 |
 |
| |
|
|
|
 Clinton Targets Obama on the WebPosted on Dec 20, 2007
The Hillary Clinton campaign has secured two domain names for Web sites that will be devoted to attacking Barack Obama. A Clinton representative says negative sites are nothing new, but the Obama campaign says Clinton’s latest Internet efforts are “politically motivated attacks in the eleventh hour of a closely contested campaign.”
TAGS:
|
|
Honduras’ Top Court Refuses to Reinstate Zelaya
Email
Print
Share
BlinkList
del.icio.us
Digg
Facebook
Fark
Furl
Google
LinkedIn
Mixx
MySpace
NewsVine
NewsTrust
Propeller
Reddit
SphereIt
StumbleUpon
Technorati
TwitThis
YahooMyWeb
YahooBuzz
Jump to Comments
By Marjorie L. Swanson, December 26, 2007 at 9:27 am #
While Obama and his supporters whine about being attacked by the Clinton campaign he is busy attacking John Edwards. See just a little bit of hypocrisy here? If he can’t take the heat then get the hell out of the kitchen. This is a gentle zephyr compared to the hurricane that will be directed at him by the Republicans if he wins the nomination. What a damn crybaby! Maybe if he hopes it will stop; it will. Not.
Report thisBy Leefeller, December 24, 2007 at 12:22 pm #
The gloves are off, not sure, but I may much prefer to see Obama in boxing shorts than Hillary, have a feeling she would win though. Obama would never hit a lady, but in this case, she is no lady, so now it gets interesting.
Report thisBy Douglas Chalmers, December 24, 2007 at 10:25 am #
#122072 by RAE on 12/23: “...desist with this hissy-fit nonsense….. We want LEADERS… not pouting, vengeful kindergarten drop outs.
Oh, you must mean MEN with REAL BALLS, uhh, RAE, ha ha!?!? The Republicans have just what you want….. deep-set eyes and stiff upper lips an’ all…....
Report thisBy RAE, December 23, 2007 at 4:10 pm #
If these two don’t cease and desist with this hissy-fit nonsense immediately then NEITHER of them deserves to be elected to anything - even as dogcatcher!
We want LEADERS… not pouting, vengeful kindergarten drop outs.
Will some real LEADERS step forward? Thank you.
Report thisBy Leefeller, December 23, 2007 at 12:09 pm #
Yes, I plan to donate my whole being to viewing those sites so I can learn the dirt on Obama. Hillary is so sweet, why would anyone want to attack her?
Report thisBy i,Q, December 20, 2007 at 8:01 pm #
i hope that the Obama camp will be wise enough not to take the bait and engage in this childish who-was-most-mean-first nonsense. No doubt the press will undertake to making this petty whining into another meritless distraction, but if Obama waves it off as a nothing issue, CLinton will only continue to seem more desperate and conniving.
Report thisBy homovivens, December 20, 2007 at 7:05 pm #
While Obama was safeguarding our children from toxic Chinese trinkets—taking the reasonable position that our children’s health should not be toyed with—a Clinton Clan website along with Raymond Hernandez and Christopher Drew of the New York Times were toying with Obama, mischaracterizing as “often” statistics about his voting “present” ...“nearly” 130 times out of some “4,000”-plus times while in the Illinois Senate where “present” votes are de rigueur political strategy.
If one takes the toying from the statisticians, the percentage of his “often” “present” vote is a mere 3.25 %—what I would call statistically insignificant and well within the margin of error, considering the “nearly” 130 votes—suggesting less than—out of 4,000-plus total.
When it comes to statistics, toys are not just for tots.
Much more significant was David Brooks’ NYT’s OpEd yesterday highly appraising Obama’s suitability to presidential life. Brooks states, “Like most of the rival campaigns, I’ve been poring over press clippings from Obama’s past, looking for inconsistencies and flip-flops. There are virtually none.
“In the course of this struggle to discover who he is, Obama clearly learned from the strain of pessimistic optimism that stretches back from Martin Luther King Jr. to Abraham Lincoln. This is a worldview that detests anger as a motivating force, that distrusts easy dichotomies between the parties of good and evil, believing instead that the crucial dichotomy runs between the good and bad within each individual.”
Another great piece in London’s Financial Times by Clive Crook: “[T]he Democratic partys progressive base has mixed feelings about [Obama’s] revival. What is their problem, one wonders? What could be more exciting or more transformative, from their point of view, than this candidate? Mr Obama is a clever, reflective and engaging man; he has dedicated his impressive intellect to a liberal political vision; he has a voting record in the Senate that puts him well to the left of Mrs Clinton; he makes, nonetheless, a strong appeal to the centre; he carries none of the baggage of the Clinton dynasty; and, in a country still riven by race, he just happens to be black. What’s not to like?
”....Angry progressives are as repellent to the centre that Mr Obama aims to recruit as the Republican fundamentalists at the other extreme. If the centre counts—and there lies the gamble—then the squirmings of the Democratic base are an asset to be exploited.”
The zeitgeist here and around our tired world is calling for and hoping for real change—a momentum swing and paradigmatic shift to civility, unity, and actual diplomacy.
Bush/Clinton/Bush/Full Stop: OBAMA 2008
Report this