There is a good deal of a "vengence to vast right-wing conspiracy" that seems to seep in her campaign.

I think its entirely fair and accurate to say those Dems who want to fight the Rs and get back at them for the last however many years tend to be strong HRC supporters. Obama and supporters have a more post-partisan consensus and negotiate
POV.
The two candidates really do differ on this issue, and thus attract the like-minded supporters.

Your theory sounds good but how do you explain the fact that, on this message board and others, it's the Obama followers that always seem to be the agressors with the nasty attacks. It would appear that Obama attracts the mean spirited, divisive followers where as the Clinton supporters are mostly defending their candidate with more rational discussions.

There doesn't seem to be much of a "consensus and negotiate" attitude among his supporters. It's more of a my way or the highway attitude. Of course, that's just my observation and I'm sure you'll let me know I'm wrong.

 

[Pliablemoose]

Did I miss something?

When has the Bill & Hillary show played fair?

WTH is with the threat to "get dirty" ?

Unless they've got video of Obama writing his minister's speeches while covered in chicken blood practicing Santa Ria it's over.

 

[Jhhnn]

I think you're accepting a lot of "false flag" attacks from the Right as coming from real Obama supporters, RY62, just as I think there's a lot of "false flag" support for Clinton, as well. Rather than building up their own candidate, repubs are trying to tear down the other side, fracture it, any way they can.

Pliablemoose's comments seem typical in that regard, attacking the Clintons. I'd assess his chances of voting for anybody other than McCain as zero. The notion that the Clinton's don't play fair has no reference point, so perhaps we should establish a few- Maybe the Willie Horton Show, The Ken Starr Show, The McCain's Black Baby Show, the Swiftliars' Show, or the Democrats as Terrarist! Sympathizers show... those aren't the only examples of repub sleaze, either, but they'll have to do at the moment... The Clinton's couldn't match that record if their lives depended on it...

 

[Pabster]

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Did I miss something?

When has the Bill & Hillary show played fair?

WTH is with the threat to "get dirty" ?

Unless they've got video of Obama writing his minister's speeches while covered in chicken blood practicing Santa Ria it's over.

:laugh: :thumbsup: :laugh:

It's over, and has been for some time.

 

[nageov3t]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: Pliablemoose
Did I miss something?

When has the Bill & Hillary show played fair?

WTH is with the threat to "get dirty" ?

Unless they've got video of Obama writing his minister's speeches while covered in chicken blood practicing Santa Ria it's over.

:laugh: :thumbsup: :laugh:

It's over, and has been for some time.

so stop kicking the dead horse already

 

[DukeN]

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Originally posted by: DukeN

Originally posted by: 1EZduzit

Hope is a great thing but by itself it doesn't put any food on the table.

Neither does a candidate who can't even manage the finances of her own campaign. Yeah, she'd be a great fit from an economic standpoint.

Oh look, another "demonizer".

Following your logic we should just make the richest person president and be done with it.

But it would help to have someone that understands basic economics, no?

Besides, Buffet/Gates could probably fix the economic issues that plague the country way better than any bureaucrat.

Quit trolling. The ability to raise money has nothing to do with ones understanding of economics.

Uhh but mismanagement of your 'raised' funds does. Ditto for overspending and not paying your bills.

Hilary's economical sense is about as acute as her perception for sniper fire.

 

[RY62]

Originally posted by: Jhhnn
I think you're accepting a lot of "false flag" attacks from the Right as coming from real Obama supporters, RY62, just as I think there's a lot of "false flag" support for Clinton, as well. Rather than building up their own candidate, repubs are trying to tear down the other side, fracture it, any way they can.

Pliablemoose's comments seem typical in that regard, attacking the Clintons. I'd assess his chances of voting for anybody other than McCain as zero. The notion that the Clinton's don't play fair has no reference point, so perhaps we should establish a few- Maybe the Willie Horton Show, The Ken Starr Show, The McCain's Black Baby Show, the Swiftliars' Show, or the Democrats as Terrarist! Sympathizers show... those aren't the only examples of repub sleaze, either, but they'll have to do at the moment... The Clinton's couldn't match that record if their lives depended on it...

I think you may be right about many of the so called Obama supporters being just Republican slimeballs trying to cause problems but there are just to many to explain it away that easy. Just take a look at how many Obama followers are engaged in negative tactics. I think you'll find that the attempts to tear Clinton down by far outnumber any attempts to raise Obama above her. I still must stand by the observation that Obama attracts the mean spirited, divisive followers where as the Clinton supporters are mostly defending their candidate with more rational discussions.