Clinton Campaign says Obama is a Plagiarist!

Onceler said:
I have not, nor have I ever, defended a pretty bad & disingenuous misrepresentation (which Wolfson even admitted Hillary does herself) as "politics as usual," and just a normal part of campaigning. It's kind of sad to see these kind of tactics have hit a level that is considered acceptable; I realize that they will be a part of every campaign, but we can at least call them when we see them, right?

And, yeah - Hillary, for about 2 weeks, had as a standard part of her stump speech, something to the effect of "You want change? The 1st woman President....now THAT is change." I can grab a quote on the web if you want.

And Cypress - I wouldn't call BC's remarks about Jesse Jackson in SC a "whiff of racism"....
Click to expand...

Well, you know how Hillary is Onceler...periodically she gets down and then the claws come out.
 
DigitalDave said:
...and it's all over the media. How Obama has to use a teleprompter and can't write his own speeches. That all his rhetoric is just copied. It's annoying as hell. It was perfect for the Republican smear machine, and they are using it. Hillary, to me, is just like one of them, except different policies. Hillary is effective at smearing people, great.
Click to expand...

Listen dave, anything used in a primary, can always harm a candidate in a general. This is not new!
 
Darla said:
Well, you know how Hillary is Onceler...periodically she gets down and then the claws come out.
Click to expand...


I won't defend that. That was a terrible, BS choice of words for Obama.

That's a cop-out reply, though. It's what the age of sound-byte politics has wrought.
 
Cypress said:
There's a lot of things not to like about Clinton, policy-wise. It's the same reason I object to most of the other DLC democrats.

However, you have to admit that Obama (at least for now) has a media-inspired teflon coating, similiar to how the media treats Saint John McCain. He's untouchable, for the most part to criticism.

I'd just like to see Clinton and Obama (and everyone else) held to the same standard. The clinton campaign is scrutinized for even a whiff of racism and impropriety. Obama's campaign has certainly sent out dog-whistle statements that are gender biased. I even slammed my own Candidate, Edwards, for inapporpirate gender-based comments. And the Obama campaign has played some hardball politics too; let's not be naive. . As do most politicians. I must admit, if John Edwards still had a shot at the nomination, and was fighting to seat the Florida delegation (if he won there), I wouldn't be pounding the table in a rage. I might be secretly hoping he did it.

I don't know how long the media teflon coating of Obama is going to last. If he's the nominee, the GOP smears and lies are going to come fast and furious. If he can stand up to punches from the Clinton campaing, it'll ultimately make him a better candidate.

Both campaign, however, need to back of the subtle cliches that are tied to race and gender.
Click to expand...

The teflon coating of Obama has already taken a huge scratch. We will see how well he holds up though. Last thing I want to see is another Republican presidency and more fuckin wars.
 
DigitalDave said:
The teflon coating of Obama has already taken a huge scratch. We will see how well he holds up though. Last thing I want to see is another Republican presidency and more fuckin wars.
Click to expand...

Well, you and me both. Neither Clinton or Obama are my prefered candidates, but I think both of them are less likely to be war mongers like McCain/Bush. And so, I would vote for either of them in a general election over Saint McCain. And I think both Clinton and Obama have the capacity and skills to be competent leaders, no matter how much I disagree with their DLC policies.
 
Cypress said:
Well, you and me both. Neither Clinton or Obama are my prefered candidates, but I think both of them are less likely to be war mongers like McCain/Bush. And so, I would vote for either of them in a general election over Saint McCain. And I think both Clinton and Obama have the capacity and skills to be competent leaders, no matter how much I disagree with their DLC policies.
Click to expand...

Yeah, that is what I am trying to say.
 
Darla said:
Disagreeing with her and not planning to vote for her, do not make her unqualified. She is more qualified than Obama, period.

I did NOT vote for her in the primary, but I am still able to reconize that she is easily the most qualified candidate in the field, save possible McCain who you would have to say was qualified. Was Romnye more qualified than Hillary? NO. Was Rudy more qualified than Hillary? No way. Is obama more qualified than Hillary? Again, no.
Click to expand...

While I agree wtih you 110% that Hillary has been the victim of sexism for as long as I can remember her. To say otherwise is absolutely ludacris.

she most certainly is not more qualified to run this country than Obama. A qualified individual understands that increasing our military presence in the ME is not the direction we should be taking and will in fact make us less safe.

Clinton and McCain have proven ineffective in standing up to the war machine and infact seem to have no problems propagating it and bringing us into a bigger clusterfck than we're already in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-01-obama-iran_N.htm

"designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure, and her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. ..."

"Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, "

Yes, they are being sexist. But hillary is not part of the solution.
 
DigitalDave said:
The teflon coating of Obama has already taken a huge scratch. We will see how well he holds up though. Last thing I want to see is another Republican presidency and more fuckin wars.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I've always been more for the not so f*ckin' wars, those are so much better.
 
LadyT said:
While I agree wtih you 110% that Hillary has been the victim of sexism for as long as I can remember her. To say otherwise is absolutely ludacris.

she most certainly is not more qualified to run this country than Obama. A qualified individual understands that increasing our military presence in the ME is not the direction we should be taking and will in fact make us less safe.

Clinton and McCain have proven ineffective in standing up to the war machine and infact seem to have no problems propagating it and bringing us into a bigger clusterfck than we're already in.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/2007-11-01-obama-iran_N.htm

"designates Iran's Revolutionary Guard as a terrorist organization.

Clinton was the only Senate Democrat running for president to support the measure, and her rivals have argued that Bush could use it to justify war with Iran. ..."

"Barack Obama introduced a Senate resolution late Thursday that says President Bush does not have authority to use military force against Iran, "

Yes, they are being sexist. But hillary is not part of the solution.
Click to expand...

Ok, I understand what you are saying, but that doesn't make her or McCain unqualified. It makes them the wrong choices for me. No matter what I think of McCain, I can't say he is not qualified to be President. This is a lot like picking a supreme court justice. Often, the question of whether or not they are qualified, is subjecated to the question of whether or not one agrees with them. It's two different issues, to my mind. But I get that you disagree.
 
I think that once we start giving BS like this a full pass, with a dismissive "Boo hoo - welcome to the world of American campaigning" - we're cooked. Anything goes, at that point.

We're kind of already there. Like I said, this is the same BS we saw in 2000 with "Gore the serial exaggerator"....
 
Darla said:
Yeah, that is what I am trying to say.
Click to expand...

I know it was. I'm not supporting a clinton presidency, but neither does the prospect horrify me. She has the capacity and experience to be a significantly better leader than McCain/Bush.
 
Cypress said:
I know it was. I'm not supporting a clinton presidency, but neither does the prospect horrify me. She has the capacity and experience to be a significantly better leader than McCain/Bush.
Click to expand...

Out of curiousity is that a new talking point, to lump McCain with Bush even though Bush is not running?
 
Cypress said:
I know it was. I'm not supporting a clinton presidency, but neither does the prospect horrify me. She has the capacity and experience to be a significantly better leader than McCain/Bush.
Click to expand...

I wouldn't dispute that at all.

But how can you leave the "Clinton effect" out of the equation? Hillary loses Congress, period. It will not be an effective Presidency, no matter how qualified or capable she is; it will be another 8 year fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top