Comments on: Obama’s Obstacle With Clinton Supporters: Fingers In The Ears

By: test » Blog Archive » Obama’s Obstacle With Clinton Supporters: Fingers In The Ears

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 14:56:18 +0000

[...] Obstacle With Clinton Supporters: Fingers In The Ears TruthTeller998 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt’s difficult to believe that the [...]

By: My new WordPress MU Site » Blog Archive » Obama’s Obstacle With Clinton Supporters: Fingers In The Ears

Mon, 30 Jun 2008 12:35:15 +0000

[...] TruthTeller998 wrote an interesting post today onHere’s a quick excerptIt’s difficult to believe that the former Clinton donors who are making it clear at meetings and in anonymous quotes to reporters that they won’t contribute to Obama and the Clinton supporters who polls show are now in the minority of … [...]

By: runasim

runasim — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 02:09:47 +0000

These women are scary. Totally incubating in their own echo chamber, I'm beginning to wonder what havoc they can actually cause at the Dem convention.
This may be paranoid, but I wonder how actively Hillary is really trying to disuade them from their mania when off-camera.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Mon, 30 Jun 2008 01:13:41 +0000

A “Democrat” who believes something on WorldNutDaily. Please.

By: pat1509

pat1509 — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:29:52 +0000

hmm , remember the sniper fire. so much for experience…..PLEASE!

By: mlhradio

mlhradio — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 22:13:23 +0000

I realized something a couple of weeks ago, when I was trying to pinpoint the mindset behind the backwards-thinking, exclusionary group of “Hillary or nothing” groups.

You know who the current Clinton supporters remind me of? Bush's fanbase.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:54:34 +0000

"Several sources have confirmed the temporary outplacement of U.S. Army psyops personnel started two or three years ago, and they have been integrated into "various sectors of society." The assignment durations have been short-term up to one full year, depending on the mission. When asked, "What were the missions?" responses to WND varied from "No comment.", "... need to know," to smiles, and, in one case, an obscene recommendation.

CNN is the most watched and widely viewed news outlet in the world. During Operation Desert Storm, Saddam Hussein regularly watched CNN for battlefield intelligence. The symbiotic, intimate relationship between CNN and army psyops specialists has raised many eyebrows, with critics saying it raises doubts about CNN's journalistic integrity and independence...

..CNN has not thus far commented officially on the allegations. Megan Mahoney, a CNN spokeswoman recently said, "I don't believe that we would employ military personnel; it doesn't seem like something we would normally do." However, now that the U.S. Army Information Service has confirmed the news, Mahoney said she would have to contact CNN's senior officials.

Source: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?A...

Walk right in and enjoy the cheese. Don't mind all those funny metal things all around you, they're just hysterical rantings of angry old white women...

lol...

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:49:41 +0000

"Hillary ran bad and incompetent campaign and ran it into record debt."

She had some help on that from the GOP/BigMedia.

You might want to look into why that was..

On the flip side Obama was coddled and propped $ by GOP/BigMedia.

Two sides of the same coin. And that coin is sabotage.

The Obama trap.

By: timr

timr — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 19:16:05 +0000

Maureen Dowd. I can't think of anything to add, except does anyone know if she was really there? She has sent staffers in her place before. I would not believe anything that woman says. If she were to say that the sun sets in the west, I would go and check because she really doesn't have a very good grasp on any facts. Plus she has always hated the dems. Read her columns from back in 99 about Al Gore, and in 2003 about Kerry. She is a dem hater, so whyu on earth do dems read and listen to her? A pretty face covers up an empty mind. SILHOUETTE Last I heard, HRC's voters have gone over to Obama 56% to St johns 33%. Close minded is not the word I would use about those who say they will organize for st john. They make all of the sterotypes about women real. Really, overly emotional, fixated on HRC, believing every lying word out of HRC's mouth. HRC, experience. Aside from 8 years as a senator, what has she done-ON HER OWN- answer. Nothing. OH OH , she was the WIFE of a president. She didn't even get a security clearance. Her experience, she was the WIFE of a gov. and president. Boy, if that is the best candidate that the feminists can come up with, then they are sadly lacking in reality. Other women have become senators-without the name recognition of BEING A PRESIDENTS WIFE, golly, some have even become state governors-ALL ON THEIR OWN. And they didn't mismanage a campaign so badly that they went thru $250 million, and still went into debt to the tune of over $20 million. She was paying her top people Terry, mark penn, etc over $100,000 A MONTH!! She overpaid for damn near everything. She owes penn over $ 10 mil as a vendor-he was working for her, yet he still ran a side business that billed her. YEAH, she sure is the **best** candidate. She spent money like it was water, stayed in 4 star hotels, and the expenses her main men ran up were the same. She ran one of the worst campaigns for president ever. That is why she lost. Obama did not change the rules, in fact she AGREED(IN ADVANCE) that MI & FL would not count-that is until she started falling behind. She agreed that it was the delegate count that was the only criteria-until she found herself so far behind in the delagate count that she could never catch up, then it was all about the *popular vote*, where she claimed she was ahead, but only if you count Mi & FL, and did not count the 8 caucus states. Then it was only Ohio, and Pa that counted. No matter what she did, and how she twisted, SHE LOST! and whose “fault” was that? The “inevitable” candidate, the one who had raised $250 million, the one who had already gotten over 100 SD's to pledge to her. It was her fault, and hers alone that she lost. Hubris and ego told her she was winning, even tho she had no plans for after Super Tuesday-that is where she would win it all(and for gods sake, Penn-her great stratergist-(yes I mispelled it on purpose) DID NOT EVEN KNOW THE FRIKKIN RULES, he thought that Ca was a winner take all state, EVEN THO her camp had agreed that no state would be a “winner take all”-(BEFORE THE PRIMARIES EVEN STARTED)that was the repigs, that freekin dumbass could not even keep that right. And you still wonder that SHE LOST!!! Get over it. She will never be the president, she will, if she runs in 2012, get little if any support. If she is the best woman for president in the entire country, then we are in a lot more trouble than I thought

By: meltdown

meltdown — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:52:48 +0000

[...] [...]

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:21:42 +0000

Silhouette, there is an article I read this week that looks at the experience of a state senator vs. a US senator.
In it, a state senator has to dig into and learn the details of the bill and subject they are voting on. You spend alot of time learning about the subject.
Whereas a US senator know a smattering of the subject and doesn't really get into the details.
The staffing of the us senator does all that where the state senator doesn't have that kind of staff and therefore has to do the work themselves.
So, who is more prepared on subjects facing the country and knowing about the pitfalls and problems states are facing?
Plus the state senator has to work across the aisle alot more then the US.
It would be the state senator.
Obama was a state senator for 8 years and 4 as a US.
Not only that but, a constitutional law professor for 10.
hillary was a US senator for 8 years. period.
Then comparing the way the campaigns are run, one of the ways to tell how the candidate would be as a president and run the white house. Hillary ran bad and incompetent campaign and ran it into record debt.
Obama's is one that will be studied and modeled on for years as the ideal campaign.
I think I would sleep much better with someone as competent and cool headed and capable as Obama at the wheel over Hillary.

By: Jim_Satterfield

Jim_Satterfield — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:02:45 +0000

Silhouette's post simply proves the point of Joe's post.

We aren't stupid. We know that some people are really good at the con. ...We don't want an obvious con man slinking into the most important position in our country.

The rest is a meaningless attempt to justify this kind of attitude with a ludicrous parable.

By: Silhouette

Silhouette — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:23:00 +0000

Don't you think the title of this article should be reversed?

Millions of people do...:)

Try to imagine this just for a moment. You have two applicants for a job in a company you have that is struggling, on the brink of financial collapse and vulnerable to takeover from other companies. You want desperately to save it.

The job agency (democrats) send you two applicants. One applicant is very handsome, young, looks very promising on the surface. He is well-spoken and seems to have an answer for every question put to him. And if he doesn't have an answer, he promises to look into it and get you one very soon. You like him. He leaves you feeling hopeful, confident as to his abilities...

Applicant number two comes in with a slightly less likeable first impression. Her voice is a litte raspy, she seems a little too direct, pushy maybe even, but her command of the company's inner workings is machine-like, automatic and practical. She leaves you also feeling confident but less enamored than with applicant number one.

You know you have a Board Meeting and you have to present the best applicant for the job. So you begin your background check to make damn sure the applicant you choose is the best possible one for the job. Things to consider are the size of the mess the company is in, the fact that it's recovery will be long-term at best and you assess how technical the problems are that it faces...the nuances. You know the applicant you pick MUST be thoroughly experienced...moreover, there is no time for on-the-job training. This CEO must hit the ground running 100mph as if they've done this their whole life.

Applicant one (Obama), left you with a warm feeling for hope and change in your belly; but upon opening his resume', you begin to wonder where he is coming from on hope and change. You note that even though he espouses minority rights (an important factor in your company) you see that he rose to a high position in another related company (Senate) by smashing fellow minorities. You begin to become concerned; but still you put it aside because there is something quite winning about him. Then more flip-flops start emerging.... he is young and almost too-smooth..something isn't sitting right..

Applicant number two's resume' reads like company policy. You see that she not only has experience in the company's busniness before, but that she was the top confidant of one of it's best CEOs in the company's history. Although she's a bit abrasive, the financial performance of her and her associate stands out as the best the industry has ever seen. Your company, teetering on the brink of financial collapse, up to its ears in foreign worries...you know which candidate the Board (majority of dem voters) is going to want. You know the only safe bet to run the company is the less-initially likeable brassy applicant with experience and 15 years seniority on the more smooth and "likeable" one.

You make your decision and you stand by it. No amount of pleading on behalf of the lesser applicant will move you. You (the superdelegates) know that if you present the wrong applicant (Obama) for the most dire problem facing the company (economic recovery), that the Board (the voters) will fire you (not re-elect you in your next term).

People do object to Obama for good, solid reasons. We aren't stupid. We know that some people are really good at the con. This is something that comes with age and maturity. We don't want an obvious con man slinking into the most important position in our country. We want to err on the side of tried-and-true. Imagine that in these troubled times? Emotional? How about methodical.

We have eliminated one of the applicants for the job. It's a done deal.

By: vwcat

vwcat — Sun, 29 Jun 2008 17:11:39 +0000

Obama cannot make his case. And the fact that the media gives these fringe loonies any legitamacy by writing about them will only spur them on.
After they go on their orgy of spite and let's say they succeed and get McCain elected if any of them even complain because the court is packed with conservatives, civil rights and legislation for women are rolled back, they can only look in the mirror at what their spite brought.
If they have a mirror to look in because the economy will be in such a shambles by then.
And if they believe this will help Hillary will only be deluding themselves because no democrat will forgive them for what they did and therefore will not give Hillary a second look in the 2012 primaries. they will blame her for the lunatic fringe supporters who brought this on.
More and more I believe this is not about Hillary. It is about themselves and their monumental egos. They are so wrapped up in self absorbed 'it's all about me and what I want' and satisfying their own delusions it ceased being about Hillary a long time ago.
Hillary is only an excuse for them to wallow in self pity and gorge on their own selfish need for attention and acting out.
If it was truly about supporting someone for president and that person lost, they would know that is politics. And that only one can win.
the whole subcult that has gone into a state of delusion and even has gone so far as to commit crimes and vandalism in the name of Hillary are acting more on their own selfishness and self obsessions.
these two diaries pretty much sums up the PUMAs and their craving for attention and using Hillary as an excuse for acting on their selfishness:

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/29/93837/5...

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/6/29/94036/5...