Hillary lost because she is a poor campaigner

[Logical]

She had all the advantages.

The initial big money support.

The Clinton political machine

A built in base of committed super delegates.

But she squandered it by being overconfident and ignoring the importance of the small states, the caucus states, and always appearing smug and overconfident. She did not build a base that could provide her the financial support long term while Obama was leaving no stone unturned.

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.

[Mr. Kotter]

No, she lost because she wasn't likeable...to anyone except old women, hispanics, and racists who are probably going vote McCain in November.

47% Negative "approval" ratings for the last 24 months, more or less; including now.

Anyone with elementary "poli sci" background...or common sense could have predicted it last year....like I did. Although, I thought the Dems might be stupid enough to select her as their nominee...only to lose in November.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142529&highlight=Hillary

With Obama, they at least have a chance to win. :hmmm:

[Logical]

No, she lost because she wasn't likeable...to anyone except old women, hispanics, and racists who are probably going vote McCain in November.

47% Negative "approval" ratings for the last 24 months, more or less; including now.

Anyone with elementary "poli sci" background...or common sense could have predicted it last year....like I did. Although, I thought the Dems might be stupid enough to select her as their nominee...only to lose in November.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142529&highlight=Hillary

With Obama, they at least have a chance to win. :hmmm:Everyone knew the negatives yet she still squandered several blunders by Obama's campaign which easily could have balanced her negatives. In the end she relied on what she thought was the invincible Clinton machine. Obama making that speech in SF almost sunk him in the end.

[dirk digler]

No, she lost because she wasn't likeable...to anyone except old women, hispanics, and racists who are probably going vote McCain in November.

47% Negative "approval" ratings for the last 24 months, more or less; including now.

Anyone with elementary "poli sci" background...or common sense could have predicted it last year....like I did. Although, I thought the Dems might be stupid enough to select her as their nominee...only to lose in November.

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=142529&highlight=Hillary

With Obama, they at least have a chance to win. :hmmm:

I agree and disagree. Since Super Tuesday she really started to rack up the wins and she seemed to really connect with alot of voters albeit Democrat voters.

Personally I don't think she would have come close to winning because she is so polarizing and no independents would have voted for her.

[HolmeZz]

Meh. Poor campaigner compared to Obama? Sure. But McCain's pretty lousy at campaigning and at fundraising and that didn't hold him back.

[mlyonsd]

Hillary was the kind of candidate only a democrat could love.

[Brock]

She's a good campaigner. She's unfortunately also a horrible person, with 20 years of public evidence of it.

[little jacob]

she lost because she's an insufferable... well, you know.

[Redrum_69]

She lost because a womans place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant

[jiveturkey]

Did she have the political team that has destroyed most of the recent dem runs? I know that there's a couple of campaigners that are pretty much the kiss of death.

[Frankie]

She had all the advantages.

The initial big money support.

The Clinton political machine

A built in base of committed super delegates.

But she squandered it by being overconfident and ignoring the importance of the small states, the caucus states, and always appearing smug and overconfident. She did not build a base that could provide her the financial support long term while Obama was leaving no stone unturned.

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.

"She had all the advantages."

No she didn't. She didn't have the Oprah factor and the Media protection that Obama had. In fact not only did she constantly get attacked and ridiculed by the Right media (expected), but also by liberal media stallwarts like MSNBC. I generally like MSNBC but I am very disappointed with them on their obviously biased coverage of the democratic primary season.

"The initial big money support."

They also got atracted to the light like all other bugs. It's the nature of the beast. It's "Big Money." It's only interested in trends, not loyalty. Obama became a phenomena. I sincerely hope he will follow it with substance. But I'm a little afraid that he might fizzle out when things get real.

"The Clinton political machine."

Grossly overrated. I'm of the opinion that it's always been a creation of the Neocons to make Clintons scary.

"A built in base of committed super delegates."

That she did have. But she didn't lose the core. The core wasn't enough to withstand the fad though.

[Brock]

:deevee:

[HolmeZz]

"She had all the advantages."

No she didn't. She didn't have the oprah factor and the Media protection that Obama had. In fact not only did she constantly get attacked and ridiculed by the Right media (expected), but also by liberal media stallwarts like MSNBC. I generally like MSNBC but I am very disappointed with them on their obviously biased coverage og the democratic primary season.

"The initial big money support."

They also got atracted to the light like all other bugs. It's the nature of the beast. It's "Big Money." It's only interested in trends, not loyalty. Obama became a phenomena. I sincerely hope he will follow it with substance. But I'm a little afraid that he might fizzle out when things get real.

"The Clinton political machine."

Grossly overrated. I'm of the opinion that it's always been a creation of the Neocons to make Clintons scary.

"A built in base of committed super delegates."

That she did have. But she didn't lose the core. The core wasn't enough to withstand the fad though.

She got smoked by the better friggin' candidate. Take your medicine and get over it.

[Frankie]

She got smoked by the better friggin' candidate. Take your medicine and get over it.

You I expect this from. The rest of us watched the process, instead of just constantly jacking off to a candidate.

[Brock]

Who's "the rest of us"? You and memyself?

[HolmeZz]

You I expect this from. The rest of us watched the process, instead of just constantly jacking off to a candidate.

You couldn't have watched much with your head planted firmly up your own ass.

The inability of the Clintons and their supporters to recognize the faults of their own candidate/campaign and accept why she lost is pathetic.

[jettio]

Obama took the gloves off after his 11 in a row winning streak.

Early on, he would smack her pretty good about that Iraq War vote, or about putting the same people in different places and expecting a diferent result.

After he built his big lead, he was left to defend himself about from the Hannity hyena pack, and he quit criticizing Hillary because he had to not bruise her feelings and her supporters feelings.

Hillary has had a clear field to run on since March, and her only crticisms came from her own disastrous mistakes about sniper fire and the like.

The only thing Obama used against Hillary was her gas tax holiday proposal and she gave him that issue and that helped him in Indiana and North Carolina. On every other issue, he took it easy on her. She might not have won as much as she did if he did not have an insurmountable lead.

[Frankie]

You couldn't have watched much with your head planted firmly up your own ass.

The inability of the Clintons and their supporters to recognize the faults of their own candidate/campaign and accept why she lost is pathetic.

Her faults. :hmmm: You've told us all about them. What you haven't told us, are Obama's merits.

[jettio]

Her faults. :hmmm: You've told us all about them. What you haven't told us, are Obama's merits.


You have to face the fact that she voted for the Iraq War because she made a political calculation that she had to vote for it if she wanted to run for President because it would be easy and she would look bad having voted against an unqualified triumph.

She abandoned principle and gambled and lost and it is justice that her cynical vote authorizing a disaster was the biggest factor in her demise.

[jettio]

Her faults. :hmmm: You've told us all about them. What you haven't told us, are Obama's merits.


Obama's organziation was the best run primary campaign in history, that is not even debatable. They deployed their resources to maximize delegates and that was the name of the game.

I like having a smart, talented and principled guy leading the Democratic ticket.

Hillary has the hard boiled cynicism of a talented woman married to a philandering spouse. If she married a faithful spouse, she might be as great as her talents. But she has a special kind of ruthlessness that she might not have if her biggest supporter was not also the one who caused her the biggest trouble.

[Frankie]

You have to face the fact that she voted for the Iraq War because she made a political calculation that she had to vote for it if she wanted to run for President because it would be easy and she would look bad having voted against an unqualified triumph.

She abandoned principle and gambled and lost and it is justice that her cynical vote authorizing a disaster was the biggest factor in her demise.

Do you honestly believe for a minute that Obama would have done differently had he been a U.S. Senator with presidential ambitions then? Everybody was jumping all over the crowd to get onboard, just in case. I know about my candidates faults. But I also know none of them has a totally clean ass. One of the reasons I soured a little bit on Obama was the the way a lot of his supporters and the media deified him.

Also don't forget that the administration gave bogus info to all of us, INCLUDING THE LAGISLATORS.

[Deberg_1990]

No, she lost because [I]she wasn't likeable[/I

People are going to over analyze this to death, but the the above is the simple truth. She comes off as an unlikeable B*tch.

[jettio]

Do you honestly believe for a minute that Obama would have done differently had he been a U.S. Senator with presidential ambitions then? Everybody was jumping all over the crowd to get onboard, just in case. I know about my candidates faults. But I also know none of them has a totally clean ass. One of the reasons I soured a little bit on Obama was the the way a lot of his supporters and the media deified him.

Also don't forget that the administration gave bogus info to all of us, INCLUDING THE LAGISLATORS.

40% of dem senators and 60+% of dem House members knew better. As did a solid 40+% of the US population.

Penn Jillette is sometimes an a-hole, but he got it right, if you are wrong about something that important when 100 million of your fellow citizens could figure it out, you are not the most qualified.

I served in the military and no matter the job, serving in the military is such a severe restriction on personal freedom that it is always a huge sacrifice. It is a much bigger sacrifice for anyone that is deployed into combat; and for those who get killed, hurt or traumatized, it is even that much more of a sacrifice.

I would not want to serve a commander in chief that would authorize a war for their own political ambitions instead of the best interest of the nation.

To me, a person who would do that does not really understand what it means to swear an oath to serve in the military.

[Taco John]

Her faults. :hmmm: You've told us all about them. What you haven't told us, are Obama's merits.



I'm not voting for Obama, but it's pretty easy to see that someone who could derail the "inevitable" Clinton machine has a way of getting things done. That alone shows the man to be a formidable leader.

[Skip Towne]

People are going to over analyze this to death, but the the above is the simple truth. She comes off as an unlikeable B*tch.

Shes ugly too. Who would want to look at that skank for four years?

[Frankie]

40% of dem senators and 60+% of dem House members knew better. As did a solid 40+% of the US population.

How many of them were planning to run for potus some day?

[Brock]

How many of them were planning to run for potus some day?

Ha ha. Exactly! You get it after all.

[Adept Havelock]

How many of them were planning to run for potus some day?

If she's willing to vote to send American troops to kill and die simply because she's worried about her political image (as you seem to be arguing), I can think of no better reason she should never be a Commander in Chief.

[dirk digler]

Do you honestly believe for a minute that Obama would have done differently had he been a U.S. Senator with presidential ambitions then? Everybody was jumping all over the crowd to get onboard, just in case. I know about my candidates faults. But I also know none of them has a totally clean ass. One of the reasons I soured a little bit on Obama was the the way a lot of his supporters and the media deified him.

Also don't forget that the administration gave bogus info to all of us, INCLUDING THE LAGISLATORS.

I am one of the firm believers that the reason why she lost this nomination is not because of her Iraq vote is because she never apologized for it...directly.

She would make excuses for voting and dodge the apology. If she just would have said I made a huge mistake and I apologize I believe she would be the nominee today.

[jAZ]

Kotter's applying general public thinking to Dem primary voter thinking. Likeability wasn't a decisive factor in hte primary. Maybe in the general. She's also a very good campaigner. Great in debates, good speeches. She and Obama are in many ways the 2 best political candidates the party has had (aside from Bill) in 30-40 years.

She lost for 3 reasons in the following order, IMO.

1) She voted for the Iraq War
2) She ran as if she were an incumbent campaign (failed strategic choice, not arrogance in itself) during a year of "change" (had she claimed "change" theme from the start, it would have been a Clinton/Obama ticket starting in February, IMO.
3) Obama is a fantastic, once in a generation political figure. He's great strategically, leadership/organizationally and with great personal appeal.

This is the perfect storm of opportunity for the progressive movement to take back much of what Reagan did in moving the landscape to the right for the last 25+ years.

[jAZ]

If she's willing to vote to send American troops to kill and die simply because she's worried about her political image (as you seem to be arguing), I can think of no better reason she should never be a Commander in Chief.

Agree 100%.

Obama wins the "judgement" battle against both McCain and Clinton.

[Frankie]

Ha ha. Exactly! You get it after all.

I never denied it as being ONE of the reasons.

[Mr. Kotter]

Kotter's applying general public thinking to Dem primary voter thinking. Likeability wasn't a decisive factor in hte primary. Maybe in the general. She's also a very good campaigner. Great in debates, good speeches. She and Obama are in many ways the 2 best political candidates the party has had (aside from Bill) in 30-40 years.

She lost for 3 reasons in the following order, IMO.

1) She voted for the Iraq War
2) She ran as if she were an incumbent campaign (failed strategic choice, not arrogance in itself) during a year of "change" (had she claimed "change" theme from the start, it would have been a Clinton/Obama ticket starting in February, IMO.
3) Obama is a fantastic, once in a generation political figure. He's great strategically, leadership/organizationally and with great personal appeal.

This is the perfect storm of opportunity for the progressive movement to take back much of what Reagan did in moving the landscape to the right for the last 25+ years.

:spock:

THAT is wishful thinking at it's finest..... LMAO

Obama could be a good leader, but you are smoking some serious weed if you are predicting a new "progressive" revolution. Obama could par back some things, but wholesale "overturning" of the Reagan revolution/conservative tide? You are out of your friggin' mind.

In fact, if Obama and the Dems get arrogant and pushy.....the Republican "revolution" of 1994 may be repeated in 2010 or 2012, except with even MORE of a vengeance.

[Frankie]

If she's willing to vote to send American troops to kill and die simply because she's worried about her political image (as you seem to be arguing), I can think of no better reason she should never be a Commander in Chief.

Again, it was based on fabricated info. But all of the ones with high office aspirations fell into the trap of covering all bases. I'm only arguing Obama would have as well.

[Adept Havelock]

Again, it was based on fabricated info. But all of the ones with high office aspirations fell into the trap of covering all bases. I'm only arguing Obama would have as well.

:rolleyes:

If she opposed the war (as you have alleged) but voted to deploy troops on a political maneuver for her future run at the Presidency (as you have argued), she has shown horrible judgment and I for one do not want her as a CinC. I can think of very few things that would be a bigger immediate disqualifier, IMO.

A very similar line of thinking was responsible for us continuing to waste lives in Vietnam in the face of studies that showed the war was unwinnable within that contemporary geopolitical order. Thank you, Daniel Ellsworth.

Sorry, but "the other guy would have done it too" is as weak an excuse as you could concoct. :shake:

[BIG_DADDY]

if she just could have lost the Wendy Whiner voice it might have put her over the top.

[Frankie]

I am one of the firm believers that the reason why she lost this nomination is not because of her Iraq vote is because she never apologized for it...directly.

"If I had the same info as I do now I would haver never voted for the Iraq war."

What else do you need?

She would make excuses for voting and dodge the apology. If she just would have said I made a huge mistake and I apologize I believe she would be the nominee today.

NO!!!. She would have been stamped as weak and indicisive BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN.

[Adept Havelock]

"If I had the same info as I do now I would haver never voted for the Iraq war."

Bullsh*t.

Translation: If I had known my vote would have helped cost me the nomination, I would have voted the other way!

Sorry, she voted to send troops into combat based on a political calculation because her eye was on '08.

That is indefensible. Even more so as she aspired to be the CinC of those same armed forces she treated as political pawns. I'm far from surprised. Her contempt for the military is well documented.


NO!!!. She would have been stamped as weak and indicisive BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN.
LMAO Now stamp your feet a little harder, and threaten to hold your breath until you get your way.

[jAZ]

:spock:

THAT is wishful thinking at it's finest..... LMAO

Obama could be a good leader, but you are smoking some serious weed if you are predicting a new "progressive" revolution. Obama could par back some things, but wholesale "overturning" of the Reagan revolution/conservative tide? You are out of your friggin' mind.

In fact, if Obama and the Dems get arrogant and pushy.....the Republican "revolution" of 1994 may be repeated in 2010 or 2012, except with even MORE of a vengeance.

This from the same person who deny's that such a move to the right occured.

But that aside, I'm saying a couple of things.

1) All of this is *IF* Obama wins, and the Dems hold the Senate
2) Obama has the *potential* and I believe the interest in pushing a progressive policy agenda in a way that Bill was unable and at times unwilling to do
3) Obama has the organizational skills (and leadership potential) to grow a base of young people who look to his Presidency (if he's is ultimately a success) in the way that Reagan did for the young Republicans that took over in 1994.

That's the potential of this campaign and the fear of such is why this is such a huge election for Republican strategists and party leadership.

[Frankie]

Bullsh*t.

Translation: If I had known my vote would have helped cost me the nomination, I would have voted the other way!

Sorry, she voted to send troops into combat based on a political calculation because her eye was on '08.

That is indefensible.


LMAO Now stamp your feet a little harder, and threaten to hold your breath until you get your way.Are you denying that she had to overcome sexism?

[trndobrd]

Hillary lost not because she is a poor campaigner. She had a decent stump speech, did OK in debates and public appearances.

She lost for two reasons....

First, her over reliance on Mark Penn. The WSJ had an interesting article today mentioning how Penn was the ONLY pollster used by the campaign. Most campaigns use multiple pollsters to get different perspectives (Obama used four). While other campaign staff were telling her that she needed to humanize her personna, Penn insisted that she needed to appear tough.
Second, the Clinton campaign never seemed to understand the rules. After Clinton's failure to take the Iowa caucus seriously and the high expectations of a coronation gave way to a slug it out contest for delegates, the Clinton campaign seemed more intent on the decisive win rather than getting a few delegates in each of the caucus states.

[Adept Havelock]

Are you denying that she had to overcome sexism?

No.

Are you denying that using the lives of US soldiers as political pawns in a positioning attempt for a domestic political campaign is indefensible?

Gee, I bet if it was a GOP'er accused of that you would be all over them.

[Frankie]

No.

Are you denying that using the lives of US soldiers as political pawns in a positioning attempt for a domestic political campaign is indefensible?

Gee, I bet if it was a GOP'er accused of that you would be all over them.

What if the "necessity" of war has been successfully sold to you via deceipt?

[Adept Havelock]

What if the "necessity" of war has been successfully sold to you via deceipt?

deceipt? Is that a receipt for being hoodwinked, flim-flammed, and bamboozled?

I don't think it had nearly as much to do with being deceived, as her well known contempt for the military playing a part in her being willing to send troops to war based on how it might affect her future political aspirations.

Yes, the administration presented bad intelligence, and IMO attempted to steer the debate to play up a minor threat. However, many were skeptical enough to not vote to authorize. Why did Hillary? Because she was worried about having it thrown back in her face in '08.

After all, that's the essence of the position you were arguing here:


40% of dem senators and 60+% of dem House members knew better. As did a solid 40+% of the US population.

How many of them were planning to run for potus some day?

:spock:

Sorry, the last person I want as CinC is someone who has repeatedly shown their contempt for the military, who sees nothing wrong with voting to go to war based on how it might affect their future political prospects.

I've seen where that kind of thinking leads twice in my lifetime.

IMO, to borrow BL's phrase, the country dodged as big a bullet with Hillary's loss as it did when Huckabee went down in flames.

[jAZ]

Hillary lost not because she is a poor campaigner. She had a decent stump speech, did OK in debates and public appearances.

She lost for two reasons....

First, her over reliance on Mark Penn. The WSJ had an interesting article today mentioning how Penn was the ONLY pollster used by the campaign. Most campaigns use multiple pollsters to get different perspectives (Obama used four). While other campaign staff were telling her that she needed to humanize her personna, Penn insisted that she needed to appear tough.
Second, the Clinton campaign never seemed to understand the rules. After Clinton's failure to take the Iowa caucus seriously and the high expectations of a coronation gave way to a slug it out contest for delegates, the Clinton campaign seemed more intent on the decisive win rather than getting a few delegates in each of the caucus states.
I knew Penn was a huge part of her missing the "change" theme. Hadn't heard that she only used one pollster. That's stupid.

She would won in a landslide (early) if she voted against the Iraq War or flipped on that issue early (and got the flip out of the way early). That would have taken a lot of Obama's oxygen away early.

Getting outworked and out gamed kept her from winning down the stretch. Credit Obama's people for having a grand plan and executing it perfectly from a strategic sense.

[Frankie]

I don't think it had nearly as much to do with being deceived, as her well known contempt for the military playing a part in her being willing to send troops to war based on how it might affect her future political aspirations. Oh come on dude. You are more intelligent than that.


Yes, the administration presented bad intelligence, and IMO attempted to steer the debate to play up a minor threat. However, many were skeptical enough to not vote to authorize. Why did Hillary? Because she was worried about having it thrown back in her face in '08.I have already said that it was a political trap all of the ones who had planned to run for POTUS couldn't avoid. Hillary has warts. But don't tell me Obama does not. i am going to vote for him in the general. But I don't fool myself as a great portion of his blind supporters do who see him as the next Jesus Christ.

[Adept Havelock]

Oh come on dude. You are more intelligent than that.
I'm intelligent enough to recognize contempt when I see it. Maybe her attitude has changed, but I doubt it.

I have already said that it was a political trap all of the ones who had planned to run for POTUS couldn't avoid.
If she's willing to send troops to fight based on mere political opportunism, I don't want her to have any authority over the military. It's called standing on principle, and it's most important when making the decision to go to war. To trivialize it as you have in defending your candidate is pathetic, IMO.

Hillary has warts. But don't tell me Obama does not.
Strawman? I never said that. I'm talking strictly about Hillary's failings. :shake:

i am going to vote for him in the general.
Good for you. I'm not. I can't abide many parts of his domestic program, and I can't stand McCain's embrace of Bush's approach to foreign policy.

But I don't fool myself as a great portion of his blind supporters do who see him as the next Jesus Christ.
:rolleyes: Sure, he's got passionate followers, as did Hillary. I doubt they see him or her as the next Jesus Christ.

Last time I checked, Obama is Christian, not Jewish. ;)

[NewPhin]

i am going to vote for him in the general. But I don't fool myself as a great portion of his blind supporters do who see him as the next Jesus Christ.

This attempt to dismiss Obama supporters as cluelessly messianac morons, completely taken in by a slick-talking snake-oil salesman isn't really what the party needs at this point. I really don't think that very many Obama supporters see him as without flaw or perfect at this point. I do think that many of us like him a lot and think he'll be a very good President. This isn't the same thing as thinking he's the second coming of Christ.

[Frankie]

Last time I checked, Obama is a Christian, not Jewish. ;)

Maybe he is a Muslim. After all he has THAT middle name, you know :eek:

[Adept Havelock]

Maybe he is a Muslim. After all he has THAT middle name, you know :eek:

Pretty telling that's the only point you responded to. :p

NewPhin...it's all he's got right now. He won't believe Hillary lost because she was done in (in part) by a weaker campaign, and her willingness to use troops as a political pawn.

It's the fault of an evil sexist cabal on the part of the media and Obamamaniacs. :)

[Baby Lee]

You have to face the fact that she voted for the Iraq War because she made a political calculation that she had to vote for it if she wanted to run for President because it would be easy and she would look bad having voted against an unqualified triumph.

She abandoned principle and gambled and lost and it is justice that her cynical vote authorizing a disaster was the biggest factor in her demise.

Her Iraq vote was on no wise the biggest factor. It barely even registered.

It was a personality driven race, Obama exuded charm, optimism and a sense of intellect. Hillary showed the dems the same characteristics the repubs observed in her and Bill a 15 years ago.

[Frankie]

This attempt to dismiss Obama supporters as cluelessly messianac morons, completely taken in by a slick-talking snake-oil salesman isn't really what the party needs at this point. I really don't think that very many Obama supporters see him as without flaw or perfect at this point. I do think that many of us like him a lot and think he'll be a very good President. This isn't the same thing as thinking he's the second coming of Christ.

So I did not mean you and the likes of you, NewPhin. But you have to admit he has become a fad with a lot of those types of groupies. We've seen those types on this bb and I've seen them amongst people I personally know. With all due respect to the demographic of the 18-24 year olds which is a very strong portion of the Obama support, they tend to get excited more about style than substance. Obama is simply "cool." The last time I saw such a passionate youth support for a candidate his name was george McGovern. A phenom during the primary season and a bust in the general. Granted an incumbant Nixon was perhaps a more formidable opponent than McCain will be, nevertheless it accounts for the landslide. It means Obama can lose by a small margin but still lose. I truly believe Hillary would have been a synch to beat McCain.

[Frankie]

Pretty telling that's the only point you responded to. :p

No the rest of the stuff amounted to rehashing the same arguments that we won't agree on. It's "like TV on honeymoon,... Unnecessary."

[Adept Havelock]

No the rest of the stuff amounted to rehashing the same arguments that we won't agree on. It's "like TV on honeymoon,... Unnecessary."

LMAO

Rep for the Sidney Wang reference. One of Neil Simon's best. :clap:

[HonestChieffan]

Dems hate that the winner is actuallyNot the peoples pick....and they will regret this error for a long time. Hillary didnt lose for any of the reasons people use normally...Obama used the caucus system to take the delegates but the people in non caucus states demonstrate Hillary wins the popular vote.

[BIG_DADDY]

Dems hate that the winner is actuallyNot the peoples pick....and they will regret this error for a long time. Hillary didnt lose for any of the reasons people use normally...Obama used the caucus system to take the delegates but the people in non caucus states demonstrate Hillary wins the popular vote.

But, but the Dems are the party of the people. :shrug:

[BigOlChiefsfan]

The nomination "slid away" because her campaign seems to have conceded every caucus state to Obama. As if they just didn't care about those piddly ass states (like Kansas and Iowa) because, you know, her TURN to rule had come around. "Ask not what your country can do for you. Ask what it can do for ME!"
Sadly, those cumulative piddly ass states put He Whole Middle Name Must Not Be Spoken over the top. He's been losing a lot in the past month or two as people started to actually listen to those golden tones explaining the folks he's tossing under the bus...but he had that nice, uncontested cushion to rely on. "Come unto me, ye caucus suckers!"

Speaking of golden voices, der Hildabeast has the bizarro world polar opposite. Her cankles and pantsuit jokes aside, and ignoring 20 years of public malevolence, that voice cost her some votes. BUT...she can still pick up some paying gigs at Disney and Pixar anytime they have an animated crow-character or poll parrot. "Brawwwwwk! How'd this empty suit steal my party? Shut up! Shut up! Brawwwwwk!"

[jAZ]

Dems hate that the winner is actuallyNot the peoples pick....and they will regret this error for a long time. Hillary didnt lose for any of the reasons people use normally...Obama used the caucus system to take the delegates but the people in non caucus states demonstrate Hillary wins the popular vote.

His success and his strategy and her failure says a lot about the two.

Her judgement was terrible. His was nearly perfect.

Like his policy choices or not, Obama has seperated himself from Clinton as a tactician, as a person who thinks through all the details and who executes successfully a plan.

Those qualities would have been really helpful in the WH over the last 8 years. Even Republians can admit that at this point.

[dirk digler]

"If I had the same info as I do now I would haver never voted for the Iraq war."

What else do you need?



NO!!!. She would have been stamped as weak and indicisive BECAUSE SHE WAS A WOMAN.

I disagree. Apologizing for making a mistake shows people that they have integrity. Notice in your answer there is no "I am sorry"

The funny thing is she bitched about Bush never apologizing yet she didn't do it either.

[dirk digler]

Dems hate that the winner is actuallyNot the peoples pick....and they will regret this error for a long time. Hillary didnt lose for any of the reasons people use normally...Obama used the caucus system to take the delegates but the people in non caucus states demonstrate Hillary wins the popular vote.

WTF are you talking about? He has won every metric and moving goalposts that the Clinton campaign touted.

This whole she won the popular vote argument is a fraud. She doesn't tell anybody that she isn't counting 6-10 caucus states because they don't count in her mind.

[patteeu]

I disagree. Apologizing for making a mistake shows people that they have integrity. Notice in your answer there is no "I am sorry"

The funny thing is she bitched about Bush never apologizing yet she didn't do it either.

Hillary has apologized on several occasions. Most recently, she apologized to the family of Robert Kennedy for bringing up his assassination in connection with her argument that campaigns have often continued into June. Obama hasn't apologized for anything more substantial than Hillary has.

When is Obama going to apologize for trying to mislead the American people about Iraq? His irresponsible behavior on that issue alone makes him unfit to lead our country, IMO.

[dirk digler]

Hillary has apologized on several occasions. Most recently, she apologized to the family of Robert Kennedy for bringing up his assassination in connection with her argument that campaigns have often continued into June. Obama hasn't apologized for anything more substantial than Hillary has.

When is Obama going to apologize for trying to mislead the American people about Iraq? His irresponsible behavior on that issue alone makes him unfit to lead our country, IMO.

If you read back through the thread my point was that if Hillary would have actually apologized for voting for the Iraq war she would be the nominee today IMHO. She was given hundreds of opportunities and in every debate was asked about it and she never once said those three magical words "I am sorry."

[Logical]

This from the same person who deny's that such a move to the right occured.

But that aside, I'm saying a couple of things.

1) All of this is *IF* Obama wins, and the Dems hold the Senate
2) Obama has the *potential* and I believe the interest in pushing a progressive policy agenda in a way that Bill was unable and at times unwilling to do
3) Obama has the organizational skills (and leadership potential) to grow a base of young people who look to his Presidency (if he's is ultimately a success) in the way that Reagan did for the young Republicans that took over in 1994.

That's the potential of this campaign and the fear of such is why this is such a huge election for Republican strategists and party leadership.I am confused Reagan had Alzheimers and Clinton was President in 1994? Did you mean the early 80s?

[banyon]

I am confused Reagan had Alzheimers and Clinton was President in 1994? Did you mean the early 80s?

He's talking about the young people who looked up to Reagan in the 80s formed their loyalties then and later in the 90s went on to form the base of voters, campaign staff, and volunteers for the Republicans to win back Congress.

[Logical]

He's talking about the young people who looked up to Reagan in the 80s formed their loyalties then and later in the 90s went on to form the base of voters, campaign staff, and volunteers for the Republicans to win back Congress.OK that make sense, thanks.

[banyon]

OK that make sense, thanks.

i speak jAZ. :D

[whoman69]

Her big mistake was in blowing her war chest on the early contests hoping for a knockout. I live in Iowa and think I got a piece of mail from her on a daily basis. The other candidates sent out a bunch too, but she was spending like there was no tomorrow. Her campaign was not built for the long run. She had to hope for her star power and her husbands to blind everyone to the other candidates. She is not a good enough speaker to slug it out on the long haul. She had to resort to a lot of dirty tricks to stay in it. If she was a poor candidate she wouldn't have been able to keep it as close as she did. It would have been over after 11 straight losses.

[jAZ]

I am confused Reagan had Alzheimers and Clinton was President in 1994? Did you mean the early 80s?

The 1994 Congressional election is widely seen as the breakthrough election where the generation of young Reagan Republicans first came into office. They became part of Reagan's legacy as a leader of his party, and they extended his movements influence though Bush, Clinton and Bush.

Obama is really the first Democratic candidate who's had the *potential* to do something along those lines.

[Ultra Peanut]

You guys want to pinpoint the exact moment she lost the nomination? Go back eight years. (http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0608/The_first_big_Clinton_campaign_decision.html)

As told by John F. Harris in a fall 2000 issue of The Washington Post Magazine:

There is a popular view, which many of her advisers once endorsed, that Bill and Hillary represent two distinct poles in the Clinton Enterprise. She is the ideologue, eager to win but motivated principally by the higher cause; he is the compromiser, eager to do good but motivated principally by the imperative of victory. But it is Bill Clinton's brand of politics that is the animating force of her campaign.

Nothing illustrates this more than a tense episode early this year when she was deciding who to hire as her media adviser. The job had been all but offered, several sources say, to a veteran Chicago political consultant named David Axelrod. The president himself then weighed in with another idea: Hire Mark Penn. He was already signed on as pollster for both Hillary's campaign and the White House. Clinton believed he should take on an additional role in shaping her campaign's message.

"That was her decision," Clinton said in our conversation, acknowledging that he had been thoroughly familiar with it. "She's got the best of both worlds because [Axelrod] is working for the state party."

The significance of Penn is that he, more than any other adviser, is the architect of the president's successful effort to define and occupy the political center. Penn believes that swing voters are moved not so much by a candidate's inspiring rhetoric or compelling personal biography, but by concrete issues whose popularity is scientifically ascertained through exhaustive polling. It is a data-driven approach to politics, wonderfully suited to a president who inhales data, and over the years the smooth pol and the rumpled pollster have established a remarkable communion.

I literally laughed out loud while reading this.

[Calcountry]

She had all the advantages.

The initial big money support.

The Clinton political machine

A built in base of committed super delegates.

But she squandered it by being overconfident and ignoring the importance of the small states, the caucus states, and always appearing smug and overconfident. She did not build a base that could provide her the financial support long term while Obama was leaving no stone unturned.

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.
Nope, she lost because the brotherhood is stronger than the sisterhood.

[go bowe]

She got smoked by the better friggin' candidate. Take your medicine and get over it.*perk* smoked?

don't forget, puff puff pass... :bong:

[alanm]

Nope, she lost because the brotherhood is stronger than the sisterhood.
That and the national media nominated him as well as McCain.
I hate Big Media.

[Ultra Peanut]

That and the national media nominated him as well as McCain.
I hate Big Media.I love how you wrote that without a hint of irony.

Yes, the media picked Obama and McCain. That's why they deemed Hillary inevitable two years ago and refused to call her out for prolonging a primary process that she lost any real chance of winning after March 4th. That's why they propped up Giuliani, then Thompson, then Romney as the Republican frontrunners.

[HolmeZz]

That and the national media nominated him as well as McCain.
I hate Big Media.

Funny. Obama and McCain were afterthoughts until people actually began voting. Imagine that.

[Frankie]

Funny. Obama and McCain were afterthoughts until people actually began voting. Imagine that.

If political ads didn't affect the voters candidates wouldn't spend millions from their budgets on them. When a candidate gets an abundance of free political ads from the media EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, you can bet voting is effected strongly in his favor. Not to mention the Oprah Winfrey theater RIGHT BEFORE "PEOPLE ACTUALLY BEGAN TO VOTE." :shake:

[Ultra Peanut]

When a candidate gets an abundance of free political ads from the media EVERY STEP OF THE WAYWould you like to substantiate your idiotic claim, or just keep lying to justify Hillary the Inevitable's loss?

[Logical]

Nope, she lost because the brotherhood is stronger than the sisterhood.
Is that all this election is going to be about? Racism?

[patteeu]

Is that all this election is going to be about? Racism?

Of course not. Obama is the triple threat. In addition to racism, his campaign has succeeded in bringing sexism and ageism to the table too.

[Programmer]

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.

Would you really want to have a person with that type of personality in the WH with her finger on the big red button? Not me, and we aren't even considering the PMS factor.

[Programmer]

She lost because a womans place is in the kitchen, barefoot and pregnant

Think about it, would you really want to make her pregnant?

[Frankie]

Would you like to substantiate your idiotic claim, or just keep lying to justify Hillary the Inevitable's loss?

You must not have watched the news. Think before you call someone an idiot.

[PostRockPablo]

Would you really want to have a person with that type of personality in the WH with her finger on the big red button? Not me, and we aren't even considering the PMS factor.George has already been in there for 7 years pressing the motherf*cker. He's still pretty pissed it doesn't make the squeeky-squonky sound he thought it would.

[Frankie]

Would you really want to have a person with that type of personality in the WH with her finger on the big red button? Not me, and we aren't even considering the PMS factor.

You guys with the "big red button" phobia really amaze me. Yeah she would have it on her bedside table right to the left of the night lamp for convenience.:shake:

"PMS factor?" I have to look up what PMS means, because we all KNOW that sexism against Hillary Clinton never existed.

[Programmer]

You guys with the "big red button" phobia really amaze me. Yeah she would have it on her bedside table right to the left of the night lamp for convenience.:shake:

"PMS factor?" I have to look up what PMS means, because we all KNOW that sexism against Hillary Clinton never existed.


Tell me that you have never seen or heard about her temper tantrums while only the first lady. Hillary has a temper problem, the finger on the button is just a catch phrase, it's been thrown around every election.

Having PMS is not a sexist view, it's a fact of life for women. Apparently you are not married.

[Frankie]

Tell me that you have never seen or heard about her temper tantrums while only the first lady. Hillary has a temper problem, the finger on the button is just a catch phrase, it's been thrown around every election.

Having PMS is not a sexist view, it's a fact of life for women. Apparently you are not married.

Not all women suffer from PMS. At hillary's age she probably wouldn't have to worry about it either. If you are married, you need to talk to your wife more, or read something. All that said, linking any president's action to PMS as if it's a documented fact, is a sexist derogatory remark.

"Finger on the button," I realize, is a well worn phrase. But it's a false one. So using it in this day and age of "information access" is at best naive.

[Programmer]

Not all women suffer from PMS. At hillary's age she probably wouldn't have to worry about it either. If you are married, you need to talk to your wife more, or read something. All that said, linking any president's action to PMS as if it's a documented fact, is a sexist derogatory remark.

"Finger on the button," I realize, is a well worn phrase. But it's a false one. So using it in this day and age of "information access" is at best naive.

You just don't get the point. PMS or not, Hillary is a volitile person. She has a temper that borders on violent. You are reaching for sexist commentary with the PMS comment, but after reading a few of your posts I do understand your POV.:rolleyes:

[Carlota69]

Tell me that you have never seen or heard about her temper tantrums while only the first lady. Hillary has a temper problem, the finger on the button is just a catch phrase, it's been thrown around every election.

Having PMS is not a sexist view, it's a fact of life for women. Apparently you are not married.

McCain is famous for his temper as well. Do you want him with the red button on his nightstand?

PMS is not sexist, but using it as an arguement for why a woman shouldn't hold higher office is.

[BucEyedPea]

She had all the advantages.

The initial big money support.

The Clinton political machine

A built in base of committed super delegates.

But she squandered it by being overconfident and ignoring the importance of the small states, the caucus states, and always appearing smug and overconfident. She did not build a base that could provide her the financial support long term while Obama was leaving no stone unturned.

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.
Thus, she ultimately failed because she was...well just Hillary.

[BucEyedPea]

McCain is famous for his temper as well. Do you want him with the red button on his nightstand?

PMS is not sexist, but using it as an arguement for why a woman shouldn't hold higher office is.

PMS doesn't even apply to her anymore...but menopause would. :D

BTW, ev'r hear the expression "grumpy old men?" Well, that's due to men going through andropause. That's Mac.

[Carlota69]

PMS doesn't even apply to her anymore...but menopause would. :D

BTW, ev'r hear the expression "grumpy old men?" Well, that's due to men going through andropause. That's Mac.

Nice one. Yeah, men have their own "cycles" for sure.
Hillary is probably past menopause at 60, or at least on the tail end.

[HolmeZz]

If political ads didn't affect the voters candidates wouldn't spend millions from their budgets on them. When a candidate gets an abundance of free political ads from the media EVERY STEP OF THE WAY, you can bet voting is effected strongly in his favor.

Yawn. Are you done yet?

Not to mention the Oprah Winfrey theater RIGHT BEFORE "PEOPLE ACTUALLY BEGAN TO VOTE." :shake:

Yes, because having Oprah in your corner means a hell of a lot more in Democratic politics than being the wife of Bill Clinton.

The reason Barack Obama won the Democratic nomination is simple. It's because he won Iowa. If he doesn't win Iowa, he's not the nominee. That gave him credibility and viability as a candidate, and with that eventually came overwhelming support from the black community, most of which were supporting Hillary prior to the first contest. And without that win, they would've continued to. It isn't any more complicated than that.

[Carlota69]

Being a member of the media, and dealing with commercial airtime, I can tell you they spend money on Ads. Now, every media outlet hads to give equal time in regards to interviews and whatnot. But as far as commercials, the candidates have to buy them, altho I think they are giving a lower rate. And again, we have to give the same rate to each candidate.

[Frankie]

You just don't get the point. PMS or not, Hillary is a volitile person. She has a temper that borders on violent.
you win this argument. Obviously you know Hillary Clinton PERSONALLY.

[Frankie]

PMS is not sexist, but using it as an arguement for why a woman shouldn't hold higher office is.

that's EXACTLY what I said. But according to the very knowledgable programmer, I'm "reaching" with that argument.

[Baby Lee]

Being a member of the media, and dealing with commercial airtime, I can tell you they spend money on Ads. Now, every media outlet hads to give equal time in regards to interviews and whatnot. But as far as commercials, the candidates have to buy them, altho I think they are giving a lower rate. And again, we have to give the same rate to each candidate.

Frankie's making the 'point' that, by observing Obama's impressiveness and Hillary's missteps, the media were creating 'commercials' for Obama in their coverage.

[Carlota69]

Frankie's making the 'point' that, by observing Obama's impressiveness and Hillary's missteps, the media were creating 'commercials' for Obama in their coverage.

Ah, gotcha.

[Frankie]

Yes, because having Oprah in your corner means a hell of a lot more in Democratic politics than being the wife of Bill Clinton.

I've seen the 'Oprah' conversion personally in many cases. There are also studies that confirm this. A big portion of oprah-watching women (and men) made up their minds AFTER oprah came out swinging for Obama. I never said that the Dem Party converted because of Oprah. I say a lot of 'VOTERS' did.

[Frankie]

Being a member of the media, and dealing with commercial airtime, I can tell you they spend money on Ads. Now, every media outlet hads to give equal time in regards to interviews and whatnot. But as far as commercials, the candidates have to buy them, altho I think they are giving a lower rate. And again, we have to give the same rate to each candidate.

That is true. But my point was that media's conduct in a lot of cases acted like free commercial for Obama.

[Carlota69]

That is true. But my point was that media's conduct in a lot of cases acted like free commercial for Obama.

Understood.

[Frankie]

Frankie's making the 'point' that, by observing Obama's impressiveness and Hillary's missteps, the media were creating 'commercials' for Obama in their coverage.

Obama's impressive, no doubt. But in an idealistic way. If you read objectively without bias about hillary (from anbias source) you will be quite impressed about her, in a realistic way. Obama may prove substance later on, and I'm actually rooting for him to do so, but right now he's merely a "movement." both campaigns made mistakes. All campaigns do. But the media effectively ignored Obama's and harped on hillary's relentlessly.

[HolmeZz]

I've seen the 'Oprah' conversion personally in many cases. There are also studies that confirm this. A big portion of oprah-watching women (and men) made up their minds AFTER oprah came out swinging for Obama. I never said that the Dem Party converted because of Oprah. I say a lot of 'VOTERS' did.

That's probably why her ratings have sunk since she came out for Barack.

Unless you're going to make the argument that Oprah won Iowa for Obama, your already faulty premise doesn't stick. Obama doesn't win the nomination without Iowa. That is what catapulted him. Not Oprah.

[Programmer]

Nice one. Yeah, men have their own "cycles" for sure.
Hillary is probably past menopause at 60, or at least on the tail end.

So what does that say about her temperment? She has been known to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. If she can't blame PMS or menopause what does she blame it on?

Regarding the McCain temper, I've read articles about his temper. He gets into pissing contests at high volumn. I have never read anything about him throwing things like Hillary has.

I've said in the past that we do not have good choices for president, yes we have switched to Obama, I'd still rather have a hawk(McCain) than a dove (Obama).

[Carlota69]

So what does that say about her temperment? She has been known to fly off the handle at the slightest provocation. If she can't blame PMS or menopause what does she blame it on?

Regarding the McCain temper, I've read articles about his temper. He gets into pissing contests at high volumn. I have never read anything about him throwing things like Hillary has.

I've said in the past that we do not have good choices for president, yes we have switched to Obama, I'd still rather have a hawk(McCain) than a dove (Obama).


The same thing JM can blame it on, having a bad temper. Period. I mean with your argeument, only women have bad tempers becasue we are the only ones with PMS.

So again, since JM has bad temper as well, is he fit for the job in your eyes?

[StcChief]

I have never read anything about him throwing things like Hillary has. I can confirm this from inside source at the WH residence..... she wings a mean ashtray.

[Carlota69]

I can confirm this from inside source at the WH residence..... she wings a mean ashtray.

So she'd be great on the Senate softball team?:D

[Programmer]

The same thing JM can blame it on, having a bad temper. Period. I mean with your argeument, only women have bad tempers becasue we are the only ones with PMS.

So again, since JM has bad temper as well, is he fit for the job in your eyes?

You are assuming things that were not said after you made the point of PMS and Menopause. She still has a bad temper and JM has not been witnessed throwing anything, not even a tantrum.

We are talking about issues that have been witnessed. JM has been witnessed in loud arguments with other people. HC has been witnessed throwing whatever is at hand when she gets upset. There is a difference between the two.

[Programmer]

So she'd be great on the Senate softball team?:D

I hear they play hardball there, not softball.

[Carlota69]

You are assuming things that were not said after you made the point of PMS and Menopause. She still has a bad temper and JM has not been witnessed throwing anything, not even a tantrum.

We are talking about issues that have been witnessed. JM has been witnessed in loud arguments with other people. HC has been witnessed throwing whatever is at hand when she gets upset. There is a difference between the two.

Wow, coming from the man who needs to see something on film before he believes it. So, becuz someone said she threw an ashtray you beleive it? And becuz you dont know of JM ever throwing a tantrum (altho that is talked about more than her temper in the media), you dont beleive it?

Did you ever see her throw anything???? Probably not.

I think she did, but I also think JM has a temper as well. Some people just have tempers.

Again, based on your theory, PMS is the only thing that drives people to have a temper, and since only women have PMS....


ridiculous....

[StcChief]

So she'd be great on the Senate softball team?:D
she could be catcher, and get away with throwing it back like a girl. :D

[Programmer]

Wow, coming from the man who needs to see something on film before he believes it. So, becuz someone said she threw an ashtray you beleive it? And becuz you dont know of JM ever throwing a tantrum (altho that is talked about more than her temper in the media), you dont beleive it?

Did you ever see her throw anything???? Probably not.

I think she did, but I also think JM has a temper as well. Some people just have tempers.

Again, based on your theory, PMS is the only thing that drives people to have a temper, and since only women have PMS....


ridiculous....

Carlota, don't be a stupid witch. I accepted your writeoff of PMS and Menopause.

Hillary's throwing incidents have been published by insiders that did see her throw more than an ashtray. If you have even read about JM throwing items when he was angry I'd like to see your commentary on that. I did a Google search and came up with nothing. There are several stories about his temper, but not a single one of them indicate that he has ever thrown anything. On the flip side, virtually every link about Hillary and her temper tended to have comments of thrown items.

I don't really care what it's attributed to, she is volitile. I don't think we will have to worry about her in the WH for some time to come so it is less of an issue than it once was.

[Carlota69]

Carlota, don't be a stupid witch. I accepted your writeoff of PMS and Menopause.

Hillary's throwing incidents have been published by insiders that did see her throw more than an ashtray. If you have even read about JM throwing items when he was angry I'd like to see your commentary on that. I did a Google search and came up with nothing. There are several stories about his temper, but not a single one of them indicate that he has ever thrown anything. On the flip side, virtually every link about Hillary and her temper tended to have comments of thrown items.

I don't really care what it's attributed to, she is volitile. I don't think we will have to worry about her in the WH for some time to come so it is less of an issue than it once was.

First of all, nice job on the personal attack. Let me fire back--Stop being a ****ing tool!

Secondly, where did you agree that attributing her temper to PMS only, was sexist and unwarranted?

Secondly, my point is JM has a temper too, and he doesnt even have PMS...imagine that. If you think someone with a temper doesnt belong in the WH, then you must think JM doesnt belong there either. Doesnt matter if someone caught him throwing something or not--his temper is fairly famous. He is known as a hot head.

And those published reports--dont stories get told differently everytime? making them inaccurate or highly exagerated? According to you they do, therefore how can you say its correct? You didnt see her throw an astray did you? I'm just using the standard you presented to me in another thread, sir.

My overall point is people have tempers, becasue they just do. Men and women. So to say that a woman doesnt deserve to be near the "red button" because of PMS is sexist. Period. Besides, how many hot heads have we had in the WH already, that were men?

Dont get me wrong, I dont want Hillary in the WH either, but certainly not becasue she threw an ashtray or 2. There are plenty of reasons, but a temper and PMS are not any of them.

[Carlota69]

she could be catcher, and get away with throwing it back like a girl. :D

I heard she liked to pitch, not catch...but thats just rumor...:D

[Programmer]

First of all, nice job on the personal attack. Let me fire back--Stop being a ****ing tool!

Secondly, where did you agree that attributing her temper to PMS only, was sexist and unwarranted?

Secondly, my point is JM has a temper too, and he doesnt even have PMS...imagine that. If you think someone with a temper doesnt belong in the WH, then you must think JM doesnt belong there either. Doesnt matter if someone caught him throwing something or not--his temper is fairly famous. He is known as a hot head.

And those published reports--dont stories get told differently everytime? making them inaccurate or highly exagerated? According to you they do, therefore how can you say its correct? You didnt see her throw an astray did you? I'm just using the standard you presented to me in another thread, sir.

My overall point is people have tempers, becasue they just do. Men and women. So to say that a woman doesnt deserve to be near the "red button" because of PMS is sexist. Period. Besides, how many hot heads have we had in the WH already, that were men?

Dont get me wrong, I dont want Hillary in the WH either, but certainly not becasue she threw an ashtray or 2. There are plenty of reasons, but a temper and PMS are not any of them.

I didn't say that, you did and I considered your opinion. If you felt what I said was a personal attack you need to get some body armour.

You are having a hard time coming off the woman issue. That in itself might indicate to you that you (women) have a hard time moving forward. You probably remember the very first time you boyfriend/husband ****ed up and you never let him forget it.

I got news for you, I'm not your boyfriend or husband so get of the nagging bus Carlota.

The bottom line is that Hillary has a more volitile way of venting her anger, but like I said before, she is never going to be in the WH so it is a non-issue.

If you want to label me as a sexist you can do so but you also have to realize it's perpetuated by women like you that cannot let go of issues, ever.

[Carlota69]

I didn't say that, you did and I considered your opinion. If you felt what I said was a personal attack you need to get some body armour.

You are having a hard time coming off the woman issue. That in itself might indicate to you that you (women) have a hard time moving forward. You probably remember the very first time you boyfriend/husband ****ed up and you never let him forget it.

I got news for you, I'm not your boyfriend or husband so get of the nagging bus Carlota.

The bottom line is that Hillary has a more volitile way of venting her anger, but like I said before, she is never going to be in the WH so it is a non-issue.

If you want to label me as a sexist you can do so but you also have to realize it's perpetuated by women like you that cannot let go of issues, ever.

You called me a stupid witch. Thats a personal attack. I dont need body armour. And I'm not like most women. But you have no clue, as you wouldnt becasue we dont know each other.

You made a sexsist remark, I'm not the only one who saw that. if you have realized differently since then--great. But you never made that clear to me.

And I dont know of any woman who made you say that PMS remark in regards to Hillary. Was a women typing it for you? No? Then maybe you should take responsibilty for your actions and your views.

BTW, I dropped this thread along time ago (moved on to softball remarks)--seems you're the one who started this back up, sir. So tell me, who can't let go?

[Programmer]

You called me a stupid witch. Thats a personal attack. I dont need body armour. And I'm not like most women. But you have no clue, as you wouldnt becasue we dont know each other.

You made a sexsist remark, I'm not the only one who saw that. if you have realized differently since then--great. But you never made that clear to me.

And I dont know of any woman who made you say that PMS remark in regards to Hillary. Was a women typing it for you? No? Then maybe you should take responsibilty for your actions and your views.

BTW, I dropped this thread along time ago (moved on to softball remarks)--seems you're the one who started this back up, sir. So tell me, who can't let go?

Honeypie, I was only responding to your remarks. So you are saying that I should let you have the last word? Typical woman.

[Carlota69]

Honeypie, I was only responding to your remarks. So you are saying that I should let you have the last word? Typical woman.

ROFL...Classic. Little boy, you're a ****ing douche bag.

[Programmer]

ROFL...Classic. Little boy, you're a ****ing douche bag.

:rolleyes:

What a waste lambchop.

[Carlota69]

Would you rather it be lambchop? Now who is activating the personal attacks? At least I know how to keep a civil "attack" in line. I guess that you are most familiar with douche bags, still wearing them around your neck to prove a point?

Hello Pot, meet kettle.

:rolleyes:

Keep in line? how? By calling me a stupid witch? How is that friendlier or more in line than calling you a douche bag?

Pot - kettle, absolutely. But you started the childish attacks little man. But there you again, not owning up to your shit.

BTW, they aren't bags anymore...but if you had a girlfriend (or at least one that cared enough about hygiene), you'd know that. Or do you prefer men? Ah ha!!! I got it now. Now I understand why you hate women...

[Sully]

Keep in line? how? By calling me a stupid witch? How is that friendlier or more in line than calling you a douche bag?

Pot - kettle, absolutely. But you started the childish attacks little man. But there you again, not owning up to your shit.

BTW, they aren't bags anymore...but if you had a girlfriend (or at least one that cared enough about hygiene), you'd know that. Or do you prefer men? Ah ha!!! I got it now. Now I understand why you hate women...

The last time Roy T0m Cash's significant other had need for something like that, Ike was in office.

[Programmer]

Keep in line? how? By calling me a stupid witch? How is that friendlier or more in line than calling you a douche bag?

Pot - kettle, absolutely. But you started the childish attacks little man. But there you again, not owning up to your shit.

BTW, they aren't bags anymore...but if you had a girlfriend (or at least one that cared enough about hygiene), you'd know that. Or do you prefer men? Ah ha!!! I got it now. Now I understand why you hate women...

My my my you are one of the nastiest females I've ever seen around.

[Carlota69]

My my my you are one of the nastiest females I've ever seen around.

ROFL...and you are the biggest asshole I've ever encountered on this forum. And I've been here for many years--even more than my profile says.

[Carlota69]

The last time Roy T0m Cash's significant other had need for something like that, Ike was in office.

ROFL

[Programmer]

ROFL...and you are the biggest asshole I've ever encountered on this forum. And I've been here for many years--even more than my profile says.

I think you are looking in the mirror. Who cares how long you've been here? What does that have to do with anything?

[Carlota69]

I think you are looking in the mirror. Who cares how long you've been here? What does that have to do with anything?

It matters in the way of how many people I have encountered, and I have never encountered a bigger fag than you.

[Programmer]

It matters in the way of how many people I have encountered, and I have never encountered a bigger Rump Ranger than you.

Evil just pours out of you. I hope it doesn't have an impact on anyone near you.

Which witch are you? East or West. or is that b?

[Sully]

Roy T0m Cash:
I'm not going to play the PM game with you any longer, so I'll answer here...

Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. You couldn't follow an argument with a map, a compass, a Sherpa, and Magellan himself. Just feel free knowing that my dislike for you has nothing to do with your conservatism, and everything to do with your personality.

As far as you thinking my life is bad, I assure you it isn't. It's about as perfect as I can imagine. So don't you go losing any sleep over it, m'kay pardner?

[Carlota69]

Evil just pours out of you. I hope it doesn't have an impact on anyone near you.

Which witch are you? East or West.

Again, you just can't handle a strong woman who wont put up with your shit. But then again, we've assesed what your problem is...so what more needs to be said,
besides You go girl!!!!

[Programmer]

Again, you just can't handle a strong woman who wont put up with your shit. But then again, we've assesed what your problem is...so what more needs to be said,
besides You go girl!!!!

You are a strong woman? On what planet in what galaxy? You are nothing more than a foul mouthed asexual being that has a problem.

[Programmer]

Roy T0m Cash:
I'm not going to play the PM game with you any longer, so I'll answer here...

Of course you don't know what I'm talking about. You couldn't follow an argument with a map, a compass, a Sherpa, and Magellan himself. Just feel free knowing that my dislike for you has nothing to do with your conservatism, and everything to do with your personality.

As far as you thinking my life is bad, I assure you it isn't. It's about as perfect as I can imagine. So don't you go losing any sleep over it, m'kay pardner?

What ever Sully. I'm my own person and don't really need your imposition of another persons live on me.

As Carlota said, you don't know me and if you feel I'm Tom Cash you are really missing facts. Your life sure seems bad, you react to things in a very predictive manner, everyone here that is a conservative is Tom Cash.

Play your game elsewher.

[Carlota69]

You are a strong woman? On what planet in what galaxy? You are nothing more than a foul mouthed asexual being that has a problem.

ROFL Whatever fag!

[Programmer]

ROFL Whatever Rump Ranger!

You seem to be homophobic. Laughing all the way!

You need to find a real man and find out what womanhood is supposed to be all about if you actually are a female of the human race.

[Sully]

What ever Sully. I'm my own person and don't really need your imposition of another persons live on me.

As Carlota said, you don't know me and if you feel I'm - ahem, shut your mouth - you are really missing facts. Your life sure seems bad, you react to things in a very predictive manner, everyone here that is a conservative is - ahem, shut your mouth -.

Play your game elsewher.

ROFL

"Everyone here that is a conservative is Roy T0m Cash?"

That's just silly. There's only one you, fella.

By the way... how many posters have you seen me accuse of being you?

[Carlota69]

You seem to be homophobic. Laughing all the way!

You need to find a real man and find out what womanhood is supposed to be all about if you actually are a female of the human race.

Thanks for the PM, BTW...

Can't handle a little ribbing either? Oh, and I love the homphobic comment--considering you used it as well...You are such a hypocrite.
I know enough about you to be positive that you are one unhappy person.

A little jab regarding PMS and you turn into Mrs Hyde.

My wife, kids and grand kids will be amused at your commentary.

So, how do two women have sex?[/

I dont know little boy--try getting some porn to teach you a few tricks...

[Programmer]

ROFL

"Everyone here that is a conservative is Roy T0m Cash?"

That's just silly. There's only one you, fella.

By the way... how many posters have you seen me accuse of being you?

Two that I can think of, actually it might have been someone else making the accusation, I've just seen the name floating around.

And you are still wrong, I am not your friend.

[Programmer]

Thanks for the PM, BTW...

Can't handle a little ribbing either? Oh, and I love the homphobic comment--considering you used it as well...You are such a hypocrite.
I know enough about you to be positive that you are one unhappy person.

A little jab regarding PMS and you turn into Mrs Hyde.

My wife, kids and grand kids will be amused at your commentary.

So, how do two women have sex?[/

I dont know little boy--try getting some porn to teach you a few tricks...

You're so cute, I'm so hot for your bod. Why don't you post some pictures of yourself so we can all see what you are so proud of.

How do two women have sex?

[noa]

I don't see why you deny being T0m Cash. Your posting style is easily recognizable. The charade is pointless.

[Carlota69]

You're so cute, I'm so hot for your bod. Why don't you post some pictures of yourself so we can all see what you are so proud of.

How do two women have sex?

Well my avatar is me, so...and I never said I was proud of how good looking I am. but then again, logic isnt your strong suit, so why I'm bothering i dont know.

Again, a good lesbo porn might tell you how to have sex with a woman. I can't.

:shake: Fag.

[Carlota69]

I don't see why you deny being T0m Cash. Your posting style is easily recognizable. The charade is pointless.

Oh, so you know this guy? I was wondering about his posting style...Now I get it..well besides his obvious fascination with man love.

[Programmer]

I don't see why you deny being T0m Cash. Your posting style is easily recognizable. The charade is pointless.

It's not that I need to deny being the guy you want me to be, I simply am not.

[memyselfI]

She had all the advantages.

The initial big money support.

The Clinton political machine

A built in base of committed super delegates.

But she squandered it by being overconfident and ignoring the importance of the small states, the caucus states, and always appearing smug and overconfident. She did not build a base that could provide her the financial support long term while Obama was leaving no stone unturned.

Finally she became vindictive and the Hillary bitch factor was ever present.

No, the reason she lost is because the leadership of the Democratic Party was CERTAIN she would not be pushed around by them and would do what they are afraid or unwilling to do such as investigate DUHbya and his probable war crimes that the Democratic leadership in Congress has enabled. NObama will pass on any type of intense scrutiny of DUHbya thus the Democratic leaders in Congress will remain in the clear and their complicity in those crimes will remain untouched.

The ONLY reason NObama was able to succeed is because Dean, Pelosi, and Reid felt he was more considerate of THEIR, NOT THE AMERICAN PEOPLE'S, INTEREST. Thus, they made it possible for NObama to succeed in ways that Clinton was still almost able to overcome.

It is going to be a pleasure to walk away from that corrupt and morally reprehensible political party. Today is my last day as one of them. Tomorrow I'm off to change to Independent.

[Baby Lee]

ROFL

"Everyone here that is a conservative is Roy T0m Cash?"

That's just silly. There's only one you, fella.

By the way... how many posters have you seen me accuse of being you?

All the other posters he was befor . . . errr. Wait!!!

[Baby Lee]

Again, a good lesbo porn might tell you how to have sex with a woman. I can't.
The word you're looking for is . . . scissor . . .

[Adept Havelock]

The word you're looking for is . . . scissor . . .

Tribadism with abandon!

If they are shaved...is it then considered Tribaldism?

[Logical]

ROFL...Classic. Little boy, you're a ****ing douche bag.
Yes, yes he is.

[Frankie]

Oh, so you know this guy? I was wondering about his posting style...Now I get it..well besides his obvious fascination with man love.

Bu... but his profile says he was born in 1981. Must have reached puberty at 2 yrs old to have any "grandchildren" according to the PMs you mentioned. :hmmm:

[Frankie]

I don't see why you deny being T0m Cash. Your posting style is easily recognizable. The charade is pointless.

He's a1na2 too. Correct?

[Logical]

Bu... but his profile says he was born in 1981. Must have reached puberty at 2 yrs old to have any "grandchildren" according to the PMs you mentioned. :hmmm:Oh he definitely lies for convenience.

[noa]

He's a1na2 too. Correct?

That's my belief, but he denies it, so I'm not really going to waste my time trying to crack the case.

[Carlota69]

Bu... but his profile says he was born in 1981. Must have reached puberty at 2 yrs old to have any "grandchildren" according to the PMs you mentioned. :hmmm:

I thought that was odd as well...

[Brock]

Roy T. Cash II always lies about his birthdate when he registers a new username.

[BucEyedPea]

I thought that was odd as well...

I usually don't like to bring things like this up from other bb's, but I wound up here via Football Huddles. When I first arrived, I noticed all the noise about this guy whereby he was banned. Didn't know much about him, and I felt bad for him not knowing. But shortly after his ban he registered over at the Huddles and posted in the Chiefs forum that he had been banned here. 4th and Long posted that they never banned anybody here so wondered what he did. Anyhow he posted his picture there and he looks like he's in his 60's maybe? Or late 50's. Like I said I usually don't try to mention things from other bb's but he attacked you first, another woman unmercifully and I just thought that was really low.

[Carlota69]

I usually don't like to bring things like this up from other bb's, but I wound up here via Football Huddles. When I first arrived, I noticed all the noise about this guy whereby he was banned. Didn't know much about him, and I felt bad for him not knowing. But shortly after his ban he registered over at the Huddles and posted in the Chiefs forum that he had been banned here. 4th and Long posted that they never banned anybody here so wondered what he did. Anyhow he posted his picture there and he looks like he's in his 60's maybe? Or late 50's. Like I said I usually don't try to mention things from other bb's but he attacked you first, another woman unmercifully and I just thought that was really low.


Thanks for the note. It doesnt suprise me that he got banned. While we were "fighting" I kept thinking how odd it was. But I couldn't stop because I was slightly entertained by the whole thing. I also wondered if he was a psyciopath, you know, a person with no conscience. A BB Ted Bundy of sorts...:D

[BucEyedPea]

Thanks for the note. It doesnt suprise me that he got banned. While we were "fighting" I kept thinking how odd it was. But I couldn't stop because I was slightly entertained by the whole thing. I also wondered if he was a psyciopath, you know, a person with no conscience. A BB Ted Bundy of sorts...:D

Well, I just got a PM from him titled: "I'm being trapped." Ending with my being a typical gossip! Lol!

[Carlota69]

Well, I just got a PM from him titled: "I'm being trapped." Ending with my being a typical gossip! Lol!

You're a typical gossip and I'm a typical woman. Its nice to have someone around who is so incredibly insightful:evil:

[Cntrygal]

WOW...

What a hijack!

[Cntrygal]

:doh!:

Can I say the "H" word in this forum? STFU

[banyon]

Thanks for the note. It doesnt suprise me that he got banned. While we were "fighting" I kept thinking how odd it was. But I couldn't stop because I was slightly entertained by the whole thing. I also wondered if he was a psyciopath, you know, a person with no conscience. A BB Ted Bundy of sorts...:D

By my count he's been banned at least 6 times under these usernames:

Electric
r8er8er
Matt Helm
Chiefs Express
Chiefs Express II
a1na2

Who am I forgetting?

If you want some schaudenfrade: here's a google search with the history:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=site:chiefsplanet.com/BB+(%22Tom+Cash%22)&start=20&sa=N

And here's when he won my poll to be the dumbest motherf***er in the history of Chiefsplanet DC:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=152133&highlight=dumbest+history

[Logical]

By my count he's been banned at least 6 times under these usernames:

Electric
r8er8er
Matt Helm
Chiefs Express
Chiefs Express II
a1na2

Who am I forgetting?

If you want some schaudenfrade: here's a google search with the history:

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=site:chiefsplanet.com/BB+(%22Tom+Cash%22)&start=20&sa=N (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&oe=ISO-8859-1&q=site:chiefsplanet.com/BB+%28%22Tom+Cash%22%29&start=20&sa=N)

And here's when he won my poll to be the dumbest motherf***er in the history of Chiefsplanet DC:

http://www.chiefsplanet.com/BB/showthread.php?t=152133&highlight=dumbest+history

That is a good list but by no means all the names he has used over the years. I doubt any moderator could come up with a complete list, but it would be a very long list. Back when I was a moderator he actually only had four or five personas. You want to smoke out a VoldemorTOM Cash user send him PMs about how Phobia was right and he was wrong.ROFL

[Logical]

You're a typical gossip and I'm a typical woman. Its nice to have someone around who is so incredibly insightful:evil:
Thats OK I am going straight to hell and don't believe in any Supreme Being. I have been working on the puzzle of whether I should be annoyed to be going to hell if there is no Supreme Being?