Republicans join Edwards and Obama in attacks on Clinton:

And it just wasn't her Democratic rivals criticizing her. The Republican National Committee released a Web video that plays up Clinton's debate performance. And Romney went up with a new TV ad in New Hampshire going after Clinton for what he charges is her lack of experience. http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2007/11/02/444576.aspx

are, in effect, working with the republicans because they can't get her on their own. (sigh) oh well.

But noone can lay a glove on Hillary ? Talk about disinformation.

They're the ones who snarkily juxtaposed the videos at the link, as though it's a combined technique.

Enjoy!

Talk about disinformation -- from the Queen of spittle-laced hate and misinformation herself! (Go Edwards!)

Please tell me where I said no one could lay a glove on Hillary? Take a minute ... look hard ... it might take some time to see through that nearly impenetrable fog of Hillary Hate and Constant Outrage you seem to be afflicted with and have to peer through in order to see fact and reason and reality. We'll wait ...

Okay? Back with us? Good.

I simply stated what's evident from the reality of the OP's Post: the repugs picked up where Edwards and Obama (and Russert) left off after opening the door. Doesn't take a genius to figure out that would happen.

Now go and find a way to twist what I just wrote in a way that helps your obvious agenda. I'll check back later to see what you come up with.

Have fun! :hi:

Ring a bell?:evilgrin:

To try to dislodge a decent Democratic party member .... based on a subpar debate performance ?

Chuckles ...... Sweet .......

What does THAT say?

eom

in order to show THEY are the better candidate is different from Repubs. running ads against her. The Repubs. are doing it because she rallies their base AND because it makes them seem like they've already won their primary and are ready to run against OUR "presumptive" nominee.

Interesting strategy.

After Clinton is nominated the attacks decrease by half?

But she won't be nominated. :patriot:

And when they criticize her...the same thing...

Ok :crazy:

The nominees attack her to motivate their base, and the others praise her so she WILL be their opponent.

How many are registered as Democrats so they vote in our primaries?

Except today when Giuliani, in calling Obama naive, said he agreed with Hillary-the only thing he agrees with her on. :patriot:

Dems can mildly (and no, the debate was not "hostile" to her) point to her inadequacies --- just imagine a full bore assault in the General.

This is just a foretaste to the ASSAULT on her, deserved or not, which cannot be negated by girlie protestations or staff skills or money.

We must do better -- I am a feminist -- BUT Hillary is not my choice.

I hope it is not too late for Iowa and New Hampshire to deliver us from defeat in 2008.

Obviously, I cannot stand her -- though I will grit my teeth and vote for her if necesary in the General -- but will not donate or work for her, as I have in the past for our nominees.

Politics has been ugly for the 20 years I have been aware of it, but is now getting cut-throat, where we Democrats have joined hands with the Devil to sacrifice out own best shot at redeeming the CATASTROPHE of the past eight years.

We are ridiculous animals, the human species is.

And we get the Repukes we deserve, and most of the morons who vote for them are going to be the first ones to fall under a continued Republican regime.

Sorry, but that's the way it's always been done. Hillary, like the rest of 'em, don't get a free pass.

HE is the least qualified of the Democratic candidates. So, no, I don't agree with giving him the nomination.

He has over 20 years experience, great judgement, integrity, and no baggage. He's the one they least want to run against.

where the cretinous bigot spewed out his hate and bile against the GLBT community. Obama has proven he can pander to bigots. That much is true.

Besides, I don't want to give him a chance to vote against gay rights...he panders to bigots, pretty soon he will be voting for their causes so that he doesn't lose their support.

having the most popular ex-president on his side. He has a great record on gay rights. He doesn't pander-he campaigns.

It's inexcusable for him not to have voted on the Kyl-Lieberman amendment. Do you think Clinton should not allow her husband to help her in her campaign? Does Obama's wife campaign for him? Should she be banned or criticized for doing so? Double standard?

He pandered to the bigots when he gave McClurkin the stage to not just sing but to emcee. McClurkin is a homophobe and a bigot. If you don't think he is, then we really don't have much to discuss.

I'm for Biden, Edwards or Kucinich.

But the politics of destruction against dems by dems is only going to help the Repukes. For chrissakes. We need to be smart, think into the future, and not fuck up this time.

You want another four to eight years of Republican rule?

meaning you want SOMEONE to just be handed the nomination with no fight. The Repubs. do the very same thing in THEIR primary. That's how it works, for chrissakes. It's not going to hand the election to the Repubs.

to undermine a fellow Democrat is meant to be a show of good faith.

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/2007-08-25-4033558171_x.htm

Obama names Republicans he'll work with

By Brendan Farrington, Associated Press Writer
KEY BISCAYNE, Fla. — Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama often says he will be a candidate that will bring both parties together and Saturday he named a few of the Republicans he would reach out to if elected.

"There are some very capable Republicans who I have a great deal of respect for," Obama said in an interview with The Associated Press. "The opportunities are there to create a more effective relationship between parties."

Among the Republicans he would seek help from are Sens. Richard Lugar of Indiana, John Warner of Virginia and Tom Coburn of Oklahoma, Obama said.

"On foreign policy I've worked very closely with Dick Lugar," Obama said. "I consider him one of my best friends in the Senate. He's someone I would actively seek counsel and advice from when it came to foreign policy."

more...

Was it down by the old mill stream?

Were you taking the high road as they were taking the low road?

Please compose your "news" postings a little bit better, will you? Some people might mistake your intent, but you wouldn't want that, now would you?

Would you?

(It's not like this hasn't been brought up in an earlier thread today or anything...)

because bin Laden claims he doesn't want us in Iraq just as DEMS. don't want us in Iraq.

try to extend the same courtesy to those who find hrc duplicitous.