BS: Voting for Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 26 May 08 - 01:06 AM

So, who closed it, the CIA?

LOL... Probably.

;-P

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:48 PM

Via Daily Kos:
INDIANAPOLIS, IN - Today at the Indianapolis 500, Danica Patrick, IndyCar's premiere female driver, insisted that she would keep driving around the track affectionately known as the Brickyard even if she lost today's race.

"You can't win it unless you are in it," she said. When questioned on what was the point of driving around a track after you've lost the race, Danica responded, "Well, see the race isn't over until all the cars cross the track at 550 mile." Then she insisted that the Indianapolis 500 was actually the Indy 550, according to crew chief Terry McAuliffe's own map of the racetrack.

"You know a lot of people want me to get out of the race," Danica Patrick said. "I can't really figure it out. I don't know why... In 1995 Jacques Villeneuve didn't win until the last lap of the race, and in 1974 Swede Savage died before he could finish the race. So I couldn't answer -- Couldn't tell you why people want me to get out."

Danica Patrick refused to answer speculation that she would be joining Team Alegre - MYDD Racing next year.

http://www.americablog.com/

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: RABBIMIKE
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:24 PM

I think Billery would be a disaster but at least she would appoint Supreme Court Justeses who would not be desasters! I prefer Obama

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:52 PM

"The only similarity between the two just mentioned is that each is very sure he is correct. As usual, the point alleged by the poster is unproven and/or meaningless."



                So, by the process of elimination, Ron Davies has finally concluded that David Duke is right. Maybe that explains your disconnect with the "mainstream media, Ron.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:34 PM

The only similarity between the two just mentioned is that each is very sure he is correct.

As usual, the point alleged by the poster is unproven and/or meaningless.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:26 PM

"Joe didn't close the other thread, and he said in the thread that he didn't necessarily agree with it having been closed. Someone else closed it because of opinions they didn't like."


                   So, who closed it, the CIA?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 09:25 PM

"'by the very choice of what that person cites as "mainstream media", shows his or her lack of objectivity--and is likely to pick media which support the poster's own point.   Therefore it's a meaningless term.'"

                   Some people call it the "mainstream media," others call it the "corporate media," and David Duke calls it the "Jewish dominated media."

                              But whatever you call it, it has an agenda and people react to it like sheep. If you really look into things, Ron, I think you'll see there isn't a lot of difference between Keith Olberman and Bill O'Reilly. They set up a lively dialogue to make you think there's a difference, but it really only reflects the very shallow difference between Democrats and Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:41 PM

I believe in facts, logic, and sources. Somebody who seems to believe in none of the above is unlikely to be able to recognize when another poster is living in a "dream world".

The problem with talking about "mainstream media" is that it's in the eye of the beholder--and any beholder, by the very choice of what that person cites as "mainstream media", shows his or her lack of objectivity--and is likely to pick media which support the poster's own point.   Therefore it's a meaningless term.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:26 PM

Joe didn't close the other thread, and he said in the thread that he didn't necessarily agree with it having been closed. Someone else closed it because of opinions they didn't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:20 PM

Keith Olberman is a perfect example of that.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:19 PM

"...the "mainstream media" does not exist."


                      Ron - You live in a dream world!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 01:18 PM

"If your remarks were aimed at Joe Offer's thread control, Rig,..."

                            They weren't!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:50 PM

Keith Olberman's outrage about Hillary's remarks referencing assassination is palpable and white-hot.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 12:43 PM

Here's a counter-opinion concerning Hillary's historical perspective on late nominations:

"In the days since Hillary ClintonÕs monumental gaffe in South Dakota in which she referenced the assassination of Bobby Kennedy, many have defended her statement, saying she was merely citing historical perspective as a reason to stay in the race. Since in the same remarks she made a point of BillÕs 1992 run for the presidency as an example of a contest that was not decided until June, I thought it might be a good idea to look back at the 1992 Democratic Primary and see what actually happened.

As usual with the Clintons, you have to parse every word to get to the meaning of what they say. Hillary said that Bill didnÕt win the nomination until the June primary in California. Technically thatÕs true, but it all depends on what the definition of "win" is.

In 1992, there were 3 major contenders for the nominationÐBill Clinton, Paul Tsongas, former Senator from Massachusetts, and Jerry Brown, former Governor of California. Tsongas won in New Hampshire with Clinton finishing second. Bill Clinton won nearly all the Super Tuesday primaries, making him the front-runner for the nomination. Jerry Brown then upset Clinton in Connecticut and Colorado.

On March 17, Tsongas dropped out after finishing a distant third behind Clinton and Brown in Michigan. On April 7, Brown lost to Clinton in Wisconsin and New York and was never a serious contender after that. Clinton defeated Brown in California in June to clinch the nomination, which by that time was a foregone conclusion.

To get a further perspective on the race that was really a no-contest after Super Tuesday, the final delegate count was Clinton 3372, Jerry Brown 596, Paul Tsongas 289. Clinton won primaries in 39 states compared to 6 for Tsongas and 3 for Brown. Hardly the nail-biter that Hillary would have us believe. But much like the sniper fire incident in Bosnia, HillaryÕs memory gets a little fuzzy when it comes to historical facts.

If she wanted to cite a primary race that was decided late she could have used 1976, when Carter didnÕt clinch the nomination until after he won Ohio on June 8, or 1984 when MondaleÕs victory in New Jersey on June 5 gave him the victory in his primary battle with Gary Hart. Both of these are more recent examples than Bobby Kennedy in 1968.

What does all this mean? It tells me that Hillary Clinton is nearly as bad a student of history as she is a presidential candidate."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 11:11 AM

I think there is, in fact, a central current in TV and news outlets, which multiply the impact of illogical, but electrifying, propositions when they are floated by one or another dark corner. The Wright story is a classic example; its proper perspective and importance would have made it little more than a side-show or a footnote; because of the dark twisting imposed on it by Hannity and Co., it became an important controversy, and eventually became doubled and echoed and bruited about so frequently that it became a hologramic meme of huge proportions, sufficient to sway national history. This is absurd n the face of it. But it is the nature of the beast when the ideals of the Fourth Estate get sold down the river of tawdry commercial success. And, in parallel, used as a lever against the informed conscience of Americans, rather than a means to fulfill the democratic equation properly.

If your remarks were aimed at Joe Offer's thread control, Rig, they were profoundly unfair (not to mention unkind) to Mister Offer and his volunteer office.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:31 AM

Yet again--some people never learn--the "mainstream media" does not exist. Media are more fragmented than ever.

Sorry if that doesn't fit the chosen conspiracy theory for this topic.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:12 AM

To whom?

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 08 - 10:08 AM

I am not sure that is fair.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 May 08 - 08:40 AM

Welcome to freedom of the press in America. The Mainstream Media continually herds public opinion around to its own purpose. That's why we have troops in Iraq and the candidates we have in the final rounds of voting.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 10:04 PM

Heh. I think I'll amend my last post. It appears that that one was closed because of opinions rather than personal attacks. I didn't realize it was a part of Mudcat policy to close threads that contained opinions that the moderators don't like.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:51 PM

I've been asked to allow this subject to fade away by an Obama supporter. I don't have a problem with that. However, I note that it's not opinions like those I've expressed in this thread that get threads shut down. It's people who make personal attacks on other thread participants who get threads closed down. I have not made any personal attacks on anyone in this thread, so I think it's Stilly River Sage who is trying to get the thread closed down.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:40 PM

That's a good point, Fantasma, if it hadn't been for Hillary's comments, all those brainless journalists would be in Arizona covering McCain's BBQ.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:15 PM

That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama. If you can't see the obvious flaw in that logic then you really are too far gone to be discussing politics in a rational way.

I agree with Jim Lad.

I don't believe for one minute that she made that comment innocently. There are numerous examples of things that have caused the primaries to continue until June other than that one, but she keeps invoking that one event, over and over, to the exclusion of almost all of the others.

So you're going to keep up this insane rant and shut down this thread also? Who keeps "invoking this one event?" It isn't Hillary, it's you.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 09:02 PM

That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama.

I haven't accused anyone of anything. I said that her behavior makes me wonder about it as a possibility. And it does. I'm not going to pretend otherwise just to please you.

I don't believe for one minute that she made that comment innocently. There are numerous examples of things that have caused the primaries to continue until June other than that one, but she keeps invoking that one event, over and over, to the exclusion of almost all of the others. The most charitable interpretation I can think of to put on this behavior of hers is that she is trying to scare Obama's family into convincing him to drop out. But I still consider the other to be a possibility.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:48 PM

I wouldn't know if they did but at least Amos is trying to reign it in a bit.
Ron worries me though.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: folk1e
Date: 24 May 08 - 07:10 PM

Hey .... it worked for GWB!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:47 PM

They chose, in record numbers, to thumb their noses at the party elite and exercise the right to vote in their party.

Only the Hillary voters had a chance to do this in Michigan, since Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot. Hillary seems to think that only people who vote for her have a right to have their votes counted.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 06:31 PM

The candidates had to accept those rules if they wanted to run.
The voters however are free to do as they please.
They chose, in record numbers, to thumb their noses at the party elite and exercise the right to vote in their party.
Now: I have noticed that a few of these threads have been closed and one guest has been given a time out.
So I ask one last time.
Stop the insults and stick to the topic.
(That includes accusing Hillary Clinton of calling for the assassination of Senator Obama. If you can't see the obvious flaw in that logic then you really are too far gone to be discussing politics in a rational way.)

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 24 May 08 - 05:32 PM

Hillary is dishonest. She is trying to cheat her way into the presidency by denying that she agreed not to campaign in Michigan and Florida. Even Ickes has said that she wants to change the rules because she is behind. The idea that she gets 100% of Floridian or Michigan votes is totally absurd.

She dismisses Obama's caucuses as well. She is not ahead in the popular vote since Michigan and Florida have not completed a voting process. She is attempting to steal the election in much the same way as George Bush did in Florida with his outlaws that stopped the vote by elbowing Obama out of the race in these two states.

It is totally reprehensible. Either you play by the rules or you get out.

It's time for Hillary to leave.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 08 - 02:52 PM

.........good grief!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 08 - 01:27 PM

Because she omitted a simple phrase ("...while he was running in a primary as late as June in 1964") it seriously skewed what she was talking about, and a first blush sounded completely non-sequitur and off-the-wall. But, it wasn't all that serious a gaffe. She was trying to state an historical precedent, and she muffed it verbally, but it's no BFD. She's nowhere near as loopy as it may have sounded at first.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 24 May 08 - 11:48 AM

Right, we couldn't do what the candidates are doing, and actually take the holiday weekend off, what with the primaries winding down, the nomination in the bag for McCain and Obama, and three months until the conventions.

Much to much mud wrestling to do over the next leader of the free world, and it just can't wait another minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 24 May 08 - 08:59 AM

Most likely Clinton was simply pointing out that other major candidates, including Bobby Kennedy, were still competing in the Democratic Primaries in June, and mentioned "assassination" parenthetically. It was still a serious blunder, and she certainly regrets it both personally and for those whom it might offend.

I'm also sure that the issue is considered more seriously because we are all haunted by the threat of assassination in this country. Lord knows how many "nuts" are fantasizing about it, and who knows what public remark might actually trigger their interest.

No, I don't think it's time for a "time out." It's time to get serious, and get back to work.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 24 May 08 - 08:16 AM

Interesting.

So, the son of Bobby Kennedy doesn't take any offense whatsoever, yet the MSM punditry and Obamamaniacs make a huge issue of her remarks on an extremely slow news Friday of a long holiday weekend.

Imagine that.

Time for a time out kiddies!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 04:12 AM

From the New York Times...

"Robert F. Kennedy Jr., who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, defended her remarks in a telephone interview Friday evening. "I've heard her make that argument before," Mr. Kennedy said, speaking on his cell phone as he drove to the family compound in Hyannis for the holiday weekend. "It sounds like she was invoking a familiar historical circumstance in support of her argument for continuing her campaign."
Mr. Kennedy said he has been traveling and had not seen the video or read Mrs. Clinton's comments, but said his support of Mrs. Clinton has not wavered."

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 May 08 - 03:04 AM

She said nothing wrong.
I find this whole episode to be media contrived and nearly impossible for even the most die hard Obama fans to accept.
So now she can't mention Robert Kennedy's name without it being some kind of a death wish on Obama?
Guess the Kennedys are just one more taboo subject for Hillary who happens to be a lifelong friend of the family.
I'll be looking for one of the Kennedys to put a stop to this nonsense.
I'm seriously starting to worry for your country.
You usually wait for the inauguration before deifying your president and that's bad enough but to do this with someone who is not even the nominee is just downright scary.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: CarolC
Date: 24 May 08 - 12:17 AM

She's seemed so confident for a while now that something tragic is going to happen to Obama, I sometimes find myself wondering if maybe she's got a little something up her sleeve.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:00 PM

And perhaps the author of "turn your election mode off" can look in the mirror while making that brilliant suggestion.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:57 PM

I just heard what she said as "apology".   Revolting--as Keith Olberman says, that was no apology to the person most affected--Obama.

She should be yanked out of the contest tomorrow by the DNC. Since that's not going to happen, the superdelegates can at least swamp her--that would do the job.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:42 PM

Considering the issues that have apparently risen to the top of the cess pool of horse race reporting today, I'd say all politicos, including and especially those at Mudcat, need to take the long weekend off.

Because any semblance of rational and objective perspective among you lot evaporated at least a month or so ago.

Do yourselves and the world a favor, and turn off your election mode for the next 3 days.

I dare ya.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Bill D
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:23 PM

Keith Olbermann just read her the riot act over her remarks....my TV screen sizzled.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:21 PM

After the last remarks about RFK's assassination being a good reason for her to stay in the race through June, she ought to be yanked right out. Or swamped by superdelegates--before the convention. As usual, she apologizes after the idea is big news again.

She seems to hit a new low every day.

There are already scads of women writing on MSNBC etc., pointing out that Hillary is the worst possible role model for their daughters--and that's before this latest remark.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: GUEST,Fantasma
Date: 23 May 08 - 09:00 PM

The last major poll of US voters should a HUGE majority preferred Clinton remain in the race until the end.

So why do some people have such a big problem with her staying in?

Last I heard, it was still a free country.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Charley Noble
Date: 23 May 08 - 08:56 PM

Well, Clinton's remarks about the Robert Kennedy assassination were probably not the best rationale for not dropping out of the Democratic Primary. She really should be astute enough to realize that words that come out of her mouth before a group of journalists might be noted.

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 08 - 07:33 PM

It's Official: Hillary Clinton Is Insane
Posted 5/23/2008 5:12 PM CDT in The Houston Chronicle

Write down the date, May 23, 2008Ðthe day Hillary Clinton lost her mind. The pressure of the race and the thought of not getting the Democratic nomination has driven the poor woman stark, raving mad.

In a meeting with the Sioux Falls Argus-Leader newspaper editorial board Mrs. Clinton said this:

"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right? We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California. I don't understand it," she said, dismissing calls to drop out."

So she has to hang around just in case Barack Obama gets shot? I tell you, the lady has completely taken leave of her senses.

The video hasnÕt hit You Tube yet, but you can see it here.

Here is the Clinton campaignÕs attempt at defending her remarks:

"She was simply referencing her husband in 1992 and Bobby Kennedy in 1968 as historic examples of the nominating process going well into the summer. Any reading into beyond that would be inaccurate," responded Clinton campaign spokesperson Mo Elleithee."

I suspect the numbers of those who she complains about wanting to drive her out of the race might just be increasing by the minute.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 23 May 08 - 10:04 AM

"...you could look into Hillary's representation of Communists at the same time..."


                         I would think this would be a plus!

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 May 08 - 01:08 AM

And anybody who wants to attack somebody on the basis of support for Farrakhan should not forget to include Gov. Rendell, one of Hillary's strongest stalwarts, who praised Farrakhan and the Nation of Islam to the skies in a 1997 speech.

And if you want to talk about Ayers, please be sure to also mention Hillary's strong support for Black Panthers in the 1960's. And that was not just accepting support from a person who had been a violent radical decades ago--that was supporting them while they were actually violent.

And while you're at it, you could look into Hillary's representation of Communists at the same time--some of whom are now not happy that Hillary refuses to acknowledge this.

Look, if you play the "guilt by association" game, nobody gets away free.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 11:33 PM

Yeah. But it is awfully far fetched to color Wright with Farrakhan' s brush on such insufficient data, and it is far-fetched to the point of madness to then try to paint Obama with the borrowed colors you stuck on Wright.    If you have to draw such long bows, maybe the shot is not worth taking.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Riginslinger
Date: 22 May 08 - 09:47 PM

Not really, but Reverend Wright did, and the Trinity Church honored Farrakhan, and Obama managed to drag himself to services there for 20 years.

                     Frankly, though, I don't see Farrakhan in the same dark light that some others do. In his position, I might have happily followed in his footsteps.

                     I guess I see him as a bruised person more than a bad person. The mention of his name, though, sure winds up the media.

Subject: RE: BS: Voting for Hillary?
From: Amos
Date: 22 May 08 - 08:23 PM

Rig:

That's a pretty torrid insinuation. Have you any evidence whatsoever that Mister Obama "pals around" (whatever that is supposed to insinuate) with Mister Farrakhan?


A