I didn't give her a pass on the staged question G-man
You didn't exactly condemn it, either:
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
I don't approve of staging a question but getting a question asked while campaigning is not the same thing as staging a whole pretend press conference IMHO....Besides the one question it sounds like everyone else's was random.
It's hardly the blind Hillary support you just accussed me of either...
Originally Posted By: Matter-eater Man
[quote=the G-man]I think it's just another example of your pattern of weaselly behavior o/b/o Mrs Clinton, discussed in detail yesterday.
You spent a good deal of time trying to tell us that Hillary wasn't behind all these attacks on Obama, blaming Republicans for the attacks and, therefore, being very critical of the attacks. Now, when she's caught actually setting up a website to call another candidate "cowardly," you deviate from your standard "Hillary is above that sort of thing" talking point and defend her actions.
I had thought maybe, just maybe, when you posted the article you were trying to be a bit balanced about Hillary and call her out for something. But, in the end, it was just more blind Hillary support from you.
BTW I'm curious as to why you feel Hillary is somehow in the wrong for challenging other candidate's on their records?
Last edited by Matter-eater Man; 2007-12-213:23 AM.
ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.
Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.
The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.
Clinton has attacked Obama for having occasionally voted "present" as an Illinois state legislator when it came to contentious legislation.
It was a legislative maneuver that was sometimes part of a plan by Democrats to give cover to vulnerable colleagues, though in some instances it appears that Obama voted present to avoid taking a position with some political risk -- such as with a bill that would have allowed children as young as 15 who committed crimes with firearms on or near school property to be prosecuted as adults.
The Obama campaign referred to the websites as "politically motivated attacks in the eleventh hour of a closely contested campaign" and defended Obama's "present" votes.
"Over more than a decade in public office, Barack Obama has successfully led the way on difficult issues from welfare reform, to the reform of a broken death penalty law in Illinois to a battle for long-overdue ethics reforms in Washington," said spokesman Bill Burton.
"Among the thousands of votes he cast in the Illinois Senate, he used the present vote on occasions when he believed bills were drafted in an unconstitutional manner. On other occasions, he voted present as part of legislative strategies, such as ones crafted by pro-choice forces in Illinois to thwart maneuvering by the opponents of a woman's right to choose."
Clinton has used these present votes to paint Obama as full of words but not action.
"I don't think people want a lot of talk about change," she told Iowans early this month. "I think they want someone with a real record -- a doer, not a talker. After eight years of incompetence, they don't want false hope, they want real results." ...
Hillary's vast left-wing conspiracy against Obama!
Quote:
"I don't think people want a lot of talk about change," she told Iowans early this month. "I think they want someone with a real record -- a doer, not a talker. After eight years of incompetence, they don't want false hope, they want real results."
And a "doer", I guess, unfairly smears her political opponent.
Oh if I was being paid for being pro-Hillary I would probably have had to do nauseating things like have their campaign sign in my sig, y'know like you did with Rudy
Iowa poll says Clinton breaking away from the pack
WASHINGTON (CNN) — A stunning new Iowa poll seems to show the New York senator with an apparent double-digit lead over her nearest rival among likely Democratic caucus goers, with voting just over a week away.
Iowa polling is notoriously difficult because of the unpredictable nature of caucus voting. Still, the Clinton campaign is still sure to view these results as an early Christmas gift: she and Barack Obama were neck-and-neck in last week’s American Research Group poll. In the new ARG survey, conducted December 20-23, she leads the Illinois senator by 15 percentage points, 34 to 19 percent. Obama is now in a statistical tie for second place with John Edwards, who has 20 percent of the vote.
Obama seems to have lost ground among male voters: last week, he led the field with 27 percent support, followed by 21 for Clinton and 19 for Edwards. This week, the leaders are Clinton and Edwards, with 28 and 27 percent support among Democratic men. Obama has 16 percent support, and Joe Biden has 11 percent.
As Hillary Clinton appears to be breaking away from the pack, the Republican race may be tightening up: just a few days after Mike Huckabee appeared to lead Mitt Romney by an 11-point margin among likely Republican caucus goers, the two are back in a statistical tie, 23 to 21 percent. John McCain has 17 percent of the vote, Rudy Giuliani has 14 percent — and Ron Paul has 10 percent in the latest poll, up from 4 percent last week.
Huckabee’s loss may also be attributed to male voters. Last week, he had 31 percent support among Republican men; this week, he and Rudy Giuliani are tied at 20 percent. John McCain and Mitt Romney both have the support of 17 percent of the GOP’s likely male caucus goers.
The surveys have a margin of error of plus or minus 4 percentage points.
CNN Recently both Obama & Edwards began attacking each other & I wonder if that ended up giving Hillary a boost.
Not to mention her friends at the Enquirer ramping up another story about Edwards having an affair (even getting a staffer pregnant) and all the rumors her campaign spread about Obama being a Muslim drug dealer.
Not to mention her friends at the Enquirer ramping up another story about Edwards having an affair (even getting a staffer pregnant) and all the rumors her campaign spread about Obama being a Muslim drug dealer.
No. But some members of the Mainstream Media will take political stories from it and then write stories of their own by saying things like "The National Enquirer is reporting...."
No. But some members of the Mainstream Media will take political stories from it and then write stories of their own by saying things like "The National Enquirer is reporting...."
Right or wrong, it happens. Therefore, it isn't difficult for someone with connections to the tabloid (which, for example, the Clintons have) to spread the sleazier or more "gossipy" stories about politicians this way.
Also, let's face it: there are undoubtably people foolish enough to get their political news directly from the Enquirer and there's nothing in the law preventing those people from voting either.
Right or wrong, it happens. Therefore, it isn't difficult for someone with connections and the tabloid (which, for example, the Clintons have) to spread the sleazier or more "gossipy" stories about politicians this way.
you seem stupid.
Quote:
Also, let's face it: there are undoubtably people foolish enough to get their political news directly from the Enquirer and there's nothing in the law preventing those people from voting either.
I don't assume that she's "behind everything". I believe, as to others, that she had motive and opportunity to smear Edwards and Obama.
Recently, in fact, despite your seeming denials her campaign was outed for attacking Obama when he began to take the lead. Therefore, it would be hardly surprising for her to be behind the attacks on Edwards when he began to do well again.
I don't assume that she's "behind everything". I believe, as to others, that she had motive and opportunity to smear Edwards and Obama.
Recently, in fact, despite your seeming denials her campaign was outed for attacking Obama when he began to take the lead. Therefore, it would be hardly surprising for her to be behind the attacks on Edwards when he began to do well again.
What are you talking about specifically as her campaign being outed for attacking Obama?
Hey, anyone....remember this exchange from last year:
Originally Posted By: the G-man
Its funny how, as soon as Barack Hussein Obama starts beating Hillary Rodham Clinton in some early polls, negative information about him starts leaking out.
Not that the Clintons would ever slander an opponent or anything.
Originally Posted By: Matter Eater Man
G-man [is] just making up accustions about the Clintons...Media Matters....It was ...conservatives [who] would milk Obama going to a Muslim school when he was 6... you would say that Clinton was behind it. Even if you think she's capable of doing it, it's very obvious that she didn't need to.
Now comes the recent news that Hillary staffers were circulating the story about Obama being a Muslim and even hinting that Obama was a drug dealer.
Hillary, of course, claims to be completely ignorant of what her staff was doing and was recently forced to apologize for Obama (ironic, since, as we all know, Obama is a closet Muslim):
Her aura of inevitability gone after a damaging month, Mrs Clinton apologised to Mr Obama on an airport tarmac as they headed to Iowa for the final televised debate before the state’s January 3 caucuses. The debate was cordial and uneventful.
Unfortunately, Hillary's, uh, I mean her "staff's" attacks seem to be backfiring:
The remarks by Bill Shaheen, the chairman of Mrs Clinton’s team in New Hampshire, added to a sense of desperation inside the former First Lady’s once formidable campaign. Following the furore Mr Shaheen was forced to resign from Mrs Clinton’s team.
“I made a mistake and in light of what happened, I have made the personal decision that I will step down as the co-chair of the Hillary for President campaign,” Mr Shaheen said.
His offensive comments about Mr Obama were the latest in a series of attacks that have backfired as Mrs Clinton’s campaign struggles to halt his rise in the polls.
You're not going to pretend you didn't already read and/or respond to this, are you?
You're not going to pretend you didn't already read and/or respond to this, are you?
No, it's just when you said her campaign was outed I thought maybe you had posted something of substance but I see it's just more of the same. You have a couple of instances where the Hillary campaign acted accordingly & fired the offending parties & even had Hillary apolgizing for somebody in her campaign bringing up Obama's drug use. Now the last one I have a tough time understanding since Obama has talked about it & conservatives have talked about it. I even talked about it when you brought it up just to let us all know you didn't think it was a big deal. How long does it stay offensive G-man?
Nothing you posted actually disproves my point. All you did was attempt to redefine and parse words.
The fact she fired a staffer or two after they got caught (and had to apologize) attacking Obama does not mean her campaign wasn't behind it. In fact, an apology and firing is indicative of her campaign's culpability, not innocence.
Furthermore, whether or not the criticisms were "offensive," to you or anyone else, does not mean they weren't attacks.
Really, I don't understand why you go to so much effort to pretend that everyone Hillary does is completely benign. You could have just as easily, and somewhat justifiably, pointed out that campaigns are rough operations, that Hillary is not doing anything other campaigns don't do to one extent or another and perhaps even: (a) expressed concern that her staff's shenanigan's could hurt her by taking away from policy discussions; or (b) tried to argue that this shows she's tough and battle tested.
Instead, you have to rewrite history on minor points just to avoid having to concede the woman isn't Mother Theresa. It's just bizarre.
Nothing you posted actually disproves my point. All you did was attempt to redefine and parse words.
The fact she fired a staffer or two after they got caught (and had to apologize) attacking Obama does not mean her campaign wasn't behind it. In fact, an apology and firing is indicative of her campaign's culpability, not innocence.
Furthermore, whether or not the criticisms were "offensive," to you or anyone else, does not mean they weren't attacks.
Really, I don't understand why you go to so much effort to pretend that everyone Hillary does is completely benign. You could have just as easily, and somewhat justifiably, pointed out that campaigns are rough operations, that Hillary is not doing anything other campaigns don't do to one extent or another and perhaps even: (a) expressed concern that her staff's shenanigan's could hurt her by taking away from policy discussions; or (b) tried to argue that this shows she's tough and battle tested.
Instead, you have to rewrite history on minor points just to avoid having to concede the woman isn't Mother Theresa. It's just bizarre.
Where on earth did I rewrite history? Let's see, this latest round of anti-MEM attack started out with me posting that according to one poll, Hillary has a lead in Iowa in the double digits. Your response was blaming her for something a tabloid ran & the usual Obama rant. Previously I posted an article about the Hillary campaign having a website about Obama's "present" record. I was willing to discuss Hillary being tough but recieved no response as to why you felt Hillary wasn't entitled to go after Obama on his record.
I'm willing to discuss Hillary being tough in a campaign, you on the other hand have little to say beyond the usual conservative talking points.
Apparently, you are attempting to do so once again right now. Not only did you recast a series of documented incidents as having never happened but you're attempting to deny you did so.
Apparently, you are attempting to do so once again right now. Not only did you recast a series of documented incidents as having never happened but you're attempting to deny you did so.
Of course if I actually had done what you say I did this would have been your gotcha post. Instead it's you once again trying to make something true just because you said it. Whatever.
I was hoping you would have actually tried discussing the Hillary website but since you've already proclaimed that I don't talk about such things you can't say to much I suppose.
It's looking like Obama will win the Iowa caucus. Had to chuckle at the Washington Post headlines. For the Republicans, "Huckabee Wins Caucus for Republicans in Iowa". For the Democrats, "Obama Clinches Race for Democrats". I have a feeling that if Obama loses NH the headline will be "Obama almost wins NH"
Captain Sammitch Moderator master blaster 10000+ posts Thu Jan 03 2008 10:34 PM Reading a post Forum: Politics and Current Events Thread: Hillary in 2008
The Democrats turn on tonight’s presidential debates on ABC didn’t exactly start with a bang, so moderator, Charlie Gibson, decided to mix things up. Gibson brought up Barack Obama’s message of being the candidate of change and how it was successful for him, then asked Hillary Clinton about her thoughts on change and her statement that Obama needed to more closely vetted on certain issues.
Clinton went after Obama on his health care plan, accusing him of changing his position multiple times, as well as Iraq funding and other issues. Obama fought back, mildly scolding her for distorting his record, but this exchange wasn’t limited to Clinton and Obama. John Edwards jumped into the mix, referring to Hillary as the “status quo” candidate, then called her out for going negative on Obama now that she’s no longer considered the front runner — a move that seemed to push Hillary’s buttons and brought a vigorous response.
Let's say last night really did indicate that Hillary's negatives will keep her off the ticket. (Or keep her from winning if she's on it.) You know what? Deep in my psyche, in the place that kind of misses the toothache I've been prodding at with my tongue, I am having a tiny little pang of missing Hillary. Not her, but hating her. Hating Hillary has been such a central political impulse for so long now — 15 years — and I have had to work so hard to keep it up as she became more appealling looking, less shrill, more human — I don't really know what I will do with that newly freed strand of energy.
I'm sure someone who blandly blurts out something so devoid of reason and human decency will have no problem shifting that "strand of energy" to another designated Republican object of hate. The conservative borg always finds a way to put senseless loathing to good use for the cause.
The Democrats turn on tonight’s presidential debates on ABC didn’t exactly start with a bang, so moderator, Charlie Gibson, decided to mix things up. Gibson brought up Barack Obama’s message of being the candidate of change and how it was successful for him, then asked Hillary Clinton about her thoughts on change and her statement that Obama needed to more closely vetted on certain issues.
Clinton went after Obama on his health care plan, accusing him of changing his position multiple times, as well as Iraq funding and other issues. Obama fought back, mildly scolding her for distorting his record, but this exchange wasn’t limited to Clinton and Obama. John Edwards jumped into the mix, referring to Hillary as the “status quo” candidate, then called her out for going negative on Obama now that she’s no longer considered the front runner — a move that seemed to push Hillary’s buttons and brought a vigorous response.
heh.
That didn't win any points for Edwards from me. I just hope Hillary's arguement that she's a proven agent of change resonated with people.
She looked like a pissed off bitchy wife with that look she gave Edwards.
I thought she looked like a woman who was aggressively defending herself. That of course is very easy to characterise as "bitchy wife" with a female candidate I suppose.
Wow. MEM viewed something through a pro-Hillary lens. I'm totally shocked. He's usually so clearheaded and objective about her.
Obama came off thoughtful and mature in this debate, Hillary didn't lay a glove on him. The news shows will be dominated by an exchange in which she arrogantly screamed that she's been an agent of change for 35 years--the exact image (arrogant and angry) she had been trying to avoid all year.
Even Edwards was coming to Obama's defense, saying that he and Obama are both agents of change and Hillary is attacking because she represents the "status quo."
Hillary still has money and an organization. You can't count her out. But she seems to be unraveling quickly and you have to wonder how she'd fare as the nominee against the Republican candiate given the fact that, if anything, that candiate is likely to be even tougher on her.
