Mind bleach please.

oh SNAP

*Snerk.* Bwahahaha!

Served! Served! Served!

Wow, how pathetic.
Mark Penn, Clinton's chief strategist and pollster, touted the poll as good news in a blog post. He pointed out that after John Kerry and Al Gore won the Iowa caucuses, they saw bigger jumps than Obama, who was at 30 points in a CNN poll of New Hampshire voters taken at the end of December.

"We lost and our polls have dropped, but they didn't drop as much as the loser a couple years ago did!"

Give me a break. Clinton's done; good riddance.

+1 subby

Wired on Clinton's attacks.

The poll thing really depends on which polls you look at, and you're right TheCid, it's bad for her either way. Some polls show them tied and others show him way ahead. They're spinning it hard.

Edwards is trying to knock Hillary out too. Not good times for her. I'm surprised by Edwards' strategy.

I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing? I know my own views on the world have changed drastically in the past few years, and I personally feel I'm a better person for it. Besides, Bush has never changed his position on anything (except maybe the importance of Bin Laden), and look at where that's put us.

Best image evar.

All hail zombi Clinton

Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing? I know my own views on the world have changed drastically in the past few years, and I personally feel I'm a better person for it. Besides, Bush has never changed his position on anything (except maybe the importance of Bin Laden), and look at where that's put us.

Well put, man.

Any one of those three would be so far and away an improvement on what we have now, I honestly am beyond caring which one of them wins the nomination as long as he/she wins the election in November.

heidi girl
Any one of those three would be so far and away an improvement on what we have now, I honestly am beyond caring which one of them wins the nomination as long as he/she wins the election in November.

No kidding. Is it just me, or have the Presidential Elections devolved from something (somewhat) respectable, to nothing more than high school mudslinging to see who gets elected Homecoming Queen? I don't recall the candidates saying anything remotely positive about anything (least of all their rivals), they're constantly changing positions on their platforms, and they obviously don't give a rat's ass about the country or its people. *Sigh.* The only difference between this election and monkeys flinging poo is eventually the monkeys will run out of poo.

This election stuff is getting stupid. Really, what they should do is lock all the candidates in a room together with half a brick each. Whoever comes out is president. Would that be so difficult?

Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing? I know my own views on the world have changed drastically in the past few years, and I personally feel I'm a better person for it. Besides, Bush has never changed his position on anything (except maybe the importance of Bin Laden), and look at where that's put us.

Your newsletter, subscribe to it can I?

/Changing their mind when confronted with new information is what rational people do.
//People who don't are idiots and probably insane.

Hillary Clinton needs to put down the rightwing playbook and start giving reasons why people should vote for her, not vote against her competitors. The more she emulates a rightwinger in her campaign tactics, the worse she will do.

Saiga410: Best image evar.

i offer a rebuttal:



/not mine

Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing?

I think it's supposed to be shorthand for "changing your opinion to match your audience." Evolving positions are fine, but creatively designing them is not.

As an analogy, imagine you have a ball at the top of a mountain. If you push it, it will roll downhill until it comes to rest somewhere. However, it won't roll downhill, backtrack uphill, then teleport to the other side of the mountain.

People expect to see some progress on one's opinions, not just different positions. A person (oh, say, Mittens Romney) who is absolutely for abortion rights, then suddenly against abortion rights, has seen his position do the equivalent of quantum tunneling through the mountain.

Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing?

In some cases, it shows a lack of courage in your convictions or pandering to your audience. And I think we generally expect our politicians not to make mistakes. If you change your position, then either you were wrong before or you're wrong now. Either way, you were wrong.

That said, the best comeback to such a charge is the one attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

"Sir, when the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do?"

loser_death_spiral: Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing?

In some cases, it shows a lack of courage in your convictions or pandering to your audience. And I think we generally expect our politicians not to make mistakes. If you change your position, then either you were wrong before or you're wrong now. Either way, you were wrong.

That said, the best comeback to such a charge is the one attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

"Sir, when the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do?"

Or don't forget Steven Cobert's line from the Press Club dinner that Bush didn't like so much...

Paraphrasing here.... Bush believes the same thing on Monday as he does on Wednesday.... no matter what happens on Tuesday.

She won't make any progress. We all know it.

Bill is the only one in that family that thinks enough to make it that far. She's a coonty "everything is a conspiracy" twat who thinks wearing suits and talking shiat makes a difference.

Dear Hillary,

Give it up. The only ones rooting for you are your enemies.

Thanks!
-America

As a conservative I am going to enjoy voting for Hillary in the primary. I want her to be the candidate for the dems as she is the one easiest to beat.... well other than some of the fringe candidates that will drop out here in a few weeks if they have not already.

bgrainger

You are so clever. We all wish we could be as awesome as you. No one ever thought of doing that in an open primary before.

Unless you actually went ahead and registered in the opposite party. Then you're just a mega-assface.

cmunic8r99: i offer a rebuttal:

Weird. When you combine the two of them, it looks a little bit like my friend, Rob.

loser_death_spiral: That said, the best comeback to such a charge is the one attributed to Edmund Burke (1729-1797):

"Sir, when the facts change, I change my opinions. What do you do?"

Now THAT is a good quote.

this is all mental masturbation. Here's your next president.



_{/ha ha
//ducks}

Karma Chameleon: I honestly fail to see, at least in most cases, why this "changing positions" statement is constantly used as an attack against whichever candidate. Is it really a bad thing?

I think when you are elected partly to vote against the Patriot Act by NY State voters and you go in and do exactly the opposite that is a little bit more than changing opinion on a nuanced issue that is evolving.

Remember, boys and girls: Once you take a position on something, you have to stick with it for the rest of your life or you're an evil flip-flopper, even if it becomes clear to you that you were wrong.

/Wishes george w. bush would change a few of his positions

What qualifications does Hillary Clinton have to be president? besides being married to one that got impeached....just sayin'

FriarTuck: I think when you are elected partly to vote against the Patriot Act by NY State voters and you go in and do exactly the opposite that is a little bit more than changing opinion on a nuanced issue that is evolving.

The reauthorization of the USA PATRIOT Act was a significantly neutered version, in large part because people like Clinton and Obama worked their asses off to make sure it was snipped. Without their work, it probably would have been reauthorized with nothing more than a few token provisions deleted and the most onerous provisions still extant.

I will not be voting for Clinton in the primaries, but I continue to admit openly and with a certain level of pride that my first vote for a United States Senator (given that previous attempts to vote were in Florida, and we all know how that goes) was for Hillary Clinton. Yes, she panders. Yes, she's calculating. No, she doesn't have any leadership potential. This is exactly why she's a good Senator for New York State.