Exactly where is the vicious personal attack submitter?

Hey, a vicious personal attack against Clinton would be a change.

I'd say it's due.

"I guess Sen. Clinton believes that the way to beat Sen. McCain in a debate is to talk like he talks, act like he acts, and vote like he votes on national security issue," Obama adviser Greg Craig told reporters on a conference call. "We believe that Democrats in the past have lost national security debates to the Republicans for these reasons."

Thats real vicious, hitting her with the truth like that.

A DISGUSTING use of the truth!

A REVOLTING use of reality!

A SICKENING use of facts!

Aaaaaand once again the anti-Obama crowd has absolutely nothing.

Whatever you say, freepmitter.

I didn't see anything like a vicious personal attack in that article. Odd. Perhaps subby linked to the wrong article.

There's some passionate need to see some blood in this primary battle. I don't get it and I hope it doesn't go there.

A civil debate between two talented candidates will be good for the party. A bloodbath will be a festival for hurt feelings and breaking up the party's best chance to clean up the farkin' disaster the GOP has made of the government.

I don't think either one of these guys has gotten really ugly, although some of Hillary's tactics are getting close to the edge (passing out the Kenya pics and then denying it was sad).

This should not be a blood feud, ever. The problem is not on the Democratic side. It's watching Dubya's older shadow cakewalk it, if we're stupid.

For those who think that Obama will "change" our foreign policy direction, remember that he has been endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

wejash: This should not be a blood feud, ever.

It's a case of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If both candidates take the high ground, the Democrats coast into the White House. If one fights dirty, it's an easy primary victory for that candidate. If both fight dirty, the Democrats are seen as mirroring the culture of attacks and fear, and McCain's disadvantage essentially disappears.

In other words, it's too tempting to fight dirty, and the Democrats will be worse off for it.

wejash: I don't think either one of these guys has gotten really ugly,

You know other than comparing Obama to Ken Starr, Dubya, and Karl Rove.

wejash: I don't think either one of these guys has gotten really ugly, although some of Hillary's tactics are getting close to the edge

saying

"I'll bring experience to the presidency,
John McCain will bring experience to the presidency,
Barack Obama will bring a speech".

Is pissing in the democratic pool.

She's just given the republicans their talking points when Obama gets the nomination.

Well, it's essentially true. If you look at hillary's voting record, her foreign policy is W's foreign policy.

A pro-Hillary anti-Obama headline on my fark?

/Looks out window, checks for flying pigs
//Calls hell, checks if it's frozen over.

0 + 0 = 0

I agree. As an independent voter, I've been pretty pissed the whole time at Hillary's behavior. She's a politician, to the bone- and she's going to work the system for all it's worth. Any chance I had of voting for her has been nuked. It's sad to see that Obama has to respond in kind, but keep in mind he managed to avoid aggressively attacking Hillary until it became clear, as Digeratus noted above, that taking the high road while Hillary continued to smear him and his campaign would result in him losing the nomination.

All we're doing at this point is giving the Republicans a chance to get a head up for the general election. I do have to give the Republicans a bit of grudging respect... they know how to play the game, too. Of any of the candidates they had, McCain's the only one I think has any shot of beating either Hillary or Obama. If only the Democrats could do the same thing.

So, when Hillary uses personal attacks, its just in character and its all right. When really anyone else uses personal attacks, its just politics as usual. But when Senator Obama uses a personal attack though, he clearly shouldn't be running and is just a bad person all around.

Carry on, no bias here.

GAT_00: . But when Senator Obama uses a personal attack though, he clearly shouldn't be running and is just a bad person all around.

From TFA: Hillary Clinton's foreign policy would be more of the same failed Republican approach, Barack Obama's campaign said today

Personal attack?

Carry on, no bias here.

Using the word "bias" does not necessarily make you look smart.

keithgabryelski: saying

"I'll bring experience to the presidency,
John McCain will bring experience to the presidency,
Barack Obama will bring a speech".

Is pissing in the democratic pool.

Given that is in quotation marks, can you give a link to where she or her campaign said that? I cannot find it with the Googles (they do, indeed, do nothing).

This is not a personal attack at all. It is firmly attacking Clinton's policy positions, and her demonstrated political history. It is not even that dirty. It's not like he is push-polling to suggest she has an illegitimate dark-skinned baby.

That said, it is a disingenuous distortion. Her positions may not be the same as Obama's, but they are also fundamentally different from McCain's in many ways.

I am no fan of Hillary, and think she would be the worst of all current options for the Democrats and the country. But all the farkers in this thread saying "well it's okay because it's true", or "well, CLinton's foreign policy is the same as McCain's (or G-Dub's)", need to reassess their own bias.

And-1: Given that is in quotation marks, can you give a link to where she or her campaign said that? I cannot find it with the Googles (they do, indeed, do nothing).

For the internet impaired:

"Sen. McCain will bring a lifetime of experience to the campaign; I will bring a lifetime of experience; and Sen. Obama will bring a speech that he gave in 2002," Clinton said today after her event with the military leaders.

Link (new window)

Maybe you need more practice with the Google.

/I just did a google news search for 'clinton mccain experience', this was the 4th item

tallguywithglasseson:

Thanks. I searched for words in your quote and found 0 hits. I guess it is not Google's fault (or mine) that you can't tell the difference between paraphrasing and quoting ;)

/Maybe you need more practice with truthiness.

subby. I don't like all the Obama love here either, but this is far from vicious.

if you can beat them, join them

have you guys changed the meaning of "vicious" recently?

/ i may need a new dictionary

Hey remember that time she couldn't pronounce Medvedev's name and then ran a commercial saying that if a phone rings at 3 am in the Whitehouse it should be answered by someone who knows world leaders? That was awesome.

I don't see how that is vicious or personal, her record clearly illustrates their point.

Good work trollimeter.

ScubaDude1960: For those who think that Obama will "change" our foreign policy direction, remember that he has been endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.


Oh yeah, Zkzsetdh Bsdjgkski. Who can forget Zsltjhka Bwektlski?

klymen:

A pro-Hillary anti-Obama headline on my fark?

/Looks out window, checks for flying pigs
//Calls hell, checks if it's frozen over.

Have you been in a cave for the past 2 weeks? Anytime that the media manages to get something amounting to up to a big fat "Meh" to informed voters, it gets played to death. The reason why the media was accused of being Pro-Obama, depsite the fact they'd been treating Clinton with kid gloves from the day she announced she was running, is because they can't find anything to go after the guy. The worst dirt they can dig up on him that isn't pure fabrication is that he's an inspirational speaker. Whupty farking doo.

And-1:

That said, it is a disingenuous distortion. Her positions may not be the same as Obama's, but they are also fundamentally different from McCain's in many ways.

Her voting record speaks volumes louder than her after-the-fact pandering to voters, especially in comparison to a candidate who was vocally opposed to the policies she voted for.

/"I voted for it, but didn't want it to pass" anyone?

Digeratus:
It's a case of the Prisoner's Dilemma. If both candidates take the high ground, the Democrats coast into the White House. If one fights dirty, it's an easy primary victory for that candidate. If both fight dirty, the Democrats are seen as mirroring the culture of attacks and fear, and McCain's disadvantage essentially disappears.

In other words, it's too tempting to fight dirty, and the Democrats will be worse off for it.

The difference is that in the prisoner dilema both players are blind to the other's decision. In this situation the voters can see Hilary's strategy and vote against her for it.

My re-enactment of the 3AM call for Hillary:

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING!
Hillary picks up: Hello?
Voice on the phone: Can I speak to the President, Ma'am?

ScubaDude1960: Zbigniew Brzezinski

binnster: Oh yeah, Zkzsetdh Bsdjgkski. Who can forget Zsltjhka Bwektlski?

This is one of those names that is easier to pronounce if you say it backwards.

Iksnizezbr Weingibz

"Distorting Hillary's record won't address the doubts voters have about Senator Obama's readiness to be commander-in-chief," said Clinton campaign spokesman Phil Singer.

What readiness? Camp Clinton keeps trying to sell this, "Ready on Day One" crap, and if her candidacy is any indication, the only thing that she'll be ready to do on day one is pick out curtains for the Oval Office.

I'd vote for him twice if he'd just look her in the eye and say "Iron my shirt" or "Make me a sammitch, beeyotch". Just to see the look on her face.

Sort of like Reagan with "there you go again" to Carter.

PC LOAD LETTER: My re-enactment of the 3AM call for Hillary:

BRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRING!
Hillary picks up: Hello?
Voice on the phone: Can I speak to the President, Ma'am?

*golf clap*

cameroncrazy1984: Aaaaaand once again the anti-Obama crowd has absolutely nothing.

Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

The Billdozer: Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

most of the time it's "ZOMG HES INEXPERIENCED" occasionally sprinkled with words like "socialism", "Muslim", "radical church", "Rezko" (which the Chicago Tribune has been trying to nail him on for a year now and has zero to show for it), "Michelle is crazy", etc

The BEST part is the "inexperienced" thing. Especially since Obama has MORE experience than Clinton does in holding elected offices. Being a spouse of a brain surgeon doesn't mean you get to operate.

/ Subby, enjoying his/her morning coffee

The Billdozer:

Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

Screaming "Empty suit!", "No executive experience!" (not that any of them have that sort of experience), "Pretty speeches!"/"Just words!", and "He doesn't campaign like the Republicans!" aren't exactly solid reasons for not voting for Obama, and that is what 90% of the Farkers opposed to Obama have been saying. The other 10% have actual policy differences with him, and they actually frame their posts in a manner that is, at a minimum, somewhat respectful.

Gregory F. Stuart: The Billdozer: Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

Translation: "Please vote for Hillary -- it's our only chance to win! Sincerely, Republicans."

Are you talking?

Murkanen: The Billdozer:

Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

Screaming "Empty suit!", "No executive experience!" (not that any of them have that sort of experience), "Pretty speeches!"/"Just words!", and "He doesn't campaign like the Republicans!" aren't exactly solid reasons for not voting for Obama, and that is what 90% of the Farkers opposed to Obama have been saying. The other 10% have actual policy differences with him, and they actually frame their posts in a manner that is, at a minimum, somewhat respectful.

I have major policy issues with him, and issues with his cult-like following (i.e., the people who vote for him just because he gives a nice speech). Obama the human being, couldn't care less about. Seems like a good guy who has made something of himself. Obama the politician? Can't stand.

Asking a question that should have been asked a long time ago, "What exactly is Senator Clinton's experience?" is really vicious. Either subby is a Clinton supporter or subby is being sarcastic. I cannot tell.

Mr Logo:
The difference is that in the prisoner dilema both players are blind to the other's decision. In this situation the voters can see Hilary's strategy and vote against her for it.

Remember this is a country where 17% of people are not familiar with heliocentrism, let alone game theory.

hillary:

obama has no experience I have experience.

you wouldn't want him answering that phone! he has no experience I have experience!


obama:

exactly what experience are you talking about?


/vicious, rabid attack.
//obama is asking the right questions, without resorting to fear marketing or baseless lies. good for him.

ScubaDude1960: For those who think that Obama will "change" our foreign policy direction, remember that he has been endorsed by Zbigniew Brzezinski.

He's one of several different advisors. I not 100% sure he'll change our foreign policy direction, but his campaign so far has made it definitely seem possible. The key change would be in the tone of foreign policy in the country. Currently, 'strong' and 'hawk' are essentially synonyms to most of the foreign policy elites in Washington. If you look at the way Hillary talks about foreign policy it's obvious that she buys into this belief completely and the only regrets she likely has about her Iraq war vote are due to the political damage it's caused her. Obama, on the other hand, is a candidate who is finally willing to challenge this idea and claim that there's more to being strong on national security/foreign policy than always being willing to use military force. He's absolutely right about the whole 'acts like McCain, talks like McCain, votes like McCain' thing being a ridiculously stupid argument that Hillary is better suited to go up against him on the subject. I think an Obama candidacy and an Obama presidency could go a long way towards changing the way we view foreign policy and national security in this country.

The Billdozer: Yeah... no one on FARK has ever given good, solid reasons why one shouldn't vote for Obama. Ever. In the history of anything.

Yes, I know!

And for every single inane post that tries to smear Obama, nothing sticks.
It's kind of like he has figured out how Presidents Bush and Reagan did it.
Wow, that must smart.

The Billdozer: Can't stand.

Now here is where we determine if you are just being blindly partisan, uninformed, or whether you can, however unlikely as it is given your past posting record, put together a coherent and rational thought or two to support your position.

Why?

The Billdozer:

I have major policy issues with him,

nuff said, I'm glad you at least took the time to look into his policy positions.

and issues with his cult-like following (i.e., the people who vote for him just because he gives a nice speech).

I keep hearing about these people but the vast majority of obama supporters I see on fark, and know personally have spent a fair amount of time reading up on exactly what he stands for. his ability to make a great speech is just gravy.

His stance on Iraq and his plan to broaden and strengthen Hate Crimes legislation is more than enough for me to be against him as President.