Republicans don't win elections:Democrats give them away for free.

<p>Mysogynistic lout? McCain, possibly. The One, no way. Explain, please, why you think he hates women? Because he beat Hillary Clinton during the primaries? You don’t think he played nice enough with her? News flash: Clinton’s a very experienced, extremely tough politician, who went negative in a big way, long before Obama did. In fact, I recall that she spent a substantial part of the primary season ripping and savaging her rival like a rabid Pit Bull. I went from admiring Hillary Clinton, to being disgusted with the way she conducted her campaign.</p>

<p>Edit: You were probably referring to Sullivan as “lout,” but knowing you’re deep and abiding love for Obama, I assumed he was the actual target. Alas. :(</p>

<p>Who do you think did the most negative campaining? And to what degree did they do so? What would you say personally?</p>

<p>Interesteddad:</p>

<p>The story has been reported on many sites, not just Andrew Sullivan. But judge for yourself. I’ve linked the original story. It’s not exactly the same. But the parallels are eerie.</p>

<p>I’ve posted that I was disappointed with Obama’s stance on FISA. But I’m not a single issue voter.</p>

<p>Endorse the neanderthals in the media? What are you talking about? Sullivan–or any of the pundits–are not running for POTUS, are they? I don’t have to endorse any of them. </p>

<p>Actually, I did not hear Sullivan say this about Hillary. But never fear. Didn’t Carville say that she had three balls?</p>

<p>Hillary Clinton out-negatived everyone during the primaries. As for McCain, he’s long since broken his vow to run a positive, issue-based campaign, and is churning out negative garbage like the Paris Hilton ads.</p>

<p>Who would you vote for?</p>

<p>ps… Notice that out of all the presidential candidates, Obama has not been thefirst or second to mention for negative campaigning… </p>

<p>Just Notice…</p>

<p>When you’ve made propaganda broadcasts for the so-called enemy, and received preferential treatment for it - both from the enemy and from your own government - it is useful to have a good story. </p>

<p>At least he knew quality writing when one of his handlers saw it.</p>

<p>interesteddad:</p>

<p>What state are you from?</p>

<p>“That’s OK. It’s precisely that kind of arrogance by Democrats that have some of us planning to vote against the Democratic candidates, top to bottom in November. The more arrogant, the better.”</p>

<p>I think that your comments are lost on the supporters of the showhorse.</p>

<p>Why do people care about negative adds? Politics is about one thing: winning. If negative adds deliver economic returns to their buyers they will always be used.</p>

<p>Offtopic: Has anyone else noticed that McCain’s clothes are too big for him? I’ve always wondered who thinks it’s a good idea for him to wear those oversized suits with the HUGE shoulder pads haha.</p>

<p>Here’s an interesting story on it that talks about possible consequences of McCain’s disregard for dressing well:</p>

<p>[Alan</a> Au: Is 5’7" John McCain Dressing For Defeat? (PICTURES)](<a href=“HuffPost - Breaking News, U.S. and World News | HuffPost”>Is 5'7" John McCain Dressing For Defeat? (PICTURES) | HuffPost Life)</p>

<p>LOL! Look at the expression of the woman’s face in the first picture with McCain wearing the oversized shirt. She looks like she’s wondering if he’s healthy.</p>

<p>Uh oh…</p>

<p>Can Randy Scheunemann be any shadier?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>[McCain</a> OK with aide’s lobbying past - USATODAY.com](<a href=“http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-17-mccain-adviser_N.htm]McCain”>http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-08-17-mccain-adviser_N.htm)</p>

<p>These are the kind of people who are going to be setting McCain’s foreign policy agenda. Are you serious!? And what the heck is Obama doing. He needs to be going after these sorts of things.</p>

<p>ID and BCEagle,</p>

<p>I’m a little slow, so help me out here. Can you explain to me, in words I can understand, all the ways in which Democrats are arrogant? Don’t spoon-feed me angry right-wing canned responses that don’t address the question. I really want to know. (Of course, you can always ignore me. :))</p>

<p>More specifically, ID, why are you so convinced that everyone who disagrees with you also thinks you’re a racist? </p>

<p>And why do you give James Carville a pass on the “three balls” remark?</p>

<p>“I’m a little slow, so help me out here. Can you explain to me, in words I can understand, all the ways in which Democrats are arrogant? Don’t spoon-feed me angry right-wing canned responses that don’t address the question. I really want to know. (Of course, you can always ignore me. )”</p>

<p>I would suggest reading hillaryis44.org from Spring 2008 to now.</p>

<p>“Marite, I absolutely agree! Obama was thoughtful, introspective, and articulate. McCain’s responses were pre-programmed, hair-trigger blurt-outs, showing no real depth of thought as far as I was concerned. I agree as well that he pandered shamelessly to the conservative audience on hand. … Why is it that some Americans seem to prefer angry, swaggering, aggressive candidates to those who are calm and intellectually gifted?”</p>

<p>And wrong. Obama spouts off on scripture but doesn’t really know it. At least based on one of the news reports that I read quoting him. McCain doesn’t know scripture at all but at least he doesn’t pretend to know it.</p>

<p>I’ll have to look at this site in more depth, but at a glance, hillaryis44.org appears to be just more of the same despicable anti-Obama rhetoric I’ve seen bantered about occasionally on CC, and its writers seem to make things up as they go along. </p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Okaaaaaaay. I must have been watching a different faith forum than they were, because I saw something entirely different. </p>

<p>Why should I give these people any more credence than I would a rabid pro-Obamaite who filled cyberspace with toxic gibberish about Clinton? If the candidate herself couldn’t control this kind of hate–or worse, condoned it–well to paraphrase the grand dame herself–“Shame on You Hillary Clinton!”</p>

<p>Hindoo:</p>

<p>Sorry. I’m not arguing politics with a Dennis Kucinich supporter.</p>

<p>Newjack:</p>

<p>I am disgusted by your mocking of the disabilities John McCain suffered as a prisoner of war. You mock him because he is physically unable to raise his arms and fit in the svelte-cut designer suits you apparently demand of a proper showhorse candidate. Vote for him or not, mocking John McCain’s war injuries is offensive. That’s something John Kerry would do.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>He should stick to Black Liberation Theology.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>How do you know that’s why he wears oversized clothing that makes him look sickly? </p>

<p>By the way, what state are you from?</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Why would you say that? When did Kerry mock McCain’s war injuries? This is the kind of outrageous flame-throwing bs that makes you hard to take seriously. Kerry and McCain were and are friends. There was talk at one point of McCain serving as his VP in 2004, interesting if Kerry was simultaneously making fun of his war injuries. … Regarding Kucinich, I wasn’t a “supporter.” In the very beginning I liked Clinton, until I was repulsed by her style of campaigning, after which I got behind Obama. Kucinich is someone I happen to admire greatly, for his fearlessness and outspoken integrity. Agree with him or not, he doesn’t spit on his finger and hold it up to see which way the wind’s blowing–as almost every other candidate does.</p>

<p>

</p>

<p>Uhhh… just so you know, that doesn’t make sense as a response… Black Libertation Theology is based on Christianity.</p>