by Dan Conley, Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 11:14:36 AM EST
"It's time to get real" ...
Yes, let's get real ... by attacking speeches ... in a speech! By warning against the power of inspiration that moves voters to the polls ... and promising a torrent of negative advertising that depresses voter turnout.
By pulling stupid stunts like working the night shift with actual hard working people. Geez, inspirational words won't help these people get health care ... but dragging the press corps along with you and pretending to do actual work will?
By convincing a bunch of megarich people to pony up $100K each so that you can chide Obama for considering not taking public financing.
By appropriating GOP language, saying Barack Obama isn't ready to be commander in chief ... letting this toxic Republican misreading of the Constitution that turns a President's wartime powers over troops into warlord-decider stature ... allow it to gain currency from a Democrat. For shame, Hillary.
By promising to use every trick in the book to get to a majority of delegates and letting her attack dogs demean 40 states and anyone who voted for her opponent.
I've had it with the condescension from Hillary's supporters. We're celebrity obsessed? Who do you think you're supporting, Barbara Mikulsky? She's the wife of a former President and it's the only reason she ever made it into the Senate.
She's run a terrible campaign. She's a cautious, fairly worthless to liberalism Senator who voted for a rotten war and has never stood up once to fillibuster any number of Bush travesties. Insult us all you want -- call us delusional, one thing is certain, this party has roundly, soundly rejected your candidate.
by Aimeymays4536, Wed Feb 20, 2008 at 02:30:24 AM EST
I wish Clinton has some people checking over these sites. I have been saying for a long while that it is not that Obama's borrowing Patrick's words that is important. It is the similarity between their background, their inexperience, and their way of fooling people with rhetoric that should matter. Deval Patrick should have been used as an example that words without action are meaningless. Deval Patrick should serve as a primary example that why voting for rhetoric is a dangerous business.
If using Deval patrick is too much a gample given his racial background, Hillary should have hit with Matt Blunt's inexperience, especially when she was campaigning in MO. You can take a chance in inexperience but at this time of peril, do you really want to do that?
It is laughable that a surrogate of Obama could not cite a single legislative achievement of Obama's. You have to ask yourself how many people are getting into the fashionable worship of Obama without knowing anything about him rather than he is susposedly a good speaker and he inspires? People, do you really need to be inspired to do things? Do you really need a savior?
by Aimeymays4536, Mon Feb 18, 2008 at 03:21:35 PM EST
It is really not a big deal for Obama to use Patrick's line. But Obama's avoidling use of Patrick's name may well be more intentional than you and I think. The reason is that Patrick is an all talker and not a doer. That's the exact reason why Obama lost MA so much even with two K's behind him. Because the good people of MA have seen the movie before. Fool me once, shame on me. Fool me twice, shame on you!
When Patrick was challenged with this all talker no doer line, he used his lines that he eventually lent to Obama. People in MA clearly bought his lines and look what they have bought with a governor that talks really good! Do you think Obama wants this comparison? Gimme a break! At least Patrick could think of his own lines and he was trying to fool one state. This man, Obama, who could not have his own line, is now trying to fool the whole nation?
Be careful, be very careful!!!
by hotran, Thu Jan 10, 2008 at 08:36:27 AM EST
Bob Cesca's piece at HuffingtonPost yesterday points out a statement made by Hillary in the run up to her NH win, regarding terrorism.
<"I don't think it was by accident that al-Qaeda decided to test the new prime minister. They watch our elections as closely as we do, maybe more closely than some of our fellows citizens do. Let's not forget you're hiring a president not just to do what a candidate says during the election, you want a president to be there when the chips are down."/
Cesca goes on to show how closely Clinton is following the Cheney/Bush playbook with this statement, essentially saying that electing Obama or Edwards is inviting a terrorist attack. Check out http://www.huffingtonpost.com/bob-cesca/
senator-clintons-fearmon_b_80782.html for the full article.
by excinit, Thu Nov 29, 2007 at 03:59:50 PM EST
By all accounts, we are a nation in turmoil. We continue to fight an never ending war in Iraq, the housing crisis continues to spread throughout the financial markets, and the economy teeters on the edge of recession. To the observer, these are the greatest issues facing America in 2008. Yet, if you listen to the Republicans debate
, its as if these issues don't exist. Ignoring the obvious, they ramp up the rhetoric on an different issue, a new scapegoat for all the ills of society. A diversion from the last eight years of failure.