BS: Hillary's poll numbers down.

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,Guezt
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:15 PM

icanhascheezburger?

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,Guezzt
Date: 22 Mar 08 - 08:46 PM

yes

icanhascheezburger.com

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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 12:48 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 03:54 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 07:47 PM

Sorry! I'm just the messenger.

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: 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: 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: 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: 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 - 10:13 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: 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: 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: 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: 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.