Fighting Words

The risk behind Hillary's attacks on Obama.

« Return to Article

Discuss

Member Comments

  • Posted By: Trenton Sims @ 02/25/2008 6:11:09 PM

    On SUNDAY??
    OH No She Didn't.??

    SHAME ON YOU HOLLARY !!!
    For Todays (SUNDAY) Sacrelege, blasphemy, and Atheism..
    Mocking the Christian belief in Salvation.
    Poking fun and Sarcasm at Believing that Heaven can Open up the sky to those who believe. Laughing at the notion that there are Celestial Angelic Choirs in the Heavens, Hurling sarcasm at those who would believe they can hear. Laughing at Hope.. Laughing at GOD..!!!
    Hillary..Can you say Moses?
    Did he not part the Red Sea and free his people from the Pharoh?
    Who are you Hillary Rodham to tell us all not to believe that all things are possible through our Lord Our God?
    It is dillusional to Hope The Lord God would ever extend his ever redeeming, ever forgiving ever everlasting Love to Our Nation? To America and her United States Citizens??
    Its dillusional On SUNDAY to think this could be possible ?? 2/24/08
    One thing is certain..It won't be possible under your leadership. You are a non-believer.
    I suppose that deceased Dallas Police Officers family should abandon any HOPE for his Salvation. His life was lost performing a difficult and demanding job too. There aint NO GOD coming for him either. Right Hillary??
    May God have mercy on your immortal soul Hillary Rodham.
    SHAME ON YOU HILLARY RODHAM
    The Lord works in mysterious ways....
    And today God exposed your true dark soul to the world. And In so doing, the Nation and the World will be better served.

  • Posted By: crawford.2 @ 12/27/2007 5:50:13 PM

    Obam started sliming Hillary in the begining but denied that he knew his staff did it. God forbid a Woman sticks up for herself or gives it back. She is tought enough to win and thats why you all are scared!

  • Posted By: Braes @ 12/14/2007 7:08:49 PM

    She needs to fire Mark Penn. He is a pus bucket. Hillary going negative even through surrogates is an affirmation of a Rovian bent. Agent of change? Ready to lead? Sounds like ready to slime to me. Sad. Calling rolling in the mud "the fun part" also affirms all of the negatives. She is losing my support.

  • Posted By: Thor3x @ 12/07/2007 11:12:51 AM

    Hello Marytnurse;
    I???m a Biden supporter not HRC. I don???t like to see Dem???s attacking Dem???s and if they want to debate the issue???s that???s fine but the attacking of each other is like the Dem???s eating their own.
    We see Biden disagree with HRC and the same with Richardson but what they are not doing is attacking her character.

    Regarding your comment about Bush sneaks behind the scenes and sends HRC messages. Now you have attacked her character by associating her with Bush. You see how this works?

  • Posted By: blushamrocks @ 12/06/2007 3:13:59 PM

    what about the fact that if she wins that will be 24 years under the two families swapping the most powerful position. It seems like a dynasty. Join the revolution? Sounds good but like so many people out there that I've talked to it seems like both parties have made it impossible for the average joe and jane public change the system. Good luck Ron Paul

  • Posted By: garnelson @ 12/05/2007 4:37:53 AM


    People lets take a breath here, stop and think, How much health care can you buy for $44,000.00 per person/ per year? This is how much we as Americans are spending each on this war. Ask yourselves this, which candidate has said they would end the war now? Yes there is one who voted NO for the war running. Now to me that???s the guy who is worth voting for, its time for a change and its time for American politics to go to the Doctor. Join the revolution, join the teaparty07! Make your vote mean something vote Liberty, Peace Prosperity??? Ron Paul.

  • Posted By: eddiewhere @ 12/05/2007 12:55:23 AM

    I think Hillary made some good points. Most notably, when she mentioned that herself(Hillary Clinton), Bill Richardson, Dodd and Biden have been making decisions that affect this country for a long time. She's good at it. Another tremendous point she made is that you cannot learn to be President through a book, you need experience in the "trenches".It's like becoming a General without ever serving in the army. We need to give Richardson some credit, he is very intelligent and is a solutions oriented person, he is able to bring factions together and provide solutions. He has proven that in New Mexico and he was a star member in the Clinton administration. I also like his persona, he's cool, gentlemen like. He would make a great Vice President. Another facinating point that was mentioned was bloodlines. Bloodlines are very important in American Society. It detemines which fraternity you belong too. This is why the rise of Bill Clinton was so impressive, he did not come from the "traditional fraternity". Look at Kerry, Gore, Bush, Kennedy these are all people who come from powerful fraternities. Clinton was able to play his way in; Amazing I do not think that has ever been done. Unfrotunately, the heirarchy of fraternities is a secret world and therefore is subject to a lot of conspiracy theories some have merit some do not. We will never know because the information that way we have access too is limited. A big reason Bush became President was he was able to "milk" these fraternities for unprecendented amounts of money. If you do not come from a fraternity it is difficult to compete; you end up being like Guilliani and end up "selling" your soul for money. What choice do you have. No money, no penetration, no access to the Presidency.

  • Posted By: sarahjaneASU @ 12/04/2007 3:35:16 PM

    http://www.skirsch.com/politics/president/comparison.htm

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/04/2007 2:38:04 PM

    The more the merrier! I love watching the candidates in the DNC eat each other, giving fodder to whichever Republican runs against them! What is it, the enemy of my enemy...

  • Posted By: marytnurse @ 12/04/2007 2:24:35 PM

    Asking a candidate to come forward with a clear answer is NOT going negative. She's just never so openly dirtied her hands before; Edwards gets a bit rougher, a bit less gentlemanly, than Senator Obama in these calls for a direct answer, but it's a direct answer challenge, not going dirty. I know you support HRC, but do you have to mirror her too? Interesting that Rove talks directly to Obama, but Bush talks to HRC in secret messages. Rove wants to run against HRC because they know they can beat her!!!

  • Posted By: marytnurse @ 12/04/2007 2:21:25 PM

    I'm sorry, asking someone to get specific on their policies is NOT going negative. I know you are an HRC supporter, but you don't have to act like her too, do you? Thor3x? Do you seriously think Karl Rove wants anyone but HRC to run against? Ever consider that he openly gives Obama advice, while Bush sneaks behind the scenes to send HRC messages (and we know it's not his thinking that originates these) about how to campaign??

  • Posted By: greenbug @ 12/03/2007 9:02:41 PM

    Obama does have teflon but, it's because he is a decent person and very well liked. Many think these qualities are shallow but, they go far in dealing with other people. Hillary is making a serious mistake in going mega negative. It plays to all her weaknesses and reminds people why they were not that crazy about the clintons to begin with. hillary lacks the grace and likability to pull this off and it will backfire on her.

    • Posted By: Thor3x @ 12/04/2007 12:36:02 PM

      So now maybe you can answer the question. Why is it bad for Hillary to go negative but not bad for Obama to go negative? Remember who attacked first. While Hillary spent her time attacking Bush Obama and Edwards where attacking her. So who is negative?

    • Posted By: Thor3x @ 12/04/2007 12:33:43 PM

      So now maybe you can answer the question. Why is it bad for Hillary to go negative but not bad for Obama to go negative? Remember who attacked first. While Hillary spent her time attack Bush Obama and Edwards where attacking her. So who is negative?

  • Posted By: dorret @ 12/04/2007 8:19:50 AM

    Hillary Clinton had me at hello when she anounced her candidacy. Now I will probably say googbye. Her attack on Obama is not the type of ploitics I want to be associated with. The more she fended off her opponents without stooping to their level, the more I respected and believed in her. Now she is just another mud slinging, soul selling phony politician. It is sad to see.

    • Posted By: Thor3x @ 12/04/2007 12:35:07 PM

      So now maybe you can answer the question. Why is it bad for Hillary to go negative but not bad for Obama to go negative? Remember who attacked first. While Hillary spent her time attacking Bush Obama and Edwards where attacking her. So who is negative?

  • Posted By: daisy_mom4 @ 12/04/2007 10:06:51 AM

    Why the double standard? It is politics ya know! The fact is, regardless of all the mud-slinging, Hillary is the best candidate for the job. Anyone who has spent their life in the service she HAS to improve life for women, children, minorities and the common "Joe" has my vote!

    • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/04/2007 11:39:58 AM

      How much did she support a woman's right for a safe workplace while her husband was knowling committing sexual haresment? As far as her books on children, she didn't even write them. Watch her actions, and not her words. That is the true sign of a person's character.

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/04/2007 11:37:17 AM

    Why is it mud-slinging if you tell the truth about someone? Is it mud-slinging to bring up the very questionalbe real estate deal that Obama had with a local memeber of organized crime? Is it mudslinging to bring up the very questionable commodities deal that Hillary had, pocketing $100,000? Is it mudslinging to bring up ALL of the questionable actions of the White House while Hillary was co-president (travelgate, white water, sexual harrasment of Monica, Vince Foster, the 'renting' of the Lincoln bedroom, etc.). What about Hillary's support of the Palistinians while running for Senate? Is that considered mudslinging to discuss the actual events? Politics have become too politically correct...

    The majority of what a president does is US Public Relations. Sure they make decisions, but mostly act off of the information and opinions of others. However, the most important role of the President is that of Commander in Chief. And if you cannot respect the men and women who put their live son the line for our freedoms, nor respect the flag under which they fight, then you have no purpose serving. Hillary showed while she was in charge of the White House that she had no respect for the service members intrusted to serve there. Obama cannot even muster the energy to place his hand over his heart during the playing of our National Anthem. If we believe Hillary that you cannot learn to be president from reading a book, well neither of these individuals is qualified to lead our armed services and thus not qualified to be President.

  • Posted By: dewcooper @ 12/04/2007 11:37:05 AM

    Why is it mud-slinging if you tell the truth about someone? Is it mud-slinging to bring up the very questionalbe real estate deal that Obama had with a local memeber of organized crime? Is it mudslinging to bring up the very questionable commodities deal that Hillary had, pocketing $100,000? Is it mudslinging to bring up ALL of the questionable actions of the White House while Hillary was co-president (travelgate, white water, sexual harrasment of Monica, Vince Foster, the 'renting' of the Lincoln bedroom, etc.). What about Hillary's support of the Palistinians while running for Senate? Is that considered mudslinging to discuss the actual events? Politics have become too politically correct...

    The majority of what a president does is US Public Relations. Sure they make decisions, but mostly act off of the information and opinions of others. However, the most important role of the President is that of Commander in Chief. And if you cannot respect the men and women who put their live son the line for our freedoms, nor respect the flag under which they fight, then you have no purpose serving. Hillary showed while she was in charge of the White House that she had no respect for the service members intrusted to serve there. Obama cannot even muster the energy to place his hand over his heart during the playing of our National Anthem. If we believe Hillary that you cannot learn to be president from reading a book, well neither of these individuals is qualified to lead our armed services and thus not qualified to be President.

  • Posted By: Vincegirl @ 12/04/2007 11:12:59 AM

    People who are supporting Billary must have NEVER heard of a little something called "The Clinton Body Count" - google it people - read a little bit about what happenned to the people who had some dirt on the Clintons' , they would up 6 feet under because of it . Clintons = CORRUPT , people ! Not just one or two people died at the orders of the Clintons , but 100 . - mysterious deaths , plane 'crashes' , car 'crashes' , no autopsies done - check it out !!! Find out the TRUTH about the Clintons !!!

  • Posted By: K DAVID @ 12/04/2007 11:09:00 AM

    Why the double standard from the media? It was ok for Senator Barack Hussein Obama and Senator John Reid Edwards to attack Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton then they called him a "rising star" and cheered him (ex/Chris Mathews) with positive reviews. and yes this abviousely hurt Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton- the polls shows it. Now when she is attacks back to defend herself she is a *** and she is negative. It is all too familiar to all those women in this country who had to fight every day at work place for equality. You know the saying "when men are tough they are Strong and Ambitious and when the woman gets tough she is a *** isn't it Mr. Atler.
    For all the mothers, sisters, daughters and garndmothers who has to fight for equality!

  • Posted By: daisy_mom4 @ 12/04/2007 9:55:04 AM

    Why the double standard??? It is politics ya know! Regardless of the mud slinging, the facts stand out in my mind...she is the best candidate for the job.

Reply

Report Abuse

Enter comments if any for reporting abuse