wrote in message
...
On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 17:16:13 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"HK" wrote in message
m...


Whatever Clinton's lies about his sex life, their significance pale in
comparison to the Bush Administration's ongoing lies about its war
against
Iraq.



Some of the outright lies being perpetrated by his hopeful successor puts
her in the same category. Very scary.

"Misspoken", my ass.

Eisboch



She claimed it was because she was tired. Later it was confirmed that the
claim
was written into her prepared speech before she gave it. It wasn't some
off the
cuff flub.



She has also told the "sniper" story at least twice before in recent weeks.
Must be very tired, I guess.

I mean, come on! I don't care how tired I was, but if at some point in my
life I landed in a war zone with reported snipers around had to "run" with
covered head to get from the airplane to the building ..... I'd remember
every single detail. So would anyone.

She's a deceitful liar who will say or do *anything* to get the nomination
...... and win the election.

BTW .... the "sniper" story is not the only one she as modified or
embellished recently for effect.
But, the party "faithful" just brush the lies off as being part of
"politicking".

Unless it's Bush.


Eisboch

wrote in message
...



Bear in mind that slightly more than half of the party faithful aren't
exactly
under her spell at the present, and are hardly giving her a pass on this.




HClinton currently has a 37 percent "favorable" rating among Democrats.
Yet, over 40 percent say they will vote for her.

What the heck is wrong with this picture?

Eisboch

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 18:43:03 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .



Bear in mind that slightly more than half of the party faithful aren't
exactly
under her spell at the present, and are hardly giving her a pass on this.

HClinton currently has a 37 percent "favorable" rating among Democrats.
Yet, over 40 percent say they will vote for her.

What the heck is wrong with this picture?

The Democrats are self-destructing.

Fun to watch.

I find it really interesting that the "super delegates" who are
supposed to be the leavening hand in the election are essentially
sitting this one out hoping against hope that they won't have to take
a stand and support one or the other. The supers all want to have to
not take a stand, yet they are going to have to.

Which means a brokered convention.

And that's going to be a war.

Finally - a fun political convention. Back room deals, cigar smoke
and a floor fight.

Plus, the movement to disrupt the convention on the Obaminions side if
Obama isn't nominated and the same from the Clintonistas.

WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
...




WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.


Hey! One person suffering from logophilia in this NG is enough.

Eisboch

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 19:06:20 -0400, "Eisboch" wrote:


"Short Wave Sportfishing" wrote in message
.. .




WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

Hey! One person suffering from logophilia in this NG is enough.

Ahem...

Ok - I'll return to my normal dumbass persona.

Woops - did it again. :)

On Wed, 26 Mar 2008 23:00:42 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

Plus, the movement to disrupt the convention on the Obaminions side if
Obama isn't nominated and the same from the Clintonistas.

WHOO HOO!!!

What's really fun is reading the left side of the blogosphere - both
sides are going apoplectic using language they usually reserve for GWB
for each other.

It's delicious.

That last was cruel.

But, I'm not complaining.
--
John *H*
(Not the other one!)