Hillary was NOT piled on. Her inconsistencies and evasiveness were pointed out.

[jenmito]

She would not give a straight answer regarding the release of her records and she was called on it. She said she thought Spitzer's plan was a good idea then a minute later said she DIDN'T say she thought it was a good idea. She was called on it. She earlier said she was FOR torture in certain cases then she later said she was against it. She was called on it. She earlier was for NAFTA then she was against it. She was called on it. She was for the IWR then she was against it. She was called on it. That's what's SUPPOSED to happen. Why should she be able to go unchallenged?

[jgraz]

1. Why do you hate women? Are you a Giuliani plant??

:evilgrin:

[jenmito]

3. I must if I point out the facts. Right?

:D

[jgraz]

6. See, you're catching on

Welcome to the Stealth Campaign to Elect Rudy President by Pointing Out True Things About Hillary (SCERPPOTTAH).

Your membership card is in the mail.

[jenmito]

7. Thanks...

I'll be waiting for it! :hi:

[Tellurian]

70. Yes, thanks...Clinton UP 2pts....Bomba down 2 pts...since the debate..

The media had primed the world for a big Clinton takedown by Obomba...

He chickened out as usual! What a cowardly wuss! :bounce:

[jgraz]

74. Luckily, your approval rating is still at 0.0001 %

:P

[Tellurian]

90. Today has been a good day..

I've been chirping and tweeting all day long. I think your assessment is a little underwhelmingly skewed.

[Deja Q]

2. Well, nobody's perfect...

:hide:

[Vincardog]

4. You are wrong. She was for the IWR then she was FOR it. She should not be able to go unchallenged.

[Quixote1818]

73. LOL!

:rofl:

[peacebird]

5. you are correct. I actually have found it refreshing that she is treated like "one of the guys"

in this election. It's how it should be.

But I do hope you have your asbestos suit on.

:hide:

[jenmito]

8. Thanks. So do I. She's not a queen. She's a candidate.

I can take the heat. :hi:

[illinoisprogressive]

9. She was treated the same as Howard Dean 4 years ago. it's called being

the frontrunner and as such, they get attacked by all the others and the mods try to pin them down.
But, there is serious problems with Hillary not answering the questions and playing games.

[jenmito]

14. That's right...

And she wasn't attacked. She was rightfully called out on her inconsistencies/evasiveness.

[DemocratSinceBirth]

10. Please Keep Bashing Her...Please...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3671683&mesg_id=3671683

[HughMoran]

13. It's true, sour grapes are ALWAYS a sign of weakness.

Why can't people see this?

[jenmito]

17. Please point out anything that's not true in my OP.

It's not sour grapes to debate someone in a debate.

[HughMoran]

20. I was replying to the other poster

There is nothing wrong with repeated attacks on the leading candidate. It's easy to describe the many many posts attacking a Dem here as sour grapes.

Just don't be surprised if they have the opposite effect - THAT is what we are talking about.

[jenmito]

23. How is it sour grapes???

I don't get it. :shrug:

[HughMoran]

30. Because of the preponderance of anti-Hillary posts

Perhaps that is not your intent here, but I was responding to the post above and do agree with the sentiment posted by that person.

It's not personal to you - it's a trend that's been playing out on DU for months now.

Some of us are tired of it or would at least like to see more posts "promoting" their candidate rather than criticizing the one that only seems to benefit from this criticism. Why? I think it's because people who aren't posting are in the majority and it is simply hardening their resolve. They see the cirticism as sour grapes IMHO. I may be wrong, but I don't think so.

[jenmito]

31. Isn't it common for the front-runner to get most criticism?

I don't see it as sour grapes at all. I see it as pointing out the front-runner's mistakes.

[HughMoran]

36. True, but I would expect a less controvercial candidate to get a lot less

criticism. I suppose the higher level of criticsm is to be expected.

Problem is, the criticism seems to be strenghtening her, there must be a better way. I would actually prefer another choice, the 2nd and third candidates (Obama & Edwards) just don't seem to have the fire though! What to do? Destroying Hillary may simply give the election to the 9/11 terra! terra! terra! moran party!

[jenmito]

37. She's less controvercial?

I don't think it's making her stronger. This is reminding voters of the "Clinton method" of politics and I don't think people want to go back to that.

[HughMoran]

48. I was speaking in the negative

Meaning that a less controvercial candidate would get less criticism.

I see now that you are an Obama supporter here to tear down Hillary for personal gain acting - all "in the best interest" of democracy while you do it. What a friggin' joke. If Obama gets ahead of Hillary I'm going to tear him a new ass-hole and see how you like it (and I don't even like Hillary).

[jenmito]

50. Oh, ok...

You see NOW? What gave it away? :silly: I'm not here to tear her down for personal gain or whatever else you're talking about. I'm here defending Obama and the others who simply debated Hillary and were accused of RAPING her for god's sake! Talk about a friggin' joke. If Obama becomes the front-runner will I be able to whine that he's being gang raped by all the other candidates? :eyes:

[HughMoran]

51. HILLARY WAS RAPED!!!!111!!!!

:rofl:

OK, I think we're far enough off track here - good ol' politics - brings out the best in us - lol.

I am actually one of those people who puts on the blinders and only talks to a posters words (well, unless you had a big ol' banner in your sig.) I didn't even look at your avatar until reading a post below. I prefer to assume people are neutral and was a bit put-off when I noticed you were already committed to another candidate than the one you were criticizing :D

[jenmito]

56. Yup, that's what a couple Hillary supporters here said!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

No need to be put off because I'm an Obama supporter. I criticized Obama during the McClurkin thing, so I'm not about ATTACKING anyone, just pointing out that NOBODY is immune to criticism. Not even the front-runner who happens to be a female.

[HughMoran]

58. Agreed

...and bringing up the "woman" thing is no more valid than that State Department dude equating 88% of people in State not approving of Condi to "88% of people approved slavery". What a fucking ass hole that guy is.

[earthlover]

39. There is nothing that we could say about Hillary that wouldn' t be brought out by the Reps....

in the general election when all the chips are down.

So we aren't giving the Reps any ideas they don't already know. Hillary is a known quantity.

If Hillary can't survive some heat by fellow Democrats, better she is not nominated!

Talking out of both sides of the mouth is something most politicians are known for. Hillary, however, has done it so many times on so many issues that it is starting to be obvious. And, when it becomes obvious, it loses its effectiveness. Witness this week's debate.

It was the Republicans who say the cardinal rule is not to speak ill of a Republican. It would be nice if we could follow this rule. But Hillary brought out a lot of this herself by her equivocating. What are her opponents supposed to do, give her a pass?

Hillary would not give Obama a pass not so long ago....what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

[jenmito]

42. It's called running for the nomination. This is how it works.

If you think the other candidates shouldn't criticize Hillary and just give her the nomination to give Repubs. less ammo, I have a better idea. How 'bout all the candidates criticize Clinton for the things she's said and done and then we nominate Obama? Sounds good to me!

[Whisp]

77. the preponderence is of anti-corporatism.

that is how I see it. It's not so much about Hillary but what she has been paid well for to stand for as so many of her preditoressors.

maybe we should just ditch this whole fraudulent election thing - 'the people' decide. :rofl:

ballots should have corporate names.

[rateyes]

80. Yeah, I can see it now...

"this election was brought to you by Halliburton and Blackwater, USA!" Thanks for coming out and pretending to believe your vote counts. Oh, and have some free peanuts while you wait in line!

[jenmito]

15. Pointing out facts is not bashing. Rasmussen also has Bush at 37%

while other polls have him at 24%. He's a Repub. pollster.

[rinsd]

28. Actually Ras is not that far from other polling

.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/23-24/07 35 55 9 -20


.
Pew 10/17-23/07 30 63 7 -33


.
L.A. Times/Bloomberg RV 10/19-22/07 35 60 5 -25


.
CBS 10/12-16/07 30 61 9 -31


.
CNN/Opinion Research Corp. 10/12-14/07 36 61 3 -25


.
USA Today/Gallup 10/12-14/07 32 64 3 -32


.
FOX/Opinion Dynamics RV 10/9-10/07 35 56 9 -21


.
NPR LV 10/4, 6-7/07 38 60 2 -22


.
Gallup 10/4-7/07 32 64 4 -32


.
AP-Ipsos 10/1-3/07 31 66 * -35

.

[jenmito]

32. I don't understand your numbers...

Sorry-it's not set up in a clear way to me.

[rinsd]

63. Sorry formatting came out shitty

Here's a direct link

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob.htm

[jenmito]

66. Thanks. And here are polls showing his Oct. approval in the 20s:

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/economy/

http://www.democrats.org/a/2007/10/bush_approval_r_4.php (Zogby poll)

[rinsd]

67. Whoops we were comparing apples and oranges

I gave his job ratings which are apparently different from his approval ratings which are more like what you stated.

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushFav.htm

[jenmito]

71. Well, Rassmussen calls it his "job approval rating" and from what I've seen

his numbers are always about 10% higher than most other polls. I don't know whether this proves ME right or YOU right. I'd say me. :D

[rinsd]

72. No I'm right!

:-P

Shit I wonder what the hell Ras is asking about then. :shrug:

[jenmito]

78. No. I am. Infinity!

:P I'd say he's talking about his approval. :D

[jmp]

59. Reverse psychology only works on ...

stupid people. ;)

[jenmito]

65. And that ain't me.

:)

[waiting for hope]

83. Ohh Nooo!

Another Poll! Can it be? Please post something with more substance, like her positions on Social Security, Education, The Iraq War, and Immigration -

:hi: Thanks in advance!

[HughMoran]

93. Irrelevant

Changing the subject of polling that shows she is winning to stands/issues is irrelevant as a response to the post above.

[waiting for hope]

95. How, if all I asked if the poster

would supply a rebuttal to the OP? A lot of people would like to know what her stands are.

[jenmito]

97. And today he's gained 2% while she's stayed the same. n/t

[ClarkUSA]

11. All frontrunners, male or female, black or white, northerner or southerner, should be tested.

Drawing distinctions are what debates are all about at this stage of the race. The next debate will
be the same between Democrats. Republicans' have been sharpening their criticisms of each other
during their debates as well, although not to this degree because their race is more in flux.

[opihimoimoi]

12. When timmy devotes 1/2 of all his questions to HER. and those 2 other dudes pound on her

the way they did....IMO...thats piling on....the winners were the republicans..an fuck them too...rat bastards....

[peacebird]

16. umm - the front runner ALWAYS gets the most questions.....

:hi:

and it is standard for others seeking the party nomination to fight for it, did you expect them to defer just cuz she's a girl.....?

[jenmito]

19. Exactly.

Simple as that. She even wants THIS both ways-calls herself tough then complains when her opponents oppose her.

[opihimoimoi]

21. I can understand your thoughts....but it was done in such a way as to give those PUBs Ammo.

Making it harder for the Dems to win...

[peacebird]

22. must disagree - if dems are plain spoken and honest they will win.

if they parse and equivocate like she did, they will lose.

[jenmito]

25. In what way SHOULD they have pointed out her evasiveness, etc.?

Should they just hand her the nomination? That's not how primaries work.

[opihimoimoi]

34. Since they were asking ...you should ask them....

[jenmito]

38. WHO was asking? The other candidates were just pointing out where she deserved to be called out

That's how it works.

[opihimoimoi]

52. Bwahahaha...you and friends not folling anyone...

[jenmito]

54. I'm not TRYING to "foll" anyone...or fool anyone, either...

I don't know why you think ANYONE is against being challenged. :shrug:

[opihimoimoi]

55. Your intentions are very klear.....

[jenmito]

57. What are they?

[earthlover]

44. It was Hillary's responses that will give the Reps ammo!

I don't think it there is a single thing said about Hillary in the debate that the Reps had not already thought of and is not already in their play book should she be elected. They are chomping at the bit!

I think we should view Hillary's criticism with the sober reality that the Reps are going to use it against her. And it ain't gonna go away by us wishing it so!

If we hold back a tough look at our candidates, we will be taking the chance that we nominate a candidate who cannot withstand the barrage of Republican bashing.

Just a few days ago, the Hillary supporters were crowing that all the criticism has made her immune from attacks, she has already weathered the attack, so she is stronger, yada. Now all we hear is a Chicken Little display from her supporters....they were piling on, it wasn't fair, whine, whine, whine, those guys were picking on the woman, whine, whine, whine.....

What a difference a debate can make!

[babylonsister]

26. She also got the most airtime which is coveted, so I don't feel too sorry for her. nt

[jenmito]

29. Good point. It was up to her how she USED that time..

She messed up trying to dance around the issues.

[jenmito]

18. Front-runners get hard questions. Calling her out on what she says isn't pounding on her...

unless you think she should be treated with kid gloves 'cause she's "just a girl."

[earthlover]

41. I think Kucinich would have LOVED to have had so much attention as Hilllary!

Get over it! So would have all the candidates.

The amount of time Hillary got did not hurt her. It was how she used that time that hurt her!

[Bitwit1234]

24. Bullshit if she had sneezed they would have pounced on her about it.

Obama thinks it shows his macho. What he ought to do is get his facts straight. Boy has one man's character taken a tumble...he is as wispy as the mist when it comes to making a solid decision.

[jenmito]

27. I don't think so. Saying something then denying you said it a minute later is far from sneeazing...

and perfectly legit to be pointed out. Obama was not pouncing. Edwards was more direct, but they both pointed out her own statements/change of positions.

Obama is a man. He's not trying to look macho by debating his opposition. He's been consistent unlike Hillary. She's crying like a victim.

[AtomicKitten]

33. Of course she wasn't.

The kind of slippery answers she was coming up with were begging to be poked with a stick.

Her answers were spectacular in being the most amount of words spent not answering the questions.

[jenmito]

40. Exactly...

I don't see how people can deny that!

[tammywammy]

35. Agreed

Pointing out inconsistencies isn't "piling on."

She's the front-runner, she should have expected what happened.

[jenmito]

43. thanks, tammywammybobammy...

:D Exactly. That's how it works.

[Catherine Vincent]

47. She expected it and she handled it well. She's used to it.

I think if it would have been Obama or Richardson wouldn't have handled a pile on well, imo. Biden, Edwards and Kucinich would have handled their pile on well too.

[tammywammy]

49. I don't think she did great

But at the same time, I don't think this will knock her out by any means.

Overall, I expected her to handle it a little better, but I don't think she totally screwed up either. (To the average viewer, I don't think would think that she was horrible.)

[Vattel]

45. call me a hilary-lover, but

Russert misquoted and distorted Clinton's words to make it seem like she was inconsistent. At least Richardson refused Russert's invitations to slime Clinton. Edwards was especially pathetic.

[Stinky The Clown]

46. Welcome to DU, neighbor!

:hi:

[youthere]

62. If you remember correctly...Biden did not engage either.

[Major Hogwash]

53. But that's piling on! Whenever Hill starts to use a pitchfork to stack shit about her foes.

You can bet your ass she is going to whine all the way home like the little war piggy that she is when she loses in Iowa.

"This little war pig said 'Let's drop bombs.'
"And this little war pig said, 'We have none.'
"This little war pig said 'Iraq is Iran now.'
"And this little war pig said 'Let's get it on.'
"But this little war pig said, 'wee, wee, wee' and ran all the way home."

Now she's complaining, "It's a 'Boy's Club'."

Oh my gawd, is she going to start crying now?

[jmp]

60. Hillary never does her own dirty work.

She has an entire team of hatchet men to slander and throw mud at her opponents.

[William769]

61. And they looked stupid for calling her on it. Well thats a no brainer (them looking stupid that is)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3675638&mesg_id=3675638

[jenmito]

64. No they didn't.. She got caught, right there, lying about what she JUST SAID!

She said she thought Spitzer's plan was a good idea. Then Dodd said it WASN'T a good idea and HE disagreed with it. Hillary chimed in that she didn't agree with Spitzer's position and Dodd CALLED HER OUT, saying she just SAID it was a good idea and she said no she didn't. Try to spin it any way you want. The video shows her saying it then denying she said it.

[William769]

76. Then why is she jumping in the polls?

Why is Obama dropping? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out.

[jenmito]

79. She's not.

He's not. :shrug:

[William769]

91. Guess again.

[jenmito]

96. No.

[William769]

99. Like I said guess again.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=132&topic_id=3675935&mesg_id=3675935

Your one word answers just don't cut disputing the facts.

[jenmito]

101. Wrong.

You also said Obama slipped and he didn't. YOU guess again.

[William769]

102. He did slip.

All you have to do is read the link.

[jenmito]

103. I did. He's right back where he was before it.

His number dropped one day then climbed back up. Hilary did the same thing. :shrug: You said she's rising and he's dropping. Both of them dropped one of the days and then went back up.

[William769]

104. And when my original post was written it was correct and your response was not.

But I can see how you would not want to point out that little fact.

On EDIT: and it was two days not one.

[jenmito]

106. Your original post was on the 2nd. Obama already started climbing back on that day

And Hillary already slipped and climbed back up.

[William769]

107. Parse all you want but the fact is the link says two days not me.

[jenmito]

108. The fact is what you originally said was wrong.

[William769]

109. How so? I stated what the article stated.

[jenmito]

110. This was your original post:

"Then why is she jumping in the polls?

Why is Obama dropping? Doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure it out."

You wrote that on Nov. 2nd. On the day of the debate, 10/30, Hillary had 42% to Obama's 22%. The day after, Hillary dropped to 41% and Obama stayed at 22%. On 11/1, Hillary went up to 43% to Obama's 20%. Then on 11/2, the day of your comment, Hillary was still at 43% and Obama rose up to 21%. (To top it off, the NEXT day, Hillary remained at 43% and Obama rose AGAIN to 22%.)

In conclusion, Obama wasn't dropping. He dropped one day and rose back up. Also, Hillary fell then rose back up, so your OP was false.

[ItNerd4life]

68. Well said.

I wish people would listen to her. I keep reading how Obama doesn't take a stand but I don't see any examples. Thank you for giving examples about how Hillary isn't taking a stand, she jumps around.

[jenmito]

69. Thanks, ItNerd4life...

So do I. I think some people see her as doing no wrong, being above debating others, deserving to be GIVEN the nomination because "it's her time," and other excuses to ignore her evasiveness/changing positions. :hi:

[Capn Sunshine]

75. It's the CLARITY, stupid

Hillary is the Waffle Queen. She was "uncommitted " to voting no on Mukasey, when his opinions are right there : Unitary Executive, unchecked power, totrure , renditions, and the lack of Habeus Corpus. What's the difficulty here?
same story everywhere. No clarity, just carefully parsed sound bites.

[rateyes]

81. I really don't care if she was "piled on" or not...

It was a DEBATE, not a tea party, and she was (at least we are told she was) the frontrunner.

Hillary, if you can't run with the dogs, get out of the hunt. And for Chrissakes, quit playing the damned victim. If Obama, or Edwards, or any of the rest of the candidates had been the "frontrunner," you would have made the same kind of claims...piling on, if you will.

[BringBigDogBack]

82. Will the debate be re-aired?

I missed it. Thanks.

[jenmito]

85. You can see it here:

http://www.cspan.org/ Under "Recent Programs," about the 8th one down.

[jenmito]

84. It's just that the implication is she was UNFAIRLY "ganged up" on when she wasn't...

You're right. I've said it about 100 times already that this is what happens in a debate. She doesn't get to have a free ride and a crowning ceremony.

[polichick]

86. Technically, it was a pile-on in that they all came at her at once...

imo that's what she meant. It's too bad the guys played softball for so long and decided to go after her on legitimate issues during the same debate.

[jenmito]

87. She said things that they all disagreed with this time...

and that was the result. Was it considered a pile-on when everyone all came after Obama in an earlier debate? (I realize you think it's legitimate).

[polichick]

88. This wasn't the first time she said things they disagreed with...

It's just that they had been playing nice until they realized it wasn't working for them, and they changed tactics at the same time (though I don't think they planned it together).

If they all went after Obama at once, that was a pile-on too imo.

[jenmito]

89. I do...other times Dodd and Biden and Richardson would agree with her...

but this time DODD was the first one to call her on saying one thing a minute ago and denying it the next IIRC.

[Perry Logan]

92. Hillary, like a hero of yore, has beat six white guys and will beat six more.

[Froward69]

105. self delete

[Mutineer]

94. Big picture here:

If her Democratic brothers can rip her apart just what in God's name do you think that the GOP will be able to do to her in the general election? That is why she is NOT the best candidate for our party or for our country.

[jenmito]

98. I agree.

If her supporters think she deserves a free ride to the nomination just so she can be torn apart by the Repubs. they should think again.

[ddeclue]

100. bump