PDA

View Full Version : Clinton attack on Obama backfires; aide steps down


Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 09:51 PM
http://edition.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html

Hahahaha. I guess trying to claim someone might have been a drug dealer in the past with no corroborating evidence has a tendency to do that.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 10:14 PM
The Clinton Collapse has begun....Obama has a real shot, I'd even say "likely" shot....at this point to over-take "The Bitch."

Seriously, she's done; depending on WHO the Republican is that emerges....I can see voting for Barak. I'm dead serious. He's smart, he has vision, he is a born leader who is "likeable"....he will do some daring things....but, ultimately, Congress will keep him from going off the deep-end.

How's that make you feel, psic??? ;)


LMAO

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 10:17 PM
Tonight was huge for her, and I don't think she even remotely did enough to stem the tide. Meanwhile, Edwards was his usual feisty self, and Obama did really well, too, with both a megaburn and a classy defense of Biden.

I loved Fox's completely accurate description of her "nasty cackle."

The funny thing is, there's speculation that Shaheen was going to be dumped, anyways, so the Clinton camp may have been sending this out as a sort of suicide attack.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 10:20 PM
Tonight was huge for her, and I don't think she even remotely did enough to stem the tide.

I loved Fox's completely accurate description of her "nasty cackle."

I know some have said I'm nuts, given the polls....but the bottom-line is that she has always been unelectable. Period.

Americans elect car salesman with vision to be President....she is a bitch, with an agenda....no way she wins a general election. More and more Dems are, finally, realizing what I've been saying for months now: she is unelectable.

That will give Barak the nomination, barring some....paranoid and racist defection to Edwards.

Ultra Peanut
12-13-2007, 10:23 PM
Americans elect car salesman with vision to be President....she is a bitch, with an agenda...See, I disagree. She's the ULTIMATE car salesman.

It's not her electability that's worth being concerned about, it's her complete lack of any sort of grounding. At her core, she's pretty much a slimy morass.

Mr. Kotter
12-13-2007, 10:30 PM
See, I disagree. She's the ULTIMATE car salesman.

It's not her electability that's worth being concerned about, it's her complete lack of any sort of grounding. At her core, she's pretty much a slimy morass.


Eh, she may be a car salesman; but she's a BAD car salesman....a transparent and devious, unlikeable one. Slimy morass? Exactly. It's should be the Clinton's middle name.

It's her not-so-thinly-veiled radical agenda that will cost her the election though, IMHO. People see what she says, and what she REALLY would like to do....and just like Bill, she (has learned to try to) 'talk the talk' in terms of appearing "mainstream"....but anyone who is paying attention knows she is NOT 'walking the walk.' She learned that from Bill, which is the ONLY reason she's even in the conversation. But I'm convinced it will NOT be enough.

Wow. Something you and I can, mutually, celebrate. Heh. ;)

Pitt Gorilla
12-14-2007, 12:19 AM
I know some have said I'm nuts, given the polls....but the bottom-line is that she has always been unelectable. Period. Many of us have claimed that since the beginning, yet the cons on this board refused to believe it.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 07:53 AM
Many of us have claimed that since the beginning, yet the cons on this board refused to believe it.

I think she's radioactive in the general election... I never for a minute thought she was unelectable in the Dem primary. I still think she will win.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 09:09 AM
To amend what I was saying earlier, though, how many times do you see the campaign that's going to end up losing start sniping at itself through the media as it enters the terminal stage? It reminds me of reports that were coming out late in 2004 about the tumult in the Kerry camp about rows between leadership about the direction and message.

It's hard to point out what caused her to start dropping. No one thing really seemed to cause it. They should have just campaigned against the Republicans, and had her act like she was president already. Instead they lower themselves to slinging a poorly disguised dirty trick at someone who should be an also-ran and such.

I don't think this stuff in the media about Bill getting angry about her campaign losing steam or becoming more involved will help, either. It makes her look like she doesn't know what she's doing, and Bill needs to come bail her out. Not what people want from a president.

Problem for Obama though is that this is about her, it isn't about him. He's not been able to attract as much support on his own merits as he ought to have if he is to win in the general. I think a lot of people feel he's too liberal and are probably right.

We'll see, but I'm not certain Barack Magic (tm) is going to take over just yet.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 09:21 AM
Problem for Obama though is that this is about her, it isn't about him. He's not been able to attract as much support on his own merits as he ought to have if he is to win in the general. I think a lot of people feel he's too liberal and are probably right.Yeah, that's why he's polled in the top three or four alongside the Republican front-runners among likely Republican voters at least twice when included as an option.

Obama's got an incredible number of individual donors, not to mention tremendous organization from the bottom up, and without him consistently gaining more and more name recognition and building on his impressive campaign, there would be no reason for Hillary to be flailing about like a ninny at this point.

"Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

Cochise
12-14-2007, 09:40 AM
Yeah, that's why he's polled in the top three or four alongside the Republican front-runners among likely Republican voters at least twice when included as an option.

Obama's got an incredible number of individual donors, not to mention tremendous organization from the bottom up, and without him consistently gaining more and more name recognition and building on his impressive campaign, there would be no reason for Hillary to be flailing about like a ninny at this point.

"Every place is Barack Obama country once Barack Obama's been there."

If he's so great, why is it that an empty pantsuit like Hillary was drubbing him by 20 points until her inept campaign fumbled the ball away?

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 09:55 AM
Where did they fumble the ball away? You just finished saying:

It's hard to point out what caused her to start dropping. No one thing really seemed to cause it.

9iu11iani was up big at one point, too. Name recognition is a big, big factor until we actually get reasonably close to the primaries.

Or, as I (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4171436&postcount=11) said (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4213297&postcount=3) months (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4249508&postcount=4) ago (http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showpost.php?p=4269901&postcount=17): "Call me when national polls matter."

Guess who disagreed with my assertion, Cochise? Go on, take a look! And it gets better, now that I look again. Thompson was in front by 8% at the time. LMAO

Again, it's not like Obama's been twiddling his thumbs while Hillary's been out driving drunk and murdering children; here's a look at the number of individual donors for the serious candidates (with one comedy option thrown in):

Obama: 42,000
Clinton: 32,000
Romney: 16,000
McCain: 16,000
Edwards: 15,000
Giuliani: 15,000
Thompson: 7,000
Paul: 4,000

Cochise
12-14-2007, 10:01 AM
:rolleyes: Saying that it's hard to point out where exactly the squandered a lead in a few key states does not mean that they didn't do it. It just says... exactly what it says. It's hard to point out where.

It was her nomination to lose, and if she loses, it will still be about her and not him. He hasn't charged up and taken the lead from her with his meekness.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:06 AM
So there's no clear area where she ****ed herself over, but the guy who's been rallying support for months still has nothing to do with his surge.

Rrrrrrright. But hey, you've been totally on the m-

The balance of power between Clinton and Obama hasn't shifted in a few months, and even when it was closer, Clinton always held a double-digit lead. She's a better bet than sunset.

You're really invested in the "OBAMA HAS NO CHANCE JUST GIVE IT UP ALREADY" platform, aren't you?
My mind has been deluded by the facts I guess.That thread is delicious.

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 10:09 AM
Again, it's not like Obama's been twiddling his thumbs while Hillary's been out driving drunk and murdering children; here's a look at the number of individual donors for the serious candidates (with one comedy option thrown in):

Obama: 42,000
Clinton: 32,000
Romney: 16,000
McCain: 16,000
Edwards: 15,000
Giuliani: 15,000
Thompson: 7,000
Paul: 4,000


Gee nothing like a lie to support your argument against Ron Paul, This is straight from wikipedia.

Grassroots activists at ThisNovember5th.com hoped to get 100,000 subscribers to donate $100 each on November 5, 2007, Guy Fawkes night: they raised contributions from over 37,000 donors in that 24-hour time period, netting over $4.3 million, the largest documented one-day online fundraising record in political history

Cochise
12-14-2007, 10:11 AM
I don't understand the gotcha angle here. I always describe things as I see them at the time. If things change then they change. He didn't have a chance until her campaign let others back into the race.

You're acting like she never had a path to the nomination even though as bad as the second half of the year has been for her, in the weaker states she's at a statistical dead heat.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 10:15 AM
Gee nothing like a lie to support your argument against Ron Paul, This is straight from wikipedia.

Wikipedia? :spock:

ROFL

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 10:17 AM
Wikipedia? :spock:

ROFL

sorry, i realise that you get your info only from "the Bush Network" as announced by Shepard Smith.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 10:18 AM
sorry, i realise that you get your info only from "the Bush Network" as announced by Shepard Smith.

You DO realize how Wikipedia "works" don't you??? :spock:



ROFL

For historical and documentation of facts, it can be fine. But for political coverage/opinion/analysis???

:rolleyes:

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 10:20 AM
You DO realize how Wikipedia "works" don't you??? :spock:



ROFL

For historical and documentation of facts, it can be fine. But for political coverage/opinion/analysis???

:rolleyes:

yes if you see anything that is not correct, please feel free to modify.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:20 AM
I don't understand the gotcha angle here. I always describe things as I see them at the time. If things change then they change. He didn't have a chance until her campaign let others back into the race.

You're acting like she never had a path to the nomination even though as bad as the second half of the year has been for her, in the weaker states she's at a statistical dead heat.The point is, the way you saw things was SHORT-SIGHTED. You put way too much stock in the early polls, which are -- if not a mirage -- incomplete, at their best. Hillary was only a steamroller in the minds of people who didn't stop to think about the fact that Obama and Edwards would actually, get this, keep campaigning. It's like everyone expected Obama to throw in the towel, just because more people knew his competitor's name.

Because you're unwilling to admit that you weren't looking at the whole picture a few months ago, you're keeping yourself from being able to realize that this is less a matter of Clinton imploding despite no major missteps and more that Obama's actually really, really good at winning people over, even as he's unafraid to tell them things they may not want to hear. He's an amazing candidate with phenomenal grassroots support, and it's completely unsurprising that he's picking up momentum now that he's had the time to get out there and win people over.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:23 AM
Gee nothing like a lie to support your argument against Ron Paul, This is straight from wikipedia.The numbers I quoted were from October, so you may be right that Paul's picked up since then.

That actually bolsters my point that Obama's not suddenly capitalizing on some huge blunder by Hillary, though.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 10:34 AM
Because you're unwilling to admit that you weren't looking at the whole picture a few months ago, you're keeping yourself from being able to realize that this is less a matter of Clinton imploding despite no major missteps and more that


:rolleyes: No, because I was looking at the lay of the land at the time.

There have been plenty of missteps - namely, the entire direction and orientation of her campaign. At one time they were doing things properly, running against the other side. But she performed poorly in debates, shriveled or bristled when people were all attacking her, and now there have been two instances where either a dirty trick seemed to be on the way or they did try to leak one. They have not done anything to rehab her image. They ignored key early states in the beginning when it looked like she could win them without even showing up. They have made plenty of mistakes. They just haven't had a Howard Dean moment to tack on the exclamation point.


Obama's actually really, really good at winning people over, even as he's unafraid to tell them things they may not want to hear. He's an amazing candidate with phenomenal grassroots support, and it's completely unsurprising that he's picking up momentum now that he's had the time to get out there and win people over.

He seems personable and is a better speaker than her. Besides that, I still think he is mostly the embodiment of ABH.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:44 AM
:rolleyes: No, because I was looking at the lay of the land at the time. So tell me, then. Why was I able to see through the OMIGODSHE'SUPBYTWENTYPOINTS hysteria while you weren't? Why was Thompson up by 8 points in the same poll? Was that poll really a reflection of the "lay of the land," or a reflection of the echo chamber that a national poll is bound to be when you're six months away from the first primary?

There have been plenty of missteps - namely, the entire direction and orientation of her campaign. At one time they were doing things properly, running against the other side.This statement is, quite honestly, insane. You cannot win a primary if you're unwilling to acknowledge your opponents. Sure, people THOUGHT she'd be able to ride through on her Horse of Inevitability, but that didn't make it so. The way things have been going just proves that.

But she performed poorly in debates, shriveled or bristled when people were all attacking her, and now there have been two instances where either a dirty trick seemed to be on the way or they did try to leak one.After the tide had already turned.

He seems personable and is a better speaker than her. Besides that, I still think he is mostly the embodiment of ABH.And Huckabee's "Anybody But These Other Goobers.

I don't really see how a guy who, as of October, almost had more individual donors than his top two primary opponents combined is somehow just "the bland, less distasteful alternative to the Big Bad," but whatever you say. You're just callin' it as ya sees it, ump.

Cochise
12-14-2007, 10:52 AM
So tell me, then. Why was I able to see through the OMIGODSHE'SUPBYTWENTYPOINTS hysteria while you weren't? Why was Thompson up by 8 points in the same poll? Was that poll really a reflection of the "lay of the land," or a reflection of the echo chamber that a national poll is bound to be when you're six months away from the first primary?

You're a fanboi who predicted their guy would win. Congrats on 'seeing through the hysteria'.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 10:54 AM
The balance of power between Clinton and Obama hasn't shifted in a few months, and even when it was closer, Clinton always held a double-digit lead. She's a better bet than sunset.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 10:58 AM
I'll still be surprised if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

Ultra Peanut
12-14-2007, 11:01 AM
It's truly up for grabs at this point. Edwards could even swoop in.

The important thing to take from all of this, however, is that national polls are a terrible, terrible thing to base your predictions on when the primaries are still a month away, much less six months away.

Nyah nyah.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 11:02 AM
I'll still be surprised if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

Be prepared to be surprised. :)

Signed,
Nostradamus


:p

Cochise
12-14-2007, 11:21 AM
I'll still be surprised if Hillary doesn't win the nomination.

Yeah, I'll still think she'll probably win.

patteeu
12-14-2007, 11:37 AM
Be prepared to be surprised. :)

Signed,
Nostradamus


:p

It will surprise me even more if Fred Thompson wins anything more than a token primary or two. I'll be slightly surprised if he wins any.

a1na2
12-14-2007, 11:40 AM
yes if you see anything that is not correct, please feel free to modify.

That's the point. Anyone can modify what is there and if you have enough Clowns entering information it becomes a useless un-factoid.

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 12:08 PM
It will surprise me even more if Fred Thompson wins anything more than a token primary or two. I'll be slightly surprised if he wins any.

I'm hopeful, though much less sure....that you could be surprised on that count as well. ;)

Mr. Kotter
12-14-2007, 12:09 PM
That's the point. Anyone can modify what is there and if you have enough Clowns entering information it becomes a useless un-factoid.

Ding, ding, ding!!!

:)

KILLER_CLOWN
12-14-2007, 02:29 PM
Ding, ding, ding!!!

:)


So since your full of information, please feel free to revise. Perhaps you missed every major news outlet reporting it.

whoman69
12-16-2007, 11:21 PM
Pretty soon Democrats will realize that Clinton is the only candidate that the Republicans would be able to mount a serious challenge against. The entire reason that Guliani has been a front runner is because he is perceived as the Republican with the best chance to beat her. We're they really prepared to support him even though most did not agree with his record or what he stands for?