Ok, that was funny! 
YAY!!
Pick me up on the way, we’ll split the driving.
To the barricades!
Ready from Day One, eh? :dubious:
And here we thought Hilary was invulnerable because the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy wouldn’t have any new material to work with.
Regards,
Shodan
The left has a proud history of eating its own. We call it progress.
According to MSNBC’s First Read, , Howard Wolfson denies that they are fishing for Obama’s pledged delegates. Take that with as much salt as you need, my take is that the weasel got caught in the henhouse and had to abort the raid.
I have no problem with fighting fire with fire. If the other side starts the dirty fighting, then sometimes you’ve got to give as good as you get. And the GOP has proved themselves masters of dirty fighting (SBVFT, flying people down for a riot in Florida to stop the recount, McCain’s black baby, Max Cleland and Osama, etc. - and that’s just in years beginning in ‘2’) so one reason I looked forward to the possibility of Hillary being nominated was her willingness to fight back in kind.
But it’s a whole different thing to pull this shit without provocation, other than simply being behind in an intraparty race.
That’s intraparty, as in we’re really all on the same side, remember, Hillary?
Sure, Hillary, the stakes are big - but only for you. Up until these successive rounds of shit, I’d have said whichever one of you wins, the Democratic Party is in good shape, and the nation would be well served by either of you in the White House. So the stakes aren’t - or weren’t - high for the rest of us. Just you.
And all you’re doing, lady, is digging your hole deeper and deeper. Not only are you amoral and incompetent (not knowing the rules in Texas? Not getting all your PA delegates filed on time? Sheesh!), but you forgot the First Rule of Holes to boot.
Trial Date to be Set in Paul v Clinton
Why is this woman even being allowed to run for President of the United States of America?
How does she have even a single supporter?
This is just un-fucking-believable.
Too late for the edit window, but, the above comes from a source that I’m not sure is 100% reliable. Can someone verify any of these allegations, please?
It’s just kind of amusing to see the Left coming to exactly the same conclusions about Hilary that Republicans have known for lo, these last fifteen years - as if they were complete novelties.
You supported a sleazy politician, and now you are surprised that she is being sleazy. This kind of naivete would be touching if it weren’t so laughable.
Don’t you get it? Clinton = dishonesty. That’s what they do. And, as we have seen here, it is not in response to bad treatment - they do this all the time. Bill didn’t wait for Paula Jones to hurt him - he sent his henchmen onto the Sunday talk shows to call her a slut and trailer trash proactively. Hilary didn’t suffer anything at the hands of the staff at the White House Travel Office - she just wanted to get rid of them so she could hand the jobs over to her cronies. Obama didn’t do anything to her except campaign against her.
This particular Clinton slime is no different than any of the rest she has been pitching since she and her husband first came into the public eye. It’s just that there’s nobody else you can blame it on.
Denial - it’s more than just a river in Egypt. Maybe in twenty years you’ll listen to something else that’s obvious.
I kid, I kid.
Regards,
Shodan
And yet, Shodan, you have expressed a preference for Hillary over Obama. How come?
Senator Clinton was released as a defendant in that case.
We share your amusement with respect to George W Bush. Fortunately, it didn’t take the loss of blood and treasure for nearly a decade before the left revised its beliefs about Hillary.
Your mileage will most certainly vary.
Yes, the article did acknowledge that. But what does it say about her ability to hire competent and honest people for her future cabinet, if she can’t hire competent and honest campaign staff? I find this appalling. And then she has the nerve to try to pull the “guilt by association” crap on Obama because he bought a house next door to a plot of land that was bought by Tony Rezko (which the sellers have finally spoken out in his defense about, by the way).
I can’t speak for the accuracy or bias involved, but here is one analysis of the situation.
If Nixon could live down his relationship with Bebe Rebozo long enough to get elected (twice!), Obama can live down his far less intimate relationship with the far less egregious Tony Rezko.
Basically this entire 10 page thread can be summed up thusly: STOP THE CLINTON TRAIN FROM TAKING OVER THE NATION. THEY ARE NOT ENTITLED TO IT!
Their sleaze is never ending and yet people show up to vote for her. :rolleyes:
Better the knave you know than the fool you don’t. Hilary is stronger in the War on Terror, and foreign policy in general. And will direct her every effort towards being re-elected in 2012, if she is anything like her husband. This may exert a stabilizing influence on her more crackpot notions.
The Democratic Congress, in contrast, will run rough-shod over Obama, who will lack even the partisan impulse to prevent them from doing whatever they want that a McCain or Bush would do. He has neither clue nor experience in setting about what he alleges to want to do.
I suspect an Obama Presidency will be more entertaining, in the sense that a train-wreck is entertaining, and a Hilary Presidency in the sense of Greek tragedy. An Obama bomb-out will be too reminiscent of 1977-1981, and the descent of Mr. Peanut into irrelevancy and bad humor.
We shall see.
What an interesting analogy! 
Regards,
Shodan
Given Obama’s progress during the primary season from sharing a meager second place with Edwards to edging Clinton out of first place, primarily due to his ability to manage his campaign and inspire people to get motivated, I’m not so sure that he’ll be as mockable and ineffectual as you believe. He most certainly doesn’t carry himself like a bumbling good ol’ boy like Carter or Bush 2.
Who knows. He could be the biggest hoax since, well, Bush in 2000, and his face during the campaign is nothing more than an elaborately constructed facade, but I doubt it.
I don’t see any reason to think Obama wouldn’t be very stong on the war on terror, or that he wouldn’t be able to do some of what he says he wants to. You are not one to be convinced so I’m not going to try, however, I’d be remiss to think that you assume we are all simply jaded by his oratory?