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.