Thursday, February 07, 2008

HILLARY'S $5 MILLION LOAN



Hillary's in trouble:

"Late last month Senator Clinton loaned her campaign $5 million. The loan illustrates Sen. Clinton's commitment to this effort and to ensuring that our campaign has the resources it needs to compete and win across this nation. We have had one of our best fundraising efforts ever on the Web today and our Super Tuesday victories will only help in bringing more support for her candidacy."
I wouldn't say the loan, "illustrates Sen. Clinton's commitment to this effort", I'd say that it shows that her ability to raise finance is in real trouble.

Go Obama, go...

UPDATE:

The moonbats, sensing the danger of Obama, have begun circling already. Jake Tapper writes:

Inspiration is nice. But some folks seem to be getting out of hand.

It's as if Tom Daschle descended from on high saying, "Be not afraid; for behold I bring you good tidings of great joy which shall be to all the people: for there is born to you this day in the city of Chicago a Savior, who is Barack the Democrat."

Obama supporter Kathleen Geier writes that she's "getting increasingly weirded out by some of Obama's supporters. On listservs I'm on, some people who should know better – hard-bitten, not-so-young cynics, even – are gushing about Barack…

Describing various encounters with Obama supporters, she writes, "Excuse me, but this sounds more like a cult than a political campaign. The language used here is the language of evangelical Christianity – the Obama volunteers speak of 'coming to Obama' in the same way born-again Christians talk about 'coming to Jesus.'...So I say, we should all get a grip, stop all this unseemly mooning over Barack, see him and the political landscape he is a part of in a cooler, clearer, and more realistic light, and get to work."

Joe Klein, writing at Time, notes "something just a wee bit creepy about the mass messianism" he sees in Obama's Super Tuesday speech.

So this is how they are going to attack him: "This sounds more like a cult than a political campaign." There's something "a wee bit creepy" about the excitement he is generating.

Obama has already identified the "wee bit creepy" culture that the Republicans have been feeding off:

“But somehow, somewhere along the way, faith stopped being used to bring us together,” Mr. Obama said. “Faith started being used to drive us apart. Faith got hijacked.”

He attributed this partly to “the so-called leaders of the Christian right, who’ve been all too eager to exploit what divides us.”

And now these same loons have the nerve, the sheer gall, to refer his campaign as using "the language of evangelical Christianity." I disagree that Obama is doing so but, even if he were, why didn't they objected to this when Bush was doing it?

Indeed, they still played on Bush's Christianity when his own church was denouncing the Iraq war.
In fact, nearly all the mainline churches in America oppose this war, including Mr Bush's own church, the United Methodists.
And now, these same loons, have the nerve to quote an attack on Obama for daring to use "the language of evangelical Christianity."

Yeah, because they've always hated that haven't they? Sean Hannity, as always, leads the hypocrisy.

Click title for full article.

4 comments:

Unknown said...

The moonbats, sensing the danger of Obama, have begun circling already.

Moonbat, you're using the term incorrectly. At least get your epithets right. I believe the term you're looking for is wingnut.

Go Obama, go

I find it endlessly amusing that you're decisions on who you support and who you attack shift with the polls. At first it was Rudy and Huckabee you were after while fawning over Clinton and Ron Paul. Now you have a mancrush on Obama and have shifted your attacks to McCain and Clinton. Of course this isn't uncommon since many people choose their opinions based on polls.

Looking back, I got a nice chuckle out of the following statement of yours:

After the Republicans choose their next Presidential candidate, and I would safely bet my house that this candidate will not be John McCain...

That sure is some shrewd analysis of US politics. Fucking hilarious.

Kel said...

I find it endlessly amusing that you're decisions on who you support and who you attack shift with the polls. At first it was Rudy and Huckabee you were after while fawning over Clinton and Ron Paul. Now you have a mancrush on Obama and have shifted your attacks to McCain and Clinton. Of course this isn't uncommon since many people choose their opinions based on polls.

My opinions don't change with any polls. And, whilst I have admired some of the honesty shown by Ron Paul, there is no way I can ever be said to have been fawning over him.

And, until this week, I have never said which Democrat I would prefer to win as I will support whichever Democrat wins the nomination.

Looking back, I got a nice chuckle out of the following statement of yours:

After the Republicans choose their next Presidential candidate, and I would safely bet my house that this candidate will not be John McCain...


The McCain campaign was considered dead in the water this time last year by everyone. And, after his ridiculous walk through the Baghdad market I would have thought him dead in the water. His comeback has astonished many people, but your attempts at disingenuity are no longer surprising.

That sure is some shrewd analysis of US politics. Fucking hilarious.

That's rich coming from the man who supported Rudi Giuliani as the next president. How's your man getting on?

Unknown said...

That's rich coming from the man who supported Rudi Giuliani as the next president

Technically, I'm not in a position to support anyone at this time. The question was asked of me quite some time ago which of the candidates I would vote for. Given the field it likely (not definitively) may have been Rudy. I certainly never felt invested in a Rudy Presidency and certainly haven't lost any sleep over him dropping out.

What I have never done though, is come out and emphatically make any predictions regarding the races, only to be proven horribly wrong.

Kel said...

What I have never done though, is come out and emphatically make any predictions regarding the races, only to be proven horribly wrong.

It's typical that you ignore the fact that almost everyone had thought it was over for McCain when he started firing members of his team. Indeed, his own supporters chant "Mac's back!" for the very reason that he has almost come back from the dead.

And, of course, you have never stated an opinion and then been proven wrong; that's because you often lack the courage to even state an opinion and have been known to claim on here that the arguments you are making do not necessarily reflect your own viewpoint.