Repubs. putting out attack ad on Hillary to unite the Dems. around her...

[jenmito]

so she gains support. Hannity just claimed they're doing it to try to knock her down and raise the other Dems. up, but since when does Hannity tell the truth? They're scared to death about the Obama surge. It couldn't be more obvious.

[durrrty libby]

1. lol

[jenmito]

4. Why else would they run an ad againt her when she's not the nominee yet?

Do they really think the Dems. will pay attention to a REPUB. attack ad? Of course people will want to rally around Hillary against the RWers. Reverse psychology.

[Kurovski]

14. Whenever Dean or Kerry faced attacks, donations to them increased.

Not so crazy (or uproarious ) of a thought.

[jenmito]

21. Thank you.

At least ONE person sees what I'm talking about. :hi:

[MADem]

2. HANNITY!!!!!

:rofl:

You LISTEN to that shit? You'll be off to the shower soon, I presume...

:rofl:

[jenmito]

5. Did you read what I wrote????

I listened to him but did NOT buy what he was selling, which is why I wrote the OP. Duh. (Yes, it's midnight and I watched all the shows I like to watch. Sometimes I like to see what the enemy's up to.

[1corona4u]

10. Yeah, it's all about Obama...

whatever.

[jenmito]

22. Um, no it's not.

But whatever. :eyes:

[MADem]

16. Why would you 'buy what he was selling?' He sells CRAP, see?

He always HAS sold crap, he always WILL sell crap. He's not an 'honest conservative.' He's a fucking BushCo mouthpiece.

Your choice to waste your time, certainly, but that's like looking at a clock, and expecting it to sing opera to you instead of tell the time.

And so you report that an asshole is an asshole. What does it matter, really? There's no news there...

[jenmito]

25. That's the point! He IS selling crap by sayng the Repubs. are attacking her to lift up the other

Dems. The reality must be, since I DON'T believe him, that the Repubs. are making attack ads against Hillary so other Dems. rally behind her and make her more likely to be our nominee (which they obviously want).

[durrrty libby]

7. Sometimes I just wonder about people...then I see they actually

can tolerate watching such vile skewed crap. Amazing

[jenmito]

26. So you still don't get it. Too bad.

But not surprising.

[ClarkUSA]

3. Analysts think the reason Hillary is going negative on Obama is to drag him down so Edwards can win

Because she's much rather Edwards win Iowa than Obama due to Edwards' relative lack of funds with which to move onto New Hampshire and beyond.
What a bunch of Machiavellian goons (see Rovian madrassa emailing by Clinton regional directors).

[jenmito]

6. I saw that, too.

[ClarkUSA]

8. That's what I like about you, jenmito...

You always have your ears to the ground and are up with the latest. ;)

[jenmito]

27. Thanks, ClarkUSA

My ear is nowhere if not to the ground. :)

[aquart]

9. Because the Republicans would never say anything bad about Obama?

Your logic looks like the pretzel in Georgie's throat.

[jenmito]

28. Of COURSE they'd say bad things about ANY Dem., but with Hillary,

they have way more bad things to say. They have years and years of dirt on her.

[Harper_is_Bush]

11. If you think for one second a black candidate isn't a rightwingers wet dream, you're kidding

yourself.

[jenmito]

29. Sorry, but I don't. They're scared to death of THIS Black candidate.

He's no Al Sharpton. He actually has lots of respect from regular Repubs. while Hillary is hated by many regular Repubs.

[Harper_is_Bush]

88. Americans might claim they're ready for a black candidate, but I believe the underlying racism is

still too prevalent, and many of those who claim they would vote for one would not.

[Beacool]

12. Are you for real????

The Repugs scared of Obama??? Just go into the Freepers site and you'll see that they're laughing their ass off that we might end up nominating an "empty suit" (their words) who they feel that they can trample over in the general election. Why do you think that Rove took the trouble to give him advice via his Newsweek column? Do you think that he was trying to help him and the Democrats?

[karynnj]

19. They will label anyone we nominate an "empty suit"

They labeled John Kerry, who had one of the strongest resumes of either side an "empty suit". (Gore they chose other labels for and his connection to Clinton.) This year, either Obama or Edwards will be labeled that - and, if they are the nominee, they will need to prove that it is NOT the case - probably in debates. The real empty suit was George W Bush.

Every Democratic candidate will get Republican labels.

[Beacool]

49. Maybe, but in this case it has the ring of truth and it might stick. n/t

[jenmito]

31. You just made my point with your comment about Rove...

of COURSE I don't really think he was trying to help Obama. He was trying to HURT Obama because they're scared to run against him! Thanks. :hi:

[flpoljunkie]

41. Barack Obama would be the hardest of our candidates to demonize. Don't let the freepers fool you.

They are petrified and whistling in the dark.

[jenmito]

43. Exactly.

:hi:

[BenDavid]

13. Republicans are scared of Obama? LMAO...This is who the

racist gop really wants to run against. HRC is the one that would cause them the most trouble.

I would be willing to bet if obama wins the nomination La. is off the table, Missouri is off the table. West Virginia is off the table. Tenn. is off the table. There are more states that will close for Obama even before he even has a chance to campaign.

[karynnj]

20. 2008 should be a much easier year than either 2000 or 2004

where - at minimum - both elections were close. The Republicans don't even like there own candidates. I am not thrilled with any of our candidates, but all of them will push programs that are night and day different than what the Republicans want. This year, like 1992, is a year where it will be hard for whomever wins the nomination not to win.

The choices that we are likely down to are not the strongest possible candidates. Both Kerry and Gore had less baggage or more experience than any candidate running. Incidentally, every state you list was won by Bush twice. Even if you are correct, it is easy to win without them. Without Blackwell, Kerry very likely would have won Ohio - he is gone and they have a Democratic governor and secretary of state. There are other swing states that were not in play in 2000, but were shaky in 2004 and 2008 for the Republicans - such as Virginia and Colorado.

HRC's last few weeks show that her campaign has repeatedly done things that reinforce the most negatives themes about her. I know that Penn and others have said the kindergarten comments were a joke, but the cartoons made it HRC, the mean girl. Gore actually did nothing that should have labeled him, boring. Kerry was NOT aloof. Yet the Republicans repeated these things - and some DUers cite them. Frankly, boring or aloof are less deadly than mean, cold and calculating. The fear that BC could be a loose cannon that she can't control has been reinforced. The Clintons being corrupt has been reinforced by at least two current year fund raising problems and BC's refusal to identify people giving 7 figure contributions to his library. That's not even mentioning how many stories BC has already told us on Iraq.

[jenmito]

33. They sure are!

The racists wouldn't vote for ANY Dem. But Obama is a very unifying candidate-and not unifying the Repubs. against him like Hillary. Your judgement is off anyway since you think Michelle Obama said Black people should vote for her husband just because he's Black like them. I've replied to your "paraphrase" of what Michelle said about 3 times and you never respond.

[OHdem10]

15. Hannity explained last week and had lots of agreement

that OBama would be the easiest for GOP to run against and win.

[jenmito]

34. And you BELIEVE him?

:rofl:

[Hippo_Tron]

17. Hillary Clinton isn't on the GOP candidates' minds now except insomuch as she helps them

Hannity is completely full of shit. This has nothing to do with Hillary and nothing to do with Obama. They are attacking Hillary, for the same reason that they have been attacking Hillary all along, it scores points with their base.

Mittens is scared shitless by Huckleberry's rise, Huckleberry is starting to realize just how unprepared he is for media scrutiny and attacks from the other candidates, and The Ghoul is starting to come to grips with the fact that he will come in third and fourth place in all of the early primary states and that it is going to kill him before he gets to Super Tuesday. Hillary Clinton and the General Election is the last thing on any of their minds right now.

[jenmito]

35. I disagree.

If you think they're not thinking about the general election, you should think again.

[Hippo_Tron]

86. The campaigns themselves are all crapping their pants right now over the nomination

I'm sure the Karl Rove types are thinking about the GE, but if the ad came from a campaign then it wasn't GE related.

[Perry Logan]

18. Are the Obama people putting out their attacks on Hillary for the same reason?

[jenmito]

36. Attacks? Pointing out differences is not attacking someone.

Nice try.

[Renew Deal]

23. Hillary polls worse than the other major candidates

Of course they want her.

[jenmito]

37. Exactly.

:hi:

[Cha]

24. Since

NEVER.

[rinsd]

30. But I thought attacks on people meant the attackers were afraid?

Or does that only apply to non Hillary candidates?

:shrug:

[jenmito]

38. Between members of the same party, yes, that's right.

When Repubs. are attacking a Dem. candidate and CLAIMING it's to hurt her and help her Dem. rivals, you can be sure they're playing games.

[rinsd]

54. When they attack Obama its because they are afraid of him.

And when they attack Edwards its because they are afraid of him.

But somehow when they attack Hillary, its really a Machavellian plot to aid her.

See where I am going with this ridiculousness?

[jenmito]

57. I haven't seen them attacking Obama. As a matter of fact, Rove gave him advice

about how to beat Hillary. I suppose you believe THAT was well-intended, too. :shrug:

[rinsd]

61. Yeah funny how he's getting nothing but sunny coverage lately.

"As a matter of fact, Rove gave him advice about how to beat Hillary. I suppose you believe THAT was well-intended, too"

Considering Obama has used Novak, I am sure he took Karl's words to heart.

[jenmito]

63. Yeah, right...

Obama "used" Novak? So you can't explain Rove's advice and make a "joke" about it instead? :eyes:

[rinsd]

65. I think Karl Rove is trying to stir shit period.

His column pisses off basically every Democrat. From those who take it face value to those who see some dark ulterior motive.

[jenmito]

67. So you don't believe he was really giving Obama advice to beat Hillary

as you SHOULDN'T. Hence my point in the OP. We shouldn't really believe Hannity when he says the Repubs. are running an attack ad against Hillary because they want to bring her down and help her opponents. Thanks again for proving my point. :hi:

[ronnykmarshall]

45. Only non-Hillary candidates.

You might want to brush up on DU Logic 101.

[rinsd]

47. Damn and I went thru all that shock therapy to expunge it from my mind....

what a waste of money ;-)

[jenmito]

50. I see you prefer to post to someone who agrees with you rather than address my response to you.

:eyes:

[rinsd]

59. I can't talk to a friendly face?

[jenmito]

60. Sure you can. But you obviously CAN'T refute my point.

:shrug:

[rinsd]

64. I figured thtat would be your response, given your logic .

They are afraid of Obama so they say nothing negative about him. But when they do its because they are afraid of him.

They want Hillary so they put out attack ads against her.

I respond to Ronny before you so that obviously means I can't refute your point.

:eyes:

[jenmito]

66. Show me where I said

when the Repubs. attack Obama it's because they're afraid of him.

[MethuenProgressive]

32. LOL! It's a comedy matinee!!

"They're scared to death about the Obama surge."
:rofl: The GOP would love to have Obama to run against!!

[jenmito]

39. Got any evidence of that? Because all the polls I see show

Hillary unites and energizes the Repub. base like nobody else.

[MethuenProgressive]

40. *You* ask *me* for *evidence* after you actually typed and hit 'post message' with:

"Repubs. putting out attack ad on Hillary to unite the Dems. around her..."??????
:rofl:

[jenmito]

42. I didn't think so.

:hi:

[MethuenProgressive]

44. Got that "evidence" proving your OP yet?

You left this in your OP: :tinfoilhat:

[ronnykmarshall]

46. Forget the tin foil ....

I think this is more fitting for this thread

[jenmito]

69. Hey-if YOU want to believe Hannity, be my guest!

But YOU'RE the one who looks like that if you DO.

[ronnykmarshall]

71. ....

[jenmito]

53. No need. If you choose to believe Hannity, be my guest!

I figured it was enough to post what he said and the smart people would know he's not telling the truth. :shrug:

[MethuenProgressive]

56. "Hannity" said "They're scared to death about the Obama surge"??

Sorry. I thought that was you saying that! Of course that's nonsense, and I should've recognized it as a FOX 'News' talking point right away.

[jenmito]

62. No. He didn't say that...

it was me saying that. What is nonsense is what he DID say-that the Repubs. are going to run an attack ad on Hillary to help lift up her opponents (implying they want to run against THEM rather than Hillary).

[ronnykmarshall]

48. Oh tell me more about this ...

[SIMPLYB1980]

51. Or a whole suit LOL!

[Occam Bandage]

52. Or possibly putting out an attack ad to raise her negatives among Dems,

because they don't want to face her.

[jenmito]

55. Like the Dems. would believe anything the Repubs. say?

An attack ad from a Repub. could only draw sympathy from the Dems. They know this.

[Occam Bandage]

58. Just like the recent right-wing hit on Nancy Pelosi did?

[jenmito]

68. What's Nancy Pelosi running for?

:shrug:

[Occam Bandage]

70. Oh, I get it.

Democrats are willing to swallow unsourced RW hit pieces on sitting Democratic leaders, but will reject RW attacks on well-known Democrats who are running for office, and will in fact rally around them. That's consistent.

[jenmito]

72. Who said Dems. would swallow ANYTHING from the RW?

I just asked what Pelosi's running for, since she's not going to be competition for them nor do they have a chance to run against her or someone other than her. Apples and oranges.

[Occam Bandage]

74. I must have hallucinated the entire Pelosi/Waterboarding flap. Or perhaps

you are aware of evidence that I am not?

[jenmito]

75. What in the world does that have to do with my OP?

Why are you comparing apples and oranges? Pelosi's not running for anything!

[Occam Bandage]

76. It has more to do with your claim that

Democrats would never swallow a right-wing smear against Democrats.

[jenmito]

77. They're playing games with our side, trying to influence the outcome of the nomination...

whatever they say about Pelosi won't have any effect on our party.

[Occam Bandage]

78. Agreed. But it might well be to the opposite end you assume.

(If you think the OMG PELOSI IS A TRAITOR mindset has no bearing on the level of support and morale among the base, well...)

[jenmito]

80. If it IS the opposite, that would mean Hannity is telling the truth. Sorry, but I don't trust

nor believe a word Hannity says.

The Repubs. can say what they want about Pelosi. She's not up for election now.

[Occam Bandage]

83. The Devil does not always lie.

He quite often tells the truth, knowing some will believe it and some will believe it false. Hannity is not a pathological liar; he tells the truth when it forwards his goals, and he lies when it forwards his goals.

(Pelosi isn't up for election? Representatives are up for election in every even-numbered year.)

[jenmito]

85. Does that go for Novak, too?

[ronnykmarshall]

73. It's soooooo clear isn't it?

[NewHampster]

79. Never listen to Hannity and never ever will

[jenmito]

81. I like to see the strategy of the enemy.

[NewHampster]

82. First they get you to listen to the subliminal messages

Then they loll you to sleep.

[Politicub]

84. I think the GOP is freaking out about all dems

They are toast this time around, and they know it. Hillary would mop the floor with anyone from their sorry field.

[LanternWaste]

87. Those evil... geniuses...?

Do I have your line of thinking straight?--

The Republicans are attacking a Democratic nominee in order to help that nominee win over another?

If that's the case, then may we validly assume the corollary-- if the Republicans don't attack a Democratic nominee, that means they don't want that nominee to win?

That, in effect-- the Republicans attack nominees to help them ,and don't attack nominees to hurt them?

Those evil... geniuses...?

[jenmito]

90. They're not evil geniuses. They're evil dummies.

Yes, you have my line of thinking straight. I think they're attacking her to rally other Dems. around her, to "protect" her from the Repubs., to garner her more support (since she's slipping) because they want to run against her.

And yes, I think the opposite applies. Example-Rove giving Obama "advice" on how to beat Hillary.

[PaDem]

89. Hillary would be a conservative wet dream

and for whatever reason, we're giving it to them.

[jenmito]

91. I agree 100%!

And we WERE giving it to them. We may have finally come to our senses.