 |
|
|
|
| Senator Clinton Is Afraid To Actually Criticize Obama When She Should Because She Knows The Republicans Will Use Them If He Is The Democrat Candidate And She Must Do It Because Voters Need To Know The Truth About Him |
| There are so many things that Hillary could have said to date about Obama's record in Illinois, US Senate, what he has said about not having experience for serving as President, details about his relationships with lobbyists, who his BIG financial supporters are. It is so wrong that if she says anything specific that is bad about him, the media damns her but when he does it to her, the media quotes him over and over. She should NOT let him pat her on the shoulder because that is a man's power move to try to weaken women. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I see no evidence of this at all. If there were some damning evidence against Obama she would put
it out there. Don't you think that she was behind the reverend wright controversy? Of course she
was. The Clintons are brutal against their opponents no matter who they are. She has the difficult
task of balancing her tone. She cannot come off in a bad light in an attack because it only
enhances Obama's image. The typical Clinton strategy is to have things "leaked". You can bet that
there is a very large and effective team of investigators looking into everything Obama has done or
does, and they are paid for (or hope to be paid for) by the Clintons. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
She is afraid of criticizing him because he doesn't have very many places to be criticized. He is a
good candidate for president. We all know it's going to come down to Obama and McCain, so Hillary
has almost given up. It's amazing she is still trying. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
She hasn't been even a little afraid to criticize him so far. The Republicans probably will use
anything they can to their advantage, whether she criticizes or not. Voting records and transcripts
are available for anyone seeking the truth about how a candidate has performed. We just need to look
past the media. |
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
It's hormal for candidates for the nomination within a single political party to pull their punches
to some extent against their opponents. After all, being in the same party implies that they share a
view of the world. I haven't noticed Obama going for the jugular to any greater extent than Clinton;
if anything, Clinton seems more inclined to go ugly and personal and Obama.
It's up to Clinton how she conducts her campaign. If she wanted to launch vigorous personal attacks
on Obama, she should do it; if she refrains from it, that tells us something about her as a
political campaigner.
Clinton supporters keep telling her she is an experienced political hand; she would do better
against McCain and in the White House than a neophyte like Obama. If any of that's true, why hasn't
Hillary won? She started the game with a winning hand then threw it all away. What does that say
about her political skills? What reason do you have to believe she would do any better against
McCain or against the Republican establishment after she was in the White House than she has done
against Obama? |
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 For and Against Recent Activity
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
27 Feb 2008 02:33
Sign In
