Obama Leads in Superdelegates for First Time

For the past few weeks I have lamented to my GF that no one on this site defends Hillary so we really don't ever get to hear their justifications for her behavior and her lies and everything. But this morning she and I were talking about it again and she said that if there was no such thing as Barack Obama and HIllary were all alone in the campaign now, many of the dems that support Barack would be loudly defending her even in light of ALL her lies. She is right I believe, Dems would be foursquare behind her if she had won as easily as McCain did his nomination.
 
Socrtease said:
For the past few weeks I have lamented to my GF that no one on this site defends Hillary so we really don't ever get to hear their justifications for her behavior and her lies and everything. But this morning she and I were talking about it again and she said that if there was no such thing as Barack Obama and HIllary were all alone in the campaign now, many of the dems that support Barack would be loudly defending her even in light of ALL her lies. She is right I believe, Dems would be foursquare behind her if she had won as easily as McCain did his nomination.
Click to expand...

The point is, the Democratic party had the chance to nominate hillary clinton and they chose not to. They rejected her. And they went with a candidate who, at the start, had only a tiny fraction of the resources, support, and name recognition that she did.

I for one, was under no illusions about the clintons. I knew they played dirty and they played hard. I was not entirely surprised that Clinton got dirty and nasty. Although, I've become increasingly appalled at just how dirty the campaign became. My major problem with her, is her insistence on war mongering and fear mongering rhetoric. The racial overtones is shocking, as well.
 
Socrtease said:
For the past few weeks I have lamented to my GF that no one on this site defends Hillary so we really don't ever get to hear their justifications for her behavior and her lies and everything. But this morning she and I were talking about it again and she said that if there was no such thing as Barack Obama and HIllary were all alone in the campaign now, many of the dems that support Barack would be loudly defending her even in light of ALL her lies. She is right I believe, Dems would be foursquare behind her if she had won as easily as McCain did his nomination.
Click to expand...

In fairness, her true colors have really come to light in the last few months as she campaigns against Obama. Starting with her last little comment about hard working white Americans being behind her. I can honestly say that if she were the race throwing warmongering lying bitch without Obama, I wouldn't support her at all. I can't speak for every other dem, but I'm no democratic apologist. the war is at the top of my list for issues, if it were just her and McCain and they both had no plans to get us out of there any time soon, I'd either vote 3rd party or vote to at the very least keep my taxes down and neither of those choices include hitlery.
 
Cypress said:
The point is, the Democratic party had the chance to nominate hillary clinton and they chose not to. They rejected her. And they went with a candidate who, at the start, had only a tiny fraction of the resources, support, and name recognition that she did.
Click to expand...

It's a bit misleading to say that the Dems "went with a candidate who had only a tiny fraction of the resources". Both Clinton and Obama were sporting $100 million dollar war chests going into Super Tuesday.
 
Epicurus said:
It's a bit misleading to say that the Dems "went with a candidate who had only a tiny fraction of the resources". Both Clinton and Obama were sporting $100 million dollar war chests going into Super Tuesday.
Click to expand...


I didn't say anything about super tuesday. I said, at the start. Which would be way back in 2007.
 
You should take a class in reading comprehension. I said nothing about super tuesday. You simply inserted that date arbitrarily.

I said is the beginning, the start, Obama didn't have the amount of resources and name recognition as Hillary Clinton.

You apparently think I'm wrong about that.

I'll let others judge who's being disingenous.
 
If Obama was noit there Edwards very likely would have kicked her butt.

If you remember from the very start many of us here wanted csomeone other than Clinton. I would vote for her over McCain to this day if they were the only choices. Another Bush term would kill this country. Hallary would not be much better but she would still be better than McCain.
 
Cypress said:
The point is, the Democratic party had the chance to nominate hillary clinton and they chose not to. They rejected her. And they went with a candidate who, at the start, had only a tiny fraction of the resources, support, and name recognition that she did.

I for one, was under no illusions about the clintons. I knew they played dirty and they played hard. I was not entirely surprised that Clinton got dirty and nasty. Although, I've become increasingly appalled at just how dirty the campaign became. My major problem with her, is her insistence on war mongering and fear mongering rhetoric. The racial overtones is shocking, as well.
Click to expand...

Well, for certain if this were a Republican race, they would have nominated Hillary. They simply do for the most part, nominate "who's next". If you waited in line for your turn, the republicans will nominate you. That is a conservative view.

In my opinion, there is no doubt that the Democrats did not do that. They shook things up and refused to nominate the next person in line. That is not a conservative thing to do.
 
LadyT said:
In fairness, her true colors have really come to light in the last few months as she campaigns against Obama. Starting with her last little comment about hard working white Americans being behind her. I can honestly say that if she were the race throwing warmongering lying bitch without Obama, I wouldn't support her at all. I can't speak for every other dem, but I'm no democratic apologist. the war is at the top of my list for issues, if it were just her and McCain and they both had no plans to get us out of there any time soon, I'd either vote 3rd party or vote to at the very least keep my taxes down and neither of those choices include hitlery.
Click to expand...

I think that there is a lot of history re-writing going on these days, on the part of, surprise, Republicans.

It goes like this:

1) Republicans said the Clintons were bad
2) some liberals now say the clintons are bad (never mind that some liberals ALWAYS said the clintons were bad)
3) this must mean that the republicans were right in the 90's.

Uh, no.

The republicans were and are a ruthless, amoral machine, who attempted to overturn an election. If it had been any democrat other than the Clintons, they probably would have succeded. The clintons beat their asses during the 90's precisely because they have qualities which can be viewed as negative qualities when turned against an, for lack of a better word (i have a hangover), "innocent." But when used againist a bunch of junk yard attack dogs, do seem like good qualities.

In other words; just because two assholes have a fight don't make one of them a good guy.

And when the machine gears up for Obama, then you will see some shit. What happens when republican message board whores don't have the clintons to blame the behavior of the party on???

That's what is missing here. That's what no one is seeing. But it'll come.
 
Darla said:
I think that there is a lot of history re-writing going on these days, on the part of, surprise, Republicans.

It goes like this:

1) Republicans said the Clintons were bad
2) some liberals now say the clintons are bad (never mind that some liberals ALWAYS said the clintons were bad)
3) this must mean that the republicans were right in the 90's.

Uh, no.

The republicans were and are a ruthless, amoral machine, who attempted to overturn an election. If it had been any democrat other than the Clintons, they probably would have succeded. The clintons beat their asses during the 90's precisely because they have qualities which can be viewed as negative qualities when turned against an, for lack of a better word (i have a hangover), "innocent." But when used againist a bunch of junk yard attack dogs, do seem like good qualities.

In other words; just because two assholes have a fight don't make one of them a good guy.

And when the machine gears up for Obama, then you will see some shit. What happens when republican message board whores don't have the clintons to blame the behavior of the party on???

That's what is missing here. That's what no one is seeing. But it'll come.
Click to expand...


I'm glad somebody finally said this. I totally agree.
 
Socrtease said:
For the past few weeks I have lamented to my GF that no one on this site defends Hillary so we really don't ever get to hear their justifications for her behavior and her lies and everything. But this morning she and I were talking about it again and she said that if there was no such thing as Barack Obama and HIllary were all alone in the campaign now, many of the dems that support Barack would be loudly defending her even in light of ALL her lies. She is right I believe, Dems would be foursquare behind her if she had won as easily as McCain did his nomination.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately true .. but then again it would be the same democrats who thought Joe Lieberman should be president.
 
Cypress said:
The point is, the Democratic party had the chance to nominate hillary clinton and they chose not to. They rejected her. And they went with a candidate who, at the start, had only a tiny fraction of the resources, support, and name recognition that she did.

I for one, was under no illusions about the clintons. I knew they played dirty and they played hard. I was not entirely surprised that Clinton got dirty and nasty. Although, I've become increasingly appalled at just how dirty the campaign became. My major problem with her, is her insistence on war mongering and fear mongering rhetoric. The racial overtones is shocking, as well.
Click to expand...

Also true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top