by Student Guy, Tue May 13, 2008 at 03:29:10 PM EST
Tags: Fear card (all tags)
Fingers crossed. And thanks student guy for reminding us all it's not just about the primaries
I've discovered a site that calls out the trolls at Hillaryis44.org
It's called Hillaryis44.blogspot.com. You've got to see it to believe it. You'll also recognize a number of the trolls that post here.
You too Student Guy. When you have the time, check it out.
Maybe I'm the last to know about it but it was a revelation for me.
No Quarter as well, I'd guestimate around 89% republican operatives (add a touch of racist dems too) deceptively convincing the less sophisticated of the Hillary supporters to vote for McCain or just not Obama.
What's the site name?
(warning this stuff is almost as bad as hillis44 and sometimes far worse as these people are serious)
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/
:::puke:::
to check for matching handles and then ignore anything one of them says (like 1950's democrat).
But the blog you mentioned is much better as big pink is a crappy web site.
embedded ads. Have to scrub my temp files every so often after lurking there. Yes, the critique of the site is better than the site itself.
I read through where she outs at least two of the posters as actually part of the Clinton campaign. Which is kind of sick really. And then there is the one who runs rezkowatch who has a beef with Obama from back in Chicago where they backed opposing candidates and Obama's won.
I only brought up the primary as this card was played to death a few weeks ago and it shows that the GOP fear tactic is not working.
I am off to path lab will attempt to stay awake.
Two out three benchmarks means no one can claim Obama will drag down the down ticket races. Infact in a lot of states, specially in the west, Obama has some truly massive coattails.
Childers loses in a landslide and exit polls show Barack as the reason, you can't say Obama is a drag on the ticket. This is not a seat we're supposed to win anyway. If Childers even loses by 10%, it's a net plus for us. (and he won't lose by 10%)
As much as I'd love to see a special election trifecta for us, even if we lose I think we've done a lot of good there. Forcing the republicans to spend $1.3 million (plus another half million in 527 money) to defend a seat where Bush won with 62% last cycle is good news for us overall.
It was interesting to see Gingrich write earlier this week that republicans will lose big if they depend upon an anti-Obama/anti-Rev. Wright message. I think he's correct. But, I think they will lose no matter what kind of campaign they run. We just have a much better candidate.
The NC case was kind of a wash since as you said both candidates in the Gov. primary backed Obama, so you can't really say this disproves the supposition. One had to win, and both backed Obama.
And didn't Childers go out of his way to explicitly say that he hasn't endorsed the Obama campaign, they haven't been in communications, etc.?
Pretty much. As did the LA-06 candidate.
There was also the IL-14 race, where Foster endorsed Obama, campaigned with him, and ran on his message. But that was in Obama's home state and was before Wright/bitter etc.
But the truth is that in districts like LA-06 and MS-01, any national Democrat isn't helpful. Nancy Pelosi? Hillary Clinton? Bill Clinton?
So if the voters are ignoring the Republican attempt to distract them and instead voting the fact that they don't like Republicans, that's good.
As for the Republican "oh, X was just a bad candidate" spin, losing 3 specials in red districts b/c of "bad candidates" begs the question of why all their candidates are so bad.
"As for the Republican "oh, X was just a bad candidate" spin, losing 3 specials in red districts b/c of "bad candidates" begs the question of why all their candidates are so bad."
Ha, great point!
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
