More "fun" from Clinton supporters

[peoli]

Pro-Hillary Third Party Group Preparing Anti-Obama Web Site?
By Greg Sargent - December 23, 2007, 1:01PM

Looks like the American Federation of State County and Municipal Employees -- which backs Hillary -- may be preparing to go live with a Web site attacking Barack Obama.

According to a report filed with the FEC late yesterday, AFSCME has plunked down nearly $5,500 in spending for "Web site design," and the filing specifies that the expenditure "opposes" Obama.

We're seeing the proliferation of these "attack" Web sites, but who knows what kind of traffic they command or whether they're at all effective beyond getting "free media" by getting stories written about them. At any rate, stay tuned for this anti-Obama one.

[MNDemNY]

1. Obama....Always the "victim".

:cry: :cry:

[earthlover]

6. yeah....I recall that is what the Reps said in 04....Kerry, always the victim....

So someone gets swiftboated....and then you knock the candidate who gets swiftboated for being the victim!

Swift boating and the same old syle negative politics is not what this country needs. We need to air our differences without personal attacks. We need to run campaigns without being divisive.

[MNDemNY]

7. So, this is "pre-emptive" victim placement?

[EFerrari]

9. Obama has done a great job of inoculating himself.

[MNDemNY]

13. I don't know about that...

it's a pretty tough virus.

[earthlover]

15. No it is the same old negative politics coming from the Hillary camp

Same old same old.

[MNDemNY]

17. .Toughin up, or go home.

[earthlover]

25. More of the same....if your candidate is so good, let us know why....

All this bashing is divisive. And some hillary folks actually are so clueless as to not see the divisiveness that they spread....

[MNDemNY]

32. My candidate is good because....

my candidate has been against the Iraqi War from day one. MY candidate has USED his vote to try to stop the war over ands over again. My candidate has Used his vote to protect our civil rights over and over again. MY candidate is for a single payer health system, a position he has held for years....should I go on, or will you admit my candidates positions trump your candidates positions, hands down. So support your naive, inexperienced corporate candidate, or support the experienced ought-to-know-better corporate candidate, I'll support the Democrat.

[earthlover]

52. Well, I have no candidate in this race...I am still deciding

I think you are a LOT too rough on Obama, though.

I like Kicinich, Biden, Edwards and Obama. Any of them would make a fine president. Not the perfect choice, by any means. There were two perfect choices but neither one decided to run.

Obama, however, regardless of your skepticism could be inspirational in a positive way. His election would be historic. The election of member of a minority would in itself be transformational. However, this is not enough of a reason to vote for him. I believe he can win in November, something i do not think Clinton can...and in this respect he will save us from 4 more years of Republican domination. Under his leadership, we can win significant gains in both houses of congress. So we will be able to get some major things passed. And, although I don't view him as liberal enough for many, I do think he would make some significant changes in both policies and tone.

It is this last thing, tone, that is the most significant. I think he can bring a new tone to our nation's government. A more optimistic tone for sure and one more reflective of all the people. Now I may be wrong about this, but I see continuing struggles with Hillary and she is sure to capitulate. With Edwards I believe he will fight for what is right, so he is vying for my vote. Biden is a sure fire electoral victory and he has a level head--a bit conservative for my taste but a good man. And Kucinich is my dream president, but I don't see much hope of my dream coming true. So right now, I see several positive directions for this election. About the only real negative one is to nominate hillary and lose the election to one of the Republican dingbats.

It's funny. The more Obama is attacked the more I am inclined to stand up for him. I think he is getting a bum rap on a lot of things.

[MNDemNY]

54. He seems to be running on 'I'm a victim" . This is a campaign,

and if he and his supporters think it's tough now, what the heck are they going to do in the GE when it gets "real"? Twist it as you may, his lack of experience, and his perceived ducking of tough issues(the missed, and "present" votes) are VALID issues, not attacks. If he can not counter these with out resorting to "playing the victim" he will fail. For the record I will vigorously,work for and vote for the Dem. Nominee. I just happen to believe that BHO would be in for the ugliest Republofuck campaign ever, I'd rather not see it.

[JackORoses]

49. with Hillary, it is toughen up then go home. Her slash n burn politics will fail in its objective.

[MNDemNY]

55. Fine with me.

[Cha]

20. hillary..always the attack

dog except of course when she or bill are simpering about the big bad press and all the candidates picking on the front runner.

[earthlover]

26. and the hillary gaggle complaining of "Hillary Haters"....

What I see are "true believers"....and not much different than fanatical supporters of any candidate or any party....

[Cha]

29. Yeah, thanks for reminding me.

That was the biggest victim mentality on the face of her campaign.

I haven't seen "hillary hater" in awhile..maybe they caught on, how whiny it was.

Where you see "true believers" I see those who think like the clintons..that power is the key to life and who cares whose lives get destroyed in the acquisition.

[MNDemNY]

35. In the obamanation, campaign = ATTACK

[Cha]

40. And hillary never does anything wrong..

like trying to smear her opponent with sleazy inuendoes to the press or sending out campaign whispers on emails..because hillary is pure as the driven snow that turned blood red in October, 2002 when she first enabled the bushits with their misbegotten war on Iraq.

hillary has too many negatives and no positives..

"Gave Bush authorization to go to war with Iran.

Listed as 1 of top 12 obstructionists to Congressional investigations by Siebel Edmonds.

Supported every Bush appointee in the last 4 years.

#1 in taking Corporate Donations this campaign, and in fact DEFENDS this position as being GOOD.

Of the top 3 Den candidates -- has WORST negative ratings

Caught in multiple, glaring, contradictions during the Dem debates.

Caught "planting" bloggers in blogs all over the internet to push pro-candidate posts way up.

Their campaign has resorted to at least three ROVIAN super-sleazeball attacks in the last week. Yet the candidate claims no involvement with these."

[MNDemNY]

41. First, I do not support HRC, however are you

willing to admit that your post is, by obamanation language, an ATTACK!? Let's not make this race between only the naive, inexperienced corporate candidate, and the experienced , should-know-better corporate candidate. there are other choices.

[paulk]

42. actually, she hasn't supported every Bush nominee

the last 4 years, in fact, Biden is the only candidate who has a better record than her in opposing Bush appointees -

I know that the truth has never stopped you from spreading the sort of nonsense that you do on this board, but I just thought other posters might be interested.

[Cha]

43. You're the one who

doesn't care about the truth.

[paulk]

47. wow, that's deep

you thought pretty long and hard over that one, I bet.

[Cha]

48. Thanks for keeping

this thread kicked with your inanity.

[paulk]

51. why don't you back up your first post in this thread

with some actual facts concerning HRC's voting record on Bush appointees?

or would you consider that "inane"?

[emilyg]

44. So why is Obama attacking Edwards?

[cali]

2. yes, yes. the campaign is getting nasty

it's the home stretch. They and their surrogates are all attacking one another, but if anyone recalls 2004, they know that this is less toxic than that was.

[Alamom]

3. This is a dupe. It's customary to add the source or link to an article &

these are Union people who support Hillary. The Title is misleading...not your fault.



Welcome to the party.......



Actualy, links are added due to copyright laws.

[Connie_Corleone]

4. Link?

[ElizabethDC]

5. Already posted, horseface

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x3881047

I know you're new here, but before posting something, check to see if it's been posted already, and also post the source link, please.

[peoli]

10. heres the link

http://tpmelectioncentral.com/2007/12/prohillary_third_party_group_preparing_antiobama_web_site.php

didnt realize the topic had been posted already.

[ClarkUSA]

8. Thanks for the heads-up... I'm sure we'll see OPs referencing this website's BS soon.

Politics as usual from the Clintonian-Rovian "fun" swift boaters.

[indimuse]

11. why is everything an ATTACK with you Romney..OH, Obama people?

..."opposes" Obama"s LIES...HOW IS THAT AN ATTACK ON OBAMA?? It appears she is on the "defensive"...hence.
:eyes:

[MethuenProgressive]

12. Seems like more and more facts are attacking Obama everyday.

Damn those pesky facts! :rofl:

[sniffa]

14. ah, now i know the latest Lil Dog response

i found it curious to see OBAMAROMNEY, but just chalked it up to hysterical Trianguleros supporters. now i see this was a marching order.

[indimuse]

19. hahaa...

I wish...I call it like I see it! INFALTING YOUR CREDENTIALS IS A ROMNEY SPECIALTY...WITH A SIDE ORDER OF SMACK!:evilgrin:

[sniffa]

23. YOU HAD ME AT CAPS LOCK

:loveya:

[indimuse]

38. merci...

:silly:

[sniffa]

45. pas de tout

:silly:

[MNDemNY]

16. The "victim card" is where they hang their hat.

[oasis]

21. With the "racist card" as an added bonus. (eom)

[Forkboy]

22. Don't forget the "sexist" card.

Oh wait, that's not Obama.

[sniffa]

24. oh come on

he's playing ever card imaginable. and god forbid anyone question the chosen one!!!1!

[Skidmore]

18. Wasn't Hillary recently being "picked on" because she is a

girl? I think that was the complaint.

[earthlover]

27. Accusations of being a mysogynist abound....

[mtnsnake]

28. Thank God you're an Obama supporter

[Perry Logan]

30. This is so weird. Since when is criticizing Obama dirty politics? These people surpass belief.

[MNDemNY]

33. One must not speak ill of the chosen one.

[Rageneau]

31. Hillary should apologize for whatever this website was going to say!!

And while she's at it, she should confess and apologize for all her future sell-outs to the DLC.

[MNDemNY]

34. Self flagellation, would be best.

[Skip Intro]

36. OMG! Someone MAY put up a website about Obama that isn't filled with starry-eyed praise.

Gee, I sure hope this group doesn't do anything over the line like examine his record, or lack thereof, or point out inconsistencies in prior positions versus current ones.


The heretics.

[MNDemNY]

37. Obama said it...I believe it....that settles it.

[rodeodance]

46. they will note that the rose colored glasses they wear will fog up.

[earthlover]

53. The same post, change a few names, could have been used to justify the swiftboaters in 04

At least in the Swift Boaters' eyes. And of course, the swiftboaters were saying they were just trying to shed light on kerry's record, on the truth, point out Kerry's inconsistencies, yadayada.

I think people are sick of this negative politicking. Even more sick of people demeaning themselves by rationalizing its use.

[Skip Intro]

56. Where is the site? It\'s not in existence. SO how can it be characterized as an \"attack\" site.

And I will say this - no candidate for the highest office in the land should be allowed to avoid scrutiny. That includes \"the one.\"

I don\'t understand how someone can condemn something that doesn\'t even exist yet. There is only the tiring refrain of victimhood from the Obama camp on this so far.

[SoxFan]

39. Does this constitute illegal coordination?

AFSCME is prohibited by law from coordinating campaign activites with the Clinton campaign, aren't they?

[AtomicKitten]

50. I have no problem with the candidates using all resources.

It is up to them to calibrate the asshole-to-reasonable content. I'm fine with trusting the candidates to decide where they want to end up on that spectrum because we have seen the results of what ugly has wrought so far. It's a perilous ploy that has some unpleasant blowback if not administered carefully.