About

This page contains a single entry from the blog posted on November 17, 2007 1:42 PM. The previous post in this blog was Earthlink is bailing on municipal wi-fi. The next post in this blog is Rocks off again for Cheney. Many more can be found on the main index page or by looking through the archives.

E-mail, Feeds, 'n' Stuff

Saturday, November 17, 2007

So Hillary's got serious dirt on Obama?

Let's hear it.

Comments (13)

I know: He fathered a white child out of wedlock.

Let's not. Hillary is taking the high road here by being respectful to Obama and not ruining his career with the dirty information she has found. For once, it's good to see a candidate taking the high road.

Yeah. Hillary's taking the high road. She and Bill have a long history of that.

It's all a put on by trickster's to the right. Kinda like "Vote for Hillary Online". Check it out. It's kinda funny.

Pure rumor-mongering. They don't have anything on Obama.

It's like watching a football team run the same play again and again because the other team just hasn't figured out an effective counter. Clinton surrogates hit fast and hard (and dirty too, just as a precaution) and she gets to spend her day dialing for dollars while Obama is tied up drafting another indignant press release. It looks like she's going to have them running defense all the way down.

What I want to know is that after commiting treason in outing Valerie Plame and now passing along or inventing unsubstantiated rumors about Obama, why is Novak allowed to work for the Washington Post or any other news organization?

This all so depressing. Hillary is both unelectable and undesirable. The Democrat's free pass is being squandered. I'm sitting here playing a board game with my sons, gazing lovingly upon them and thinking to myself-they deserve better. Much better than they have had the last eight years. But also better than this half assed race that is sapping the energy of what should be a tidal wave of rejection from every thinking voter of the cynical, despicable policies of the loathesome piece of crap that bears the label of our president. We rented a movie last night. My 11 year old, without prodding, chose An Inconvenient Truth. I was in the mood for something more lighthearted, but I deferred. So I sat, with my arm around my son and watched the man that was actually elected to be our president seven years ago tell his cogent story of how we humans are wrecking our enviroment. The facts, which I had of course sat through before, were depressing enough. But as the movie went on I floated beyond the confines of the documentary. Watching Al Gore I couldn't escape the "what could have beens". An informed, thoughtful chief executive. What if? An independent decision maker, unencumbered by the corporate oil/military machine. What if? A leader we could believe in, in place of the mindless cowpoke that I have my television programmed to avoid. Ralph Nader's ego bought us this horror. But it's up to us, as voters, to dig out from under. Hillary is no answer. Obama, marginally electable from the outset, will be dead in the water by the time Hillary's operatives finish their work. Edwards, Richardson, I honestly don't care. Just give us a President that can begin the thankless process of righting the ship. Please. I'm gazing on my kids as I write this, wondering how I can beging to explain to them the mess we are leaving them. And I'd like to start by telling them that we have a candidate for President to be proud of.

Gannicott,
I really appreciated the sincerity in your comment. That's communicating on the Internet at its best.

Gannicott,

Echoing Bill McDonald's comment, I also appreciate the sincerity in your comment, until I get to the tired old refrain: "Ralph Nader's ego bought us this horror."

For the record, Ralph Nader was doing everything he could to prevent the calamity of the last 7 years. Al Gore lost the election with a lot of help from Bill and Hillary Clinton (see the November 2007 issue of Vanity Fair by Googling "Vanity Fair Gore Clinton", which brings up an article detailing how Gore's presidential campaign was torpedoed by Hillary's 2000 senate bid).

No, Al Gore's wooden personality, the convenient theft of thousands (millions?) of votes, and a thousand other reasons were the cause of this horror. Not Ralph Nader.

Who has everything to gain and nothing to lose from all of this Hillary vs. Barak B.S.? I find it interesting that Novak's piece mentions that "agents of Hillary Clinton" are spreading these rumors, but not ONE NAME is mentioned. Sounds like the ghost of Richard Nixon and his plumbers have been floating around the RNC Headquarters giving out pointers these days.

*****And I'd like to start by telling them that we have a candidate for President to be proud of.*******

I am sorry to be the one to tell you this but that's not how the modern smear campaigns work.

You throw as much scurrillous trash as you can on your opponent with the goal of getting:

1. "Your" voters hate to him/her and vote for your candidate. And

2. All the other voters get disgusted with politics and don't vote at all.

So my advice is don't listen to any of this crap, vote for the candidate of your choice in your primary, and then vote for the candidate of the party of your choice in the genreral election. And don't pay any attention to the campaign crap that goes on in the meantime because of you don't vote..... they win.

Greg C

What I find interesting are people thinking that its all a "vast right-wing conspiracy"....that the left somehow isnt capable of turning on their own for a certain power outcome? C'mon.

They are all politicians going for the brass ring. They will do whatever it takes.

this is starting to get "VVVERY INTERESTING".




Clicky Web Analytics