One race comes down the backstretch, while a sprint result becomes official

[The Deity]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp

"WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton scored comeback primary wins in Ohio, Texas and Rhode Island Tuesday night, denting Barack Obama's delegate lead in a riveting Democratic presidential race. Arizona Sen. John McCain, an unflinching supporter of the war in Iraq, clinched the Republican nomination.


Clinton's three triumphs ended a month of defeats for the former first lady, and she told jubilant supporters, "We're going on, we're going strong and we're going all the way."

Obama won the Vermont primary, and sought to counter Clinton's claims that the night had been a race-altering event. "We have nearly the same delegate lead as we did this morning and we are on our way to winning this nomination," he told supporters in Texas.

He also led in caucuses in Texas that began 15 minutes after the state's primary polls closed.

A final split of the 370 delegates at stake in the four states lagged far behind the vote count.

Both Democrats called McCain — a Senate colleague — to congratulate him on his triumph in the Republican race.

The 71-year-old Arizona senator surpassed the 1,191 delegates needed to win his party's nomination, completing a remarkable comeback that began in the snows of New Hampshire eight weeks ago. President Bush invited him to lunch — and an endorsement — at the White House on Wednesday.

"We are in Iraq, and our most vital security interests are involved there," said McCain at a victory celebration nearly a decade in the making.

McCain's last remaining major rival, former Arkansas Gov. Mike Huckabee, conceded defeat after a campaign that included a stunning victory in the leadoff Iowa caucuses on Jan. 3. "My commitment to him and the party is to do everything possible to unite our party, but more important to unite our country so that we can be the best we can be," Huckabee said in Irving, Texas.

Clinton won the Rhode Island primary with more than 58 percent of the vote.

But Ohio and Texas were the big trophies of the night, rich in delegates and — according to Bill Clinton — must-win states for his wife.

Her share of the Ohio vote was 55 percent in nearly complete returns, and she was winning nearly 51 percent in Texas.

Obama was gaining roughly 60 percent of the Vermont vote.

In the four-state competition for delegates, Clinton picked up at least 115, to at least 88 for Obama. Nearly 170 more remained to be allocated for the night, 154 of them in the Texas primary and caucuses.

Obama had a total of 1,477 delegates, including separately chosen party and elected officials known as superdelegates, according to the Associated Press count. He picked up three superdelegate endorsements Tuesday,

Clinton had 1,391 delegates. It takes 2,025 to win the nomination.

With their remarks, first Clinton, then Obama, sought to frame the race in the best possible terms for their own campaigns.

"They call Ohio a bellwether state, the battleground state. It's a state that knows how to pick a president and no candidate in recent history, Democrat or Republican, has won the White House without winning the Ohio primary," the former first lady said in Columbus.

Moments later, Obama stepped to the microphone in San Antonio. He said the outcome of the Texas primary might not be known until Wednesday, and he all but conceded defeat in Ohio. Either way, he added, it was the delegates that mattered.

Clinton and Obama spent most of the past two weeks in Ohio and Texas in a costly, bruising campaign, with the former first lady questioning his sincerity in opposing NAFTA and questioning his readiness to serve as commander in chief.

Polling place interviews with voters in both states suggested the criticism hit home, showing Clinton was winning the votes of late deciders in Ohio and Texas, as well as Vermont.

Hispanics, a group that has favored Clinton in earlier primaries, cast nearly one-third of the Election Day votes in Texas, up from about one- quarter of the ballots four years ago, according to interviews with voters as they left their polling places. Blacks, who have voted heavily for Obama this year, accounted for roughly 20 percent of the votes cast, roughly the same as four years ago.

The economy was the No. 1 concern on the minds of Democratic voters in Texas, Rhode Island and especially in Ohio. But in Vermont, almost as many voters said the war in Iraq was their top concern.

More than three-quarters of Ohio Democrats said international trade had cost their state more jobs than it had created.

Roughly six in 10 of the Democrats who were questioned outside the polls Tuesday said that so-called superdelegates, who are party officials, should vote at the national convention based on the results of primaries and caucuses. That was unwelcome news for Clinton, who trails Obama among delegates picked in the states but holds a lead among superdelegates.

Obama had campaigned hoping to land a knockout blow. As of March 1, his campaign had spent about $9 million on television advertising in Texas and about $4.5 million in Ohio; Clinton had spent about $5 million in Texas and about $2.3 million in Ohio, according to TNS Media Intelligence/CMAG, an ad tracking firm.

Clinton showed no sign of surrender as she campaigned on Tuesday. "You don't get to the White House as a Democrat without winning Ohio," she said in Houston.

"My husband didn't get the nomination wrapped up until June (in 1992). That has been the tradition," she added, without mentioning that this year most primaries were held much earlier than in 1992. "This is a very close race."

For his part, Obama was already advertising in Mississippi, which holds its primary next week, and planned trips there and to Wyoming, which has weekend caucuses.

Pennsylvania, the biggest single prize left, holds its primary on April 22.

"All those states coming up are going to make a difference," he said. "What we want to do is make sure we're competing in every single state."

It takes 2,025 delegates to win the Democratic nomination, and slightly more than 600 remained to be picked in the 10 states that vote after Tuesday.

The Democratic marathon was in contrast to a Republican race that was fierce while it lasted but had long since been settled.

McCain's campaign nearly imploded last summer. But he regrouped, reassuming the underdog role that he relishes, and methodically dispatched one rival after another in a string of primaries in January and early February."

[Nickelback]

Man, CNN was on all night covering this stuff. This is going to go all the way to a brokered convention.

[Kaffee]

I've been sick of hearing about this crap, and we still have the rest of the year to go.

[Altima]

It seems that Obama hasn't won it yet but I still think that he is going to.

I am glad to see that McCain already has it all wrapped up.

[Rainbow Dash]

I've been sick of hearing about this crap, and we still have the rest of the year to go.
Even I am by now. That cunt just doesnt know when to quit.

[Nickelback]

Even I am by now. That cunt just doesnt know when to quit.
Neither do you.

[Rainbow Dash]

I'll stop when she stops.

[The Deity]

Even I am by now. That cunt just doesnt know when to quit.

She trails by less than 100 delegates. She shouldn't quit now. You could have said that about Huckabee up until now. He was out by a gigantic margin.

[Sassafrass Raistimass]

Man, I'm really going to miss Huckabee.

[Rainbow Dash]

She trails by less than 100 delegates. She shouldn't quit now. You could have said that about Huckabee up until now. He was out by a gigantic margin.
There is still no conceivable way for her to win unless she wins everything by double digits until the end or the superdelegates are fucktarded and dont realize that the republican party wants her to win just so that they have a better chance of winning in November (hence Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's endorsements of her.) Not to mention that it's onlt hurting the party (which she doesnt seem to care about) for her to stay in the race. I do understand it wouldn't be in her best interests to drop out now, but it would be in America's best interests (another thing she doesnt seem to care about) for her to bow out honorably. She could have even made VP if she weren't so stubborn, but, again, she only seems to care about winning, like a 2 year old.

As for Huckabee, I think he never thought he would win. He was either trying to keep McCain in shape or tear him down to prevent him from winning, thus making it easier for him to run in 2012. If those corruption exopses were at all tied to him, then I think he did a pretty good job of hurting McCain.

But tbh I cant see McCain LIVING through two terms, let alone running.

[The Deity]

There is still no conceivable way for her to win unless she wins everything by double digits until the end or the superdelegates are fucktarded and dont realize that the republican party wants her to win just so that they have a better chance of winning in November (hence Ann Coulter and Rush Limbaugh's endorsements of her.)

Or you know, the leaders of the party think she's a better fit to be president.



Not to mention that it's onlt hurting the party (which she doesnt seem to care about) for her to stay in the race. I do understand it wouldn't be in her best interests to drop out now, but it would be in America's best interests (another thing she doesnt seem to care about) for her to bow out honorably. She could have even made VP if she weren't so stubborn, but, again, she only seems to care about winning, like a 2 year old.

Would it have been fair for someone to say this about Obama two months ago when he trailed Hilary by a much wider margin?

Pennsylvania remains quite a large prize to be won by either of the candidates. Not to mention, I think she will fair better in superdelegate vote than Obama.


But tbh I cant see McCain LIVING through two terms, let alone running.

Right. Presidential healthcare is pretty shitty from what I've been told.

Man, I'm really going to miss Huckabee.

I'm assuming Paul officially dropped out too, though no article I've read yet states as much. Right?

[Rainbow Dash]

Or you know, the leaders of the party think she's a better fit to be president.
Their goal is first to put a democrat in the white house. They want their party to win, and would have to despise the more electable president to risk throwing their best chance away. And I mean the democratic party as a whole - of course there are some people who favor Hillary due to her support for their ideals or political favors she's done for them. But an unbiased superdelegate would look at electability first.

On a side note, I hear some people say that "the republicans lost this election 4 years ago." Most of these people wind up being Hillary voters, coincidentally. And I feel they are vastly underestimating not just the Republican party's base, but McCain's appeal to the independants. In all honesty it pisses me off that these people are voting based on party lines based on the president that's LEAVING.

Would it have been fair for someone to say this about Obama two months ago when he trailed Hilary by a much wider margin?
No. The contests were just starting then. The republican primaries are already over now, and Hillary is just giving the Republicans more and more to work with (though to be fair Obama says he'll be going on the offensive now too.)

Right. Presidential healthcare is pretty shitty from what I've been told.
With or without healthcare, being the president "ages you in dog years." While I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, it's true that the stress of being president at least doubles how fast you age. He's in his 70s now (iirc), how many normal people last into their 90s?

[The Deity]

Their goal is first to put a democrat in the white house. They want their party to win, and would have to despise the more electable president to risk throwing their best chance away. And I mean the democratic party as a whole - of course there are some people who favor Hillary due to her support for their ideals or political favors she's done for them. But an unbiased superdelegate would look at electability first.

No, they are supposed be vote for the candidate they believe the most in. If you want to vote that way, its all well and good (which by the way is why I would have voted McCain if Indiana would have their elections at a useful time). But to say that is everyone's number one goal is even more of a partisan view than my own.

On a side note, I hear some people say that "the republicans lost this election 4 years ago." Most of these people wind up being Hillary voters, coincidentally. And I feel they are vastly underestimating not just the Republican party's base, but McCain's appeal to the independants. In all honesty it pisses me off that these people are voting based on party lines based on the president that's LEAVING.


Uh, I know this is just subjection, but I still find that a little hard to believe.

No. The contests were just starting then.

Still, it would have maintained party unity better for the democrats. My only real problem with what you're saying is I know you wouldn't be commenting on this if the shoe were on the other foot. If Hilary had a recent run and Obama had taken Texas and Ohio, you'd be gloating about a comeback and a true challenger to the "evil bitch"


The republican primaries are already over now, and Hillary is just giving the Republicans more and more to work with (though to be fair Obama says he'll be going on the offensive now too.)



I really don't get how going through the election process actually hurts the democrats. This system was set up for an election just like this. One incredibly close and coming down the backstretch. If Obama really is the people's choice, he should win Pennsylvania and Indiana and move on to the White House.

Let everyone have a say before pandering a candidate out about 80 delegates to drop out for "the best of the party." Obviously she is running because she believes her election would be for the best of the party.

With or without healthcare, being the president "ages you in dog years." While I think that's a bit of an exaggeration, it's true that the stress of being president at least doubles how fast you age. He's in his 70s now (iirc), how many normal people last into their 90s?

He's 71. Sure its a stressful job, but Jesus it doesn't actually make each year an additional 6 more years of living.

[Rainbow Dash]

No, they are supposed be vote for the candidate they believe the most in. If you want to vote that way, its all well and good (which by the way is why I would have voted McCain if Indiana would have their elections at a useful time). But to say that is everyone's number one goal is even more of a partisan view than my own.
If you have a choice between your second choice winning the general election and your first winning the primaries and losing to your last choice, which are you going to go for?

I know you wouldn't be commenting on this if the shoe were on the other foot.
It's hard to say, not because it's a what if question, but because I havent made up my mind between Hillary and McCain. I probably would want him to bow out so that he could get VP rather than struggle and ruin his name.

If Obama really is the people's choice, he should win Pennsylvania and Indiana and move on to the White House.

Let everyone have a say before pandering a candidate out about 80 delegates to drop out for "the best of the party."
I dont know what twisted logic causes this, but PA and Ohio were hit pretty hard with NAFTA (see Gunny's dad) so for some reason they want another Clinton back in the white house. Neither candidate really can say they will solve NAFTA, but somehow Hillary is the candidate of choice for fixing what her husband did, perhaps partially because of the illegal leak in the canadian government that's all over the news.
Obviously she is running because she believes her election would be for the best of the party
I really doubt that. She's shown every sign of running for her own ego, not for the sake of america or the party. She wants it too badly - "those who most wish to govern are ipso facto the least suited to do it." Her speeches are either criticisms about Obama or attempts to get the sympathy of women voters that want to see a woman in the white house. Never does she mention the problems that America is going through (except that there's a Bush in the white house) let alone how to fix them. And she CERTAINLY doesnt seem to care about the global opinion of America. Lastly, her clinging onto every straw that obama lets loose shows that she doesnt care how unliked she is, she just wants America to like him less.

Sorry about that paragraph, I'm really tired and it probably wasnt as coherent as I wanted it to be.

[Sassafrass Raistimass]

There is still no conceivable way for her to winShe doesn't have to win, she just has to keep Obama from winning before the convention. Which is more than feasible.

As for Huckabee, I think he never thought he would win. He was either trying to keep McCain in shape or tear him down to prevent him from winning, thus making it easier for him to run in 2012. If those corruption exopses were at all tied to him, then I think he did a pretty good job of hurting McCain.If you listen to Huckabee, he stayed in out of respect for the process. I have no reason to doubt him.

I'm assuming Paul officially dropped out too, though no article I've read yet states as much. Right?Haven't seen any official word either way (I don't think anybody really bothered to ask him), but his campaign website altered one of their pictures to "Now there are two."

Their goal is first to put a democrat in the white house.Their only "goal" is to decide who they want as their nominee, and it's their own job to decide what that means, not yours.

At any rate, I find the whole "Hillary lose, Obama win" view of the general election to be horribly exaggerated. Obama's untested, which means there'll be a media blitz for every scrap they can find on him, no matter how relevant... while with Hillary, talking about the shit she's done is like talking about the shit Putin's done: sure, they're both horrible people, but if you haven't cared yet then why start now?

Her speeches are either criticisms about Obama or attempts to get the sympathy of women voters that want to see a woman in the white house. Never does she mention the problems that America is going through (except that there's a Bush in the white house) let alone how to fix them.You mean like Obama's campaign is only about how "He speaks so well," right? :rolleyes

She talks about issues all the time. She talks about the war, the housing market, education, you name it she's said something about it. Of course, none of her "solutions" make a goddamn lick of sense... so why aren't we focusing on that instead of some retarded "for the good of the party" nonsense?

[Rainbow Dash]

She doesn't have to win, she just has to keep Obama from winning before the convention. Which is more than feasible.
She's already done that much. But most of the superdelegates will vote based on the popular vote, so as long as he stays ahead there he should be fine.

Their only "goal" is to decide who they want as their nominee, and it's their own job to decide what that means, not yours.
Indeed, but they aren't stupid. It certainly isnt all of them, but there are some who would rather see their second choice make it into office than someone who stands against nearly everything they believe in. Every poll I've seen, as well as every (relatively) unbiased report I've heard puts Obama way ahead of Clinton in electibility.

with Hillary, talking about the shit she's done is like talking about the shit Putin's done: sure, they're both horrible people, but if you haven't cared yet then why start now?
I, for one, would have talked about the shit Putin's done if the topic ever arose. I hate that guy. Hillary wasnt really in the public eye aside from "woman in government" until now, when she's trying to rule the entire nation.

You mean like Obama's campaign is only about how "He speaks so well," right?
Touche.

Of course, none of her "solutions" make a goddamn lick of sense... so why aren't we focusing on that instead of some retarded "for the good of the party" nonsense?
Because enough of America doesnt make a goddamn lick of sense either. Though to be honest I dont have many counters to her solutions aside form Health Care (I have $100 to my name and am in the most expensive category of insurance... and she's going to just MAKE ME BUY IT?) but I'll at least have something to work with once Obama's Campaign comes up with his own counters once he begins his attack (I dont like spitting back out what he says, where's the fun in that? I'm just waiting for him to take a position on her solutions so that I dont have to eat my words later.)

[The Deity]

If you have a choice between your second choice winning the general election and your first winning the primaries and losing to your last choice, which are you going to go for?

Its really not that simple. You may think that Obama is more likely to beat McCain, but that doesn't mean everyone thinks that way regardless of electability tables.

Moreover, this process is to select the best candidate for president not the one less likely to lose.


It's hard to say, not because it's a what if question, but because I havent made up my mind between Hillary and McCain. I probably would want him to bow out so that he could get VP rather than struggle and ruin his name.


I be wrong, but I don't think any candidate has ever selected their last opponent in their primaries to be their VP. VP is about much more than name recognition. They are there to serve the President like Gore did for Clinton and Dick does for Bush.


I really doubt that. She's shown every sign of running for her own ego, not for the sake of america or the party.

Her ego being the mindset she's best suited to run the country.

She wants it too badly - "those who most wish to govern are ipso facto the least suited to do it."

So righteous Obama is only running because he feels the masses compel him to and he has a rampant support group that encouraged him to run?

Hilary didn't have any of those things, oh wai...



Haven't seen any official word either way (I don't think anybody really bothered to ask him), but his campaign website altered one of their pictures to "Now there are two."


So you're saying there's a chance...

She's already done that much. But most of the superdelegates will vote based on the popular vote, so as long as he stays ahead there he should be fine.

Honestly, if superdelegates just vote based on popular vote, it is quite pointless to have the system in place. I know many plan to --because I've heard as much too--but it just feels stupid.

[Rainbow Dash]

I be wrong, but I don't think any candidate has ever selected their last opponent in their primaries to be their VP.
Technically the first presidencies ALL did that, but... no, I don't know of any recent ones either. It doesnt mean it cant happen, and considering how much pressure the media, let alone the party itself, is putting on Hillary to take him as VP if she wins, it's not unthinkable.

Alot of people dont think that Obama will pick Hillary, though, partially because of how inhumanely she acted to him, partly because he has no reason to, and partly because I personally wouldnt want her second in line ot the presidency when his chances of being assassinated are high enough as is, not just because she's ruthless, but because she has some fanatic supporters as well.

So righteous Obama is only running because he feels the masses compel him to and he has a rampant support group that encouraged him to run?
Of course they both want it. But Obama has no reason to run now while he's inexperienced unless he felt that he was needed. But that Douglas Adams quote is really more of a personal philosophy, you dont need to follow it.

Honestly, if superdelegates just vote based on popular vote, it is quite pointless to have the system in place. I know many plan to --because I've heard as much too--but it just feels stupid.
I'm betting on the system being redone after this year.

[Night]

Technically the first presidencies ALL did that, but... no, I don't know of any recent ones either. It doesnt mean it cant happen, and considering how much pressure the media, let alone the party itself, is putting on Hillary to take him as VP if she wins, it's not unthinkable.Speaking of electibility, let's compound racist and sexist factions (although they probably overlap greatly) into one great hatefest.

partly because I personally wouldnt want her second in line ot the presidency when his chances of being assassinated are high enough as is, not just because she's ruthless, but because she has some fanatic supporters as well.Ruthless? If by "ruthless" you mean "allegedly underhanded".

Also, I like that your reasoning for Obama not picking Hillary is because you personally don't like her.

Of course they both want it. But Obama has no reason to run now while he's inexperienced unless he felt that he was neededYou fail to realize that reasoning works both ways, just replaced inexperienced with despised (for reasons unknown or unreasonable), the first woman with a serious shot, or a contemptable bitch who eats babies while fucking the devil in the anus.

[Rainbow Dash]

Ruthless? If by "ruthless" you mean "allegedly underhanded".
No, she's ruthless, and you're either arguing for the sake of it or just naive. She plays off fear way too much (3:00 AM commercial) for someone who seems to hate Bush's tactics and policies so much (terrorists are everywhere), she'll go back on her own word within the same speech if not sentence (see about half the debates), let alone issues from her past "experience" (NAFTA, Iraq, etc) and attacks him on things that he doesnt even do (give speeches without mentioning his policies) or things that someone that simply supports him says (see the past week of news.)

Also, I like that your reasoning for Obama not picking Hillary is because you personally don't like her.
And I like that you can make arguments based solely on my wording despite my message being clear.

You fail to realize that reasoning works both ways, just replaced inexperienced with despised (for reasons unknown or unreasonable), the first woman with a serious shot, or a contemptable bitch who eats babies while fucking the devil in the anus.
You act as though they were one and the same. If you paid any attention to the politics of the last 8 years, you'd know that she'd been planning this ever since Bill got out of office. That's why she moved to New York and ran for senate there rather than her home states. Obama only got into a position to declare his candidacy after the country was already going to shit.

You know what, just fuck it. I can't debate with you on this anymore, I honestly felt my IQ drop a few points trying to respond to that comment. I just spent the whole last thread giving you REASONABLE (gasp, Yvl can be reasonable? We'll have to rewrite the dictionaries!) explanations why Hillary isn't trustworthy. You're ignoring the facts, history, and other arguments, and now I'm certain that you're doing this just to stir things up like you usually do.

[Night]

No, she's ruthless, and you're either arguing for the sake of it or just naive. She plays off fear way too much (3:00 AM commercial) for someone who seems to hate Bush's tactics and policies so much (terrorists are everywhere), she'll go back on her own word within the same speech if not sentence (see about half the debates), let alone issues from her past "experience" (NAFTA, Iraq, etc) and attacks him on things that he doesnt even do (give speeches without mentioning his policies) or things that someone that simply supports him says (see the past week of news.)Playing off of fear is not ruthless, ruthless is threat of bodily harm, playing off of fear is an age-old tactic. Besides, that ad wasn't to say that there is something to fear, it's to say that she has the experience to deal with that situation if she has to.

Also, until recently she was winning most of the debates, so either you see something nobody else does, or you're exxagerating some here.

And how exactly is she responsible for NAFTA?

And I like that you can make arguments based solely on my wording despite my message being clear.
What message? All you've been able to say about Hillary Clinton is what a cunt she is... and let's not forget her responsibility for NAFTA.

You act as though they were one and the same. If you paid any attention to the politics of the last 8 years, you'd know that she'd been planning this ever since Bill got out of office. That's why she moved to New York and ran for senate there rather than her home states. Obama only got into a position to declare his candidacy after the country was already going to shit.What's so wrong with believing you're the right person for the job? You seem to have no problem believing that everything you think is correct.

You know what, just fuck it. I can't debate with you on this anymore, I honestly felt my IQ drop a few points trying to respond to that comment. I just spent the whole last thread giving you REASONABLE (gasp, Yvl can be reasonable? We'll have to rewrite the dictionaries!) explanations why Hillary isn't trustworthy. You're ignoring the facts, history, and other arguments, and now I'm certain that you're doing this just to stir things up like you usually do.lol.

Fuck the fact that you seem to be the only one left who believes what you're saying, it's me who's irrational.

[Chicken Little]

You act as though they were one and the same. If you paid any attention to the politics of the last 8 years, you'd know that she'd been planning this ever since Bill got out of office. That's why she moved to New York and ran for senate there rather than her home states. Obama only got into a position to declare his candidacy after the country was already going to shit.

While my vote means dick this does prop up Hillary's campaign for me, she gives enough of a toss about running the nation to the best of her ability that she planned her running for 8 years you can be assured that she wouldn't need "training wheels" if she was elected. Judging on merits that shits all over "well I served in Nam! Me big hero, me humanitarian, look at me kiss babies and be public!"

People might want someone capable of running the country as opposed to being friendly and personable, her attacks, while underhanded to some have been poignant in their messages and Obama has, perhaps, shown weakness in dealing with comments from his own. You really shouldn't let your bias cloud your viewpoints.

[Rainbow Dash]

While my vote means dick this does prop up Hillary's campaign for me, she gives enough of a toss about running the nation to the best of her ability that she planned her running for 8 years you can be assured that she wouldn't need "training wheels" if she was elected.
About running the nation, yes, but I dont see it as an indicator of her wanting to run it to the best of her ability.

People might want someone capable of running the country as opposed to being friendly and personable
I do see how others could take it this way (which clears up a whole lot), but from what I've seen of him he's a very brilliant man. Even without experience, I could see him learning quickly enough that the training wheels wouldnt be an issue. I should be making a thread later today illustrating this point more clearly.

Also, I saw this coming, but...

Playing off of fear is not ruthless, ruthless is threat of bodily harm, playing off of fear is an age-old tactic.
What, so she's going to threaten millions of americans with "Imma beat you up if you dun vote for me?" Playing off fear is as low as you can get with conventional campaigning, and those that have done so to this extent before have been immortalized as having gone too far (LBJ's famous ad.)


Besides, that ad wasn't to say that there is something to fear, it's to say that she has the experience to deal with that situation if she has to.
Again, you're naive. Does she have to come out and say "BE AFRAID" for you to understand?

And how exactly is she responsible for NAFTA?
WHERE
THE FUCK
DID I SAY THAT?

Fuck the fact that you seem to be the only one left who believes what you're saying, it's me who's irrational.
I respect Deity's arguments, but yours are nonsensical and uninformed. And how exactly is it an indicator of my rationality when I'm one of 3 people willing to debate this in depth?

[Night]

What, so she's going to threaten millions of americans with "Imma beat you up if you dun vote for me?" Playing off fear is as low as you can get with conventional campaigning, and those that have done so to this extent before have been immortalized as having gone too far (LBJ's famous ad.)How can you equate "I'm prepared for whatever happens whenever it happens" to "We will be lead to nuclear war"?

And I know, I know, you don't think that was the message of her advertisement, but almost the entirety of her campaign against Obama is his lack of experience, and her preparedness due to her experience. She's fought the Bush-Cheney fearmongering from day 1. I also know that you think she's a soulless bitch who wants to be president "just 'cuz" and not even try to run the country to the best of her ability, so going back on her entire campaign's rhetoric wouldn't matter much. Fact is, you're too biased to be convinced otherwise, so fuck it all.

WHERE
THE FUCK
DID I SAY THAT?
let alone issues from her past "experience" (NAFTA, Iraq, etc)Moving on...

I respect Deity's arguments, but yours are nonsensical and uninformed. And how exactly is it an indicator of my rationality when I'm one of 3 people willing to debate this in depth?Hmm...

Mal has been completely right this entire thread.So you respect Deity's arguments, he agrees with my arguments, but you don't respect my arguments?

I guess I'm too nonsensical and uninformed to understand the logic here.

[Rainbow Dash]

She's fought the Bush-Cheney fearmongering from day 1.
When? And how is this reflected in her campaign? By putting the idea in everyone's heads that your family's security will be compromised if Obama is president? By having her husband go to southern states and try to appeal to peoples' inner bigot? By denying that her campaign was involved in the misinformation about Obama's faith while never denouncing those who were? (I may be wrong on that last one, link though or it didn't happen.)

Yes I'm biased, there's nothing wrong with that if you can still carry out a sensible debate - where do people learn that it's a bad idea to express your opinion? You, on the other hand, have just been repeating the same thing again and again, without sanely responding to my posts, and just looking the other way rather than coming up with reasons why she IS trustworthy, and not a monster.

Moving on...
Yeah... where do you see me say she was responsible for NAFTA? I mentioned NAFTA, so that means I think she's responsible for it? She supported it, she didn't write, sign, or enforce it, and now she's saying she was against it from day one.

So you respect Deity's arguments, he agrees with my arguments, but you don't respect my arguments?
When your arguments are "My logic is foolproof because someone else agreed with me once in another thread," or something similar, of course I think you're a nonsensical troll that's worse than I was when I joined the site. You can respect someone and recognize that they make mistakes.

[Night]

And how is this reflected in her campaign?When she said on day 1 that she opposed Bush-Cheney fearmongering. What more can she do?

By putting the idea in everyone's heads that your family's security will be compromised if Obama is president?Once again, her argument against Obama has been that he doesn't have the experience to deal with crisis. She isn't saying "You'll die if you vote Obama". She's saying "Vote for me because I can handle things Obama can't". She says she'll be prepared on day one, and Obama won't, an opinion you support in some capacity:
Even without experience, I could see him learning quickly enough that the training wheels wouldnt be an issue
I know you'll disagree with this on principle again, but you can't honestly say that hasn't been her message since Iowa.

I still don't see what's so wrong with trying to convince people of what you believe to be true. Isn't that what we've been doing?

where do people learn that it's a bad idea to express your opinion?
You tell me. I haven't done anything other than expess my opinion, but now you're calling me a nonsensical misinformed troll.

and just looking the other way rather than coming up with reasons why she IS trustworthy, and not a monster.I never said she was trustworthy, I said that she's not a monster. You continue to portray her as some baby-eating bitch who would like to be president so that she can put a tax on testicles. She's a politician, nothing more, nothing less. She hasn't been caught doing anything that hasn't been done before.

She supported it, she didn't write, sign, or enforce it, and now she's saying she was against it from day one.*gasp* a politician changing stances?

When your arguments are "My logic is foolproof because someone else agreed with me once in another thread," or something similar, of course I think you're a nonsensical troll that's worse than I was when I joined the site. You can respect someone and recognize that they make mistakes.Well, since the arguments have not changed (You saying she'll destroy America because she's a bitch and me saying "prove it"), and you saying that you respect Deity's arguments regarding the same issue, and Deity's agreement with my argument on the same issue, I don't see how you could say my argument is now nonsensical and uninformed, unless you just don't like the way I word it, or you just don't like me (which is quite okay, I'll get over it... with years of therapy), in which case you can just say "It's wrong because Mal said it" and I'll go away.

And how am I a troll? Who made this personal in the first place? I disagreed with you that Hillary Clinton would like nothing more than to see Barack Obama destroyed in fire while she strokes her cock, that's all I've done.

[Sassafrass Raistimass]

Indeed, but they aren't stupid. It certainly isnt all of them, but there are some who would rather see their second choice make it into office than someone who stands against nearly everything they believe in. Every poll I've seen, as well as every (relatively) unbiased report I've heard puts Obama way ahead of Clinton in electibility.McCain hardly "stands against everything they believe in." He's the democrats' republican more than any other. It's all about opportunity cost, and the fact that it's McCain makes a delegate's personal choice just a bit more appealing.

And at any rate, my point was that Obama obviously looks more electable now, but that's because the Republican attack machine hasn't gotten to him yet. Primary polls on the general election have never been accurate.

I, for one, would have talked about the shit Putin's done if the topic ever arose. I hate that guy. Hillary wasnt really in the public eye aside from "woman in government" until now, when she's trying to rule the entire nation.Hillary's been in the public eye since Bill put her in charge of their failed health care summit in '93. She was the most well-known First Lady since Jackie Kennedy and the most politically active since Eleanor Roosevelt. People our age may have only started noticing her politically when she became a senator, but that's not her claim to fame.

So you're saying there's a chance...
Link (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Rk_vVaZxTno).

Basically "We lost the battle, but not the war. Viva la revolution!... buy my book."

He's not dropping out though, just admitting defeat.

I be wrong, but I don't think any candidate has ever selected their last opponent in their primaries to be their VP. VP is about much more than name recognition. They are there to serve the President like Gore did for Clinton and Dick does for Bush.Kennedy-Johnson, Reagan-Bush, and Kerry-Edwards immediately come to mind. While VP is more than name appeal, the primary runner-ups tend to be runner-ups because they win states that the nominee has no appeal in, which is definitely something to look for in a veep.

She plays off fear way too much (3:00 AM commercial)Christ. Playing off fear would be "The terrorists win if Obama does;" asking who should be answering the White House phone in a crisis (which, believe it or not, is actually the President's job, and it will happen) is a legitimate question.

Yeah... where do you see me say she was responsible for NAFTA? I mentioned NAFTA, so that means I think she's responsible for it? She supported it, she didn't write, sign, or enforce it, and now she's saying she was against it from day one.From what I can tell she was against it, though to be honest I personally doubt she cared all that much either way: trade has never exactly been one of her pet issues.

[The Deity]

When? And how is this reflected in her campaign? By putting the idea in everyone's heads that your family's security will be compromised if Obama is president? By having her husband go to southern states and try to appeal to peoples' inner bigot? By denying that her campaign was involved in the misinformation about Obama's faith while never denouncing those who were? (I may be wrong on that last one, link though or it didn't happen.)

Whoa.

Her campaign is that she has more experience and ability to deal with critical situations, not that Obama will fuck up necessarily.

Her husband went to southern states to appeal to bigots, eh? If anything I would think Bill would have more appeal with African Americans, rather than those who hate them.

So wait... We have to prove that she wasn't involved in a smear campaign. That is essentially impossible to prove that she wasn't involved; however, it is possible to prove that she was involved.

Right, it is Mal who is nonsensical. You're always right until proven wrong even though your admittedly biased in this argument.

Yes I'm biased, there's nothing wrong with that if you can still carry out a sensible debate - where do people learn that it's a bad idea to express your opinion?

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. We all have opinions and we're all voicing them. Letting it affect your judgment and blinding you to its faults is when a bias comes in. Which is not a good thing.


You, on the other hand, have just been repeating the same thing again and again, without sanely responding to my posts, and just looking the other way rather than coming up with reasons why she IS trustworthy, and not a monster.

You have been repeating the same crap just as much, which causes him to spew the same crap. His responses are actually clever and intellectual, though I don't expect you to think that.

Again though you're being quite ridiculous with your demands. Its possible to prove someone is dishonest, but essentially impossible to prove they are honest.

[Rainbow Dash]

Her campaign is that she has more experience and ability to deal with critical situations,
That was her initial message that made her lose in Iowa. She changed her tactics since then to be either more aggressive, sensitive, or cooperative, depending on what face her advisers want her to wear.

Her husband went to southern states to appeal to bigots, eh? If anything I would think Bill would have more appeal with African Americans, rather than those who hate them.I didnt say that. I said he tried to appeal to their inner bigots, subtly. It backfired though. This taken almost verbatim from CNN.

You have been repeating the same crap just as much, which causes him to spew the same crap.
It's the other way around. He makes a statement (she's not as bad as you think), I respond (Here's why she's bad), he makes the same statement (but she's not as bad as you think), I make the same response.

His responses are actually clever and intellectual, though I don't expect you to think that.
Could you point out his better quotes? All I'm seeing are the kinds of arguments that made me unpopular with you to begin with, and now you're on his side? Are you sure you're not siding against me rather than siding with him?

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion. We all have opinions and we're all voicing them. Letting it affect your judgment and blinding you to its faults is when a bias comes in. Which is not a good thing.

I may have a different definiton of bias than you. I've always seen it as "leaning strongly to one side," or "influenced powerfully by life experiences."

Again though you're being quite ridiculous with your demands. Its possible to prove someone is dishonest, but essentially impossible to prove they are honest.
That's true, to an extent - if the facts are known by all parties, you cant ask someone else to prove someone's honesty, its would be up to her to prove it. But I'm asking more for things I've overlooked, like straight talking and transparency, or something the media overlooked. The best way to prove yourself to be honest is to not lie and exaggerate, and those seem to me like major parts of her character.

I should know better, but, what the hell:

And at any rate, my point was that Obama obviously looks more electable now, but that's because the Republican attack machine hasn't gotten to him yet.
That's something I think will turn out interestingly. This is the first election I've followed to this extent, so I havent seen this attack machine in depth, but is it really that much more ruthless than Clinton? She's been throwing everything she can find at him, and she certainly has the connections to dig into his past as much as possible. But more importantly, is the attack machine really suited to attack someone like him? Hillary has a very clear target placed on her, but Obama's shown that most attacks don't work on him.

[The Deity]

I didnt say that. I said he tried to appeal to their inner bigots, subtly. It backfired though. This taken almost verbatim from CNN.

I have a sneaky feeling CNN implied this much more than outright claimed it as you have. Perhaps even implied it incredibly lightly and you ran with it.


It's the other way around. He makes a statement (she's not as bad as you think), I respond (Here's why she's bad), he makes the same statement (but she's not as bad as you think), I make the same response.

From what I've gotten, its gone.

You: Hilary is a bitch who has no right to run the country because she disagrees with Obama. Also, just because a public picture Obama has reemerged, it must be Hilary's fault because she's the only person that dislikes Obama enough to do so.

Mal (or me): Well there really is no proof that she has and there's little to gain from it. She's running a campaign similar to how every other candidate has. You can't baselessly assume she did it.

You: Prove that she didn't. She's been doing things like this the entire time. If you're not aware you're either not informed or naive. (which is a true paraphrase of a statement you gave)


Could you point out his better quotes?

If you insist. Here are some of my favorite nuggets. My favorite is in bold. Kudos Mal:


Let's play a little game I like to call "hide the facts". It's the game where you come up with evidence to substantiate your claim.

And not only have I been following the race (since before Obama announced his candidacy), but I've been watching more than one news network as well, even Fox.


Are you really asking me why I don't just agree with what other people say?

(in response to some rather silly links you gave to show proof) This was my fault. I should have mentioned that your references should be more than theory and sensationalism. How about actual news sources? And you people have the nerve to call Fox bullshit reporting.

We're debating whether or not she deliberately disseminated misleading photographs, actually.



Ruthless? If by "ruthless" you mean "allegedly underhanded".


Also, I like that your reasoning for Obama not picking Hillary is because you personally don't like her.

You fail to realize that reasoning works both ways, just replaced inexperienced with despised (for reasons unknown or unreasonable), the first woman with a serious shot, or a contemptable bitch who eats babies while fucking the devil in the anus.

Playing off of fear is not ruthless, ruthless is threat of bodily harm, playing off of fear is an age-old tactic. Besides, that ad wasn't to say that there is something to fear, it's to say that she has the experience to deal with that situation if she has to.

Also, until recently she was winning most of the debates, so either you see something nobody else does, or you're exxagerating some here.


What's so wrong with believing you're the right person for the job? You seem to have no problem believing that everything you think is correct.

Fuck the fact that you seem to be the only one left who believes what you're saying, it's me who's irrational.


Once again, her argument against Obama has been that he doesn't have the experience to deal with crisis. She isn't saying "You'll die if you vote Obama". She's saying "Vote for me because I can handle things Obama can't". She says she'll be prepared on day one, and Obama won't, an opinion you support in some capacity:


I still don't see what's so wrong with trying to convince people of what you believe to be true. Isn't that what we've been doing?


You tell me. I haven't done anything other than expess my opinion, but now you're calling me a nonsensical misinformed troll.

I never said she was trustworthy, I said that she's not a monster. You continue to portray her as some baby-eating bitch who would like to be president so that she can put a tax on testicles. She's a politician, nothing more, nothing less. She hasn't been caught doing anything that hasn't been done before.



All I'm seeing are the kinds of arguments that made me unpopular with you to begin with, and now you're on his side?

The reason you became unpopular with me in the first place is because of similar arguments you're making now. You're right because its your opinion. The burden of proof is never on you. Even though it is about impossible for the other side to prove their stance with evidence and possible for yours.

His arguments, on the other hand, encorperate a nice blend of rational "let's not go overboard and make assumptions," with sarcastic humor. Though I suppose in your book that makes him a troll.


Are you sure you're not siding against me rather than siding with him?

I questioned your side from the start before an argument between the two of you occurred. Mal and I are arguing the exact same point. Why the hell would I not side with him? As a result it's kind of ridiculous to respect my case but not his.

I may have a different definiton of bias than you. I've always seen it as "leaning strongly to one side," or "influenced powerfully by life experiences."

You admit this is the first election you've really followed, but you have the life experience to know that Hilary is an underhanded bitch being cut-throat with Obama and not capable of being President.


The best way to prove yourself to be honest is to not lie and exaggerate, and those seem to me like major parts of her character.

And its real easy to find out when people lie, but this seems to be based on subjection.

[Rainbow Dash]

Also, just because a public picture Obama has reemerged, it must be Hilary's fault because she's the only person that dislikes Obama enough to do so.
I dont think she did that anymore, if that changes anything, though I wish she would have actually denounced it.

His arguments, on the other hand, encorperate a nice blend of rational "let's not go overboard and make assumptions," with sarcastic humor. Though I suppose in your book that makes him a troll.
I actually did accuse him of trolling via PM, and he assured me he wasnt. It cleared up alot as well.

You admit this is the first election you've really followed, but you have the life experience to know that Hilary is an underhanded bitch being cut-throat with Obama and not capable of being President.
My whole family is political. My mother gets really upset over how Clinton is so ruthless, and says that she remembers exactly when politics went to shit (though not in those words.) My dad is torn between McCain and Obama, but when the topic comes up he admits that Clinton does too much behind the scenes. They're both over 60, btw.

I've also never said that she isnt capable of being president. I just think that she would do only harm to America - not as much as the last president, but still alot more than the other two would.

The reason you became unpopular with me in the first place is because of similar arguments you're making now. You're right because its your opinion. The burden of proof is never on you.
What? I've presented my facts, only to be met with misquotes and assumptions. What proof do you want specifically?

[The Deity]

What? I've presented my facts, only to be met with misquotes and assumptions. What proof do you want specifically?

What facts? Obama propaganda websites?

[Rainbow Dash]

You dont seem to believe the whole racism thing (to clarify though, its her husband's use of racism that bothered me, I'm not calling her racist), despite me having cited a major news network for that, but the facts that she's a hypocrite, exaggerates on his every mistake, hasnt decried those who are calling him a Muslim, and attempts to push the fact that she's allegedly a woman as a major reason to vote for her are still on the table.

If I wanted to use his "propaganda" I'd use some of his campaign's e-mails word for word here (which is were I get the smallest minority of my information, most of it is from CNN, NBC, or the occasional Time Magazine.) But again, I prefer to state my own opinions, not to recite the unfiltered rhetoric that comes directly from his campaign.

I'm not the kid I used to be that would fight to the death opinions I have no legitimate sources for.

[The Deity]

You dont seem to believe the whole racism thing (to clarify though, its her husband's use of racism that bothered me, I'm not calling her racist), despite me having cited a major news network for that

All you said was you took it "almost verbatim from CNN." Furthermore, even if an analyst said as much, it doesn't make it true. Just like a Fox analyst saying the VT killer only did so because he was a democrat does not make it true.

but the facts that she's a hypocrite, exaggerates on his every mistake,

Those are opinions. Not facts. You've shown no proof she's a hypocrite, but instead you've simply said its a fact. Her "exaggeration" certainly is opinion and one I happen to disagree with.



hasnt decried those who are calling him a Muslim,

That's not something she has to do. She has claimed though that there is no reason to believe he is a Muslim, which is all she's really required to do.


and attempts to push the fact that she's allegedly a woman as a major reason to vote for her are still on the table.

Heh. Allegedly a woman. Real cute. Her campaign is on her experience, not her being a woman. This is more media perception than it is her campaign. I will say though its rather ridiculous to think that Obama is not a similar support from African Americans that Hilary gets from women for no other reason than their race or "perceived gender."


But again, I prefer to state my own opinions, not to recite the unfiltered rhetoric that comes directly from his campaign.

Yet your opinion is good enough to always be right, unless he have sources proving things next to impossible to prove.


I'm not the kid I used to be that would fight to the death opinions I have no legitimate sources for.

Yes you've changed so much. Its like changing from Navy to Blue.

[Rainbow Dash]

All you said was you took it "almost verbatim from CNN." Furthermore, even if an analyst said as much, it doesn't make it true.
This was a member of their team, with various other political analysts there that didnt call him out on it. It was something that was debated before, and that they had come to the same conclusion on. I cant remember Clinton's exact phrase, but it did seem racist if you looked into it. And this certainly wasnt some nutjob they pulled off the streets that happened to be wearing a suit.

That's not something she has to do. She has claimed though that there is no reason to believe he is a Muslim, which is all she's really required to do.
It's certainly something that would make her appear more honest. Right now I'm waiting for her to decry the congressman who claimed that the terrorists would win if a man named Hussien were elected to president, which is really as childish as you can get. If she does this then I'll concede the whole sincerity issue here.

Her campaign is on her experience, not her being a woman.
Bullshit. Yes her campaign is about experience, but that doesn't mean that she isn't trying to rally female support just because she's a woman. This is also an opinion I formed entirely on my own after listening to her speeches and seeing some of her ads - its not something I got from the media.

its rather ridiculous to think that Obama is not a similar support from African Americans that Hilary gets from women for no other reason than their race or "perceived gender."

I really dont approve of either side voting based on gender or race. However, Obama hasnt even mentioned his race outside of the idea that he's proof of America's diversity, while Clinton has incorporated her encounters with people who came up to her crying tears of joy at the fact that a woman is running into speeches.

You've shown no proof she's a hypocrite, but instead you've simply said its a fact.
Yes I have, and I'll say it again. Her most famous example of this is her flip-flopping on the issue of immigrant driver licenses in one of the first debates within the very same sentence. Then in a more recent debate, she continued slamming him based on him lifting "whole passages" (when it was just a couple lines, there's evidence for the exaggeration part) from others, only to use lines from Bill Clinton and John Edwards in the same manner later in the debate.

I personally believe when there's this much evidence supporting an opinion without a single shred of evidence suggesting otherwise, it does become fact. This is my opinion, though - not fact.

Yet your opinion is good enough to always be right, unless he have sources proving things next to impossible to prove.
Rather than bitching about how there is no evidence that she's a good person, why not go look for legislation she has fought tooth and nail for that would benefit mankind rather than her or a corporation of some sort? If there is no evidence, then perhaps I am, in fact, right.

I could even prove Obama's honesty if I remembered his biography a bit more. Something about him turning away from a lofty position of the law for something... I cant quite remember.

Yes you've changed so much. Its like changing from Navy to Blue.
Indeed. Blue is an awesome color, navy, not so much. But you can't actually expect someone to change their entire outlook with anything less than a psychological trauma resulting in fugue or dissociative identity disorder; thats unrealistic if not a bit conceited. Even if I were to be nearly entirely white someday, there would still be some remains of blue, because that's who I am.

[The Deity]

This was a member of their team, with various other political analysts there that didnt call him out on it. It was something that was debated before, and that they had come to the same conclusion on. I cant remember Clinton's exact phrase, but it did seem racist if you looked into it. And this certainly wasnt some nutjob they pulled off the streets that happened to be wearing a suit.

But that doesn't make it fact. I find the entire notion to be ludacriss. Yeah Clinton was rounding up the racist democrats--because there are just so many of those--to vote for a woman. Something many racists wouldn't do either.

It's certainly something that would make her appear more honest. Right now I'm waiting for her to decry the congressman who claimed that the terrorists would win if a man named Hussien were elected to president, which is really as childish as you can get. If she does this then I'll concede the whole sincerity issue here.

I can't find anything on the web even relating to that congressman's statement let alone Clinton's interpretation of it. Not everything someone stupid says is brought to the attention of everyone.


Bullshit. Yes her campaign is about experience, but that doesn't mean that she isn't trying to rally female support just because she's a woman. This is also an opinion I formed entirely on my own after listening to her speeches and seeing some of her ads - its not something I got from the media.

I won't claim to have listened to Clinton's campaign at great length, because well I think you know why. But from what I've heard, I don't find this to be the case at all.

Yes I have, and I'll say it again. Her most famous example of this is her flip-flopping on the issue of immigrant driver licenses in one of the first debates within the very same sentence.

Both candidates have had trouble answering that question and with good reason. It is a very difficult question for a democrat running for office to answer. I recall Obama at one point saying he couldn't answer while Clinton wanted to support her Senator.

Text follows:

"I just have to correct the record for one second, because, obviously, we do agree about the need to have comprehensive immigration reform, and if I recall, about a week after I said that I would try to support my governor, although I didn't agree with it personally, you were asked the same question and could not answer it. So, this is a difficult issue, and both of us have to recognize that it is not something that we easily come to because we share a lot of the same values. We want to -- we want to be fair to people, we want to respect the dignity of every human being -- every person who is here. But we are trying to work our way through to get to where we need to be, and that is to have a united Democratic party, with fair-minded Republicans who will join us, to fix this broken immigration system."


Then in a more recent debate, she continued slamming him based on him lifting "whole passages" (when it was just a couple lines, there's evidence for the exaggeration part) from others, only to use lines from Bill Clinton and John Edwards in the same manner later in the debate.

I've read through about five different coverages of the Texas University debate (which I can only assume is the one you mean), and none of them mention Clinton using other speeches in hers. I really do like the "change you can Xerox" line though.


Rather than bitching about how there is no evidence that she's a good person, why not go look for legislation she has fought tooth and nail for that would benefit mankind rather than her or a corporation of some sort? If there is no evidence, then perhaps I am, in fact, right.

Christ. Want me to look over her charity records while I'm at it? I will say though, most legislation that would really benefit mankind don't have to be fought tooth and nail over.


I could even prove Obama's honesty if I remembered his biography a bit more. Something about him turning away from a lofty position of the law for something... I cant quite remember.


How does that make him honest? It just shows he didn't want to be a judge. Or whatever the position was.

Indeed. Blue is an awesome color, navy, not so much. But you can't actually expect someone to change their entire outlook with anything less than a psychological trauma resulting in fugue or dissociative identity disorder; thats unrealistic if not a bit conceited.

Do we really want to bark up this tree?

[Rainbow Dash]

I won't claim to have listened to Clinton's campaign at great length, because well I think you know why. But from what I've heard, I don't find this to be the case at all.
I'd look for the commercials and speeches, but the last time I tried watching anything of hers on youtube was on a dare from 4chan regarding a particuarly bad video of hers - I tied for the longest, watching 15 seconds of the 5 minute video (when the singing started.) I will not be subjected to that horror again.

I've read through about five different coverages of the Texas University debate (which I can only assume is the one you mean), and none of them mention Clinton using other speeches in hers. I really do like the "change you can Xerox" line though.

Yes, that's the one. But it was all over CNN - the statement at the end that made her supposedly win the debate was a combination of the "I've taken alot of hits" speech from Bill and somethign else from Edwards that I cant recall. CNN played her statements, then played the original lines - there really was no question about it. Also, although it was kinda witty, the audience actually booed her for that Xerox quote - it was out of line or just cheesy, depending who you talk to.

How does that make him honest? It just shows he didn't want to be a judge. Or whatever the position was.
It was because he wanted to work for the people or something, but forget it, I can't really push this point without the proper knowledge.

Do we really want to bark up this tree?
Your taste in trees sucks.