Morning Joe has the best interview with HRC I’ve seen yet:
You have to see this to understand my reaction.
Who let the mouse out on the New York Times? Better set the traps and go for the rat patrol detractors. Buy the plug in’s and there is a radar that frightens the little rascals away ! Negativity, and they make references and inferences that Clinton’s campaign is negative? Compare and contrast in an objective way New York Times ! With truth and reality for factuality ! Hoist the lines and cut off their wind as Clinton sails in ! It’s clear that the New York Times article in reference to Clinton running a negative campaign voting Obama . Humorous,metaphorical comparison in fun! Laugh,this is a great race and the American people are engaged and excited ! Good luck Obama ! You stick with your donkey and I’ll stick with mine New York Times ! “Ding”,back to your corners,hey Obama, debate Clinton again ! Excellent video !
Or shall we yell edit and say,was the writer of that article voting for Obama ? Just curious ! If I were in NY, I’d go ask ! Here we go and this race is awesome ! Way to go Clinton !
I believe it was the Richard Scaife endorsement that helped her to a 10 point victory.
“Shame on you Obama !” Let’s go back and get real about negativity with, true or false ! Distorted Clinton’s health care in a flyer and his campaign pulled it after they got caught .Let ‘s go back and read the Chicago Sun Times and what’s up with Obama sneaking a peek at Clinton’s economic policy agenda exam ? Are we not allowed to ask questions of Obama ? Obama out spent us 3 to 1 and the people went to bat ! Swing,batter,swing ! Was that right or Wright ? Pass the smelling salts and what a sermon ! Clinton’s campaign has taken the high road more times than one and that’s reality ! Stay in the saddle and lean with the trees ! New York took it to the streets for Clinton ! We couldn’t get objective reporting and it was very bias Obama.
Perhaps we should seat you in the “bitter” section this evening?
Finally sitting down and watching this.
Joe makes a good point… compared to what Kerry went through, McCain in 2000 and all the (Bill) Clinton campaigns — this campaign is mild.
Well cold, at least he didn’t have to wait until he died and began to biodegrade to do a good turn for this tired old Earth.
No, hel’ll probably do a Walt Disney on you & never biodegrade. It is funny (sad) what y’all will swallow in support (defense) of Sen. Clinton. Yes, it does make me bitter, but not for the reasons you think. It also makes me sad.
Gosh, I’ve made cold sad. Well, then.
What do you think “bipartisanship” and “reaching across the aisle” looks like anyway? this is what it looks like — sitting down with old enemies and finding common ground with them.
You and your candidate’s fantasy of “bipartisanship” isn’t what you say it is — you don’t see yourselevs as being changed by it or making concessions. You think that “bipartisanship” stands for “and that’s when I convinced them all that I was right!.”
Nope. It ain’t.
And when that becomes clear, you and your candidate get petulant and whine, and stamp your feet at how other people insist on still believing the stuff they believe instead of letting you win!
Your candidate wants to sit down and talk with Kim Jong Il, and you are freaking completely out because Hillary Clinton talked to Richard Mellon Scaife. Look, either address that ridiculous bit of inconsistency, or just shut up, okay?
Maybe it’s what works for the goose doesn’t work for the gander?
I remember when the acronym IOKIYAR popped up. It shoule be changed to “it’s OK if you’re one of us.” IOKIYOOU. That seems to be what everyone’s thinking, here — particularly the Obamabots. This “it’s okay when we do it because we’re moral and righteous in the eyes of God” junk has just GOT TO GO.
Because of this blog & Janis in particular, I’m thinking about not voting for either of these centrists, one (Sen. Clinton=Republican Lite) & one (Sen. Obama=Bush Dog Democrat). I think I’ll write in a real Democratic name, like Dodd or Edwards. I guess, ultimately, that I can’t forgive Clinton for enabling, & voting for, Bu$hCo’s vanity war or Obama’s voting to confirm Rice. You guys can gloat all you want, but I do not want my granddaughters to grow up thinking Sen. Clinton is a good role model, not with the war vote, the NAFTA support, the hatred of the "activist base of the Democratic Party", not with accepting & supporting a liar for a husband (I would hope the girls would throw a bastard like that out of the house) or being a cheer leader for WalMart. Her nomination will apparently make you so happy, well, that knife will slice both ways. If she wins, we’ll see what the Democratic Party looks like in a few years – whether is represents the interests of the poor & working class folks or the Mark Rich types of the country. It’s too bad that you have looked around & apparently not seen any other women that can become a serious contender in you lifetimes. That’s why I’m sad, Janis.
Also, Sen. Clinton proudly says, after her 8.5% victory in PA that anyone can do anything? $109,000,000 makes a lot more happen that a normal person can make in a lifetime. Have fun. I’ll keep coming back to see what sort of excuses y’all come up with. But go to the phones, the credit cards, the mattresses for Sen. Clinton, you have to get your jollies where you can find them.
Truth is the candidate of my choice is not in this race either. But I’m not going to write him in because of it. For all her foibles I think Clinton is our best shot at beating McSame. The truth is there is no perfect candidate in any political race. All candidates are human and subject o making the same mistakes and bad choices that we al do in life.
I’m broke as hell, and have struggled my whole life, but I don’t begrudge the Clinton’s the money they have earned – nor do I begrudge anyone what they earn.
Writing in Dodd or Edwards may seem like a viable alternative to you, but I know you know that it’s as good as vote for McSame when it comes down to tallying who wins.
A very sobering "interview". What I heard on Iran, etc. still beats the hell out of McCain, but is still, in my mind, 100% wrong. What I wanted her to say is that if she had to camp out in Teheran for six months to defuse this potential castrophe she’d do it.
That just was not there.
Thank you Darrell.
Darell: You the wrong emphasis point. The hypothetical was if Iran had already launched a nuke strike on Israel how would we respond? ALREADY NUKED OUR ALLIE!
Her next comment, if you’ll review that tape, was to emphasize that her primary effort would, in fact, be diplomatic as well an effort to unite the region against a Iranian Nuke power.
I believe the words on the hypothetical question of a strike already accomplished, (Israel in ruins), over rode your hearing of practical reality of taking the WH and turning loose a very constricted diplomatic corp under Bush to do their thing. The simple concept of uniting the region, under whatever pretext, has long term positive implications.
“I’ll be a little busy being President so I’ll let someone under me do the heavy lifting on Iran, and if that ultimately fails, well, we’ll just incinerate the bastards.”
I’m hoping for a President that will do all of the really heavy lifting herself and be good enough at it so that no one incinerates anyone.