She's a flipper, she's a flopper...and yeah, there's something wrong with that...

Uh-oh....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900855_pf.html

And to think, some of her best friends is nee-gros...

But not to be outdone by those nasty ol' boys, HRC apparently has her
girls:

http://www.jibjab.com/view/173037

Oh, this ain't gonna help,
R
....the Dems better start rallying around somebody - anybody - besides
HRC, or it's likely to wind up being something even more spectacularly
****ed up, and for EVERYONE..."Thank you, President Tancredo...."...the
horror...the horror...Apocalypse Nuts....

wrote in message
...
...the Dems better start rallying around somebody - anybody - besides
HRC, or it's likely to wind up being something even more spectacularly
****ed up, and for EVERYONE..."Thank you, President Tancredo...."...the
horror...the horror...Apocalypse Nuts...

actually, the fascinating part is that she HAS accomplished something I had
never seen before in national politics. She actually managed to move her
negative scores down sharply, which doesn't really happen much. Usually,
negatives like she had(44% or more) are death in a general election, and
still might prove to be, but she did drop hers by 5%, and damned if I know
what did it.
......perhaps it was the cleavage.
Tom

I didn't bother reading your links, but "flip flopping" always struck me as
a funny thing to shove a stick up your ass over. The person who never
changes their opinion or decision is very weak and unqualified to lead.

wrote in message
...
Uh-oh....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900855_pf.html


OK now I read it.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job
of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe
that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the
use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television
in April 2006

No, she made a statement in context (she quite clearly said "Iran", which is
not a "blanket statement".

I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But folks who go
snooping around for gaffes usually make gigantic non sequiturs and end up
looking like nidiots (that's my sniglet for nitty idiot.) Why snoop around?
Politicians make obvious gaffes all the time.

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:02:17 -0400, "jeffc" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Uh-oh....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900855_pf.html


OK now I read it.

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job
of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe
that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the
use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television
in April 2006

No, she made a statement in context (she quite clearly said "Iran", which is
not a "blanket statement".

I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But folks who go
snooping around for gaffes usually make gigantic non sequiturs and end up
looking like nidiots (that's my sniglet for nitty idiot.) Why snoop around?
Politicians make obvious gaffes all the time.

Well, there goes someone's entire reason for being...

/daytripper (but he knew that already)

I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But folks who go
snooping around for gaffes usually make gigantic non sequiturs and end up
looking like nidiots (that's my sniglet for nitty idiot.) Why snoop around?
Politicians make obvious gaffes all the time.


i have never read a more truthful four lines on usenet.

congratulations, jeff.

yfitons
wayno

On Sat, 11 Aug 2007 12:02:17 -0400, "jeffc" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
Uh-oh....

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...900855_pf.html


OK now I read it.

Why?

Clinton, who has tried to cast her rival as too inexperienced for the job
of commander in chief, said of Obama's stance on Pakistan: "I don't believe
that any president should make any blanket statements with respect to the
use or non-use of nuclear weapons."

But that's exactly what she did in an interview with Bloomberg Television
in April 2006

No, she made a statement in context (she quite clearly said "Iran", which is
not a "blanket statement".

Er, no...she made at least TWO blanket statements (and one was about
Iran) and even contradicted herself contemporaneously (in the Bloomberg
interview).

I really don't have much of an opinion one way or another. But folks who go
snooping around for gaffes usually make gigantic non sequiturs and end up
looking like nidiots (that's my sniglet for nitty idiot.) Why snoop around?
Politicians make obvious gaffes all the time.

Obama saying "the President of..." when referring to the PM of Canada
(and I suspect most sensible people have no doubt he knows Canada has a
PM, not a President) is a gaffe, Kerry's easily-twisted comment about
the military was a gaffe. Bill and Hillary Clinton don't make many, if
any, "gaffes" and IAC, this wasn't a "gaffe."

And also IAC, my, er, primary point wasn't HRC's statements, gaffe or
otherwise, but rather, the public beginning of the end of "no negative
campaigning" for the Dems, and the "flip-flop" was more a reference to
the "Romney girls" video.

HTH,
R

On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 21:50:58 GMT, "Tom Littleton"
wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
...the Dems better start rallying around somebody - anybody - besides
HRC, or it's likely to wind up being something even more spectacularly
****ed up, and for EVERYONE..."Thank you, President Tancredo...."...the
horror...the horror...Apocalypse Nuts...

actually, the fascinating part is that she HAS accomplished something I had
never seen before in national politics. She actually managed to move her
negative scores down sharply, which doesn't really happen much. Usually,
negatives like she had(44% or more) are death in a general election, and
still might prove to be, but she did drop hers by 5%, and damned if I know
what did it.


.....perhaps it was the cleavage.
Tom

I'M BLIND! I'M BLIND!

Interestingly, Bush's poll numbers also went up 5 points. I suspect
both are more a result of no news rather than any particular "good"
news.

IAC, as much as I'd hate to see it, several are predicting an HRC-Obama
ticket, and with the info currently available, I'd offer it could end
any chance of national elected office for him. For the "Dem or death"
crowd, I'd offer that if all but HRC would bow out and endorse, oh say,
Richardson, and then Richardson would run with Obama, I'd think both
would remain contenders, regardless of '08. And if Obama would team up
with Romney, Giuliani, or McCain, I think it'd be a winning ticket AND
set him up as heir-apparent.

Unfortunately, it appears more and more it'll be HRC and Obama, and it
appears they'll lose. If Bloomberg gets into the ring, and the GOP is
running just about anyone short of the evil loonies (like Tancredo) or
even the decent, "innocent" loonies (like Paul), and Obama is on HRC's
ticket, he might as well leave politics.

I still maintain the best thing for most of the world would be
cross-party ticket consisting of one of the few sane folks from each
party (and have Bloomberg's endorsement) but I don't actually-really
think it would happen. HEY! Speaking of which....maybe HRC will decide
to go cross-party, pick Tancredo, and wa-la! They're both done!

TC,
R