Current talking point attack lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

Current Attack Meme Lie Number One:

"Hillary has no chance of winning" feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Two:

"Hillary must now only be in this to make Barack Obama lose the election" (so she can run in 2012) which feeds into...

Current Attack Meme Lie Number Three:

"Hillary really wants McCain to become President and hopes to be in his Administration"

These are the current talking points being used to take down Hillary Clinton. They have been seeded into the echo chamber. It doesn't matter that they are lies, they are good ways of tearing Hillary Clinton down.

These smear talking points ARE a scorched earth policy, because they insult the intelligence (literally) of the half of the Democratic Party that wants Hillary Clinton to win the nomination and become our candidate in the Fall Election. Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected. Good luck with that.

I would work for Obama because I know how important a Democratic victory is in the Fall. The inverse should also be obvious to Obama supporters who are recklessly tearing the party apart with their constant demonization of a Democrat who has massive grass roots support. McCain wins a majority of Latino votes when he runs in Arizona. Latinos overwhelmingly supported Hillary Clinton OVER Bill Richardson when he was still in the race. And then there are female voters who see Hillary being taken down with every trick in the book and don't exactly like the implications of that. I am not even bothering to talk about white voters in general.

It is the same passive aggressive campaign being waged against Hillary Clinton on discussion boards across the nation. People honestly prefer Obama over Clinton for any number of reasons, and then they go in for the kill. The passive aggressive part is the constant accusation that Clinton is doing terrible things that in fact THEY are doing with their accusations. Accusing Hillary Clinton of wanting to divide the Democratic Party so that she can throw the election to McCain IS dividing the Democratic Party, and that MAY throw the election to McCain.

Tags: 2008, Barack Obama, Hillary Clinton, Presidential Race, Super Delegates (all tags)



On Meme Number One

This of course is the lynch pin. Without it the smears of numbers two and three can't take hold. Of course it is realistically possible for Clinton to still win the nomination, and the only way it is possible is if the Democratic Party would legitimately be better served by having her as our nominee rather than Barack Obama.

So all of the doom and gloom pronouncements about how the Party will be fatally wounded if Obama has more pledged delegates than Clinton does when the primaries end, but she gets the nomination instead, is total bull. She won't get the nomination instead under that scenario unless there are darn good reasons for her to get it.

The Super Delegates aren't in Clinton's pocket. The ones who have pledged are pretty closely divided as it stands and some have shown a willingness to move away from Hillary Clinton. And if the ones who are still undecided didn't jump to Hillary long ago when it seemed like she was the sure winner, they sure as hell aren't going to jump to her late in the game for no good reason. Hillarr is not the big bad Democratic Party Machine candidate.

So what could happen to make them vote for Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama? We may have a clear favorite at the moment, but that is far from the race being over.

If Obama loses 8 of the last 10 contests, if the voters of Michigan and Florida do not get the delegates they selected seated or a valid revote instead and polls there continue to show her more popular in those states than Obama, if Obama screws up royally around any new controversy and/or is running ten points behind Hillary Clinton in the national polls for the Democratic nomination, and 8 points worse than Hillary Clinton in polls of match ups against McCain...

Obnama would then no longer seem so inevitable, especially if the pledged delegate count falls under a hundred delegate margin by June.

Under those circumstances the Democratic Party would be foolish to feel bound to nominate Obama if he could not win a majority of the delegates just because he piled up a slim pledged delegate lead early in the contest.

The odds may not favor all or most of that happening. Obama is the clear favorite now, but this race is far from being locked in stone, and there is no reason why it should be.

Have you noticed the latest update of a national state by state electoral map comparison of how Clinton and OBama fare against McCain? Here:

It projects McCain with well over the electoral votes needed to defeat Obama, and Clinton leading McCain soundly. If trends like that continue you can bet your bottom dollor Obama does not have a lock on this nomination. That is why his side is trying so hard now to shut down the contest and call victory while they still can.

Yes Clinton needs some big wins, not just squeekers. So far she has that chance in both PA and WV, which both are states that polls show she can keep or bring respectively into the Democratic column but which Obama would lose to Republicans.

She also needs to show strength is States where it is not automatically assumed that she has the demographic advantage already; Indianna, North Carolina, and Oregaon come to mind. Depending on other variables she probably needs to win two out of those three, or come extremely close to doing so at the very least.

Not since immediately after the NH Primary have we experienced this election campaign as one in which all the momentum is running in Hillary Clinton's direction. People are living in the bubble we find ourselves in now, one that fosters thinking that Obama is the presumptive nominee. That is one reason why Super Delegates began to break his way before TX and OH.

Clinton slowed down that momentum and gave reasons for some people to hold off thinking that this thing is all over, but that is not the same shifting to a political climate in which Obama seems clearly to be sinking while Clinton is rising. In the scenario that I outlined above however, that is exactly the impression that start to take hold.

Obama built on momentum, fueled in part by his massive money advantage advantage fundraising in January, to put together his streak in February. That gave him the aura of a winner, and that is a key intangible which drove up his support.

I remember a number of folks on message boards a while back coming out and saying they were choosing Obama because he seemed to be the only Democrat who would defeat McCain. That worm in reality however is starting to turn. There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain.

If it comes down to Obama losing most of the important contests from here on out and falling behind in national opinion polls both among Democrats and in relative matchups with McCain, and if his claim to overall popular support in votes cast is premised on not having to take Michigan and Florida into account, and if it seems Clinton could carry those states in the fall and Obama wouldn't, Clinton will be our nominee. And that would be the correct choice under those circumstances.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 05:24AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

Tour de force post.


by giusd 2008-03-25 06:06AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

Do you pull polls out of thin air?

To suggest that the polls reveal truths about the possible November match-ups is silly. ontent/politics/election_20082/2008_pres idential_election/pennsylvania/election_ 2008_pennsylvania_presidential_election 2008/president/national.html

HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA.  You may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum.  Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies.  It's not unreasonable to presume this is a problem for primary and SD voters.

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 08:58AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

You can't tell the painful truth to those who aren't ready to listen.

by Lefty Coaster 2008-03-25 09:18AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

It's a moot point right now. If virtually all fair oobservers don't agree that fortunes have shifted and Hillary is most likely our strongest nominee and most favored by both Democrats and the public in general by the time the primaries have ended in June, Obama will get the nonination.

I was just pointing out indications that it is possible that might become the case and why it is premature to think it can't.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:19AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

But you invent things, why not stick to polls.  

Further, even if the polls had HRC significantly ahead (which they don't) the HRC folks have reminded us since New Hampshire, it is sensible to be skeptical of the polls anyway. itics/blog/2008/03/obamaclinton_tie_in_n ew_poll_p.html nt/politics/election_20082/daily_preside ntial_tracking_polling_history

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 09:48AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

Of course we can agree to disagree.  Her fibbing is you view.  I think most indy and reagan democrats think this is a political based smear by BO and his campaign to hide from BO support of Rev Wright.  Again you can think what you want but so can i.  However, going negative is always tricky and IMHO BO has picked some attacks that dont really regester with voters and if that is true than his attacks will end up hurting his campaign more than HRC.

And all you have to do to see this is look at the head to head matchs with McCain.  Three weeks ago BO was ahead of McCain and Hillary was just even and now they are both even or based on Rasmussen Hillary is doing sightly better.

And i didnt say anthing about "may want to add some nuance to your comments about HRC momentum".  But if you say she has the momentum i will take you word for that since you support BO.


by giusd 2008-03-25 09:40AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

I'm not talking about opinions, I'm talking about whoppers: 7Y&eurl= yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606 2008/03/hillary-clint-1.html

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended. itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=2&hp

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

Again that is your opinion and could you provide some proof that some voting block agrees.  Really this is sad.  It is like some poor grammer school kid screaming in the playgound and no one is listening.

HIllary is a lier, lier, lier, damn it dont you see that.  But this is no smear everyone thinks this.  


by giusd 2008-03-25 09:58AM | 0 recs
Re: On Meme Number One

You are an "interesting" person.

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 10:00AM | 0 recs
One more time on Ireland...

Once again, let's remove that particular non-fib from the roster, shall we? I'll actually copy part of the article I cite because it has been my experience that simply posting a link to it is a waste of time since the purveyors of such unresearched memes rarely seem to click on such links. At least, they never respond in any way to indicate that they actually read something that contradicts their meme. Who knows why?

Trimble's dismissal was enough, however, to draw other Northern Ireland politicians to Clinton's defense.

John Hume has been one of her most ferocious defenders and Trimble's jibe drew swift rebuke from the man who was Trimble's nationalist Nobel partner.

"I can state from first hand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade," Hume told the Derry Journal.

Deputy First Minister Martin McGuinness told the Echo that Hillary Clinton was someone who was "extremely well informed" on Ireland and its peace process.

McGuinness described Trimble's remarks as "mean spirited."

Sinn Féin president Gerry Adams, speaking in New York during his St. Patrick's Day U.S. visit, was reluctant to be drawn into a U.S. political debate, even if Ireland was the subject matter.

Adams explained that Sinn Féin preferred to stay clear of American party politics for the simple reason that it drew support from Republicans and Democrats.

"I've met the three presidential candidates and I wish them well," he said. Trimble's comment, however, had crossed the line.

"I did take exception to David Trimble saying she (Clinton) had played no role. That isn't true. For the record she did play a positive role," Adams said in response to a question from the Echo during a meeting with reporters in a Manhattan hotel last Friday.

The URL to the whole story in the Irish Echo, which addresses both points of view, is .cfm?id=18659

I wonder how many more times I will have to post that before the Hillary bashers begin to admit that they might just possibly, maybe, perhaps, be a little bit wrong on that particular issue.

by Swedie 2008-03-25 12:18PM | 0 recs
Re: One more time on Ireland...

The problem is exaggeration.

She says she was "instrumental" to the piece process, and that has been shown to be false.

There is no indication that HRC had any part in the negotiations.  Even those who you quoted will acknowledge that she never participated in the negotiations.

I think Adams gave a fair representation, she did play a positive role.  Why can't she just say that?  Why does she need to say she was instrumental, when that's not true?  Mitchell's book doesn't mention her.  Yes, he has said she met with the women's groups.  Everyone acknowledges that.  Yes, the the women's groups were a positive factor.  Everyone acknowledges that.  But, everyone also knows that HRC wasn't in Mitchell's book because SHE wasn't instrumental to the peace process.

She pushes this exaggeration stuff, hoping nobody looks too closely.  But, as the Bosnia video and her schedules show, she is taking a huge risk because there is a record, and it doesn't support her exaggerated claims.

Her true record is good enough (not very extensive, but it's not bad), why does she shoot herself in the foot with her embellishments?  Can you tell me?

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 01:10PM | 0 recs
Re: One more time on Ireland...

If the problem is seen as one of exaggeration, then that's how it should be posited. Not as a lie. There is a big difference. And it is not correct that "everyone acknowledges that" as you state. Many someones seem unwilling to even acknowledge she could find Ireland on a map. (smiling ruefully)

Who's to say that she didn't really believe her work to be "instrumental"? Behind the scenes, perhaps it was instrumental in its own way. Perhaps the women's groups and others also saw it as "instrumental". That isn't the same as saying that it was "crucial" to the process or even front and center. (Oh jeez, are we back to the meaning of "is"? lol)

As for her schedules, they only tell you so much. They do not tell you everyone she talked to in a day, or what she said, or what she and Bill discussed in their private quarters, for instance. My daily schedules are a mere skeleton of my actual daily activities, for instance, and I'm a mere nobody. We should be careful about reading too much into them, though they definitely have some value.

Alas, I cannot tell you why she shoots herself in the foot with embellishments. Having done that ocassionaly myself in my life, I can't even tell you why I did it. But I'm not running for President, so it's hardly the same thing, is it?

by Swedie 2008-03-25 01:53PM | 0 recs
Re: One more time on Ireland...

She has definitely lied about Bosnia.

And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland.  The peace process has been well documented, and HRC was not mentioned as a player.  I'm sure she was a helpful and positive, but I don't know why she feels compelled to take the credit of others.

I'm sure there are things you like about HRC, but you must be disappointed that she uses the kind of politicking where dissembling about the meaning of 'is' is perfectly reasonable.  Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.

The schedules of a First Lady are considerably more definitive than a personal schedule you or I may have.

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 02:22PM | 0 recs
Re: One more time on Ireland...

And, nobody says she had anything to do with the negotiations in Northern Ireland.

Neither did she, actually. To the contrary, she freely admits she was not front and center, did not have a place at the table and did no negotiating. She did perform well behind the scenes and I don't see why she shouldn't take some credit for it.

Both Clintons have shown that they get too cute when they're parsing language.

So do supporters of both Hillary and Obama. Just look at what we're doing.

The schedules of a First Lady are considerably more definitive than a personal schedule you or I may have.

You've never seen my schedule.

I've been disappointed in Hillary more than once, but I've likewise been disappointed in Obama-- and in every other politician I've ever known about, including Lincoln, FDR, JFK, and RFK. I look at the entire picture as well as I am able and make my final judgment from that.

All of what I've written should be taken as offered without rancor and in a soft tone, please... I am not here to start an imbroglio.

by Swedie 2008-03-25 03:07PM | 0 recs
Re: One more time on Ireland...

We can certainly agree on no imbroglio.

by 1jpb 2008-03-25 03:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

Al Franken would have called you on this if he were still on Air America:

HRC was recently caught fibbing about N. Ireland, SCHIP, Bosnia, and FMLA....Her whole argument has been experience, but all her specific experience claims have been shown to be exaggerations, if not lies.

Your comment is the very definition of a shameless lie.

Sen. Clinton has not been "caught" exaggerating or lying about anything. In fact, the proof that her statements are completely accurate has come from John Hume and Bertie Ahern in Ireland--both involved in the peace process, as well former Northern Ireland Secretary Mo Mowlam and others in Northern Ireland. Her involvement in SCHIP has come from none other than Sen. Ted Kennedy--who is on the record saying that if it weren't for Hillary Clinton pushing the bill from the White House, it wouldn't have happened. Her trip to Bosnia is well documented by Alegre and a Nexis Lexis search of the articles at the time proves she was flying into a COMBAT ZONE with snipers in the area--the first time a First Lady has flown into a combat zone since Eleanor Roosevelt flew into London during WWII. And Clinton flew to two outlying bases in the area to visit combat troops personally, a trip which Crowe and Sinbad did not accompany her on.

by Tennessean 2008-03-26 05:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

HRC's schedules have shown the truth:

The documents offer no support for her claims, made during the presidential campaign, that she helped to negotiate the Irish peace accords or facilitated the flow of refugees in the Balkans. Neither is there evidence in them to back up her claim that she helped pass the Family and Medical Leave Act, the first legislation Mr. Clinton signed as president. The legislation, sponsored by Senator Christopher J. Dodd, Democrat of Connecticut, sailed through Congress and landed on Mr. Clinton's desk 10 days after he was inaugurated. Indeed, on the day Mr. Clinton signed the bill into law, Feb. 5, 1993, there is no indication on that day's calendar that she attended. itics/19cnd-archives.html?pagewanted=1&a mp;_r=3&hp

Northern Ireland:
She claimed she was instrumental to the peace process.  Everyone, including those you mentioned, agree that HRC was never part of the peace negotiations.  Mitchell and others who wrote about the peace process never mentioned her in their writing.  Everyone, including those who have minimized her role in the peace process will acknowledge that she play a positive role in the process because she met with women's groups.  The problem is that it is silly, and politically stupid, for her to claim she was an instrumental part of creating peace--everybody knows that this is taking credit for the work of others.

The bill was initiated in congress, with support from Hatch.  The Clinton administration was opposed, for budgetary reasons.  The budget and funding issues where worked out in congress.  As part of the lobbying effort to move the White House, HRC was recruited by those in congress to help get WJC to support the legislation.  HRC didn't create SCHIP, she didn't work to get congress to pass the legislation, she was recruited to get WJC to accept what congress was doing.  As much as her persuasion of WJC, SCHIP was accepted in the White Hosue because it's funding was changed so that WJC the initial budget issues were removed.  But, HRC was a helpful advocate in the White House, why can't she just stick with the truth?  Why does she need to take credit for the work of others?  HRC has been caught exaggerating on this when she takes credit this legislation.

You're joking, right?

WJC was in there two months earlier.  HRC had her teenage daughter with her. 7Y&eurl= yonly/2008/3/23/95418/5038/471/482606

You need to acknowledge that she invented this story (which she repeated more than once) if you want to have any credibility.

you didn't address this one.

by 1jpb 2008-03-26 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them

**Lies can be small and lies can be whoppers.  Hillary has tried to give the impression that she was more involved in the peace process than she indeed was.  Hume was being kind.  He named people who were especially helpful in his Nobel acceptance speech.  Bill's name came up.  Tony Blair's name came up.  Mitchell was named.  Didn't see Hillary mentioned.  I'm certain that Tony Blair's wife was also quite hopeful that there would be a meaningful peace.  Do you think she claims to have been instrumental in the peace process?  I think those of us who are/were FOB admired his diplomatic skills.  I don't think they should necessarily be extended to his wife.  Hillary is being rightfully pilloried for this series of "exaggerations."  It's probably helpful that this isn't an October surprise.

by greylox 2008-03-26 01:27PM | 0 recs
Good to see you Tom.

You make a lot of good points.  I support neither Clinton nor Obama now, but will vote for either in the general election.  

Having no favorite, it is easy to see the games and misstatements of both campaigns.

The so-called "progressive netroots" has been pathetic in this election.  They are mertely an echo chamber for soem of the most obious falsehoods.  

It's not about issues or real change.  

by TomP 2008-03-25 10:10AM | 0 recs
Stick to Reality

"There is increasing state by state projections that appear to indicate that Clinton is the Democrat who will defeat McCain."

You didn't cite any, and I'm not finding any polls to back that up.

by McNasty 2008-03-26 09:09AM | 0 recs
Re: Current tal

The more BO, his campaign, and his supporters go negative the more it hurts BO approval numbers, his poll number match up versus McCain, and makes him look like a typical politician.

There is no bigger sin in running a campaign then being seen as a hypocrite and BO has run the "I am a new kind of candidate who unites and doesnt go negative".  But now voters are seeing that he and his campaign will go negative and this will hurt BO and not HRC. Or better put it is looking like BO will say whatever to get elected.  

Remember BO supporters you all started the HRC will do anything to get elected and now - well you get my point.  But IMHO keep doing this because you are helping my candidate and not yours.

best  david

by giusd 2008-03-25 05:32AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

This is so rich. First Obama isn't a fighter and now when he fights it's not fair. Again, stop drinking the kool aid it only lands you back in your fairy tale world where up is down, and lies are truth.

by munodi 2008-03-25 06:39AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Please take you time and re-read what i wrote. I didnt say BO isnt a fighter (and in fact i think he will do anything to win, and i am ok with that) or that he is unfair.  What i said is the negative campaign by his crowd is hurting his numbers and his campaign more than HRC.  

And i dont think your insulting me is approprate and maybe you might want to step back and rewrite.  What exactly is my fairtale.  

If you disagree that the new BO attack campaign is not hurting his numbers make you case or if you dont think his campaign is pushing the HRC is a lier than again make you case.

But if you want to insult me that is cool but look out i can defend myself.


by giusd 2008-03-25 07:10AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

So your original post insults Obama supporters.  Then, someone calls you on it (albeit somewhat rudely).  Finally, you claim that HE is being rude and that his insults are inappropriate.

Fun times in Clinton land.

And I love how all of the Clinton attacks on Obama (the 3 AM ad, the hints that he used drugs in his teenage years, the hint that his black-ness helps him, etc) are legitimate criticisms in your eyes while Obama's criticisms of Hillary are considered "smears."

by ckd5555 2008-03-25 08:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Ever heard John Kerry? Do you know who he is?

"Because he is an African America. He is a black man!"

Not my words, someone elses. TYpical hypocrites.

by Sandeep 2008-03-25 08:55AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

Funny i dont remember "So your original post insults Obama supporters".  Could you reread this????  What i said was BO supporters attacks on HRC our hurting their candidate.  I guess i dont see that as a insult.  But again i guess we can agree to disagree.

And the 3 am ad was imho legite. I dont think BO is ready to be president.  That is not a smear i just dont think at 47 years old and 2 years of senate expereince he is read. And no one hinted he used drugs it is in his book.  

Finally, Ferraro is not part of the HRC campaign and BO staff pushed this story big time and it is not my fault that right when the BO campaign was calling HRC a racist again the Rev Wright tapes came out.  That was FOX and Drudge.

so whatever.



by giusd 2008-03-25 09:47AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

Like I said the Clinton supporters are living in some kind of my pretty pony land where Good Queen Hillary rules and she does nothing wrong.

by munodi 2008-03-25 10:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary

You've used this same " I'm concerned that Obamas going negative is hurting his numbers" theme before. It's called concern trolling.

by munodi 2008-03-25 10:42AM | 0 recs
HRC & Co. drink Ensure, not Kool-Aid...

because they're antiquated and soon to be expired in terms of their old political mindset and ways.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-25 01:01PM | 0 recs
Offensive on so many levels

that I probably should have dropped a donut on this comment and not just troll-rated it.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-25 11:29PM | 0 recs
Take this poll and shove it into your...

memory bank - "In the Keystone State, Clinton is now viewed favorably by 68% of Likely Democratic Primary Voters. That's down from 76% in the previous survey." - nt/politics/election_20082/2008_presiden tial_election/pennsylvania/pennsylvania_ democratic_presidential_primary

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-25 08:29AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

very good diary - regardless of who wins the nomination (i hope its HRC) - BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonization of HRC and her supporters are in fact what i tearing the party apart.

by canadian gal 2008-03-25 05:57AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

Or how about, "Both candidates and especially their supporters should stop going negative and trying to smear the other candidate"?

It's a two-way street.

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-25 07:07AM | 0 recs
No, Bob. It isn't a 2 way street.

by internetstar 2008-03-25 08:28AM | 0 recs
Re: No, Bob. It isn't a 2 way street.


Oh my lord, internetstar, you are my favorite MyDDer ever. So now I'm Bob Johnson, too? What happened to Tony the Mutt? We're all Bob Johnson?

Do you dream of Bob Johnson? Do you check under your bed at night to make sure he's not there, ready to pounce on you with his scathing anti-Clinton bon mots? Does Bob Johnson transmit  hateful coded message through the fillings in your teeth? In fact, is your life like that scene from 'Being John Malkovich,' where everyone in the restaurant--women, men, children--are all Malkovich?

Do you know if you're not Bob Johnson? Can one ever really be sure?  

by Johnny Gentle Famous Crooner 2008-03-25 09:44AM | 0 recs


by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 03:45PM | 0 recs
BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonizatio

"BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demonization of HRC and her supporters are in fact what i tearing the party apart." The only thing tearing this party apart is Hillary "I don't have a chance in hell to win this thing legitimately so I'm gonna throw this kitchen sink - with the Bosnian girl and scary snipers still in it - at Obama because I'm a Clinton... a Clinton damnit!... and I am ENTITLED to this presidency because my husband got his turn and we HAVE to make sure to match 12 years of Bush in the past 20 years with at least 4 more years of Clinton to tie the score... who am I kiding?... 8 more years for the dynasty WIN!" Clinton.

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-25 08:38AM | 0 recs
Re: BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demoniz

and VT thank you for so eloquently proving my point!

by canadian gal 2008-03-25 08:44AM | 0 recs
Re: BO, his campaign and (many) supporters demoniz

LOL nice one.

He showed how some Obama supporters live on Clinton hatred. Lack of hope from Obama I guess:-)

by Sandeep 2008-03-25 08:57AM | 0 recs
My dearest canadian gal...

we are not "demonizing" Hillary. It just so happens that she IS a demon and her supporters get upset everytime either we expose that fact for her or she exposes it herself and we call her on it. Saying "Hillary's a demon/monster/banshee/etc.!" is akin to proclaiming "Water is wet!" or "The sun is bright!"

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-25 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: My dearest canadian gal...

again VT - thanks!

by canadian gal 2008-03-25 01:15PM | 0 recs
Canadian girl is flirting with me. ;)

by VT COnQuest 2008-03-25 03:40PM | 0 recs
Re: Canadian girl is flirting with me. ;)

you see - HRC and BO supporters can get along!  :)

by canadian gal 2008-03-25 04:55PM | 0 recs
More evidence of Hillary being smeered

The entire rational behind a line of attack on Hillary saying that she wants Obama to lose so she can run in 2012 is fatally flawed. If she in fact thinks Obama would lose this election to McCain, and that she did not have a plausible chance of winning the nomination herself, she would be dropping out right now. If she dropped out now, the impact of her doing so would win her a great deal of sympathy and it would inoculate her against accusations that it was her fault that Obama could not defeat McCain.

Sure, there would be some who would continue to blame Hillary if Obama lost, but that would be a much smaller number of Democrats blaming her for his loss than would do so if she kept her campaign going through June.

To explore the conspiracy theory further, if Hillary already knew that she can't win the nomination then her only real chance to have a shot of running again later would be to drop our right now. Democrats don't as a rule throw their support 4 years later to a candidate who was deeply involved in a presidential loss four years earlier. Gore was urged not to run in 2004. Lieberman did run in 2004 after being linked to the failed 2000 election and he got nowhere. Kerry could not get enough support to run again in 2008 . Edwards did run again in 2008 but could not win a single primary. Ted Kennedy never ran again after he challenged Jimmy Carter in 1980. Bill Bradley never got talked up big as a candidate in 2004 after he failed to knock off Al Gore in 2000. There was no "Draft Bradly" movement in 2004.

Hillary Clinton's best chance to win the Presidency is now in 2008, and her only other remote chance to win it say in 2012, would be to drop out now and throw her support to Obama now. The entire conspiracy theory being pushed that she is trying to make Obama lose is a smear against Clinton to help Obama now.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 06:11AM | 0 recs
Excellent analysis, Tom.

I'm not a Clinton supporter (or Obama supporter) and I will not leave logic and evidence behind for faith.

I believe this is being orchestrated by the Obama campaign and picked up by their netroots surrogates.  They are trying to push it from netroots to media.

The so called "reality based" community is not.

Besides, 2012 will be Clark v. Edwards.  :-)

by TomP 2008-03-25 10:16AM | 0 recs
Clinton/Clark 2008

by Shazone 2008-03-25 12:24PM | 0 recs

Good line.

I suppose it is possible if she prevails.

I wish Clinton and Obama were fighting on issues like class stratification and how we reverse the last 30 years of it.  Making a fair society.

by TomP 2008-03-25 12:47PM | 0 recs
Maybe they would if BO and Friends...

would stop yelling racist everytime she opens her mouth.

BTW...she's been talking substantitve issues for weeks now...but Obama and the MSM can't seem to focus.

by Shazone 2008-03-25 04:25PM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

Repeatedly call the Democrat who half of the Democrats in the nation want as President a complete traitor and double agent working for the Republicans, and see how easy it will be to win Clinton supporters over to even vote for Obama in November if he becomes our nominee, let alone actively work hard to get him elected.

Hate to tell ya, but this junk has been said about Obama, especially around here, for a while now.  Every time he gets the independent and crossover vote, he's lambasted in the same way you describe in the quote above.  

This race has gotten FAR too negative, on both sides, and even more so among the blogosphere.  

by freedom78 2008-03-25 06:32AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

There is some truth in what you say, more so at this web site perhaps than most. But the predominant commentary is that Hillary is dividing Democrats by daring to still oppose Obama with roughly half of Democrats now backing her, and I have never seen a single poster say Obama wouold rather have McCain win than Clinton.

Both campaigns have played hard ball, only one of them tends to get accused of it.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 06:40AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

I think part of the reason for this is because Obama's ahead, so it's a much harder sell that he's hurting Hillary's chances.

But I have seen a good deal of commentary about Obama bringing the party down in November or destroying the party, etc.  

Let me sum it up thusly:  I REALLY hope, should Obama win the nomination and not have Hillary as the VP nominee, that her spirited campaign for the nomination becomes a spirited campaign to get a Democrat elected.  

I don't necessarily think it will be otherwise, but considering the tone this campaign (again, on both sides) has taken lately, you're going to get some rash accusations about her intentions.  I'm hopeful that they're completely unfounded.

by freedom78 2008-03-25 06:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

But you do understand without HRC as his VP it is very likely he will lose.  Just saying.  BO will lose a great number of HRC supporters (not me) if he picks someone else.  Reagan and Bush managed to do this as did JFK and LBJ.  If BO doesnt pick HRC as the VP imho it will be a sign of huge ego and will cost him the election.

But we shall see but IMHO if BO loses greater than 12% of democractic voters (and these will be reagan dems) he will not be able to make up the difference in indies.


by giusd 2008-03-25 07:18AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

I would agree that that 12% would be crucial.  Of course, they BECAME Reagan Dems because of Carter's economy.  Will they stay Reagan Dems considering Bush's economy?  And Iraq?  That's a tough sell, even if you don't like the Democrat (EITHER Democrat).  

But I've said may times that a unity ticket will do more to increase the chances of a Dem winning than any other "strategic" VP choice.  The home-state advantage in a VP nominee's home state is 0.3%, since the 40s.  That's not enough to swing a state in most cases, except perhaps if Gephardt is still popular enough to get that or a larger swing in Missouri.

Compare that 0.3% to the advantage of making those in the party who are angry and want to "hurt" the nominee that defeats their candidate (again, this applies no matter who wins the nomination).  If you can make "hurting" the nominee the same as hurting what was formerly your chosen candidate...well, that makes it a lot less likely that it'll happen.  So, yes, a unity ticket could mean a lot.  If it's Obama at the top, Hillary would still be younger in eight years than McCain is NOW.

by freedom78 2008-03-25 07:34AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

I disagree.  I think Obama would be better off picking someone else as his VP and having Clinton as the most powerful voice for a Democratic agenda in the Senate.  As I've commented elsewhere, she has too much of an independent power base for him to be comfortable with her as his VP.  As a long-term lion of the Senate, though, she'd be well-placed to use her considerable political skills to negotiate a strong slate of Democratic bills through Congress.  

Cosmetically, for campaign purposes only, Clinton could make sense as a VP pick.  (Although barely--I think he'll be better off without such a prime target for Republican vitriol, and Lord knows he's going to get enough himself.)  But in terms of picking the best actual vice president, I think it would be a waste of her skills and power.

The other question is: who should she pick?  Richardson's out now.  Another woman, eg Sebelius, is highly unlikely.  So who?

by Koan 2008-03-25 10:05AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

She should choose Obama if she won and if they can stand each other and if he agreed. Otherwise she should choose Wes Clark.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 10:14AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

She should not be on any ticket with BO. He is poison in the GE he needs to pick someone who has no future like Kerry!

by RedstateLib 2008-03-25 11:17AM | 0 recs
Wes Clark


by Montague 2008-03-25 12:13PM | 0 recs
Bosnia footage may be helpful

I know her "embelished" war story is being used against her, but it still shows how very brave she was to be in a WAR ZONE.

My husband, a VN vet, said you're always hearing live rounds no matter how secured an area you're in.

Nor does the media show the other areas she visited on that trip.  Chances are she did indeed walk from her transport to the troops rather quickly sometimes, you don't want your VIP to be a "standing target".

Anyhow, hubby's a McCain Republican, and was impressed to see Hillary in the field :D

As for myself, still an Edwards Democrat, I'm leaning towards her spunk, fight and toughness against the moronic media mudslinging ratings war.  You go girl !

by catchawave 2008-03-25 06:41AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

Bravery is not standing WITH Bush to send 4000 troops to their death. Bravery is standing up and saying NO WAR.

by munodi 2008-03-25 06:48AM | 0 recs
Nor is bravery giving a safe anti-war

speech a very liberal anti-war crowd, then not having to vote until it's time to fund the war?

by catchawave 2008-03-25 07:07AM | 0 recs
Re: Nor is bravery

Nor is bravery blaming HRC for Bushes war or bushes uccupation.  


by giusd 2008-03-25 07:20AM | 0 recs
It's Hillary's war now

She broke it she owns it. BLOOD ON HER HANDS!

by munodi 2008-03-25 08:24AM | 0 recs
Re: It's Hillary's war now

Errh, don't you think you are being a little too melodramatic?

by observer11 2008-03-25 07:50PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Would it be possible for you to point to a particular vote that Obama cast since he has been a Senator that did that?  No.  Hmmmm.  I didn't think so.  It seems to me that I, myself, saw Sen. Obama make the statement at one time that there wasn't much difference between his position and President Bush's.  

by macmcd 2008-03-25 08:36AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Fact: Hillary voted for War.

Fact: Obama did not vote for War.

by munodi 2008-03-25 08:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

He certainly would have if he had been in the Senate at the time.  You are kidding yourself if you think otherwise.  Look at how he voted on every other vote he voted.  He never once voted against any part of it.  His tactic is to vote last so see how everyone else has voted or to vote present.  He never votes his conscience.....whatever that may or may not be.

by macmcd 2008-03-25 10:38AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Would haves and could haves are not FACTS kids,

by munodi 2008-03-25 11:45AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Another fact: Obama didn't do anything.

by christinep 2008-03-25 11:35AM | 0 recs
You are winning a prize tonight, Munodi

Obama wasn't in the Senate. Therefore, he didn't vote one way or the other.

He made ONE SPEECH against the war. A speech for which no actual record exists. One that he rerecorded with sound-effects to make it sound live for his latest political commercial.

A true profile in courage.

by OtherLisa 2008-03-25 11:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Bosnia footage may be helpful

The facts remain that she traveled to a very unstable part of the world. She read as many situational briefs as she could. When she was meeting with Bosnians she was representing and embodying America. And what sort of experience in this situation does Senator Obama have?

by pan230 2008-03-25 10:46AM | 0 recs
Hillary has no chance of winning

I prefer the way the Clinton campaign itself describes this -- Hillary's chances are 10% or less. However, that estimate occurred before new votes in MI and FL were taken off the table. Thus, I would expect that the Clinton campaign estimates have been revised downward.

Hillary cannot win without completely fracturing the democratic party unless Obama is caught with a live boy or a dead girl, or so the political aphorism goes. For all practical purposes the race is over. The delegate math is inexorable. Superdelegates will be loathe to override a substantial pledged delegate lead, and Obama is going to arrive at the convention with a substantial pledged delegate lead.

by Quarterbackjoe 2008-03-25 07:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has no chance of winning

The race for the delegates is so close that one could also say that upstart Barack Obama is splitting the democratic party through his overriding desire to win at all costs. Hillary is staying in long enough to be able to be heard on a "level playing field" in MSM coverage.

by pan230 2008-03-25 10:49AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary has no chance of winning

Since you are so sure--by repetition--that Hillary Clinton cannot get the magic majority in the coming primaries, tell me how Obama can get that magic majority number in the same set of remaining primaries?  Hmmm?  I suggest that this is all puffery by Obama supporters and Republicans.  If you claim that you have the numbers in the remaining primaries to reach the magic majority number required by rule, then demonstrate it--stop try to shift the burden of proof.  Hmmmm?

by christinep 2008-03-25 11:40AM | 0 recs
Well ...

#1 is pretty damn close to the truth.  She's only going to win if Obama destructs.  Any realistic scenario in which he doesn't take far harder hits than anything so far will have him still over 100 pledged delegates ahead by the end of the primaries.  Despite the theoretical possibility, I don't believe for a moment that she can overcome that deficit with super-delegates.

#3 is obvious nonsense.  Hillary has no interest in being in a McCain administration.

I really don't want to believe #2 either, but I'm getting some doubts.  The way her campaign has played up McCain's qualifications is very disturbing to me - it's the Lieberman sin, reinforcing Republican memes.  If her chances aren't markedly improved by the end of April and she's still doing this, I'm going to have to reluctantly conclude that her strategy has morphed to a 2012 campaign.

by jrooth 2008-03-25 07:40AM | 0 recs
You're missing the point

Most fair-minded observers agree that Hillary's chances are not as good as Barack's. There's disagreement over the degree of this disparity. Most of the objections to her current tenacity have less to do with the fact that she's not dropping out of the race, and more to do with how destructively she continues to campaign.

Especially when the odds clearly favor one Democrat (Barack): to impugn that frontrunner's ability to protect the country, to be patriotic, etc, simply crosses the line of fair play and propriety. It's overwhelmingly destructive. You'd see far fewer calls for her to quit if she were running a different sort of campaign -- one that didn't seem to favor McCain over Obama.

Now I know folks here will argue that the Obama camp gets nasty too. But history is clear: he has done his best to elevate this campaign. Getting in the trenches has always been a repugnant, but necessary occasional response to those who constantly goad him for not being a tough enough, down-and-dirty politician. If he didn't respond immediately and vigorously to dirty tactics, he'd be dead in the water, branded as another Kerry. Certainly every chance he gets he attempts to elevate the conversation. Unfortunately it's a gradual process because of our entrenched political habits over the last couple of decades. But, as president, I'm confident he'll continue this movement in which he so sincerely believes.

by Petey 2008-03-25 07:49AM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point

I disagree on 2 counts.

First, the goal is to select the best candidate to be DEM nominee.  Obama problem will not disappear simply because Hillary has dropped out.  He will still have problems with Wright, Rezko, Ayers, Aunichi, Odinga.  Remember that the wright wing media Fox was the one that first broke the story of Wright.  They will move to other story in due time.  

When they start to cover the story that Obama went to Kenya and campaigned for his counsin Odinga who is the leader of the opposition party and responsible for the riot and genocide of Kikuyu people in Kenya, Obama will look more and more like a damage good.  By the time it will be so clear without dispute that Obama's judgement is extremely questionable. He is unfit to protect this country because we don't really understand his morale compass.

Second, I disagree that Obama has done his best to elevate his campaign.  It started with D-Panjab memo.  Then in NH, Jamal made comment that Hillary didn't cry when Katrina hit.  I didn't know that Obama did anything to help the folks in News Orleans.  Hillary went there a couple of times.  Bill run a campaign effort to rebuild houses with Brad Pitt.

Then in SC, Obama camp framed Billy Clinton as racist.  Obama even got caught during the debate that his campaign pus the racist story by sending out 4 pages memo to his voters.  Obama said that going forward he will stay with the issue as this kind of story is not what the voters wanted to hear.  But then in MS, he brought up the story claimed that Hillary circulated his picture in muslim garb.   It fully contradicted to his stand in Ohio when he accepted that Hillary campaign didn't circulate the picture.

So in summary, I don't believe that he honestly agree with anything he said in public, because his action and his words are contradicted.  As president, I'm confident that we will see him unable to take a stand and make tough decision.  We will hear a lot more of "I don't know/I'm not aware" excuse from him.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-25 08:09AM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point

It's good that you can see Obama as president, it's shows you might be awakening.

by munodi 2008-03-25 08:27AM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point

"Especially when the odds clearly favor one Democrat (Barack): to impugn that frontrunner's ability to protect the country, to be patriotic, etc, simply crosses the line of fair play and propriety. It's overwhelmingly destructive."

No, what is immensely destructive is running for president and commander in chief at a time of war when you are not qualified or experienced enough to do the job, and viciously running a campaign that relies on painting your opposition racist simply because they oppose you.

Using that nuclear option against people who have been on the front lines of the battle for everyone's civil rights is pyrrhic victory at the cost of trust and goodwill that is essential to the continuation of the party. The destructiveness of the Obama campaign to Democratic Party core beliefs and principles and destruction of the bridges between people that have been lovingly forged over two generations is the most divisive ugliness I have ever seen.

Obama is not a progressive, he lauds Reagan, has right wing advisors, extraordinary support from Washington lobbyists, and is about the last person who will be able to make any change that will benefit our country. His campaign is words only, to an extent his supporters are blind to.

Threatening to bus loads of Chicago Obama supporters to riot at the Denver Convention if they do not get their man in as nominee is heinous. It sickens me. I believe anyone who holds the threat of violence against the Democratic Party automatically disqualifies himself from the presidency, and deserves a primary challenge to his Senate seat, big time. Talk about divisive? I cannot imagine anything more divisive, and destructive.

Not only is Obama not anywhere near ready for the presidency, he doesn't have the ethics to be considered as a candidate. I haven't seen scorched earth tactics like this be levied against the party in years and years.

No one should honor any nomination gained by disenfranchising MI and FL, and the Obama campaign's deliberate obstruction of revotes in those states is anti democratic. We are not a banana republic. If Obama doesn't believe in democracy he shouldn't be running for president.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 09:53AM | 0 recs
Re: You're missing the point

This would be really bad stuff, if any of it was more than opinions and falsehoods based on innuendo.

by shalca 2008-03-25 11:02AM | 0 recs
Where have you heard those?

I know the idiots at MSNBC spewed that bile yesterday (led by the Head Pinhead, Chris Matthews), but as I asked yesterday when I saw this story, what evidence did the TV talking heads have that this was Clinton's plan? Or the even more outlandish claim made by Matthews yesterday that her campaign was coordinating attacks on Obama with the McCain campaign?

As is usually the case with Chris Matthews and company, the bullshit is so deep, his eyes are brown.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:00AM | 0 recs
Re: Where have you heard those?

And what lovely brown eyes you have too, Bob!

by KnowVox 2008-03-25 08:13AM | 0 recs
Tell you what, Know...

These clowns on TV are clueless. And they're monumental asshats. To have Matthew claim, as he did yesterday, that the Clinton campaign is coordinating attacks on Obama with the McCain campaign and not have any of the other pinheads even pipe up to ask, "Seriously? Do you have proof of that?" just shows how inane the whole group of them are.

Jackasses. Every one.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:43AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

Well Mark Penn does work for the same P.R. firm that McCains campaign director does.

by munodi 2008-03-25 11:48AM | 0 recs
Re: Where have you heard those?

Whether by design or circumstances the campaign that Axelrod is running for Obama is benefiting greatly by a strategy initially developed by the Republican right, not so ironically, to use to take down Bill Clinton.

Internet message boards pave the way now, much as the Right wing radio shock jocks and the Drudge Report have for years for Republicans. They either "break" a dubious story or create enough of a stink about something that others in the media become free to pick up on the fuss. All three Attack Memes are repeatedly being posted on political message boards now. Tim Mathews is playing the role here that FOX news has played for Republicans, the first quasi serious Main Stream Media outlet to give real credence to what is bubbling up from below.

In the case of the Right it is pretty well documented by now that these stories are intentionally seeded and watered at a site like Drudges first so that they can be picked up by their allies in the Main Stream media when they sprout. I suspect the same holds now with this type of anti-Clinton campaign but only can rely on cirumstacial evidence for proof that it fits an intentional pattern, so there is not much gained by going there at this point.

For now the strategy playing out in the Main Stream Media is just moving beyond Attack Meme Number One and into Attack Meme Number Two. I don't think it will move into Attack Meme Number Three in much of the Main Stream Media, but that fits the pattern for this type of smeer.

I believe that there has been a conscious constant effort madeto shift the range of discussion about who Hillary Clinton is, how she acts, and what her intentions and motivations are throughout this campaign, constantly toward further and more negative extremes.

It isn't a one step process, it works more through acclimation, like that famous frog in a pot that is slowly brought to a boil. More and more outrageous charges keep getting thrown out against Hillary Clinto and gradually the garden variety only somewhat outrageous attacks on her start appearing relatively moderate, and by comparison reasonable. It reaches a point where in either an a) unguarded or b) planned moment a key Obama advisor calmly calls Hillary Clinton a monster while another Obama advisor equates Bill Clinton with Joe McCarthy.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 08:25AM | 0 recs
That goes on on both sides, Tom.

Wouldn't you agree? Bill Shaheen, Bob Johnson, Carville of late...

To claim that it's a strategy exclusive to the Obama campaign is disingenuous.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
Re: That goes on on both sides, Tom.

We can talk about negatives from both sides yes, but I am not talking about the same thing here at all. I am talking about overt direct full accusations of Party treason, after a campaign that openly broadcast ads saying Hillary Clinton would do or say anything for power, which is a direct rip off of the Hate Hillary meme that the Republican right planted and spread against both Clintons for 15 years.

And I am talking about the methods being used. MSNBC has been extremely Obama friendly and anti-Clinton all year, and most message boards are dominated by Oboma supporters.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 08:51AM | 0 recs
Tom, you're not looking.

My god, look at this board o a daily basis. People citing World Net Daily for talking points about Obama. Or go read Taylor Marsh or NoQuarter. Or look at the mailers Clinton surrogates distributed in numerous states claiming that Obama would not defend a woman's right to choose.

You just aren't looking. But that doesn't mean it's not happening.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Tom, you're not looking.

My post was prompted not by Attack Meme Number One, but by attack Memes Two and Three.

I am not attempting to comprehensively address all of the negative or misleading things said by or about either candidate or campaign. Clinton is being accused of wanting to throw the election to the Republicans.

If the only argument going on in this context was whether or not Clinton should leave the race now my apparoach to the discussion would be different, even though strong disagreements would still emerge.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:08AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

The bottom line is Obama's various problems will not magically disappear once Hillary dropped out.  He created this problem by himself.  And if he's unfit to be president or unelectable in GE, we need to know now.

by JoeySky18 2008-03-25 08:14AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

Nor will magic wands work outside of my pretty pony land, to make Hillary's negatives go away. The Repubs desperately want her to win the nomination so they can start rolling out their war chest of Clinton controvercies.

by munodi 2008-03-25 08:42AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Can you provide some proof????  IMHO right now the GOP would much prefer BO to HRC.  And let us not forget the only person and campaign to beat the GOP for the WH is the last25 years is called the Clintons.  But you are telling me the GOP wants HRC??? Funny i would not have guess that.


by giusd 2008-03-25 09:52AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Go read, oh, I don't know, any conservative website and see who they're attacking.  The pundits/shills like Hewitt and Powerline have been running hard with Wright and Rezko, as well as attacking Obama's foreign policy as anti-Israeli.  Hardly a peep attacking Clinton.

Go read the comments section at RedState or Free Republic.  Since the primary season began, they've been salivating over a Clinton candidacy, and deeply disturbed at the prospect of running against Obama.  In fact, it was one of the Romney team's main anti-McCain themes: "if it's Obama, we are going to really have to step up and not run an old fogey."

Actually, I recommend that everyone on MyDD read those sites daily.  Ad hominems, bad faith arguments, binary views of the world, my-team-versus-your-team mentality, threats to leave the party if your candidate isn't nominated--squint your eyes and you'll see the similarities.

by Koan 2008-03-26 10:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

No mention of Hillary's potential problems leading in to the general. Lets pretend we are comparing one tainted candidate with a sainted candidate. As a matter of fact, a Clinton nominee would take hits on two powerful fronts, hers and Bills. Just saying.......

by AHunch 2008-03-25 08:54AM | 0 recs
2 Points

Two points:

One, Hillary finds herself caught in this trap because her campaign was simply not ready to compete beyond Feb. 5th. She let the Obama team run up the score in the caucus states and it put her at a great disadvantage. That showed one of two things, that she thought she was inevitable and there was no reason to plan beyond Feb. 5, or two she lacked any foresight about just what exactly she was up against. Either way, its difficult to make the case that Hillary is unfairly being portrayed in the media when even a small dose of competence in campaigning would have made this a moot point.

Secondly, consider the inverse. If Obama were in the exact same position as Hillary finds herself now, can you honestly say that he would still be in this race? That the superdelegates wouldn't have left en masse for the insider's choice? I don't like hypotheticals, but it seems to me that the media you so quickly blame for this "narrative" is in fact keeping her alive in this race. I think we all need to come to understand that blaming anything on the media as if they are more for one policy or another, or more for one candidate than another, is nothing but a copout. Its why Rush, Hannity, and their ilk always put blame on the media. They have no other leg to stand on.

When I read this I see nothing but playing the victim card for Hillary, as if she is getting a raw deal from people who simply don't like her. In no way do you lay any blame at the feet of CLinton for getting herself in to this mess in the first place.

by AHunch 2008-03-25 08:39AM | 0 recs
No, the only reason this is still a live race...

... is because she is a Clinton. Had the situations been reversed, it would be over.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:40AM | 0 recs
2 Points

I'm not sure I follow. What do you mean?

by AHunch 2008-03-25 08:47AM | 0 recs
Poorly worded.

I meant I agree with your second point. If Obama was in Hillary's current predicament, he would be out of the race.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 08:50AM | 0 recs
On what do you base that?

You say it, but I see no evidence or even way of knowing what Obama would do?  

I'm not saying he would or would not, but this is just another statement with no empirical content.

by TomP 2008-03-25 10:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

See, this is where discussion gets dangerous. If Kerry had not tapped Obama as his keynote speaker, a man who was a State Senator at the time, Obama would not now be a serious candidate for President. Later maybe, he has the talent, but not now.

Obama has no history in the national Democratic Party. It was hugely favored by circumstances; Kerry, Ophay, Time magazine and the rest, to ever have been promoted to such a high profile so suddenly in the first place. He does not have a history of involvement in the National Democratic Party to fall back on. He simply hasn't earned that. He hasn't even been re-elected to a seat in Congress once.

Maybe he can be a great President, but if he wasn't running a great campaign he would have nothing else to point to to make people believe he has it in him. It's the only real thing at this level of politics that he has to sell himself with other than his words themselves. Had that seriously sputtered there would not have been a significant basis for non true believers to keep supporting him.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 08:59AM | 0 recs
What is your real argument here, Tom?

That if Obama was never born, he now wouldn't be in the position he is in?

That because he hasn't been around for years, he shouldn't be allowed to run or be the nominee? That only "old hands" should be allowed to run?

I don't get it.

Maybe he can be a great President, but if he wasn't running a great campaign he would have nothing else to point to to make people believe he has it in him.

That's your opinion. During the 2006 mid-terms, he raised more money for other Democrats than any other elected Dem official. More than Hillary. Or Bill.

You're grasping at straws. Who was JFK when he ran against Humphrey?

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 09:05AM | 0 recs
Re: What is your real argument here, Tom?

You missed my point obviously.

Comments above argued that were the tables reversed Obama would not be given the opportunity to continue his campaign with any hope of victory. That Clinton was being treated more favorably in that regard. I was just pointing out why Obama has less to fall back on if his campaign itself wasn't succeeding. It was not a negative assessment of him as either a man or candidate.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:11AM | 0 recs

Thanks. I misunderstood.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 09:12AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Neither did Bill have any history with the National Democratic Party. And what you fail to realize is that progressives are running to break the stranglehold of the Clinton lead DLC. We reject Republican lite politics.

And speaking of ifs, if Hillary wasn't married to Bill she would still be a Republican.

Maybe, Maybe Maybe.
Maybe when lollipops melt into rainbows Clinton will win the nom.

by munodi 2008-03-25 09:21AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Yes but Bill WON the primaries. That's the point. And Obama may also. But ha Bill been trailing late in the game and needing super delegates to tip the balence he would have been a cooked goose, for the reasons you cited.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

First, I love the conversation.

If i am going to concede your point, Tom, why such embracing of Obama by the national party. Kerry, Dodd, Kennedy, Sebelius, and so on.

The bottom line of this entire campaign and the reason Obama is so viable is because most people I think loathe Washington. The back slapping, revolving door, bureaucratic BS only serves to enrich the lives of people who are involved in the process. While people struggle for healthcare their jobs are sent overseas and they are left to find jobs that are not nearly as rewarding or as dignified as the ones that got sent to India.

i know you have seen the approval ratings for Congress. they are half as good as Bush's and thats really saying something. The idea that the best nominee would be a siginficant part of the very problem that people so despise is where you lose me. Obama is viable because he is not what the rest of Washington is. As he says, Washington hasn't boiled the hope out of him yet.

Thats the distinguishing characteristic of this campaign and its why Obama will win in the fall. If experience was so important wouldn't we be talking about Biden or Dodd's run at the Oval Office?

by AHunch 2008-03-25 09:29AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Obama does indeed have that going for him. And I will gladly conceed that it may be enough for him to win both the nomination and the presidency. I have never been one to discount his chances.

Thaks for your comments also.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:44AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Wow, thanks for having a sensible discussion.  I liked reading something from a Hillary supporter that didn't come straight from

by shalca 2008-03-25 11:09AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

"Obama is viable because he is not what the rest of Washington is."

That is the Madison Ave PR image Obama has created, not even close to the reality that he is a ruthless slap down Chicago politician with tremendous support from Washington lobbyists, in the pocket of Wall St.

Believing the fairy tale that Obama's image makers have  created for him will sink the progressive movement for another generation. Projecting progressive hopes and dreams onto a blank slate gets you betrayal.

Obama has been bankrolled by extremely powerful and wealthy white men. Do you believe for a minute that they do not want something back for their largesse? Do you really believe that a fraudulent accounting of donations to include every $10 T-shirt sale as a donation means this candidate is making his millions through lots of grassroots supporters? Creative accounting goes far.

It's not just "experience" that is important here, it is accountability and having a record to run on. Hillary has a record and principles we can count on, despite all the republican trashing of her that wants desperately to convince you otherwise. They know 8 years of peace and prosperity is a powerful draw.

Obama is an empty suit, against progressive goals, and he will take the progressive movement's support and trick you into destroying your best candidate if you let him.

by 07rescue 2008-03-25 10:21AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Yes we can count on Hillary's record of voting for more immoral wars and her record of doing nothing to stop genocide( remember Rwanda).

by munodi 2008-03-25 11:18AM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

Here, hear.  Very well said.  

by oh puhleeze 2008-03-25 12:07PM | 0 recs
Re: No, the only reason...

I completely and whole-heartedly disagree with you.

Firstly, you imply that I am a dupe of a Madison Ave. PR stunt. Not to mention about 20 million other people. And to that I can only say one thing, but I will refrain from the comment.

Secondly, all that you accuse Obama of is EXACTLY what Hillary is. Her campaign has been financed by corporate lobbyists, lobbyist fundraisers, and "wealthy white men", she makes no bones about it, in fact she will gladly tell you that they represent the interests of working Americans. Are they not going to want anything in return?

Finally, if you are serious about accountability and having a record to run I imagine that you were a full-throated supoprter of Joe Biden, or was it Chris Dodd?

I will gladly engage this discussion further if you can provide evidence of creative accounting or show in what ways he has received support of Washington lobbyists. I will be right here.

by AHunch 2008-03-25 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: 2 Points

I did not complain about Clinton being behind in the race. I simply called it a lie to say that she had no plausible chance of winning it now.

Obama has obviously run a very effective campaign, but virtually no political observers prior to Iowa, and very few as late as immediately post NH, thought for an instant that this campaign would be seriously competitively contested beyond Super Tuesday.

And a number of observers have begun to comment on Obama's inability to close the deal after failing to come out ahead in any of these three big opportunities that could have mortally wounded Clinton's campaign; New Hampshire, Super Tuesaday, and TX and OH.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:04AM | 0 recs
Well, Tom, let's admit that the arrogance of

... Clinton's campaign may well have doomed her candidacy.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 09:06AM | 0 recs
Re: Well, Tom, let's admit that the arrogance of

I'll admit that you believe that, lol. There is no such thing as a perfect campaign. Just winning and losing ones. We can return to this conversation later and right now the odds favor that it will be conducted under circumstances favorable to your view point.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 09:13AM | 0 recs
Thanks for the comnversation, Tom.

It is nice to have a civil exchange on here from time to time. I appreciate it.

by Bob Johnson 2008-03-25 09:17AM | 0 recs
Hillary is Huckabee

Repeat after me, Obama won Texas. More pledged delegates in the state means he won the state.
And in New Hampshire:

Clinton 11
Obama   12

Texas   109
Clinton  106

by munodi 2008-03-25 09:50AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

If Hillary didn't win Texas than you agree that delegates should not be bound to the popular will, since the caucuses that swung additional delegates to Obama were held with just a much smaller sub set of the voters who all went and voted in the Texas primary that day and voted for Clinton over Obama.

Good to know where you stand.

Obama does not win the nomination until a majority of all delegates, both pledged and super delegates, supports his nomination. Those are the DNC rules, and the rules state that Super Delegates vote their own conscience. The argument most Obama supporters seem to make about Super Delegates is that they need to follow the popular will. But since you are so content with Obama getting more delegates under the rules in play in Texas after losing the popular vote there, it seems clear that you will have no problem with accepting the results of the Democratic Convention regardless of who elected the most delegates.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 10:22AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Look, it is well within the rights of each superdelegate to make their own choice.  They are definitely not bound by the votes of their constituencies.  If they vote, en-masse to give Clinton the nomination, that's fair according to the DNC rules, and it will hold up in a court of law.

Unfortunately (or fortunately depending on your viewpoint), it probably won't hold up in a court of public opinion.  I admit that I have no firsthand knowledge to back up this assertion, but it seems obvious to me that IF after June 3, Barack has more of the popular vote, more pledged delegates and more states, but still loses the nomination, that the democratic party may lose a tremendous amount of African American support.  I believe I've seen a pole that suggests the party would lose about half of all African American votes.

Additionally, I think the tremendous goundswell of new young voters would be far less likely to participate in the general election.  Although, no matter who wins, the youth vote, or lack there of, has always been rather fickle.

I think there would be large protests in Denver.  I think if Hillary somehow pulls out a pledged delegate lead, but Obama is given the nomination, I believe that her supporters would protest in Denver.

So despite the fact that an upset in favor of Hillary would be valid.  It might not be smart for the party.  Although, to be honest, I think that the Democratic nominee, whoever it might be, will probably lose the general at this point.  I feel the DNC has already split beyond repair.  But I might only be getting that impression from MyDD.

by shalca 2008-03-25 11:21AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

I agree that the burden of proof is on Clinton if she enters the convention without the most pledged delegates, which seems certain.

But if she has the popular vote, let's say with Florida and Michigan counted to make it most plausible but certainly if she has it without them, AND she has all the momentum, the upset victories and the expected victories, and she is the only Democrat who is holding up against McCain in the polls, we will not be seeing all this from the same perspective as we are now. In order for that to happen the Obama campaign would need to suffer a collapse to some significant degree.

I don't like the politics of who can threaten a more plausible boycott, but there are real dangers of some older Americans, some working class Americans, and some Hispanic Americans sitting home or defecting to McCain also that should at least be acknowledged.

Bottom line, Hillary has to have a strong case, a compelling case, in order to win the nomination. If that case is hard to make with that level of conviction, she won't win it. If that case is pretty damn obvious and persuasive by June, we won't be in the same reality that we are writing from inside of now.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 01:29PM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Here you go again back to my pretty pony land. What next now we should have an electoral college vote for each state?  Oh that's right that is the lastest desperate spin from my pretty pony land.

by munodi 2008-03-25 11:24AM | 0 recs
Re: Hillary is Huckabee

Get your head out of the clouds. Since when is the Democratic party not counting voters?

There are thousands of us will who will never vote for Obama under any circumsantce because of his support for a racist church.

Obama is Imus.

by JFK464 2008-03-25 12:57PM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking

Funny i thougth that winning was the popular vote.  silly me.


by giusd 2008-03-25 09:54AM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking

Ask Al Gore about that.

by munodi 2008-03-25 11:26AM | 0 recs
Obamacrats and Hillacrats NEED to Declare a Truce

Although I am a strong supporter of Obama, and have been observing MyDD and DailyKos since last summer,  I registered just now in order to comment in support of what I believe is the key idea of this post: Democrats of all stripes need to declare a truce with one another and stop the echoing the negative media coverage of either campaign.  

There needs to be an understanding that no matter how negative either campaign becomes, that we as Democrats, have an obligation to keep the in-house discussions friendly in order to keep the party strong.  Let us leave the smear tactics to the campaigns and the media.  If we want to smear candidates, let us unleash our hostility at the republicans.  This negative energy flowing from supporters on both sides is literally ripping the Democratic party, and the netroots in particular, apart (take it from someone who has been observing from outside everyday for almost a year).

I will be writing my own diary about how to stage and maintain such a truce, but if anyone, such as the diarist, would be interested in helping me start and maintain such a pact.  Please let me know.

Tom, although we disagree on who we think would best lead the party, I thank you for this post.  Let us continue to dispel prominent memes about both candidates in a meaningful and civil dialogue.    

by jacksquirrel 2008-03-25 11:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Obamacrats and Hillacrats NEED a Truce

Thank you, and yes we share a similar perspective in regards to not tearing each other apart or falling so deeply into the mutual blame game that we can't crawl out before November.

It is not directly relevent here at Mydd, but here is the text of a Diary that I posted yesterday at Democratic Underground, where I am pretty active. It does fit in the spirit of the type of truce you hope to further:

"There continue to be plenty of trash talking, smearing and or simply divisive threads posted on GD-P, yes from both sides, but in the interest of not being divisive with this one (given my purpose in writing it) I don't want to argue over who is more to blame.

I just want some of you Obama supporters to know, and I think you know who you are, that I have noticed some repeated efforts by a number of you folks urging that we return debate to a more civil level here. I have noticed quite a few instances where Obama supporters have made posts that essentially start out by saying "In all fairness..." while validating a complaint or a position that a Clinton supporter may have. I have seen numerous posts by Obama supporters acknowledging that we all will need to work together in the fall to elect a Democrat against McCain, and therefor we need to act better toward each other now.

There are very few saints on political message boards and we all fall short of our better intentions some times, but I have noticed an effort being put out recently by a number of Obama supporters urging other Obama supporters to avoid any temptation to flame.

With the current limit of times that we all can start threads in a day, there are less threads started here lately that don't directly promote our own given candidate or attack the other one. But I think this is something important to acknowledge.

To the many Obama supporters on DU who are trying to further an honest debate about our two candidates without destroying the village to save it, but even more to those who have stepped forward to pointedly advocate for fairness and civility in all of our discussions here on DU, across candidate supporter lines:

As a Clinton supporter, I very sincerely thank the many Obama supporters here who are making those now difficult efforts. They are noticed, they are acknowledged, and they are making a positive difference."

I am glad to say that it was well received there.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 11:31AM | 0 recs
Great diary

This reminds me of the smear in 2003/2004 that insulted BOTH Hillary Clinton and Wes Clark - claiming that Clark was a "stalking horse" for Clinton.

It was BS back then.  What's going on now is BS.  Hillary absolutely has a chance to win and if BO loses either the primary or the GE, it'll be because of who the voters want, or how he runs his campaign.

by Montague 2008-03-25 11:55AM | 0 recs
Wright is a deal-breaker

Lie Number One:

Q)Did you hear Wrights comments.


Wright is a deal-breaker. Obama's toast.

by JFK464 2008-03-25 12:43PM | 0 recs
Re: Wright is a deal-breaker

That's just not borne out by the polling data since Wright broke.

Polling data suggests that Obama actually gained support among Democrats, held steady with Independents, and only lost ground among Republicans (most of whom weren't going to vote for him anyway). National polling numbers vs. both McCain and Clinton have improved, he's closed considerably in PA, and he's far up in NC.

On what fact-based basis again do consider him to be toast?

This would likely have been devastating in late October. In mid-March, there's plenty of time for people to move on. Apparently, they already have, except for Team Clinton.

by Texas Gray Wolf 2008-03-25 06:33PM | 0 recs
Now I'm hearing on network news

"The only way Clinton can win" is by "destroying Obama."  This was said after pounding Clinton about the Bosnia non-story.

by blah blah 2008-03-25 02:42PM | 0 recs
Re: Now I'm hearing on network news

It is at least equally true that the only way Obama could win was to destroy Clinton, if one needs to view this race with that type of perspective. I don't get why Obama is viewed as a delicate flower who has to be protected until we send him out onto the Colleseum floor to battle the Republican Lions, but it has been OK all year to land hard blows on the that tough old battle axe broad Hillary Clinton. What could possibly be more destructive than embracing and promoting a meme that Hillary Clinton will do or say absolutely anything to get power? Or that she and Bill are belittle African Americans?

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 04:21PM | 0 recs
lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

If Obama ever makes it to the General Election and then crashes and burns, I would like to hunt down everyone of the democratic jerks who have carried on this campaign to destroy Hillary Clinton in an effort to promote Obama, and put them through the wringer to the extent that they are never able to show their face in the Democratic light of day again.

I am fucking sick of these democrats and if it the last thing I do, I want to be one of the first ones who rubs their faces in the very dirt they created.

by Scotch 2008-03-25 02:56PM | 0 recs
Re: lies about Hillary Clinton's campaign

Ahhhh...the Hillary Horde is starting to crack..tISSUES anyone? hahaha

by NCDEM29 2008-03-25 09:30PM | 0 recs
What the Hell ???????
".........I am not even bothering to talk about white voters in general...." OK that's where you crossed the line from la-la land to batshit crazy.
by bernardpliers 2008-03-25 04:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies

Excuse me?

Polling data indicates that white voters in general are more receptive to Hillary Clinton than Barack Obama. It simply is a fact but it wasn't one I wanted to use in any arguments.

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-25 04:23PM | 0 recs
Re: Current talking point attack lies about Hillar

Stop pretending Clinton is innocent.  This is a primary and both candidates are trying to win.  Odds are that Obama will be the nominee (almost guaranteed at this point) but if Clinton were to win legitimately I would gladly vote for her in the fall.  

All of us need to quit fighting like this and let this election play out.  I am a 100% Missouri Obama supporter, but will also always be a Democrat.  If Clinton wins, so be it.  In the end we need to beat McCain not tear each other apart.

by Xris 2008-03-25 05:43PM | 0 recs
Um, those are called

"opinions" and people are allowed to have them.  And then there are those who believe, sincerely believe, that she can't win without taking huge wins over Obama in the later states and this would involve a complete implosion of the Obama campaign.

I don't want to see either of them "destroyed" it doesn't help the party and I will support either of them in the GE.  

I think a huge factor is that many are just tired of the primaries and they want to see McCain be the target not Democrats.

by Ellinorianne 2008-03-25 07:18PM | 0 recs
Clinton as Tonya Harding

Staying reality-based here, Senator Clinton's only hope of gaining the nomination involves the complete destruction of Senator Obama's campaign.  It didn't work for Tonya Harding either.

by McNasty 2008-03-26 09:02AM | 0 recs
Re: Clinton as Tonya Harding


A candidate whose campaign encourages claims that Hillary Clinton belittles African Americans, will do or say anything to win, is a monster, engages in McCarthyism, is destroying the Democratic Party out of personal ambition, etc. etc. could easily be accused of pursuing "the Tonya Harding option", except that no one would dare equate a respected male political leader with Tonya Harding.

How convenient it is for the media to dredge up the image of a woman who the media previously had a field day making fun of to equate Hillary Clinton to.

Obama has run a two track campaign from the start

Track One has been to promote himself as a positive new leader for the 21st Century. Track Two has been to destroy both Bill and Hillary Clinton, locking them into the dungeon called "divisive politics of the past".

There was no way Obama could win the nomination without seeking to destroy both Bill and Hillary Clinton, given the advantages she had over him at the start of this campaign. It was clear by mid Summer that a positive campaign would not be enough all by itself.

I never get why Obama is viewed as a delicate flower who has to be protected until we send him out onto the Colleseum floor to battle the Republican Lions, but it has been perfectly fine all year to tear into that "tough old battle axe broad" Hillary Clinton with non stop vile accusations.

What could possibly be more personally destructive than embracing and promoting a meme that Hillary Clinton will do or say absolutely anything to get power? What could be a more avert attempt to destroy a Democratic politician than a concerted effort to ressurect, breath new life into, and then aggressively employ every Right Wing anti-Clinton talking point that has ever been used to bring down the elected government of the United States and smear the one Democratic interlude in decades of otherwise uninterupted Republican executive branch rule?

by Tom Rinaldo 2008-03-26 11:46AM | 0 recs
Let's be civil

It's not the candidates that are really the problem. Both I believe would be very good Presidents. I believe strongly Hillary is a more experience and prepared steward for our economy and to be Cammander in Cheif, but would surely vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

The main problem is the surrogates are turning this personal, and are saying dumb devisive things. It's really getting tiring. I have problems with some of the anti Obama rhetoric on this site that goes a little too far. I wish more Obama supports would reject the toxic anti Hillary rhetoric from places like Daily Kos and Huffington Post. Some have but not near enough of them have. I think both campaigns have to call for cooler heads to prevail. This is likely going until at early june, and over two months more of this toxicity between the supporters of each campaign will do nothing positive for the party.

by Christopher Lib 2008-03-26 10:31AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads