I am tired of the Clinton bashing, so lets clear some things up...

She is saying,

1. Republicans are A-holes that will attack the hell out of everyone and even make stuff up. All her skeletons are already out of the closet and have been gone over 10000000 times in the last 20 years. They are not gonna get anything new on her.

2. Obama is a virtual unknown to the majority of Americans. They may know the name, they may know his speech, but they don't know HIM. If things like a possible association with Rezco and the NAFTA flub are enough to mess him up, there is no way he is gonna be able to fend off a good "swift boating."

3. Obama doesnt have the experience as a back up to the character attacks. He will swift boated and when they start sending out propoganda about his muslim upbringing (much moreso than Hillary) and start talking about his ties to Rezco and subsequently Rezco's ties to the Middle East and possibly terrorist organizations (and the possibility is true), not to mention all of Michelle's huge gaffs which they will turn into her hating America and white people, the only thing he can do is talk about hope and change... not good enough.

4. You can quote all the polls you want about how he is ahead of McCain by a larger margin than Hillary, but as soon as the things in point #3 start kicking in, all of that will change. Those polls are an entirely false comparison because both McCain and Clinton have been "swift boated" and Obama has not. He has not faced the firing line like the other two. With Obama, we have honestly barely scratched the surface. If you deny that, you are in la-la land.

5. Hillary has not really gone negative. She is being honest, perhaps a bit brutally so, but honest. She has (or is percieved to have, which you CANNOT deny) more experience behind her by a looooong shot. He has a speech in 2002 and a nifty slogan (or that is all he is percieved to have, the Republicans will make sure of that.)

6. Obama is not a fighter the way Hillary is. As unfortunate as it may be, in order to beat the Republicans, you have to fight. If you don't think so, look back at Kerry who responded to the swiftboat campaign in much the same style that Obama probably will (it was very much in the same vein as Obama's campaign style). You have got to be a pitbull.

7. Republicans are not gonna vote for Obama over McCain, that is a fallacy. Also, McCain will take a good number or most of "Obama's" independents, not to mention a good number of the "Reagan" Democrats... especially in places like Michigan and Florida (whose votes he does not want counted... or at least that is or will be the perception, the Republicans will make sure of that.)

8. WE HAVE TO INCLUDE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!!! The unfortunate perception is that she is fighting for Florida and Michigan to get seated so she can win, and sure, that may be part of it, but let's take a step back and face reality. The reality of the situation is that the reason everyone agreed to strip them of the delegates up front without much of a fight is that it was presumed that Hillary would win handily, primary season would fly by smoothly, and while it still mattered it wasnt worth the fight cause the end was already predetermined. Fastforward a year, and it has become apparent that this is not true and that the voters of MI and FL matter more than ever. If these states do not get a say in the primaries, saying that the impact on the status of the Democratic party in both states would be HUGE does not give the impact justice. It then becomes guaranteed that Republicans win Florida and could pose a serious threat in Michigan (which is full of Reagan Democrats).

Hooray for Texas common sense!

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Hint:
If you wish to appear credible, enable a profile,
or are you keeping it with Hillary's Tax Return?

Have you looked at some of the Obama posters? Lots without stars and lots without profiles.

Funny how Hillary supporters only tend to see it one way.

This is not an Obama bash, it is quite fair.

I guess she's saving the goat-fucking allegations for when she really needs them.

- as

just wait till the GE... with the Republicans worst chance to get elected in 20 years, they are gonna bring out every friggin gun in the arsenal and then invent a few more. If you don't think so, you are in pretend land.

and if Democrats don't wake up about that, Democrats will loose another easy victory... shamefully.

thanks for clearing that up.

your post is absolute bullshit.

they can't post a decent answer.

How is she going to win this thing? Lose the delegate race, lose the popular vote, and somehow come away with a win from the convention?

And helps the party how? She won't ever win a general if she does that. Her negatives will be even higher than they were when this thing started. A year ago half the people in the country wouldn't vote for her. If she snakes the nomination away from a movement that won more votes and more delegates then she'd be almost guaranteed to lose every state in the general election. Half of the people that can still stomach her now will never vote for her if she continues.

How does she get to the Whitehouse?

Do you have any plausible scenario?

This is what Hillary is saying and Obama people need to read this and more importantly understand it.

And then she'll stop giving us good reasons to "bash" her.

:hi:

"1. Republicans are A-holes that will attack the hell out of everyone and even make stuff up. All her skeletons are already out of the closet and have been gone over 10000000 times in the last 20 years. They are not gonna get anything new on me."

So you're arguing that Clinton already has so much baggage, they couldn't find anything new. Considering we're just now finding out about her Rezko connections, her NAFTA meetings with Canada, etc. it looks like everything old is new again.

"2. Obama is a virtual unknown to the majority of Americans. They may know the name, they may know his speech, but they don't know HIM. If things like a possible association with Rezco and the NAFTA flub are enough to mess him up, there is no way he is gonna be able to fend off a good "swift boating.""

He seems to be doing a pretty good job fending off swift-boating from Clinton, and people like you.

"3. Obama doesnt have the experience as a back up to the character attacks. He will swift boated and when they start sending out propoganda about his muslim upbringing (much moreso than Hillary) and start talking about his ties to Rezco and subsequently Rezco's ties to the Middle East and possibly terrorist organizations (and the possibility is true), not to mention all of Michelle's huge gaffs which they will turn into her hating America and white people, the only thing he can do is talk about hope and change... not good enough."

Obama's got more experience in public office than Clinton, which means he's got more experience running campaigns, and that shows. I'm glad you at least admit Clinton's Islamophobic race-baiting. You're right, I didn't read that part where you called Michelle Obama a racist, but I'm glad I did now.

"4. You can quote all the polls you want about how he is ahead of McCain by a larger margin than Hillary, but as soon as the things in point #3 start kicking in, all of that will change. Those polls are an entirely false comparison because both McCain and Clinton have been "swift boated" and Obama has not. He has not faced the firing line like the other two. With Obama, we have honestly barely scratched the surface. If you deny that, you are in la-la land."

Doesn't make much sense. When does the real "swiftboating" start, and what's going to be the difference beweent the way McCain does it, and Clinton?

"5. Hillary has not really gone negative. She is being honest, perhaps a bit brutally so, but honest. She has (or is percieved to have, which you CANNOT deny) more experience behind her by a looooong shot. He has a speech in 2002 and a nifty slogan (or that is all he is percieved to have, the Republicans will make sure of that.)"

You just admitted in #3 she's resorted to Islamophobic race-baiting. Did you read your own post? Because you're contradicting yourself.

"6. Obama is not a fighter the way Hillary is. As unfortunate as it may be, in order to beat the Republicans, you have to fight. If you don't think so, look back at Kerry who responded to the swiftboat campaign in much the same style that Obama probably will (it was very much in the same vein as Obama's campaign style). You have got to be a pitbull."

He's sure doing a good job at beating Clinton.l

"7. Republicans are not gonna vote for Obama over McCain, that is a fallacy. Also, McCain will take a good number or most of "Obama's" independents, not to mention a good number of the "Reagan" Democrats... especially in places like Michigan and Florida (whose votes he does not want counted... or at least that is or will be the perception, the Republicans will make sure of that.)"

Actually, thousands are claiming they'll do just that.

"8. WE HAVE TO INCLUDE MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA!!! The unfortunate perception is that she is fighting for Florida and Michigan to get seated so she can win, and sure, that may be part of it, but let's take a step back and face reality. The reality of the situation is that the reason everyone agreed to strip them of the delegates up front without much of a fight is that it was presumed that Hillary would win handily, primary season would fly by smoothly, and while it still mattered it wasnt worth the fight cause the end was already predetermined. Fastforward a year, and it has become apparent that this is not true and that the voters of MI and FL matter more than ever. If these states do not get a say in the primaries, saying that the impact on the status of the Democratic party in both states would be HUGE does not give the impact justice. It then becomes guaranteed that Republicans win Florida and could pose a serious threat in Michigan (which is full of Reagan Democrats)."

Alright then. Clinton steps down, then we can include Michigan and Florida.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

you know, for all your vitriolic hatred of Clinton and the complete disregard you have for me...

well, lets just say Barak would be very disappointed in you. :-)

"1. So you're arguing that Clinton already has so much baggage, they couldn't find anything new. Considering we're just now finding out about her Rezko connections, her NAFTA meetings with Canada, etc. it looks like everything old is new again."

she may have recieved donations from Rezko, but she has had no business dealings with him... ties are totally different.

"2. He seems to be doing a pretty good job fending off swift-boating from Clinton, and people like you."

Those are butterfly kisses, not swift boats, and point in fact is that he did not deal with those light jabs very well.

"3. Obama's got more experience in public office than Clinton, which means he's got more experience running campaigns, and that shows. I'm glad you at least admit Clinton's Islamophobic race-baiting. You're right, I didn't read that part where you called Michelle Obama a racist, but I'm glad I did now."

you have selective reading... "percieved" and "republicans will turn it into..." I did not call her a racist.

In addition, her slander of his islamicism seems to be "As far as I know"... and Obama supporters hoot and holler... just wait.

"4. Doesn't make much sense. When does the real "swiftboating" start, and what's going to be the difference beweent the way McCain does it, and Clinton?"

if you dont know, you are completely ignorant of history. take a look at what they did to McCain when they called him a wife cheating, sugar daddy that had a child out of wedlock with an african-american hooker with a drug addict for a wife!?!?!?! I would say that is more than a few degrees worse than what Clinton has said about Obama.

"5. You just admitted in #3 she's resorted to Islamophobic race-baiting. Did you read your own post? Because you're contradicting yourself."

no, i did not actually. the most she has done is give an off hand "as far as I know"... i think you are vastly overreacting.

"6. He's sure doing a good job at beating Clinton"

for two reasons, 1. she was playing the game by his rules (which the republicans wont) and 2. they made a tactical mistake up front and didnt take the threat from him seriously. That has now changed.

"7. Actually, thousands are claiming they'll do just that"

actually, no they are not.

"8. Alright then. Clinton steps down, then we can include Michigan and Florida."

that makes no sense and does not address the point.

THINK FOR YOUR FUCKING SELF. Its laughable

Yawn.

Stuff has happened since then. Bill's been making shitloads of cashola doing favors for some shady characters.

She has ten slime buckets for any Rezko of Obamas. She has less experience than Obama. Hillary has done nothing but smear and lie, repeatedly. If you want to live in a cess pool of a country, then vote for the rat bastard.

We have heard attacks on the Clintons for 20 years... and they are still incredibly popular.

And I think a lot of people are just beginning to realize that they were not innocent of everything they were accused of, or that there is even more to come. A couple of fundraisers in the 90's has turned into a pattern of fundraising now. Smearing Monica Lewinsky has turned into another pattern of throwing people under the bus. The break with Al Gore has more significance. If she is the nominee, it is going to be the most disastrous loss since McGovern. It is stunning to me that people don't understand how much she is hated and how she is so similar to McCain on policy as to make people wonder why they would bother to vote for their mother-in-law if they aren't going to get much difference in policy. Not everybody is going to be convinced about the Supreme Court, see the support John Roberts had.

Obviously there were enough of us who weren't too enthused about a Clinton Redux to throw a monkey wrench in the coronation.

But until then, no.

So far it has Hillary vetoing it.

I haven't seen antyhing suggesting HRC supports re-votes in Michigan and Florida and Obama is opposing.

Don't try and school us on what the CORPORATE MEDIA can do to a candidate.

We know well that the corpmedia hit the mute button on Kerry's counterattacks because they NEEDED To protect Bush for the favorable rulings they expected in his next term.

Dan Rather has admitted the corporate media's role in protecting Bush in 2004.

So....

How long did the Clintons trashed the White House story last?

and his campaign managers admit it readily.

Go watch the documentary "And so goes the nation."

Highly illuminating.

And the facts about swifts are in the Research Forum here at DU. Corpmedia would not put Kerry's speech to the Firefighters and the clip challenging Bush to debate their services and stop hiding behind the swifts into any normal rotation given a newsclip.

Rather said corpmedia needed to protect Bush for the favorable rulings they expected, and I believe him.

Don't boast that Clintons fight viciously and win and then have NO ANSWER about why the Clintons trashed the White House lie was allowed to spread for nine months until Sept 11 took over the news channels.

How did Obama do on his first try?

and does not deserve the nomination or even inclusion in our party.

And you can take your campaign talking points memo and stuff it.

and you give yourself away in point 8... "so she can win, and sure, that may be part of it..."

Ya think! Do you actually believe for even ONE SPLIT SECOND that she would give a crap about seating the delegates from the non-sanctioned primary if she hadn't won? Really?

You people keep threatening that "if they aren't seated, the impact will be HUGH, I'm SERIES!" and there isn't one shred of evidence to back that up. Nothing.

Not to mention that Florida is NOT going to be a blue state this election. Not a single poll pitting McCain against either Hillary or Obama has McCain losing this state. Not one.

Florida doesn't matter this year.

Harry and Louise? Punjab Memo? calling upon repig in Nevada and other places to vote against Hillary? And *THIS* is supposed to be the different kind of politics? *THIS* is the Politics of Hope? You must be stupid.

Fuck that. You can take Harry and Louise and shove that the same place you want her talking points. I know what it was like to go through the 90's w/o health insurance. Hillary Clinton could have taken the easy way out, and just done photo ops and baked cakes as First Lady. Instead, she tried to provide a better plan for the American People. Your demigod said he didn't want to go back to the democratic party of the 90's. He turns around, and acts LIKE A FUCKING REPUBLICAN from the 1990's.

When someone tells you what they are, snapperhead, believe them.

He's "open" to privatizing public schools.
He's "open" to war in Pakistan, just like W said he was only "open" to a war in Iraq.

Well your emperor's clothes are coming off, and what's left looks a lot like what we got now.

Uniter, not a divider?
Reformer with results?

Yeah, I've heard that shit before. I'm just not that fucking stupid.

There have been many unprecedented lows in negative campaigning that the Clinton campaign has done that should make anyone with a sober, clear mind see her as the WORST candidate EVER.

I thought it was unprecedented when she picked on Obama's kindergarten paper as an issue. That was seriously a history maker in terms of gutter politics. From then on, it has been a parade of shameful lies and distortions from her campaign, but the absolute treachery when she has multiply endorsed the Republican opposition over a fellow Democrat who is beating her was the last straw.

Hillary Clinton only cares about herself. She doesn't care if the Democratic Party loses to McCain, otherwise she would have never opened her disgusting piehole and endorsed him. She has done it repeatedly.

She is a liar. She is a traitor. She is a turncoat. She is a warmonger. She wants to change the rules in the middle of the game. She needs to be told to leave the Democratic Party NOW. Right now. Not a second later.

Anyone who supports her at this point is also a turncoat by proxy.

shouldn't you be out doing some grass roots outreach to the gay community? :puke:

It's really not like most dems.

Welcome and I hope you stay, Texas Hill Country!

Go Hillary!

If no, than she hasnt been completely vetted.

1)In a general response, I would say that even if her arguments are correct, she does not have to do her best to reinforce them in public by engaging in GOP style attack politics in a primary. If enough voters and delagates disagree with her opinion, she nevertheless will have done much damage towards the general election that cannot be undone. That, as rationally as I can describe it, is unforgivable behavior on her part.

2)I believe that one reason Obama has gotten as far as he has is that a significant share of the population are sick of the GOP attack style of politics, and see through the bullshit. So if the GOP do trot out the Swiftboating crap and the fear card, that form of mudslinging may have passed its expiration date.

3)Obama is not going to win over the approximately 1/3 of the country who are diehard Republicans and wingnuts. But he does have a good shot at winning over independents and those Republicans who are more moderate and open minded and are fed up with the GOP.

4)Another reason Obama has done so well is that he is trying to "walk the talk" that most people and politicians agree with about raising the level of politics beyond the personal pettiness and mudslinging over nothing. People want to get beyond the cynicism of dead-end negative campaigning and all that is associated with it.......ALKSO that is one reason so many of us are angry at Clinton. because she is doing her best to stifle a raising of the political bar. She is trying to perpetuate a style of politics (and governnance) that many, many people want to put behind us.

1. while I understand your point totally, i dont think what she is saying is entirely self serving. She is trying to give the democratic party a wake up call without having to come out and say, "Democrats... this is why we loose." I would also disagree that her "antics" have been overly harsh to the point where they are unforgivable. She has only been doing some serious hinting, that is all. "as far as I know" and "who do you want to pick up the phone" are very very light "attacks" that dont deserve the reaction garnered.

2. While democrats continue to be in love with the idea that somehow a high ground candidate can win, I respectfully disagree. No body LIKES to go negative. It is employed because it works. Point in fact, Hillary's very very very light jabs at Obama worked as everyone will admit. Imagine what happens when he gets the real punches.

3. Sure, he has a good shot, but that becomes smaller when he has alienated Florida and Michigan, and after all the character attacks he is gonna endure. Remember, we have not yet turned over all of the rocks in Obamaland... The Republicans are gonna have mountains of ammo. If you dont think that they are going to trot out Michelle's gaffs and Obama's black muslim upbringing and current ties to Farrakhan and that it wont scare the hell out of a huge number of candidates, then you are kidding yourself. Every farmer in America will come in from the hinterlands to vote against him. It is very disappointing and unfortunate, but it is a political reality.

4. This goes back to #2. Democrats may love his high road tactics and it may win the Democrats over, but it will not work in the GE.

And Welcome to D.U. :hi:

K&R

will destroy any chance we have of getting control over our primary process.

They can do them over, that's fine, but if we want to get a fair and sane primary process in the future we have to hold the line, period.

and this will have long term consequences.

got a link?

Howard Dean has offered to let them have a do-over; what's ok by Howard is ok by me.

I have come to the conclusion that all sense of rationality has flown out the window with some. They are incapable of having a decent discussion about anything.All they can do is knee jerk a hated response to Hillary. It is very sad.
Obama is quite correct about himself.He says that people "project on him what they want to see".They feel they are defending themselves.It is going to be quite a revelation when they are forced to see beneath the surface. And the GOP will make sure they are.

You are very right about the GOP and McCain. In my Congressional District many have voiced their hatred for Mccain , and he is our Senator.Yet the GOP turned out 3 to 1 to vote for him in the primary. He got more votes that Hillary , Obama and Edwards combined.And Hillary carried my state even though Obama had a full time office here.

I have many Republicans in my social circle and we vociferously disagree but many tell me that they will NEVER vote for Obama.Curiously, they would have voted for Edwards.Many say they would vote for Hillary.The GOP women especially will vote for Hillary but never Obama. But folks just don't want to acknowledge that that is part of the picture in the 'real world'. the "real world" isn't DU and it isn't KO.

BTW, welcome to DU, if you haven't been welcomed before!

but I will try not to let it get me down.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:rofl:

Welcome to DU! It's savage in here right now, hopefully things will get better after we have a nominee. Your post was great.

and everything outlined above is truly what is best. Democrats have to start to recognize and understand why we loose. The fact that we lost to Bush the first time was retarded. The fact that we lost to Bush the second time is in-friggin-excusable.

If we don't wake up, recognize and deal with the above points, we will loose again. Period.

:hi:

:rofl: I think we know what she's saying. and we don't believe a word of it.

a lyin' warmonger and I don't really believe a word outta hilary's mouth.

Same predictable response as usual.

Drug dealer, fairy tale, imaginary hip black friend, gang bang, cult, shuck-and-jive, Hispanics don't vote for black people, Obama is Somalian, Obama meets with former terrorists, NATFA lies and hypocrisy all from Hillary's campaign and surrogates.

The party can live without Hillary's brutal so-called honesty.

well,

1. the Democratic party has not done so well in the last 16 years.

2. traditionally Hispanics have not supported black candidates. That is demographic fact not racism.

3. Clinton never said he was somalian. And there is not a shred of evidence as to where that pic came from... you trust Matt Drudge??? Really???

4. Bill supported NAFTA, she towed the line, but she always had reservations about it and all of those are on record.

5. I have no idea what you are talking about with the terrorist thing. If you are talking about Rezko, then those are ties that are coming up as a result of his trial, not because of Hillary's campaign.

6. There is an evangelical element to his campaign... that is FACT. And to me personally, it is a bit creepy.

7. Who said shuck and jive?

8. Obama brought up his cocaine use in his own book.

9. Hillary is a reality check.

There are numerous comments, statements and links directly from the campaign, but you choose to ignore them all!

He is friendly with and has worked closely with "former" members of a violent domestic group that employed terrorist tactics!

The main guy doesnt even deny the bombings, and as a matter of fact not only doesnt regret it, but wishes he did more!!!

"I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough." - William Ayers

Are you friggin serious?!?!?!

this

Your reaction is just what anyone would expect from a Hillary supporter. You're sick of the "Clinton bashing" but not of Hillary's despicable tactics!

I don't think most younger folks can truly appreciate how upsetting this is going to be to everyone over 55. It is truly a killer.

Obama folks should hope it gets out and gets totally aired in general conversation now and not later.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

1. On a website like this it is easy to say that Republicans are A-holes. It is plain to see that Republican A-holes exist, especially the ones that are loudest and happen to be in power. But I have plenty of Republican friends who, other than being politically retarded, are very pleasant people. And they don't want to be described as A-holes, I'm sure. So it is unwise to make name-calling such a prominent part of Hillary's argument because I happen to think that being civil could actually peel off some of these people to our camp.
Also, you say that Hillary has no skeletons left in her closet and that new ones will not be found. When Hillary supporters say this it shows they are as naive as they (sometimes legitimately) accuse us Obama supporters of being. Her tax returns must have something, or she would have revealed them already. Also, don't underestimate the power of recalling past scandals. I think Hillary is extremely lucky that we haven't continually heard about cattle futures, the Lincoln bedroom, Whitewater, etc. this season. Her dirty laundry, old and new, would hurt her.
2. Yes, most people don't know Senator Obama. But the primary season has shown that the longer he spends making himself known in any given state, the more support he gets. This, I think, outweighs the potential downside of future swiftboating.
3. The experience gap is a huge fallacy. She does not have more experience. But more importantly, fighting on the experience ground hands the victory to McCain.


ok... i'm getting too lazy to go point by point. One last thing.

A fighter?

Listen, I like that Hillary appears to have a huge pair of steel balls. I like tough ladies. But I think it is a losing strategy. When the country divides itself into two fortified camps, we lose (electorally). Instead of taunting the Republicans I think we should be converting them into Democrats. We have an incredible opportunity to build a long-lasting electoral majority. Obama is much more likely to do this than Clinton.

glasses, put down your wine glass- and have a really good, sober look.

What you see then, will be something quite different, and quite unacceptable.

peace~

...nasties. Thank you for your clear arguments for Hillary as the better candidate overall.

:kick: and recommend!

I know one of Barack's. He was deeply involved in getting both sides in Kenya to the table to talk -- and that was during the Iowa caucus season!

:hi:

cute. and you have even pisse dme off some and still, you are just cute.

now.... i am going ot try to leave this room and not come back... maybe, sorta kinda

You summarized beautifully what half the people in our party are thinking and why so many are voting for Hillary! :hi:

Too bad we don't have that option.

First...Welcome to DU and second...you can expect nasty comments from 95% of the bias people around here. Too bad because your post was so well thought out and realistic. Keep posting!

and please, PLEASE, I welcome your response to my post. That post was pathetic.

nm

Don't let the aggressive negativity on this board faze you.

1) Yes, Hillary's trash has been dug through again and again. And as Chait at the New Republic sagely points out, this isn't exactly a win in her favor. It's been dug through and the damage has been horrific and permanent. Yes, it is a brilliant idea to run a candidate who STARTS A CAMPAIGN with a 50% disapproval rating.

It's not quite, but it's heading in the direction of Republicans gnashing their teeth over not being able to run W again.

2) Amazing that in a post where you claim to be "tired of Hillary bashing" you say nothing positive about Hillary. Just amazing.

3) It's interesting that you are anti-data based conclusions and pro-conclusions based on your own gross speculations ("points" 3-6). That figures.

4) You claim on the one hand that people don't know Barack Obama, but on the other hand you claim to know that he is not a fighter. Fascinating. Please, walk us through the steps of this conclusion of yours.

5) "Republicans are not going to vote for Obama over McCain." This shows just how minimally thoughtful and unsophisticated your post is. Is there a core of Republicans who will vote for McCain no matter who the Democratic nominee is? Of course. But to not realize that there is a huge group that formerly identified themselves as "Republicans" and are now in play, as a result of total disillusionment with the evil direction of that party? Is to truly be in "la la land," as you put it. I know many of these former Republicans.

Obama has shown evidence of being able to reach these people in a way that Gore and Kerry could not- and Hillary won't even get in the door to talk to them. This is where a 50% disapproval rating is a killer.

There's a very simple equation- the percentage of Hillary supporters from the primaries who will support Obama in a GE vs. the percentage of Obama supporters from the primaries who will support Hillary in a GE. I think the results of that equation are painfully clear. Please, though, show us the support for a conclusion that Hillary shows any strength among independents or disaffected former Republicans. Because her negative campaigning I'm sure has truly burnished the already spectacular opinion of her that they held prior to the primary season.

6) She hasn't "really" gone negative. So what does that mean? She's gone negative. But not "really" negative. Is that your calculation? What would you call utilizing a piece of information (the NAFTA stuff) that was unsubstantiated, turned out to be false, was never vetted for accuracy, may, in the end, rest on her shore of all things- using that as a club to swing a primary isn't "really going negative"? Claiming that the Republican nominee is more fit than your opponent in a primary isn't "really going negative"?

7) If there is any problem with Michigan and Florida, it is that the HILLARY CAMP has callously pursued an end they know to be wrong. And if there is any lasting damage to the party, it is because in their desperation to win, THEY have advanced the absurd idea of honoring a deeply invalid result.

I will tell you my take, and this is not going to be an attitude restricted to only core Obama supporters. First off, if they honored those "results" it would turn our party into one enormous joke. No rules, no ability to stand up to political expediency, no consistency, no functioning order. That has nothing to do with me or anyone else. But secondly, if this disgracefully illogical "solution" was validated, I would be sending in my letter of resignation to the party. That would be the day that I declare myself an independent. I would have no interest in membership in an organization that is that fundamentally bankrupt. I would tell them they should never expect to see another dollar from me and that I insist on being taken off their fundraising lists. The number of people who will have this reaction? I'll bet that number will be large.

So, in summary... you seem to have nothing good to say about your candidate in a post that is supposed to answer to the "bashing" of said candidate, you insist that it is a positive that people ALREADY know that they hate Hillary, you deny the existence of a large group of voters that is in play, despite all obvious information to the contrary, you claim that Obama's qualities are unknown and in the same post make a qualititative assessment about Obama, and you support the honoring of a "result" that could not possibly be less legitimate.

Very impressive. Or revolting.

welcome aboard! that negative-lite shit is a real puzzler.

I shouldn't have made a new thread devoted to this- my mistake, and while I didn't know that was against the rules, it's my responsibility to know that- but isn't this really a healthy dose of obliteration?

The original post is nonsense. And it's maddening to have people flit on by with "YAY- great points!!!!!" without confronting how valueless the original post was.

(no pun intended) and routinely act as if that's their due. I'd estimate that close to 85% of all the deleted messages and sub-threads are a direct result of posts made by HRC supporters (this is just an anecdotal survey of my own - don't know the actual figures). And yet they get quite indignant at even the slightest perceived violation of DU's rules by supporters of Senator Obama - and wear out that alert button on the slightest pretext. They really are - or a good many of them, anyway - a coterie of unpleasant thugs, bullies, & serial liars.

:eyes:

n/t.

Riiiight... thats why Obama won his senate seat with 70% of the vote. Because republicans won't vote for him. Name the last political race where a candidate won with 70 fucking percent of the vote.

some monolithic, unchanging, static constituency. Now I know that the party itself has been one unstingtingly consistent purveyor of evil, but that is exactly what has shook many former Republicans out of the party tree. There are MANY to be bagged where they've fallen and many others who are ripe for the picking. But that's too rationale a thought for the OP.

they hate mccain. and not all republicans are racists.

its very true. What may work in Illinois isn't, and so far hasn't, happened in the rest of the country.

Excusing the grammatical confusion of your sentence, just what are you *trying* to say?

Isn't it a Hillary talking point that Obama's wins are false because they are bolstered by Republicans and Independents who shouldn't be voting in our primaries?

And what has he not done that you believe shows he won't be able to win the votes of Independents and disaffected Republicans?

Please lay it out for us.

You tell it like it is.

Welcome to DU!

from a San Antonian

LOS SPURS Baby!!

of nonsense, but I suppose it would be too much to ask you to read and respond to that post.

:kick:

but you're absolutely correct. Fortunately, these same facts are being considered by voters. The more Obama campaigns and voters learn about him, the more they drift away. Its not that he's a horrible person, they just realize he doesn't have much experience or background yet for a very difficult job during very difficult times.

I would love to support him... in another 8 years, especially if he spent that as a VP.

about your original post.

:boring:

you got lots of Hillary supporters to say nice things to you and now you feel important.

Your post was filled with indefensible "points," and despite your promises to the contrary, you haven't said anything to back them up. Or respond when they are shown to be completely soft-baked.

Weak.

Sometimes the truth ain't pretty, but it really is about time some folks around here snapped back into reality.

Reasoning and balance are not allowed. You are either with Obama or his supporters will try to kill you with lies and general wanker tactics.

Have fun.