SofaKings
Footballguy
Wow.Latest American Research Group poll (Apr. 11-13) shows Clinton with a 57-37 lead in PA, up from 45-45 in its most recent poll.adonis said:How's the latest news affecting his polling numbers?
Wow.Latest American Research Group poll (Apr. 11-13) shows Clinton with a 57-37 lead in PA, up from 45-45 in its most recent poll.adonis said:How's the latest news affecting his polling numbers?
That's what happens when you piss off the APPALACHIAN-AMERICANS!!!Wow.Latest American Research Group poll (Apr. 11-13) shows Clinton with a 57-37 lead in PA, up from 45-45 in its most recent poll.adonis said:How's the latest news affecting his polling numbers?
My first thought was Andy Rooney and I knew that couldn't be right.Owner of the steelers. I was joking a bit above about the hugeness, but it might help.I was kinda hoping it was Mickey Rooney.Who's Rooney?
This needs to be a TV ad STAT!BLASPHEMER! The Rooneys are the owners of the Steelers! Greatest Football franchise evah!Who's Rooney?
http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/p...amfelsen/gGBpTD
Dear Fellow Pennsylvanian,
Based on the experiences that I have had in my seventy-five years and my assessment of what I think our nation needs to make real the change that is so needed, I am proud and now feel compelled to endorse Senator Barack Obama.
This is not something that I do regularly but as I listen to the candidates in this race, I am struck that we continue to hear about the problems and the same challenges that we have been talking about for decades. Protecting jobs here in Pennsylvania, breaking our dangerous and costly addiction to foreign oil, making health care accessible and affordable – these are neither new issues nor new ideas. And yet we have failed to make real progress.
As a grandfather and a citizen of this community I think Barack Obama’s, thoughtful, strategic approach is important for America. When I hear how excited young people seem to be when they talk about this man, I believe he will do what is best for them which is to inspire them to be great Americans.
This time, we can’t afford to wait. Our country needs a new direction and a new kind of leadership – the kind of leadership, judgment and experience that Senator Obama has demonstrated in more than 20 years of public service, and in a particularly impressive way in this campaign. Senator Obama has rejected the say-and-do anything tactics that puts winning elections ahead of governing the country. And he has rejected the back-room politics in favor of opening government up to the people. Barack Obama is the one candidate in this race who can finally put an end to business as usual in Washington and bring about real change for Pittsburgh and the country as a whole. He has inspired me and so many other people around our country with new ideas and fresh perspectives.
True sports fans know that you support your team even when they are the underdogs. Barack Obama is the underdog here but it is with great pride that I join his team.
When I think of Barack Obama’s America I have great hope. I support his candidacy and look forward to his Presidency
Sincerely,
Daniel M. Rooney, Owner and Chairman, Pittsburgh Steelers![]()
Possibly. We'll have to see.Wow, the Bradley effect. I think this is the first time that has been brought up in the primaries this year. Way to uncover a novel theory.By the way, it would seem to me that if the Rev. Wright and "typical white person" rhetoric was such poison to Obama, then the Bradley effect would be lessened. It would give white people cover and feel comfortable in being honest with pollsters. Whereas when Obama was squeaky clean and everyone's favorite black guy and riding high, people were probably more embarassed to admit their alleged "true feelings" about Obama.Not sure if its been discussed in this thread but there is a politicial phenomenon called the Bradley Effect that i wanted to bring up. The link is to an old article that discusses it.
The phenomenon of white voters lying to pollsters about their intent to vote for black candidates has been so commonplace that it has a name: “Bradley effect,” named for the late Tom Bradley, an African American who served five four-year terms as mayor of Los Angeles.
In 1982, Bradley ran for governor of California against a human cipher named George Deukmajian. Polls consistently showed the popular mayor of the state’s largest city with a comfortable lead over the Republican, but on election day, Deukmajian won handily. This phenomenon has been reproduced in elections in New York City and Illinois as well as North Carolina, Virginia and Tennessee.
Considering Obama's incendiary comments about his own grandmother, calling her a "typical white woman", along with his pastor, I think its highly likely there is a "Bradley effect on Obama right now. Complicating the task of quantifying it is that there is an inherent leftist bias in the polls. The overall left bias has gotta be bigger than 5% tho.
Rasmussen has seen McCain's lead over Obama in the general shrink to 1 percentage point
I'm interested in seeing if there is a Bradley effect in the PA primary. Could give us a clue as it is the first big primary since Obama turned into a racist.
Bush won in 2000 and 2004. The american people have shown that they don't really care about electing the most intelligent person for the job.And in no way am I agreeing with you that he's a moron. It's a sad attempt at portraying him this way, and it's a losing battle.Blah. I just don't think Obama can hold this thing together. He's cementing in his moron personna. Can't you guys pull this out - I do NOT want McCain in the White House!
I'm much more worried about McCain. I have a bad feeling McCain is going to pick some young, hard-headed strongman as his veep. Sort of the Anakin to his Sidious.Bush won in 2000 and 2004. The american people have shown that they don't really care about electing the most intelligent person for the job.And in no way am I agreeing with you that he's a moron. It's a sad attempt at portraying him this way, and it's a losing battle.Blah. I just don't think Obama can hold this thing together. He's cementing in his moron personna. Can't you guys pull this out - I do NOT want McCain in the White House!
He's cementing in his moron personna.

I think he gets quite a bit of support from liberals.Interesting that Obama's latest gaffe hurts him where you'd think his largest support is - moderates.
, heck, moveon.org endorsed him and I think they're far from moderate. I think he pulls his share of moderates, but I dunno if I'd consider his largest support.He left a Cubs jersey in the cement?He's cementing in his moron personna.![]()
Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?
Where to begin...Blah. I just don't think Obama can hold this thing together. He's cementing in his moron personna. Can't you guys pull this out - I do NOT want McCain in the White House!
Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?

She's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
But Annie Oakley here is running around dodging sniper fire, downing shots, and bragging about shooting ducks as a young girl. Clearly a blue collar citizen if I've ever seen one.She's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
So, no?There is only one reason people support him so - white guilt.ZING!That was funny AND witty at the same time!Has he said anything useful yet to show that he would be worth anything?I already know the answer, but I want to see if someone can actually come up with something of substance.![]()
This is clearly incorrectShe's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
Well, she basically threw Kerry AND Gore under the bus calling them elitist too. And remember Gore is the one all the talking heads are saying could play a pivotal role in breaking any kind of deadlock for the nomination. That at as a misstep is not getting enough attention in my opinion.This is clearly incorrectShe's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
How could you possibly judge this already? There's no way to tell yet.This is clearly incorrectShe's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
I'm amazed people can change their minds so easily.Latest American Research Group poll (Apr. 11-13) shows Clinton with a 57-37 lead in PA, up from 45-45 in its most recent poll.How's the latest news affecting his polling numbers?
Your?I'm amazed people can change their minds so easily.Latest American Research Group poll (Apr. 11-13) shows Clinton with a 57-37 lead in PA, up from 45-45 in its most recent poll.How's the latest news affecting his polling numbers?Your right. Obama makes it VERY easy for people to change their minds about him.
Wow. The dooshiness is strong in this one.So, no?There is only one reason people support him so - white guilt.ZING!That was funny AND witty at the same time!Has he said anything useful yet to show that he would be worth anything?I already know the answer, but I want to see if someone can actually come up with something of substance.![]()
Yes. So let's get it in gear already.proninja said:Wait, isn't this the Obama thread?
proninja said::howarddeanyell:Yes. So let's get it in gear already.proninja said:Wait, isn't this the Obama thread?

:neckpunch:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?
Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?
This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.
So, no?There is only one reason people support him so - white guilt.ZING!That was funny AND witty at the same time!Has he said anything useful yet to show that he would be worth anything?I already know the answer, but I want to see if someone can actually come up with something of substance.![]()
I have no idea what that even means.Yea, while Obama spoke here yesterday, when he addressed those comments some people yelled out "we are bitter!"She's already overplaying her hand, IMO. The smart move is to let the voters digest and decide. They don't need a lecture on how badly someone gaffed. I was surprised to see the Pittsburgh audience actually turn on her comments. She's walking a tightrope with this "Obama is an elitist" thing. It's not a reasonable argument if you examine the full body of evidence. A grad of Wellesley and Yale law who co-earned 109 million in 7 years is not exactly in tune with blue collar America. Well, none of them are, but she's really pushing her luck.Yep, Bill and Hillary made over $100 million since vacating the White House and McCain and his wife own EIGHT houses. And yet Obama is the elitist.Yup...quietly on a Friday over a week ago. And based on her earnings, she has some nerve stating she "gets" the average gun-totin', Bible-thumpin' yokel. Apparently she's even handing out 'I'm not bitter' pins and bumper stickers.Hillary release her taxes yet?![]()
Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.
Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.
So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???Perhaps she should hand over the nomination in order to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House...Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???
I agree, stupid stupid STUPID comment.You had John Kerry four years ago wind-surfing and snowboarding. Now Obama's comments. Once againi, Dems will be perceived as out of touch.Also, this gives alot of hope to Hillary, or at least a very good reason to stay in. The longer the race goes on, the more Obama shoots himself in the foot.Olberman spun away on his show, but I don't think he's right on this one. This will hurt.

If she actually believes that McCain will be a better president than Obama, then she is doing exactly what she should be doing. In fact, once she gets knocked out (and she will), I'd probably have more respect for her if she went ahead and publically backed McCain. But if she acts like this now, and then later backs Obama against McCain, then either way she is a hypocrite.Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???
She permanently entrenched herself as a hypocrite the moment she released the 3am ad and then said Obama could be her V.P.If she actually believes that McCain will be a better president than Obama, then she is doing exactly what she should be doing. In fact, once she gets knocked out (and she will), I'd probably have more respect for her if she went ahead and publically backed McCain. But if she acts like this now, and then later backs Obama against McCain, then either way she is a hypocrite.Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???
McCain is from military admirals. Hillary was married to a president. Obama is the one who got where he is on his own merits, yet he is the elitest?I agree, stupid stupid STUPID comment.You had John Kerry four years ago wind-surfing and snowboarding. Now Obama's comments. Once againi, Dems will be perceived as out of touch.Also, this gives alot of hope to Hillary, or at least a very good reason to stay in. The longer the race goes on, the more Obama shoots himself in the foot.Olberman spun away on his show, but I don't think he's right on this one. This will hurt.![]()
Yep, Hillary is doing all of this solely for the good of the country. Only a Clinton is TRULY capable of running this place. We really should be thanking her that she has stayed in this long, giving us all a chance to question our decision to support Obama. Thank God for Hillary.Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???
Agreed.Too bad he has now made it impossible to advance this argument.McCain is from military admirals. Hillary was married to a president. Obama is the one who got where he is on his own merits, yet he is the elitest?I agree, stupid stupid STUPID comment.You had John Kerry four years ago wind-surfing and snowboarding. Now Obama's comments. Once againi, Dems will be perceived as out of touch.Also, this gives alot of hope to Hillary, or at least a very good reason to stay in. The longer the race goes on, the more Obama shoots himself in the foot.Olberman spun away on his show, but I don't think he's right on this one. This will hurt.![]()
Hillary did say she and McCain offer experience and Obama offers speeches. Maybe she is also a believer in "Knowing what you are doing" like Obama use to be.If she actually believes that McCain will be a better president than Obama, then she is doing exactly what she should be doing. In fact, once she gets knocked out (and she will), I'd probably have more respect for her if she went ahead and publically backed McCain. But if she acts like this now, and then later backs Obama against McCain, then either way she is a hypocrite.Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???

That doesn't come close to making sense.Hillary did say she and McCain offer experience and Obama offers speeches. Maybe she is also a believer in "Knowing what you are doing" like Obama use to be.If she actually believes that McCain will be a better president than Obama, then she is doing exactly what she should be doing. In fact, once she gets knocked out (and she will), I'd probably have more respect for her if she went ahead and publically backed McCain. But if she acts like this now, and then later backs Obama against McCain, then either way she is a hypocrite.Andrew Sullivan is consistently tiresome, but he's right about this one. The "Obama is an elitist" meme is one that probably doesn't work all that well in the Democratic primaries (judging by the reaction to Hillary's use of this theme), but it's great for a general election if you're McCain. Again, it's almost like Hillary is acting as an agent of the McCain campaign. First there was the "3 a.m." ad. Then there was the line about how Hillary knows that she and McCain are both ready to be President but Obama only gave a speech once. Now there's this. I'm pretty sure this is unprecedented in my lifetime.Here is what Andrew Sullivan has to say about this ad:Hillary's latest ad
If dropping Penn was supposed to remove the conflict of interest between her and McCain's campaign, why is she still doing the work for him?This ad has managed to actually shock me. Yes, me, rabid Clinton-hater, second only to Hitchens in Clinton Derangement Syndrome, proud holder of the view that Senator Clinton is one of the ghastliest examples of pure political cynicism and opportunism in public life, an empty, reverberating shell of a human being, a case study in how power and the search for it do indeed in the end corrupt absolutely.
This is far too crude even for Karl Rove. It is a parody of a brutal Rove ad. Without batting an eyelid, Clinton effortlessly adopts the entire worldview of the most cynical of Republican operatives and applies it with the delicacy of a shovel to the likely Democratic party nominee. This is a) how desperate she must know feel; b) how utterly irrelevant it is to her what happens in this election unless she is the next Democratic nominee for president.
Simply put: how could the person who approved this ad and the argument it represents logically vote for Barack Obama over John McCain this fall? If it is an Obama-McCain race, how would that person not feel vindicated if Obama lost? In fact, making Obama lose is now manifestly the prime objective of the Clintons. There is no other plausible interpretation of their recent actions, statements and behavior. I find this pretty gob-smacking as an observer; but if I were a Democrat?
Now answer this question: do you believe that the Clintons actually believe that Obama is an effete, ineffectual elitist piece of roadkill for John McCain ... but still somehow impossible to beat by the rules of the Democratic primary system? Or do they think he's better than that? Are they cynics or narcissists? Or, as anyone with an eye and the stomach can see, some horribly perfect combination of the two?
This ad and Clinton's insistence on personally making this argument again and again in the baldest ad hominem ways in a state critical to Democratic hopes this fall should remove any illusions anyone has about the core character of the junior senator from New York. The best gloss is that her own vanity has genuinely persuaded her that she and she alone could possibly beat John McCain. The worst is that after decades of hardball politicking, she and her husband have become completely indistinguishable from the forces that first tried to destroy them.So you think Hillery should just hand over the nomination and do nothing to prevent a complete disaster from getting in the White House???
![]()