Sorry but Hillary wasn't faced with "gotcha" questions..she did this to herself...

I simply do not buy into the excuse that Hillary was facing "gotcha" questions... They were simple yes or no questions and she would have done far better to simply answer them yes or no... but she just can't stop trying to take both sides of every argument.

It's just that Hillary is afraid to ever take a clear stand for fear of having to offend some voter some where.

Well guess what?? The 90's are over and people want politicians who are going to be clear as to what they believe - and Hillary can't seem to move past Bill Clinton-esque 1990's style triangulating... It's old, it's worn out and the voters just won't stand for it.

So whine all you like about "gotcha" questions but the fault is all Hillary's for not being able to simply say "Yes" or "No" to a yes or no question and then shutup and stop trying to qualify her answer and give herself weasel room.

Actually the most offensive double speak answer she gave in my opinion wasn't the Driver's license question but her weasely statement that she's opposed to the RUSH to war with Iran

Well I learned to diagram sentences in English class into subject verb and object and the object of that declaratory sentence by Hillary is that she is opposed to the RUSH, as opposed to a war with Iran.

So as long as it happens "slowly" apparently Hillary is still for a war with Iran...

She could not simply say "I am opposed to war with Iran".... It would have been simple and clear but she could not say it because she might offend some pro-war-with-Iran voter somewhere????

Give me a break...

She did it again with Social Security and yet again with driver's licenses trying to take two or more sides of an argument and holding none of them convincingly.

This is why Hillary's campaign is now imploding... It's not because she's "being picked on".

Ironically even this deflection/excuse tactic (aka "Politics of Pile On" for instance) is itself a case of trying to take both sides of the argument of "I'm tougher and smarter than the men up here on this stage" and at the same time "All these mean old men are picking on poor little defenseless old me..."

Well which is it Hillary? Are you ready for the big leagues and can handle the debate from six or seven other men (by the way Hillary got the most speaking time of any candidate in the debate) or do you want your opponents to stop picking on you because they're mean old men and you're a defenseless woman???? I'd certainly hope it's the former and not the latter..

Make up your mind Senator Clinton...I've made up mine...

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

What makes you think that?

to try to change the subject from I'm a double talker to "these mean old men are picking on me"..


Doug D.

Perhaps it will help me to decipher your post.:shrug:

Where do suppose it should be placed?

but perhaps what is needed is a Rosetta Stone?

And so you are simply resorting to meaningless name calling??

Doug D.

What "name" were you "called"?:shrug:

Besides, how should I know what you mean to say in a post if you don't take the time to make your sentences clear? Punctuation might help carry your message across. Just a suggestion. Nothing more.:hi:

the fault is yours not mine.

As I asked before, where do you think I needed additional punctuation? You never answered that question but chose instead to accuse me of writing in a dead language needing special deciphering...

Go figure.

Doug D.

grammar but nothing in the post affected me like nails on a blackboard.

What's your problem with the puntuation in the post? Or is it a problem with the content?

Edit: The OP used many ellipses but I thought s/he did so effectively.

Maybe you're allergic to ellipses?

"All the damage control and spin control she is now engaged in to try to change the subject from I'm a double talker to "these mean old men are picking on me".."

I read the quiet desperation and the general intention the post implies, but not much else.

That you are desperate to understand the meaning only speaks your your inability to comprehend..not my ability to compose.

Doug D.

I didn't know it was meant to have a "question mark". This is a perfect example of why punctuation would help carry your message across.:hi:

MY POST was a RESPONSE to ANOTHER poster's QUESTION.

Go read the PREVIOUS poster's QUESTION. There was NO issue with my punctuation in my RESPONSE only an issue with your inability to read the entire thread and comprehend it.

Doug D.

you're wrong. Why does that not surprise me? *titter*

content and meaning of your post with nonsense from the hillary supporters. They don't know about real issues or how to address them because their candidate fails to.

what Doug said. The poster just keeps going on about how he can't understand the sentence, touting polls, name calling, anything to avoid discussing Clinton's problems.

I can see where underinformed casual reader might come to the same conclusions you have.

I watched the debate and I work quite a lot of Central Florida races even to doing some pro bono consulting for some of our Dem state and local candidates and I can tell you she just buried herself by not simply answering a yes or no question with a YES or a NO...

The voters' BS meters are much more sensitive than you or Hillary give them credit for. She just exposed herself as two-faced, as someone who can't give a straight answer and THAT will not be tolerated by the voters this election. They've had it up to their eyeballs with doubletalking self serving politicians over the last 6 years from the White House on down the ticket.

"Honesty is such a lonely word" - Billy Joel

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Thankfully most voters look deeper than that.

Sorry if you think you know more than you actually do..

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

"expertise":rofl:

Don't equivocate. Give us one of your no-nonsense, no bullshit, straight-arrow, up or down, all-yes or all-no answers.

All will be revealed eventually.
Honesty is the best policy, Hillary.

The media went after her and handed the attacks to Edwards and Obama who took them from the silver platter. She withstood the attacks with grace and dignity.

Not ONE of those guys has ever been through a similar debate--where they were the butt of the questions and answers throughout the debate. Not one of them has shown the guts and courage that she showed.

And, they distorted and lied
Edwards: the war in Iraq: sponsored IWR. Says his troops will be in Iraq for terrorists and the embassy / says the very same thing that Clinton does--and lied and said she was not consistent.

Obama: social security, after ridiculing clinton for not telling what she would do--turned around and said the exact same thing she did.

Those who are buying the distortions hook-line-and sinker are not looking at what actually happened, but instead nodding in lemming like fashion.

It was YES or NO..

She would have done MUCH BETTER had she simply ANSWERED in the format of:


YES (or NO)

and here's why Tim...

as opposed to...

YES BUT ON THE OTHER HAND (or NO BUT ON THE OTHER HAND)

A straight forward answer is not a lot to ask of the people who represent us in government.

Doug D.

That is what we had for the last nearly 8 years: simplistic answers to complicated questions.

Again: look at the answers. How can you just say BS when the transcript is there for all to read.

Edwards believes the same thing as Clinton regarding Iraq /as does Biden / Dodd / Obama / everyone but Kucinich and Richardson.

While you are looking at the transcript rather than just thoughtlessly agreeing--look at Obama after Clinton spoke about Social Security.


I know you want it to be true, but we have spent the last 8 years just buying the spin...

I am so disappointed that Edwards and Obama chose to spin rather than tell the truth

You ask a yes or no answer and I give you a NO reply...


She can explain her answer but it needs to be in the format of


Yes (or no) and here's why:

No yes (or no) but on the other hand..

That's called equivocation and what you propose is a straw-man (or straw-woman) argument that I MUST choose between triangulation and George W. Bush.

You can certainly provide straight forward yes or no answers to complicated problems without giving up ability to deal with them in a conscientious and fully thought through way.

You can't be equivocal as Hillary so often is and have my trust however.

I find it preposterous that you are accusing Edwards and Obama of "spinning" when it's all Hill-Spin all the time.. She never can just say yes or no and stick to it. As for Iraq, Hillary is far far away from any other Democrat on the stage.. she's an apologist for the Iraq war rather than apologizing FOR voting for it, she's trying to lead us into the next war in Iran along with Lieberman and Bush. That's far away from any other candidate including Edwards who has pledged to end the war in Iraq and has presented a clear draw down and exit plan. Hillary won't do that and won't be clear about anything at all on Iraq. Don't even try to say otherwise because it simply is not so.

Doug D.

You know Edwards position on Iraq. You know it is the same as Obama's and Clintons...so, how is it spinning? You know Clinton's position on Social Security. You saw the debate where Obama sputtered out the same position after Clinton's statement...and yet you ignore it.

He'd station the troops in Kuwait and send them into Iraq for combat missions against "Al Qaeda."

The only difference between Hillary's and Edwards' position is that Hillary won't make cheap political points by forcing soldiers who are already risking their lives to carry their equipment everywhere they go. With Hillary they'll have a bunk and hot Halliburton stew and a base that offers them some protection when they sleep.

-- are generally employed as "gotcha" questions, so your entire premise is false.

I do applaud your efforts at trying to make media spin points seem like your own, though I'd caution you away from using buzz words like "triangulization" which give away your source material.

Yes or no don't usually cut it.

If all Hillary said all night was yes or no, she would have looked like an idiot who was unable to compose a full response.

Watch Sunday talk shows, debates, interviews on cable. Candidates never say just yes or no, except when Joe Biden was asked if he could give a short answer.

Did Edwards just give yes or no answers? Did Obama? Who did?

over Obama's 21% and Edwards at 11%.

I guess Americans have made up THEIR mind...

"IMPLODING":rofl:

Reality is that nationwide polls like that don't mean anything...

What matters is IOWA..specifically IOWA CAUCUS GOERS and she did incredible damage to herself with them in the debate...and that's where her campaign is imploding and where it matters....

:P

Doug D.

:silly:

Your poll cites are meaningless because:

1) It's simply too early... polls don't really mean a lot more than three weeks out from the first primary date.
2) They are national polls instead of Iowa polls. The primary system is based off of momentum and the winner of the Iowa and NH contests is almost always the Presidential nominee. Hillary is much closer in these states than in national polls.

It's pretty clear she's in trouble now because she felt such a desperate need to reply with such a desperate deflection tactic as "The Politics of Pile On"... as in "the men are picking on me"... after all this talk about how tough and smart she is.

Again more double talk from the Clinton campaign.

Doug D.

Yes, Dean and Clinton are ONE and the same. No difference there.:crazy:

Both were supposedly the "inevitable" front runners...

Dean had his "haw" moment and now Hillary has had her two faced "moment"... although in her case it is much worse because Dean just "hawed" one time... Hillary's every word will now be scrutinized for "double speak" from now until she drops out of the race and it will become the story just as it did for Al Gore in 2000 when he got painted as lacking credibility over various comments he made about FEMA and "inventing the internet", etc. Credibility is a hard thing for a candidate to get back.

Doug D.
Orlando, FL

Who cares about your useless, too early, too general poll?

Not me.

Now you can stop wasting everybody's time citing it because it doesn't make your case at all.

Doug D.

Why is that?

Could it be because you don't like the results of the poll? Many people try to discredit polls they don't agree with, it's human nature. We all want to see our opinions validated. Gnashing our teeth and wringing our hands doesn't change the fact that polls are useful tools in gaging voting trends. So you discredit polls, yet claim to know all about them...curious.:hi:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/election_2008__1/2008_presidential_election/debate_fallout_has_no_immediate_impact_on_clinton_poll_position

Apparently I must know something since I picked Kerry to win Iowa in 2004 and the so-called "smart" money was betting on Howard Dean....



Rules of polling of which you are apparently unaware:

1) Polls ARE NOT useful until the voters are actually paying attention. In Primary season any poll more than 3 weeks out from a given primary is highly suspect as a predictor for that primary.

2) Polls ARE NOT useful if they measure the wrong thing or sample from the wrong poll of voters. All these national polls of "registered" voters are junk polls useful as "filler" for MSM air time. They are not real predictors of who will win in Iowa, New Hampshire, South Carolina, or Nevada. LIKELY voters must be polled and they need to be from the right state and they need to be asked within a reasonably short proximity to the actual vote for the poll to be meaningful.


Doug D.

I called Kerry's 2004 win in Iowa, as well. I also predicted that he would be followed by Edwards, then Dean, Gephardt, Kucinich and finally, Clark. As fate would have it, I was proved correct. I even knew the exact percentage point each candidate would get!

"Look at me, I can predict who the winner was 4 years ago.":silly:

And Clinton ticked up - whwre do these people get this "imploding" baloney from?

the occasional sugar plum fairy is my guess.

and acting like the effect of the recent debate has had time to sink in yet...

Neither are valid points...

The simple fact that Hillary felt a need to reply with this spin-control / deflection tactic ad of "Politics of Pile On" reeks of desperation and you and I both know it... She's being hammered in the press for her double talking and you and I both know it... Her double talking has now become the story instead of what SHE wants to be the story and she's having to play defense and won't even be able to change the story until the next debate in Las Vegas in two weeks and she won't be able to double talk there either or it will only compound her problems.

When she has to take clear stands on the issues in Vegas (assuming she can even make herself do it) those stands won't appeal to rank and file Democrats because she's really a corporatist DLC'er and she'll lose that debate too.

If she doesn't take clear stands on the issues in Vegas it will be far worse yet for her campaign.

Stay tuned...


Doug D.

Wow, that'll really suck for her. :rofl:

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:
:rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

that really WILL suck for her...

...in Iowa, but I suppose you have a "crystal ball".:silly:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=iowapoll07

Ooops...apparently she's FALLING in IOWA...let's see what it looks like in a few weeks in my "crystal ball"....

Doug D.

DesMoinesRegister.com STILL has her in the lead in Iowa. Oh, but YOU don't believe in polls. Yet, you believe in the infallibility of the crystal ball.:silly:

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=iowapoll07

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_%28United_States%29_presidential_primaries%2C_2008

Latest from Iowa:

Iowa
Iowa winner: To be determined
Primary date: January 3, 2008

See also <19><20><21><22>

Poll source Date Highlights
American Research Group October 26-October 29, 2007 Hillary Clinton 32%, Barack Obama 22%, John Edwards 15%, Bill Richardson 7%, Joe Biden 5%, Chris Dodd 2%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Mike Gravel -%, Undecided 16%

Strategic Vision October 12-October 14, 2007 Hillary Clinton 28%, Barack Obama 23%, John Edwards 20%, Bill Richardson 9%, Joe Biden 6%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Undecided 12%

Rasmussen Reports October 10 & October 14, 2007 Hillary Clinton 33%, John Edwards 22%, Barack Obama 21%, Bill Richardson 9%, Joe Biden 4%, Other 2%

Des Moines Register October 1-October 3, 2007 Hillary Clinton 29%, John Edwards 23%, Barack Obama 22%, Bill Richardson 8%, Joe Biden 5%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel -%, Undecided 11%

American Research Group September 26-September 29, 2007 Hillary Clinton 30%, Barack Obama 24%, John Edwards 19%, Bill Richardson 10%, Joe Biden 3%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel -%, Undecided 13%

Newsweek (All Democratic voters) September 26-September 27, 2007 Hillary Clinton 31%, Barack Obama 25%, John Edwards 21%, Bill Richardson 6%, Joe Biden 3%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%, Undecided 12%

Newsweek (Likely caucus-goers) September 26-September 27, 2007 Barack Obama 28%, Hillary Clinton 24%, John Edwards 22%, Bill Richardson 10%, Joe Biden 5%, Dennis Kucinich 1%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0%, Undecided 9%

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg September 6-September 10, 2007 Hillary Clinton 28%, John Edwards 23%, Barack Obama 19%, Bill Richardson 10%, Joe Biden 2%, Dennis Kucinich 2%, Chris Dodd 1%, Mike Gravel 0.5%, Undecided 16%

Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg (Democrats only) September 6-September 10, 2007 Hillary Clinton 33%, John Edwards 24%, Barack Obama 13%, Bill Richardson 11%

she may win the nomination and lose the election. There are an awful lot of Democrats who won't vote for her and Republicans surely won't. Can she win with the Independent vote? I don't think so.

But the DLC is pushing, pushing, pushing Clinton, just as they pushed Kerry and Gore. I think Kerry and Gore won, but not by enough votes to keep the GOP from stealing the election. A good-sized majority is needed to be sure of victory in the age of Diebold.

to show up in polls for a week or two, minimum. I don't know why others don't understand it. This is true for all candidates.

It's also true that polls now don't predict what will happen in actual caucuses and primaries because they're too far away. Candidates can sink fast, especially when the media smells blood in the water and starts circling and taking bites out of someone.

What poll last week was showing her so far ahead of Edward and Obama in IOwa, and today, the Iowa race is being called a toss up.

I don't know of any poll "showing her so far ahead of Edward(sic) and Obama in Iowa". I'd be curious to read it.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

pants pulled down / skirt over head?

It was fun.

This is just the beginning of the end for this Hilary come lately front runner. Just like a spoiled child she claims to be picked on by the bullies.
Then she uses the sexist card to rally her gender. And to those who will relate to her insecurities.
Will she stomp her feet and cry to the Big Dog, make them stop picking on me! Or will she stand up and take it like a women? (Pun intended) It is still a long race, and the finish line will be hard to see with those big tears in your eyes, Billary!:cry:

:hi:

:rofl:

So did I!

:rofl:

when you know ahead of time that the lady doesn't like to commit herself.