The Clinton Thread

[Marx]

Ah, but see the Republicans actually CARE about the wellbeing of its party--and are willing to put aside their own ambitions for its success in November. They are actually focused on WINNING the GE. In other words, they didn't WANT things to get this bad and distract from the main focus.

The same cannot be said on the Democratic side. We are dealing with folks who are suffering from a disease known as "entitlement."

Stop the presses everyone! LIGHTNING AND I COMPLETELY AGREE ON SOMETHING!


Hillary suffered "entitlement" first and it has nearly killed her campaign. I now see Obama suffering from that same disease. He's become rather arrogant and definately has that "coronation" frame of mind working. (In my opinion.)

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Stop the presses everyone! LIGHTNING AND I COMPLETELY AGREE ON SOMETHING!


Hillary suffered "entitlement" first and it has nearly killed her campaign. I now see Obama suffering from that same disease. He's become rather arrogant and definately has that "coronation" frame of mind working. (In my opinion.)

I don't see it that way. But even if he does feel "entitled" to win, at least he actually has a REASON to. The proof is in the numbers, popular vote, momentum, etc. Even the Republican machine views him as inevitable. People in Ireland are actually betting on an Obama/McCain match-up. Obama has run a brilliant, tight campaign and that has shown people what he is capable of. As a result, the ball is really in his corner.

Hillary felt entitled from the beginning simply because she is married to a former president. She hasn't "earned" as much as Obama, and the little she has he gets virtually half of. So....

 

[Marx]

I don't see it that way. But even if he does feel "entitled" to win, at least he actually has a REASON to. The proof is in the numbers, popular vote, momentum, etc. Even the Republican machine views him as inevitable. People in Ireland are actually betting on an Obama/McCain match-up. Obama has run a brilliant, tight campaign and that has shown people what he is capable of. As a result, the ball is really in his corner.

Hillary felt entitled from the beginning simply because she is married to a former president. She hasn't "earned" as much as Obama, and the little she has he gets virtually half of. So....

But we both agree that Democrats have a sense of entitlement.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

But we both agree that Democrats have a sense of entitlement.

I think every candidate has to have some level of self-confidence to even attempt to make such a bold move nationally.

But Hillary's version of the self-entitlement is without basis and that's the problem. At least Obama and McCain had/have reasons. They have the most delegates.

 

[The Senator]

It may not have gotten this bad between them, but it did get fairly critical and harsh. Had the Republican race lasted as long as the Democratic one, I gurantee you that it would be very similiar in tone.

That depends. If it was Mitt *****-- er, Romney versus John McCain, I believe we would have seen a long, drawn out battle. If it was Huckabee versus McCain, I believe it would have been drawn out, but I doubt it would be incredibly bitter. After all, I don't remember too many attacks from Huckabee against McCain while he was in the race, whereas *****-- er, Romney felt the need to constantly smear McCain every chance he got.

 

[Zenien]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

 

[Matt]

Don't bother. I gave up trying to reason with Marx and Matt a long time ago.

We all know that Obama has worked hard to take the "higher" road throughout this campaign and he NEVER has dug into Hillary's past to give the Republican's ammo. Ever. He has treated her with dignity and respect--which she has not reciprocated...unless by force of arms. I will give him credit for that--he's tried to stick to the issues, not the pettiness.

Anyway. Objectivity around here is a dying art...so...

I love them too.

And deceptive mailers to a few hundred people are nothing compared to the accusations of incompetence, plagiarism, Islamic ties--not to mention 3AM scare tactics...basically whatever would stick that Hillary has launched against him. She has tried very, VERY hard to assassinate his character before the country. Can you say the same for him? Honestly?

Do you realize that not even Huckabee or Romney treated McCain (or eachother) this harshly? That's why they can come together now. Hillary and Obama cannot and neither will their supporters. It's called "bloodied".

Objectivity? With all respect LS! (and I love you. ), I find it hard for you to call objectivity into question when you're so obviously overly apologetic for Obama. Your second post quoted here shows that. You justify Obama's attack ads and say "Well, its not as bad," while at the same time you want to hang Clinton for it.

 

[Matt]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

Its not going to show in the primary polls. The primaries are made up of Democrats and at this point, minds are made up. However, in the GE, when you have PACs playing these non-stop on TV, it will effect undecided swing state voters (especially since Obama's comments were about three very important swing states, Michigan, PA, and Ohio...one of which is already looking for a reason not to vote for him due to the entire uncounted delegate fiasco) and help rally the Republican base.

Look at it this way, the Republican base was already entirely weakened simply by having McCain. You weren't going to see the same level of support we witnessed for G.Dub...and then the Pastor Wright scandal broke. And then the Rezko scandal. And then the Ayers scandal. And then the "rural voters" scandal. Hell, Obama is rallying the Republican base for McCain. And trust me, if there is one base you do not want rallied, it is hardcore Republicans. They always turn out in huge numbers when they are passionate about an issue and things like Wright, praising 9/11 or Obama's associations with Ayers will certainly do it.

 

[Zen]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

hey girl!

this is where i have been spending all my time. have you played the new downloadable content for smackdown vs raw on ps3? hillary and Obama are downloadable characters, Hillarys special move is a shrill scream like queen sindel from mortal kombat 3 and Obama has an ability to shake the ropes and ramble on about change to regain his life.

 

[The Senator]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

There's a poll in Pennsylvania which has McCain ahead of Obama by 10 points... a poll released by the same organization only had McCain ahead by three points last week, before the scandal broke... so I think its clear that these remarks are doing damage...

 

[Marx]

I honestly haven't seen any polls that suggest as such, though he could have chosen his words better, basically every source is saying that the impact has been minor. If there was really an impact, there's a plenty of time to mitigate any damage done.

Obama is slowly losing more and more support among independents and republican-swing voters with every passing misstatement and controversy. That's a fact.

 

[Mr Sparkle]

So? Many voters are still offended by Obama's remarks, regardless of whether these signs exist...

oh, it's ok to lie about stuff if it's feasible it could've happened?
wow, I guess you can't be mad at the Bush admin. anymore, since well, it could have been feasible that saddam HAD weapons.

 

[The Senator]

oh, it's ok to lie about stuff if it's feasible it could've happened?
wow, I guess you can't be mad at the Bush admin. anymore, since well, it could have been feasible that saddam HAD weapons.

I didn't condone his obvious lies.

I was referencing the fact that Obama's supporters are willing to overlook Obama's problems simply so they can slam Clinton.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

Objectivity? With all respect LS! (and I love you. ), I find it hard for you to call objectivity into question when you're so obviously overly apologetic for Obama. Your second post quoted here shows that. You justify Obama's attack ads and say "Well, its not as bad," while at the same time you want to hang Clinton for it.

Obama has not thrown a kitchen sink attack at Hillary Matt. Not once.

So no, I'm not being "overly apologetic". The point is, Obama could have rolled up his sleeves and REALLY gotten nasty with Hillary, but he's refrained. Don't you think he realizes that if he bullies Hillary like a male candidate the female voters would revolt? He's not stupid. He's tried to stay on topic and trust me--if Hillary hadn't been so grossly aggressive with him he would not have even done the bit he has so far.

So like I said, his attacks on her has not been nearly as forceful. That's a fact. The polls prove it, because a great many people are finding her less and less likable just because of her "attack modes". In other words, her gender combined with her nasty approach = b@&#* in some people's minds. Sad but true.

Obama, however, is not struggling with the likability factor the same way Hillary is.

And I am the epitome of objectivity. Don't you forget it. :heart:

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I didn't condone his obvious lies.

I was referencing the fact that Obama's supporters are willing to overlook Obama's problems simply so they can slam Clinton.

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman.

 

[The Senator]

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman.

I understand that argument. However, I find it a bit irritating when Obama does something questionable and his supporters do not want to admit he has done so. Obviously, his remarks about rural voters seems to have done little damage. After a week, polling indicates he is back to where he was against McCain in Pennsylvania, and that he is closing the gap against McCain in Ohio. He is also on top in Michigan for the first time since his campaign tried to disenfranchise voters in that state. Not to mention, he is doing considerably well in Iowa, the whitest of the white states there are (with the exception of perhaps Utah and Montana-- and he's statistically tied with McCain in MT).

So, I think these comments haven't really affected him now. And the media has kind of let it disappear off the table, which is a good thing for the Obama campaign. Hopefully he's learned to watch himself before he speaks.

 

[Lightning Strykez!]

I understand that argument. However, I find it a bit irritating when Obama does something questionable and his supporters do not want to admit he has done so. Obviously, his remarks about rural voters seems to have done little damage. After a week, polling indicates he is back to where he was against McCain in Pennsylvania, and that he is closing the gap against McCain in Ohio. He is also on top in Michigan for the first time since his campaign tried to disenfranchise voters in that state. Not to mention, he is doing considerably well in Iowa, the whitest of the white states there are (with the exception of perhaps Utah and Montana-- and he's statistically tied with McCain in MT).

So, I think these comments haven't really affected him now. And the media has kind of let it disappear off the table, which is a good thing for the Obama campaign. Hopefully he's learned to watch himself before he speaks.

But do you really believe he was trying to insult PA voters? Because I don't think so. And I think a lot of people saw through what was an obvious attempt by the media to prolong this battle between him and Hillary. They really blew it out of proportion, and yes, they've done it before...even with Ferraro.

And that's why he's back to his original stance in the polls: he's kinda like Teflon...nothing really sticks long to him. Not saying it will always be that way but I do believe he has a seriously loyal base...one that appears to be expanding big-time.

 

[Marx]

Meh. I don't think that's it at all. I think Hillary just gives people more to slam with. They don't call her the most polarizing political figure in U.S. history for nothing Jman.

I wouldn't exactly call her the most polarizing. I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

 

[The Senator]

But do you really believe he was trying to insult PA voters? Because I don't think so. And I think a lot of people saw through what was an obvious attempt by the media to prolong this battle between him and Hillary. They really blew it out of proportion, and yes, they've done it before...even with Ferraro.

And that's why he's back to his original stance in the polls: he's kinda like Teflon...nothing really sticks long to him. Not saying it will always be that way but I do believe he has a seriously loyal base...one that appears to be expanding big-time.

Well, I have said that I agree with his comments, and that I understand what he was saying. However, voters tend to think what the media tells them to think. And if the media tells them to think that Obama thinks all of them are overly-religious, gun-toting racists, they're bound to consider it fact. He should make a better effort to avoid scandal. He doesn't need more than he has already gotten, and I hope this means he's smart enough to at least think before he speaks, as whatever vague statements he makes will be misconstrued and thrown around by all of his opponents.

 

[Matt]

Obama has not thrown a kitchen sink attack at Hillary Matt. Not once.

So no, I'm not being "overly apologetic". The point is, Obama could have rolled up his sleeves and REALLY gotten nasty with Hillary, but he's refrained. Don't you think he realizes that if he bullies Hillary like a male candidate the female voters would revolt? He's not stupid. He's tried to stay on topic and trust me--if Hillary hadn't been so grossly aggressive with him he would not have even done the bit he has so far.

So like I said, his attacks on her has not been nearly as forceful. That's a fact. The polls prove it, because a great many people are finding her less and less likable just because of her "attack modes". In other words, her gender combined with her nasty approach = b@&#* in some people's minds. Sad but true.

Obama, however, is not struggling with the likability factor the same way Hillary is.

Obama has used a more passive-aggressive attack strategy, granted, but an attack strategy none the less.

And likability really isn't a reflection of how forceful one is. George Bush was considered more likable than McCain and he was the guy running around saying a war hero fathered an illigitement love child with a prostitute (The child turned out to be his adopted daughter from Bangladesh). He then in 2004 called another war hero a liar about his medals. Yes, the man who was AWOL from the Air National Guard had PACs operating against a REAL war hero. Guess who polls would indicate is more likable?

And I am the epitome of objectivity. Don't you forget it. :heart:

You're the epitome of something alright. But I still love you :heart:

 

[souvlaki]

I wouldn't exactly call her the most polarizing. I think that's a bit of an overstatement.

How about the most polarizing figure in this election? The polls suggest at least that much is true.

 

[Marx]

How about the most polarizing figure in this election? The polls suggest at least that much is true.

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

 

[The Senator]

If you want to attach that label to her, that's your call Souv. I would dare say that Obama is just as polarizing. The Democratic Party is equally split between these two candidates. And a significant percentage of each candidate's support has pledged to defect to McCain before voting for the other.

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

 

[Marx]

As of late, Clinton's personality is about as appealing as a rustic rake being dragged down a gritty chalkboard. Before the battle for Pennsylvania got dirty, I was willing to believe that both candidates were polarizing and divisive. However, she has demonstrated in the past three weeks that she is a baldfaced liar who will lie and cheat and screech her way into victory, taking stabs whenever she gets the chance over incredibly ridiculous matters.

Obama makes his anti-gun comments. What does she do? She tells a nice story about how her grandfather used to take her out back (in Scranton, none the less) and fire a few shots from a rifle. Nevermind the fact that she wholeheartedly supported gun control legislation when she was both first lady AND a senator. Nevermind that during a debate last spring following Virginia Tech she said that it needs to be more difficult for folks to get a gun, and she flaunted her support for gun control legislation such as the Brady Bill and the Assault Weapons Ban.

Then she accuses Obama of being an elitist, and she takes a swing at MoveOn.org for being "too liberal." Then she went on another anti-Volvo driving, latte-sipping blah blah blah bull **** blah blah anti-liberal rant, acting as if she's a true "moderate" who can win the election.

And isn't that a crock when you consider the fact that SHE'S RUNNING TO BE THE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE! She blatantly insulted half the party right there, if not more. See, it's becoming more and more clear that she's willing to do anything possible to win this nomination. She's even willing to destroy her credibility and run her personality through the mud in the process.

Which is quite a shame, considering she was one of the better politicians in this country before she said "I've got to win by ANY means necessary."

I completely agree that this race has gotten entirely out of hand. I, for one, was shocked when she started telling stories about shooting guns with her grandfather. (Especially given her stance on guns.) I will say though, that there is such a thing as being too liberal. A Neo-Lib is no better than a Neo-Con. The extremes of anything always overshadow the rest of their respective groupings. Moveon.org lost alot of respect when they took a shot a Petraeus. I don't care what your personal feelings are, you should never take a shot like that at our military personnel. It's one thing to try and make a statement, it's quite another to cross that line and degrade the military.

 

[The Senator]

I completely agree that this race has gotten entirely out of hand. I, for one, was shocked when she started telling stories about shooting guns with her grandfather. (Especially given her stance on guns.) I will say though, that there is such a thing as being too liberal. A Neo-Lib is no better than a Neo-Con.

You do understand that Neo-Liberalism is not the opposite of Neo-Conservatism, correct? Neo-Liberalism advocates the redirection of spending from the public sector to the private sector; emphasizes commercial deregulation; eliminating restrictions on trade; and investing in foreign markets. Basically, Neo-Liberalism is the foundation of the Reagan conservative movement.

The extremes of anything always overshadow the rest of their respective groupings. Moveon.org lost alot of respect when they took a shot a Petraeus. I don't care what your personal feelings are, you should never take a shot like that at our military personnel. It's one thing to try and make a statement, it's quite another to cross that line and degrade the military.

I don't think it's crossing a line, and I personally agree with what MoveOn.org had to say. First of all, there is such a thing as free speech in this country, and when you're in the political spotlight there are things you have to accept, including personal attacks and insults. Second, the ad clearly defined what the organization had to say: Was General Patraeus going to give us a fair report, or was he simply going to force feed us what the Bush administration wants us to hear? They had every right to say what they wanted to say and did not deserve the flack they received.

What I find insulting is when the Senate takes an entire day out of their schedule to pass a resolution censuring an ad in a ****ing news paper rather than focusing on the real issues facing the American people. The Senate is not a campaign rally for every Senator running for President; it's a place of business, where the work of the American people needs to be accomplished. Censuring an ad which had already been published did not do anything to help the American people; it helped the politicians who don't want to look un-patriotic by giving them time to take a punch at an oh-so-liberal interest group... you know, just in case their constituents gave two ****s...