WH

I was told by a MoveOn member that the sky would open, fire would rain down and a demonic chorus would pound me down into Hell if I didn't support Barack. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:31:59

Don't you mean people who formed the group in support of President Clinton? posted 04/18/2008 at 19:28:22

Way to turn the focus of this story on Obama, that's a page right out of Hillary's playbook.

Or Rove's. You decide. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:27:35

As I've said before, it is no surprise that Hillary would badmouth the organization that endorsed her opponent.

However, it is sad to see her doing all of the Republican's work for them, especially considering she won't even be the Democratic nominee. If she had bowed out when it became clear that it was mathematically impossible for her to secure the nomination with pledged delegates (or with a lead in pledged delegates), we could all have moved on and built a case against McCain. With a strong and unified party, he would have been beaten by a landslide.

Instead, we now have a fractured Democratic Party, with each side threatening to vote Republican if their candidate is not the nominee. If the roles were reversed, and Hillary was leading in pledged delegates, contests won, and popular vote then I would have expected Obama to drop out also.

It's all so pathetic, really. Her campaign (and behavior during the campaign) is a textbook example of what greed for power will do to a person. I actually had some hope starting out this campaign season but that has been run into the ground with all this nonsense. And I blame the Clintons first and foremost for that. posted 04/18/2008 at 19:22:59

lawl posted 04/18/2008 at 18:31:39

posted 04/18/2008 at 18:18:31

Ha ha! posted 04/18/2008 at 18:15:59

And in front of Bruce Willis. posted 04/18/2008 at 18:10:14

All traces of the original story are being deleted apparently, so I would say that my guess that Hillary's legal team is working overtime with threats and heavy-handed intimidation may have been close to the truth.

If true, I hope that someone posts said video and that it spreads and makes it to the stupid cable news shows. Although, I don't think that middle of the road voters really care about MoveOn.org so who knows what the reaction would be. I mean, they have already endorsed Barack so it's not like she can be expected to be a cheerleader for their organization. posted 04/18/2008 at 18:07:54

Okay, now is the time for theories...my two theories are:

1. Hillary was caught on video viciously slamming Democratic activists in completely inappropriate and unflattering terms. HuffPo obtained said video, and before they could run it Hillary's legal team strong-armed them into not doing so because it would mean the end of Hillary's career.

or...

2. Hillary actually physically slammed several Democratic activists onto the ground at a campaign rally, in an attempt to appeal to the "WWE voters". She then gave a contrived speech about how her grandfather taught her how to perform DDTs and piledrivers when she was a little girl.

I would say they are both equally probable. posted 04/18/2008 at 17:55:10

How dare she! posted 04/18/2008 at 17:47:57

I don't care for the way this HuffPost article makes it seem as if Rachel was the one who cut Joe off.

I was watching this exchange as it happened - it was clearly Rachel's turn to make her point, and Joe did in fact start to cut her off. Hell, anyone watching the video above can clearly see that Rachel began speaking first when Joe cut in.

Anyhow, Joe may see himself as a mature "political analyst", but the kind of ignorant and juvenile arguments that he tosses out there on his and other shows paint a different picture. His arrogance would be horrifying if it wasn't so pathetic. posted 04/18/2008 at 09:01:55

lol yeah that is a pretty ridiculous claim that mediahack made.

It fits right in with stereotypes that some people have about those "elite liberals" in San Francisco - apparently they all carry wine glasses to clink together in their daily lives when someone makes a point they agree with! posted 04/17/2008 at 08:09:30

Agreed. posted 04/17/2008 at 07:13:58

I thought this statement from the Clinton campaign was telling:

"A Clinton aide asserted that the Obama campaign is trying to turn the debate over his controversial San Francisco remarks into one about gun policy, when she contends the issue is elitism. "

So the Clinton campaign has been reduced to slandering their opponent for keeping the debate on issues rather than twisting words out of context?

Also, for Clinton to contend the issue is elitism is laughable and truly pathetic coming from her. posted 04/15/2008 at 15:18:58

I was wondering the same thing. posted 04/13/2008 at 21:16:10

Keep your ignorant racial comments to yourself. Or better yet, speak those thoughts aloud in your real life so people can see how foolish you are. posted 04/13/2008 at 21:14:24

To answer your question, no, it is not hard to believe that a man would teach his daughter how to shoot a gun.

It is, however, hard to believe that whether or not her father taught her how to shoot has ANYTHING to do with the fact that she has been decidedly anti-gun in the past, even as recently as her campaign for US Senate.

Now we are to believe that she goes around hunting and carrying guns around?

It is amazing that the American people have such short memories, but the media makes it easier for people to forget these kind of things with the ridiculous and profit-motivated sensationalism that passes for real reporting these days. posted 04/12/2008 at 23:16:17

The American people should really consider Clinton's behavior during this campaign as a preview of what she would be like as President:

1. Fabrications of stories to make herself look good.
2. Deflecting the attention to her opponent(s) when she is called out for dishonest or unethical behavior.
3. Belittling the hope, inspiration, and optimism of the American people.
4. An inclination to change, bend or completely ignore the rules when they are not in her favor.
5. Playing the victim when there is the slightest hint of criticism of her in the media.

I just hope people realize that at this point, how the candidates act on the campaign trail (especially when their cards are down) is a great foreshadowing of how they would lead as President. posted 04/09/2008 at 08:59:57

You're right, we need another divisive partisan figure rather than a candidate who not only inspires hope in people (which I still believe is a positive, rather than negative trait) and ALSO has a much deeper and realistic campaign platform than his opponent.

Cute sayings like "the hope pope" belong to the tactical playbook of the extreme right conservatives, not American citizens who really want a change in leadership in Washington. posted 04/09/2008 at 08:45:10

Way to go Hillary, we are all amused that you are making fun of a lie that you repeated many times before being called out on it.

I can see that meeting at her campaign now...

"So, Hillary will be on Jay Leno...great opportunity to make fun of her recent lie about being under sniper fire in Bosnia. It will really show that Hillary can laugh at herself (and the American people) when she is caught doing something dishonest!" posted 04/04/2008 at 06:38:58

You are too funny. posted 04/02/2008 at 22:24:20

brokenarrow,

I apologize if my post doesn't bow down and pay homage to Dr. Chopra, but to be honest I expected more thoughtful insight on this issue from him.

So if the post was insulting, it was only because it contained enough truth to sting. The fact that Dr. Chopra exhibits the arrogant and ignorant Western mindset that "we know what is best for you", especially as it relates to religious ideology, is disappointing but perhaps not surprising.

By the way, If you want to participate in a blog where there are no opinions that diverge from the author's, go to Michelle Malkin's site. She doesn't allow dissenting opinions so you'll be right at home. Or perhaps you would be interested in visiting China, where they have Internet censorship down to a science.

Either way, have a good day. posted 04/02/2008 at 10:54:36

Dr. Chopra,

Please refrain from attempting to apply the diluted and materialistic spirituality that you sell to millions of hapless spiritual seekers to the conflict in Tibet. It may surprise you that some people choose to actually live the principles of their faith to a degree that may seem foolish to those like you who choose to mix and match the ideas of several different religions into a materialistic wish-fulfilling spirituality. Not all Buddhists (or Christians or Muslims for that matter) play so fast and loose with the precepts of their respective ideologies.

You claim that it is not your intention "to adopt a position superior to anyone else's", yet your entire article takes not only the Dalai Lama but the Tibetans themselves to task for staying true to principles of compassion and non-violence. This is simply a case of misplaced anger and ignorance.

To those of us in the West, it is clear that the aggressor is China yet somehow we have resorted to blaming the Tibetans for this whole thing. It is similar to a person who is too scared to intervene when a bully is beating a smaller victim, and then blaming the victim for the beating as a way of clearing their own conscience. If you want to take on anybody, take on the Chinese government (in a way that doesn't broadly paint the entire Chinese population as racist or assign any other negative attribute to the citizens themselves). posted 04/02/2008 at 09:39:30