Really disgusted at Hillary Clinton

[jonks]

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

As to the OP's contention that these debates are meaningful, I respectfully disagree. I haven't learned anything new about any of the candidates in any of the debates. They are merely auditions for "how do I look under pressure" and "can I string a sentence together", the latter hopefully being a more important criteria this time around

 

[Vic]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

 

[techs]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

As to the OP's contention that these debates are meaningful, I respectfully disagree. I haven't learned anything new about any of the candidates in any of the debates. They are merely auditions for "how do I look under pressure" and "can I string a sentence together", the latter hopefully being a more important criteria this time around

Unfortunately your premise is correct.
The right wing smear machine is the fiercest, best funded and meanest of them all. A Demcratic candidate must be able to face its fire, and fire back. Hilary has proven she can.
Obama has not yet shown he can.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

I can tell you're tired of responding to me, because even though we disagree you pretty much read my posts as I intend them. But here you almost intentionally misunderstand me. Why do politicians run negative campaigns? Because they work. If Obama cannot withstand Clinton's criticisms/smears/what have you, that raises real electability concerns. If he beats Clinton despite her best efforts, that is the best preparation he could want for the onslaught to come from the right. If he can't survive the Clinton's, he'd get slaughtered well before November rolls around.

 

[Starbuck1975]

If Obama can't take the heat, he should get out of Hilarys kitchen.

Recent developments would suggest that the kitchen belongs to Bill...she just comes in and uses the microwave from time to time.

The right wing smear machine is the fiercest, best funded and meanest of them all. A Demcratic candidate must be able to face its fire, and fire back. Hilary has proven she can.
Obama has not yet shown he can.

Yeah, Hillary really demonstrated a capacity for facing fire...mrs. vast right wing conspiracy...her husband is taking all the flak from Obama...the S.C. debate was Hillary's first true test under fire in this election, and she staggered.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
I like Obama, but don't give him a free pass just because you don't like Hillary.

they're all playing the same game.

It's not about liking or not liking Obama or Hillary as persons. Why does this keep coming up? I like my friends, but I wouldn't vote for any of them for President.

I would vote for your friends if it was between them and Bush

I didn't get anything racist from senseamp and techs, although I do know that senseamp at least secretely wishes he was married to Hillary. Just admit it, you know it's true

 

[senseamp]

What are you talking about? She got Obama exactly where she wanted him in that debate. He was off balance the whole time, she was in her element.
http://www.observer.com/2008/debate-obama-does-not-soar

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: senseamp
What are you talking about? She got Obama exactly where she wanted him in that debate. He was off balance the whole time, she was in her element.
http://www.observer.com/2008/debate-obama-does-not-soar

I've seen no vid, and bias is so important, but I read today the opposite, that he did a really good job. Of course, I also heard from some a**holes that Bush actually won a debate against Kerry back in 2004, which is sure as hell not true, he got his ass handed to him in all three like a chimp against einstein.

 

[First]

What's so depressing about HRC is that she seems more concerned with the furtherance of the Democratic party than the American people. Pushing progressive policy is only effective if it's proper, necessary, and/or prudent in a given situation. I have a horrible feeling that she'd be as partisan and as ideologically petty as any politician we've ever had, meaning she wouldn't actually get anything done. She's far too polarizing and doesn't have that impressive a record in comparison to other Dems or Repugs.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
I like Obama, but don't give him a free pass just because you don't like Hillary.

they're all playing the same game.

It's not about liking or not liking Obama or Hillary as persons. Why does this keep coming up? I like my friends, but I wouldn't vote for any of them for President.

I would vote for your friends if it was between them and Bush

I didn't get anything racist from senseamp and techs, although I do know that senseamp at least secretely wishes he was married to Hillary. Just admit it, you know it's true

No, I don't want to be married to her for the exact same reasons I want her to be my president. An ambitious, career oriented woman who knows what she wants to accomplish and will do what is necessary to accomplish it. Someone you want to work for you, in this case as President, but not to be married to. Kudos to Bill for sticking with her, he could be getting some great poon if he was single.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
I like Obama, but don't give him a free pass just because you don't like Hillary.

they're all playing the same game.

Kudos to Bill for sticking with her, he could be getting some great poon if he was single.

Bill had to stick with her until he left office.

And he probably still gets some anyhow.

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Common Courtesy

Originally posted by: senseamp

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: loki8481
I like Obama, but don't give him a free pass just because you don't like Hillary.

they're all playing the same game.

Kudos to Bill for sticking with her, he could be getting some great poon if he was single.

Bill had to stick with her until he left office.

And he probably still gets some anyhow.

Well he could have dumped her Giuliani style after leaving office, but didn't.

 

[alchemize]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What's so depressing about HRC is that she seems more concerned with the furtherance of the Democratic party than the American people. Pushing progressive policy is only effective if it's proper, necessary, and/or prudent in a given situation. I have a horrible feeling that she'd be as partisan and as ideologically petty as any politician we've ever had, meaning she wouldn't actually get anything done. She's far too polarizing and doesn't have that impressive a record in comparison to other Dems or Repugs.

Why do you think the partisans on here are so in love with her?

HRC's nomination promises us yet another dirty nasty partisan battle for the president. We'll continue stupid battles about abortion and gun rights and gay marriage and taxes on the rich vs. handouts for the poor, and continue to ignore the buget and future obligations and healthcare and security.

Something reasonable people on both sides of the aisle are tired of. And frankly at a time in history when we can least afford it

 

[senseamp]

Originally posted by: Evan Lieb
What's so depressing about HRC is that she seems more concerned with the furtherance of the Democratic party than the American people. Pushing progressive policy is only effective if it's proper, necessary, and/or prudent in a given situation. I have a horrible feeling that she'd be as partisan and as ideologically petty as any politician we've ever had, meaning she wouldn't actually get anything done. She's far too polarizing and doesn't have that impressive a record in comparison to other Dems or Repugs.

That is just baloney. There is absolutely no evidence of that partisanship, in fact she is taking a lot of heat from the left for not towing the party line on Iraq, bankruptcy reform, among other things. Clintons are incredibly pragmatic politicians, and about as non-ideological as it gets, especially when contrasted to the right, which insists on ideological purity from their candidates.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Originally posted by: BoberFett
It's Hillary's kitchen huh? Obama's just the house negro, eh? Could techs and senseamp be any more racist?

Nah. This is where you respond with something similarly detestable like "If Hillary's in the kitchen then where's my dinner, bitch?"

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

I can tell you're tired of responding to me, because even though we disagree you pretty much read my posts as I intend them. But here you almost intentionally misunderstand me. Why do politicians run negative campaigns? Because they work. If Obama cannot withstand Clinton's criticisms/smears/what have you, that raises real electability concerns. If he beats Clinton despite her best efforts, that is the best preparation he could want for the onslaught to come from the right. If he can't survive the Clinton's, he'd get slaughtered well before November rolls around.

Actually, my reaction to your post was identical to Vic's. I don't think there is any intentional misunderstanding; I think there's insight into the implications.

You may feel you're pragmatic, but the feeling I get that you accept it sort of makes me sick.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

I can tell you're tired of responding to me, because even though we disagree you pretty much read my posts as I intend them. But here you almost intentionally misunderstand me. Why do politicians run negative campaigns? Because they work. If Obama cannot withstand Clinton's criticisms/smears/what have you, that raises real electability concerns. If he beats Clinton despite her best efforts, that is the best preparation he could want for the onslaught to come from the right. If he can't survive the Clinton's, he'd get slaughtered well before November rolls around.

Actually, my reaction to your post was identical to Vic's. I don't think there is any intentional misunderstanding; I think there's insight into the implications.

You may feel you're pragmatic, but the feeling I get that you accept it sort of makes me sick.

Seriously... this is so true. I watched some of the debates online and some on TV. It was nauseating to see how that evil bitch lied and twisted things and uses deceptive tactics like sicking Bill on Obama and then dodging by saying "That is what Bill said, not me (paraphrase)." And this is the evil thing that people want for president? I wanted to cry watching that stuff on TV. People have been asking why it is that so many hate clinton. I have to ask, what is wrong with you all that you cannot see it?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

I can tell you're tired of responding to me, because even though we disagree you pretty much read my posts as I intend them. But here you almost intentionally misunderstand me. Why do politicians run negative campaigns? Because they work. If Obama cannot withstand Clinton's criticisms/smears/what have you, that raises real electability concerns. If he beats Clinton despite her best efforts, that is the best preparation he could want for the onslaught to come from the right. If he can't survive the Clinton's, he'd get slaughtered well before November rolls around.

Actually, my reaction to your post was identical to Vic's. I don't think there is any intentional misunderstanding; I think there's insight into the implications.

You may feel you're pragmatic, but the feeling I get that you accept it sort of makes me sick.

Seriously... this is so true. I watched some of the debates online and some on TV. It was nauseating to see how that evil bitch lied and twisted things and uses deceptive tactics like sicking Bill on Obama and then dodging by saying "That is what Bill said, not me (paraphrase)." And this is the evil thing that people want for president? I wanted to cry watching that stuff on TV. People have been asking why it is that so many hate clinton. I have to ask, what is wrong with you all that you cannot see it?

I almost want to laugh. Watching the scraping on the debate nauseated you? Made you want to cry? Have you ever watched a political debate before in your life? She twisted Obama's words, and deflected criticism of her onto Bill, boohoo. This is the definition of evil? Hitler was evil. Hillary is smug, tenacious, and will do almost anything to win. Obama is inspiring, intelligent, and will do almost anything to win. It's this type of wildly overreacting hyperbole that pushes women into Hillary's corner.

Evil? For chrissake, get some perspective. Romney has run scathing attack ads on Huckabee and McCain for months, he's flipped his position on every issue 180 degrees for political expediency, said he wants to double Guantanamo, drove 13 hours with his dog strapped to his fucking car roof. Where's the vitriol? Dislike Hillary, or disagree with her (despite her positions being nearly identical to Obama), but the pure hatred has no rational source, especially from people who don't know her personally.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: spittledip

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: Vic

Originally posted by: sirjonk

Originally posted by: bamacre
Might as well give up on Obama, the Hillary attack machine may seem bad to us, but the American sheeple will eat it up. Obama is dead.

If Obama can't beat the "Clinton slime machine" how exactly do people think he's going to beat the "you had an illegitimate black baby, you're gay, your wife's a pill popper, you're a traitor and you left POWs to die" republican attack machine?

So the highest office in the land should go to the best and filthiest mudslinger?

Ah... I forgot the hallmark of a Clinton administration: endless litigation.

I can tell you're tired of responding to me, because even though we disagree you pretty much read my posts as I intend them. But here you almost intentionally misunderstand me. Why do politicians run negative campaigns? Because they work. If Obama cannot withstand Clinton's criticisms/smears/what have you, that raises real electability concerns. If he beats Clinton despite her best efforts, that is the best preparation he could want for the onslaught to come from the right. If he can't survive the Clinton's, he'd get slaughtered well before November rolls around.

Actually, my reaction to your post was identical to Vic's. I don't think there is any intentional misunderstanding; I think there's insight into the implications.

You may feel you're pragmatic, but the feeling I get that you accept it sort of makes me sick.

Seriously... this is so true. I watched some of the debates online and some on TV. It was nauseating to see how that evil bitch lied and twisted things and uses deceptive tactics like sicking Bill on Obama and then dodging by saying "That is what Bill said, not me (paraphrase)." And this is the evil thing that people want for president? I wanted to cry watching that stuff on TV. People have been asking why it is that so many hate clinton. I have to ask, what is wrong with you all that you cannot see it?

I almost want to laugh. Watching the scraping on the debate nauseated you? Made you want to cry? Have you ever watched a political debate before in your life? She twisted Obama's words, and deflected criticism of her onto Bill, boohoo. This is the definition of evil? Hitler was evil. Hillary is smug, tenacious, and will do almost anything to win. Obama is inspiring, intelligent, and will do almost anything to win. It's this type of wildly overreacting hyperbole that pushes women into Hillary's corner.

Evil? For chrissake, get some perspective. Romney has run scathing attack ads on Huckabee and McCain for months, he's flipped his position on every issue 180 degrees for political expediency, said he wants to double Guantanamo, drove 13 hours with his dog strapped to his fucking car roof. Where's the vitriol? Dislike Hillary, or disagree with her (despite her positions being nearly identical to Obama), but the pure hatred has no rational source, especially from people who don't know her personally.

I have seen debates before, but I haven't seen so many deceitful stunts pulled and lying employed so readily. You think bush was bad? You aint seen nothing yet.

 

[randym431]

Two points.
#1. She was right. Obama came into this debate wanting a fight. He got one.
#2. The "Clinton" machine is powerful. And THATS exactly what you would want to stand up to protect this country, when she is elected.

So, dont bite the hand that will feed you. You'll be glad of this "machine" in serving you.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Originally posted by: randym431
Two points.
#1. She was right. Obama came into this debate wanting a fight. He got one.
#2. The "Clinton" machine is powerful. And THATS exactly what you would want to stand up to protect this country, when she is elected.

So, dont bite the hand that will feed you. You'll be glad of this "machine" in serving you.

Wow, no bias here. :laugh:

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama has to demonstrate that he can withstand the kind of scrutiny Hillary has been enduring over 20 years, because the GOP won't pull punches in the general election. We know their dirty tactics.
So if he is whining about Hillary and Bill are attacking him now, then frankly I just don't see how he can take the heat in the general election. Nice speeches are all fine and good, but they won't win elections by themselves, nor will they govern this country.

I don't agree for at least two reasons:

1. I firmly believe the biggest difference between Obama & HRC is style. It's not policy/issues. If want a bitter hyper-partisan mudslinging dirty campaign followed by the same type of adminstration in DC vote for HRC. But I think people are tired of that, and if so choose Obama. I don't see the GOP "attacking" him. Oh sure, they'll try to emphasize policy differences and his lack of experience, but I don't see it getting dirty. While we've heard Clinton surrogates float the idea of Obama as a drug dealer, IMO the GOP won't dare do it.

2. Over the last 20 yrs or so HRC has put herself, purposefuly, into bitter partisan squabbles. She sought it out, not the Repubs. Anybody thinking otherwise is naive. It's how she's gotten attention, how she's kept herself in the forefront. She needed to create an "enemy", then advertise herself as the champion on your (Dem) behalf to fight and defeat them. It's an old ploy, and trial lawyers use it all the time as do polititions. Notice Edwards is doing the same thing, but on economic themes.

Fern

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: senseamp
Obama has to demonstrate that he can withstand the kind of scrutiny Hillary has been enduring over 20 years, because the GOP won't pull punches in the general election. We know their dirty tactics.
So if he is whining about Hillary and Bill are attacking him now, then frankly I just don't see how he can take the heat in the general election. Nice speeches are all fine and good, but they won't win elections by themselves, nor will they govern this country.

I don't agree for at least two reasons:

1. I firmly believe the biggest difference between Obama & HRC is style. It's not policy/issues. If want a bitter hyper-partisan mudslinging dirty campaign followed by the same type of adminstration in DC vote for HRC. But I think people are tired of that, and if so choose Obama. I don't see the GOP "attacking" him. Oh sure, they'll try to emphasize policy differences and his lack of experience, but I don't see it getting dirty. While we've heard Clinton surrogates float the idea of Obama as a drug dealer, IMO the GOP won't dare do it.

2. Over the last 20 yrs or so HRC has put herself, purposefuly, into bitter partisan squabbles. She sought it out, not the Repubs. Anybody thinking otherwise is naive. It's how she's gotten attention, how she's kept herself in the forefront. She needed to create an "enemy", then advertise herself as the champion on your (Dem) behalf to fight and defeat them. It's an old ploy, and trial lawyers use it all the time as do polititions. Notice Edwards is doing the same thing, but on economic themes.

Fern

I have to disagree with your prediction that the Pubs are gonna play it clean. I don't think they know how. I think it's a huge leap of faith to assume they are going to simply challenge Obama on his lack of experience. It would be a reversal of decades of winning campaign strategy and I don't think they have anything to replace it with.

Obama does the same thing as Hillary and Edwards, except his enemy is purportedly partisanship, etc. Most presidential candidates usually claim to be a uniter, not a divider, but once in office generally ignore the other side because the policy differences are just too big. You can't convince most republicans that raising taxes to pay for other people's medical expenses is a good idea, no matter how much you smile or how friendly you act.

 

[Genx87]

I didnt watch much of it but saw a clip of those two going at it. Then Edwards chimes in with 'See this is the problem, while they bicker children go without healthcare'.

What a lameass response. No wonder he is tanking.

 

[spittledip]

Originally posted by: randym431
Two points.
#1. She was right. Obama came into this debate wanting a fight. He got one.
#2. The "Clinton" machine is powerful. And THATS exactly what you would want to stand up to protect this country, when she is elected.

So, dont bite the hand that will feed you. You'll be glad of this "machine" in serving you.

#1 Actually, he was foolish to engage in the fight b/c the truth is SHE wanted a fight b/c her husband has been priming Obama all the time. He should have taken the high road, but his pride got the best of him. This was obviously part of the clintons' plans. He needs to keep his cool from now on and not fall into their traps. They are a lot of murders, and murderers will do anything it takes to get to where they want to be.

#2 Those who we need protection from don't give a rat's ass about the clinton machine. The ones who might care are not the ones we need to be cautious about.