Hillarys Problem: She thinks we're still as dumb as we were in 1992.

[Joe the Revelator]

Thats the reason she tries to push all the lies and the stump speeches filled with made up people. That kind of stuff worked in old politics, before everyone got on the internet.

Back then you could just make shit up, and aside from a few politically minded tabloids, no one would call you on your lies.

Hillary didn't adapt with the times. She's an old dog who can't learn new tricks.

[niceypoo]

1. So, you believe that Bush should have won a second term in 1992?

The smear campaign rolls on...

Hate makes people say stupid things.

Unity my ass

[Joe the Revelator]

2. I'm saying that politics were different in 1992, and we were a different type of voter

If you had any reading comprehension skills at all, you would have understood that.

[JackORoses]

5. So you deny that you have hitched your wagon to a bonafied Loser?

Denial makes people say stupid things.

[ClassWarrior]

7. Huh?? Poppy did the same thing then that HRC is doing today.

He failed to keep up with the times. When he expressed wonder and amazement at that bar code scanner in the grocery store, his campaign was done for.

(By the way, the ad hominum attacks - accusing anyone of being a "hater" if he or she doesn't worship the ground HRC walks on - are starting to get old.)

NGU.

[jefferson_dem]

8. Nope. Jerry Brown was right though...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tX6RUe_3nBU

[jgraz]

25. They way they lied about Brown in 92 was disgusting

No, we shouldn't have voted for Bush in 92. But we should have never even nominated Clinton.

[Nedsdag]

28. No kidding!

It was the Clinton camp that allegedly spread a rumor that Brown attended a party where was cocaine right before the New York primary. Brown had won the Connecticut primary and he had some momentum.

[jgraz]

32. It was actually far worse than that

I was part of the Brown campaign in Wisconsin, whose primary was held on the same day as New York's. The rumor started with drug parties held at one of Brown's residences. Then it was drug parties at the governor's mansion. Then it became cocaine parties. Then cocaine orgies. Then gay cocaine orgies.

Everywhere the Clintons went, there seemed to be a whispering campaign about Brown's alleged drug use (he's rabidly anti-drug) and his sexuality. And, of course, it was helped along by Hillary giving winkwink-nudgenudge speeches while Bill coasted along in her wake.

[gateley]

37. Did Bill say the charges carried no merit

"as far as I know" when questioned on the topic?

[jgraz]

38. I don't remember the press even questioning Bill on it

Remember, the Brown rumors came to a head right after Bill got busted playing golf at a whites-only country club. Quel coincidence, no?

[blm]

40. So, the 'Larry Sinclair' scenario is actually a reprise of what TeamClinton did to Jerry Brown?

I do remember the Brown stories. I was living in LA and part of the music biz at the time, but I wasn't aware that the stories came from TeamClinton. I certainly know better now. I hope more Dems appreciate the undermining Gore and Kerry went through when THEY, TOO, were in the way of Hillary2008.

Now we better see how they operate because they are actively campaigning against another Democrat OPENLY.

[jgraz]

41. I must confess, I've completely ignored the Larry Sinclair story

If it came out before Obama emerged as the frontrunner, I'd chalk it up to a random crazy. If it emerged after Iowa, then I'd be suspicious.

[griffi94]

9. hilarious isn't it

according to some of obamas more rigorous supporters, the clintons are worse than the the bush family. wouldn't it have been great if poppy bush could have served a 2nd term, and then dole could have carried the ball for 8 years before shrub got his 8.

i really don't get the irrational blind hatred of the clintons. it goes way past being for obama.
it really is like the rw dementia that caused a gop led congress to impeach, and drag up and investigate every rumor that was ever whispered about the clintons.

[ClassWarrior]

12. What's hilarious is how HRC's defenders ignore legitimate criticisms that...

...could help her campaign, instead launching ad hominem attacks against anyone who doesn't worship her.

NGU.

[griffi94]

18. right the legitimate

criticisms, like she's not 21rst century enough, or that celine dion sings at her rallies, she doesn't rock and bop like obama, she points a lot, her voice is shrill. yeah ya got to love those legitimate criticisms. i'm sure if she rocked and bopped more crowd obama would stop the hate flamebait posts.

[ClassWarrior]

19. No argument from me. Just keep doing what you've been doing all along.

It's worked so well for y'all.

:eyes:

NGU.

[Zhade]

60. No, the legit concerns like her constant proven lying.

You know, her honesty issues.

[dbonds]

29. You really don't see that the same people own the Clintons and the Bushes?

They are all beholden to the corporations. Just a different face on the same owners.

[blm]

23. Begs the question, do YOU wish Pres. GHWBush and his cronies had faced impeachment hearings on BCCI

and the outstanding matters of his involvement in IranContra and Iraqgate that were still unfolding in late 1992?

Given all that we know today, do you not see any benefit for this nation in holding Bush1 and his powerful cronies accountable in 1993 for their dealings that nurtured the global terrorist networks and the global fascist takeover of our nation's economy?

[papau]

27. LOL - real problem is folks like some DUers want to be conned by a pretend change fellow who

is not going to change anything to offend his corporate sponsors - and hate women in charge so much that they therefore shut off their brain from seeing the real change Hillary would bring.

[blm]

31. Hill would REALLY continue to protect BushInc just as Bill did. You need to PRETEND she won't.

.

[gateley]

3. I was thinking along those lines

when the brouhaha was alive regarding talking to leaders of non-friendly foreign nations.

It felt to me like she was clinging to the "We're the U.S. and we won't kowtow" mindset. Show no weakness.

Which is kind of understandable when you're THE world power, but I don't believe we qualify for that distinction any longer.

[goclark]

4. She is lost in the 20th Century

That has been my feeling all along.

YOUTH counts folks.

I am a Senior and I find myself struggling to learn things like text messaging and the latest terms.

The 21st Century is a brand new day and Clinton is not of it or able to keep up with it.

Put 5 more or 8 more years on to her birthdays and there you have it ~ 20th Century + 8.

And we won't even discuss McCain ~

[gateley]

39. It's the old saying.. If you want more of what you're getting,

keep doing what you're doing.

Gotta move forward.

[truedelphi]

6. The internet has not been her friend

The TV crowd is helping - Wolf Blitzer lighting up every time he says her name.

But the internet is not something she understands.

And I don't get her predilection for this sugarty ballads sung by over the hill nasal voiced women like Celine Dione either.

Obama's crowd knows how to have him rockin' and bopping and more up to date.

[WolverineDG]

11. And that's why she's failing

With the release of her tax returns yesterday, it isn't as though she can plead being so cash-poor that she couldn't recruit & hire top-notch Net geeks. Certainly Chelsea is up-to-date on the Net & could have helped her out in that regard as well. But no, she instead shelled out big bucks to people who don't understand how to use the Net for organizing & fundraising & who'd rather run a 21st Century campaign with 20th Century methods.

dg

[jgraz]

26. No, the truth has not been her friend

The internet just helps the truth get out.

[leftstreet]

10. Remember when she said the web needed "gatekeeping?"

First lady just doesn't get it
Hillary Clinton's call for Internet "gatekeeping' reveals a lack of understanding
REBECCA EISENBERG

Sunday, February 22, 1998


"We are all going to have to rethink how we deal with this," she answered, "because there are always competing values. There's no free decision that I'm aware of anywhere in life, and certainly with technology that's the case."

Although technology's new developments are

"exciting," Hillary continued, "There are a number of serious issues without any kind of editing function or gatekeeping function. What does it mean to have the right to defend your reputation, or to respond to what someone says?"

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/examiner/archive/1998/02/22/BUSINESS904.dtl

[dailykoff]

17. Gatekeeping is something she gets and is good at.

Identify the gatekeepers and put them on the payroll, CIA-style. In fact it's the same operation. That's why she was Lady Inevitable for four years.

[Moochy]

59. Larry Johnson's No Quarter anyone?

[PoliticalAmazon]

20. Reminds me of BushJr's "too much freedom" comment abou tthe internet. n/t

[dailykoff]

13. Good point.

She's got the Fox-NYT-CNN crowd in her pocket, but they just aren't as big as they used to be.

[pdxmom]

14. I believe you're absolutely right. We see this over and over again

from politicians who haven't quite figured out the change in media yet. McCain is another example and it's going to come back and bite him hard. He is constantly contradicting himself and the few times he has been called on it, he denies it even in the face of the audio or video. Lots of campaign ads out there, waiting to be made, showing McCain and his contradictory statements on everything from torture to tax cuts to the war. And he'll stubbornly deny in the face of hard evidence.

You've got to be ready for the new media if you're going into politics these days.

[mod mom]

15. She's playing to an uninformed audience who see a D and think it means change.

She spins her corporate ties and special interest to make it appear she is the populist champion but the well informed folks (like most DUers, KOS and elsewhere who take the time to research discover-it's a facade.

[Taxmyth]

16. the Obama slime machine here for all to see

No content, nothing of note, only attacks on Senator Clinton. Alienating the shit out of me and tens of thousands others. Fucking GOP plants.

[ClassWarrior]

21. "Fucking GOP plants?" YOU're calling 90% of DUers "fucking GOP plants?"

And WE're the ones who are the "haters?"

:eyes:

NGU.

[Taxmyth]

43. Yes. Yes I am

Fucking haters. Nothing positive to say about anyone. Either very dumb or GOP plants take your pick.

[ClassWarrior]

49. Then leave.

No one's stopping you. Go.

NGU.

[Name removed]

52. Deleted message

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

[ClassWarrior]

57. My name isn't Obama. And I don't like disruptors like you.

NGU.

[Taxmyth]

58. posting nothing but attacks on a Democratic candidate

is the work of disruptors. Maybe you and I are on the same page and maybe we're not, I don't know. I want the GOP as a distinct minority in the House and Senate and would also like a Democratic Party President. Attacks against Democratic Party candidates do nothing to help reach those goals and are actually destroy the work already done to reach them. Which is why they would be used by GOP Plants.

A vote against Senator Clinton does not equal a vote for Senator Obama. It could equal a vote for Senator McCain. I have no room in my heart for attacks on Senator Obama here either because that does the same thing.

I don't know you so I will reserve judgement as to whether or not I like you as a human being. For all I know you could be my barber.

[ClassWarrior]

63. Objective observers are welcome to judge which of us is attacking Dems...

...based on the posts (and deletions) in this thread alone.

NGU.

[ClassWarrior]

66. Hmmm... Where did you go?

Back under the bridge?

NGU.

[Taxmyth]

71. Tried to be reasonable

and explain my disgust with tearing down Democratic Party candidates. It's difficult if not impossible to be reasonable with those who lack the capacity to reason. Oh, it so reminds me of the Bush supporters in 2000 and '04 and what they were like.

[ClassWarrior]

73. Again, I'll leave it to the reader to decide who's doing the "tearing down"...

...around here.

NGU.

[BornBlue]

74. I don't think you know what the definition of reasonable is

Please see this web-site for a clear definition:
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Reasonable

But in my personal opinion reasonable is not dropping f-bombs because you can. Not personally or generally attacking groups of people because you can. You want the smearing to stop, set an example don't fly off the handles because you disagree with something. Take a second and create a well thought out response devoid of profanity and insults.

[dbonds]

35. Usual RW tactics of blaming the other side on your own guilt.

Obama's supporters have gone through the range of emotions of first not believing the crap from the clinton supporters, to dismissing them as ridiculous, to getting angry of their hubris. The Obama anger is a reaction, not a provocation.

[Taxmyth]

44. Will they stay committed

or are they just a bunch of lightweights?

[ClassWarrior]

50. Will you ask more idiotic questions in a lame attempt to sow doubt?

Or will you shove your head back up your ass where it belongs?

NGU.

[Name removed]

54. Deleted message

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

[Kool Kitty]

61. The same question could probably be asked of you.

[Taxmyth]

67. 30+ years of Democratic Party support

Not as much as some but more than others. No plans on changing affiliations either.

[Joe the Revelator]

42. Most real democrats are getting behind Obama...

If anyone is a plant, its the Hillary bitter enders.

[Taxmyth]

45. Nothing positive only negative

another fucking GOP plant. One good turn deserves another.

[Joe the Revelator]

48. I'm positive in my support for the presumtive democratic nominee, not a McCain endorsing

spoiler. Sorry bout that.

[Taxmyth]

51. Fine reasons

Excellent rationale behind your choice of candidates. You deserve what you get.

[Kool Kitty]

62. So if I am an Obama supporter,

I don't have good judgment and deserve what I get? Because I don't agree with you, I am a republican? Gee, I guess the fact that I support Obama, but will vote for the Democratic nominee, whoever it turns out to be, makes me a member of the GOP? I know you weren't addressing me, but you seemed to be grouping all the Obama supporters together, so I thought I'd ask. I don't really get your logic.

[Taxmyth]

69. First, reading comprehension is an important tool

My problem is with attacks on Democratic Candidates which serve no purpose other than to turn voters off to a particular candidate while doing nothing to promote the chances of another candidate. If you are engaged in this type of behavior then you are either a GOP Plant trying to disrupt the Democratic Party process or not very politcally astute. I have no problem with anyone who criticizes policy or promotes a Democratic candidate in a positive manner. That's not what this original post did and that's what I responded to.

[gulliver]

22. The Internet magnifies dumb more than it does smart.

But I will agree that Hillary has not figured out the new game. For one thing, she hasn't worked on the low IQ end of the Democratic primary voter market. Some people vote with their feelings, even more now than before the Internet. She doesn't seem to get that. The "feelings" crowd now has the most powerful rationalization engine of all time in their grubby hands, Google.

Barack has a much better balanced marketing appeal, at least for the Democratic primary market.

[blm]

30. She hasn't fooled the INFORMED internet who access National Security Archives and read BCCI report

and CIA drugrunning report that Clinton deep-sixed throughout the 90s as he protected the secrecy and privilege of GHWBush, Jackson Stephens, Dubai and Saudi royals, Bin Ladens, AQ Khan, Marc Rich, et al.

Did you mean to leave MY group of Clinton skeptics out of your analysis?

[bigbrother05]

24. I have thought this for a long time

with everything available, 24/7 and can't do any better than this, it's out of touch.

[L. Coyote]

33. Isn't this a DEM bash?

[dailykoff]

34. Another thing is that Bill is a much better liar.

He expresses his lies more artfully so they're not as easy to pin down. Also he's more likable so most people are less likely to take issue with them.

[Life Long Dem]

36. Well, then she has had an awakening.

[Cha]

46. Another example of hilary not

being very bright. Was this part of her "inevitability" strategy that she thought would make people vote for her even though they wanted the other guy? :silly:

[Raine]

47. It seems like Hillary didn't cross that bridge

that was going to the 21st century. :-(

[nolabels]

53. Actually, for myself, i might not be as sharp as was then.

But then there was that lesser of the evils thing, Perot might of been a better choice even come to think of it. I mean at least we wouldn't of gotten media monopolies and NAFTA triangulated on us :think:

Yea, now that you brought all of that back up of it maybe we are not as dumb as then :-)

[BenDavid]

55. Like it or not, Clinton is our "Reagan," and each time a Democrat

slimes Clinton they're saying, "Even our best president in 60 years is slime," so why should any undecided voter go with the party whose best is a "f-ing racist whore bastard?"Not!Could I get an Obama fan to answer that? Reagan was a scumbag who hated gays and women and the poor. He sold weapons to terrorists after making a deal with them to fuck the 1980 vote, yet the Republicans honor him and praise him and defend him and deify him. Meanwhile, the Democrats slime their heroes.

Last thing: The Clintons are hated BECAUSE THEY ARE WINNERS.

[stillcool]

56. I think that they are running..

their entire 'campaign' through the media. For smart people they're doing a really bad job of marketing and public relations. I agree that there is something they don't get about internet usage. Maybe they think people use it to play games and buy shit. I knew nothing back then, about anything. I remember watching Ollie North on what was then CNN...and I thought he was cool, because he dissed the government. I had no idea who he had conspired with, and what was actually done.

[Awsi Dooger]

64. LOL! You actually got it right, but not as you intended

1992 wasn't about gotcha irrelevancies, like Tim Russert squirted everywhere.

It was hiring a team that could mend the economy, daily benefit for everyone.

Hillary's problem is her husband was too damn effective at fixing the economy. It leads to a faulty assumption that any Democrat can manage similar.

[Darth_Kitten]

65. Don't think a lot of Obama supporters' parents are telling them the truth about the 90's.

n/t

[Mimosa]

72. The 90s weren't great

It's a fantasy that the 1990s were a great time economically. There was a technology boom related to computers and the internet. There also was major job migration. I recall solid textile, auto manufacturing, appliance and furniture building jobs from many states in the South as well as in Ohio and Michigan migrating to Mexico and China.

Does everybody else here have AMNESIA?

[boppers]

68. Lie number infinity-whatever: "Women didn't vote anywhere in the US until 1920".

She doesn't even seem to know how to use wikipedia.

She seems to be a 20th century person who never crossed over, and will spin out random shit and blame others when she (and they) realizes that her speil was basically a political fabrication.

[boppers]

70. Linkies:

AP story:
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5g2GmYQUOXiqnLy9xLzDglAsYHtiQD8VSIRO80

Her quote: "Remember, Jeannette Rankin was elected before women could vote"

Hey, look, Rankin was elected in 1916.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jeannette_Rankin

Two years after women got the vote in their state.