It's officially ON!..Shillary-Osama Coup de tat

[ChargerMike]

It's always been "off limits" to dare lob anything but a beachball Hillary's way. Alas, one of her biggest contributors has "spun her cap" with a high hard one.
It began with a column in The New York Times by Maureen Dowd, in which Mr. Geffen said the Clintons lie "with such ease, it's troubling" and that the Clinton political operation "is going to be very unpleasant and unattractive and effective." Mr. Geffen called Mr. Clinton a "reckless guy" who had not changed in the last six years, and suggested that Mrs. Clinton was too scripted.

Shillarys attack dogs were quick to try and douse the growing inferno:

In a statement it fired off at 9:46 a.m., the Clinton campaign called on Mr. Obama to sever his ties to Mr. Geffen and return the portion of the $1.3 million that Mr. Geffen helped raise on Tuesday at a reception in Beverly Hills.


"While Senator Obama was denouncing slash-and-burn politics yesterday, his campaign's finance chair was viciously and personally attacking Senator Clinton and her husband," Howard Wolfson, the Clinton campaign communications director, said in a statement. Bill Burton, a spokesman for Mr. Obama, responded with a statement less than an hour and a half later, saying it was "ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen" when he was "raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln Bedroom."...how dare he!

Looks like the Clinton's have finally run into someone who has broken through the protective bubble surrounding them, and alas, it's within their own party....WHO KNEW?

[BSmack]

Looks like the Clinton's have finally run into someone who has broken through the protective bubble surrounding them, and alas, it's within their own party....WHO KNEW?

Well, for starters I did.

Or have you missed my 1,000 or so posts about how Hillary will never be the nominee?

[ChargerMike]

Looks like the Clinton's have finally run into someone who has broken through the protective bubble surrounding them, and alas, it's within their own party....WHO KNEW?

Well, for starters I did.

Or have you missed my 1,000 or so posts about how Hillary will never be the nominee?

...no, your predictions are well documented....however, she is indeed a candidate and the early favorite to nab the nomination! We can only hope to God you're right Bri.

[Mister Bushice]

No way they should nominate her. They can't possibly think any republican would vote for her as pres, would they? Talk about a nation divided. It would be worse than it is with Bush.

[BSmack]

Looks like the Clinton's have finally run into someone who has broken through the protective bubble surrounding them, and alas, it's within their own party....WHO KNEW?

Well, for starters I did.

Or have you missed my 1,000 or so posts about how Hillary will never be the nominee?

...no, your predictions are well documented....however, she is indeed a candidate and the early favorite to nab the nomination! We can only hope to God you're right Bri.

Are you kidding me? You should be on your knees praying for Hillary to get nominated. Unless you WANT a Democrat to win in '08.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Looks like the Clinton's have finally run into someone who has broken through the protective bubble surrounding them, and alas, it's within their own party....WHO KNEW?

Well, for starters I did.

Or have you missed my 1,000 or so posts about how Hillary will never be the nominee?

I'd like to say I agree with you, Bri. But there's a nagging part of me that says you're wrong. I suppose two factors are involved here. One, I have a horrible track record of picking the Democratic Presidential nominee. My endorsement is usually the kiss of death. '04 was pretty much the first time I ever got it right in a contested field.

For the record, my choice for '08 is Edwards.

Second reason, btw, is that I'm basically a pessimist. The Democrats have a penchant for shooting themselves in the foot at the worst possible moment, and I can see that happening in '08.

There's also the issue of the media trying to select the Democratic nominee before a single meaningful vote is cast. They weren't successful in doing that in '04, but they did succeed in '00. They've already selected Hillary this go-round.

...no, your predictions are well documented....however, she is indeed a candidate and the early favorite to nab the nomination! We can only hope to God you're right Bri.

Are you kidding me? You should be on your knees praying for Hillary to get nominated. Unless you WANT a Democrat to win in '08.

Yep. If I were on the other side of the aisle, I'd be doing everything in my power to get Hillary the Democratic nomination. Notice that the Republican talking heads are all playing nice with her, for now.

The '08 election is the Democrats' to lose unless they do something monumentally stupid. I suppose there are other ways to accomplish that objective, but nominating Hillary has to be the most obvious. Moreover, any Presidential campaign involving Hillary would ensure that the most significant campaign issue would be the Clintons' marriage, not any of the pressing issues affecting this country.

As a Presidential nominee, Hillary is unelectable. Period.

[Mister Bushice]

The '08 election is the Democrats' to lose unless they do something monumentally stupid.

I think they need a viable candidate first. Edwards is probably the closest thing they have at this point to someone who might be electable.

As a Presidential nominee, Hillary is unelectable. Period.

Enough said.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Edwards is probably the closest thing they have at this point to someone who might be electable.

He's a proven loser as well as a total jagoff.

So was Reagan.

[ChargerMike]

Edwards is probably the closest thing they have at this point to someone who might be electable.

He's a proven loser as well as a total jagoff.

So was Reagan.

concur, this guy is a first class jagoff who gets handed his ass every time he makes the mistake of debating anyone.

[Mister Bushice]

Edwards is probably the closest thing they have at this point to someone who might be electable.

He's a proven loser as well as a total jagoff.

I'm not debating that. I still say he's probably the closest electable turd they have right now.

[PSUFAN]

I didn't really think much of Obama until he cracked on Cheney today. Rack him!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070224/ap_ ... /obama2008

[Truman]

I didn't really think much of Obama until he cracked on Cheney today. Rack him!

Er... For what?

Obama... said British Prime MinisterBritish Prime Minister Tony Blair's decision this week to withdraw 1,600 troops is a recognition that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily.

Is that right. Obama just pissed down your leg and told you it's raining.

Mr Blair said that the pull-out of troops had been made possible by the successful conclusion of Operation Sinbad, which has seen UK and Iraqi forces going through Basra district by district removing insurgent hotspots and supporting reconstruction. This meant that Iraqi authorities were now able to take over responsibility for security, he said.

http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/politi ... 291300.ece

I thought that was the point: Fix the problem and get the fuck out. I guess I must've missed the part where Blair "recognized that Iraq's problems can't be solved militarily."

"Now if Tony Blair can understand that, then why can't George Bush and Dick Cheney understand that?" Obama asked thousands of supporters who gathered in the rain to hear him. "In fact, Dick Cheney said this is all part of the plan (and) it was a good thing that Tony Blair was withdrawing, even as the administration is preparing to put 20,000 more of our young men and women in.

Aw, well, now, why let something like the truth get in the way of some perfectly good political smack (s'up Bushie :wink:), 'specially when you're tryin' to raise fist-fulls of Lincolns and Hamiltons at a political pep rally?

Still, somebody might wanna mix in a memo to Osama that Basra ain't Baghdad. Thought the Left was tired of "clueless" administrations....

[BSmack]

Still, somebody might wanna mix in a memo to Osama that Basra ain't Baghdad. Thought the Left was tired of "clueless" administrations....

Figures that the same tards who thought Iraq had anything at all to do with 9-11 would be the first to start conflating OBAMA with OSAMA.

How fuckin original guys. Are you going to call him a big doody head too?

BTW: If things are so flipping great in Basra, why don't the Brits send those guys to Baghdad to help our guys?

Don't strain anything trying to answer that.

[Truman]

Figures that the same tards who thought Iraq had anything at all to do with 9-11 would be the first to start conflating OBAMA with OSAMA.

How fuckin original guys. Are you going to call him a big doody head too?

As opposed to ad nauseaum references to "Chimpy"? The Smack Pantheon honorarium for coining that one is in the mail, B.

Nope. Just pointing out the obvious that your boy is gonna have a serious hill to climb in the name-game with this country's Great Unwashed that DO manage to vote.

BTW: If things are so flipping great in Basra, why don't the Brits send those guys to Baghdad to help our guys?

Fascinating. Symbolic gestures DO mean a lot to you, don't they, B? Now just how do you propose that the 35,000 Americans already stationed in Baghdad utilize a whopping additional 1,500 British troops? Traffic control? IED clearing? Chow-hall cleaning? I mean, after the usual necessary indoctrination period and junk.

Or could maybe some of 'em be needed to augment the 1,000 troops the Brits are sending to Afghanistan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6388717.stm

Don't strain anything trying to answer that.

Too late. I split my side laughing at your last post.

[BSmack]

As opposed to ad nauseaum references to "Chimpy"? The Smack Pantheon honorarium for coining that one is in the mail, B.

Yea, but I thought one of YOUR boy's goals was to "change the tone" of political debate? How's he supposed to do that when he's got tards like you mucking up the landscape completely oblivious to your own party platform?

Nope. Just pointing out the obvious that your boy is gonna have a serious hill to climb in the name-game with this country's Great Unwashed that DO manage to vote.

Why, because your boys in the GOP echo chamber are going to try to pin the "Osama" label on him? Just because you choose to mimic them doesn't mean I won't call you a moron for doing so.

BTW: Obama isn't my "boy". I'm still holding out hope for Bill Richardson.

Fascinating. Symbolic gestures DO mean a lot to you, don't they, B? Now just how do you propose that the 35,000 Americans already stationed in Baghdad utilize a whopping additional 1,500 British troops? Traffic control? IED clearing? Chow-hall cleaning? I mean, after the usual necessary indoctrination period and junk.

Suppressing the enemy would be a good start. Maybe some border interdiction. In short, whatever is necessary.

Or could maybe some of 'em be needed to augment the 1,000 troops the Brits are sending to Afghanistan?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/6388717.stm

So a nation of 60 million cannot handle deploying more than 12,000 troops to two conflicts???

Keep flailing away there Truman.

[Truman]

As opposed to ad nauseaum references to "Chimpy"? The Smack Pantheon honorarium for coining that one is in the mail, B.

Yea, but I thought one of YOUR boy's goals was to "change the tone" of political debate? How's he supposed to do that when he's got tards like you mucking up the landscape completely oblivious to your own party platform?

[mvscal]What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking idiot?[/mvscal]

Go burn your scarecrows elsewhere, B.

Nope. Just pointing out the obvious that your boy is gonna have a serious hill to climb in the name-game with this country's Great Unwashed that DO manage to vote.

Why, because your boys in the GOP echo chamber are going to try to pin the "Osama" label on him? Just because you choose to mimic them doesn't mean I won't call you a moron for doing so.

Yeah, rhyming one rag-head name with another on a Smack Board is a tremendous leap. God bless the GOP.

BTW: Obama isn't my "boy". I'm still holding out hope for Bill Richardson.

Well, I was leaning Rudy before you had him indicted and impeached. Guess I'll just content myself to let the whole fucking process play out for the next two fucking years before casting my vote....

Fascinating. Symbolic gestures DO mean a lot to you, don't they, B? Now just how do you propose that the 35,000 Americans already stationed in Baghdad utilize a whopping additional 1,500 British troops? Traffic control? IED clearing? Chow-hall cleaning? I mean, after the usual necessary indoctrination period and junk.

Suppressing the enemy would be a good start. Maybe some border interdiction. In short, whatever is necessary.

"Go get 'em, Tommies! We'll be right behind you if you need us!"

Sin,

America

Stole my thunder, B. Why, that border interdiction thingie has worked wonders ever since the U.S. deployed an additional 1,500 CBP agents to patrol its peaceful border with Meh-he-co...

Sigh. I suppose reporting for duty in Afghanistan would be beyond the pale of "whatever is necessary".

So a nation of 60 million cannot handle deploying more than 12,000 troops to two conflicts???

Apparently. Take it up with Nish. The Brits are fags. The aging, gay, be-spectacled knight out front shoulda told you.

Keep flailing away there Truman.

Masochist. Dern, B, haven't you had enough already?!

[BSmack]

[mvscal]What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking idiot?[/mvscal]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transc ... /bush.html

Any more stupid questions?

But hey, feel free to flaunt your ignorance. Like our fellow from the U&L likes to say...

Tears Jerry. Tears.

Yeah, rhyming one rag-head name with another on a Smack Board is a tremendous leap. God bless the GOP.

And you wonder why people associate Republicans with bigotry? Rag head? Have some fucking balls and break out with the "Sand mvscal" blast.

Well, I was leaning Rudy before you had him indicted and impeached. Guess I'll just content myself to let the whole fucking process play out for the next two fucking years before casting my vote....

While you still have your pants around your ankles thinking about Rudy's Inauguration, just remember the name Bernard Kerik. And don't forget I told you so.

Stole my thunder, B. Why, that border interdiction thingie has worked wonders ever since the U.S. deployed an additional 1,500 CBP agents to patrol its peaceful border with Meh-he-co...

Apples and fucking bowling balls. And you know that.

Sigh. I suppose reporting for duty in Afghanistan would be beyond the pale of "whatever is necessary".

It is obvious that force requirements in both theaters are increasing. Yet Britan's total force allotment is DECREASING. What about that is beyond your comprehension?

[PSUFAN]

Rudy has absolutely no chance - unless he runs as a Dem. GOP candidates have to court the radical right in order to get nominated...and Rudy will fail there.

Should be entertaining to watch, though

[RadioFan]

Well, I was leaning Rudy

Same here. I'm sure there'll be about 1,346 threads about the candidates before next year's actual elections, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Shillery.

[Terry in Crapchester]

Edwards is probably the closest thing they have at this point to someone who might be electable.

He's a proven loser as well as a total jagoff.

So was Reagan.

Marty makes a good point. As recently as after securing the Republican nomination in 1980, many in his own party still viewed Reagan as a far-right ideologue who was too old to win the Presidency. And Reagan made no less than three attempts at the Presidency before he was even able to win his party's nomination.

As for Edwards, with the right team he could come across as Bill Clinton sans personal baggage. Like Clinton, he's a personable, articulate, youngish, intelligent Southerner who is capable of appealing to both the moderate and liberal wings of his party. Certainly, at this point, among the serious contenders in both parties he has the fewest glaring negatives in a general election, by far.

And while the election is over 1 1/2 years away, I wouldn't be counting my chickens right now if I were a Republican. Their base, at least for the time being, appears demoralized. And whoever their nominee is, he'll have to run away from Bush's record without running away from Bush's policies, i.e., troop surge. That will be a neat balancing trick, to say the least.

[BSmack]

Well, I was leaning Rudy

Same here. I'm sure there'll be about 1,346 threads about the candidates before next year's actual elections, but I'd vote for him in a heartbeat over Shillery.

Why? You want a continuation of Bush's policies? How is Rudy going to be different from Bush?

[RadioFan]

Why? You want a continuation of Bush's policies? How is Rudy going to be different from Bush?

He's a lot more moderate on social issues. Not sure about his economic philosophy.

The point of my comment was I'm not voting for H.C., barring the unlikely event someone like Sam Brownshirt wins the GOP nomination ... and even in that unlikely scenario, it would be a tossup for me because I can't stand Clinton -- not because of her stance on policies -- I simply do not trust her.

[BSmack]

He's a lot more moderate on social issues. Not sure about his economic philosophy.

Which is what should be his downfall with the far right of the GOP. But let's presume for a second that Rudy does manage to pass muster with the folks who think "the jury is still out of evolution" and he wins the nomination? Then what? How much would you trust Rudy then?

The point of my comment was I'm not voting for H.C., barring the unlikely event someone like Sam Brownshirt wins the GOP nomination ... and even in that unlikely scenario, it would be a tossup for me because I can't stand Clinton -- not because of her stance on policies -- I simply do not trust her.

Are we talking about personal trust or do you not trust her decision making ability?

[Tom In VA]

There's just something about a person deriding a "decade of greed", while she spent that decade being greedy.

[RadioFan]

Bri, for me it's personal trust. I simply see her as being one of the worst of the worst in pandering, scumbag politicians, and I think her decision-making would be more than the norm influenced by politics rather than on merit. Also, her philosophy regarding the good of "everybody" vs. that of the individual goes too far, imo.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

-- I simply do not trust her.

Are we talking about personal trust or do you not trust her decision making ability?

Holy fuck. Were you born yesterday?

[BSmack]

-- I simply do not trust her.

Are we talking about personal trust or do you not trust her decision making ability?

Holy fuck. Were you born yesterday?

Sorry, I'm not a communist. Please elaborate?

[Tom In VA]

I thought marty was an anarchist and the Phibes troll was the communist.

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

I thought marty was an anarchist and the Phibes troll was the communist.

Nice.

And all this time, I thought you weren't paying attention.

P.S. ~ I denounce Phibes' nomenklatura. He is haughty and "Russian looking".

[Shlomart Ben Yisrael]

Sorry, I'm not a communist. Please elaborate?

Vince Foster's current state of room temperature should tell you everything you need to know.

[Truman]

[mvscal]What the fuck are you talking about, you fucking idiot?[/mvscal]

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2000/transc ... /bush.html

Any more stupid questions?

Wow! A seven-year-old, pre-9/11 link!

Devastating!

Simply devastating!

Wonder what ol’ FDR or even Truman :wink: would have had to say about the Spirit of Cooperation? Never mind a Hillary link bitching about the "politics of personal discussion."

As to your question…

Nope.

Since you've already cornered the market on stupid questions, B, I’ll hit you with the obvious:

Do you always drop a straw man into a debate in which you’re hemorrhaging badly in a futile attempt to spin the discussion?

Just curious….

But hey, feel free to flaunt your ignorance. Like our fellow from the U&L likes to say...

Tears Jerry. Tears.

Naw, B, it’s a helluva lot more fun making sport of yours.

Jerry’s Kids, B. Jerry’s…

Yeah, rhyming one rag-head name with another on a Smack Board is a tremendous leap. God bless the GOP.

And you wonder why people associate Republicans with bigotry? Rag head? Have some fucking balls and break out with the "Sand mvscal" blast.

I give up, B… Liberal media coverage?

BTW, the folks that make their living flying jets into buildings in my country and lopping off American's heads on Al Gore’s Internet are beneath contempt. Bigotry? Kindly go fuck yourself, Brian.

BTW, wanna know the difference between Obama and Osama?

One seeks an unconditional American surrender in the Middle East…

…And the other lives in a cave.

But we digress….

Well, I was leaning Rudy before you had him indicted and impeached. Guess I'll just content myself to let the whole fucking process play out for the next two fucking years before casting my vote....

While you still have your pants around your ankles thinking about Rudy's Inauguration, just remember the name Bernard Kerik. And don't forget I told you so.

Naw, the only time the pants go ‘round the ankles is when I settle in to take a healthy BSmack. Clearly, the definition of was defeats you.

Stole my thunder, B. Why, that border interdiction thingie has worked wonders ever since the U.S. deployed an additional 1,500 CBP agents to patrol its peaceful border with Meh-he-co...

Apples and fucking bowling balls. And you know that.

What I KNOW, Einstein, is that you just proved my point:

If 1,500 American CBP agents can’t effectively impact a peaceful border, just what the hell makes you think that 1,500 limp-wristed Limeys can effectively close a hostile one?

Just what do you propose they do?! Chuck rotten teeth at the Iranians?

It is obvious that force requirements in both theaters are increasing. Yet Britan's total force allotment is DECREASING. What about that is beyond your comprehension?

Not a damn thing. BTW, you work the math out all on your own, mensa?

For what it’s worth, you happen to be preaching to the choir… Er, haranguing the politburo here, B. Toldja before: The Brits suck. Their presence is largely more symbolic than substantive.

Take it up with Quichelord, for Politically Correct Reference to Supreme Being’s sake.

[BSmack]

Wow! A seven-year-old, pre-9/11 link!

Devastating! Simply devastating!

A 7 year old link that still resonates with brutal irony. Deal with it.

[Truman]

Wow! A seven-year-old, pre-9/11 link!

Devastating! Simply devastating!

A 7 year old link that still resonates with brutal irony. Deal with it.

How?

Your side shit on any semblance of bipartisanship.

The shrill, secular-progressive Speaker out front shoulda told you....

[Dr_Phibes]

the Phibes troll

objectification

[Mister Bushice]

Well Dude you were traced to a high school in Canada, but you post like a college student seeking political enlightenment.
But you're probably some jaded poster flexing his liberals arts degree knowledge.

No matter which way, it stinks of troll.

[BSmack]

Wow! A seven-year-old, pre-9/11 link!

Devastating! Simply devastating!

A 7 year old link that still resonates with brutal irony. Deal with it.

How? Your side shit on any semblance of bipartisanship. The shrill, secular-progressive Speaker out front shoulda told you....

So the best you can come up with in return is that somehow two wrongs make a right? Oh, and because Nancy Pelosi is a woman and a Democrat, that makes her "shrill"? Keep stringing yourself up there petard boy.

[poptart]

Ann Coulter is husky.

[BSmack]

Ann Coulter is husky.

Yea, and Karen Carpenter played linebacker for the Bears.

[ChargerMike]

Ann Coulter is husky.

Yea, and Karen Carpenter played linebacker for the Bears.

...yea, and Obama is Shillary's worst nightmare!



Sin, Ralph Nader :wink:

[Terry in Crapchester]

Ann Coulter is husky.

Her voice is, anyway. Maybe it has something to do with that Adam's Apple.