[Dork.]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

Hillary Clinton has a gorgeous war chest.

fixed™.

[RAILhead]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I'm so glad that wench Hillary came in 3rd place. I bet she was unleashing her battle voice and throwing things all around her hotel room that night. Serves her right, I hope she loses every single state.

I can't BELIEVE you called her a "wench"!!!1! That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO demeaning!!11! young girls all over the world have been fighting the wench stereotype, and it's people like you that keep erpeuating the madness. It is sad that you even thought to say something like that.

[subego]

Apparently, I hit a nerve.

[Kerrigan]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I'll never understand the Hillary-haters. Sure, you can disagree with her policy positions, but why it's necessary to make it personal -- esp. when in all likelihood you have not even met her -- is a mystery to me.

It's a mystery to Hillary, too, since she her policy positions are similar to Obama's, but she can't seem to get rid of her high negatives, even with her helicopters, staff, phony posturing, air of inevitability, or presidential spouse. I guess if people don't like her, no amount of money or posturing could change that.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by selowitch 

I'll never understand the Hillary-haters. Sure, you can disagree with her policy positions, but why it's necessary to make it personal -- esp. when in all likelihood you have not even met her -- is a mystery to me.

Perhaps she's held to a different set of standards as a woman? It's okay for male politicians to be manipulative and insincere (and hell knows that there are plenty of them), but it's not okay for her?

[besson3c]

I also like Bill Richardson's breasts.

[Kerrigan]

I figured you had low standards in politicians, besson3c, if one is to make logical inferences from your stated desire to be as lame as possible. However, well educated and upper scale Democratic voters are showing greater support for Obama, perhaps because they know intelligence and initiative when they see it. In the meantime, the naïve flock to Hillary, hoping to push the idiotic baby boomer dichotomy that has gripped politics since the 60s into yet another decade.

[Chongo]

I am still trying to understand why her time as First Lady counts as "experience." Lackey Davis even mentioned her "8 years in the white house" tonight on one of the cable channels. If it does, than Eleanor Roosevelt should have been elected President (she had over 12 years), not Truman in '48. Some say she really was President and FDR was a figurehead. That would explain a lot things.

[ironknee]

to all the hillary bashers...

a) you hate her because she was the wife of bill (who you hate most)

b) she is a woman and they don't have a place as a leader

c) as president, she will expose all of george w bush's errors by investigating it all

d) she's not beautiful ie. fat arse

e) i don't like her views on issues....for example....

f) she reminds me of my mom

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

e) i don't like her views on issues....for example....

Honesty.
Pandering.
Media manipulation.
Transparency in government.

[besson3c]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

I figured you had low standards in politicians, besson3c, if one is to make logical inferences from your stated desire to be as lame as possible. However, well educated and upper scale Democratic voters are showing greater support for Obama, perhaps because they know intelligence and initiative when they see it. In the meantime, the naïve flock to Hillary, hoping to push the idiotic baby boomer dichotomy that has gripped politics since the 60s into yet another decade.

I guess I'm intelligent then, cause I'm probably going to vote for Obama! YeeeSSSEEaaahhh!!! eehahaha!!hahasdfh!Hah!@hSH1!~dddd!!!

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by subego 

Honesty.
Pandering.
Media manipulation.
Transparency in government.

and you find these things exclusively in hillay?

some stronger stuff please

[Kerrigan]

Your argument is a bit weak Ironknee: you're supposing that people dislike Hillary because they are prejudiced, superficial, and by implication, backwards. If this is the case, why are said people turning to Obama, a liberal, urban black man with the middle name "Hussein?" Could you explain that, since you seem to have such original insights into the workings of voters' minds?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

and you find these things exclusively in hillay?

When did something as complicated as the notion of honesty (for example) become binary?

All the candidates are dishonest to one degree or another, but you see absolutely no difference between them as far as honesty goes?

[besson3c]

subego: I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on an emotional level, but at the same time I feel conflicted, because I'm very much against voting based on our emotional instincts. Too many people do this, I think, and choose very dumb little reasons to vote for their candidate based on purely emotional reasons.

I'm voting for Obama because I think he has an excellent approach to negotiation, and with relating and being empathetic towards other cultures based on his personal and family experiences. He represents a clean slate (which will likely make it a little more difficult to oppose him purely for partisan and historical reasons), and I've appreciated the fact that he has risen above the stupid attacks in campaigns for the most part. Where Hillary seems to try to appeal to people on an emotional level, Obama does so in a very rational and transparent, often intellectual fashion. He is an absolutely brilliant and straight-forward speaker, perhaps Bill Clintonesque in this respect. Plus, most of his political positions make sense to me.

Do these seem like good reasons to you guys?

I've realized lately that it's not so much that I'm purely 100% against Hillary, it's just that I prefer Obama. A joint Obama/Hillary ticket would really attract me.

[CreepDogg]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

I've realized lately that it's not so much that I'm purely 100% against Hillary, it's just that I prefer Obama. A joint Obama/Hillary ticket would really attract me.

I'm by no means a political expert, but I have a hard time seeing this happen. If Obama were to continue to perform well and win the nomination, do you think Hillary would suck it up and run with him? I suppose it could happen; I just have a hard time seeing it, given all the internal and external expectations around her campaign.

[Shaddim]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

to all the hillary bashers...

a) you hate her because she was the wife of bill (who you hate most)

b) she is a woman and they don't have a place as a leader

c) as president, she will expose all of george w bush's errors by investigating it all

d) she's not beautiful ie. fat arse

e) i don't like her views on issues....for example....

f) she reminds me of my mom

a. Nope, I like Bill much more than her.

b. That's stupid, I'd be more inclined to vote for a woman just to get one elected. I just don't think she's a sensible choice.

c. I expect we already know most of them, they're rather obvious. The next president will reveal the rest, no matter who is elected.

d. No one in this election is, except maybe Edwards.

e. health care, the war, handguns, taxes, social security

f. If she had as much sense as my mother I'd vote for her in a heartbeat.

[Kerrigan]

The best thing about Obama is that I think he can drag American politics out of the 20th century. I'm tired of the constant "us versus them" dichotomy which has existed in America since the 60s. By that I mean, I'm tired of the whole cultural war that has been raging for 40+ years now.

The so called "liberals" and "conservatives" in the USA have been at each others' throats for decades, and for the stupidest reasons. The result is that we have ended up with two lines of thought, which are constantly trying to undermine each other, but neither one succeeds. Since the 1960s, it's just been the same old "hippies versus Nixon" dilemma. Hillary, no matter what her positions, is still seen by conservatives as the brooding hippie from Wellesley. Bush and Rudy are still seen by liberals as new incarnations of Nixon. We need to move beyond that this divided, self defeating political state of affairs, and I think Obama is the best way forward.

[subego]

Originally Posted by besson3c 

subego: I understand what you are saying, and agree with you on an emotional level, but at the same time I feel conflicted, because I'm very much against voting based on our emotional instincts. Too many people do this, I think, and choose very dumb little reasons to vote for their candidate based on purely emotional reasons.

That's all we have this time around. Seriously. There's negligible difference between the Democratic frontrunners on paper. Their voting records as Senators are utterly useless. Let's see, pick a vote, any vote. I'm going to guess they voted with... the Democrats. Was I right?

I rule at that game.

All that's left is to intuit the "lens" by which the candidate views the world. Hillary has been a public figure for sixteen years, so we have much with which to build a profile.

Summing those years up in five words: she is the consummate politician. As far as such things are made, this isn't an emotional observation, it's a factual one. Whatever good one sees in her, you can't whitewash what being a consummate politicians means.

Very poor marks in the four issues I mentioned.

You know the hot topic on the table at Clinton HQ is "just how dirty can we take this". That's the way they roll. It's a package deal.

In case the above sounds too rational, I'd like to add the thought of Hillary as President makes me need to puke like there's something alive crawling inside my stomach.

[subego]

I just heard a Clinton operative refer to Obama as the "insurgent candidate".

See what I mean?

[ebuddy]

As much as I hate to admit it, Hillary owned the New Hampshire debates last night with Obama a close second (IMO). I thought she handled the "likability" questions with a lot of class and even helped make the case for herself by mentioning the fact that many voted for Bush because they felt they could "have a beer with him". She closed by emphasizing experience which was exactly what she should have done with as much gravitas as any President to date. (with the exception of that contrived laugh. What's up with that?) Someone else had mentioned that her concession speech in Iowa was dismal and I disagree with that assessment also. She graciously acknowledged Obama's victory and proceeded to chip away at its significance by giving that victory to the entire Democrat party. Very clever IMO. She also managed to NOT admit any missteps through this campaign and Obama followed that lead pretty well.

Edwards did fairly well, but simply talks too damned much. There's an old adage in sales; close strong and stfu. He'd close strong then continue on about how personal this is to him using the word "children" as a conjunction ensuring that the only take-away one would have is that he was supposed to highlight "personal" and "children" last night. Dog and pony show.

Richardson has a great deal of experience, but he can't deliver his message very effectively. He seems like a heck of a guy to work with on the assembly line, but we're not looking for another President with entry-level oratorship. *As an aside, someone needs to remind him that there are microphones attached directly to the podium he's repeatedly pounding. Excruciating.

I missed the Republican portion last night, anyone catch it? Impressions?

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Kerrigan 

Your argument is a bit weak Ironknee: you're supposing that people dislike Hillary because they are prejudiced, superficial, and by implication, backwards. If this is the case, why are said people turning to Obama, a liberal, urban black man with the middle name "Hussein?" Could you explain that, since you seem to have such original insights into the workings of voters' minds?

i don't think most people here on this forum who dislike hillary are dems.

and i think they dislike her because of some emotional issues

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by subego 

When did something as complicated as the notion of honesty (for example) become binary?

All the candidates are dishonest to one degree or another, but you see absolutely no difference between them as far as honesty goes?

if all the candidates are dishonest to one degree or another, then honesty is a wash...

what about hillary that you dislike?

[Uncle Skeleton]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if all the candidates are dishonest to one degree or another, then honesty is a wash

No. If all the candidates are dishonest to the same degree, then honesty is a wash. Do you even know what "degree" means?

[Chongo]

This thread needs to be renamed "Cacas Results"

I am still waiting for someone to explain why she gets to claim her time as 1st Lady as presidential experience? I have a better idea, let's all write-in Rosalynn Carter. She sat in on more cabinet meetings than Hilary.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if all the candidates are dishonest to one degree or another, then honesty is a wash...

If you think the difference between "I didn't steal the cookies from the cookie jar" and. "I didn't kill my wife or Ron Goldman, 100% not guilty" is a wash then Hillary is the perfect candidate for you. Go ahead with your bad self.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by Uncle Skeleton 

No. If all the candidates are dishonest to the same degree, then honesty is a wash. Do you even know what "degree" means?

Originally Posted by subego 

If you think the difference between "I didn't steal the cookies from the cookie jar" and. "I didn't kill my wife or Ron Goldman, 100% not guilty" is a wash then Hillary is the perfect candidate for you. Go ahead with your bad self.

ok, what is the depth of her "dishonesty"?

is she as dishonest as george w?

what is she being dishonest about?

[BRussell]

We can't see honesty in candidates, we see the appearance of honesty. If someone is good at appearing honest, we like them, whether they're really honest or not. It's mostly an illusion that we can read a person's character through the filter of the media and the TV and political campaigns.

I remember when Michael Dukakis was asked what he would feel if his wife was raped and murdered. He was criticized for not expressing rage and strong emotions in response to that scenario. Well, what crap. What people wanted was for him to be good at acting. They wanted him to be less genuine, not more.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok, what is the depth of her "dishonesty"?

is she as dishonest as george w?

what is she being dishonest about?

Rose Law Firm records
White House Travel office
Craig Livingston (the bouncer with raw FBI files)
Norman Hsu and straw Chinese donations from NY's China Town: Clinton campaign taps into an unlikely treasure-trove - Los Angeles Times

turning $1000 into $100,000 in the futures market, I believe Miss Stewart did time for this sort of thing.

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

ok, what is the depth of her "dishonesty"?

is she as dishonest as george w?

Totally different brands of dishonesty.

Dishonesty is a tool for Clinton, while for Bush it is more based in his absolute unwillingness to display contrition or admit fault.

As for specific examples, as I alluded to above, being a Senator doesn't give you the need or opportunity to be dishonest like being President does. The main example that springs to mind is her support of the flag burning amendment. No way, no how is this her philosophical position. It was an entirely calculated maneuver to gain right wing cred.

Less concrete is the assumptions we can make based on her chief advisor and husband. We pretty much know the levels of dishonesty he is capable of, and we know Hillary is comfortable enough with it to have it publicly directed at her (I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky).

In the realm of the totally silly, didn't you think it was a little weird of her to slam Giuliani for being a Red Sox fan? She quipped something along the lines of "no flip-flopping for me, I've always been a Yankees fan".

Well, until she became Senator, she was a Cubs fan. There are scads of pictures from when she was first lady where she's wearing a Cubs hat.

Again, I know this is silly, but in a way that's the point. She's willing to be a thorough liar about something totally silly, something that people know she's lying about, yet she does it anyways.

You can say the same about flag burning. No one believes her, she got her base angry, she didn't gain any right wing cred, yet she did it anyways.

[ironknee]

google comes in handy when backed against the wall...

here's something i bet none of you would ever do...bad for hillary for those things!

i have yet to hear you bushes say anything bad about w

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

here's something i bet none of you would ever do...bad for hillary for those things!

I think you have a typo in here. It's not a sentence so I don't understand what you mean.

Originally Posted by ironknee 

i have yet to hear you bushes say anything bad about w

I'm not a "bushes", but I think saying he is unwilling to show contrition or admit fault is pretty damning criticism. I (literally) would have to kill myself if I came down with that condition.

IIRC correctly, Shaddim (who probably isn't a "bushes" either) said W. looked like a monkey.

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by subego 

Totally different brands of dishonesty.

Dishonesty is a tool for Clinton, while for Bush it is more based in his absolute unwillingness to display contrition or admit fault.

As for specific examples, as I alluded to above, being a Senator doesn't give you the need or opportunity to be dishonest like being President does. The main example that springs to mind is her support of the flag burning amendment. No way, no how is this her philosophical position. It was an entirely calculated maneuver to gain right wing cred.

Less concrete is the assumptions we can make based on her chief advisor and husband. We pretty much know the levels of dishonesty he is capable of, and we know Hillary is comfortable enough with it to have it publicly directed at her (I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky).

In the realm of the totally silly, didn't you think it was a little weird of her to slam Giuliani for being a Red Sox fan? She quipped something along the lines of "no flip-flopping for me, I've always been a Yankees fan".

Well, until she became Senator, she was a Cubs fan. There are scads of pictures from when she was first lady where she's wearing a Cubs hat.

Again, I know this is silly, but in a way that's the point. She's willing to be a thorough liar about something totally silly, something that people know she's lying about, yet she does it anyways.

You can say the same about flag burning. No one believes her, she got her base angry, she didn't gain any right wing cred, yet she did it anyways.

bad on her for the flag burning thing...but she did it, i assume, because of the yahoos who live in the sticks.

yes bill lied about a bj...bad on him

yes, she has baseball issues...

and i agree, totally different brand of dishonesty to w...who lied about...a war....that's an oedipus complex issue

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

yes bill lied about a bj...bad on him

You missed the point.

Her chief advisor lied about it.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her, and she's fine with that.


This is pertinent to her views about honesty.

[Chongo]

[QUOTE=subego;3569936]You missed the point.

Her chief advisor lied about it.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her, and she's fine with that.


YouTube - Clinton ****er

[ironknee]

Originally Posted by subego 

You missed the point.

Her chief advisor lied about it.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her.

Her chief advisor lied about it, to her, and she's fine with that.


This is pertinent to her views about honesty.

if Her chief advisor lied about it, to her....then she was lied to...

who said she was fine about it?

[subego]

Originally Posted by ironknee 

if Her chief advisor lied about it, to her....then she was lied to...

who said she was fine about it?

He's still the chief advisor, ain't he?

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by subego 

Though I would ask you to reconsider the opinion that the normalization of attacking women's appearance (to which I believe the OP unwittingly contributed) isn't an issue.

It is an issue, however it is not one that any of the candidates are violating/bringing into controversy. If one of the candidates said they were glad hillary's huge arse got handed to her that would be completely different, but I feel that when two voters are in debate about a candidate, they must accomodate each other's different moral/value systems in order to tackle the important issues regarding the candidate's stand on issues, not each other's directly.

[Snow-i]

Originally Posted by RAILhead 

I can't BELIEVE you called her a "wench"!!!1! That is SOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO demeaning!!11! young girls all over the world have been fighting the wench stereotype, and it's people like you that keep erpeuating the madness. It is sad that you even thought to say something like that.

And people still wonder why our political system continues to degrade to the point it has...

[Big Mac]

Originally Posted by BRussell 

We can't see honesty in candidates, we see the appearance of honesty. If someone is good at appearing honest, we like them, whether they're really honest or not. It's mostly an illusion that we can read a person's character through the filter of the media and the TV and political campaigns.

I remember when Michael Dukakis was asked what he would feel if his wife was raped and murdered. He was criticized for not expressing rage and strong emotions in response to that scenario. Well, what crap. What people wanted was for him to be good at acting. They wanted him to be less genuine, not more.

People werent expecting dukakis to lie. They were expecting him torespond as a normal man would. He did not.

[subego]

CNN poll puts Obama 10 points ahead in NH.

[ebuddy]

Originally Posted by subego 

CNN poll puts Obama 10 points ahead in NH.

It seems this CNN poll was a little more than off-the-mark.

[Chongo]

Originally Posted by subego 

CNN poll puts Obama 10 points ahead in NH.

Originally Posted by ebuddy 

It seems this CNN poll was a little more than off-the-mark.

The Diebold machines were hacked?
Experts skeptical of N.H. ballot-count conspiracy theory - Boston.com

[besson3c]

Why can't we learn that those idiotic Diebold machines should not be trusted? We go through this every time there is an election over and over and over again, and we just haven't figured it out yet. Grrr!!

Unless the design of these machines have changed, the machines are insecure. We need a non-electronic paper trail, plain and simple.

I don't know whether or not the machines were rigged in NH, and I don't even care so much, but I'm sick of this overarching question being raised every time. If we are going to do electronic voting machines, let's do it properly! This would be an appropriate area for open source software to be used.

We are only into our second state and already there is question about the machines being rigged... My God!