909997 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 As apart of her smear campaign against Barrack Obama, shes going around telling media outlets how he was raised a Muslim (like thats a bad thing) and he went to some school in Indonesia, basically trying to feed off the idiot voters who think all Muslims are terrorists. What a cheap shot, not only taking a shot at Islam, but using Americans ignorance about the religion to make it seem evil. http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 and she's running for president :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luckydevil Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 This is a scumbag tactic, but I am not surprised by this at all. The Clinton machine will try to destroy him. He is up against one strong beast. I feel sorry for him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
codeorama Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 The people that think all muslims are evil won't be voting Dem regardless of who it is, so while it is a cheap tatic, it probably won't really matter. Neither has a snowballs chance in hell to win. If the dems put up either as the Presidential candidate, the GOP will easily win. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bang Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Imagine that, a politician who's a scumbag. Nothing new to see here. ~Bang Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twa Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 It will only get worse as the campaigns go on,glad I don't watch tv. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Neither has a snowballs chance in hell to win. If the dems put up either as the Presidential candidate, the GOP will easily win. Agreed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Insight magazine: Voted Hottest Conservative News Site By Rolling Stone Magazine! Translation: Insightmag.com is basically The Drudge Report in sheep's clothing. They take any tidbit of rumor or conjecture and slant it as hard as humanly possible, in order to feed off all the angry right wingers out there who desperately crave any "news" that might justify their belief system. They are owned by the moonies - the same fine folks who own the Washington Times. That should tell you all you need to know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
skinfan2k Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Agreed. jw who do you think the GOP will put up? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkinsHokieFan Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 jw who do you think the GOP will put up? Someone nobody knows of yet It won't be McCain, Romney, Guliani, or Brownback Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
maxiumone Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Neither has a snowballs chance in hell to win. If the dems put up either as the Presidential candidate, the GOP will easily win. While I agree that if Clinton is running the Dem will not stand a chance but who else other than those two? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dfitzo53 Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 As apart of her smear campaign against Barrack Obama, shes going around telling media outlets how he was raised a Muslim (like thats a bad thing) and he went to some school in Indonesia, basically trying to feed off the idiot voters who think all Muslims are terrorists. What a cheap shot, not only taking a shot at Islam, but using Americans ignorance about the religion to make it seem evil.http://www.insightmag.com/Media/MediaManager/Obama_2.htm I'm not sure the article could be any more vague. There are no named sources, and definitely nothing out of Clinton's mouth. I'd have to see a more informative article on this before I could come to any kind of conclusion. Throughout the article it sounds more like the author is trying to stir up controversy in the Democratic party rather than follow a solid lead. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I see John Edwards winning the nom for the Dems Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Look it's like this 1. Obama, 1b. Edwards, 3. Gore, 4. Clark and then Biden, Clinton, etc in no particular order. Hell I think Vilsack has just as much a chance as Hillary. Edit: Oh and look for Mark Warner to be a possible running mate of someone Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mickalino Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Look it's like this 1. Obama, 1b. Edwards, 3. Gore, 4. Clark and then Biden, Clinton, etc in no particular order. When will Al Bore just go away :doh: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G.A.C.O.L.B. Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 When will Al Bore just go away :doh: I like Al Gore. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PokerPacker Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 When will Al Bore just go away :doh: maybe if we threaten to kill the environment we can scare him away. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ozskin Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Cheap shot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I'm not sure the article could be any more vague. There are no named sources, and definitely nothing out of Clinton's mouth. I'd have to see a more informative article on this before I could come to any kind of conclusion.Throughout the article it sounds more like the author is trying to stir up controversy in the Democratic party rather than follow a solid lead. Pesky things like facts and direct quotes are not important components of the fables created by this website. Really, shame on the original poster for creating this thread as if the story were credible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Baculus Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Yes, Edwards/Obama is not an unrealistic ticket. I really do not see Clinton as having broad enough appeal for the Democrats. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cjcdaman Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Someone nobody knows of yetIt won't be McCain, Romney, Guliani, or Brownback I'm hoping for McCain or Guliani. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 I'm hoping for McCain or Guliani. Many conservative republicans will be reluctant to vote for an unmarried man whose name ends in a vowel. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rincewind Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Smear tactics in elections are bad enough - but I really don't understand them in primaries. You will eventually have to back your opponent, why drag his name through the mud - giving your real opponent (whoever you face in the next round) added ammo? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Midnight Judges Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Smear tactics in elections are bad enough - but I really don't understand them in primaries. You will eventually have to back your opponent, why drag his name through the mud - giving your real opponent (whoever you face in the next round) added ammo? Because they really are that selfish and short-sighted. Keep digging Hillary. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
E-Dog Night Posted January 20, 2007 Share Posted January 20, 2007 Smear tactics in elections are bad enough - but I really don't understand them in primaries. You will eventually have to back your opponent, why drag his name through the mud - giving your real opponent (whoever you face in the next round) added ammo? It happens every year, on both sides of the political spectrum. It's simple - you can't win the presidency if you don't win the primary, and as a candidate, you have to position yourself as a more attractive choice. If you simply agree with your opponent on everything, then you are not differentiating yourself. I think people understand that politicians do this. Most people anyway. As long as you don't get to personal, there's always a kiss n' make-up session after the primary. It's not that they are selfish and short-sighted, it's how the game is played. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.