Ankle-biters gin up a 'gaffe' in attempt to thwart Hillary

[sampsonblk]

Hillary Clinton spoke out loud what we all know is true: the public perceives that the Republicans are stronger at responding to terrorism than we.

Of course, we are better informed than most Americans. We know the GOP is a lot of hot air. But truth is, fear moves votes. And the GOP know it. For years now, they have raised the fear of an attack in order to get an advantage at the polls.

As early as the 2002 midterm elections, they were using pictures of 9/11 in their pre-election literature. Ask Max Cleland about that election. Cleland, a decorated (and paraplegic) veteran got beat out by a deferment preppie who never saw the uniform, Saxby Chambliss.

Of that election, the Washington Post noted: 'Chambliss may have been under the influence of Bush's top adviser, Karl Rove, a disciple of Lee Atwater, who has said from the first that the war on terrorism is a good issue for his party and can help close gaps such as Chambliss's 22-point deficit.' -- http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14474-2002Jun19.html

In 2004, John Kerry thought he was going to win by talking about jobs and healthcare. But when the US military is taking fire, that is always going to be the top issue. Down the stretch in 2004, the Bush gang hammered Kerry over military issues and terrorism and won by an inch - even though Bush was already suffering from awful approval ratings.

In 2006, the GOP went to the well one more time, but found the public disinterested. We got lucky for a whole variety of reasons. But its important to keep in mind that the GOP still has the terra card, and will play it several times prior to election 2008. We need a candidate who can answer them straight on up.

Whether that's Hillary or not isn't my issue. Richardson would probably also do fine, and perhaps a few others could do it. But we do need a candidate who can respond strongly, because the terra card is coming. Its all they've got.

[rodeodance]

1. recall Kerry's comment====the bin laden tape that come out the weekend before

[ProSense]

18. There is a difference between citing

an actual event, after the fact, that was clearly using a bin Laden video for political gain, and claiming that an attack (does she believe that the Republicans will fake an attack?) will "automatically give the Republicans an advantage again, no matter how badly they have mishandled it..."

She is pushing a RW meme that was inaccurate to begin with. Six years after the 9/11 attacks, six years of Bush's failed policies and GOP stonewalling, the 2006 election successes behind her, and she is still helping to support a false perception that in all reality is now considered bogus, except among wingnuts. I guess next she'll be saying if we leave Iraq, Republicans will have an edge if the violence escalates. BS!

She is not framing a point that the Repubs will try to politicize an attack, she is saying that it will automatically give the Republicans an advantage..."

Hillary's comment is ridiculous.


edited for missing word.

[terisan]

2. So true. The candidates criticizing her may not be facing facts and will be unprepared. nt

[Karmadillo]

3. We don't need to be prepared. We'll just call the fake terra alerts "tasteless"

and the American people will flock to our candidate in droves.

[BeyondGeography]

4. Ankle biters? Feh

Your girl is accident prone and talks out of both sides of her mouth. There's a growing list of her verbal incongruities and screw-ups. Her terror comment alone was at odds with THREE previous remarks she made that a) terrorism shouldn't be politicized, that b) candidates should avoid using hypotheticals and that c) the Republicans only have the fear card to play (if it's just the fear card, how do they automatically have a political advantage). If it wasn't a gaffe it was a screw-up of high magnitude. People need to stop taking her "toughness" for granted and look behind the curtain. We ignore her weaknesses at our peril.

[Raejeanowl]

16. I Don't Get It

Why..

Is she wrong to point out that terrorism shouldn't be politicized, although her inherent criticism was against it being politicized by the Republicans?

Is she wrong to point out that the Republicans have the fear (terrorism) card to play because she sees that's the card they pull out ad infinitum when they want the advantage? When they want to keep Congress and the American people cowering behind Republican "counter-terrorist" programs, aggression, invasions, wars? Even if that means lying to us, massaging the numbers, fabricating the intelligence?

How are these observations substantively different from anything you've read many times over from denizens of DU? And is it a gaffe if we say the same things? How are they incongruent with her saying an attack would be good for the Republicans? Truth is sometimes tasteless, upsetting and downright obscene(like the dust rising after two massive towers have collapsed upon on three thousand Americans, an image invoked time and again when politically expedient to ring those vengeance bells).

This is what I call shooting the messenger. I don't think you DISAGREE with the message. You just don't like this messenger, or perceive her as the most serious challenger to your candidate.

I'm not sure of the provenance of any comments she supposedly made regarding avoiding hypotheticals, but I'll wager it was specific to a single issue. She learned better debate tactics in college, for Pete's sake, than to seriously suggest a blanket moratorium on conjecture by Presidential candidates. That just defies credibility.

I'm sure Clinton has weaknesses, as do all of the candidates, and we ignore any of them at our peril. Candidates male and female do talk out of both sides of their mouths, although male presidential candidates have had far more experience at it, haven't they?

Having witnessed what she personally survived while her husband was in office (including vicious criticism of her humanity, her womanhood, her character for surviving what happened!), how she tolerates being called a girl by her intellectual inferiors, and having all of her years of political activism dismissed as a lack of experience, I don't think I have any illusions about her toughness.

By the way, Gore is my "guy." And I haven't made the contingency choice; not by a long shot. But I do know blatant unfairness when I smell it.

[BeyondGeography]

19. Because she then POLITICIZED it by saying

that she would be able to handle the fallout from a hypothetical attack. Terrorist attack = political advantage for Hillary. That's what Chris Dodd rightfully called tasteless.

And, somehow, it's unfair to make that very basic point. Sheesh.

Plus, I do disagree with her whole loser philosophy as it relates to the Republicans. Democrats have given Bush all of the authority and the funds he has asked for, they have even authorized a wrong-headed war in Iraq, all because it was supposed to make us safer. Bush has failed to capture Bin Laden and Iraq is the new breeding ground for al Qaeda. Yet another attack "automatically creates a political advantage for the Republicans." That's toughness? Sounds more like timid flat-footedness to me.

[PurityOfEssence]

24. Even if true, how does ANY of that make her the best choice?

This is absolutely mystifying.

Okay, even if all this is true and all this happens, how does that make her the best candidate in this situation? She's talking about a terrorist attack coming before the election (presumably after the nomination or after it's a foregone conclusion) and questioning who we would want as a standard bearer.

Her "toughness" has only been for saving her own ass. Period. She took the hammering and derision and still had the fortitude to find a suitable state to represent and fight a successful campaign. When in office for her first term, she more than just played it safe, positioning herself for her next move and she won another fairly safe election. Big whup.

How does this make her the best to stand up to the Republicans playing the fear card? I guess she's been more hard-nosed on defense issues, but she can easily be painted as wishy-washy too. Getting back up after being hit is hardly a trait she alone possesses; Obama's got a pretty stiff spine too, and John Edwards is one tireless and tough hombre as his old high-school football teammates will attest: he wasn't the biggest guy, but he hit the hardest.

It's a muddled attempt to claim a superior personality, and I dispute that, too. She seems WAY too calculating and she's far too beholden to big money and power.

Her statement makes no sense and doesn't even attempt to; all she does is repeat "I'm best. I'm best because I'm best. You want me there because I'm best. Drink the Kool-Aid. Shut up. Everyone else agrees with me, I'm the best. Nobody knows the trouble I've seen, nobody knows my sorrow, yet they'll never see me cry and I can whip any three of you with one arm tied behind my back." It's tiresome. Her "toughness" has been "shown" by her deflecting criticism and surviving in a blue state. Big damned deal. She's claiming electability advantage here, and her two closest contenders BOTH trounce her on this account with regularity.

[gratuitous]

5. We DO need a candidate who can answer them straight on up

And Hillary Clinton has already conceded the issue from my reading of her comment. It's time and past time for our candidates to quit being so scared of what the GOP will do or might do, and act in accordance with our alleged principles. And if a candidate can't do anything more than wring his or her hands and fret about what the mean old Republicans are going to do and how their sycophants and megaphones in the media echo chamber are going to rock us back on our heels, perhaps that candidate needs to get out of the way for someone with a little more moxie.

Well over two-thirds of the American people are against the war and a plurality trust the Democrats on issues of national security more than the Republicans. And the people have come to that conclusion pretty much on their own, without any instruction from the major media and certainly without the input from craven candidates who automatically assign the winning position on security to the Republicans.

2008 isn't 2002 and it isn't 2004. 2006 showed that some Democrats and a majority of the voting public have achieved some clarity on an issue befogged by the Lilliputians who seized control of our country back in 2000. We need to continue on this trajectory rather than being chained to the manufactured fear of the past.

Clinton needs to adjust her rhetoric to match reality, and articulate a new and better vision if she's interested in my support. And there's nothing "ginned up" about that.

[sampsonblk]

6. Bringing it up took courage

One thing we can agree on, she is absolutely NOT scared of whatever they may throw at her.

She was just pointing out the nature of the playing field. She is ready for them. Of that we can be certain. What else can they do to her that they haven't already tried?

[gratuitous]

8. I disagree

Bringing it up in the way she did merely echoed the conventional wisdom, dubious wisdom that has for years told us that Republicans are fiscally responsible, better on national security, and more capable of running government because of their sterling business acumen. Now, if another horrible event happens, the Republicans have a ready-made quote to gull the public with yet again: See? Even your vaunted Hillary Clinton agrees that we the Republicans are much better at protecting America!

Conceding a point before it's even brought up isn't courage, and I have no opinion whatsoever on what may or may not scare Clinton. I'm not interested in what scares a candidate; at least far less interested than in what a candidate is going to do in a particular situation. It sounds from her comment as if Clinton would cede control to the same cabal of goofs that has been ruining us for the last decade or more should we get hit again. And I don't find that acceptable for a Democratic candidate.

[NI4NI]

7. Regardless of '06 election Dem victories,

or a Dem victory (or Dem defeat, perish the thought) in '08, the Republican slime, steal, and lie machine will still be operating years from now.
They've been getting away with it since Nixon and proven to themselves they can win their way, laws and honesty be damned.

[sampsonblk]

9. Can't argue with that

This is really all they have. They really suck on the issues, so they win campaigns based on their fear/hate machine.

Anyone who expects a new GOP strategy is fooling themselves. All they have is their attack machine.

[guruoo]

10. The attack coordination on this was just too obvious to ignore. n/t

[sniffa]

11. this thread shouLd get good

signed: an ankLe biter.

[Evergreen Emerald]

12. We on DU have been saying for years that the terror alerts are timed

and that the terror threats are trotted out in time to help the republicans win elections. I think people are looking for reasons to criticize Senator Clinton.

[flpoljunkie]

13. You cannot concede the point to them, and at the same time, claim you will be the strongest.

Bill Maher got it right on this one and Hillary got it wrong. What Democrats need to say if we're attacked again, is that "the Republicans are now 0 for 2!

Be aggressive! Take it to 'em! Don't suggest you would be the "strongest" of a weakened group of Democratic candidates.

[sampsonblk]

14. You mean the truth is not a good argument?-nt

[ProSense]

15. Meet Hillary's so-called "ankle biters":

Josh Marshall

Matthew Yglesias (via Daily Kos)

Taylor Marsh

Talk Left

Dodd

Edwards

Richardson

Oliver Willis

Ezra Klein

[papau]

17. LOL - can we say the "usual suspects" :-)

:-)

[ProSense]

21. Yeah,

these bloggers and others are always out to get Hillary! Oh my!

[papau]

22. "Oh my" with a laugh of course - :-) The Greek term for Yqlesias's attitude toward

Hillary translates as "stupid" - but there are a few nuances that "stupid" misses. And of course Josh Marshall and my Greek lady friend (Huff), they are at the same tea party as Yqlesias.

As to Dodd, Edwards, and Richardson - like duh? - you think praise of Hillary was ever a possibility?

And as to your letter writers to blogs - I am sure they are very smart posters. Like Talk Left's letter from "big tent"

".. I think the Democrat best positioned to deal with GOP political mobilization in a post-attack environment is going to be the one who isn't reflexively inclined to see failed Republican policies resulting in the deaths of hundreds of Americans as a political advantage for the Republicans"

I am sure he has a lot of background that gives his opinion credibility - thereby making Hillary's statement an obvious gaffe.

[PurityOfEssence]

20. Pardon us inferiors, but this makes her no better than Giuliani

Sneering at less popular candidates as rugrats is disgusting; it sounds like the standard conservative ridicule of others.

What she's doing is basically the same as saying what Giuliani does: "I've taken hits, therefore I'm the best one for the job."

I'm not talking about terrorist attacks here, and NEITHER IS SHE; she's talking about who can stand up best to the Republicans. She's talking about electability, and that's silly since the polls are pretty consistently saying that both Edwards and Obama have better chances against the current potential Republican candidates.

Giuliani's whole schtick is that when the smoke clears, he's still there. That's what hers is too. Her claim of being more electable is some bizarre extrapolation on having been slandered constantly and still managing to stand up. Big deal. Her whole cobbled-together image is one of a scrappy never-say-die victim who's been beset by endless trouble. It's sort of like a cross between Little Nell and the Tasmanian Devil. This is all bullshit. Yes, she's been picked on by the right, but if that's what matters, let's just nominate Barbara Streisand. As for fighting, I've only seen her fight for herself after the scorching over health care 13 years ago.

It's amazing how this whole incident has been so wildly and widely misinterpreted. The crux of her point is that in an instance where Republicans get a tactical advantage before the election, she's the best one to fight back at them. There's no evidence of this whatsoever. She's good at deflecting their attacks on her personally and she's managed to get elected so far, but look at those elections: pretty damned safe. In fact, look at the top three's elections: Clinton won two easy contests against crappy opponents in a rather blue state, Obama clobbered a raving lunatic in a safe blue state and Edwards beat a well-funded and groomed establishment candidate in a hostile red state. None of this makes any of them real world-beaters, but it certainly doesn't substantiate her claim as some kind of wizard of electability.

She's doing nothing more than creating a cult of the personality for herself with statements like this; there's no evidence that when in fear of terrorism people will feel safer with her than with Obama or Edwards or any of the others. None. None whatsoever. To claim that she's god's gift to everything simply because she's ahead in the polls is crap. That's conservative thinking: I'm successful, therefore I'm better. To claim that the fact that she's managed to dodge and parry in her teflon way shows only that she's able to save herself on a regular basis. Indeed, with her careful maneuvering and positioning evident in her voting pattern, it's pretty obvious that her own advancement is her prime concern.

Her statement was illogical garbage and what little of it was based on "reason" was based on extremely questionable thinking: not every scenario of a terrorist attack is going to obviously benefit Republicans. As for her claim that she's best to whip the Republicans in this instance, she offers no logic at all, no proof and the pomposity of such a stance is just nauseating.

And by the way, if you're going to sneer at the inferiors nipping at your ankles, don't play victim, too; it doesn't work like that. You can't be the towering giant while still being the put-upon underdog. What comes from that approach is the reactionary Gulliver metaphor: that other inferiors are keeping you from the exalted and privileged position you deserve.

[BeyondGeography]

23. That is Hall of Fame-worthy writing and reasoning

Seriously. :thumbsup:

I would only add one minor point, which is losing elections can be a very valuable lesson; it has happened to most successful politicians at one point or another (including Bill Clinton), and Obama did get his head handed to him by former Black Panther Bobby Rush in a U.S. Congress primary. He was branded as a not-black-enough Harvard elitist and lost by 30 points or so. He laughed about it, said he got his ass kicked, and eventually reached out to Bobby Rush who now works in his campaign. He hasn't always had the good fortune of subpar competition.

[sniffa]

25. pfft

whatever ankLe-biting hiLLary hater. :eyes:

[PurityOfEssence]

32. Yikes! If I'm an ankle-biter, you must be a sole-of-the-feet nibbler

Dennis is a great person, and even if a tad to the left for my taste, a true gem, but I would imagine that to this original poster you're beneath whatever's beneath contempt.

(I presume your post was loopy allied sarcasm, so if my response doesn't jibe, that's why...)

[sampsonblk]

26. Wow, where do I begin?

There is a big difference between what Hillary said and what Giuliani is peddling. Rudy is claiming he has taken hits from the terrorists. Hillary is saying she has taken hits from the GOP. What she says is true, a hundred times over. Rudy, on the other hand, is perpetuating a false image of himself in order to use terorism to get votes.

You seem shocked that politics involves self-promotion. In that case, I am unable to offer any cure for you. Speaking only for myself, I do want an experienced candidate who understands the GOP attack machine and is willing to take it on and defeat it.

Lastly, I should have been more clear, so as not to insult anyone. I used the term 'ankle-biters' only to refer to those who are pushing the idea that this is some type of gaffe on the part of Mrs Clinton. I do not mean to suggest that anyone who runs against her is somehow inferior.

Simple response: the GOP wants to use terrorism as a tool to win the next election. We have to pick someone who recognizes that and is prepared to duel it out with them down the stretch. The final days of campaign '08 are going to be about protecting America, not min. wage and health care.

[BeyondGeography]

27. Read this; she is more intimidated by the GOP machine than anything else

which helps explain why she (wrongly) thinks another terror attack would help the Republicans:

"One difference between Obama and Clinton does not seem to me to have been stressed enough. They are of different Democratic generations. Clinton is from the traumatized generation; Obama isn't. Clinton has internalized to her bones the 1990s sense that conservatism is ascendant, that what she really believes is unpopular, that the Republicans have structural, latent power of having a majority of Americans on their side. Hence the fact that she reeks of fear, of calculation, of focus groups, of triangulation. She might once have had ideals keenly felt; she might once have actually relished fighting for them and arguing in thier defense. But she has not been like that for a very long time. She has political post-traumatic stress disorder."

..."Obama is different. He wasn't mugged by the 1980s and 1990s as Clinton was. He doesn't carry within him the liberal self-hatred and self-doubt that Clinton does. The traumatized Democrats fear the majority of Americans are bigoted, know-nothing, racist rubes from whom they need to conceal their true feelings and views. The non-traumatized Democrats are able to say what they think, make their case to potential supporters and act, well, like Republicans acted in the 1980s and 1990s. The choice between Clinton and Obama is the choice between a defensive crouch and a confident engagement. It is the choice between someone who lost their beliefs in a welter of fear; and someone who has faith that his worldview can persuade a majority.

In my view, the call is not a close one."

http://andrewsullivan.theatlantic.com/the_daily_dish/20 ...

[Karmadillo]

28. Andrew Sullivan???? Who said "It's probably Dean vs. Bush, and I'm leaning towards

Bush if Dean doesn't get serious about national security. But if Bush endorses a constitutional amendment against equal marriage rights, I couldn't support him and would urge anyone else who cares about civil rights to follow suit.

http://www.rightwingnews.com/interviews/sullivan.php

The "liberal self-hatred and self-doubt" stuff is priceless. Thanks for posting it.

[BeyondGeography]

31. Supporter of Kerry in 2004 and for the Democratic Congress in 2006

But, go ahead, ignore the substance and keep your blinders on for a candidate that, according to Josh Marshall (a good liberal he) thinks like a loser.

[Karmadillo]

41. Read his "endorsement" of Kerry before you get too excited. And if Josh Marshall

is a "good liberal he", how can you trust him? As your reliable Democrat Andrew revealed, liberals carry "self-hatred and self-doubt."

[sampsonblk]

29. That's not only wrong, but ridiculous

Neither one of them can publicly say they are liberal. That's embarrassing, and should tell you a lot about both candidates. Please spare me the 'confident engagement' nonsense. Neither one of them will say publicly that we should stop funding Bush's war. So there is no perfect candidate here.

Its really about picking a candidate who will do the most for our side, and who can win. John Kerry was right on most of the issues, but he wasn't prepared for what they threw at him. Is Obama ready for the 'Obama=Osama' commercials? That's what this is about. Is he ready for the coming attacks on his wife's sex life? Let's get real here, these people we are opposing are nuts. Whether you like it or not. Nuts. And their sheeple will believe anything they say, even if they said the complete opposite the day before.

I am not in love with Hillary Clinton, but I know the lay of the land, and so does she. The GOP will throw everything but the kitchen sink. And we need someone who will fight back and win.

[beachmom]

30. Bush stayed around 50% approval rating during 2004.

That statement that he had "low approval ratings" is incorrect. No matter what, it was going to be very, very tough to beat a war time president. Kerry came really close, and had there not been so much voter suppression and other tricks, he may have won. Thing is Katrina in 2005 changed everything -- we now view the Bush Administration as incompetent. I don't think they hold the edge on terrorism anymore. Last poll I read, it was 50/50 between Dems and Republicans.

[BeyondGeography]

33. As of late May Democrats were more trusted than Republicans on national security

(46-43) in a Rasmussen survey. They also had a 12-point advantage on Iraq.

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/democrats_trusted_more_than_republicans_on_10_key_issues

The poll probably speaks to the lack of confidence that people have in the Republicans more than their faith in Democrats, but, needless to say, none of our candidates should suggest that Republicans have an edge on security anymore. The people already believe otherwise.

[sampsonblk]

46. Bush can change that poll number any time he pleases

That's why its even more important for our side to always remember the four top issues: terra, terra, terra and Iraq. Even if polls say they aren't big issues, they still are the top issues. Because Bush can put them to the top any time he wants to, just by announcing some bullshit he and Rove cooked up over cocktails.

[sampsonblk]

34. Bush is the first pres to win w/ less than 50% approval

Try that on. Don't you remember the discussion at the time? "No pres in modern times has ever won an election when he was below 50% on election day." Let's not make it like a Kerry victory was a huge feat. All he had to do was run a competent campaign, which he did not.

Bush was begging to be beat. He was so desperate, he went to the terra card big time, and still barely pulled it out. Any competent candidate could have beaten Bush in 2004.

Side point: Bush may have stolen at least a pct point by voter suppression. How many points did Kerry's hunting photo-op cost us? Or his stupid comment about voting for the war before he voted against it?

http://www.pollingreport.com/BushJob1.htm

[ProSense]

36. Stop twisting things to suit your defense of Hillary's stupid comment

No single measure captures the extent of a presidential victory. The sheer number of voters that Bush inspired to turn out demonstrated impressive strength. But on several key indicators, Bush's victory ranks among the narrowest ever for a reelected president.

Measured as a share of the popular vote, Bush beat Kerry by just 2.9 percentage points: 51% to 48.1%. That's the smallest margin of victory for a reelected president since 1828.

The only previous incumbent who won a second term nearly so narrowly was Democrat Woodrow Wilson: In 1916, he beat Republican Charles E. Hughes by 3.1 percentage points. Apart from Truman in 1948 (whose winning margin was 4.5 percentage points), every other president elected to a second term since 1832 has at least doubled the margin that Bush had over Kerry.

In that 1916 election, Wilson won only 277 out of 531 electoral college votes. That makes Wilson the only reelected president in the past century who won with fewer electoral college votes than Bush's 286.

Measured another way, Bush won 53% of the 538 electoral college votes available this year. Of all the chief executives reelected since the 12th Amendment separated the vote for president and vice president -- a group that stretches back to Thomas Jefferson in 1804 -- only Wilson (at 52%) won a smaller share of the available electoral college votes. In the end, for all his gains, Bush carried just two states that he lost last time.

link

We all know about the Bush campaign's unethical tactics during the election.

[sampsonblk]

38. 'In the end, for all his gains...'

GAINS??? He should have lost! The fact that he had any gains at all is a testament to the piss poor effort against him. The guy was toast.

Let's step back from this for one moment and consider that he spent 8 months tryin to convince everyone that we had to invade Iraq immediately because they had enough chemical weapons to wipe out the entire known world. Then there were none. NONE.

Anyone who can't beat a guy with that on his resume should retire from politics.

Back to business: We need someone who can run a real campaign this time around. Someone who will not fall prey to the terra card.

[ProSense]

39. Oh BS!

If the Republicans did what they did in 2004 in Ohio, Florida and about five other states and got away with, Hillary could put Bill on the ticket with her and Bush would still win!

Retire from politics indeed. That's an afront to Al Gore and John Kerry, and more of your desperate argument to cover an absurb comment by Hillary.

If, as she says, the country is attacked and the Republicans automatically get the advantage as a result, unless she is a Republican, she also loses.

Dumb!

[sampsonblk]

40. Well it SHOULD be an affront to Gore and Kerry

They both ran awful campaigns. Terrible.

Gore picked Leiberman. Thanks, Al. Poor Kerry couldn't decide whether he was for the war or against it, or if he had voted to authorize merely the threat of force, but not its actual use.

Hillary Clinton has accurately described the landscape of this coming election. Maybe she should have kept it to herself. Maybe not. But what she described is reality. Another Kerry or Gore campaign, and we'll be in the losing column again. We need a real candidate who is going to fight them till the end.

[ProSense]

42. Again stop spinning!

"Maybe she should have kept it to herself."

She should have!

[sampsonblk]

44. I'll let you win that one. She shoulda kept it to herself-nt

[illinoisprogressive]

35. All of the candidates are strong enough to fight back. not just hillary who is paranoid.

[Nimrod2005]

37. OMG???? I did not know she said, OMFG!!!!!!!!!

I am voting Republican

[dannofoot]

43. The term "gin up"...

...has, in my experience over the last eight years of very closely monitoring rhetoric from the left and right, only been used by...Rush Limbaugh...and his "dittoheads." Rush uses it constanly. Perhaps you monitor the enemy as well, and you've picked it up.

I'm not sayin' anything...but I'd certainly be careful when using a term that has been exclusively that of right-wing nutjobs for years.

[sampsonblk]

45. Interesting. You may have a point

I have been 'monitoring' Rush Limbaugh since 1989.