Where's Picard when you need him...this Bill was freaking made in the Reagan administration - they just needed to wait for a Dem president so it would be signed.

Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

TwoHead: Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

I don't understand this comment.

Wasn't this plot originally used on that episode of the Brady bunch when Marcia ran for class president?

DamnYankees: TwoHead: Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

I don't understand this comment.

Translatioin: If you don't vote for the anointed, predestined Democratic candidate, then you are giving it to the Republicans.

Etchy333: DamnYankees: TwoHead: Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

I don't understand this comment.

Translatioin: If you don't vote for the anointed, predestined Democratic candidate, then you are giving it to the Republicans.

I find the Kos thing interesting. This is a website which is perhaps the most important website for Democrats on the internet. It's filled with the most passionate and informed Democrats. People like Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama have actually made blog posts there. Markos Moulitsas is considered a very important Dem player. And what happened?

Well, the whole place is now very pro-Obama and they farking can't stand Hillary. What does that tell you? For me, it tells me that when people actually pay attention to what's going on, and are educated and interesting in politics, they go *overwhelmingly* for Obama. DailyKos is not a site for lefty nutbars or whacko progressives - it's a mainstream site for electing Democrats. All Democrats. But even that site can't stand Hillary, since those people actually follow the news.

I find it highly telling of the two candidates.

Etchy333: Translatioin: If you don't vote for the anointed, predestined Democratic candidate, then you are giving it to the Republicans.

Absolutely wrong!

The headline looked like something a freeper would have posted during the Clinton years. So I pointed out that the headline looked like something a freeper would have posted. You might note I mentioned that in my post.


As an independent voter I don't care who you morans nominate so long as we get something other than a republican elected next. It is vital that our next president undo some of the damage done in the last eight years and the republicans have no interest in fixing what they've broken.

In case even that isn't clear enough..STFU and GBTW should be the focus of the democrats at this point, not eating their own. This BS is just handing old man McCain the election and that is pretty farking sad considering how pathetic he is.

DamnYankees: TwoHead: Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

I don't understand this comment.

You're not the only one...

DamnYankees: Etchy333: DamnYankees: TwoHead: Early on a Sunday morning it all blurs together and looks like kos is submitting freeper headlines. This plan to drive independent voters away from the Democratic party is really starting to come together.

I don't understand this comment.

Translatioin: If you don't vote for the anointed, predestined Democratic candidate, then you are giving it to the Republicans.

I find the Kos thing interesting. This is a website which is perhaps the most important website for Democrats on the internet. It's filled with the most passionate and informed Democrats. People like Ted Kennedy and Barack Obama have actually made blog posts there. Markos Moulitsas is considered a very important Dem player. And what happened?

Well, the whole place is now very pro-Obama and they farking can't stand Hillary. What does that tell you? For me, it tells me that when people actually pay attention to what's going on, and are educated and interesting in politics, they go *overwhelmingly* for Obama. DailyKos is not a site for lefty nutbars or whacko progressives - it's a mainstream site for electing Democrats. All Democrats. But even that site can't stand Hillary, since those people actually follow the news.

I find it highly telling of the two candidates.

I've just recently started reading that site on a regular basis, and that's exactly correct. People can't stand Hillary's tactics and her pattern of exaggeration/deception. If she just ran on the issues she would at least have respect among informed democratic voters. However, the way she has conducted herself as of late is disgraceful. The MSM is now afraid to question her on her BS for fear of being "sexist" or "too hard" on her. But over the past few days more and more information is coming out in which the principle players involved in things she is taking credit for are not only disputing her account of things, but almost ridiculing her for even trying to pretend she had anythign to do with them at all.

Her lust for power is such that she would rather sink the ship than see soneone else as captain. That's not the type of person who should be president, no matter what party they happen to belong to.

As a dem, I'd vote for McCain over her. I'm not alone...

TwoHead: As an independent voter I don't care who you morans nominate so long as we get something other than a republican elected next.

I'm actually with you on this, but it's clear to me that the Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee. If roles were reversed and Obama was lagging in delegates behind Hillary, there would be so much pressure from everywhere for Obama to drop out, so the Democrats could solidify around Hillary.

So even if you're independent and don't care and just want "anyone but a Republican," then you should be cheering on anyone who wants to get Hillary out as quickly as possible, not claiming they're trying to "divide the Democratic party."

With all of these stories of her taking credit for things she really shouldn't be taking credit for (Ireland, Kosovo, now this) - when is someone going to call her out on this shiat? I mean, come on Obama.. I know you want to play fair but you can still do that and push this issue, make the media pick up on it.

Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places but it seems Obama's been too quiet lately.. doesn't he realize that this is what farked Kerry? He ignored/dismissed the whole Swiftboat story.. not responding to things does NOT make it go away.

He ought to hold a news conference Monday and cite all 3 of these examples. Between that, her hypocritical double-standard refusal to release her tax returns, and her refusal to release the records of her years as first lady (which she is basing her "experience" on), he can really hammer her on this stuff.

Either he is too afraid of being dragged into a dirty fight with her, or he's saving this stuff for April right before PA.

mferris: With all of these stories of her taking credit for things she really shouldn't be taking credit for (Ireland, Kosovo, now this) - when is someone going to call her out on this shiat? I mean, come on Obama.. I know you want to play fair but you can still do that and push this issue, make the media pick up on it.

Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places but it seems Obama's been too quiet lately.. doesn't he realize that this is what farked Kerry? He ignored/dismissed the whole Swiftboat story.. not responding to things does NOT make it go away.

I think the media has become terrified of criticizing her. They feel they did it too much after Iowa, and she won NH because they were too hard on her. Then in the few weeks running up to March 4, the whole "obama is getting a free pass" meme caught on, and hasn't let go.



There's a nonsense idea in media that every side must be treated the same. Some of you may have read about this in a popular book published recently. Now it was true that until recently, there was more bad news and bad stories coming out about Clinton.

BUT NOT ONE EVER CONSIDERED that maybe, just maybe, Obama is simply a better person and candidate than Clinton. This retarded idea of balance in the media means that if a great candidate runs against a sleazeball, we are required to act as though they are equally disgusting and lie just as much. So the sleazeball is never called on their crap, and the media drums up tons of crap against the honest guy.

Balance is not the standard any media outlet should go for - the test is truth. Is it true? Is it accurate? This is why no one ever goes after Clinton.

Not to mention, so many reporters, especially Chris Matthews, have been in politics so long that they basically admire politicians who are skilled at 'the game'- ie lying and spinning. So when the Clintons spew some utter shiat with pretzel logic, it is lauded as being cunning and shrewed, and no one ever reports that is NOT TRUE, and when Obama is honest and self-effacing, people act like he made a mistake.

MSM can't die a fast enough death.

DamnYankees: mferris: With all of these stories of her taking credit for things she really shouldn't be taking credit for (Ireland, Kosovo, now this) - when is someone going to call her out on this shiat? I mean, come on Obama.. I know you want to play fair but you can still do that and push this issue, make the media pick up on it.

Maybe I haven't been looking in the right places but it seems Obama's been too quiet lately.. doesn't he realize that this is what farked Kerry? He ignored/dismissed the whole Swiftboat story.. not responding to things does NOT make it go away.

I think the media has become terrified of criticizing her. They feel they did it too much after Iowa, and she won NH because they were too hard on her. Then in the few weeks running up to March 4, the whole "obama is getting a free pass" meme caught on, and hasn't let go.



There's a nonsense idea in media that every side must be treated the same. Some of you may have read about this in a popular book published recently. Now it was true that until recently, there was more bad news and bad stories coming out about Clinton.

BUT NOT ONE EVER CONSIDERED that maybe, just maybe, Obama is simply a better person and candidate than Clinton. This retarded idea of balance in the media means that if a great candidate runs against a sleazeball, we are required to act as though they are equally disgusting and lie just as much. So the sleazeball is never called on their crap, and the media drums up tons of crap against the honest guy.

Balance is not the standard any media outlet should go for - the test is truth. Is it true? Is it accurate? This is why no one ever goes after Clinton.

Not to mention, so many reporters, especially Chris Matthews, have been in politics so long that they basically admire politicians who are skilled at 'the game'- ie lying and spinning. So when the Clintons spew some utter shiat with pretzel logic, it is lauded as being cunning and shrewed, and no one ever reports that is NOT TRUE, and when Obama is honest and self-effacing, people act like he made a mistake.

MSM can't die a fast enough death.

Thus Obama's gotta mention these things and hammer them home whenever he speaks next, and the time after, and the time after. I mean, I'm sure Keith Olbermann will report on Hillary's blatant "I did that! I DID THAT!" exaggerations on Monday, but.

Check out Waco, subby, and see the Clintons get blamed for the bad outcome of a stand-off that began quite some time before they started stealing the White House silverware.

In Hillary's defense, the White House pillows needed some SERIOUS fluffing after twelve years of Reagan and Bushiathose guys sucked the comfort out of any room they were in.

valloned: Her lust for power is such that she would rather sink the ship than see soneone else as captain. That's not the type of person who should be president, no matter what party they happen to belong to.

Fascinating to watch tho, isn't it? It's almost as if Hillary is unaware of how easy it is to fact check her statements. And it's costing her among younger voters - they check out everything she says and do so instantly, and frequently find that she either outright lies to them or fudges the numbers by more than a little.

I'm amazed at the impact information retrieval technology is having on this race.

mferris: With all of these stories of her taking credit for things she really shouldn't be taking credit for (Ireland, Kosovo, now this) - when is someone going to call her out on this shiat? I mean, come on Obama.. I know you want to play fair but you can still do that and push this issue, make the media pick up on it.

I guarantee if it's not done before then, it will be done at the Philly debate before the primary.

/yes it is still tentative but a debate at the Constitution Center is very likely
//April 15-17
///I will be busting down the door to get in that audience

Okay, the filter needs some fine tuning, along the lines of recognizing that sometimes we're not trying to get around it when we post stuff that could possibly be interpreted as a cuss (by someone who REALLY wanted to find one).

I said "Bush" followed by a SPACE, then an "I" and a period. Then another space and the "T" that began "Those."

This is as bad as than using a T right before the word "nuclear." Stupid filter goes for reverse words as well.

oldebayer: Check out Waco, subby, and see the Clintons get blamed for the bad outcome of a stand-off that began quite some time before they started stealing the White House silverware.

I think Waco and Ruby Ridge were more a consequence of no FBI oversight for nearly a decade. That wasn't the fault of any single adminstration. Take your eyes off any of our federal law enforcement types for too long, and they start abusing their authority. Let that go long enough and people start ending up very dead.

Weaver95: Fascinating to watch tho, isn't it? It's almost as if Hillary is unaware of how easy it is to fact check her statements. And it's costing her among younger voters - they check out everything she says and do so instantly, and frequently find that she either outright lies to them or fudges the numbers by more than a little.

Where is THIS going on?

Weaver95: valloned: Her lust for power is such that she would rather sink the ship than see soneone else as captain. That's not the type of person who should be president, no matter what party they happen to belong to.

Fascinating to watch tho, isn't it? It's almost as if Hillary is unaware of how easy it is to fact check her statements. And it's costing her among younger voters - they check out everything she says and do so instantly, and frequently find that she either outright lies to them or fudges the numbers by more than a little.

I'm amazed at the impact information retrieval technology is having on this race.

Anyone just watch MSNBC? I finally saw someone ask a really important question, and no surprise is was Chuck Todd. He was talking with Tim Russert and Andrea Mithcell, and ask:

"What about after Pennsylvania?"

That's a really good question. Even if Hillary wins PA, what's next? There no more firewall states for her after that. There's nothing after that to 'look forward to' if you are her. She may pull off some wins, but nothing that big. The day after PA, if she is down by 100 deleagtes (likely more), what does she say when the reporters ask her "what now?"

nukeim: Weaver95: Fascinating to watch tho, isn't it? It's almost as if Hillary is unaware of how easy it is to fact check her statements. And it's costing her among younger voters - they check out everything she says and do so instantly, and frequently find that she either outright lies to them or fudges the numbers by more than a little.

Where is THIS going on?

Look at the youtube.

DamnYankees: That's a really good question. Even if Hillary wins PA, what's next? There no more firewall states for her after that. There's nothing after that to 'look forward to' if you are her. She may pull off some wins, but nothing that big. The day after PA, if she is down by 100 deleagtes (likely more), what does she say when the reporters ask her "what now?"

She might not win Pa. What happens if/when she loses the state?

DamnYankees: Look at the youtube.

I mean, where is this going on where it's making a difference? Sure, WE'RE doing it. But hell, we even check on things that anonymous people with funny pseudonyms on the internet say, so we're probably not a good barometer of the voting public and their savvy when it comes to fact checking. The MSM is sure doing a spectacular job of dropping the ball on it.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: That's a really good question. Even if Hillary wins PA, what's next? There no more firewall states for her after that. There's nothing after that to 'look forward to' if you are her. She may pull off some wins, but nothing that big. The day after PA, if she is down by 100 deleagtes (likely more), what does she say when the reporters ask her "what now?"

She might not win Pa. What happens if/when she loses the state?

Well, I think its highly unlikely. I'll be happy if Obama comes within 10 in PA. But if she loses, she's just done. She has zero margin for error. She got a huge break being called the winner of TX - if the media actually reported that honestly, she'd have been forced out by now.

nukeim: DamnYankees: Look at the youtube.

I mean, where is this going on where it's making a difference? Sure, WE'RE doing it. But hell, we even check on things that anonymous people with funny pseudonyms on the internet say, so we're probably not a good barometer of the voting public and their savvy when it comes to fact checking. The MSM is sure doing a spectacular job of dropping the ball on it.

I think it helps with the ground game and organizing. Obama can reach out to younger people via the internet, which draws them in and they end up working for him, even in the smallest capacity. Each person may only have one vote, but we have many hours to work for the guy if we want. It's not a direct thing, but its helps overall. Without the netroots, Obama doesn't get off the ground.

nukeim: I mean, where is this going on where it's making a difference? Sure, WE'RE doing it. But hell, we even check on things that anonymous people with funny pseudonyms on the internet say, so we're probably not a good barometer of the voting public and their savvy when it comes to fact checking. The MSM is sure doing a spectacular job of dropping the ball on it.

It makes a difference. Even on this site, there are thousands of people who read discussions like this but never comment. post links about a bunch of hillary lies and word gets around. keep it up long enough, and Hillary is going to find herself in even MORE trouble.

Etchy333: I'm actually with you on this, but it's clear to me that the Republicans want Hillary to be the nominee. If roles were reversed and Obama was lagging in delegates behind Hillary, there would be so much pressure from everywhere for Obama to drop out, so the Democrats could solidify around Hillary.

Are you sure about that? Would the republicans have preferred that Hillary was named the candidate after the first super Tuesday so she was free to start in on her fall campaign or would they prefer that months later there was still a knock down drag out blood in the eye battle going on? Which one is more likely to result in a united party come November that can easily defeat the tired old man and which one is more likely to lead to a divided party full of voters who hate her, refuse to vote for her and might even vote for McCain just to spite her? Change Clinton to Obama and answer the same question. The candidates are interchangeable for this discussion.

McCain could never have dreamed that he had a chance to win this fall and now it is being handed to him on a platter. If that comes to pass I'm sure the Clinton supporters will blame the Obama supporters and vice versa. I think they'll both be right.

DamnYankees: I think it helps with the ground game and organizing. Obama can reach out to younger people via the internet, which draws them in and they end up working for him, even in the smallest capacity. Each person may only have one vote, but we have many hours to work for the guy if we want. It's not a direct thing, but its helps overall. Without the netroots, Obama doesn't get off the ground.

While I agree with you in theory...Netizens aren't going to get him in the oval office by themselves.

If he DOES win though...I bet he goes down in history as the first president to be elected because of his ability to utilize the intertube. Like JFK was elected because of TV (or so we've been taught anyway). He's sure got most of his money from here.

Weaver95: DamnYankees: That's a really good question. Even if Hillary wins PA, what's next? There no more firewall states for her after that. There's nothing after that to 'look forward to' if you are her. She may pull off some wins, but nothing that big. The day after PA, if she is down by 100 deleagtes (likely more), what does she say when the reporters ask her "what now?"

She might not win Pa. What happens if/when she loses the state?

It is true she may not win, but I figure she will win by a small margin: 5% or so. Maybe much less. What she will do after that is continue to insist that the delegates from MI and FL are seated. Then she will claim Obama can't win the "critical swing states", because as we all know if Obama lost PA by 3% to Clinton, he is certain to lose it to McCain. -rolls eyes-

She has no way to win other than to somehow smear and tear down Barack Obama to the point that he is viewed as an unviable candidate. That appears to be exactly what she is trying to do.

This goes beyond just misrepresenting hers.elf. This is a blatant lie. I hope someone calls her out on it and asks her to detail exactly what she did to make this pass.

Speaking of PA - I thought they were saying it's expected to go to her, but someone in another thread mentioned the polls are close, and he could take it... has there been any polling done in PA recently?

nukeim: While I agree with you in theory...Netizens aren't going to get him in the oval office by themselves.

Well, of course not by themselves, but its a chain reaction. A netizen gets interested and gets involved. He donates a few bucks, maybe goes to a rally, maybe even make a few phone banking calls, a practice Obama has mastered via the internet. It's a knock-on effect. Word of mouth at a national level.

Weaver95: It makes a difference. Even on this site, there are thousands of people who read discussions like this but never comment. post links about a bunch of hillary lies and word gets around. keep it up long enough, and Hillary is going to find herself in even MORE trouble.

Does it? My g/f sure won't f'n listen to me when I point these things out. And she's one smart cookie.

Of course...She won't vote anyway, so my own point is moot. :)

DamnYankees: Well, I think its highly unlikely. I'll be happy if Obama comes within 10 in PA. But if she loses, she's just done. She has zero margin for error. She got a huge break being called the winner of TX - if the media actually reported that honestly, she'd have been forced out by now.

As I understand it, Ed Rendell (D - scumbag) held an endorsement vote earlier this week. He even had bill clinton in to rally the troops and pressure the local dems to endorse Hillary. At the end of the day tho, there was NO endorsement. The vote was split, with the democrat strongholds of philly and pittsburg voting heavily for Obama.

I suspect it's going to be too close to call, which means I expect to see a LOT of cheating, backstabbing and dirty politics.

Weaver95: Even on this site, there are thousands of people who read discussions like this but never comment.

Exactly. The clicked statistic at the top lends evidence to the fact that there are an awful lot of people who read Fark, but don't participate. It'll jump exponentially when it hits the main page. I'm sure the admins have data on how many times the comments sections are clicked, too. It'd be very interesting to see.

mferris: Speaking of PA - I thought they were saying it's expected to go to her, but someone in another thread mentioned the polls are close, and he could take it... has there been any polling done in PA recently?

Polls have been sporadic. The closest I saw was him down by 6, but that was before the last week when the media has given her 'momentum'.

mferris: Speaking of PA - I thought they were saying it's expected to go to her, but someone in another thread mentioned the polls are close, and he could take it... has there been any polling done in PA recently?

She's up by 15% or so now I believe. But the campaigning in PA hasn't really started yet. Plus a lot can change in 45 days.

valloned: mferris: Speaking of PA - I thought they were saying it's expected to go to her, but someone in another thread mentioned the polls are close, and he could take it... has there been any polling done in PA recently?

She's up by 15% or so now I believe. But the campaigning in PA hasn't really started yet. Plus a lot can change in 45 days.

In this state, you watch the ward leaders in philly. And right now, the ward leaders are split down the middle.

Her middle name is Rodham, not Braskey.

Someone called her The Serial Exaggerator...I love it.

vudukungfu: Her middle name is Rodham, not Braskey.

Hillary's family crest is a picture of a barracuda eating Neil Armstrong.

Etchy333: Hillary's family crest is a picture of a barracuda eating Neil Armstrong.

No, she punched a hole in a barracuda to get at Neil Armstrong's mojo.

My god.


She's experienced and efficient.

mferris: Speaking of PA - I thought they were saying it's expected to go to her, but someone in another thread mentioned the polls are close, and he could take it... has there been any polling done in PA recently?

PA is so heavily populated with older people that the numbers are going to skewed in polls. As if phone polling wasn't skewed enough.

PA though, has a history of electing conservative moderates. Even democrats from PA are more "conservative" socially than a lot of Republicans from other areas. See Ed Rendell for a good example, the new PA Democratic Senator, Bob Casey (jr), etc.
Republicans are also more liberal than other areas, see Sen. Arlen Specter, aka, Rep Chair of the Judiciary Committee and giant pain in the ass to President Bush and republican majority (when they had it).
PA may have elected Santorum, but that was out of character. He was only elected because people still were "grieving" over the death of Sen. Heinz.

Look for PA to go for the establishment moderate, aka, Clinton.

Since I'm on an HST thing:

"What a fantastic monument to all the best instincts of the human race this country might have been, if we could have kept it out of the hands of greedy little political hustlers.

If only Hillary's trumped up claims were as meme-ready as "I invented the Internet", we'd be well on our way to an Obama presidency.

I thought Sinbad passed the FMLA.