Insipid

Oh, please. Give me a break.

First off, Hillary has said NOTHING that horrible or that divisive or that destructive to Obama. While the 3am commercial was obnoxious, so was Barack's Harry and Louise ad which he copied off of Newt Gingrich.

Secondly, in case if you guys haven't noticed, in the VERY FEW issues in which they actually disagree, like National Health Care and Nuclear energy Hillary is MORE liberal than Barack.

Thirdly, if the Democratic party can be "knee capped" by a primary fight then it was already hobbled to begin with.

Finally, i consider it pretty ironic that the man is running on unifying the nation while at the same time doing everything he can to disenfranchise two large states. Who else won by disenfranchising Florida voters? Oh yeah, George Bush. But i guess so called "progressives" don't mind people being disenfranchised as long as their guy gets the benefit of this.

itsmeeeeeee

i find it ironic that the woman who is screaming about two states being disenfranchised can ONLY win the nomination by throwing out the vote (disenfranchising) of EVERY PRIMARY VOTER IN THE COUNTRY by over turning their wishes to get the nomination via super delegates.

i also find it ironic that she signed the pledge to strip delegates from those states who blatantly broke the party rules - and then conveniently re-nigged on that pledge when it became apparent she'd lost the primary elections in a desperate (and futile - even WITH those states) attempt to drag out her inevitable funeral.

__________________

Jonesy

More 'liberal' = better? Stupid fucking absolutist ambiguous labels. It is just such crap. Why do these ridiculous concepts continue duping morons?

Any mother-fucker who wants to expand or open government, in every possible, as much as possible, can go ass-fuck a razor-blade. If there is good reason to expand or open or increase (or the 'conservative' converse), than fine. Otherwise, these words are nothing more than meaningless political terms, used for no other purpose than coercion.

RK77

You have to give yourself a break from ignorance.

Now, in order for you to be able to swallow your own candidate, you are willing to participate in lowering the bar to "HORRIBLE"? Forget accurate or truthful?

You are correct. What Hillary has said has not been "inane" it has been dishonest and ignorant. The 3 am commericial was not "obnoxious" it was absurd. It was an insult to the intelligence of the voter who is a smarter than to think that Hillary is sitting at a desk at 3AM fully dressed and in pearls.

More importantly it was premised on a lie. It suggested that Hillary has experience she DOES NOT HAVE!

What is EXTREMELY revealing about Hillho people is that they always criticize the healthcare ad by comparing it to the Harry and Louise ad. IN ALL THESE YEARS---they have not figured out that the problem with the Harry and Louise ad was NOT that a husband and wife were sitting at a kitchen table trying to figure out what to do with their families future. THE ONLY problem with the Harry and Louise ad was that it successfully pointed out the mangled bureaucratic mess that Hillary had created. PERIOD. It trumped a deception that Hillary was trying to sell the American people. That is ALL.

Similarly, Hillho fans are frantic about the Obama ads because point out the sloppy ineffectual cursory mess that Hillary is trying to sell now. And no Hillho supporter has even TRIED to defend that. They relie on a negative impression of the Harry and Louise ad---that is lame!


It cracks me up how tremdously hard the Hillary people try to conflate Hillary's ideas with Obama's. The fact is that Obama's plan reflects a "patient up" approach and Hillary's is a trickle down plan with punishments for the patient when it fails. It is a huge BUTT KISS to the insurance industry and that is ALL it is!

It also amazes me just how dependent Hillho people are on maintaining the pigeon holes of the repuke party. Were you thinking that "liberal" was somehow intrinsically embued with some positives for those in the Dem party. How insulting!

Were you thinking that someone thought the Democratic party was in a primo healthy and functional state---despite all the evidence to the contrary? The party is in the process of trying to recuperate from a lot of issues.

Moreover, if the Dem party were solid as steel with no issues whatsoever this would still provide NO argument for Hillho's inappropriate behaviors. What sort of back assed, fucked up argument is it that if you shoot a man in a wheelchair and he dies you should not be considered a murder because he was already crippled?

What kind of mind satisfies itself with such abyssmal excuses for behavior as this? What voter looks for a candidate who lives up to the LEAST of the ideals of a society? And actually argues that being the LEAST should be rewarded?


See what I mean? The entire Hillho campaign invents issues and attempts to manufacture some sort of 'greater cause' that does not exist!

Only on two occasions in 20 years has FL voted in a primary before the candidate was selected. Where was Hillary? Does she not know this? Are we suppose to believe that she cannot read or google?

Florida could have chosen to maintain it's date in this primary season and their votes would certainly have been important this time. They wanted to get a larger share of the income that accompanies the early campaign dates. Unfortunately, it seems that 2000 gave them some sort of imperilistic sense that they were critical to process. So much so that they should be given some sort of special place in it. WRONG! Florida has only been Dem in the general twice in 32 years! 1976 and 1996. The Dems in that state have been repeatedly unable to deliver for the party.

This is a PRIME example of the ongoing insult to the voters intelligence that Hillary has relied on.

What does George Bush add to the merit of your argument? This is a attempt to use a negative association of concepts in hopes that the anti-Bush fervor will win your argument. It is demoralizing to see people in this party stooping this low.

If Hillary had an ounce of decency she would not have led her voters down such a ridiculous path with nothing but bullshit to rationalize their assertions. If Hillho supporters had more personal integrity they would not have followed her once they realized that she had no merit to her position.

Jonesy

Hippy - liberal
Hippy - liberal
Dirty hippy - liberal
9/11 - Iraq
9/11 - Iraq
9/11 - Saddam

It's the same stupid trick. They connect two things that have nothing to do with each other, so they can control you. 'Don't vote for liberals, or the whole country will become dirty hippies... including you. Vote conservative and you'll have a nice car, you'll be good-looking, and you'll have lots of dates with attractive people.'

Heretic

Plus, Insipid's lying through his teeth when suggesting Hillary's more liberal. Look at her voting record on foreign or economic policy. She's shockingly right wing.

And go rummaging through her donor lists. It's a who's who of right wing backers. As Andrew Sullivan says, she's Dick Cheney in a pantsuit.

__________________
"In space no one can hear you scream. in D.C. it won't matter..." -Clinton Resurrection: The Alien Queen lives!

HarperLee

Two words: Kyl-Lieberman

Three words: umbrella of deterrence

Two words: exponential Surge

Not to mention her October 2002 vote to give President
Bush the authority to bomb Iraq, never mind how she
and her one supporter insist upon spinning it. Everyone
else who voted Yes in October 2002 takes responsibility
for his/her vote. Not Hillary Clinton.

Environment Man

Hillary done bust a cap up in the DNC's ass.

Insipid

First off, she NEVER "pledged" to strip the florida delegates. Nor did Barack obama. All they "pledged" to do was to not campaign in those states. A pledge Barack Obama broke in Florida by the way. In fact, while barack obama was breaking that pledge in holding a press conference, he was asked point blank about Florida delegates and he said he'd "do right" by florida. I guess his definition of "doing right" is fucking them sideways with a 2 x 4.

Now it's true that Hillary did state that Michigan delegates wouldn't count, however she was just as wrong to comment on it as Barack Obama.

The fact of the matter is that by emphasizing meaningless RULES over meaningful votes you and my fellow "progressives" have become one with Antonin Scalia. Enjoy your company.

Furthermore, the "wishes" of the voters in Texas and Nevada were overturned by the method of counting the votes in Nevada and the caucus system and the method of counting the votes in Teas and I don't see any Obama supporters crying foul about that.

So basically the way it works is this:

The DNC uses THE RULES to disenfranchise 2 million + voters = That's the way the game is played.

Hillary Clinton uses THE RULES to woo the superdelegates (of course, i'm sure sainted Barack has never made one phone call to the superdelegates) and thats = A MORAL OUTRAGE!

Barack Obama wins Texas and Nevada despite losing the popular vote in both those states and that = That's the way the game is played.

Hillary Clinton points out that "Hey, doesn't the fact that he won the caucus and lost the popular votes prove beyond all doubt that Caucuses don't necessarily reflect the hallowed "will of the people" and that = A MORAL OUTRAGE.

Now don't get me wrong, with the exception of the Florida and Michigan debacle Obama supporters are completely right. These were "the rules" going in and Hillary and her campaign were a bunch of dumb asses for not having a strategy to win the caucuses past Super Tuesday. Their "strategy" seemed to of been whining about it after the fact. Yeah, they're not all that democratic, but it's too late now.

However, for the most part, you don't see too many Hillary supporters whining about Texas or Nevada or the Caucuses. Not so with Obama supporters. When a RULE disregards the "will of the people" and helps obama it's the way the game is played, but when a rule disregards the "will of the people" and helpls hillary it's A MORAL OUTRAGE! So basically Obama supporters don't give two shits about "the will of the people" they simply want their guy to win.

Fair enough. But stop being so damn sanctimonious about it.

julia

Celeste Fremon, April 18
Who's whining now?
Nope, that's not a supporter but the communications director for the Clinton campaign.
Or is this further sore loserism?

__________________
The candidate does not speak for the campaign.