• comment on a post A View From The Trenches over 6 years ago

    You renew my hope.

  • Do you think calling Hillary Clinton and the diarist LIARS helps your candidate?  The nastiness of Obama supporters is truly appalling.

  • I have a GOOD feeling he might endorse Hillary. :)

  • http://www.turnmaineblue.com/

  • comment on a post 32 to 7!! -- Obama Leads Maine Caucuses over 6 years ago

    Obama 51%
    Clinton 48%

    GO HILL!

  • comment on a post Edwards Ready to Endorse over 6 years ago

    I just remembered that John Edwards went to Bilderberg in '03 or '04 - apparently he was a big success there and was subsequently put on John Kerry's ticket. Bill Clinton went in 1992. Hmmmm...not really sure this actually has anything to do with anything, but it seems to be a really big deal with the world's scary, big kahuna power brokers - and most presidential candidates, it turns out, have attended (totally top secret, hush hush, of course).

    Then there's another thing I read recently (can't remember where) about Hillary saying that John Edwards would have to have a prominent place in a Clinton administration. Maybe she was kissing up, just trying to get his endorsement, but, then again, maybe something's been agreed upon. Hmmmm again...

    So, I'm wondering - might John Edwards be closer to endorsing Hillary than Obama? Like some have mentioned, he's much closer to her on Universal Health Care than he is to Obama - and it's an issue that's very close to his heart.

    As a Hillary supporter I've gotta say I'd love for her to get John Edwards' endorsement - mainly because I was an Edwards supporter before I was a Hillary supporter and I know he'd be a great person to have near the President - Secretary of Labor maybe? AG?

    I don't know whether an Edwards endorsement would help Hillary with voters or not - anyway, it's not the main reason I would want it. But, if it would help her, heck yeah I'd want it.

    So, here I am, stuck with all these questions - and no answers. Guess we'll have to wait and see...

  • I'd guess that those 53% who say the press is fair to Clinton are a mix of:

         1. people who don't like her (repukes & bamabots)

    1. people who aren't really paying attention
    2. people who believe everything in the MSM is the gospel truth

    Good "guess?"

  • Well, McCain will continue doing what he does - he can't escape his nature. And the media will, of course, continue protecting him.

    That leaves it up to us, I guess. I know there's video somewhere of a McCain townhall a few months back where someone in the audience asked him "How do we beat the bitch?" The video includes McCain's laughing approval of the comment. That video on YouTube, promoted in the blogs, will help.

    He needs to be followed around with a video camera - because the Chelsea "joke" and the "bitch" video are not isolated incidents. He's an *sshole and he and his supporters - they're republicans, after all - will continue to be *ssholes. But, we can catch him, put him up on YouTube - he should have lots and lots of Macaca moments, doncha think?

    I think, though, that our best defense against McCain is just the "Bush 3rd term" meme, with lots and lots of hugging and kissing between Bush and McCain - along with his "Bomb bomb bomb, bomb bomb Iran" video, his "100 years in Iraq" and all his other war mongering stuff. I know this part is not addressing the points you made in your diary, though.

    We always have to remember that the media is not our friend - we have to keep at them day and night. And lots of "hot" videos of the creep saying creepy things on YouTube should force their hand in covering him, I think - I hope.

    I don't wanna just humiliate him - I want him to humiliate himself.

  • fact-free, childish, mean-spirited idiocy back to where they welcome that crap with open arms.

    Are all of you 'BamaBots "like" in high school or something? Seriously - your lack of knowledge and maturity, along with your "mean-girl" rhetoric, your bad behavior and your blatant disregard for decency, just scream out JUVENILE DELINQUENT!

    You do know that you are a really bad advocate for your candidate, right? How many people do you think you convince with the crap you spew?

    On the other hand, how many people would you imagine have come over to the Clinton camp at least partly due to the childish hate, hostility and lies that you and those like you vomit 24/7?

    You kids are, like, doin' a great job - for Hillary!

  • comment on a post The Clinton's big mistake with the media over 6 years ago

    See, this is where you just don't get it. "Special treatment" as you call it has nothing to do with it. Same for your "free speech" argument.

    So-called journalists in the national media - reporting on a national election for president of the United States - have a lot of nerve to be squealing about "free speech" and "freedom of the press" in order to justify hate speech and the slandering/diminishing of women - (maybe or maybe not) especially a U.S. Senator and the possible next President of the United States.

    It's not a free speech issue - I mean, are you really trying to argue that, in the name of free speech, TV pundits should be able to call Obama the "N" word? That's what it's gotta be if you're saying that free speech allows TV pundits to call Hillary Clinton a pimp and her daughter a whore.

    Seriously - your argument is specious. And just another way ObamaBots keep twisting logic and their morals into pretzels to somehow justify their untenable anti-Clinton rhetoric.

    Barack Obama SHOULD HAVE BEEN OUT THERE telling MSNBC and all the rest of the media that THIS CRAP  they're pulling diminishes all of us - and that this kind of reprehensible crap posing as "political commentary" MUST BE REJECTED by all human beings.

  • the kind of crap spewed by the minute at Daily 'BamaBot.

    Exactly the 'BamaBot mindset.

    Go back to your inane cult - people actually have working brains around here.

  • I had my chance, like everyone else, to support Obama. I tried to like him. But I didn't. My choice.

    I've seen people in that Obama trance you say doesn't exist - it does exist - and it has a real creepy, cultish feel to it, IMO.

    But I like Barack Obama a million times more than than I like his mean-spirited, cultish supporters. Do you really think he'd approve of the crap you people pull and how you twist yourselves into pretzels trying to proclaim everything that happens "Good for Barack" and how you're constantly slandering Clinton and attaching "nefarious motives" to everything she does? If you say yes to that, then that'll be another reason I don't like Barack.

    Like I said, I just find you people creepy and mean. Can't help it. And I find Obama's "message" seriously lacking. So, I voted for Hillary in California last Tuesday.

  • Obama is more adept at using rightwing language, and he seems to be more comfortable dissing other democrats while sucking up and caving in to republicans - all in the name of "bipartisanship."

    And that's the main reason I don't like him. If he were president I think he'd give up too much of what democrats and progressives have been working for - and that's not what I call unity.

    Seriously, I don't hate Obama - but I'm just not in the hypnotic trance that has swept so many away. And without the hypnosis, there just doesn't seem to be any "there" there.

    I see Hillary as the real Democrat in this race.

  • Thanks for posting this - disgusting!

    The politico piece also says:

    Before MSNBC's David Shuster was suspended by the network Friday for on-air comments he made about Chelsea Clinton, the television reporter engaged in a heated correspondence with a spokesman for Hillary Rodham Clinton in which he defended his appearance and refused demands to apologize.

    (snip)

    Shuster was unrepentant. He told Reines his commentary was justified because of the contrast between Chelsea Clinton's overt political role and the aggressive way campaign aides "jump down the throat" of reporters who seek to question her about it.

    (politico has the actual e-mail exchanges between Shuster and Hillary's spokesperson)

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/020 8/8408.html

    Imagine that - the arrogant SOB (and you don't get that arrogant without the network's tacit approval, IMO) said his commentary was "justified" - so much for those who say David Shuster is a good journalist! Yeah, I used to like him too - but his "reporting" has been openly hostile to Hillary Clinton ever since Tweety had to apologize.

    And all of MSNBC's "commentary" was only going to get worse and worse if this incident hadn't happened. Of course, this is a pattern, approved by the top network brass, so it's not even close to being over.

  • comment on a post David Shuster, A Hardball Moron over 6 years ago

    Funny, but I've never heard Shuster or anybody else at MSNBC aim even the slightest criticism at Obama - and it doesn't look like Shuster has ever "fact checked" him either. Just a regular little lovefest...

Diaries

Advertise Blogads