BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:19 PM

Wright's bright side....


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:02 PM

Yeah, and furthermore they should renounce endorsements by anyone at all who doesn't meet the approval of some special interest group out there, I say!!!! ;-) Yeah. Keep everyone happy that way. Make sure that no one's particular raving prejudice gets irritated, right?

Bye, bye endorsements. Gone the way of the Dodo and the Wooly Mammoth.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:47 PM

"Politicians should renounce any endorsements by religious leaders."


                         That would really be a step in the right direction.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 05:18 PM

What he said is a matter of record.    Including the evidence that the clips making him out to be a ranting and raving nutter are gross distortions of what he was actually saying in the addresses from which they were lifted.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:20 PM

Wright went into retirement. What he said is a matter of record. Time to forget him. A lot of these ranters and ravers in the pulpit, white as well as black.

Politicians should renounce any endorsements by religious leaders.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:37 AM

Hannity was apparently the key mover in creating the Wright clips which so badly distorted the image of Mr Wright and his actual nature, turning him into a demonic America-hater, which he is not.

For this national defamation of character, Hannity (if responsible for it) should be required to makie public amends. IT should be --here's an interesting thought--a crime of some magnitude to cause false information to be widely spread to the American people. 'COurse that would put the folks at Coke, General Motors, R.J. Reynolds, and Pepsi in an awful bind, too.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Neil D
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 11:27 AM

Hannity is paid over $5 million a year for his broadcasts, according to a couple of websites, which means he has listeners galore. Hmmm, is there room under that rock?

   Is it any wonder this country has turned into a right-wing, arrogant, over-bearing, bully that is disliked by much of the world.
People sit around listening to Hannity, O'Reilly, Limbaugh and a whole slew of neo-con spinners tell them what a great country this is and by association they are. They don't have to think about its legacy of chattel slavery, aboriginal genocide, immoral wars of conquest and class exploitation. They can go about obliviously blissful in being citizens of the greatest country of all time.
Meanwhile, they keep electing politicians who support and perpetuate a system where 2% of the population control 90% of the wealth; a government that ignores the world's dismal ecological outlook;
a president who lies through his teeth in order to commit an illegal, immoral war, thus further destabilizing an already shaky region (and ,by the way, playing right into the hands of our other sworn enemies in that region).
    Yes, Fox Noise Network pays Sean Hannity $5 million dollars and it is blood money. I couldn't do what he does for 1000 times $5 million.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 10:22 AM

Sure a lot of 'em died when George W. Bush lied.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Bobert
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:24 AM

Define "die"....

...lol...

B;~)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: kendall
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 09:16 AM

Does anyone die when the Clintons lie?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 08:21 AM

One of the local papers here got sucked up in the Murdoch take over of the Wall Street Journal, and its editorial page has changed dramatically since the take over. And the funny thing to me is, the same people are still putting it out.
                   The do what they're told. If they didn't they wouldn't be there and they'd probably be black-listed from ever working on any other paper either.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 06:11 AM

Or, if you by some chance disagree that the WSJ reporting is the best there is, please be so good as to give any evidence that the reporting has been wrong.

Purely pedantic point - for a publication not to get it's reporting wrong wouldn't in itself imply that it was the best, just that it was better in that respect than others which did get their reporting wrong. And I doubt if there has ever been any publication which never gets it wrong.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: heric
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 01:29 AM

Did I say sniper fire? Did I really?? I meant to say photographer!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Mar 08 - 12:51 AM

I have not said Ron Davies posted any links- I said he was an Obamite of the Woodruff type- Emma B. had posted something that I traced to a Woodruff website, and what I saw there made me think, Gee, that sure sounds like R. D.-

You want me to say something positive about Obama- well, he has a pretty good tailor.

WSJ? The Wall Street Journal- or the Madison, Wisc. paper, The Wisconsin Journal. Well, the latter isn't bad.

The Wall Street Journal had comment about Mr. Obama today, an article by James Taranto, March 24, 2008, under "The Inkblot."

He says that the Rev. Wright had reprinted a Hamas op-ed in his church bulletin. Obama condemned the article, but a year ago, according to an article in ElectronicIntifada.com ("How Barack Obama Learned to Love Israel," 4 March 2007), by Ali Abunimah, a co-founder of the site, Obama was passing himself off as a friend of Palestine.
"Over the years since I first saw Obama speak I met him about half a dozen times, often at Palestinian and Arab-American community events in Chicago.... In 2000, when Obama unsuccessfully ran for Congress I heard him speak at a campaign fundraiser hosted by a University of Chicago professor. On that occasion and others Obama was forthright in his criticism of US policy and his call for an even-handed approach to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict."
In 2004, he responded to Abunimah's greeting, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." .... "He referred to columns I was contributing to The (sic) Chicago Tribune critical of Israel and US policy, "Keep up the good work.""
Abunimah argued that Obama, in an effort "to woo wealthy pro-Israel campaign donors," had made an "about-face.":
"He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power."

Taranto, in his WSJ article, says "It is possible that Obama had a sincere change of heart- that he came to see the merits of the Israeli side of the argument. It is also possible that Obama has no sincere views on the subject- that when he was traveling in radical-chic Chicago circles, he told people like Abunimah what they wanted to hear, and now that he has gone national, he has switched to telling a more mainstream Democratic constituency what it wants to hear." .........
Taranto discusses the problem of what Obama really believes , and whether to be "skeptical" about believing anything he says on the matter.

As the old Indian is supposed to have said, "Ugh, ..... man speaks with forked tongue."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:10 PM

And actually, Rig, I don't think you're a meth freak. Slobbering is much more likely.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 11:09 PM

I've told you before, Rig, the WSJ reporting is just as good as ever--that, is, the best in the world. I am monitoring for Murdoch influence in reporting. None so far. Please enlighten us to your preferred source of objective reporting. (This should be good).

Clue: objective reporting has nothing to do with Rush, Hannity, et. al. So sorry to break it to you.

Or, if you by some chance disagree that the WSJ reporting is the best there is, please be so good as to give any evidence that the reporting has been wrong. They let their reporters have free rein to contradict the Neanderthal editorial policy--and they do, all the time.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:56 PM

Gentlemen, gentlemen:

Let us seek a higher ground; this field has become quite saturated.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:35 PM

Ron - Do you realize, with the WSJ, you are simply digesting the rantings of Rupert Murdoch?

                  And what makes you think I'm slobbering? I could be a meth-freak suffering from dry-mouth.

                  And I would happily look for evidence to contradict what you say, if you would only please say something.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:20 PM

Rig--

Except, of course for your slobbering, in anticipation of Hannity's next revelation. Do you really have nothing better to do with your time than listen to gutter radio or watch gutter TV? Evidently not. I don't know how we could go on without your breathless "reporting" from Hannity etc.

Sorry I prefer reliable sources--like WSJ reporting. Amazing how they never seem to confirm anything you say.

While on the other hand, you can't find evidence to contradict what I say. Interesting.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:13 PM

Q--

So you have taken to slandering me, in addition to your usual line of disinformation. Would you mind coming up with just a bit of evidence that I posted that link?

I have never posted any link whatsoever on Mudcat, as would have been obvious to you, if you read carefully. I quote--usually the WSJ--or I state in my own words.

Sorry your instability seems to be increasing. Others have noticed this also, I observe.

And I'm still waiting for a positive statement from you on Obama--since you assure us you don't dislike him.

It's actually a mystery why you are getting so overwrought about the US political situation--you don't even have a vote.   Must be my earlier theory--tender ego. Pobrecito.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:10 PM

Ron - Take a pill and read the post. I was only reporting what Hannity said. If he doesn't have anything more, nothing could possibly come of it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:04 PM

"...only the messenger". From the CEO of Smears R Us, somehow, that's unlikely--as well as being a broken record---or a rather cheap doll.   Pull the string, and he says "Only the messenger". Added to which, of course Hannity would always say he has new info. If you would just once stop wasting your time on Hannity, Rush, et al., you might even start thinking--and realize that their top goal is higher ratings. They plan on gullible souls--like your good self?---to tune in constantly, in hopes of getting some fresh gossip. And knowing that you are positively slobbering at the prospect of spreading it. And of course, both for you and for Hannity et al., accuracy of the information is totally irrelevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 09:01 PM

McCain is ahead in the polls because the race is still going on on the Dem side.

Having the contest continue on the Dem side isn't likely to change that dynamic until after the convention, which is fine.

McCain & the Repubs need to fundraise between now & the general, and that is where their focus will be. McCain is so desperate to get in the news cycle, he had to go to Iraq for the anniversary.

I wouldn't worry too much that the Dem contest continuing will cost them the general election. That is just silly conjecture and slow election news cycle spin.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:35 PM

AFter the way he has distorted the truth about Wright, the less you hear of him, the better you will be.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:25 PM

Hannity is paid over $5 million a year for his broadcasts, according to a couple of websites, which means he has listeners galore. Hmmm, is there room under that rock?

Not being a Fox afficionado, never have heard him.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:47 PM

Sorry! I'm just the messenger.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Neil D
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:26 PM

Sean Hannity is a filthy insect who is long overdue for crawling back under his rock. Now can we keep this discussion civilized, please?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 06:25 PM

That might be true, but Hannity says he has a lot more ammunition.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:38 PM

What the Democrats are doing now is the best thing. The Wright stuff is best coming now rather than as the Swift boat thing did, just before the convention.

Its going to be hard for even a loudmouth like Hannity to keep this going until August. By then Obama will have turned it into a respectful, calm, civilized debate on race and the future of America with a few bigots screaming obscenities from the peanut gallery.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:25 PM

Do you really have to be a member of Congress to be against the war?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 05:14 PM

Oh for heaven's sake!!!!
Stop it!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:54 PM

To enlarge on Riginslinger's last comment about McCain's chances (or should I say increasing probability to be the next president):

"A Present for McCain as the Other Side Fights"
John Harwood, March 24, 2008; New York Times (Opinion)
"Feuding Democrats have handed Senator John McCain the gift of time." ........
"As the Democratic rivals trade attacks, Mr. McCain, already the presumptive Republican nominee, has crept ahead of both in national polls."

McCain will start his campaign for the presidency "March 31, with a "Service for America" tour, intended to link the senator's biography with his values and policy stances. ....He will address the dominant domestic issue with events in April promoting his economic agenda."
McCain "enjoys robust approval among Republicans (78 percent in the most recent NBC News/Wall Street Journalpoll) and conservatives (68 percent),.... Mr. McCain commands considerable support among independents..."
"For now, Mr. Obama faces continued fallout from the controversy over his former pastor, the Rev. [Wright] and Mrs. Cliton continues to fend off Mr. Obama's attacks on her integrity. If that has not made Mr. McCain the fall favorite, it has left him in a far better position than a month ago."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:34 PM

As has now been conclusively established by video film and news photographs, Hillary Clinton did NOT come under sniper fire in Bosnia in March 1996 when she made a morale-boosting visit to U.S. troops enforcing the 1995 Dayton Peace Agreement. But she is dodging plenty of bullets for her over-dramatic accounts of the trip.

Last week was not the first time that Clinton talked about sniper fire in Bosnia. She has provided various different versions of the incident along the campaign trail and in her autobiography, Living History. See, for example, this New York Times account of a campaign rally in Waco, Tex., on February 29, at which Clinton said that the welcoming ceremony had to be "moved inside" a Tuzla airport building "because of sniper fire." She made a similar statement in Dubuque, Iowa, back in December.

After my post last week examining Clinton's claims, I received messages and calls from several readers, providing very different accounts of the scene at Tuzla Air Force base that dank March morning. U.S. Air Force journalist Don Jackson was standing on the back of a flatbed pick-up truck filming the event when Clinton's plane touched down. Here is his account:

Mrs. Clinton arrived to a flight line full of well-wishers, both military and civilian, accompanied by her staff as well as comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow who were there to entertain troops. To set the record straight, there was no enemy fire, and no imminent danger. If there had been any danger, "well-wishers" would not have been allowed on the tarmac, much less allowing me to stand above everyone else on the back of a truck. And Sinbad and Sheryl Crow would've been running for their lives instead of taking the time to be interviewed by yours truly, on the tarmac. Mrs. Clinton's [claim] is a lie, plain and simple.

---

From WaPo's "The Trail"

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 03:26 PM

Another youtube video says the Larry Sinclair polygraph tests prove nothing. That I agree with.

Frankly, I don't know much about the Bosnia visit by Clinton.
NY Times March 24, 2008, Katherine Q. Seelye, columnist, Clinton 'misspoke' about Bosnia Trip".

"Mr. Wolfson said that news accounts at the time made clear that the area in which she was landing was "a potential combat zone and was hazardous."
"...in her memoir, "Living History," she wrote about sniper fire in the hills and "clearly meant to say that "when she brought it up last week. He said she had described the event many times the same way and that "in one instance she said it slightly differently."

The relevent passage from her book: "Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children."
One of those typical misspoken statements everyone makes.


Much worse is the several times repeated statement by Obama that he was against the Iraq war from the start. Since he was not yet in the Congress at the time, this is one of those statements that cannot be proven, but when oftimes repeated, becomes a lie.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:17 PM

Jack Pitney, government professor at Claremont McKenna College and the author of 'The Art of Political Warfare' exploring the relationship between political campaign strategy and that of military warfare commented earlier this month that the battle between Obama and Clinton will ultimately help McCain.

"It's probably going to hurt the Democrats more than it helps," he said. "Yes, there will be a spotlight, but the spotlight will be on activity that they don't want the voters to remember."

"The attention will arise from Clinton and Obama attacking each other. They'll get attention, but train wrecks get attention, too."

N.B. 'attacking each other' - I do not see all this vilification coming from one camp whatever bias supporters from either side of the Democratic divide choose to present on this forum.

Such negative campaigning from BOTH camps isn't pretty and just diverts attention from critical issues like health care, education and the economy.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 10:50 AM

The dips and swings of the Dem battle have created an apparency that McCain ispreferable to those who just want quiet. Suppose that the DNC produces a nominee. Then McCain's machine will have to step in to provide mud, slander and defamation of character, since Hillary's machine won't be there to do it for them any longer. It will be quickly evident that of the two, Obama will provide the energy, vigor and vision needed to move into a better future; McCain will provide the age, scar tissue, and militancy to provide another round of the same old shit.

Now, for some folks, another round of the same old shit is the ideal.

But I seriously doubt they will prove a majority.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 08:32 AM

As I understand it, Sean Hannity of Fox News introduced the Reverend Wright videos to the public. Supporters of Obama and supporters of Clinton had nothing to do with it and could only react.
                   So it seems to me that it really doesn't matter what the Democrats do. As long as the struggle for the nomination goes on, the opposition can keep them at each other's throats until the last one standing is McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:49 AM

The Rasmussen Reports daily presidential tracking poll for Sunday 23rd March gives McCain an eight-point lead over either Democrat in national polls. Much higher "favorable" ratings than either Clinton or Obama, likely the byproduct of the Democrats' continued skirmishing.
Fifty-four percent of poll respondents view McCain favorably compared to 42 percent unfavorably. Forty-two percent view Clinton favorably versus 55 percent unfavorably. Obama has also dipped into more-unfavorable-than-favorable territory, with 47 percent favorable and 51 percent unfavorable.

I am an 'outsider' and I have no axe to grind but...

please catters .... support your candidate of choice on his or her merits; this nasty and repetitive vituperation of the 'opposion' is as unpleasant as it is destructive.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 07:11 AM

Q - One thing that I think is becoming pretty apparent, if Hillary is denied the nomination, it's going to be President McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM

"Larry Sinclair, Barack Obama's alleged former gay sex partner, was paid $10,000 by WhiteHouse.com to take a polygraph test, which he failed. Turns out the weird ugly rambling toothless gentleman from YouTube might not be telling the whole truth...."
Next time Q, check your stories and use your real name.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:28 AM

Q: Come on! That's really low stuff, your putting out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 01:11 AM

Q, are you trying to change the subject because you can't deny that the video proves Hillary was lying about her Bosnian experience?

Shame on you and shame on Hillary Clinton too.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:48 AM

Who runs jedreport? I can find nothing about its sponsors. They are pretty good at yellow journalism too.

Youtube now has 27 videos about the Obama gay sex accusations. Mentioned briefly on Fox News.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:10 AM

The crucial thing isn't whether she is a woman or not, it's what kind of a president she might make.
-McGrath of Harlow


What does Hillary Clinton do when she's caught in a big lie? She keeps right on lying. This is sad on so many levels.      


Check this YouTube video that is quickly going viral:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=It6JN7ALF7Y
Hillary in Tuzla: The Tale of Bosnian Sniper Fire (TRAILER)
produced and posted by JedReports; Added: March 23, 2008   

"Coming soon to a superdelegate near you: Hillary in Tuzla.

It's an unbelievable tale of heroism, written and directed by Mark J. Penn.

The Baltimore Sun calls it a "whopper."

"Four Pinocchios!" says the Washington Post.

"Requires enormous suspension of disbelief" raves the Huffington Post."

-snip-

If the media covered this documented assault on Hillary's experience meme like it should, Hillary Clinton's poll numbers should go down.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 24 Mar 08 - 12:08 AM

Ron Davies is typical of the Obamites of the Chase Woodruff type (he is the poster of that petition linked by Emma B.).
I tried to find something about this Woodruff, but other than that he donated some $264 to Obama, and lives in St. Louis, MO, nada. He claims that $299,324 has been donated to Obama from his 63131 zip code, and that he is unemployed (this from the rather weird Huffington Post website).
Woodruff

The major news services have chosen, correctly in my view, not to run items concerning the complaint filed in U. S. District Court, District of Minnesota, by a Larry Sinclair alleging cocaine usage and gay sex with Obama in Hawaii- defendants Barack Obama, David Axelrod (AKP Message & Media) and the Democratic National Committee. He is alleging intimidation and etc., but he seems to be a complete scumbag.

One may see his claims on youtube.com. Enter Larry Sinclair in videos search box, and videos galore on the subject are listed:

a clue- the Larry Sinclair story is about to go mainstream
Larry Sinclair interview- Drugs and Sex with Obama Pt. 1
Larry Sinclair's fighting on
Obama sex tape- Larry Sinclair
Questions about Larry Sinclair
Larry Sinclair's polygraph examination
And many more---

Youtube has taken up where the old yellow newspapers left off.

The emails I get from Georgia concern this action, accuse Obama of being not only a Muslim but a believer in Sharia law, illegal citizenship, and, of course, the usual racial slurs.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:51 PM

Look at Carville's remark about "30 pieces of silver" when Richardson endorsed Obama. Part of a pattern--sounds remarkably like the NY NOW remark when Kennedy endorsed Obama.

Anybody whom Clinton imagines is on "her team" and who then endorses Obama is obviously the worst sort of treacherous scum. And why this attitude?   Richardson nailed it: "typical of many of the people around Senator Clinton. They think they have a sense of entitlement to the presidency".

If anybody needed yet another good reason to vote for Obama--to add to all the others-- that sounds like a rather good one.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 10:27 PM

Q--


If you think Hillary Clinton would take the "rural voters" you're citing, in an election against McCain, I have several bridges to sell you. Therefore your polls of rural white voters mean precisely nothing.

And, by the way, since you assert you don't dislike Obama, I'm still waiting patiently for a positive statement about him from you.   Sorry, "clean and articulate" is taken--Doug R beat you.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:45 PM

There may well be a lot of people who don't want Clinton because she is a woman. But there are also clearly a lot of people who don't want her in spite of the fact that she was a woman.

The idea that there is anything about being a woman that is inconsistent with being head of state or head of government is pretty evidently ridiculous, in a world where the record shows it has become increasingly common to have women in those positions.

The crucial thing isn't whether she is a woman or not, it's what kind of a president she might make. Will she be any better than her husband, for example, who frittered away a golden opportunity, destroyed the chances of a far better potential successor, and in effect handed his country over to an unworthy incompetent.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:27 PM

OK will someone over there explain to me if this is for real and, if so, why this sort of electioneering shouldn't just hold the door wide for McCain?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 09:20 PM

A lot of the anti-Obama merchandise at Cafe Press show Obama as a Muslim.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 08:13 PM

I get many emails from Georgia and Texas, from people I have known, some for many years, and their characterization of Obama ranges from characterization of him as two-faced to empty-headed to comments on his religion and race, some unprintable.
Much of denigration on both sides comes from particular segments of the public; the left is strongly represented at mudcat, and urban sentiments are strong. The Georgia-Texas emails I get are small town-rural.

The urban- small town and rural split is demonstrated in the following:
-----------------------------
In a regional survey in the New York Times today an Obama supporter spoke of the split in Missouri.

"City Mule, Country Mule," Whitney Terrell, Mar. 23, 2008. Opinion.

Airick Leonard West is an African-American, running for the school board in small town Missouri. He says,
"Rural Missouri areas like this one have also stopped voting for Democrats. The county that includes Warrensburg is comparatively moderate- Johnson County favored John McCain in our primary... but Huckabee won more rural territory than anyone."
"The Democratic primary map revealed a stark divide. Barack Obama won Missouri b carrying six jurisdictions: the cities of St. Louis and Kansas City, plus four counties around the state (141 counties total in MO). Everywhere else went for Hillary Clinton."
A Clinton supporter made this comment to Mr. West, which he passed on to the column writer- "Basically," she said, "I see rural Democrats going for McCain."

If Obama takes the nomination, I believe rural voters, regardless of party, by and large will vote for McCain. This will include many Clinton supporters.
I stated my preference for Clinton previously, but even if she won the nomination, I expect McCain will take the election in this closely divided country.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:24 PM

Jaysus. ALmost as bad as being "slicker than slick Willie", being a dyed-in-the-wool Muslim America-hater, a liar, etc, etc. All of which has been levied by Barack's haters at him.

Some popele actually don't have the understanding that hatred is usually much more toxic on the hater than the hatee.

Much as I would have misgivings about Hillary's presidnetial abilities, I don't hate her at all -- I actually respect what she has accomplished.

I saw a Barck-hate web site where everytime someone pointed out what he had accomplished -- Harvard, COlumbia, the Senate, etc. -- they were tol d in no uncertain terms that those were "not accomplishments--they were opportunities he took advantage of." The deep commitment to stupidity in the mouths of muttonheads continues to amaze.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ebbie
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 07:14 PM

I am an Obama supporter. OTOH, if Senator Clinton got the nomination I would work for her election. Emma B linked to a piece that describes and defines most Hillary Haters. To me it feels like it emanates from our worst instincts. (In my opinion Obama is far more likely to prevail against McCain, partly because of the baggage that Clinton carries. There are serious haters out there, even if they can't verbalize what it is that they hate.)

Frong the link:

"Scary? Frightened to death? By now, Clinton's flaws as a candidate are well-known—the problems giving a straight answer, the warmth and authenticity issues—but they're also fairly typical for a politician. Here in Dallas, though, and in the rest of anti-Hillary land, the hostility toward Clinton tends to be expressed in bafflingly vague and emotional terms.

"Discussions with self-declared enemies of Hillary Clinton, prominent and not, across the country yield a head-spinning barrage of motivations for their ill will, but one thing is immediately clear: Few if any have anything to do with the mandated insurance coverage of Clinton's health care plan (or HillaryCare, in hater parlance), her carefully triangulated position on Iran, or her incremental shift against the war in Iraq.

"Instead, they say she is an extremist left-wing flower child masquerading as a moderate, or a warmongering hawk disguised as a liberal. She's a liar and a lesbian (short hair! pantsuits!), a cold fish and an adulteress. She has no maternal instincts and is hobbled by a debilitating case of insecurity, for which she compensates by acting like a thug. She is the spineless wife of a habitual cheat, and the willful enabler of her husband's affairs. She's in politics to keep Bill around, and she ran for the Senate, and then the presidency, to exact revenge for his philandering. She has no God, or her devoutness is frighteningly fundamentalist. She's a condescending elitist who sees people—even her friends—as steps on a stairway to the presidency. She is a partisan, a panderer, the personification of everything that is wrong with America."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,mg
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 06:46 PM

Once more for the record. Being Hillary-phobic, as I am, does not mean one hates women, hates the thought of a woman president, would not vote for one ever etc. No more than being George-phobic means one hates men, would never vote for one etc. Give people credit for a little bit of sense now and then. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 05:35 PM

My remark was obviously meant to stir the pot. My support is for Clinton.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 04:05 PM

Q--

Speak for yourself.

As usual, your remarks on US politics show a rather shallow grasp. The prospect of a woman president scares you perhaps. If so, you are in the minority. Many men would be fine with a woman president. I think an excellent candidate appears to be Nancy Pelosi--who knows how to horsetrade but also how to unite disparate interests in a way Hillary seems never to even have considered. Nancy also comes unburdened by Bill Clinton--a major plus.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ron Davies
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:59 PM

There are plenty of reasons to despise the divisive, misleading, negative campaign Hillary has run without "Hillary-hate". But the fact that the totally irrational attitudes cited by the article do exist is in fact one more reason not to pick her as the nominee. These attitudes may be totally off the wall--but some people who hold them do vote.

And the huge baggage she brings with her--both the 60's and the 90's--with all the visceral anti-Clinton feeling--not just her, but Bill-- which is still is surprisingly strong--makes it that much more likely the Republicans will be united against her in a way they will never be against Obama. (Look for instance at Susan Eisenhower--and she is not alone).

It's no coincidence that Rush urged his pinheads, or dittoheads, or whatever the official title is, to vote for her in the Democratic primaries. He knows she's by far the weaker opponent for McCain in the fall.   And she hasn't helped her cause by plumping for things like the Woodstock museum. McCain: "I'm sure it was a cultural and pharmaceutical event.   I was tied up at the time." (Cue standing ovation.)

In general, her addiction to pork, in contrast to McCain's loathing of it, will play well. Obama also is not an easy target here--his earmarks are nothing compared to hers.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 03:48 PM

Emma B., Hillary's problem is that she is a woman. Unfortunately women have the vote, and the possibility of a woman president scares most men.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: mg
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:45 PM

I think she has serious problems indeed. I am deleting a whole lot of what I was going to say. That is why people are so afraid of her. Furthermore, she was the wife of a president. Is that not scary? As was a father/son Bush team. That alone should have eliminated both her adn George Bush. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 02:38 PM

As I said on an earlier post I'm looking at the Democratic internecine fighting from a UK perspective.

I've not heard Obama address a meeting in 'real life' and he may indeed be all the things that people have described on the forum.
However, in order to promote him on his merit I fail to see why this requires the total vilification of another candidate.

Stanley Fish (the Davidson-Kahn Distinguished University Professor and a professor of law at Florida International University, in Miami, and dean emeritus of the College of Liberal Arts and Sciences at the University of Illinois at Chicago) recently wrote .....

'This is not to say that there are no rational, well-considered reasons for opposing Clinton's candidacy. You may dislike her policies (which she has not been reluctant to explain in great detail). You may not be able to get past her vote to authorize the Iraq war. You may think her personality unsuited to the tasks of inspiring and uniting the American people. You may believe that if this is truly a change election, she is not the one to bring about real change.

But the people and groups Horowitz* surveys have brought criticism of Clinton to what sportswriters call "the next level," in this case to the level of personal vituperation unconnected to, and often unconcerned with, the facts. These people are obsessed with things like her hair styles, the "strangeness" of her eyes — "Analysis of Clinton's eyes is a favorite motif among her most rabid adversaries" — and they retail and recycle items from what Horowitz calls "The Crazy Files": she's Osama bin Laden's candidate; she kills cats; she's a witch (this is not meant metaphorically)

But this list, however loony-tunes it may be, does not begin to touch the craziness of the hardcore members of this cult. Back in November, I wrote a column on Clinton's response to a question about giving driver's licenses to illegal immigrants. My reward was to pick up an e-mail pal who has to date sent me 24 lengthy documents culled from what he calls his "Hillary File." If you take that file on faith, Hillary Clinton is a murderer, a burglar, a destroyer of property, a blackmailer, a psychological rapist, a white-collar criminal, an adulteress, a blasphemer, a liar, the proprietor of a secret police, a predatory lender, a misogynist, a witness tamperer, a street criminal, a criminal intimidator, a harasser and a sociopath. These accusations are "supported" by innuendo, tortured logic, strained conclusions and photographs that are declared to tell their own story, but don't.'

'All You Need Is Hate' N.Y.Times February

*The Hillary Haters

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 23 Mar 08 - 01:50 PM

A video of Hilary's arrival in Bosnia, which she described as running with her head down to avoid sniper fire, shows her standing relaxedly on the tarmac with various dignitaries and an eight-year old.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guezzt
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:46 PM

yes

icanhascheezburger.com

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:43 PM

If a cheeseburger is what you really want, I know where you can easily get one.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guezt
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:15 PM

icanhascheezburger?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,GUEST
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:02 PM

hehehe

I'm very tricky, no?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM

BE DONE!

100!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:01 PM

will

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:00 PM

Thy

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:59 PM

I am not recommending independent parties. I am recommending a number of independent candidates be permitted to run for any given elected office, and no party structures whatsoever standing behind them. I am recommending that political parties themselves not be allowed to even exist.

They all turn into self-perpetuating, self-interested power structures within a very short time, and they subvert the democratic process and turn it into a huge, cynical game between big power blocs.

I am also recommending equal funding and equal media coverage for all official candidates...from a public election fund. Let them be elected strictly on the worth of their character, their accomplishments, and their ideas...not on the net worth of their insider funding sources.

If this were done, it would utterly end the present old power establishment, of course. ;-) That's why it won't be done.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 07:50 PM

There are a number of cities that have so-called independent parties, not taking tha name of a national party.

All of them require organization to get candidates and a platform, and suporters.

"Don't know what to call him- but he's mighty like a rose."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 06:00 PM

Bill, political parties are not the only alternative to a monarchy... ;-) Far from it. You can have local, civic, provincial, and national elections for a great variety of independent-minded persons for all levels of political office with the existence of NO political parties whatsoever...and if you did, it remove a huge element of established corruption and influence-peddling from the process.

I suspect the reason this doesn't occur to most people is simply because they are already so accustomed to the idea of having political parties that they don't realize there IS any democratic alternative.

This would be comparable to the onetime common assumptions of millions of people who didn't realize there was any real alternative to:

hereditary monarchy
males only having the vote
slavery
public crucifixion of criminals and nonconformists
Papal infallibility
etc....

It's an assumption founded in mere habits and arbitrary customs...to put it kindly.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:54 PM

Time for a return to an absolute monarchy ruling in God's name (or substitute your own supernatural being).

It is sad to see the Democrat wagon losing its wheels and plunging over the cliff to destruction.

An amusing (and sad) Op-Ed column in the New York Times today.

"Donner Party Democrats," Timothy Egan, March 22, 2008.

One quote- but seek out the article and read it.
"The original Donner Party made history for one reason: by eating their dead. Cannibalism- it was all they could do to stay alive."

NY Times
www.nytimes.com
Opinion

Click on columnists, Timothy Egan, "Donner Party Democrats."
After today, look for it in the archives.

Oh, well, a few more extracts-
"Deep in the treeless expanse of the West, they came upon one of the stragglers from the other party: John McCain. Once, he had been a maverick. Now he looked old and worn and lost. His own party had left him for dead, he explained. Called him amnesty man.
"He seemed harmless enough. .......They didn't give him a second thought."
-------------------------
And then, as the snow piled high in March, the Dems turned on each other"..............
At their lowest ebb, they looked back and again saw the straggler, McCain. He was stronger, walking with renewed vigor despite his age."
------------------------
"His party was united. What had been hatred for McCain was now hatred for the other party's preacher. They could direct all their historic resentments, their bound-up frustrations, against this preacher, the Rev. Wright. So long as they hissed and booed at his picture every night, they stayed together, saying the nastiest of things."
............................__________________________.

Will anyone remain of the Democrats, or will they all be carrion, torn to bits by the victorious Republican Party?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Ebbie
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 05:34 PM

Which one would you choose?
Among the Very Earliest Political Parties

Democratic-Republicans (1794-1826)

Proponents: Thomas Jefferson (became US president)
            James Madison (became US president)
·Believed in a strict interpretation of the Constitution.
·Wanted a small federal government doing very little.
·Wanted very low taxes.
·Wanted the state governments to have more powers than the federal government.
·Wanted to help farmers.
·Wanted to help the common man.
·Wanted banks to be in no more than one state.
·Wanted good relations with France.
·Wanted a nation of family farmers, living free of the government, and only for themselves, enjoying liberty in pure and honest farm work.
**************************
Federalist Party 1780s-1801

Proponents: John Adams (became US president)
Alexander Hamilton (not president. Killed Aaron Burr in duel)

·Believed in a loose interpretation of the Constitution.
·Wanted a strong federal government to do many things.
·Wanted the federal government to build roads, build canals, set up a strong banking system, and more even if it means higher taxes.
·Wanted to help business and industry.
·Wanted to help wealthy people.
·Wanted good relations with England.
·Wanted a national bank to control the money system.
·Wanted a strong United States doing lots of business and industry, trading with other countries, with people getting richer building a strong and wealthy United States.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 04:39 PM

yer bloody well damned right LH.

God save the Queen !!!!

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 04:07 PM

I'd like to see every damn political party in the whole WORLD collapse! They have stolen the democratic process from the common people and turned it to their own selfish ends.

And that was predicted by some of the founding fathers of the USA. They warned that democracy could be damaged or destroyed by the formation of political parties. They were right.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 03:30 PM

I like hearing objective opinions about the Dem race from other countries.

It is a real pain in the ass to be continually painted "anti-Obama" or a Republican or a McCain lover, when what I am is a non-partisan independent voter who has clearly stated, again and again and again that I won't for any of the above.

Thanks EmmaB, for sharing your perceptions here. It does get mighty shrill at times, and my perception of the Democratic party race is that the party is likely split beyond the point of being able to reunify.

Who is to blame for that? It doesn't matter to me, actually. I'd like to see the Democratic party collapse, so new parties can gain power too.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Little Hawk
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:39 PM

I think that the big rally Chongo is holding today in Chicago for the Primate Anti-Defamation League will take a lot of votes away from Hillary. But it will take votes away from Obama too. Chongo may yet be in a controlling position to determine the Democratic leadership. He could be the Kingmaker. We could even get to see a REAL chimp in the White House next time!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 02:33 PM

A WaPo article discusses Hillary's false (and self-serving) memories about here touted experience.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

We shall see what we shall see.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 01:37 PM

You may be interested in this.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Emma B
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 12:55 PM

My personal feelings from this side of the Atlantic are that Hillary Clinton is by far the best candidate but, as I'm a UK citizen and have no vote, my opinion is somewhat irrelevant.

However I've never seen such a negative campaign against anyone since Blair was demon eyesd and you guys are supposed to be on the same side even!

I don't seem to be alone in these thoughts.....

The recent CBS poll which showed Hillary Clinton ahead of her democratic opponent Barack Obama also commented on the 'Media Treatment Of The Candidates'

'Voters say the media have been harder on Clinton than on the other presidential candidates. Thirty-one percent of registered voters say the media have been harder on Clinton than the others, while 15 percent feel the media have been hardest on Obama and 14 percent say the same of McCain.

Twenty-eight percent say the media have been easiest on Obama, while just 13 percent say the same of Clinton. Women especially think Clinton has been treated harsher than the other candidates, with 39 percent taking that position.

And thirty-nine percent of African Americans think the media has been hardest on Clinton. Just 24 percent of African Americans say this about Obama'

CBS news today

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:30 AM

BTW, for the ultimate in ups and downs, check out Otis.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:29 AM

They are for now. It's like doing the 100 yard dash as opposed to a marathon.

"Time will tell
Just who has fell
And who's been left behind
When you go your way and I go mine"

from the Gospel of Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Riginslinger
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 10:27 AM

Recent reports seem to indicate that Hillary's poll numbers are way up.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 20 Mar 08 - 08:58 AM

Some folks here may be interested in this.

In light of an item in the newly released White House schedule that shows Hillary Clinton promoting NAFTA at a 1993 White House meeting for invited guests, Al Giordano, editor of the Democratic political blog, The Field, has given this homework assignment to his posters/readers:

"Scour the Internets and let's create an archive of every Clinton surrogate, blogger and inaccurate journalist or pundit that repeated the false "Clinton always opposed NAFTA" claim, quote them accurately, with links, and, where possible, ask them aloud - on their blogs and every where else - what they think of having been used to spread a falsehood".

NAFTA Comes Home to Roost (a Homework Assignment for Field Hands)
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=914#comments

-snip-

As of this 8:50 AM EST there are already 79 comments posted on this subject.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 07:59 PM

Hillary's White House schedules were just released, and it seems that she spoke at a meeting in 1993 in support of NAFTA, the trade agreement that she wants everyone to believes she never supported.

Here's an article about this subject:

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/clintons-1993-n.html
Clinton's 1993 NAFTA Meeting-Jake Tapper, ABC News' Senior National Correspondent based in the network's Washington bureau

Here's a comment that was posted about that article:

"Now we are really only just seeing the start of the Clinton Vetting begin.

Clinton where are your Tax returns?

Clinton where are your earmarks?

Clinton where are the Clinton Library donor lists?

Clinton where are the donor lists to you campaign.

Now the lies are starting to come out. When we get the whole truth we will see real vetting start".
-TorontoP, March 19, 2008

-snip-

I also believe that when we get the whole truth [meaning Bill and Hillary Clinton's tax returns from 2001 on, the Clinton donor lists etc], Hillary's poll numbers will go down.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 03:35 PM

No, the little girl was not a person of colour.

I think I used an expression that was too difficult for a six year old to grasp. My attempt at humour went right over their heads. This usually gives me the opportunity to explain how English speakers use words to make jokes. Most of the kids, 'kinda got it' but this child took it literally and accused me of lying. I tried to explain that a joke was not the same as lying but...

What she told her parents I'll never know. Regardless, I now realize that I have to be more careful about joking in class. I feel really sad that this child is no longer receiving the instruction she needs and I'm trying to get enough courage to give her parents a call. I just wanted to make sure it didn't have an origin or a meaning that could cause offense.

Thanks for you comments. Thread drift, my fault.

I agree, I hope Hillary drifts off, too. I think she presents herself as a privileged but bitter and angry woman. I don't care how smart she is and she certainly does not represent most American women. There are better role models out there.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 03:40 AM

Careful with the innuendo, Azizi (grin).

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 02:36 AM

I suppose you guys and gals know that this discussion about the saying "twenty lashes with a wet noodle" is what is called "thread drift", right?

Well ya can't blame this thread drift on me. Or maybe you can since I was the one who used that saying in this thread. And truth be told, I'd rather talk about the origin and popularization of that saying rather than to talk about Hillary Clinton. Frankly, I want Hillary Clinton to exit stage right* and "ease on down the road""** with a quickness***. But even when Hillary leaves the scene as the losing contender for the 2008 Democratic nominee for President-as I believe she will probably sometime in May 2008-regardless of her loss to Barack Obama, she's bound to still be the subject of national conversations.

But, back to the question about "twenty lashes with a wet noodle". I'm sorry that happened to you dianavan. I hope that you didn't get the phrase from my using it online and then used it to confer that the child's actions were so minor that if she needed to get punishment, it would be very minor and perfuntory. That's what 20 lashes with a wet noodle mean to me. I'm not sure where I got that saying from. I like to pepper my comments with folk sayings, and 20 lashes etc is one that I've probably used before on this forum. I don't think that I'm the only one who has used it [??]

Interestingly enough, when I entered "20 lashes with a wet noodle" as the key phrase into Google, the first thing on that online listing that popped up was dianavan's comment in this thread. {What??!!}. dianavan, I guess the story about what you said to the child could have gotten convoluted by the time that the little girl got home and told her folks. However, in trying to think about what she might have said, it occurred to me that maybe another factor might have been who she was. I'm wondering was the child a person of color? I hadn't thought about the connection between being lashed with the slavery experience of whipping people with lashes but now that I think about it, maybe that's why the family got upset by you using that saying {?} Or maybe the thought that lashing someone with a wet noodle was equated with some sexual play{?} I'm trying to think about this as someone else might do. I definitely didn't think about the slavery connection or the masochist/sadist sexual play connection when I used that saying.

Btw, mg is correct that this saying was popularized by Ann Landers. I found this article through Google-and will cut and paste :o)) only a small portion of it:

"Ann Landers' popularity grew quickly. She immediately established herself as different from advice writers of the past. She became known for her easy writing style and her often funny answers. She related to her readers as if they were old friends. She seemed to say exactly what she thought, even when doing so might hurt the feelings of those seeking help. Most people considered Ann Landers' advice to be good, common sense....

As Ann Landers gained fame so did many of her words. People began to repeat some her short, pointed sentences. One of the most famous of these was when she told readers to "wake up and smell the coffee." She would use this comment when advice seekers seemed to be denying situations that made them unhappy or uncomfortable.

Another well known Ann Landers saying was "forty lashes with a wet noodle." She would say this if she believed someone had done something mean, dishonest or just stupid. Ann Landers did not protect herself from such criticism, however. She often published letters from readers who argued against advice she had given. When she agreed with their criticism, she sometimes ordered the forty lashes for herself!"

http://www.voanews.com/specialenglish/archive/2005-11/2005-11-05-voa2.cfm?CFID=215045938&CFTOKEN=93298198

-snip-

So, there ya have it folks! That's all I'm writing about that saying at this point in time-though I think that a discussion dedicated to that saying's origin and popularization would make an interesting thread...

Again, dianavan, I'm sorry you had that experience with the student being taken from your classroom because of about that experience. Talk about unexpected consequences of words! Picture me shaking my head at how folks can end up misinterpreting other folks intentions and what other fokjs say and do and write. It's been some of that going on on this thread with regard to me too, but I'm not even going there.


*exit stage right was/is a saying popularized by the cartoon character Snagglepuss {I think}

** "ease on down the road" {meaning "leave"} is the song refrain from the Broadway show/movie "The Wiz"

*** "with a quickness" is a not too often used anymore at least African American phrase meaning "quickly".

Btw, my attempted use of humor {humour} in that cut and paste sentence shouldn't be interpreted as brushing off, downplaying, or minimizing the guideline that was reinforced in this thread about sparing use of cut and paste. I promise I'll be good from now on-though I wasn't trying to be bad {"bad" here meaning not good, and not "good" in the African American vernacular sense of that word}...
What I mean to say is that henceforth, I'll be more conscientious about following that cut and paste guideline. I don't think that I have exceeded it in this post...

Enough already...

Positive vibrations.

Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 01:30 AM

DV, it was a harmless expression, and something else is behind the action. It's been around forever.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: mg
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 12:57 AM

I think Ann Landers used to use the expression. mg

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 19 Mar 08 - 12:00 AM

Voice of Truth: I have apologized to GG, and I should to you, also. I hereby do so. Please excuse me.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:55 PM

And, when I heard it it was something meant to be funny. Like, how can a wet noodle hurt? It was never meant to be offensive, and certainly you didn't mean it that way. So, lord knows what made its way to the parents.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:53 PM

Hi, Dianavan. I feel for you. The parents may have received a very different story by the time the child got home. I'm pretty sure I heard the expression decades ago.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Beer
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:51 PM

??????????? I have heard it also but have no idea.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,dianavan
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:46 PM

Azizi - This is a serious question. Do you often use the phrase, "twenty lashes with a wet noodle?" Where did it come from? Is it an American expression?

The reason I ask is this: One of my new, grade one students forgot to do her homework and was hanging her head and looked ashamed. It wasn't important and I didn't want her to fear any punishment from me so I laughed and said, "I guess that means twenty lashes with a wet noodle!" It was obvious she didn't understand so I explained that a wet noodle wouldn't hurt very much and that it was joke.

The next day, her parents withdrew her from my class without an explanation.

I have turned that phrase a hundred times in my head and wonder where I picked it up and whether or not it has another meaning. That little girl really needed the extra reading help and now she isn't getting it because I said something her parents didn't like.

Please jump in Mudcatters, if you can help me understand how that phrase can be scary, inappropriate or offensive to anyone.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:52 PM

"It really is out of character for him."
Thought so. I should have checked.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:46 PM

And one more thing: Guestguest has often attacked Obama to the tune of about five threads. AND, GG attacked me. I responded. And I will continue to respond in that manner until such time as she starts to be civil. I do not care whether you like that or not.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:40 PM

Voice of Truth: Understand this--I read your posts and I did not call you any names. That was spin-head who said I did. You have the bloody nerve to talk about my handle on Mudcat? Take a good look at your own. The day you wish to be reasonable, you will find me willing to be reasonable, also. But parrot that other thing and there will be nothing but enmity for a long time. Have a nice day, and stop taking your cues from the twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:31 PM

GUEST,Voice of Truth: It really is out of character for him. The debate is just a little too heated.
Take the time to get to know him and you'll be the better for it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Voice of Truth
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:21 PM

It's too bad that someone who calls him (her?) self "peace", and has some very intelligent insights on the state of the country, cannot refrain from name calling and bullying any person whose opinion or statement differs from his (her?) own. I don't believe I or Guestguest (as far as I can tell) have ever attacked Obama supporters in the mean spirited and childish way that Obama supporters accord those with different insights.

If I had to judge Obama by the company he keeps, based on the nasty, confrontational and misogynistic postings from his fans (along with the fact that this board cannot seem to stop censoring many thoughtful postings that are not starry eyed over Obama.), I'd say he's not only a weak candidate, but a pretty nasty guy. Only I don't say the latter. I just see a very flawed candidate, and as I have previously predicted, even more disturbing information about him is to follow. I don't even think he's any more nasty than many politicians, I just don't think he's much different, or any better. I am sure he has no chance of winning this election. If that threatens you so much that you have to resort to name-calling, perhaps you should ask yourself why.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Beer
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:45 PM

Good one Peace.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 06:04 PM

Bill, OK, your Constitution is under attack; your social and personal freedoms are being threatened; your country is so many trillions in debt there is likely NO way out; you are fighting wars and your health system (as such) is a mess; you have lots of people in the country that the country doesn't know are there; your politicians seem to be responsible to no one, including the electorate. But playing that "this election is kinda important" card is just plain picky.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:48 PM

This election is kinda important.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Megan L
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 05:24 PM

Gad but you Americans make a meal oot a simple election.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 04:14 PM

Polls depend on too many factors to be reliable in the primaries, as past predictions show.
At the moment, Clinton is showing a double digit lead in Pennsylvania. A few brief extracts from Monday's Inquirer. If one is interested, google the Philadelphia Inquirer and search archives.

"Views on Pa. Primary Race Continue to evolve"
"The latest: State is Important but not the clincher."
Philadelphia Inquirer, 2008-03-17; Larry Eichel, Inquirer Senior Writer.

The Clinton campaign, which leads by double digits in state polls, has tried to talk up the state's role, while Obama's campaign manager has called it "only one of 10 remeining contests."
"...Pennsylvania seems to have been categorized in advance as Clinton territory because of her success in demographically similar states such as Ohio, her husband's lingering statewide popularity, and support she has been receiving from the local political extablishment, led by Gov. Rendell and Mayor [Phila.] Nutter.
"The candidates themselves have contributed to such sentiment in word and deed."
......................
"But the Obama campaign has been sending out signals suggesting that it has not yet figured out whether to go all-out in the state. Which in turnhas caused Clinton's chief stratigest, Mark Penn, to accuse Obama and his aides of "turning their back on Pennsylvania."
................................
"Obama an company are working hard to register voters before the March 24 deadline. This is a closed primary- another factor that could work to Clinton's benefit- meaning that independents and Republicans may vote in the Democratic primary only if they change their registration in advance."
"Obama's overall lead in delegates......... allows him to afford a respectable loss in Pennsylvania.
But he abandons the state at his peril. The Democrats proportional system of allocating delegates- the same system responsible for making this race so close- forces him to make a serious effort."
"That's because a blowout loss would give Clinton a substantial haul of delegates, make a big impression on the superdelegates, and perhaps create the idea among voters that the campaign has taken a turn.
"In the end, PA isn't going to be downplayed," said Neil Oxman, a Philadelphia-based political consultant not working for either candidate. "This is not Wyoming or Mississippi."

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:41 PM

Interesting Jeri: You' finished insulting people and now you'd like to move on.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:31 PM

I don't think we need any more personal shit. Let's all talk about the election in the good ol' USA. C'mon Canadians and UKers, you KNOW what it's all about!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Appaloosa Lady
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:19 PM

"For as long as I have been here, Azizi has consistently started threads, loosely based on racial issues and at the first opportunity, pounced on unsuspecting newbies who have done nothing more than offer their unbiased opinions. The list of apologies she has extracted while perpetrating these ambushes would fill a library.
Obama is using much the same tactics.
I despise those methods.
Now to the point of the cutting & pasting. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. These long, long threads of articles from other websites do nothing but interrupt the flow."


I love Azizi's posts, be they entirely her own or filled with relative information which she has taken the trouble to bring over here, for others to read.

It is not compulsory to read anyone's posts you know, Jim, just scroll on by.

Many have a great deal to learn from Azizi, for she is always good-natured, passionate about her beliefs, humourous and polite. I'm very happy to cut and paste, to other places, much of what she has written on this board over the years.

That is an goal I think you might seek to aim for Jim.

And now, back to the US election, which, being over here in the UK, we hear very, very little about, so I am learning from this and other threads.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:14 PM

I like and respect the idea that people can associate with those they disagree with, often strongly.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:59 PM

I have to laugh when someone starts pointing at Obama's preacher.

Obama is distancing himself from that aspect of an old mentor...sadly, I'd presume.

McCain, on the other hand seems to be collecting such endorsements

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:50 PM

Oh never mind about the Obama speech - I see there's a thread on it. Gonna fire up the laptop and go U-tubing.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:46 PM

I want Obama to win, but I also don't think Clinton is the anti-Christ and will vote for her if she's nominated. That's what's so damned hard about this nomination, and it's why the vote is so close. Most people don't really hate the 'other guy'. It's also why the polls about who can defeat the Republican nominee are, IMO, wrong. Let whomever win the nomination, let them campaign, and the Repubs will be toast. Things will change after the nomination, and party factions will unite.

Is Obama's speech on YouTube? I missed it.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:22 PM

I have not seen any sign that threads have been deleted because of their political bias. Some have been closed because they were redundant, or because their ratio of spite to acceptable content got a bit too toxic.

If you have had a thread deleted for reasons you do not understand, please PM Joe Offer and get an explanation. He is generally reasonable and easy to work with if not pushed too far.

Obama's appeal, as demonstrated in today's speech, is clear, and it stands out as much more commanding and insightful than either of Hillary or John in their dinged up battle armor, creaking and bloviating, do.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jeri
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:18 PM

Personally, I think Hillary's too close to McCain, and he does 'Repulican' better. I know that's based on a general personal feeling, but that's why Clinton isn't my favorite candidate.

Jim Lad, we delete attack threads, and that's what yours was, as cloaked in worm-eating spite as it was, it was an attack thread and would have eventually degenerated into attacks ON you instead of by you. If you feel that frustrated by what other people post here, maybe it's time to back off a little. You're coming off like someone having a public melt-down.

Personally, I hate the copy/paste articles. Like somebody saying, "Here you moron, because I know you're too stupid to find it on your own." They get deleted if they're too long. Otherwise, I just scroll past or go up to the top of the thread and click on a post that came after the flurry of copy/paste messages (and the spluttering reactions they've inspired).

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:16 PM

I've seen Peace's attacks on you. I've also watched a few others who seem to be able to get away with saying anything.
Still, one of the worst pm's I've ever received, did come from a moderator.
That about said it all for me.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:15 PM

Guest,Guest: I take it you object to the statement that everyone has an asshole. Would anal sphincter please you more? Twit.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:14 PM

Jim,

There are about five anti-Obama threads (extant) on Mudcat now. Mostly the work of a single poster ranting against him (and almost anything else). I am sorry to have missed your reply. I harbour you no ill-will.

#############################################################

Obama's speech was beautiful. I HOPE he is the next president. The unsupported presumption above (by someone megalomanically named Voice of Truth) that only Hillary could beat McCain is a cheap scare tactic, imo.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Wesley S
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:12 PM

"How many excuses can one person have for keeping an allegiance to such a hatefilled character is beyond me."

If we pick and choose quotes over a period of time it can be shown that anyone is a hatefilled character. Even yourself I might add. And we all know you're a paragon of sweetness and light.

"It is also coming out that Obama's aids admit they find him cold, removed and arrogant, a host of character traits which, it seems, has only been lost only upon his fervent supporters."

No links or direct quotes? I thought not. And you won't be able to provide any either will you? We're supposed to take your word for it because you're the "Voice of Truth"? Sure - got it.

"Hillary is the ONLY chance the Democrats have of beating the Republicans this coming November"

Actually I'd say the opposite is true. Obama has a much better chance. That's why republicans were crossing party lines in Texas to vote for Hillary - because Republicans figure she will be easier to defeat if she up against McCain.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Guest
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:11 PM

Hear, hear Jim Lad! All too true about the censorship around here.

They claim that personal attacks are the only things that get deleted, yet the way the Mudcat regulars attack me, you, anyone who dissents from the conventional Mudcat wisdom, censor censor censor.

See Peace's post above.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:10 PM

pounced on unsuspecting newbies who have done nothing more than offer their unbiased opinions.

Jim Lad:

I am sorry if you have gotten bruised in the give and take around here, but I think your characterization is unfair; you need to take some responsibility for why your unbioased opinions don't come across looking unbiased. I have probably misinterpreted your remarks several times, and I think it may be because you appear to make no effort to look like you are viewing both sides of the discussion, or even considering another point of view. This is just a tad short of civilized dialogue. I know because I have tried both ways.



A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:06 PM

Bruce: I did answer your earlier query, ever so politely but the moderator of the day took the thread down.
Deleting anti Obama posts has become a bit of an epidemic around here of late and is probably why the balance tips so heavily in his favour.
Fortunately, free speech is alive and well on most other forums.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:56 PM

"Hillary is the ONLY chance the Democrats have of beating the Republicans this coming November. "

Oh, it's settled then. The VoT has spoken.

Opinions are like assholes: everybody got one.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:54 PM

Valid point. I agree. State your own opinions and leave a link to the source if you choose.

I don't get involved in a lot of the political threads but agree that Azizi brings in or maybe sees race as an issue in a thread when I don't. Address the issue with her and lay off the personal attacks.
Now about that pillow...

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

For as long as I have been here, Azizi has consistently started threads, loosely based on racial issues and at the first opportunity, pounced on unsuspecting newbies who have done nothing more than offer their unbiased opinions. The list of apologies she has extracted while perpetrating these ambushes would fill a library.
Obama is using much the same tactics.
I despise those methods.
Now to the point of the cutting & pasting. If you have nothing to say, say nothing. These long, long threads of articles from other websites do nothing but interrupt the flow.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:45 PM

And the worrying thing is that the "wonks" (a term I find offensive as demeaning those who take an actual interest in the most important thing, policy) still don't know Obama's exact intentions.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,Voice of Truth
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:40 PM

Well let's see what the polls are after the public assesses how Obama stayed with his minister for decades, a man who made such mean spirited, self serving and anti patriotic remarks about the US right after 9-11, not to mention his attacks on Israel. How many excuses can one person have for keeping an allegiance to such a hatefilled character is beyond me. And I believe it is beyond the ken of the majority of voters. Obama's starting to unravel in front of the public, and he hasn't even been subjected to McCain's campaign yet. It is also coming out that Obama's aids admit they find him cold, removed and arrogant, a host of character traits which, it seems, has only been lost only upon his fervent supporters.

I wouldn't count the Clintons out yet, and indeed, Hillary is the ONLY chance the Democrats have of beating the Republicans this coming November. Obama will never win the election. Even if Mudcat deletes every negative thread about Obama from here to eternity.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:58 PM

In terms of overall appeal, Obama outpolls Clinton 45% to 29%, and her total appeal numbers are falling while his are rising. But even more striking is how the polled population assigns character traits to each of the Democrats. Barack Obama substantially outpolls Hillary Clinton on every positive trait, while Clinton surges past Obama on every negative.

(Forbes 3-18)

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:37 PM

Hillary promoted her own myths - I gagged when I saw the picture of the two of them dancing in their bathing suits. Ah, the loving, loyal wife who knew nothing of his wanderings but took him back. How sweet.

The devastating photo of Eliot Spitzer's wife reminded me of this hypocrisy.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: SINSULL
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:33 PM

Watching from the sidelines with no particular interest in either candidate:
If Obama allows the Clintons to set his agenda, he will lose. Rather than repsond to their every attack, he needs to keep reiterating his message.
The Clintons are not out of this, not by a long shot. I have to admit I am amused at ole Bill complaining about "myth and mugging". He was the master of myths during his two terms. "I did not have sex with that woman." is probably the most famous.

Jim Lad - if you object to Azizi's cut and paste, say so. Most here agree. If you use it as a jumping off point for a personal attack, you will get your wrist slapped. It is neither necessary nor appropriate.
Now if you would like a pillow, I am sure I can promote one for you.
SINS

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:28 PM

There was a time I would have spoken out on your behalf. That time has passed.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:05 PM

Guess my thread was ruled "Anti Obama".
It's gone!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:42 AM

Maybe see if she needs a couple of pillows while you're at it, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:20 AM

"the most segregated hour of American life occurs on Sunday Morning"

.... a snippet of Obama's speech ... occuring now as I type this.

I think we should thank Hillary ... the more she pounds Obama, the more he hones his skill ... the skill he will require to take on the McCain/Bush/Cheney machine for winning the election and the skill he will ultimately require to run as president.

Yes ... a big thanks to Hillary.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 11:06 AM

Very lengthy C & P is discouraged.....but so are mean-spirited responses.

Please folks...limit C&P to excerpts, then link to the full text. Those who are willing to read it all will go there.

...and PLEASE, respect the basic concerns of those who care enough to find the links. If you don't agree, there are more polite ways to say so.

...remember, BOTH overlong C&P and personal attacks are subject to editing or deletion!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 10:12 AM

Just watched/heard Olbermann's remarks. WOW!

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:51 AM

Jim,

Your remark to Azizi was beneath you.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Bobert
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:45 AM

I believe the ol' gal is flat punched out... She has been flailing so hard at Obama that she, if she were able to steal the nomination, wouldn't have anything left in the tank to campaign against her buddy, John McWar...

Obama,however, is like the Energizer Bunny... This is strength that I believe more and more folks are seeing in him...

Anyone who thinks he isn't tough outta just get in a tag team match with the Clintons... If he wasn't tough before he he gfot in the ring with them he's tough now...

B~

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Beer
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:41 AM

Good for you Azizi

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,redhorse at work
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 09:39 AM

I certainly get the feeling that Hillary's race has run its course: the more she sinks, the more the superdelegates will want to be on the side that's winning. What's in it for them if they stick by her busted flush?

nick

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: GUEST,pattyClink
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:54 AM

I'm afraid this is just step 3 on the twelve-point plan to marginalize Mr. Obama as a 'black candidate'. They've carefully baited him into speaking directly on race although the voters don't seem to give a flying flip about the subject. The constant pounding about race will start to lead casual moderate voters into seeing him as a standard liberal Democrat hack, and will send some scurrying to either vote for McCain or stay home.

With any luck, Karl Rove won't even have to lob his first grenade, the Democrats have found a way to implode.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:33 AM

I would have voted for her but she has weaseled on Iraq weaseled on NAFTA and weasled on her own accountability.
If it smells like a weasel...etc

Barak thnks on his feet and has a truthful even tempered, reasoned and measured response every time I have listened to him.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Charley Noble
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:25 AM

Jim Ladd-

"a little less cutting and pasting crap that you probably haven't bothered reading yourself"

Your original comment above lacks common courtesy.

I would PM you on this but the last time I did that you instructed me not to do that again.

We don't have to agree on politics but why not make more of an effort to be civil in your disagreement?

Charley Noble

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:21 AM

And, given the type of campaign the Clintons have run, in the context of that campaign, I believe the word "mugging" and the reference to "hit job" were purposeful. I believe that they are dog whistle statements that are directed to those racist non-Black folks out there who associate "muggings" and "hit jobs" {i.e.-street violence} with Black men.

I very much believe that the purposeful use of those particular words and phrases is another way for the Clintons to attempt to minimize the candidacy of Senator Barack Obama by getting Americans to consider Obama as a Black candidate and not as a candidate whose policies and positions are germane to all Americans.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 08:06 AM

I'd like to quickly ammend my statement about agreeing, affirming, and supporting what I cut & pasted to emphatically say that I absolutely do not agree, affirm, and support former President Bill Clinton's use {again} of racist dog whistle statements. Furthermore, I absolutely do not agree, affirm, and support the content of those statements, including Bill's latest-[Bill Clinton saying that] "the notion that he unfairly criticized his wife's rival, Barack Obama, "a total myth and a mugging." and when he [Bill Clinton] "compared Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina's Jan. 26 primary to Jesse Jackson's wins in the state in 1984 and 1988".

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 07:38 AM

Maybe if you could come up with some original thoughts and a little less cutting and pasting crap that you probably haven't bothered reading yourself....
-Jim Ladd

Jim Ladd, I vehemently reject and denounce you or anyone else calling me a mere cut & paster.

I usually re-read everything I post. But I admit that I don't use the preview feature. And I also admit that sometimes I mess up the italic font.

I guess I'll have to be fined twenty lashes with a wet noodle for those grievous sins.

And btw, I vehemently accept, affirm, and support all of the cut & post comments that I've posted in this thread thus far.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 03:26 AM

Maybe if you could come up with some original thoughts and a little less cutting and pasting crap that you probably haven't bothered reading yourself....

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:22 AM

I'd appreciate it if a moderator would fix the mistake that I made in that last post. The text after the asterick is not supposed to be hyperlinked. Thanks.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 02:20 AM

"After days of tacitly condoning Geraldine Ferraro's controversial comments, Hillary Clinton becomes the focus of MSNBC's Keith Olbermann's Special Comment" *

Here's the text to that special comment:

"Text of Keith Olbermann's "Special Comment" delivered live last night on MSNBC, decrying Hillary Clinton for the tactics of her campaign and specifically for her failure to categorically reject the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro about Barack Obama. The video may be viewed here. Transcript below:

KEITH OLBERMANN: Finally, as promised, a special comment on the presidential campaign of the junior senator from New York. By way of necessary preface, President and Senator Clinton and the senator's mother and the senator's brother were of immeasurable support to me at the moments when these very commentaries were the focus of the most surprise, the most uncertainty and the most anger. My gratitude to them is unbiding.

Also, I am not here endorsing Senator Obama`s nomination, nor suggesting in it is inevitable. Thus I have fought with myself over whether or not to say anything. Events insist.

Senator, as it has reached its apex in their tone deaf, arrogant and insensitive reaction to the remarks of Geraldine Ferraro, your own advisers are slowly killing your chances to become president. Senator, their words and your own are now slowly killing the chances for any Democrat to become president. In your tepid response to this Ferraro disaster, you may sincerely think you disenthralling an enchanted media and righting an unfair advance bestowed on Senator Obama. You may think the matter has closed with Representative Ferraro's bitter, almost threatening resignation letter.

But, in fact, senator, you are now campaigning as if Barack Obama were the Democrat and you were the Republican. As Shakespeare wrote, senator, "that way madness lies." You have missed a critical opportunity to do what was right. No matter what Miss Ferraro now claims, no one took her comments out of context. She had made them on at least there separate occasions, then twice more on television this morning. Just hours ago, on "NBC Nightly News," she denied she had made the remark in an interview, only at a paid political speech.

In fact, the first time she spoke them was 10 days before that California newspaper published them, not in a speech, but in a radio interview. On February 26, quoting, "if Barack Obama were a white man, would we be talking about this as a potential real problem for Hillary. If he were a woman of any color, would he be in this position that he's in? Absolutely not."

The content was inescapable. Two minutes earlier, a member of Senator Clinton's finance committee, one of her Hill-Raisers had bemoaned the change in allegiance by super delegate John Lewis from Clinton to Obama and also the endorsement of Obama by Senator Dodd; "I look at these guys doing it," she had said, "and I have to tell you, it`s the guys sticking together."

A minute after the color remark, she was describing herself as having been chosen for the 1984 Democratic ticket purely as a woman politician, purely to make history. She was, in turn, making a blind accusation of sexism and dismissing Senator Obama`s candidacy as nothing more than some equal opportunity stunt.

The next day, she repeated her comments and a reporter from the newspaper in Torrence, California heard them; "If Obama was a white man, he would not be in this position. If he was a woman of any color, he would not be in this position. He happens to be very lucky to be who he is and the country is caught up in the concept."

And when this despicable statement, ugly in its overtones, laughable in its week grip of the facts, and moronic in the historical context, when it floats outward from the Clinton campaign like a poison cloud, what do the advisers have their candidate do? Do they have Senator Clinton herself compare the remark to Al Campanis (ph) talking on "Nightline" on Jackie Robinson Day about how blacks lack the necessities to become baseball executives, while she points out that Barack Obama has not gotten his 1600 delegates as part of some kind of affirmative action plan?

Do they have Senator Clinton note that her own brief period in elected office is as irrelevant to the issue of judgment as is Senator Obama's, while she points out that FDR had served only six years as governor and state senator before he became president? Or that Teddy Roosevelt had four and a half years before the White House? Or that Woodrow Wilson had two years and six weeks?

Or Richard Nixon 14? And Calvin Coolidge 25?

Do these advisers have Senator Clinton invoke Samantha Power, gone by sunrise after she used the word monster, and have Senator Clinton say, this is how I police my campaign, and this is what I stand for, while she fires former Congresswoman Ferraro from any role in the campaign? No, somebody tells her that simply disagreeing with, then rejecting the remarks is sufficient. She should then call regrettable words that should make any Democrat retch.

And that she should then try to twist them, first into some pox on both your houses plea to stick to the issues, and then to let her campaign manager try to bend them beyond all recognition into Senator Obama's fault. And thus these advisers give Congresswoman Ferraro nearly a week in which to send Senator Clinton`s campaign back into the vocabulary of David Duke; "anytime anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says, let`s address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you`re accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they are attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"

How's that? Apart from sounding exactly like Rush Limbaugh attacking the black football quarterback Donovan McNab, apart from sounding exactly like what Miss Ferraro said about another campaign nearly 20 years ago, quote, "President Reagan suggested Tuesday that people don't ask Jesse Jackson tough questions because of his race. Former Representative Geraldine A. Ferraro said Wednesday that because of his, quote, radical views, if Jesse Jackson were not black, he would not be in the race."

So apart from sounding like insidious racism that is at least two decades old, apart from rendering ridiculous Senator Clinton`s shell game about choosing Obama as vice president, apart from this evenings resignation letter; "I am stepping down from your finance committee so I can speak for myself and you can continue to speak for yourself about what is at stake in this campaign. The Obama campaign is attacking me to hurt you."

Apart from all that, well, it sounds as if those advisers wanted their campaign to be associated with those words, and the cheap, ignorant, vile racism that underlies every syllable of them, and that Geraldine Ferraro has just gone freelance.

Senator Clinton, that is not a campaign strategy. This is a suicide pact. This week alone, your so-called strategists have declared that Senator Obama has not yet crossed some commander in chief threshold, but he might still be your choice to be vice president, even though a quarter of
the previous 16 vice presidents have become commander in chief during the greatest kind of crisis this country can face, a midterm succession, but you only pick him if he crosses that threshold by the time of the convention.

But if he does cross that threshold by the time of the convention, he will only have done so sufficiently enough to become vice president, not president? Senator, if the serpentine logic of your so-called advisers were not bad enough, now thanks to Geraldine Ferraro and your campaigns initial refusal to break with her, and your new relationship with her, now more disturbing still with her claim that she can now speak for herself about her vision as Senator Obama as some kind of embodiment of a quota if she wishes.

If you were to seek Obama as a vice president, it would be to Miss Ferraro some called of social engineering gesture, some kind of racial make good. Do you not see, senator?

To Senator Clinton`s supporters, to her admirers, to her friends for whom she is first choice and to her friends for whom she is second choice, she is still letting herself be perceived as standing next to and standing by racial divisiveness and blindness. Worse yet, after what President Clinton said during the South Carolina primary, comparing the Obama and Jesse Jackson campaigns, a disturbing but only border line remark, after what some in the black community have perceived as a racial undertone to the 3:00 a.m. ad, a disturbing but only borderline interpretation, and after the moments hesitation in her own answer on "60 Minutes" about Obama's religion, a disturbing but only borderline vagueness -- after those precedents, there are those who see a pattern. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those who see an intent. False or true, they see it. After those precedents, there are those that see the Clinton campaign`s anything but benign neglect of the Ferraro catastrophe, falsely or truly, as a desire to hear the kind of casual prejudice which still haunts the society voiced, and to not distance the campaign from it.

To not distance you from it, Senator. To not distance you from that which you, as a woman, and Senator Obama, as an African-American, should both know and feel with the deepest of personal pain, which you should both fight with all you have, which you should both ensure has no place in this contest ever.

This, Senator Clinton, is your campaign and it is your name. Grab the reigns back from whoever has led you to this precipice before it is too late. Voluntarily or inadvertently, you are still awash in this filth. Your only reaction has been to disagree, reject, to call it regrettable. Her only reaction has been to brand herself as the victim and resign from your committee and insist she will continue to speak. Unless, senator, you say something definitive, the former congresswoman is speaking with your
approval.

You must remedy this and you must reject and denounce Geraldine Ferraro. Good night and good luck."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/03/13/transcript-olbermann-ant_n_91330.html

-snip-

Here's a link to a YouTube video of that March 12,2008 Keith Olbermann special comment:

http://www.youtube.com/watch

* This quote is taken from the YouTube summary about this special comment.

This special comment is remarkable because Olbermann has been {and says that he continues to be] neutral with regard to the nominations of Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. Olbermann has become known for his intelligent, eloquent special comments {which some might term "rants"}. However, heretofore, the subject of these special comments were the Bush administration and other Republicans.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:54 AM

And the beat goes on.

Bill Clinton rejects criticism over race
By Beth Fouhy, Associated Press Writer

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080318/ap_on_el_pr/bill_clinton_race

"Former President Clinton on Monday called the notion that he unfairly criticized his wife's rival, Barack Obama, "a total myth and a mugging." Clinton had compared Obama's landslide victory in South Carolina's Jan. 26 primary to Jesse Jackson's wins in the state in 1984 and 1988.

Clinton was widely criticized for appearing to cast Obama as little more than a black candidate popular in a state with a heavily black electorate. He was widely accused of fanning racial tensions.

"They made up a race story out of that," Clinton said of the news media, calling the story "a bizarre spin."

In an interview with ABC's "Good Morning America" broadcast Monday, Clinton said he had gotten a "bum rap" from the news media.

He made similar comments on CNN's "American Morning," calling the notion that he had unfairly criticized Obama in South Carolina as "a total myth and a mugging."

While campaigning in South Carolina in January, Bill Clinton complained that Obama had put out a "hit job" on him. He didn't explain what that meant.

At an MTV forum for college journalists Saturday, Clinton said he knew as soon as Obama won Iowa's caucuses Jan. 3 that he was on his way to wrapping up a large majority of black voters in other primary states.

"Iowa happened. The minute it became possible that he could be the nominee, he was going to win the lion's share of the African-American vote," Clinton said. "And I never begrudged it."

He added, "Contrary to the myth, I went through South Carolina and never said a bad word about Senator Obama — not one."

-snip-

What Bill and Hillary don't get is that you can fool some of the people some of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time.

It takes a village to bring the Clintons down.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:48 AM

I just like to see a fair race, Bruce.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:40 AM

Besides the fact that the math is against a Hillary win [for the Democratic nomination and for the general election, here are some other reasons why Hillary's poll numbers are continuing to go down-and why they should stay down:

"...Off the top of my head, I can recall the following negative attacks from the Clinton campaign - I challenge anyone to come up with a similar list of attacks by the Obama campaign:

1. the muslim smear emails circulated by Iowa staffers
2. the "cocaine" issue raised by Billy Shaheen, Mark Penn and Bob Johnson
3. the false email sent around in NH concerning Obama's pro-choice record
4. Bill Clinton's "roll of the dice" and "fairytale" comments in NH and the subsequent dismissal of Obama's position on Iraq
5. Bill Clinton's South Carolina statements and the misquoting of Obama's statement about Reagan and ideas
6. the first negative ad (radio) in South Carolina regarding the "Reagan / ideas" statement
7. mailers in MA mispresenting Obama's Healthcare plan
8. the first negative (TV) ad in Wisconsin regarding "refusal to debate"
9. the 3 AM ad
10. the suggestion that John McCain has passed the commander-in-chief threshold but Obama hasn't
11. the claim that Obama's entire campaign is based on one speech
12. the qualified answer to Steve Croft's "Is Obama a muslim" question
13. the fake AP news story ad regarding Obama and Naftagate run in Ohio
14. Penn claiming that Obama is unelectable

The attacks range from the morally reprehensible to me (nos. 3 and 12), to the intellectually offensive (5, 6, and 11) to the ridiculous (14) to the "politics as usual" (the rest of them). However, hard to argue that Clinton has not been attacking negatively".

-KD, on March 17th, 2008 at 7:39 am

Clinton Internet Staffer Pushes Panic Button
http://ruralvotes.com/thefield/?p=902#comments

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Azizi
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 01:30 AM

I've got major issues with the Clintons. And the fact that Hillary's poll numbers continue to go down demonstrates the fact that a lot of people have major issues with her-and her hubby. Hillary was never the most well liked politician-or politian's wife-in the world. She has always had high negatives. And-as a result of the type of win at all cost campaign she is waging, those negatives have gotten higher.

Markos Moulitas, the founder of the progressive political blog dailykos, wrote a long front page diary today in which he indicated that Hillary is waging a civil war against the Democratic party.
Here's an excerpt from that article:

The Clinton civil war
by kos
Mon Mar 17, 2008 at 10:25:22 AM PDT

"...Clinton isn't the most horrible person in the world. She's actually quite nice, despite all her flaws, and would make a fine enough president.

If she was winning.

But she's not, and that's the rub.

First of all, the only path to victory for Clinton is via coup by super delegate.

She knows this. That's why there's all the talk about poaching pledged delegates and spinning uncertainty around Michigan and Florida, and laying the case for super delegates to discard the popular will and stage a coup.

Yet a coup by super delegate would sunder the party in civil war.

Clinton knows this, it's her only path to victory, and she doesn't care. She is willing -- nay, eager to split the party apart in her mad pursuit of power.

If the situations were reversed, and Obama was lagging in the delegates, popular vote, states won, money raised, and every other reasonable measure, then I'd feel the same way about Obama. (I pulled the plug early on Dean in 2004.) But that's not the case.

It is Clinton, with no reasonable chance of victory, who is fomenting civil war in order to overturn the will of the Democratic electorate. As such, as far as I'm concerned, she doesn't deserve "fairness" on this site. All sexist attacks will be dealt with -- those will never be acceptable. But otherwise, Clinton has set an inevitably divisive course and must be dealt with appropriately.

To reiterate, she cannot win without overturning the will of the national Democratic electorate and fomenting civil war, and she doesn't care.

That's why she has earned my enmity and that of so many others. That's why she is bleeding super delegates. That's why she's even bleeding her own caucus delegates (remember, she lost a delegate in Iowa on Saturday). That's why Keith Olbermann finally broke his neutrality. That's why Nancy Pelosi essentially cast her lot with Obama. That's why Democrats outside of the Beltway are hoping for the unifying Obama at the top of the ticket, and not a Clinton so divisive, she is actually working to split her own party...

People like me have two choices -- look the other way while Clinton attempts to ignite her civil war, or fight back now, before we cross that dangerous line. Honestly, it wasn't a difficult choice. And it's clear, looking at where the super delegates, most bloggers, and people like Olbermann are lining up, that the mainstream of the progressive movement is making the same choice.

And the more super delegates see what is happening, and what Clinton has in store, the more imperative it is that they line up behind Obama and put an end to it before it's too late".

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/17/12417/1285/527/478498

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 18 Mar 08 - 12:23 AM

OK. Other than that . . . .

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:52 PM

Her bra ??

ok ... I'm outta here.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:49 PM

Truthfully, Jim, what have you found 'uplifting' about Hillary?

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:48 PM

It is times like this that make me wish Mark Twain was still with us. If it all wasn't so tragic it would be funny.

There are many people who seem not to be able to tell the difference between who said what. Must be that all Black folks look alike to them, or something. Personally, I find very little resemblance between these guys.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Jim Lad
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:45 PM

Let me guess.
An uplifting speech to those who support him and a major guilt trip on the rest.
This is absolutely incredible to watch.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:44 PM

All I can say I hope, and I really hope he can ... if he can't ... well all hope is lost as far as I'm concerned.

This will be his 'defining hour'.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Amos
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:40 PM

I kinda am lookin' forward to this turning point.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:38 PM

I certainly hope ... heaven knows, the U.S. needs someone to play one helluva tune.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:37 PM

Obama is gonna do it. Prepare yourselves for a great speech tomorrow. And prepare yourself for Hillary's numbers to drop by Friday. Homey is gonna play one helluva tune.

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: number 6
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:36 PM

Poll numbers going down .... the U.S. debt going up, way up.

biLL

Subject: RE: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:34 PM

Story here.


Lest anyone be buried by the bullshit in another thraed.

Subject: BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.
From: Peace
Date: 17 Mar 08 - 11:31 PM

CNN/Opinion Research Corporation Poll. March 14-16, 2008. N=463 registered Democrats nationwide. MoE ± 4.5.

"Who would you MOST like to see win the Democratic nomination for president: Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama?" Names rotated

Obama             52%
Hillary            45%
Undecided          3%