Once again a clintonista spins madly around -spinnning SPInning SPINNING! WHoa! You missed the point buddy, but hey, nice try. Dont worry, tomorrow youl'll have a new talking point!

Posted at March 22, 2008 10:40 AM in response to Girl In Red Phone Ad Denounces Hillary And Her "Politics Of Fear"

Not quite. You posit that an Obama supporter attacks Clinton personally but the clinton supporter is merely questioning Senator Obama's credentials. Lalo35adm, dont you seee that you are merely "parsing" this thread with the "nuances" that the clinton machine is famous for. I started out supporting John Edwards for his vision. My second choice was Biden for his usual wisdom and experience. After them, came Dodd and Richardson for their experience and probity. Furthermore, I beleived that Kucinich was the most progressive and best candidate but unfortunately, unelectable in our shallow society. The election quickly left us with 2 choices. 1: We could go back to the 90's and the clinton-social conservative culture wars; or, 2) We could back a candidate with true progressive credentials and who posesses more charisma than any ad company could ever imagine creating. This is why I back Senator Obama.

If we dispassionately look at the attacks that have occured, please Lalo35ad, tell me how your camp hasn't attacked the senator from Illinois personally. I mean, two days after Hilliary gushed how proud she was to be on the stage with Senator Obama she shrieks- yes shrieks - "Shame on you Barrack." I could recite more examples ad nauseum. I wont because I, like most Americans have to go to work. I am not paid by any campaign, as perhaps you are, to expouse how wonderful my candidate is and the other one is a liar.

This, my friend is the problem. Senator Obama has been in essence been called a fraud or a "potempkin" candidate. This is the personal attack that you wont acknowledge. The use of sophistry - the actual term for nuance - by the advertising types that the clintons have hired is ultra sophisticated and difficult to deconsruct. You have a talking point answer, well though out on flow charts and memorized in staff meetings to be disseminatred via viral email to all surrogates. The bottom line is that Senator Obama is real and Senator Clinton is packaged. This is a fact that cannot be changed.

So, please continue to tell everyone who will listen of how "wrong" Senator Obama is and how "victimized" Senator Clinton is. I want you to do this because even the lame MSM will tire of this and eventually question it.

Finally, I call upon you to ask, nay demand, your candidate who has claimed to be completely "vetted" to conduct a transparent campaign where tax records are public, where the library donors are made public (even you have to admit that the $500,000,000 million that the clintons raised is an excessive amount for a building that in essence will eventually become a place for high school senior in Arkansas to take a day trip to) so as to answer the innuendo regardings pardons for sale and access for sale, to release her whitehouse logs, and to release her earmark requests. The reason being that some rethuglican 527 will swiftboat her on it if she doesn't open up now.

Also, I would like to address Ms. Ferraro's comments. If a white male candidate had lost 14 primaries and caucuses to winning 2 and tieing 1 (Texas is a tie-Hilliary won the popular vote with a huge limbaugh inspired crossover vote - while Barrack won the democrat only caucusand has come away from Texas with more pledged delegates and that IS A FACT) wouldn't that white male candidacy be questioned as to its continual viability? A fair question but one that reactionaries would call sexist.

Posted at March 18, 2008 10:28 AM in response to Why Clinton voters are not joining Obama