There is something orchestrated about the current Hillary hate. Everyone

[saracat]

"knows" she did not "endorse" John McCain. She only stated the obvious. John Mccain has more experience than Barrack.Can it be used against Barack if he is the nominee? Sure, Don't you think the GOP "knows" that? It doesn't take rocket science to know that both Hillary and MCcain re more "experienced" than Barack. If nothing else, they are older, or is that a "secret" that Hillary gave away too, like McCain's war record and Barack's lack of one.(ye,s I know Hillary doesn't have one either.So does she and so does the GOP.)Stop with the silliness already.

The other often repeated refrain, over and over is that Hillary did NOT win Texas. Look folks.She won the popular vote and did not do as well in the caucus, but she "Won" the Texas Primary. To endlessly repeat like parrots that she did NOT win is childish and insults only the poster.Barack may well have gotten more delegates from the caucus but he didn't WIN the primary. Spinning this isn't helping him.

The endless OPs dealing with these two topics is very odd looking to me.Complain about Hillary and all you want but it would be more effective to stick to issues or genuine doubts than this robotic repetition that causes credibility to be called into question.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

1. It's almost like people saw a video of Clinton endorsing McCain...

and then decided not to believe the silly denials.

Who the hell are these people?

[JNelson6563]

29. Well put.

Succint with a dash of sarcasm. I like it.

Julie

[hueyshort]

148. it's almost like the threads are generated by paid Obama staff

[roguevalley]

47. bwahahahahahahahahaha! I like that, bornagainhooligan. :)

[awaysidetraveler]

79. Shit man, I don't know who those people are: I denied watching that video even as I watched it.

Those people are just haters... liars and haters.

[Political Heretic]

94. lol, well observed. :)

[krkaufman]

107. Who ya gonna believe? Hillary .... or your lyin' eyes? n/t

[PetraPooh]

121. Exactly. I guess I'm not to believe my own eyes and ears anymore.

[stillcool]

139. my eyes deceived me...

I didn't see Hillary diss John Kerry either...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[lligrd]

2. She Did Not State The Obvious

She has no more experience than Obama. And sleeping (or not sleeping) with the President or McCain doesn't count.

[LSparkle]

23. Exactly -- he has more LEGISLATIVE/ELECTIVE experience

He has run in more elections -- and had to win the trust of the PEOPLE,
not just of her husband, the president -- than she has.

I would have forgiven her if she'd only made the McLame/experience
comparison comment once, but it's become a major part of most every
appearance she makes of late. And she's adding to it -- witness the
reference to meeting the "Commander-In-Chief threshold". The only
way SHE got over the "Commander-In-Chief threshold" was to be CARRIED
by Bill!

[saracat]

33. No but her work with children's Defense fund and her work on the Impeachment Committee for Nixon

and all the work she has done on children's health insurance in Arkansas , and the speech she made as a young Valedictorian a opposing Vietnam that was a front page challenge to the Sen, Brooke of Massachusetts as well as all the work she has done around the world for women's rights , the environment and all the campaigns she has worked on including George McGovern's. All those things count.And while she also has worked as a community organizer and constitutional law professor, those , unlike her opponents are not primary to her work history or accomplishments.

[More Than A Feeling]

46. After the minimizing of Obama's anti-war speech that Hillary has done,

for her or her supporters to raise her own speeches as part of their "experience" argument...well, let's just say it doesn't look good.

[saracat]

49. I mentioned it as "part" Obama 's speech is often the sole or

main component of his resume.

[alteredstate]

85. About the Children's Defense Fund.....

This is a long read.

http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/034

[BigBearJohn]

88. Well said Saracat!

[Hepburn]

126. This is experience that counts in order to be POTUS? A valedictorian speech???

:rofl:

[SaveAmerica]

145. I can't tell if you're trying to be funny or not, if you're serious that's some

crazy resume padding.

[WDIM]

3. And then what about the hillary supporters and their whining?

Is that okay?

[backscatter712]

92. The Hillary-shilling is very much orchestrated.

I'm beginning to think that every time I see coordinated spamming from the Hill-Shills, I'm going to start alerting on posts - let the mods decide if they want that shit to continue.

Most of the Hill-Shills here are freepers trying to prevent Obama from being nominated even though he's got the delegates and Hillary doesn't. They just want to stir the shit and keep us fighting.

It's time the mods put it to an end.

[JoFerret]

130. Don't fret. All this is coming your way soon

This is just a democratic practice run for McCain.

[Arugula Latte]

4. Believe me, it's not orchestrated. It's growing organically due to Hillary's behavior.

[krkaufman]

108. Exactly what I was thinking. If it's "orchestrated", as the OPer suggests ...

... then Hillary is Leonard Bernstein. All I'm seeing is reaction to Hillary's actions.

[LisaM]

5. You're correct. It does seem orchestrated.

As I've attempted to point out before, the right-wing media has been carefully training us to hate Hillary Clinton since 1992. The extent to which they succeeded is pretty astounding.

[WDIM]

7. i think Hillary has been training us to hate Hillary all on her own nt

[niceypoo]

115. This is the problem with Obama 'Supporters'

Their 'support' shows itself in the form of hate, which is polar opposite his message.

[JoFerret]

131. Thanks to the GOP it's mostly water off a duck's back

GOP wooden spoon club should not waste their time.

[otohara]

82. Yep, The Media Has Manipulated Me

I'm furious with Clinton. She's so damned pissed that this young guy had the audacity to run and win - thus stalling her cakewalk back to the White House. The McCain endorsements did it for me! Now I'm not sure if I will support her in GE. If she thinks so much of McCain, maybe I should vote for him.

[Seabiscuit]

110. "The McCain endorsements did it for me!" !!!

OMFG. Deliberate distortion of the meaning of the word "endorsement". Again! After being called on it in the OP, no less.

Here's a live one. Drunk on the kool-aid.

:rofl:

[Recursion]

90. Yes. I, who have not owned a TV in 10 years and don't read US papers...

...have been nonetheless manipulated by the media to hate Hillary Clinton. It has had nothing whatsoever to do with her behavior.

:eyes:

[Eurobabe]

112. Hillary has done a brilliant job of getting me to hate her during this campaign

Until now I thought I could just hold my nose and vote for her, but I am beginning to question even that.

[Hepburn]

128. The reason that Hillary is hated....

...is Hillary. PERIOD.

[Maddy McCall]

6. I'm wondering why they're not saying the same thing about Obama, who poured profuse praise on McCain

on March 5.

But nothing at all said about that.

[redqueen]

19. Did he say McCain was more qualified than Hillary? (nt)

[emilyg]

62. They have selective memory.

[Political Heretic]

96. No, I remember quite well.

[laconicsax]

86. It's really simple

Obama is infallible. He can praise Reagan every other day, hire bigots to help him win votes, and try to sell half-measures as Change^TM until the proverbial cows come home and he won't get taken to task for it. On the odd occasion that he gets in trouble, there's always someone to make excuses for him, someone to lie about it, someone to point and say, "hey, look over there" while someone else to sweeps it under the carpet.

[Political Heretic]

97. You just described the Clinton campaign to the tee.

:shrug:

[laconicsax]

136. I'm pretty sure I'm on the record on another thread saying that

I see no serious difference between the two. I believe that this is yet another example of that.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

123. This is why he talked about Reagan:

Ignore it at your own peril. A generation later we're still fucked.

[laconicsax]

135. Would you care to explain his Reagan-love in these videos?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pwFdOQ5h3b8

At about 5:45, he references Reagan as an example of what should be done, calling him a 'strong leader' who told 'strong truths.'

The second video speaks for itself

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fj1lx79wiNc

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

141. Misquote.

"...even though presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done just that...because strong countries and strong leaders aren't afraid to tell hard truths to petty dictators.." Exact transcription.

So "strong leaders" probably applies to Kennedy rather than Reagan. :think:


"Strong truths" is actually "hard truths!" You completely blew that one. :think:




Looking at second link....

[laconicsax]

146. If his comments didn't have to do with Reagan, then why mention him at all?

:shrug:

(I'll see your wrong word and raise you a punctuation error. Here is a transcript from Obama's own website. Your ellipsis between "that" and "because" should be a semicolon. It doesn't particularly matter, but then again, neither does my accidental word swap.)

Obama said the following:

It's the same course that continues to divide and isolate America from the world by substituting bluster and bullying for direct diplomacy - by ignoring our allies and refusing to talk to our enemies even though Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan have done just that; because strong countries and strong leaders aren't afraid to tell hard truths to petty dictators.

Are you honestly telling me that when Obama says "from Kennedy to Reagan; because" he's only referring to Kennedy?

If he said, "The specter of nuclear war affected the administrations of Presidents from Truman to George Bush Sr.; because the Soviet Union..." in the middle of some speech about, say, his plan to finally do away with nuclear arms, would he only be referring to Truman? Of course not, and if you honestly think that he would, you've got some major reading comprehension issues.

His saying "strong leaders" refers to "Presidents from Kennedy to Reagan," not just Kennedy.

The use of "from" in the expression, "from Kennedy to Reagan" indicates an unbroken sequence including Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, Carter, and Reagan, so he isn't even just talking about Kennedy and Reagan; he's also talking about Nixon and Ford as being strong leaders.

There's also the another aspect to this sentence. In it, Obama is responding to critics of his policy to confront our enemies by stating that his policy is nothing new, and that past presidents had the same policy. In effect, he is saying, "these guys did it, so can I." There's nothing wrong with citing precedent to make a case, I'm just puzzled (and concerned) by his need to cite Nixon, Ford, and Reagan as well.

Take a look at this:

even through Presidents like Kennedy, Johnson, and Carter; as well as Nixon, Ford, and Reagan have done just that

The change I made above results in the exact same meaning. He is calling Nixon, Ford, and Reagan "strong leaders" and is citing them as evidence that he is doing the right thing.

Obama has a disturbing habit of praising scumbag Republicans and holding their actions up as examples of ideal behavior. It's not as bad as Clinton's habit of extolling McCain's virtures, but not much is.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

152. I'll give you the point on strong leaders. It is inclusive.

It was intellectually dishonest of me to say so. A better point for me to be making in the face of the "praising Reagan" charge would be to point out that it is also intellectually dishonest to say he's praising Reagan when in fact, in the same sentence, he's also praising Kennedy, et alii. A crime of omission.

Let's return to what initiated a response from me to you. Let's not lose our way. Post #86, in toto:

It's really simple

Obama is infallible. He can praise Reagan every other day, hire bigots to help him win votes, and try to sell half-measures as ChangeTM until the proverbial cows come home and he won't get taken to task for it. On the odd occasion that he gets in trouble, there's always someone to make excuses for him, someone to lie about it, someone to point and say, "hey, look over there" while someone else to sweeps it under the carpet.

1. Obama is infallible.

Patently absurd. There's plenty of criticism of him...on both sides, and from himself. We can get into those if you want.

2a. He can praise Reagan every other day...

Patently false. And this is where our discussion veered off. Pointing out that the Reagan "phenomena" is a political force to be reckoned with is just common sense and any "praise" is for the "phenomena," not necessarily the man. Reagan won 49 states in 1984. That, like it or not, is a "strong" showing. Reagan was also able to split off conservative Democrats from the party, thereby "strengthening" his base and weakening the Dem base. Note we're not talking about policies, we're talking about demographics. He has said clearly that he disagrees with the majority of Reagan's policies but respects the phenomena that was Reagan.

The fact that every other word(hyperbole) out of the GOP candidate's mouths was "Reagan," proves the point. Even there, the GOP candidates aren't praising Reagan for his policies, with the notable exception of tax cuts and a bloated MIC, but praising the demographic base that they can pander to to achieve as close to the 49 state result as possible. A goal that Democrats would be wise to pursue as well. "...every other day" is also hyperbole, although I'm sure you were using it as a rhetorical device rather than as a statement of fact.

If you have evidence of him praising Reaganomics or the his backward social policies, please feel free to site them.

2b. ...hire bigots to help him win votes, and try to sell half-measures as ChangeTM until the proverbial cows come home and he won't get taken to task for it.

Hire bigots? Is this a reference to McClurkin? Who else, since it's plural? :shrug: And hire? Help me out with this one.

I agree with the half measure charge. However, it's not something singularly intrinsic to his campaign alone.

Task-taking. I can better answer this once I have an answer to who all the bigots are and what Reagan policies he has championed.

3. On the odd occasion that he gets in trouble, there's always someone to make excuses for him, someone to lie about it, someone to point and say, "hey, look over there" while someone else to sweeps it under the carpet.

Just because "someone" is willing to shill doesn't mean that others are not. Iow, too sweeping of a generalization lacking supportive proof.

[laconicsax]

154. Here you go

I'd like to get the fact that I support neither Clinton nor Obama out of the way first. It's an important distinction to make and I'm tired of being accused by both sides of thinking ill of their candidate solely because of whatever problems 'my' candidate is supposedly having. My candidate won his party's primary and is likely to be re-elected to the House in November.

-We've already discussed his praise of Reagan and it looks like we're going to have to agree to disagree. As far as praise of Reagan's policies, Obama hasn't explicitly come out saying 'I love Reagan's policies,' though he has adopted aspects of them.

Obama's health-care plan includes a section on lowering costs. Sounds good on the surface, but when you read it (I'm referring to the last two points), you see that it's based on a trickle-down model and free market fiction. The trickle-down part is included in his technology plan as well. In it, he advocates switching to electronic records as a cost-saving measure. This is the only point of his health-care plan that doesn't specifically state who benefits, so a bit of reasoning is required to figure it out. If by switching to electronic records, providers can lower their overhead thereby lowering the cost of providing care. Since private insurers cover the cost in Obama's plan, the savings would then be passed on to them. Now, I seriously doubt that Obama would want to benefit private insurers and no one else, so it must be inferred that his intent is that insurers will then pass on the savings to the insured. This is essentially trickle-down economics and if implemented, will break down at the point where insurers begin seeing higher profits and are expected to share.

The free-market fiction aspect is the next point in his health-care plan: "Lowering Costs by Increasing Competition in the Insurance and Drug Markets." Uh-huh. Go ahead and read it; it's entertaining.

I'll include here that his middle-class tax credits are laughable--up to $500 per person to offset payroll taxes? :rofl: He doesn't seem to believe in lowering the income tax rate for the middle class either.

-I was referring to McClurkin when I said, hire bigots to help him win votes. McClurkin is a bigot who Obama hired to help him win votes. He didn't hire him because he was a bigot, he hired him in spite of the fact that he's a bigot. No amount of 'I disagree with him' can make up for the fact that he gave a bigot a stage to spew his homophobic shit. Obama blew it, big time. I'm not aware of his campaign hiring any other bigots, but I wouldn't be surprised if he does in the future unless he did something like acknowledge that he was wrong to do it with McClurkin and apologize.

-My statement of his 'infallibility' is an exaggeration, though I have seen posters (for both candidates) on this board who seem to believe it.

-As for shills, take the Rezko issue. Frequently, when Rezko is used to attack Obama, the type of stock responses I see on this board are as follows:

1) Making excuses, "Obama didn't know Rezko was a criminal."
2) Lying about it, "Obama barely even knew Rezko."
3) Misdirection, "What about Norman Hsu?"
4) Sweeping it under the carpet, "This is an non issue." (Nothing to see here, move along.)

I see similar types of responses to his hiring of McClurkin. It's typical of supporters of all candidates. I never said it wasn't.

In Obama, I see a politician who only pretends to be a transformative figure above the political fray.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

142. Watched first 3 seconds of second video...

...unpleasant, to say the least.

[laconicsax]

147. Oops, wrong link.

Try this one
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aD4bn5pp32w

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

153. Not gah do it.

Guess: Same or similar bullshit.

[Political Heretic]

95. It's the nature of the praise and that the praise was not in way of endorsing his presidency

...as better than Clinton's.

That's where the train went off the rails.

[tabasco]

8. She won the primary vote by 100,000 and over 1 million caucused.

It appears more people supported Obama overall.

Sorry to burst your bubble, he also got more delegates.

[spooky3]

59. that makes no sense

You had to have voted in the primary to be eligible to participate in the caucuses.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_Democratic_primary,_2008

Therefore, the only reason that the % of votes each candidate received in the primary versus the caucus is a function of the fact that more Clinton supporters didn't or could not caucus, compared to Obama supporters.

About 3 million people voted in the primary; about 1/3 of them apparently (because they haven't finished counting yet) participated in the caucus. Clinton won more of the 3 million primary voters than did Obama.

The only reason Obama received more delegates is that that is how Texas designed its system -- that if people vote in both the primary and the caucus, they get two votes. It is NOT a function of the popular vote.

[samdogmom]

9. Ummm--I don't "know" this! I think she did put McCain above Obama!

Maybe "endorse" is too broad a term--what would you call it?

I call it traitorous.

[LisaM]

36. Even if I bought your premise - which I don't - how is it TRAITOROUS?

Do you think that John McCain is an enemy agent or the leader of a foreign government?

Bear in mind that I don't like McCain and I don't think Hillary endorsed him. But it hardly rises to the level of treason. Perhaps you misunderstand the term. It's been tossed around here enough that I would believe many people don't understand the serious implications of the word.

[samdogmom]

61. Traitorous to the Democratic Party.

I'm not talking about the country! Of course she's not a "traitor" in the traditional sense--but she has demonstrated an ability to put herself above party. That's a Democratic Party traitor, as far as I'm concerned!

If you disagree--I'd love to see your logic!

On Edit: Please substitute "Party Betrayer" for Traitor/traitorous.

[LisaM]

66. First of all, I think it's a strong word to throw around

And I have seen plenty of threads here that should out that Hillary is a traitor, but don't qualify it with "to the party".


Of course, since I certainly don't agree that she endorsed McCain in any sense of the word, and you think she did, we fundamentally differ and I'm fairly certain neither of us will convince the other.

However, that said, I find that the wholesale condemnation of her as a traitor is really, really, over the top.

[samdogmom]

69. Okay, then I guess we agree to disagree!

Peace!

(I'm not trying to be a jerk. I want a unified party in November. If you think "traitor" is too harsh--then I'll substitute "Party Betrayer".)

[snappyturtle]

40. Careful with the traitor label....Skinner just locked a post on that

topic!

[samdogmom]

70. Please change "traitorous" to "Party Be-traitorous". Thanks!

[Exilednight]

10. So you think it's find when a repug 527 cuts and ad with Hillary endorsing Obama in the GE? .....

Don't think it won't happen.

You want a voice over with Hillary saying "McCain has crossed the threshold, Barack has given a speech."

Just wait.

[kid a]

11. She praises McCain's experience and she might loose Texas..better?

[BigBearJohn]

89. I see. It's ok for Obama to praise Reagan, but not ok for Hillary to acknowedge the obvious about

McCain.

[tekisui]

12. She won the Texas Primary by 100,000 votes in 2.4 million.

It looks like Obama will win the Primary portion of the Delegates, and the Caucus. The reason that is grabbed onto is because Bill said she needed to win both TX and OH to stay in.

[bowens43]

13. She certanbly DID imply that McCain was a better choice then Obama.

If Obama gets the nomination , that certainly does amount to an endorsement.
I am really tired of the Hillary apologists trying to spin slimy behavior into something acceptable.A genuine issue is the fact that Hilliary unelectable and is both morally and ethically unfit to to be the president of the united states. That is the single most imporatnt issue we face at this time.

[snappyturtle]

45. I agree. I think her electability is THE issue. Her endorsement

was appalling. She could have just referenced herself and Sen. Obama but chose not to do so. Definitely orchestrated.

[EmilyAnne]

14. I think Hillary, herself, has inadvertently orchestrated it. n/t

[redqueen]

15. Sorry, but no. She said the republican candidate was more qualified than her opponent.

That's *extremely* fucked up, no matter how you try to spin it.

[Hoof Hearted]

37. That's hyperbole. It's just as hyperbolic as saying Obama endorsed Reagan.

when Obama pointed out that the Republicans had been the "party of ideas" and about Reagan "I think Ronald Reagan changed the trajectory of America in a way that Richard Nixon did not and in a way that Bill Clinton did not. ....with all the excesses of the 60s and the 70s and government had grown and grown but there wasn't much sense of accountability in terms of how it was operating."

So he was saying the country wanted someone to put lipstick on the pig and Ronnie did it for them in a way Bill Clinton did not. Is that an endorsement?

[redqueen]

39. I was offended by Obama's comments, too.

But at least he wasn't praising the current republican nominee.

[Hoof Hearted]

56. I respect your right to draw that distinction, and I have a paper to write, so

wheras I would usually continue this subject, I'll just have to see you around later.

~ peace

[Sparkly]

42. She was talking about "experience."

If you think experience = qualification... I think the GOP has your candidate. :shrug:

[redqueen]

48. What? She's touting her experience... so SHE thinks it's a qualification.

:crazy:

[Sparkly]

78. SHE doesn't dictate what other people decide.

She's trying to make her case. It's what politicians do.

[Hoof Hearted]

16. The Texas caucus count isn't even halfway done yet - we won't have that outcome for a month.

So that's just one more fugly bit of spin coming out of here.

It's very easy to see that the campaign here is orchestrated, and it's disgusting.

Thank GOD the voters are smarter than some of the people in here.

Hillary's numbers are going UP!

[Jersey Devil]

17. I agree, a lot like white cells reacting to Typhoid

That happens when you're exposed to a disease.

[JackORoses]

18. She didn't have to bring McCain's name up in her discussion of experience, but she did on purpose

She knows exactly what it means.
She does it anyway.

Her comments are what is orchestrated. She has repeated the same thing dozens of times.

To hell with her! Let the Repukes have her if she thinks they are so qualified.

[Name removed]

20. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Bluerthanblue]

21. it was 'orchestrated' by Hillary herself.- If she is going to act out-

in an unacceptable manner, there are people who are going to respond to her 'in- kind'.

I don't hate the woman- but she has lost any shred of respect that she may have had IMO.

She is NOT presidential material.

peace~

[surfin]

22. She is even farther down in delegates than before tuesday - who won this week?

I have heard anywhere now with the Calif. delegates added this week, he is +12.

[rug]

24. It sounds more like cacaphony than an orchestra.

[ecstatic]

25. Wake up saracat! The hate comes out with respect to HRC's actions

If HRC played it cool, then there would be no outrage.

[Mezzo]

26. when the BO's said the same thing, they said, "See? BO can get broadbase support"

now this shit's turned and they can't take it.

[anonymous171]

28. Did Obama say that McCain would be better than Clinton?

No, so shut up.

[casus belli]

27. She's onto us. Abort....abort! Operation HillCloud is compromised. n/t

[DemGa]

30. They went wild because they know Hillary told the truth

It was dismissive of poor little Barack -- and rightly so.

Barack has been twisting right-wing attacks to his advantage since he began his fraudulent campaign (eg, Hillary is "divisive, polarizing, will "unite the opposition" etc.).

Hillary hit back hard at that bit of Obama treachery...ouch!

[zabet]

53. I agree.

Being a professional campaigner
and advancing yourself every 3
years like clockwork, with every
move, position, and vote/non-vote
were carefully calculated is the
bulk of his experience in politics.
Hillary has not even hit him hard
and every one is crying. These
are love licks compared to what
the GOPers will chunk at him if he
is the nominee.

[LaurenG]

55. So it would be fine for Obama to say what Hillary did about McCain and against her?

That wouldn't make you cringe? I know it would, Senator Clinton's supporters would have come unglued and I wouldn't have blamed them.

John McCain could win this and if he does there will be 8 more years of horrid policies. We cannot allow a democrat, no matter who they're running against to infer endorsement of ANY republican over a democrat, ever and that should be rule number one, and she should know better than that.

Senator Clinton didn't just gut punch Obama she gut punched all democrats, including you. Unfortunately few of her supporters will concede that she made a mistake over that one.

We can not allow McCain to gain one inch over either of OUR candidates.

[chill_wind]

63. But Hillary IS INDEED divisive, polarizing and QUITE, QUITE guaranteed

to "unite the opposition". I have no idea why you would find anything remotely "fraudulent" about what is quite obvious.

Two minutes on DU is more than ample evidence of the polarizing effects of her politics within her own party. To believe she could win a GE and unify anybody is just ludicrous.

[DemGa]

73. "Polarizing and divisive" are right-wing generated perceptions

Therefore, Obama used right-wing attacks against a fellow Democrat. Can you see who the real traitor is here?

And Obama does this under the guise of "new politics"-- that's why he's a fraud. And please, BO had talked about this "divisiveness" in terms of the attacks of the nineties, so don't relate it to something else.

Obama seeks to profit from right-wing smear campaigns -- fact. And this very perception is what also fuels the "Hillary hate" of his followers -- what we see here. This logic should not be too hard to follow.

[chill_wind]

81. Hillary is not divisive or polarizing. Just "perceptions" and not reality. Riiiiiggggght.

Who should I believe as I go on watching this race (and reading DU)?
You or my *lying eyes*?

But my lying eyes also can't help but notice just how much a Hillary defender flinging around the label "traitor" (sic)is something of itself... straight out of the right-wing hate-crowd playbook.

Ironic, that.

[Political Heretic]

99. Politics isn't "reality" - its the perception of reality.

Which is why pointing out her polarizing and divisive effects is thoroughly appropriate.

[Political Heretic]

98. It's freaking simple observation of reality.

What you "see" is a POLARIZING split of democratic voters being made worse each day by her consistent refuse to put party ahead of her own ego and concede a race that she's lost - and one that even if every miracle she could hope for would actually happen, she could only win by totally destroying the party, disenfranchising voters and costing Democrats the general election.

That's polarizing. And divisive.

Once you get to the general, there is no one in the Democratic Party that Republicans hate more than Hillary Clinton, except maybe - maybe - Bill Clinton. Now you've got both of them running for what essentially is a third term - that's how it is to conservative minds. There is nothing out there - nowhere you can point, absolutely nowhere, to suggest that conservatives somehow find Hillary Clinton to be and all-around decent democrat with some cross-over appeal. They LOATHE HER. John McCain is praying to Christ for a Clinton win, because he knows that his problems uniting his own party are INSTANTLY solved.

No one and nothing disputes this. If you can find it, then I challenge you to PRODUCE IT.

[DemGa]

101. I don't give a f*** what Republicans think

Given enough right-wing slander, St. Obama could be in the very same position. That Hillary is universally popular with Dems is indisputable -- aside of course, from SOME in the Obama "movement" who parrot the right-wing attacks of the nineties.

Polarizing and divisive is using the effects of years of right-wing slander against a fellow Democrat -- as the fraud Obama has done.

And counting on warm and fuzzy emotions from republicans is pie-in-the-sky thinking at its absolute naive worst.

As for Hillary conceding, that's absurd -- she's winning the key battleground states needed for election -- Hillary's the clear heavy-hitter in this race.

[Gore1FL]

31. She favorbly compared McCain to Obama

And seemed to stress the issue of the comparison to be important.

She is mathametically unable to have a real shot at the nomination.

Therefore, she is stressing that the Dem nominee is not as qualified as the GOP nominee on what she considers to be th most important important issue.

Maybe that isn't an endorsement, but it sure as hell is stupid and hurtful for the Democrats.


In the unrealistic chance she convinces 60%-85% of the super delegates to vote for her in a party-destoying move that gives her a pyrrhic victory in the nomination process, she has still managed to give identify an issue as important that she also loses on.

Maybe That isn't an endorsement either, but is stupid and hurtful for the Democrats.

[bleowheels]

32. The only thing "orchestrated" is her attacks on Obama. Nobody is telling me...

how to think and react to her unending attacks on Barack Obama. If you wish to believe that all of us Obama supporters are marionettes controlled by some right-wing zealots, go right ahead but we can see her for what she has really become. I for one am sickened by the way she is now conducting her campaign.

[applegrove]

34. I agree with most of what you say. Good post.

[Tribetime]

35. so if I honestly respond a certain way

and it doesn't agree with the away you respond.... my honest feelings must be fake. You must tell me how to respond to other issues , since I not able to do that for myself.

[earth mom]

38. The freepers HATE Hillary. I'm sure they are on DU. nt

[Capn Sunshine]

119. gee, ya think???

"hey, where's JimRob?"

[tekisui]

41. It's the hundreth monkey.

A collective consciousness reaches a point where the majority realize what is happening.

[LoZoccolo]

43. It's called we all have party loyalty and respond quickly to any attacks. n/t

[AtomicKitten]

44. She orchestrated it herself by being so detestable.

[jgraz]

50. There is something orchestrated about the current Hillary apologists

Everyone "knows" she "knows" exactly what she's saying. She says it too many times for it to be some casual slip. And it's an outright lie -- Obama EXACTLY as much CiC experience as Hillary and McCain.

He's also demonstrated FAR BETTER judgment in that area.

[Yossariant]

51. The Obamatoons are particularly desperate and miserable since they got their asses kicked on Tuesday

Have some pity for them.

[Bucky]

52. Don't be paranoid. It's not orchestrated...

We're just Xeroxing each other's comments. :rofl:

[jackson_dem]

54. saracat is right on target once again

Much of 0bamanation on the netroots is orchestrated and you see the same few posters at the vanguard time and again...

[eShirl]

65. same could be said of the Hillarities

I see long-time DUers on both sides, as well as shall we say enthusiastic newcomers

[jackson_dem]

74. For sure but there is a massive difference in degree

Moreover, Hill had no real motive to make a play for the netroots, which was divided 45-30 for Edwards and Obama with almost all of the remainder going to Kucinich. Obama, though, had a strong motive for weakening Edwards' strong netroots support, one of the few segments of the population Edwards led in. He knew that by weakening Edwards in the blogosphere he would help himself as he was the second choice of most Edwards supporters on the netroots (look at how almost all of Edwards' internet support has went to 0bama since Edwards left) and would substantially hurt Edwards who needed strong netroots backing to compete. It is no coincidence that it was Obamites who began the "Edwards is a phony" smear campaign on the netroots...

[RazBerryBeret]

57. Pullleeez...

she has stated this at least 4 times, she has gotten blow back from it. she knows exactly what she's saying. she knows exactly what she's doing. She IS not more experienced...she is older--that's the point. But tell me honestly would you have cared if in 2004, Howard Dean would have called himself and George Bush more qualified than John Kerry? You don't get we're on the SAME team.

And do you remember her big BLOW up about the mailer on health care? "since when do democrats attack one another on Universal health Care"....well, since when do democrats attack each other and align themselves with Republicans?

"shame on you"

if you've forgotten--here is the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WZ04MBtAvS8

She says "Obama says one thing in speeches then turns around and does something else"...KEEP in mind this video was ONE day AFTER the Texas debate when she sat beside him and said that she was "so proud to be sitting on the stage with Barack"...

AND in OHIO she compared Obama to GWB...that's low and uncalled for.

[johnnydrama]

58. explain to me

Why she didn't say McCain's experience was the wrong experience. Of despite McCain's experience, he has made the wrong choices on issue x, y & z.

You could say to Obama, why do you always praise McCain as a war hero everytime you talk about him.

And I would say, yah, but every single time he then goes into all the issues that McCain is wrong about, and how he would be a bad choice to be President?

It's one thing for McCain to talk about Obama's experience in the election.

It's another thing for a supposed Democratic leader to write those words for him.

[snappyturtle]

60. I think either Sen. Obama or McCain have more legislative experience

than Sen. Clinton does.

Until all the delegates are seated at the TX Convention in June you can pass on the falsehood that Hillary won TX. The TX primary is is multi-faceted. Remember delegates like electoral votes in the GE is what designates the winner. This is why you're seeing all the posts about these topics. Just don't look at them and save yourself the aggravation. imho

[eShirl]

64. "Barack may well have gotten more delegates" in Texas = he won Texas

n/t

[ronnykmarshall]

67. G'on gurl!

[JackORoses]

68. Texas is a Prima-Caucus. You cannot separate the two.

Hillary won the Primary
Obama won the Caucus

Obama won the overall Prima-Caucus by coming out with the most delegates.
Obama won Texas.

This is very remedial logic.

[frylock]

71. could someone put me on the distro list?

looks as if i've been missing my orchestrated talking points. i feel a bit foolish.

[LibertyorDeath]

72. Yes I've been stealthed here for 5 years

:crazy: :crazy: :crazy:

She is getting what she gives....

[ProSense]

75. "Stop with the silliness already." Will you stop with these silly, whiny, conspiracy driven OPs

and ignoring all the shit Hillary campaign is slinging. Which Democrat has their hand up her back causing her to mouth some of the ridiculous things coming out of her mouth?

Is this acceptable to you?

Your post are noting more than illogical anti-Obama rants projecting phony motives onto people who have genuine concerns about Hillary's politics.

"Look folks.She won the popular vote and did not do as well in the caucus, but she "Won" the Texas Primary."

Face facts Hillary lost the delegate count and is behind in both delegates and the popular vote with no chance of catching Obama.

That is not a conspiracy!




edited typo

[noiretextatique]

76. there is always some orchestration and inflitration

but a lot of people are just repeating memes, like the obama supporter i met the other night. he admitted he knows nothing about politics and is only interested now because obama is running, but he repeated the same old, tired memes about clinton that you can find on FR, and DU.
some here have responsible arguments about their disdain for clinton, but many do not.

[burythehatchet]

77. Guess what! My fax machine isn't working and I came to detest the traitorous

political slimebag ALL BY MYSELF. :)

[IsItJustMe]

80. I don't have a problem with my hearing. I heard her. Nuff said. PERIOD

[zonkers]

83. I used to like Hillary. And now I passionately can't stand her. It is not hate, though.

[CreekDog]

84. i nearly voted for Hillary but back in late January before South Carolina

the tactics used had me thinking that she was willing to harm the party in order to beat Obama and that's when I started looking for another candidate, first going to Edwards and then Obama.

so it wasn't orchestrated in my case at all, just a negative reaction when I thought she was purposely splitting the votes by race to make herself win the primary.

[Upton]

87. Maybe there is some real outrage over her behavior

attacking a fellow Democrat while praising a Republican is never acceptable. I don't care how it is justified or spun.

[CatnHat]

91. Just like Obama

praising Reagan, and called Bill Clinton years in the WH irrelevant. Yeah, people do get outraged when Obama obviously pandered the republican vote, touting Reagan as a great leader. Get real. You either have a short memory, or are in complete denial.

[Political Heretic]

93. I think there's something "orchestrated" about attempts to defend her

She broke the first cardinal rule of politics when she chose to praise the republican candidate for president over her own party, demonstrating clearly how the only thing she cares about is wining the nomination at any cost - screw the party, screw the country, screw anything or anyone that gets in her way.

Primary season is about delegates. You win by winning delegates. It wasn't until the original spin of this year that the term "popular vote" had ever even tried to be applied to primary season. Texas is certainly a strange state, with its setup, and because of that I'll give Clinton room to declare "victory" of a sense as well. But frankly, both campaigns have pretty much an equal right to lay claim to victory.

[Perry Logan]

100. Don't forget: Obama sucked up to Reagan. So he can't exactly throw the first stone.

[rucky]

102. We all called each other yesterday. n/t

[Bright Eyes]

103. Yep. Its one big conspiracy.

We're also responsible for 9/11, but don't tell anyone!

[faithfulcitizen]

104. "She only stated the obvious?" NO, it's actually NOT obvious. Only a fool would think so or a repub.

DISGUSTING!!!!!!!!!!!!!! If all of her defenders would step back from the "sport" of this, and THINK about what this woman is doing, MAYBE just maybe you could see how destructive she is being. It's only orchestrated in that it PISSES ALL DEMOCRATS OFF when you elevate a war-monger above your own good Dem.

And if you define experience as elected office, exactly WHO has more experience, OBAMA OR HILLARY? Hillary wasn't on all of those ballets, is was BILL. If you're talking about life experience, well she's older, I'll give you that.

[Laelth]

106. Hear, hear!

We're upset en masse because we can see that Hillary's tactics are throwing the whole party under the bus.

:grr:

-Laelth

[cali]

105. a few months ago you were the queen when it came to spewing hate at hillary

remember that post about your mother and how she'd never vote for Hillary and how Hill is only where she is because of Bill and his coattails? I do.

[saracat]

138. I it is still true.I did not support Hillary. Edwards was my candidate.

But now we have only two candidates and Hillary is the better of the two. And I wouldn't be accusing anyone of spewing hate if I were you!

[Seabiscuit]

109. Orchestrated is right. I agree with your post the crap flying around here is just

getting plain silly. :crazy:

Hi Saracat. :hi:

[Dogmudgeon]

111. Only SOME of it is orchestrated. Here's how to tell.

Use a new cliche or buzzphrase in about a dozen posts critical of Obama. The first several "ironic" uses of it -- turning it around to attack Hillary -- will hit at the top of an hour in an OP, usually on a shift change hour. I've been comparing DU to Little House On The Prairie, with Obama as Laura and Hillary as Nellie. We'll see when they pick up on that one.

These are the people working in the Internet activism groups.

Another sign is new members who post impossible numbers of messages 24 hours a day. Some of them posted over 500 messages each day! This was very common a month ago, but a few of them got busted (using others' sigs, mismatched stories, etc.), so it isn't quite so common now. If you know how to use textual content analysis software, you can see how radically the writing styles change. (I have actually developed such software, although I do not consider myself to be a guru of content analysis.) However, it's a time-consuming process.

And the "techniques" they use are quite simplified. The phrasing is often identical across several posts by different sock puppets. That's another easy (but tedious) analysis to perform. And several seem to be cribbed from examples in George Lakoff's books, not surprising since he is advising Obama and is a long-time Hillary-hater.

My guesstimate is that about 10-15% of the Hillary haters are these professional Internet posting activists. Early on, it was about 50%, but they have done their jobs well. They have been remarkably effective at it. There also seem to have been a couple of people working for Hillary, but I think it was probably a single team of three or four people who were able to spoof or obfuscate a largish number of IP addresses -- but then slipped up. These were the ones who were "purged" a couple of weeks ago.

Y'know, I'm quite impressed. Seriously. After the dust has settled, a lot of these stories will come out -- the perps are proud of what they're doing, and will want to brag.

--p!

[roseBudd]

114. Been around since 2004 had nothing against her other than her high negatives until the past 2 weeks

Now I despise her. Every clip on the news I have seen in the past 2 weeks especially

"Let's just get everybody together. Let's get unified, the sky will open, the light will come down, celestial choirs will be singing and everyone will know that the world is perfect,"

has turned my stomach.

[okasha]

124. Thanks for the analysis.

I'm an ex-English prof, and I've noticed that several obama supporters' handles seem to be used by multiple posters with radically different styles and even life narratives.

[TheWraith]

113. Bullshit. Clinton clearly said McCain was qualified, Obama wasn't.

If that's not a formal endorsement, it's certainly going to be taken that way in the general. She's doing nothing but trying to tear down our presumptive nominee. Her message is "You'll nominate me or you'll have no Democrat."

[rodeodance]

116. so many BOfolks just repeat the lie of "endorse"--with nothing to back it up. Reading

comprehension problems are wide for many BOfolk on DU.

[Capn Sunshine]

117. WINNING=MOST DELEGATES

That's how the primaries work. Just because you buy into the "horse race" doesn't mean that is the deciding factor, which it isn't. But that's what gets the viewers tuning in like it's a Survivor episode. If the media explained "it's approximately a three-day process, with popular vote one of the aspects, but in this case, not the end-all" no one would have tuned in.

If you win, you take away more delegates than your opponent.

[Turn CO Blue]

118. I liked it better when you were posting positive stuff about JE

and stayed above this mudslinging trap between Obama and Clinton. You're obviously partisan in favor of Clinton now. Not sure at all how you could make that choice! Ugh. I find Clinton and Obama flawed, and I'm not about to invest in either of them until the General Election.

At the end of the day - it all comes down to an understanding of basic, simple math - which is embarrassing absent in your OP, and seems to be missing from all these Clinton and Obama enthusiasts here on DU, who can't add numbers together or derive a percentage -- much less even be bothered to use the spellchecker.

Obama got MORE caucus voters and when added to his primary voters - that equals winning the popular vote. And yes, it's obvious and reported for the history of all time that Obama got MORE delegates. That means he won, to any mathematically COMPETENT person. Saying the Texas caucus (which comprises 1/3 of the process in Texas) does not count, is just asinine - and is a Repuke trick that seeks to disenfranchise those caucus attendees.

I REFUSE to abandon all mathematical skills just so that I can jump on some DU partisan train for Clinton, or for Obama for that matter!!

The math is clear to anyone who ever took higher algebra - Clinton could win 70% of the votes of all the remaining states and Puerto Rico and yet due to the congressional district apportioning -- she would STILL be behind by over 100 delegates in August.

She CANNOT win but she has hired stupid people who can't do algebra either

[burythehatchet]

120. I believe I recall she was for Clinton before she was for Edwards, I could be wrong n/t

[saracat]

137. You are wrong. Very.

[Medusa]

122. Just because we don't agree with you

doesn't mean we're agents of the GOP.

This talking point is getting a little old quite frankly-time to retire it--and your beloved Hillary's political career.

[fujiyama]

125. Hillary said McCain had "indeed crossed a threshold" to be CiC

What "threshold" is that? She wouldn't say - just that either her or McCain are qualified and Obama isn't.

That can be interpreted as an endorsement of McCain over Obama. I suppose to Hillary, crossing the threshold was supporting the IWR. Oh and when it comes to the "experience" argument, McCain has her beat as well.

Look, the problem isn't her use of "experience" as an argument. She's been using that bullshit argument the whole time and that was expected since she's been in the senate a little longer and is older, however it wasn't expected that she'd praise McCain at the expense of Obama, which to me certainly crosses a threshold - the threshold at which I can vote for her if she's the nominee.

[Tom Rinaldo]

127. This type stuff has gone on for quite a while

The sudden use of "desperate" as an adjective to describe anything Hillary or her campaign said or did in dozens of threads was so obvious that I did a mock OP poll using that adjective back in the fall. I found it interesting to later learn that the Obama campaingn had quietely taken out a URL "DesperateHillaryattacks.com" weeks prior. Before that there was constant talk about Hillary's "Cackle" until it became clear that doing so was fueling a backlash that favored Clinton. I think there was a coordinated effort to undercut Clinton using sexism which also played out in attempts to call her flashes of emotion at debates "Dean Scream" moments etc. The "she will do or say anything to get elected" attack line has been all over the internet for months and also embraced by one Obama campaign ad.

Lately I have noticed a lot of "She knows she can't win in 2008 so she is only trying to stop Obama while raising money to run again in 2012" posts popping up in batches too.

[moobu2]

129. They're definitely just repeating stuff they pick up somewhere

It’s like some crazed mob.

[AtomicKitten]

132. No worries. The GOP mischief makers have her back.

They are being summoned by Limbaugh, the Dark Overlord, to come forth and vote for her in the primary. They are so impressed with her vile campaign tactics, they decided to leave the pro in to do their dirty work and bloody up Barack for the general election.

[TexasThoughtCriminal]

133. John McCain is Methusalah. He has more experience than *anyone*

Does she really want to go there?

[OnionPatch]

134. Oh, BS.

Nearly every Dem I talk to the last few days has told me they have finally had it with Hillary. And none of them are the kind of die-hard political fanatics we are on this board. They don't belong to any campaigns or organizations. They are not taking some secret orders from the Obama campaign or something. They saw the same thing I saw.....Hillary Clinton telling the American people that the Republican candidate is more qualified to be president than one of our own, in fact, the one who will probably be our nominee. If you think it's ok that she did that, fine. But a whole lot of Democrats believe she crossed the line and probably harmed our likely nominee. "Thanks a lot, Hillary" (with sarcasm) is the comment I'm hearing the most.

[Egnever]

140. Yup she is a great conductor of Hate

she wallows in it. Her entire campaign is hate. Hell even the peoiple working in her campaign hate each other.

She needs to step down and end all this crap.

[HeraldSquare212]

143. Remember the anti-Obama swarm postings on Reagan, etc. in Jan and Feb?

I'm sure you spoke out against that, too.

[Dinger]

144. ****NAIL HITTING HAMMER ONN THE HEAD****

K & R!

[Jillian]

149. You go girl!

k & r

[Johnny Potpie]

150. Oh please..

Orchestrated??? Quit being so conspiratorial. Can you even see how insulting Clinton's words are to Democrats who are honest supporters of Obama? How insulting it is for those of us who support Obama to be told by Clinton that she thinks McCain would be more viable or effective as President than Obama?? I think this topic is a desperate ploy by a Hillary supporter to try and shut our voices out.

Can you just answer my question here please? Can you see that there are those who are justifiably offended by Clinton's words? Can you?!?!

[ElsewheresDaughter]

151. well said...but sadly I see the Obamanuts have no filters

[KoKo]

155. Watch this "spoof" of this election..and then you will understand the "Orchestration!"

http://current.com/items/88854218_the_democratic_messiah