Hillary has been doing a pretty good job of validating my Super Tuesday decision. I felt some guilt connecting that arrow, wondering if I was making the right decision, even in a state where my individual vote did not matter much. I wanted to vote for her, too.
However, recent weeks have shaken my faith in her and I feel less regret. This latest development should be an interesting topic at the remaining debates, and it certainly will come up.
Are you still talking about the 527? Because that is not HRC or her campaign. It is setup and run by other people and is not connected to the HRC campaign.
You may think the 527 and the ads it runs are a bad idea, but you really should quit saying that it is Hillary herself doing it.
He hasn’t won the nomination yet, and maybe if enough people see his negatives, he won’t.
Then why was Hillary so outspoken against the swiftboat 527? That was just an independent group and had no connection to the George W. Bush campaign.
If we’re talking about in the past few months, I’ll certainly agree with you.
Obama is a plagarist, though. He lifted language from that Patrick speech without accredation, and Patrick’s speech wasn’t famous enough that people would neccesarily know it was a reference.
And I haven’t heard “Obama has no health care plan”. I’ve heard “Obama has no plan to provide universal health care”, and that’s true. Under his plan, there will still be people who aren’t covered.
People are seeing all of Hill’s negatives, and they outweigh Obama’s by megatonnes. Hillary will stop at nothing to make sure she is anointed.
I didn’t say that people should fight dirty in politics, or that Obama ought to be tested by a dirty campaign within his own party. I just said that hopefully he learns how to brace himself against attacks like this, and it seems like he has.
There’s no annointing going on here.
Good God, do people even read the linked articles anymore, or do they just reflexively join in the chorus of “Hillary Bad! Obama God!”
Edited for length, emphasis added.
No, and hallelujah for it.
The voters are not letting party insiders tell them how to vote.
They are not letting Hillary’s big money contributors tell them how to vote.
They are not letting the media tell them how to vote.
They are not letting California and New York tell them how to vote.
They are not letting Washington lobbyists tell them how to vote.
And I trust they will not let Hillary’s attack-dog 527 tell them how to vote.
Nope. There’s no annointing going on here. 
TWDuke, I have some real estate in Florida I’d like to discuss with you.
I agree the plagiarism allegation was not a shining moment for Obama. I also agree Clinton needs to stick with facts and not use distortion to misrepresent her opponent, a Democrat. I didn’t read anything in the article that indicates a smear or distortion of Obama’s record. The right is gearing up for an Obama smear.
The plagiarism charge is beyond absurd and is evidence of your bias. We’re talking about people who have their speeches written by other people. Just stop and think about that for a moment. What does even plagiarism mean in the context of political speeches? If we’re going to charge Obama with plagiarism, you’re going to have to charge every politician ever. Not to mention the fact that Patrick told him to use the line, they may have collaborated on that line in the first place, and Clinton has freely borrowed Obama’s language. And beyond all of that, even if this is somehow political plagiarism, who cares? What do you think it says about Obama that he used a line Patrick wanted him to use without crediting it? You want to give him an F in speech class?
On health care, you apparently just haven’t seen the mailers asking “Barack Obama, Which of these people don’t deserve health care?” The obvious implication being, not that some people will choose not to get health care, but that there will be some who choose it but can’t get it. No one, not even Krugman, is arguing that. They’re pretty nasty.
Ah. Well, many have made exactly the argument you didn’t mean to imply.
What does this even mean? Nobody in California or New York told people “you have to vote like us,” Clinton’s ‘consider the quality of the wins’ notwithstanding.
OK, spoke-, how would you know if the 527 is authorized by Hillary or not? Or is it just not possible that this is done independently of Hillary? Everything done in Hillary’s name is done by Hillary, especially if it’s bad? So what if a group supporting Obama ran a nasty ad attacking her? What if Obama’s spoke person was given a chance to repudiate the ad and chose not to? Would the same standards apply?
http://immigrantpolitics.org/2008/01/17/did-clintons-no-on-drivers-licenses-do-it/
At times like these I am actually rather pleased to live in a dictatorship… the local government here is decidedly more honorable than my own government in the US.
What is stunning is that Hillary does not see the rift she is causing in the party by going uber-negative and holding out even after 10 losses in a row and then trying to change the pre-agreed rules.
If she wins, I am signing a new 4-year lease to stay overseas.
Well, obviously, I’m biased. I don’t think I’ve ever hidden that. I don’t like Barack Obama. I think his election will be a disaster for the party. I hope he doesn’t get the nomination. If he gets the nomination, I hope McCain beats him (I’ll still vote for him, of course, but I’ll hope he loses). There. Now my bias is upfront.
But that being said, there is such a thing as political plagarism. Just because the candidates get their speeches written for them doesn’t mean the speechwriters can’t take things out of other speeches. If you’re asking who cares about it, I do. Maybe I’m the only one who does, but I do. It’s not enough to turn me against a candidate I like…I still like Joe Biden, and there’s no bigger plagarist than him, but it’s still not a good thing to do.
It means that Hillary is a “favorite daughter” of New York, and the New York media were working very hard to crown their homegirl as the inevitable candidate for two years leading up to the primaries. She has had similar support from California media, and from Hollywood heavy-hitters.
Nothing against California and New York, but it’s really irritating to see the media there try to foist a candidate on the rest of us. (They did the same, more successfully, with John Kerry.)