Yeah, this is pretty stupid. C’mon guys, we’re better than this kind of unfounded attack.
I can’t see anything unethical or illegal that she did there either. I don’t like the intimation that defense attorneys are supposed to make a preliminary judgement as to their clients’ guilt or innocence and proceed from there. Their job is to test the prosecutor’s case and to give every client the same effort. It’s the jury’s job to decide guilt or innocence, not the lawyers’.
And if anyone thinks kids can’t lie or be coached about sexual assault, just remember the McMartin case.
I don’t see how following the requirements of a governmental or legal system is any more morally exculpatory than following the orders of an individual that has power within such a system, but maybe that’s just me.
Whoah, there now . . . if you were falsely accused of a crime, wouldn’t you be glad to be living in a system where your lawyer would defend you zealously even though everybody is convinced that you’re guilty? Or do you think that people are never falsely accused of crimes like these?
Lawyers defend people, even when it is unpopular. John Adams defended the British soldiers accused of murder in the Boston Massacre, and it didn’t seem to hurt him politically, as it shouldn’t have.
After the debate, I was feeling guilty as I was afraid I had misjudged her. With her latest outburst, I don’t feel guilty anymore. Same old bitch. She calls NAFTA a great victory in her book, but to accuse her of calling it a boon is Rovian politics. She can’t have both sides of every issue. She says how gender doesn’t have a role in the campaign, yet her campaign is about “making history” and she frequently tells of old women who tell her they’ve been waiting for the chance to vote for a woman. Race has no place in the campaign, except for Bill’s code words. Everything she has done since law school is presidential-qualifying experience. Every success of her husband’s administration is to her credit, every failure was Bill’s alone. She gets to attack Obama for not including everybody in his health plan, he can’t attack her for forcing people who don’t want it to pay for it. The Iraq War resolution proved her toughness, the quagmire that resulted is someone else’s fault. And so on. If Obama does nothing else but keep Hillary and McCain out of the White House, his administration will be a great success.
Personal insults, particularly unfounded ones, (but even if there was a shred of truth to them), belong in the Pit, not in GD.
Do not do this again.
[ /Moderating ]
Point is Hillary is debating Barack tomorrow night in Ohio. Her mocking him is going to get brought up, and she’s going to look afool - again. Any shred of emotion I had for Hillary in terms of this campaign is nil. She’s blown it for me. I would have loved to see her bac Barack after his nomination but I can clearly see she is incapable of even the slightest shred of cleanliness in this campaign.
I hope he keeps his cool and rests assured that his method is working - his ground campaign is second to non, and more people want his kind of change than they do hers. That will be proved a week from tomorrow.
Any projections for how Ohio and Texas may turn out?
I believe her silly diatribe mocking Obama from yesterday in Rhode Island is going to really injure her campaign and muddy her already cloudy campaign. There is no recourse for being all nicey nice in a debate last week then slinging shit the second the debate is over.
Ohio has very similar demographic to Wisconsin, I think Obama will actually make a very large showing there, and take the primary by more than a nose. 53% to 47% respectively.
Texas - Obama is on fire in Texas, huge college population, caucuses following the primaries and he is polling significantly ahead in areas with higher delegate counts than Clinton is. Texans are not fooled by her mocking behaviour either, and I do not think that will bode well for her next Tuesday. I see Obama doing better than projected in Texas than in Ohio - 57% to 43% and maybe higher…
Any way you cut for Clinton to win back the momentum she needs to beat Obama by more the 20% in each state. Simply not going to happen. If Obama pulls even in each state and say she wins by 1 or 2 percent it’s still a big win for Obama and you can all but count her out.
If Obama wins one or both - simple wins not even blow outs, he’ll be the nominee.
George Stephanopolos this morning was saying Clinton needs to blow Obama out of the water and going negative is not the way to do it, Obama is blowing her out of the water in money raised, and his organization is running full throttle in Texas and Ohio - What Clinton can do to beat this is??? I don’t logically know.
Her campaign is in shambles and she doesn’t even know it.
Would that were so certain. The Quinnipiac poll has Ohio as 51-40 for Hillary. Rasmussen has it 48-40 Hillary. We don’t know how effective her “shame on you” approach will be. I suppose if she had very little chance before, then changing the equation is worth the risk to her. Sort of like pulling the goaltender out in hockey in the last minute.
I’m wondering why HRC is even slinging crap at this point. The negative strikes only helped Obama, not her, so why do it now? If she brings up the mailers in the debate Obama is only going to mention her votes on it, and the whole idea that she has experience in the white House (can’t claim the good and ignore the bad). She musyt have hired Moe, Larry and Curly as her campaign managers, because her campaign sucks. I see her in the news everyday and theres never anything positive in it.
I’m really hoping that Obama does enough damage to take her out of the campaign for good. I’m tired of hearing her squawk and he’s got work to do before november. I don’t think I could stand another republican administration.
I’m kind of flummoxed at the sort of cognitive dissonance here.
All I’m hearing about (and not just here) is Obama, Obama, Obama, and Hillary’s done, she doesn’t have a clue, she’s going down, etc.
Then I see that in the latest polls in Ohio, she has nearly a 10 point lead.
Which is it? Are people in Ohio living in a bubble? Haven’t they heard about Obama? Are they anti-Obama hype?
Maybe they’re asking the wrong people. Are they only asking registered voters who voted in the last election? Only registered Democrats? Only people with landline phones? Are the polls skewing too old?
In Wisconsin, the final polls showed Obama ahead, 47 to 42. He won 58 to 41. Obviously, there is some sort of disconnect here.
Ohio seems to be resisting the siren song of Obama a bit harder than most- the question seems to be, is the election coming fast enough. Hillary wants that election to be held tomorrow. The numbers are still moving. Quinnipiac shows her losing ten points in about two weeks out of a twenty point spread, Rasmussen shows her losing 6 points out of a 14 point spread in a week. Survey USA shows her losing half of a 17 point spread in a week.
Edit to add- these are people who have voted Democrat in the past, which is where the disconnect is arising. I wonder if pollsters are shifting methodologies to account for the independent effect now that McCain’s race is settled.
I wonder if the decision by Hillary to split herself into a populist fighter in Ohio isn’t going to pay some dividends, or at least stanch the bleeding a bit.
At this point, she is thinking, if she splits Ohio and Texas, and especially if she wins the battleground state of Ohio, she can argue to stay in the race through Pennsylvania.
Ohio makes it more difficult (not impossible) to vote outside party lines. If you show up at a primary and declare yourself a Democrat when your last declaration was Republican or No Party, you will be challenged. You must then retain the “Democrat” label through at least one more primary, so a decision by a Republican or independent to vote for Clinton has to be balanced against the possibility that one will exclude oneself from selecting the “right” Republican from the next primary.
This is not to say that there will be no crossover votes, but the rules do provide a dampening effect on the practice.
I’m pretty sure furt was being sarcastic and was in fact defending Bricker’s position.
In any event, unless you believe that accused rapists should be presumed guilty and locked up without benefit of trial, there’s nothing wrong with what Hillary did.
Cool, thanks. Well, that would be a reason why the Ohio polls are sluggish compared to other places. I like how you make the Democrat label sound like a scarlet letter… 
The reverse is also true and would have been important if any Republican had made a serious effort against GWB in 2004. A Democrat or Indy who wanted to keep GWB from being on the ballot in 2004 would have surrendered their ability to choose between Obama and Clinton in this primary.
The problem of a trial turning into a second victimization of rape victims was almost as well known in the 1970s as it is now.
If I was the victim of an armed robbery, and I and the perpetrator were the only witnesses, the perp’s lawyer would not throw every imaginable credibility-damaging smear in my direction, despite the importance of my testimony.
There are surely means of ensuring the rights of the accused without having to drag the alleged victim through the dirt. Hillary was perfectly willing to do the dirt-dragging, though:
False accusations? Relevant. Fantasizing? Gimme a break. A sixth-grader supposedly seeking out older men? If the issue is whether any sex between them was consensual, that might be relevant. But we’re talking about a sixth-grader here.
Maybe that’s how the legal system works, but if so, I believe the time-honored phrase is “the law is an ass.”
One of the things Hillary has been running on in this election is her bond with her fellow women. That’s fine. But in a case where she had to choose between honoring that bond by refusing to doubly victimize a sixth-grader, or going the extra mile to win a case, she chose the system’s dictates over sisterhood and went the extra mile.
I’d say she owes her female supporters an explanation, or at least ask them “what would you have done in my shoes?” and let them decide.
I didn’t know that was how the rules worked in Ohio. I like it - I think it strikes a good balance.
Just when you think she can’t go any lower, Hillary proves that snakes can indeed slither under almost any bar imaginable.
CLINTON STAFFERS CIRCULATE ‘DRESSED’ OBAMA
And here’s is her camp’s non-denial from the same link:
Hardly the point Maggie, which is WHY you’d send it out in the first place. And don’t think for a minute we don’t know the answer to that one, you fear-mongering bitch.
Lastly, if you’ll scroll down, you’ll find what most of us already knew, i.e., that visiting dignitaries often don the traditional garb of the host nation.
I honestly hope voters make this disgusting woman and her cronies disappear come March 4th.