Hillary's momentum hits a brick wall

[guido911]

quote: ...but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?

Well, then quit reading these threads or go elsewhere.

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Okay, can we maybe start fighting over another topic now?  I'm all for constructive intraparty debate, but the ole familiar circular firing squad has reformed and, look, here we all are firing at each other.  

It's really annoying that, in the absence of actual primary voting, all we have to do is focus on indelicate phrasing, misremembered or misrepresented events, and opinion polls.  
We're focusing on minutiae because no new data points have come in recently.

Anyway, I'll admit contributing to the uproar in an earlier thread, but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?

/2 cts.

You mean, we should get a life or something?  Not check polls, two, three times a day?  Not glance through the 500 or so political blogs to see what they are saying (while the 24hr news is playing in the background) today?

What would I do with my time then?[]

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

And now for today's polls:  Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.  

Not true.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA

This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.

Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.

First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.

Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.

I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?

Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.

[Hometown]

quote:Originally posted by we vs us

Okay, can we maybe start fighting over another topic now?  I'm all for constructive intraparty debate, but the ole familiar circular firing squad has reformed and, look, here we all are firing at each other.  

It's really annoying that, in the absence of actual primary voting, all we have to do is focus on indelicate phrasing, misremembered or misrepresented events, and opinion polls.  
We're focusing on minutiae because no new data points have come in recently.

Anyway, I'll admit contributing to the uproar in an earlier thread, but isn't anyone else tired of this crap?

/2 cts.

Well, it is important that we be respectful to each other and avoid name calling -- FOTD making up funny names for Clinton based on her anotomy is an example of what we should "not" be doing.  

Each candidate has about 50 percent of the party in their camps and we must be very careful going foward that we don't do anything to cause 50 percent of the party to stay home in November.  When I hear Democrats encouraging Clinton to drop out I hear "and she can take her 50 percent of the party with her."

I could make an argument stating why giving the Republicans another four years in the White House would destroy their party, but I'm not ready to go there yet.  I mean anyone else besides me getting tired of being assigned "clean up after the Republicans duty?"

In a sense we enable the Republicans by cleaning up after them on a regular basis.

[guido911]

It appears Hillary wasn't lying about Bosnia after all:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=uHVEDq6RVXc&hl=en

[RecycleMichael]

I have enjoyed these political threads and standing up for my candidate.

I never get pissed about it...I whine a lot, but enjoy discussing the campaign.

The problem is that both democrats are in agreement (and right) on so many issues. All we have left is to criticize their friends, their comments and their wardrobes.

By the way, Hillary looks fabulous!

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

And now for today's polls:  Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.  

Not true.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA

This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.

Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.

First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.

Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.

I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?

Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.

I've always been surprised at their un-abashed support of the Democrat party and out-spoken distaste for the war on terrorism, considering our cozy relationship with Israel is the major reason for Islamic hatred of the U.S. and our muddy Middle East relations.  Also consider that prominent anti-semites Je$$e Jack$on and Al $harpton are right at home in the Democratic party.

Next hurdle for Obama is going to be his "association" with William "Billy" Ayers.  There's a whole lot of snooping going on right now trying to find some traction in that relationship.  It's tenuous at best.

A lot of this is guilt by association, but it makes for good headlines and that's what many voters go off of.

I disagree with some of you here, but one thing I do appreciate about most all of us on the political section of the forum is that we dig a lot deeper than the headlines in participating in the process.

So no matter how mis-guided I think you are HT, know that I do appreciate you at least think about your politics even though they are all wrong. []

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Hometown

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

quote:Originally posted by pmcalk

And now for today's polls:  Her lead in Pennsylvania is way down, the lowest since early February.  

Not true.

http://news.yahoo.com/election/2008/dashboard/?d=PA

This shows that she is ahead by 16 points in Pennsylvania. Obama has fallen under 40%.

Obama will lose Pennsylvania by 3 or 4 hundred thousand votes.

First the losses in Texas and Ohio. Then the stories about his pastor. Wait until the Rezko trial ends in a couple of weeks. Then he loses Pennsylvania by double digits.

Obama has peaked and is heading down. Just wait till they show his connections to Farrakan. It will be a freefall.

I've wondered how the Jewish folks in the party are going to react to the Farrakan connection?

Republicans have been working hard to capture the Jewish vote and of course Jews are major contributors to our party so I've been worried about this.

Jews earn like Episcopals and vote like Puerto Ricans. The only Jews I know who vote for conservative candidates are Hassidic.

I think that the Farrakhan would be dreadful news for Obama, but I was always under the impression that the Jews were voting for Clinton anyway.

[cannon_fodder]

The world media is all over this story now too:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/7314726.stm

quote:When Hillary Clinton corrected her description of a visit to Bosnia in 1996, she made an interesting choice of words: "I did misspeak the other day."

Her initial version of events was that her plane landed under fire and she had to duck and run to her vehicle.

But television footage shows her disembarking with a smile, waving to the crowd and strolling across the tarmac to greet a little girl who read her a poem.
. . .
She's in danger of doing what Bill Clinton did in redefining sexual relations.
. . .
She's redefining telling the truth because 'misspeaking' is a euphemism for not telling the truth. It's the language of bamboozling, which US politicians and the US military love and get away with.
. . .
The word does fill a lexical gap, says Mr Thorne, because alternative ways of saying it are so long-winded, like "I made a mistake, I got it wrong" or "I used the wrong word", but don't expect to hear it in the streets any time soon.
. . .
She's chosen a short, sharp soundbite word but like 'known unknown' it will probably only be used ironically or mockingly.

Depends on what your definition of "is", "is."  

It really isn't that bad, the REAL video surfaced today:
http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/3/26/121420/881/486/484625

On the net the tag "invisible sniper fire" is already getting some play.  Makes me chuckle.  Politicians are always full of crap, love it when one takes it too far.  Clinton didn't make her story up, she just got a few of the details wrong (like how she got of the plane, what she did afterwards, whether or not she got shot at, if there was running involved and... well OK, the whole thing was wrong).

FFS, she didn't say she landed in the wrong town or call Bosnia "Kosovo" by mistake.

[FOTD]

For all us typical white people:

http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."

"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "

[pmcalk]

quote:Originally posted by RecycleMichael

I have enjoyed these political threads and standing up for my candidate.

I never get pissed about it...I whine a lot, but enjoy discussing the campaign.

The problem is that both democrats are in agreement (and right) on so many issues. All we have left is to criticize their friends, their comments and their wardrobes.

By the way, Hillary looks fabulous!

Yeah, but did you catch the pictures of Obama on the beach?  []

[Conan71]

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

For all us typical white people:

http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."

"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "

I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.

Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel?  What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?

[Gaspar]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

For all us typical white people:

http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."

"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "

I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.

Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel?  What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?

We do a lot to restrain Israel.  

They have a significant military force with probably the most experienced air force in the world.  Outside of a nuclear attack, I think Israel could level Iran if we allowed them off the leash.

[FOTD]

All the chemistry would change quickly if the Persians would take their country back from the fanatics....

[si_uk_lon_ok]

quote:Originally posted by Conan71

quote:Originally posted by FOTD

For all us typical white people:

http://thejewishweek.com/viewArticle/c55_a5420/Editorial__Opinion/Opinion.html

"Obama's strong positions on poverty and the climate, his early and consistent opposition to the Iraq War, his commitment to ending the Darfur genocide - all these speak directly to Jewish concerns. If we're sidetracked by Wright's words, we'll be working against these interests. After all, a preacher speaks to a congregation, not for the congregation."

"Obama is no anti-Semite. He is not anti-Israel. He is one of our own, the one figure on the political scene who remembers our past, and has a real vision for repairing our present. "

I did hear an interesting comment on Savage last night- we've spent $3 trillion in Iraq and it will still be an anti-semitic country.

Do American Jews not worry about the relative security of Israel?  What do they think of Mahmoud Ahmadinejad? Would they be against U.S. intervention in Iran if Israel is attacked by Iran?

There have been no more scud missile attacks since the takeover though......