They never bring up any of her "accomplishments" as a reason to hate her.
of course they don't.
At the time, she didn't have any worthy of ire. But if she was this progressive, active, wheeling and dealing participant like she's painting herself as, then yeah, they would have been on her ass about every move.
They never bring up any of her "accomplishments" as a reason to hate her.
of course they don't.
At the time, she didn't have any worthy of ire. But if she was this progressive, active, wheeling and dealing participant like she's painting herself as, then yeah, they would have been on her ass about every move.
dude.....STOP. you don't know what your talking about but you keep going and going. take a minute and actually research hillary's 8 years as first lady, or her life in general since graduating from the top of her class at yale law school.
we need a and get your facts straight, then come back to the conversation graemlin.
They never bring up any of her "accomplishments" as a reason to hate her.
of course they don't.
At the time, she didn't have any worthy of ire. But if she was this progressive, active, wheeling and dealing participant like she's painting herself as, then yeah, they would have been on her ass about every move.
dude.....STOP. you don't know what your talking about but you keep going and going. take a minute and actually research hillary's 8 years as first lady, or her life in general since graduating from the top of her class at yale law school.
we need a and get your facts straight, then come back to the conversation graemlin.
Seriously, get of my nuts. You don't like what I'm saying, disprove me and move along.
So tell me, what did she do as first lady (without conjecture) that the other before haven't?
They never bring up any of her "accomplishments" as a reason to hate her.
of course they don't.
At the time, she didn't have any worthy of ire. But if she was this progressive, active, wheeling and dealing participant like she's painting herself as, then yeah, they would have been on her ass about every move.
dude.....STOP. you don't know what your talking about but you keep going and going. take a minute and actually research hillary's 8 years as first lady, or her life in general since graduating from the top of her class at yale law school.
we need a and get your facts straight, then come back to the conversation graemlin.
The fact remains that she has virtually the same amount of time in elected office as Obama, so the fact remains that her 'abundance' of experience vs. his inexperience is indeed a myth. One that her campaign understandably tries (and succeeds)to reinforce through a compliant media.
To me, experience is a NON-FACTOR when it comes to these two. It's a wash.
While I think Jeff nailed the bigger issues, to toss race out of the discussion is silly.
Can we then assume the 80% Black vote for Obama was motivated by sexism?
Does this prove that the there is no sexism in the Asian community?
I think sexism and racism are always factors. I won't attribute any one vote of any one community wholly to either one though (obviously). But to ignore them in an analysis of voting patterns is to ignore two of the most enduring forces in the US and in the world.
You don't like what I'm saying, disprove me and move along.
Thats not how it works. If you are making a point, your supposed to have facts to back it up. Don't come in here making 5 posts in a row about how Hillary was picking out drapes and polishing silverware in the White House, when you obviously don't know, and don't claim, to know the first thing about her. Its not my job to give you an education.
You don't like what I'm saying, disprove me and move along.
Thats not how it works. If you are making a point, your supposed to have facts to back it up. Don't come in here making 5 posts in a row about how Hillary was picking out drapes and polishing silverware in the White House, when you obviously don't know, and don't claim, to know the first thing about her. Its not my job to give you an education.
To hell with discourse, jpeg raer me into voting for hillary...
You don't like what I'm saying, disprove me and move along.
Thats not how it works. If you are making a point, your supposed to have facts to back it up. Don't come in here making 5 posts in a row about how Hillary was picking out drapes and polishing silverware in the White House, when you obviously don't know, and don't claim, to know the first thing about her. Its not my job to give you an education.
PS. I like how you projected a sexist point of view onto me that I never expressed. Typical.
Anyone hear about this? Clinton is trying to portray herself as the underdog and Obama as the establishment candidate? Made me laugh.
Clinton Seeks to Cast Herself as Underdog
by Peter Overby
All Things Considered, February 8, 2008 ?? Although New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the largest states and collected slightly more delegates than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Democrats' Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5, her presidential campaign spent the rest of the week repositioning her as a kind of underdog. It all has to do with her campaign money, and who's contributing to her.
This repositioning comes down to one word, and in this campaign cycle, it's not a nice one: "establishment."
This week, Clinton and her advisers declared that Obama is the "establishment" candidate. When chief strategist Mark Penn explained the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday results to reporters Wednesday, he said, "We went through 10 days of wall-to-wall coverage of Sen. Obama and his establishment campaign, of big endorsements, money, ads on the Super Bowl. And Hillary Clinton again bounced back."
And the candidate herself said of Obama's Super Tuesday performance, "Well, he sure had a lot of establishment support yesterday, and I feel very good about the results."
All this came as Clinton revealed she had lent her campaign $5 million in late January. The loan came at a time when Obama had already been able to buy TV time for the Feb. 5 contests.
Campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Thursday that the loan wasn't a sign of weakness, but rather was inspiring to legions of small donors. He got the message across to reporters by letting them listen in on a conference call with the campaign's biggest money raisers, or bundlers.
"We need your help," he told the fundraisers at the end of the call. "People are stepping up to the plate. Hillary Clinton has stepped up for us. And now we need to step up for her."
It's hard to exaggerate the distance between Clinton's previous image and her new underdog image.
McAuliffe for decades has been a fixture of the Washington Democratic power structure. When Clinton announced her candidacy, much of that power structure promptly lined up behind her. Her money network has concentrated on donors who could give the maximum $2,300. Such contributions accounted for fully half of her money last year, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute.
This big-dollar fundraising is more efficient at first. But maxed-out donors can't give anymore later. So one of Clinton's chief money raisers, private equity financier Alan Patricof, gave this advice on the conference call:
"The easy collections are from people who've given something already and have not gone to the maximum of $2,300," he told the other bundlers. "That's where I personally have had the most success???. Rather than even starting with new people, there are so many people out there who gave partial amounts that you can go back to now."
Clinton's financial problems reflect one of the ways in which the Internet has changed the rules of the fundraising game. Tony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College, says raising money online is cheaper. It also takes virtually none of the candidate's time. And it's richly symbolic, as close connections to big donors can become a political liability.
"It's now being seen in terms of whether a candidate is really tapping into the grassroots voter," Corrado says, "or whether they're relying on the same old power players and the money game."
Corrado notes that last month, Obama raised $32 million ??? $28 million of it online. Between Super Tuesday and the end of the week, another $7.5 million came in over the Internet. Clinton raised $13.5 million from all sources in January. That gap is perceived as a symbol of popular support for Obama.
Corrado says the Clinton campaign is now "trying to put more emphasis into online fundraising as way to show that they, too, have lots of loyal supporters out there and that they are also enjoying success with smaller donors."
The Clinton campaign says it has raised more than $6.4 million online this week. The campaign says that's enough to stay competitive on TV for upcoming primaries, and enough to change the candidate's image as well.
The only thing Obama has "established" is that Hillary is a whored-out, double-dealing cunt.
Jesus dude. What the fuck?
So when a guy like Fatback says that McCain has money dick in his mouth and ass it gets a pass from you?
Comparing McCain to a homosexual whore is OK but comparing Hillary to a straight up whore is wrong? Where were you earlier, Mom?
C'mon man, don't be so disingenuous to throw out this kind of bullshit about it. You can't possibly be so stupid as to not know the difference.
By the way:
How is it that this board bans people anti-Semitic or anti-Black rhetoric but shit like this gets a pass?
I'm not suggesting we ban MDT. I just think we need some consistency up in here.
if your gonna be witty, then say whatever, nobody has virgin ears here and we all like to laugh. if not, then chill with personal attacks and/or this type of shit that has become dude's m.o. you just sound mad doggie. its the weekend.
Comments
At the time, she didn't have any worthy of ire. But if she was this progressive, active, wheeling and dealing participant like she's painting herself as, then yeah, they would have been on her ass about every move.
Hell, they even criticized her book.
Nahmsayin..
dude.....STOP. you don't know what your talking about but you keep going and going. take a minute and actually research hillary's 8 years as first lady, or her life in general since graduating from the top of her class at yale law school.
we need a
Seriously, get of my nuts. You don't like what I'm saying, disprove me and move along.
So tell me, what did she do as first lady (without conjecture) that the other before haven't?
The fact remains that she has virtually the same amount of time in elected office as Obama, so the fact remains that her 'abundance' of experience vs. his inexperience is indeed a myth. One that her campaign understandably tries (and succeeds)to reinforce through a compliant media.
To me, experience is a NON-FACTOR when it comes to these two. It's a wash.
Can we then assume the 80% Black vote for Obama was motivated by sexism?
Does this prove that the there is no sexism in the Asian community?
Not saying it's motivated.
Sexism definitely plays into this race in a big way. As does race.
I think sexism and racism are always factors. I won't attribute any one vote of any one community wholly to either one though (obviously). But to ignore them in an analysis of voting patterns is to ignore two of the most enduring forces in the US and in the world.
Thats not how it works. If you are making a point, your supposed to have facts to back it up. Don't come in here making 5 posts in a row about how Hillary was picking out drapes and polishing silverware in the White House, when you obviously don't know, and don't claim, to know the first thing about her. Its not my job to give you an education.
To hell with discourse, jpeg raer me into voting for hillary...
Camille Paglia wrote about this last month
http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2008/01/10/hillary/index_np.html
PS. I like how you projected a sexist point of view onto me that I never expressed. Typical.
Clinton Seeks to Cast Herself as Underdog
by Peter Overby
All Things Considered, February 8, 2008 ?? Although New York Sen. Hillary Clinton won the largest states and collected slightly more delegates than Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in the Democrats' Super Tuesday primaries and caucuses on Feb. 5, her presidential campaign spent the rest of the week repositioning her as a kind of underdog. It all has to do with her campaign money, and who's contributing to her.
This repositioning comes down to one word, and in this campaign cycle, it's not a nice one: "establishment."
This week, Clinton and her advisers declared that Obama is the "establishment" candidate. When chief strategist Mark Penn explained the Feb. 5 Super Tuesday results to reporters Wednesday, he said, "We went through 10 days of wall-to-wall coverage of Sen. Obama and his establishment campaign, of big endorsements, money, ads on the Super Bowl. And Hillary Clinton again bounced back."
And the candidate herself said of Obama's Super Tuesday performance, "Well, he sure had a lot of establishment support yesterday, and I feel very good about the results."
All this came as Clinton revealed she had lent her campaign $5 million in late January. The loan came at a time when Obama had already been able to buy TV time for the Feb. 5 contests.
Campaign chairman Terry McAuliffe said Thursday that the loan wasn't a sign of weakness, but rather was inspiring to legions of small donors. He got the message across to reporters by letting them listen in on a conference call with the campaign's biggest money raisers, or bundlers.
"We need your help," he told the fundraisers at the end of the call. "People are stepping up to the plate. Hillary Clinton has stepped up for us. And now we need to step up for her."
It's hard to exaggerate the distance between Clinton's previous image and her new underdog image.
McAuliffe for decades has been a fixture of the Washington Democratic power structure. When Clinton announced her candidacy, much of that power structure promptly lined up behind her. Her money network has concentrated on donors who could give the maximum $2,300. Such contributions accounted for fully half of her money last year, according to an analysis by the Campaign Finance Institute.
This big-dollar fundraising is more efficient at first. But maxed-out donors can't give anymore later. So one of Clinton's chief money raisers, private equity financier Alan Patricof, gave this advice on the conference call:
"The easy collections are from people who've given something already and have not gone to the maximum of $2,300," he told the other bundlers. "That's where I personally have had the most success???. Rather than even starting with new people, there are so many people out there who gave partial amounts that you can go back to now."
Clinton's financial problems reflect one of the ways in which the Internet has changed the rules of the fundraising game. Tony Corrado, a political scientist at Colby College, says raising money online is cheaper. It also takes virtually none of the candidate's time. And it's richly symbolic, as close connections to big donors can become a political liability.
"It's now being seen in terms of whether a candidate is really tapping into the grassroots voter," Corrado says, "or whether they're relying on the same old power players and the money game."
Corrado notes that last month, Obama raised $32 million ??? $28 million of it online. Between Super Tuesday and the end of the week, another $7.5 million came in over the Internet. Clinton raised $13.5 million from all sources in January. That gap is perceived as a symbol of popular support for Obama.
Corrado says the Clinton campaign is now "trying to put more emphasis into online fundraising as way to show that they, too, have lots of loyal supporters out there and that they are also enjoying success with smaller donors."
The Clinton campaign says it has raised more than $6.4 million online this week. The campaign says that's enough to stay competitive on TV for upcoming primaries, and enough to change the candidate's image as well.
The only thing Obama has "established" is that Hillary is a whored-out, double-dealing cunt.
Jesus dude. What the fuck?
seriously.
So when a guy like Fatback says that McCain has money dick in his mouth and ass it gets a pass from you?
Comparing McCain to a homosexual whore is OK but comparing Hillary to a straight up whore is wrong? Where were you earlier, Mom?
(And I agree with Fatback's analysis of McCain.)
C'mon man, don't be so disingenuous to throw out this kind of bullshit about it. You can't possibly be so stupid as to not know the difference.
By the way:
How is it that this board bans people anti-Semitic or anti-Black rhetoric but shit like this gets a pass?
I'm not suggesting we ban MDT. I just think we need some consistency up in here.
if your gonna be witty, then say whatever, nobody has virgin ears here and we all like to laugh. if not, then chill with personal attacks and/or this type of shit that has become dude's m.o. you just sound mad doggie. its the weekend.
Word on the skreet is that the next board upgrade will have an "auto-ban" feature.
MDT, take it ezzze.
I know. I've noticed myself getting more and more hostile lately.
Time to tone it down.
He didn't get a pass. You were the 4th person to tell him his statement was unacceptable.
But is telling him it's unacceptable enough. NO! BAN!
Just kidding.