I have a serious question. I want serious answers only.

It's something I've had the most trouble with this primary and will have a hard time getting over. What's the difference with Lieberman trying to make out like Obama is the "Hamas" candidate and Clinton doing the same (Hamas and Farrakhan on the abc debates). Such claims are the politics of personal destruction in my opinion and are usually found on Hannity and rightwing am radio broadcasts. I have even seen such things pushed here (where such things I couldn't have believed would garner any traction). For those that are going to claim this is a negative post from a Obama partisan, please keep in mind my last thread was this: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x5928508

So what's the difference?

the attack vs. the party.

"Democratic Underground is not affiliated with the Democratic Party, and comments posted here are not representative of the Democratic Party or its candidates."

but . . . ok, you are forgiven

is an extremely tiny segment of Democratic Party supporters.

I was talking about the RW Hit Machine and the media pudits during the GE campaign. We can expect NO MERCY from them.

from DU'ers--why do you assume we couldn't handle it in the GE?

In other words, it's not the smears we're startled by, it's whom they're coming from.

We get that Repukes do it, why are Democrats helping them?

You really couldn't figure that one out?

It seems clear that neither Hillary Clinton nor Joe Lieberman believe Obama is anything but what he's presented. Thus, they are deliberately presenting subliminal slanders under the "Tonya Harding Rules of Competition" and not the "Tiger Woods Rules of Competition."

>here<

Posting a decent Mother's Day thread doesn't give you a free pass, nor negate prior crappy comments from previous weeks and months.

I'm surprised you're even posting about Hillary Clinton. Isn't she irrelevant?

I thought Obama is the nominee?

Are you an assassin?

:hug:

Prove it's not legitimate. Answer the question. Attacking the messenger doesn't really work. Do you not see it? Certainly you don't think Obama really is connected to Hamas and garbage like that? If you don't, just answer my question. No strings attached.

Now then, why the need to post yet another Hillary Clinton attack thread?

Once again, it's my understanding from you and your people that she's been eliminated from the primary and is no longer relevant.

So I don't understand the need to start another thread that encourages more Hillary hate speak, when there are plenty to choose from already.

to what a terrorist offers them than to an American running for the Presidency and this makes me wonder whether terrorist would have McSame or Clinton in their back pockets.

What would happen to our country if they were President and are so influenced and gullible to believe the words from a terrorist? This when the government doesn't negotiate with terrorist at all. What does this all say about the ones using terrorist to their advantage?

I guess I'm a little surprised it would be the subject of a democratic primary whereby both candidates didn't reject the premise. I really don't know what to think anymore and its why I asked the question. Should the democratic party split in two or something?

Lieberman is not now running for President; Hillary is currently running for President.

Lieberman has always been known as a very conservative Democratic who is highly supportive of Israel. Articles about him appear in the Jerusalem Post more often than in his home town newspaper.

Hillary has in the past represented herself to be somewhat liberal, even a populist politician. Since she first started contemplating running for the Oval House, she has increasingly moved right so as to leave little issue difference between herself and the Republican opponent she faced in the General Election the year she chose to run. In that regard, she has been accused of becoming Bush*-lite and leaving the Democratic wing of the Democratic party behind. As one of two more influential forces in the DLC along with Bill, she has championed the very conservative image of this party.

One would have expected that of Lieberman, but not necessarily Hillary.

The Liebermans and the Clintons are very close personal friends. I think they are very like-minded on many issues. The only difference is that in the past Hillary has painted a very different portrait of herself than has Lieberman. Now her true colors are on full display.

by supporting the views of Hamas. It's not Obama that is listening to terrorist, it's McSame. Politics at it's best.

Hamas didn't lie about WMDs? Farrakhan did not torture prisoners in Iraq. Hamas is not the world's number one sponsor of terrorism (that is the US). Farrakhan does not covet the oil of other countries and paint their leaders as our enemies so that he can steal it.

Hamas is just a group of people elected by some Palestinians who have been treated like shit by the rest of the world. Palestinians are the Negroes of the land that used to be ancient Judea before the Romans stole it. Israelis are also the Negroes of Judea (they just don't realize it, since they are the House Negroes). Both of them have been set at war with each other so that western countries can use their conflict as an excuse to meddle in the affairs of oil rich countries now that they no longer have the excuse of communism.

Why the hell can't a Democrat talk to Hamas or respect Louis Farrakhan? Why does a Democrat have to suck up to a bunch of bullshit notions about who the enemy is when the "enemy" is David Rockefeller and Microsoft and GE?