Jack & Jill Politics

Have you seen this:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P21PRmUzN-A&eurl;=http://thinkonthesethings.wordpress.com/2008/03/04/video-is-hillary-running-for-the-republican-nomination-or-the-democratic-no



Hillary is pretty much praising McCain and of course herself on their experience!! While of course stomping on and dismissing Obama.

This for me is the last straw.





P.S. Charlie Crist is allowing the DNC to do a Florida do-over. I'm havent heard if the DNC will agree. I actually dont think that it is a bad thing. In addition, John Edwards was still in the race. Many of his support may cross over to Obama which will make him more competitive. Obama will have a chance to campaign in the state and also his amazing grassroots organizers will be able to head down there.I will head down there and get my 68 family members and 55 plus associates!! in FL to round up some voters.



But then again who should take Hillary, her supporters and Charile Crist seriously, I'm still sticking to the fact that unless their is a do-over, Florida should not count and nobody as yet agreed to any such thing.

Ronnie B., Thank You!!


I've known about the Rezko non-issue since 2006!! It isnt new. Various media outlets esp. those in Chicago have questioned him about it!! I dont know why people. like Wolfson (Hillary's Communications guy) continues to say that people ignore it and nobody is asking him about it!!! Who is Hillary Clinton to tell anybody about ethics and scandal...hasnt she had he share...the more I read about her the shadier she gets...please!!!



I'm so sick of the media in this whole thing. Hillary Clinton has control over the media. She even has control over the media to the point that she can convince them that they are biased towards Obama. All I have ever seen was the media paint Obama as an empty suit with no substance and not a single accomplishment.The media is a joke and the Clintons are like the big bullies. I think that they have put Obama at a major diadvantage with their rhetoric than they have Clinton. Clinton doesnt hve the momentum and its her fault!! The reason why they have so much negative press for Hillary is because she has earned that negative press. Since when have SNL and Comedy Central been reliable, look at how they portray Obama, as if he is stupid!! Is that what Hillary is encouraging.

That response from Barack has been in the public domain for almost two years.


How can anyone seriously involved in politics -- at the very least, the media -- not know?

Craig,
Had never heard/seen that before. And I'll be the first to admit that Obama's responses are a lot more open than anything I've heard from Clinton...or McCain, for that matter.



Thanks for sharing.

According to the Chicago Tribune, Clinton phonebankers are calling Obama "Osama bin Laden" and then claiming it is a "slip of the tongue."


http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/did_i_say_osama_i_meant_obama.html



Please, someone who knows someone, report this to the Obama campaign.

When I first read this, I was pissed but now I realize that's Hillary showing her rage at the reality of being the front runner during Fall 2007 to being on political life support.


She is fighting for her political life -- it's not pleasant but she has to do it since her team has done such a lousy job managing her campaign. I don't respect it but I do understand.



Barack Obama & Rezko.

I'm interested in how far the relationship goes but don't feel it will sway me when it comes to voting (if he should be the nominee).



If America wants completely untainted politicians, then maybe we should start electing embryos.

d.,


This is for you:



Information I can't imagine you haven't Googled yourself.



It was just last Friday that Howard Wolfson, top Clinton aide, held a media conference call and said that "the number of questions that we don't know the answers to about the relationship between Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama is staggering," after saying nothing about it for the entire campaign. It's an understandable tactic. The timing was perfect. And the media ran with the story, as Wolfson knew it would.



What I find most interesting, though, is that several Chicago media outlets said within the last few days, according to the MSNBC talking heads, that Obama had never answered any questions about this transaction or his relationship with Rezko. I guess that means the link I posted above is a figment of my imagination. If the media wants to vet Obama about this, it might at the very least consider starting with a few facts.

Re: the stolen nomination


It's starting just as b-serious predicted. The media is all over this Canadian NAFTA non-story. They're acting like they've blown the cover off of Iran-Contra.



Meanwhile, HRC is riding this one like a porn actress.



Has White America finally found its plausible deniability?

d,


No No---you made a bet! You lose-- Pay up!

Craig,
Of course.



I'm so low on the scale that it probably won't even put gas in your vehicle.



Don't you think that's kinda a double standard? If we're going to be fair about it, whoever's left for the general should fully answer all the questions about the elements of their shadiness that have made it into the light. For McCain, that's the lobbyist in 2000 (though I'm not concerned), and for Obama, that's Rezko.



Even though we're not particularly concerned about our respective candidates, there's those who are. Let's just put it all out there.

"But I'm more than willing to bet my meager gov't salary that you're willing to hold McCain's dealings with the lobbyist in 2000 against HIM."


::



Then I'll take your salary. When can you start forwarding payments?



First, it's untrue that Obama hasn't answered any questions about Rezko. Do I think he has something to hide in the situation? Perhaps. I've no doubt it will come out if he does.



It's also untrue that Clinton and McCain have answered for everything in their pasts. Or their presents.



I'm more interested in Hillary's tax returns than I am in what may have happened in Obama's Chicago past. If there's a dealbreaker in Obama's past, it will come out. But I'm not waiting with baited breath for the other shoe to drop.



Hillary has always been secretive, has always been around corruption, and after becoming First Lady has always dismissed it as a "right wing conspiracy." Well, no conspiracy is keeping her from releasing her tax returns.



I have this thing about politicians and it's really quite simple: other than how they vote on the issues, if they have a record of voting at all, what they do in the relatively distant past is far less important to me than what they do in the present. Which is why I said Hillary is hiding something while using Karl Rove's playbook to win this thing, and McCain is showing what a fool he is.

Lynn Sweet: Obama and His Taking Questions on Rezko




By Lynn Sweet







Here what David Axelrod said on Sunday, during an interview on ABC’s “This Week with George Stephanopoulos.”



STEPHANOPOULOS: Before you go there, David, let me just follow

up on one point, because Lynn Sweet writes in the Chicago Sun-Times, I

believe it was yesterday, that in fact Senator Obama has not sat down

with the Chicago reporters who are most familiar with the Rezko case.

Is he willing to do that, or is Ms. Sweet wrong, in your opinion?



AXELROD: I think she is wrong. We've talked to reporters from

— and he's talked to reporters from both papers several times in

several sessions about this, and each time the conclusion is the same:

There's no evidence of any wrongdoing related to Mr. Rezko.



I showed the above to the reporters who cover the Rezko-Obama story.



For the record, here’s what they said.



Sun-Times Reporter Tim Novak: “David Axelrod has never talked to me, Fusco or Mckinney about Obama. Neither has Obama. All we've gotten are responses to written questions, and who knows who actually answered those. And occassionally we talk to (Bill) Burton. But the point is that Obama himself has never sat down and discussed these questions about Rezko.”



Sun-Times Reporter Chris Fusco: “Tim is absolutely right about that one.”



Sun-Times Springfield Bureau Chief Dave McKinney: “Well, I know Chris and I have never had a sit-down interview with Obama. Axelrod might be referring to the December 2006 Q and A, but as you know those were written questions and written responses. I believe Tim's experience was identical when he wrote about Rezko's slum properties. Axelrod would have been more accurate, perhaps, had he said today that Obama has "communicated" with reporters (through spokesmen and a Q and A). But he hasn't spoken to us directly about this. You are right. Axelrod is wrong.”

@ d


Obama has answered concerns.

To paraphrase Bill Clinton:


If you have a candidate who wants to scare you, and you have a candidate who wants you to think ...



If you have a candidate who appeals to your fears, and you have a candidate who appeals to your hope ...



You should vote for the candidate who makes you think and hope.



Bubba said this back in 2004 during the Bush/Kerrey contest.

Anonymous writes,


"I was hoping to see if his most ardent supporters here at this blog could refute. I welcome an enlightening discussion."



No, what you were HOPING is that you'd stir the pot a little bit. And what you'd WELCOME is the thought that you are sowing false seeds of doubt. Go crawl back under your bridge, troll, and take your fake "concern" over these non-issues with you. If you want to know the truth on these issues it's available through this incredible website called Google.com. You really must try it. I'm not your damn research assistant, and you're not interested in the truth anyway.

Craig,
....but I'm more than willing to bet my meager gov't salary that you're willing to hold McCain's dealings with the lobbyist in 2000 against HIM.



The point that Clinton and McCain have had dealings with their share of corrupt figures is irrelevant. They've answered the concerns. Why hasn't Obama?

Corruption in Chicago politics is like malaria in Southeast Asia. If we expect a politician from Chicago to never have met, dealt with or received support from someone tied to corruption, then we're truly living in a fairy tale.


Clinton and McCain have certainly been supported by their share of corrupt figures.



On this matter, the playing field is more or less level. That said, Rezko hasn't been convicted of anything yet.



People, however, are going to believe what they want to believe, no matter who says what about whom. If it affects their vote one way or another, so be it.



Clinton won't even release her tax returns or donor lists and McCain is shows himself to be a bigger fool each day.



Unless somebody produces a smoking gun I can believe, I have no reason to hold his relationship with Rezco or his real estate transaction with Rezko's WIFE against him.

1) It's the pinnacle of fearmongering to even make being a Muslim an issue in this campaign. There are plenty of white, born-again Christian terrorists (Eric Rudolph, anyone?), but no one accuses Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, or George W Bush of being a Manchurian candidate because of their Christianity. Obama nailed it on its head when he said last night that it's offensive to Muslims. Being a Muslim, does not make one a terrorist, or a foreigner, or any less of an American. To even imply otherwise is absurd in the absence of demonstrable links to violent radical groups, be they Islamic in name or otherwise. These questions of dual loyalty were the same lobbed against Jews in the 18th, 19th, and 20th centuries as newly created nations and nation-states struggled to explain the place of "the other" in their midst, even if "the other" had resided in the nation's "homeland" just as long as the nation had.


2) The Israel issue. Some Jews care about more than just Israel. You know, we're not all a big monolithic voting group that huddles together before the election, and decides things based solely on the issue of Israel.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120450564143806... hate me because I'm anonymous. The point I was trying to make is that there are still a lot of concerns about Obama and the media is beginning to look more closely at him. All questions cannot be brushed off as 'smear tactics' when these issues will surely surface in time for the general election. I am not a Clinton or McCain supporter, nor am I fully on board with Obama, in part because of what I have been reading lately.



I was hoping to see if his most ardent supporters here at this blog could refute.



I welcome an enlightening discussion.

I have a strong dislike for anonymous posters (both here and at my own blog).


As far as the 20 questions above (it's really 7), I'm interested in knowing the answers myself. I don't believe that Obama's dealings with Tony Rezko were criminal, but they seem to have a Keating Five-esque ring to them...

Roger, you beat me to it.

I'd love for "anonymous" to a) post his/her name (you *can* do that, you know) as well as links to sources supporting those "questions"(aka smear attacks). And lest "anonymous" thinks otherwise, a lot of people are well aware of Reverend Jeremiah Wright and we know that he is NOT anti-Semitic and his political rhetoric is about Black self-help. It's funny how, when Black folk begin talking about relying on ourselves and our own resources for community development and isn't about butt-kissing powerful white elites, it becomes threatening.

please, stop her tomorrow. she must be stopped.


and i agree with everyone who says that the 'muslim' card being used is just an excuse after the fact. kind of like how i feel about certain people and the 'mcclurkin' card, but worse. or the 'iraq flew planes into the world trade center and that's why we're in iraq' card, but less. same difference.

"The authentic Barack Obama? We just don't know. The level of uncertainty is too high," one Democratic senator told me last week. He noted that Obama hasn't been involved in any "transformative battles" where he might anger any of the party's interest groups. "If his voting record in the past is the real Barack Obama, then there isn't going to be any bipartisanship," this senator cautioned.

A senior Latin American diplomat, who asked to remain unnamed because of the sensitivity of the topic, says, "Look, we're all watching Obama with bated breath and hoping [his election] will be a transforming moment for the world. But now that we're listening to him on trade—the issue that affects us so deeply—we realize that maybe he doesn't wish us well. In fact, we might find ourselves nostalgic for Bush, who is brave and courageous on trade and immigration."

The trail [sic] of indicted influence peddler Tony Rezko – longtime friend and political patron of Sen. Barack Obama — starts today . Sen. Obama's name has already surfaced in pre-trial documents submitted by the prosecution and, according to media reports, is likely to surface again as the trial progresses. Democrats deserve the answers to these questions as they consider their votes:


1. Will Sen. Obama release all documents related to his relationship with Tony Rezko, including all documents related to his controversial land transaction?



2. When, specifically, did Sen. Obama become aware of Mr. Rezko's legal problems?



3. Sen. Obama has returned money from several individuals who are publicly associated with Mr. Rezko. How much money did Mr. Rezko bundle for Sen. Obama's campaigns in total, including people who are not business associates of Mr. Rezko? How many fundraisers did Mr. Rezko hold for Sen. Obama? Has there been an internal investigation to determine how many straw donors Mr. Rezko used to funnel money to Sen. Obama?



4. Much of the upcoming trail involves Mr. Rezko's efforts to control state boards as a means to defraud the state government. Have Sen. Obama and Mr. Rezko ever communicated about potential appointments to Illinois boards and commissions? It's been publicly reported that Sen. Obama lobbied these same state boards to secure contracts for campaign donors. Did Sen. Obama ever confer with Mr. Rezko concerning how to successfully lobby state boards?



5. The New York Times reported that Sen. Obama attended a business meeting on behalf of Mr. Rezko to impress potential investors for his business schemes. How many events did Sen. Obama attend on behalf of Mr. Rezko to impress investors? What was his role? Why did Sen. Obama agree to attend?



6. How many times did Senator Obama visit Tony Rezko's house? What was the purpose of these visits?



7. Did Sen. Obama intercede on behalf of Mr. Rezko in any governmental capacity?

Don't WE ALL have HRC fatigue yet???


People, Analyst, Pundits and Sound Bitters are looking so hard and so deep inbetween the lines of what everyone is saying that people are loosing sight of the being picture ... There is nothing there !!!



"I take him at his word .. "Translation" ... He is a Man of his WORD ... deeper meaning ... "He is a Man that stands behind his word."



I think somewhere in that answer HRC stated the response of "NO".



Take the RED PILL PEOPLE .. you are all in the Matrix.

I am well aware of Farrakhan's anti-Semitic statements, but I am also aware that in large sectors of the Black community, Farrakhan is no boogeyman. We may have to "distance ourselves" from his anti-Semitism, but we have also whole-heartedly embraced his pro-Black agenda of self-reliance. For many Jews, unless you wrap yourself in the Israeli flag and denounce Palestine, you are a threat. Obama refuses to pander to the Jewish vote, but has enjoyed widespread support, Dov Hikind notwithstanding.

Anonymous,


I am from Brooklyn, I will assure you that the Hasidic Jews in Brooklyn never had plans of supporting Obama...trust me, they are simply looking for any excuse. Pastor Jermiah Wright has never said anything anti-semitic. Obama has made it clear his support for Israel. In addition, when Wright praised Farrakhan, he praised him for what he had done for the black community on many fronts not for his anti-semitic statements.



Lets talk about Pastor Hague who endorsed McCain, McCain has not rejected his endorsement and he has made anti-Catholic statements which I take personally offensive since I am Catholic. There is a double standard obviously.

Assemblyman Dov Hikind yesterday predicted that Jewish voters would make "a mass movement toward Sen. McCain" if Barack Obama knocks Hillary Rodham Clinton out of the race in tomorrow's critical Democratic primaries.
Hikind, an Orthodox Jew whose Borough Park district includes the largest Hasidic bloc in the United States, blasted Obama for what he called his half-hearted support of Israel and his ties to the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr., who has repeatedly praised anti-Semitic Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has endorsed Obama.

"We have a sick political culture, and that's the environment Barack Obama came from," Jay Stewart, the executive director of the Chicago Better Government Association, told ABC News. He notes that, while Mr. Obama supported ethics reforms as a state senator, he has "been noticeably silent on the issue of corruption here in his home state, including at this point, mostly Democratic politicians."

The Clinton campaign did not release that 3 a.m. ad for the sake of Clinton 2008. It is to defeat Obama, for sure. But not now.


Hillary knows she's going down. They issued that ad because they want McCain to win. She thinks she can be a star in the Senate, leader of the Democratic party when he loses. So the commercial is her gift to John McCain. She's got her eye on 2012.

b-serious~


Dead on. We can NOT afford to sleep on the Clintons--delegate math in or favor or not. Yes, the mainstream media has run out of opportunities to bid Barack an artful goodbye, and are clearly hoping for some kind of Clintonian heist. And this time, they're going to do what they can to be complicit in that heist.



Hillary knows that she's still got much the media in her pocket, or she wouldn't be playing the "why-do-I-always-get-the-first-question" card. She wouldn't be citing Saturday Night Live parodies as if it were some kind of policy reference. She knows that most of the White women who run today's behind-the-scenes media will pity her, and will afford her every benefit of the doubt that they would never afford to a Michelle Obama if she were running for prez.



My suggestion is to continue reaching out to commentators like Roland Martin (CNN), Eugene Robinson (MSNBC), Amy Holmes (CNN), Michelle Norris (NPR, NBC) and other Black commentators who can remind the Girl Power media that we won't stand by and watch HRC lose her way to the nomination.



We also need to blow up Howard Dean's e-mail inbox. Had Harold Ford, Jr. or Luis Gutierrez been on this kind of a losing streak, Dean would have pulled the plug on them weeks ago.

HRC is letting out her inner Daniel Pipes.


Daniel Pipes: "If I were a Muslim I would let you know," Barack Obama has said, and I believe him.



http://www.meforum.org/article/pipes/5286

Even some of the most ardent McCain supporters and Republicans-except for some of those who occupy the fringes-know Obama's not a Muslim. I'm all for the politics of fear (Clinton's 3 AM ad is pretty damn effective!), but going this route isn't going to affect Obama. Hell, you might get more airtime out of attacking his current church.


With that said, I don't HRC's statement is that big a deal. The one person on her staff-THAT WE KNOW OF!!-who came out with the "Obama is a Muslim!!" attack was swiftly done away with.



As long as her actions and those of her staff reflect the sentiment that she showed last night...no harm, no foul.

"At this point, Hillary is GIVING the Republicans a list of talking points and attacks to use against Obama."


-------------------



That's it exactly b - serious. We don't see Obama employing the same tactics. He points out holes in her platform but he's not attacking her personally to the core. She is dividing the democratic party and attempting to sabotage any chance Obama would have at winning against McCain or Nader. Its another Gore set up all over again. I have reached outrage fatigue yet, but I get sick to my stomach everytime I read or hear a news report. The current 3 in the morning ad is particularly sickening.

The answer should be simple. Neither candidate will reach 2025 delegates. Therefore, if the Democratic Party truly doesn't want to reverse the will of the people, the nominee should be as such:


The person with the most pledged delegates. Bill Richardson just said as much. And he's dead on the money.



It's as simple as that. Democrats pick their nominee by way of delegates. Not popular vote, and not even states won (although Obama even has a strong lead in those two categories as well).



Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!



You give the Clintons another MONTH to throw mud at Obama (more Resko allegations; more Muslim allegations; more fear-mongering, etc.) and you not only further destroy any chance at party unity in November, but you also allow Hillary the opportunity to destroy Obama's chances against McCain even though she has no real shot at winning the nomination herself.



At this point, Hillary is GIVING the Republicans a list of talking points and attacks to use against Obama.



Don't give the Clintons an inch. You'll regret it!

Why does she keep moving the goal posts? It's simple. For the same reasons why Bush kept moving the goal posts on Iraq.


The plan is to muddy the waters; muck up the truth so much that we forget which way is up and which way is down. The goal is to make the truth RELATIVE and remove all sense of objectivity so as to to excuse the inexcusable.



The Clintons know they can't retake the lead in pledged delegates. Their only hope is:



1. Super delegates reversing the will of the people; and



2. Re-instating FL and MI.



Therefore, the Clintons want to make things look confusing; so much so that stealing the nomination WON'T SEEM SO BAD when it happens.

I can't repeat this enough guys. . . Hillary is positioning herself (quite well) to STEAL this nomination.


The Obama camp is not doing a good enough job of pushing the MATH. The media is gullible enough to accept Hillary's terms of engagement. The goal posts keep moving.



Just think about the back-tracking from the Clinton camp:



1. Hillary will show her dominance in Iowa. If she wins big there, the contest is virtually over;



Oops! Obama wins Iowa! . . .



2. NH made her the COMEBACK KID. Obama's victory in Iowa was an anomoly. We're back to Hillary being the inevitable candidate.



Oops! Obama wins SC after taking on BOTH Clintons and their shameless race-baiting . . .



3. Hillary will end this race on Super Tuesday. Obama doesn't have what it takes to be a national candidate. He won't have enough time to gain familiarity and favor with 22 states in the span of a week;



Oops! Obama actually WINS MORE DELEGATES on Super Tuesday than Hillary. And, he's looking stronger in the February states . . .



4. Obama is favored in the february states. So he must win all of them. Clinton firewalls= Maine, Virginia (maybe), Wisconsin.



Oops! Obama wins sweeps 11 straight by an AVERAGE of 33% . . .



List of Clinton excuses: Obama's winning the red states (you'd think that would be a positive for the Democratic Party); he only wins caucuses; caucuses don't count; he only wins primaries in red states; he only wins primaries with large african-american populations; he can only win states with open primaries ...;



Oops! Obama eats into Hillary's base. He wins majorities among people making under 50K; splits the vote among whites; wins women . . . the list goes on.



5. "Meet me in TX!" "Meet me in Ohio!" Hillary MUST win TX and OH by large margins (20%) to catch up in delegates or this thing is over;



Oops! Obama closes the gaps. Effectively ending any talk of a Clinton landslide (which she needs to claim a comeback) . . .



6. Clinton excuses: it's the media's fault; it's harder for a woman than a man (even a black man).



7. Clinton must win Texas or she's done (Bill Clinton);



8. Clinton must win EITHER TX or OH.



9. Obama must win all four (TX, OH, VT, RI) or that'll prove that he's not electable (I swear, I'm not making this up);



10. All Hillary has to do is win Ohio, because OH is a key swing state and this shows that she is more electable than Obama;



and now.....



11. By way of morning Joe - Hillary should stay in the race EVEN IF SHE LOOSES EVERYTHING TOMORROW because a spirited campaign is good for democracy. I am not kidding. The media actually went there. And let's not forget this gem;



Bonus: Clinton should ALWAYS stay in the race because we might find some dirt on Obama that is so bad that he'll have to drop out and the Party will have no choice but to choose Hillary (of course, a scandal could happen to anyone, but what does that matter, right?)

Where the hell is Howard Dean? Had this been anyone else who had lost 11 straight contests and caused so much animosity within the Democratic party, the DNC leadership would have brought pressure to bear for that person to drop out of the race. But nooooooooooo Clinton is on the verge of destroying the party for a generation or longer and he's still silent.

Hillary's words:


"“No. No, there is nothing to base that on. As far as I know.”

-----------------------------------

That calculating witch!

Of all the slimy things she has done, this one takes the cake. I've sent a letter off to Howard Dean, asking him to put pressure on her to clarify her response or withdraw from the race.


her remarks should be rejected and repudiated. And renounced, too.

how sleezy

gaah indeed ... I dunno, for me it still hasn't gotten to "outrage fatigue"; it infuriates me each time.


TPM has excerpts from the transcript with her exact language.



gaah. oh wait, did i say that already?



jon

"She is willing to risk damaging his electability and further damaging her own. Do you guys think the Democrats could have such a sure win and screw it up"?
-----------------------------------

Hillary don't give a f%%% about damaging his electability. It's all about her because the presidency is owed to her! All she sees is Barack f-ing up her dream! I so despise this woman! Gaah!

I do like the way the interviewer called her on her statement that she took him at his word. She was so angry that he pointed out her statement that she took him at his word.

@ obamamama


re the man with the sick wife....He can't be that stupid. The Muslim thing is a convenient excuse for people who don't want to vote for an African American but are smart enough to be ashamed of it.

She said "..as far as I know." when asked if she knew he wasn't a Muslim. Consider that she and Obama are from the same party. She is willing to risk damaging his electability and further damaging her own. Do you guys think the Democrats could have such a sure win and screw it up?


The Democratic party is at fault here...they need to ask her to withdraw or risk losing everything. This woman is destructive and poisonous.

...and the truly said part about it is, she does it because she knows it works.


Did you see that poor guy in the group interview who was losing his job, with his sick wife at home. Even with all of that, he said he was 'leaning toward Obama' but he had heard that he was Muslim and didn't know the National Anthem (sic). Even the original rumor gets twisted.



Hillary is treacherous. That's why so many superdelegates are scared to endorse Obama. Of course, they are punks, but that's their reality...



I don't wonder anymore why my coworker calls her "Hildebeast"

Outrage fatigue is right. It's becoming a daily reality show of 'how low can she go', and I just sit in watch in disbelief.

Hopefully, HRC will continue to talk herself right out of the nomination.

Someone bought something to my attention: Remember how she said that Obama should reject and not denounce Farrakhan's endorsement? So, she should've done the same thing when the reporter asked if she thought Obama was a Muslim, instead of saying she takes him at his word.

Her true colors, shining through.


I liked Obama's response, "I'm a Christian, but I find the question to be insulting to American Muslims because it implies that there's something wrong with their religion."



That's leadership, something Hillary never will grasp.

anonymous,


I hear ya on 'outrage fatigue'. Why do you think post itself is so short?



Couldn't let the BP go up anymore.

This means war. How dare she. How DARE she.


I agree with the above poster; I am continually amazed at how low she will stoop. I can't even guess what she will pull tomorrow. I honestly can't imagine how she could go any lower. But I am counting on her to prove me wrong.

I think I am getting outrage fatigue. Every day she just does something so completely hideous. I am now actually glad that Nader is in the race. If by some miracle she steals the nomination from Obama, and I can't write him in at the election, I have someone to vote for before McCain.