Do you have a sense that Clinton supporters are burying their head in the sand from reality?

[60TrenchesGone]

Reading through different blogs and forums around the internet I'm getting a distinct and salient feeling that Hillary Clinton's supporters have somehow... completely broken from reality. I notice that their comments and claims somehow feel like they lack a complete understanding of how certain words and actions are being perceived outside their circle.

Take for instance the Wright controversy. They thought they had ruined Obama with this well flung bit of mud forced into the press out of context and with salacious video clips. They expected Obama to react like every other hack politician and sink with it. But anyone paying attention to Obama's campaign could've told them otherwise. It was clear Obama was not your usual candidate and that his appeal was his candor and ability to electrify people through straight forward talk. So when the scandal erupted and Obama used it as a prime opportunity to get people to focus their attention on a very powerful and well-received speech on race, they were all too shocked to find out that the person who suffered the big poll hit from the mud slinging was actually... Hillary.

Then take for instance the Bosnia sniper lie disaster. Hillary supporters again cannot understand why a video of her lying juxtaposed against a video of what really happened is so devastating. They're gripping to lame semantic parsings like "misstatement" and "misspoke." But there is a world of difference when you're claiming someone shot at you and you survived what amounts to a combat experience and a calm friendly greeting ceremony with children. So how do Hillary supporters react? Press CTRL-F on hillaryis44.org and see. Only 2 mentions on the entire front page of the story. And they all seek to cast Hillary as the victim of Big Media:
"Big Media will dress up Bosnia misstatements and passport “breachings” in order to protect Big Media tool Barack Obama. " and "While Big Media ignores Obama’s lies about what he knew and when he knew it, in order to discuss bogus charges against Hillary in Bosnia."

The rational is simply delusional. Big Media didn't create the Bosnia lie, Hillary did. Hillary isn't the victim, she's the perpetrator of a repeated self-aggrandizing lie and she got caught. Why don't her supporters understand how bad that is or why she isn't the victim of a grand conspiracy? Why do they accept her lame lies in general about her inability to file tax returns, her Ireland peace brokering, Chelsea's 9/11 brush with death, or that she is somehow experienced and her not-Muslim-as-far-as-know Democratic opponent (not the Republican mind you) is somehow an inexperienced flim flam artist just waiting to get into the White House so he can do God knows what (throw a misogynistic party no doubt).

When I see threads attempting lame semantic gotchas about how Obama wasn't a University of Chicago professor you have to wonder what planet these people are living on. Could anyone really be so out of touch that they think claiming that Obama's title of Senior Lecturer (actually regarded as professor) will play huge controversy and sow seeds of doubt in the minds of voters working against Hillary's sniper stories and false experience drama claims?

It seems in general that her supporters do not understand how insincere she is, nor how Obama has successfully trounced her by being the rarest of birds... a sincere politician. The more they attempt to bury their heads in the sand from Hillary's realities of false claims, failed campaigns, and long record of problems in her dead end journey the more obvious it becomes that they have missed the boat on Obama and are now left at the dock trying to sink it.

[monmouth]

1. Joe Biden was chastised for forgetting to credit an author when he

gave a speech many years ago. It still came up when he ran for President this last time. If Hill thinks she now has any political clout I would not make a bet on it. Governor of New York??? I doubt New Yorkers will forget her methods and means in this campaign. Her lies will follow her around forever, she's toast.

[CitizenLeft]

12. pundits like to say "voters have short-term memories..."

...when it comes to controversies and scandals, then scoff at the idea that voters would make determinations based on them. What they don't add, however, is that whatever voters have forgotten, those pundits are guaranteed damn SURE to bring it up again, just to refresh their memories. And again. And again. And again. Nobody should even remember that silly plagiarism flap 20 years ago against a respected, accomplished, experienced statesman like Joe Biden. But sure enough, they brought that shit up again. Dukakis in the tank... Kerry windsurfing. What really pisses me off is that "flip-flop" is now a VERB... an insult to a presidential candidate became a part of the English language. "Dukakis moment"... such and such was his/her "Dean Scream" moment. Can you name a single insult/gaffe/mistake by a Republican presidential candidate that has ever become a part of our language? No. The closest is the term "swiftboat"... but pundits don't use that as a negative term, don't point that out to be the outrageous smear and lie that it was, instead it's accepted as a viable political tactic. Fucking disgusting.

REALLY pisses me off! And I didn't even mean to go there, but it morphed into it!

Edit: I take that back. The "Willie Horton" ad. That's brought up often enough, but never in the context that GEORGE BUSH used racism in a dispicable way to stoke up the redneck vote. It's never said, "that was outrageously nasty." It's just mentioned as a matter of fact. An unfortunate event. But the cosmic hysteria about Rev. Wright? HATE SPEECH!!! HATE SPEECH! OH MY GOD, OBAMA JUST SAT THERE FOR 20 YEARS!!!! WHAT DOES THAT SAY ABOUT HIS JUDGEMENT???!!!"

Fucking unbelievable.

[dansolo]

21. "Read my lips", "I am not a crook"

I've seen both of those used over the years. It is true that Democrats get nailed disproportionately, but it isn't true that Republicans don't get skewered occasionally.

[CitizenLeft]

24. you're right... I forgot about those...

[Cha]

38. Yeah, well..nixon..that was a little

hard to dismiss. Righteous rant upthread, btw.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

2. Clinton supporters are praying that something will happen so Obama will drop out

I guess they thought they had it sewn up with the Wright thing but now Obama is bouncing right back and more. I think they must have something really nasty on Obama for her to stay in?

[LiberalAndProud]

39. I don't think so.

Both sides have made it fairly clear that a cease-fire is in place. I really think it would be a disaster for Dems if Hillary quit now. It will go on, as it should. McCain is the target now. I'd bet on it.

[dailykoff]

3. Nice!

You got my vote! K/R

[Faygo Kid]

4. I think they have most of us on "ignore," and they aren't hearing dissent anymore.

I personally don't think you can ignore what's being said out there, which is why I even occasionally visit Rush's website, to see what he is up to (mostly these days, he's just making a fortune selling his stupid "Operation Chaos" apparel to the sucker dittoheads).

Anyway, that's my theory. They are losing touch because they are no longer listening. The Scaife love column is incredible, and they seem to actually welcome his kind words. Again, that's just incredible. Proves your point, I suppose.

[CJCRANE]

11. "Operation Chaos" sounds like

something from Fight Club.

Must be that Rush is a Space Monkey.

[Faygo Kid]

16. Space Monkeys everywhere take umbrage at your comment

Space monkeys actually contributed something positive to society.

[Zhade]

40. Captain Simian sure did!

20 points to whoever gets the reference.

[thewiseguy]

5. It is all about kicking up false facts for them

That is desperation on their part.

[proud2BlibKansan]

6. We are witnessing narcissism

Hillary and Bill are both narcissists and the disorder has spread to her campaign. There is a sense of entitlement, that she has earned the nomination and no one else is worthy. And we should all just accept this because she is Hillary and that alone makes her worthy of our worship. When we do question it we are accused of being sexist.

Psychology 101. Narcissism. Makes more sense every day as her nasty campaign drags on.

[60TrenchesGone]

33. Narcissism is one definition of their behaviour

But why would that appeal to their supporters? Why is it they're willing to tolerate so much that most of us find rather revolting?

[Cha]

41. Turns out there's more Narcissim

in the US than previously reported?

[Ysabel]

46. heh...

[HannibalBarca]

7. You have encaspulated

everything I now see on this board to perfection. I have never seen such a tenuous relationship with reality as some of the people here seem to be exercising. I don't love Barack Obama, at the most basic of levels he's a good man, a very intelligent man and will be a very capable president. I never idolise anyone, be they actors/politicians/sportmen etc becasue humans are inherently flawed creatures. However some display less favorable characteristics than others so it becomes a matter of degrees, Hillary having significantly more in my book, the Bosnia Sniper debacle is, in my opinion, a crowning achievement in how not to handle a scandle.
I sincerely doubt she (or Al Gore) will get the nom, it was most likely will be B.O simply because he's the better candidate.

[Forkboy]

8. Actually, I see that as an American trait not limited to any one group.

[emilyg]

10. Yes.

[bigtree]

9. We just don't think Obama has a lock on integrity in this campaign.

And, we could go on and on about the issues and statements where we think Obama has been less than truthful. We post them here, and they get the same response that Clinton's supporters give when confronted with your side's complaints. You want to pretend like your candidate is infallible, have at it. But, don't come on all surprised when Hillary Clinton's supporters do the same in response.

BTW, there was an article about Obama's 'truthfulness' on an issue on the front page of the WaPo that I thought was interesting.

Obama Overstates Kennedys' Role in Helping His Father
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/29/AR2008032902031.html

[Alexander]

28. Hillary lied about sniper fire. That's not the same as a "misstatement" or "exaggeration".

It's an outright fabrication, and she arrogantly repeated it and defended her use of the lie, not realizing that these days, YouTube reveals all.

She didn't learn the lesson from George "Macaca" Allen - and she's paying for it.

[Zhade]

42. The people who support a proven liar don't think he has integrity?

Pardon us if we don't think you're in a position to demand honesty.

[LiberalAndProud]

45. Saw it bigtree

And it's different because he "misremembering" something that happened before he was born. It's romanticized, sure, but I can't see it in the same damaging light as the sniper tale. Dredging this up looks like tit-for-tat pettiness.

[donheld]

48. "we think Obama has been less than truthful."

You have things you "think" he's not been truthful about.
Do you have anything you have proof he's lied about?

[hedgehog]

13. I think they bought into a narrative that we would vanquish the right wing

by putting Hillary Clinton into the White House. I do believe there was a right wing conspiracy out to get the Clintons. I also am amazed at that, because at best Bill Clinton was Republican-lite. Still, we have transcended that narrative. It's not about redeeming Bill by putting Hillary into the White House. It's about having a leader who will empower us to make the changes we so desperately need to make.

[bilgewaterbill]

14. Well stated!! Kudos!

[Lucky 13]

15. YES. Delusion has set in. Seek help immediately.

[TahitiNut]

17. "in the sand"??

Well, that's one name for it, I suppose. :shrug:

[cooolandrew]

OK I get it on Scaife my bad for earlier pro scaife post.

[cooolandrew]

18. ....

[gateley]

19. When Biden was still running,

I, for one, focused on the positive signs -- increasing numbers of supporters at his functions, very supportive comments from those who had seen him, his increased presence on TV, etc. I honest to god believed he would make a stunning showing in Iowa, and then beyond.

I'm guessing Clinton's supporters (or supporters of anyone) are doing that, too. Glomming on to whatever positives there might be, and not logically stepping back and looking at the big picture.

[Yael]

20. The reaction to the Bosnia thing has been mind boggling but even moreso, troubling

It takes a special kind of willful ignorance on that. One that I can't even comprehend.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. One poster said that it "had gone meta."

Perfect.

Exactly like the "Dean Scream," in that it went meta, not in substance.

[bunnies]

22. I sense that many people are burying their heads,

but not in the sand.

[IsItJustMe]

23. They don't seem to understand what a delegate is. Seen that over and over again.

[cleveramerican]

26. You can be sincere and dead wrong at the same time.

[60TrenchesGone]

34. And who's dead wrong?

Last I recall that isn't Obama. Who was standing on which side of the fence when the Iraq war was being authorized?

How many dead over that sincere mistake?

[JayFredMuggs]

27. Another Brilliant post!

My congratulations to you for such an insightful and thorough review of the current state of Hillary supporters, and her website, and her insincerity.

Bravo!

[cyndensco]

29. For the last 6 years or so

I have listened to Washington Journal on c-span religiously and am amazed at what ignorant stuff comes out of the 'others'" mouths. During the 2004 campaign a caller finished his statement with, "ok, now you can get to the warmongering redneck on the other line." It was so unexpected (but dead-on) that even the staid moderator could not help but laugh. I used to wonder what planet the republicans lived on.

Anyway, my take on many things Hillary supporters espouse is similar to what I thought/think of them. (Though I am not comparing Hillary/bush supporters). I just cannot grasp, however, how some think her chances of winning the GE are better than Obama's, how Richardson's endorsement was traitorous, how it is ok for her to suggest mccain would be a stronger candidate...

I am beginning to think I'm just close-minded cause I just don't get it.

[backscatter712]

30. Abosolutely.

They've become completely divorced from reality. They refuse to accept the fact that Hillary has absolutely no chance of becoming the nominee. They cling to anything that gives them a chance, including lying and cheating.

[stillcool]

31. It's pretty scary..

to me it is 'mob mentality'. The way they (and the media) went after Reverend Wright was the most frightening thing I've ever experienced. The voraciousness of their attacks continue to amaze me, as they seem to me to be more animalistic in nature than humanist.

[BearSquirrel2]

32. I don't think they're "supporters"

I think many are paid political online representatives who are here to be digital fax machines.

[Umbram]

35. I think most of them at this point are just trying to get a rise out of people.

Really, there comes a point when you play Monopoly where a player knows they have lost and there is nothing on the board that their opponent can land on in order to shift the battle.

Still, rather than calling it a day the losing player insists on finishing it out, the slow, monotonous process of selling houses one at a time, rolling, etc. Why? Part pride, part 'screw you' for beating me.

That's the point of the 'game' we are in. Clinton supporters are still demanding their $200 every time they find a 'gotcha' moment. They are still rolling their dice and making a big ordeal about the fact that the 'game' isn't over.

They are just sticking it to us because they can't win and there is nothing else to do but make the actual victory tedious and unrewarding.

[Cha]

36. You mean are most hilary supporters and surrogates

suffering from a near lethal form of Ostrich Syndrome? Yeah, I do.

[Zhade]

37. Absolutely. Witness the holdouts who can't accept that she's a proven liar regarding Tuzla.

They actively deny the undeniable!

[meow mix]

43. yes.

this is the sense i get

[slinkerwink]

44. I do think they're divorced from reality at the moment.

[Awsi Dooger]

47. Obama supporters have different instincts than I do

That's my base summary, as someone currently backing Hillary once Edwards failed. I have no false impression she has realistic opportunity to be the nominee. Several weeks ago I posted it was like a parlay, everything needing to fall her way including certified re-votes in Florida and Michigan. Parlay bettors are inevitably thwarted by the odds.

But I'm simply not taken by Obama. Call it handicapping instincts or whatever you like. It's no different than the DU posters who lashed out against Edwards for years, asserting he was phony with zero foreign policy experience, and that would be fatal against the GOP in a post 9-11 climate. Now I see many of the same posters latching to Obama, often attacking/mocking Hillary supporters, and suddenly content to ignore Obama's remarkably tender resume. If it weren't so pathetic it would be hilarious.

I know exactly what I'm getting in Hillary, a pure dagger who will run an in-your-face campaign. On January 20th, she would also be a huge favorite to vastly improve the economy over the course of her term(s).

I also know exactly what I'm getting with McCain or any GOP nominee, a campaign designed to cartoon the Democratic nominee and promote fear, to get to January 20 and say, "whew, we got away with another one. Now what?"

But what do we have in Obama? Beyong the speeches leading to inauguration day I'm not confident he will make a superior president and that irks me beyond description. I'm old enough to remember Jimmy Carter and we can't afford anything similar. The Emerging Democratic Majority is very real, albeit delayed by 9-11 and national security fear, but it's precarious as hell if we have someone who fails in the White House, someone perceived as weak. And Bush's mess is like starting with a block of granite on your back.

Let me emphasize I'll support Obama in the fall. I'm confident he'll narrowly prevail given the situational edge.

I don't think much of him, other than speaking ability. The comparisons to JFK are obscene, IMO. I've read at least a dozen JFK books, including his own, ones written in every decade since the '50s, and Obama doesn't threaten the style, nor the big picture visionary aspects. It's a lazy comparison, one that seems to fit only due to the massive time gap between JFK and other inspiring Democratic presidential hopefuls. The heart and mind wants you to believe the latest hyped horse is the equal of Seattle Slew or Secretariat so you're prone to accept that, far too soon. Then reality gets in the way. I was markedly more impressed by Obama's speeches until I rescued my old VCR tapes from fall '92, and Bill Clinton was so superior it was stunning, the courage to change hoopla accompanied by 10x the real-world specifics that Obama brings.

Obama certainly impressed me by deciding to run in '08. It's a Democratic year and it would have been moronic to wait, particularly when Obama's greatest gift is such contrast to Bush. He'd never be at this apex again, if he remained on the sideline in the senate.

I distrust quick risers. That's true of any profession and it's served me well. Invariably if you come out of nowhere to widespread upshoot acclaim it turns out your true level is lower than the hype insists. JFK narrowly lost the VP slot to Kefauver in '56, probably the best thing that ever happened to him. But that reveals how highly regarded JFK was in '56. Obama in '04 wasn't even in major office, let alone a candidate for our ticket. Our lack of high profile bench strength in recent years is as responsible for his vault as his own talent level.

Sorry, but I detect a smug and calculating guy, one who maneuvered his message to fit the party's tunnel vision desires amidst Bush and his incompetent war. ruggerson's posts have been excellent in that regard. When Obama became frontunner, or even slightly before, the tone of his speeches became even more arrogant, and I thought slightly unbecoming. Frankly, the contributions of his wife have contributed to my skepticism of him. Perhaps that's unfair but Michelle has a hard edge to her, one that is unappealing, IMO. My instinct is her blunt comments like scratching eyes out are more representative of daily home theme than we like to believe. I don't need Ozzie and Harriet but give me ruthless and I want a great economy as the attachment. The economic speech the other day was cute but anyone who thinks that warrants equal weight of the '90s team in place to do it again is an inept evaluator, no concept of true probability.

Here's something, seemingly very minor, that has bugged me all along, and partial reason I've always been removed from the Obama camp: the damn guy smoked until very recently. Running on judgment yet you've been a smoker well into this decade, 40+ years after the surgeon general's warning, and millions of premature deaths as evidence? Strikes me as bizarre. I've seen JFK with cigarettes but that was a different era. Maybe it annoys me because I've lived in Las Vegas, with a higher than typical percentage of smokers, yet the sharpest guys I've known there are non-smokers. I can only remember two exceptions.

Is it really a coincidence that Obama decided to stop smoking only when a presidential campaign was imminent? Of course not. I'm not comparing any Democrat to Bush but Obama's decision to stop smoking reminds me of Bush buying the Crawford ranch only when he wanted to fortify his image on the brink of the 2000 campaign.

Anyway, I'll put this stuff in cold storage for the general. But as long as we're allowed to announce it now, there it is. And oh yeah, trying to win the vitals, states with conservative/moderate tendencies like Florida, Ohio or Virginia, with the most liberal candidate, a minority with apparent demographic weakness in those states, is not the most comforting electoral position I can imagine.

[tritsofme]

50. This should be its own thread.

Great post, thank you.

[loveangelc]

49. lol yes. I have gotten that sense.

[khaos]

51. define reality

}(

[BzaDem]

52. You're saying Bosnia was worse than the Wright controversy, and you are accusing others of burying

their head in the sand?

Obama took massive hits in the polls against McCain. His Republican support now is about 0, and he lost some among independents. With a very tenuous democratic base, Obama will need to continue to work his ass off to hold onto the independents he has, just so he can have a respectable 5-9 point loss like he does now against McCain post-Wright. The idea that Obama magically fixed the problem with his speech is an idea constructed in the MSM and in people like you, and poll after poll about Wright speaks to the contrary.

Unfortunately, it will take until November before anyone on this board realizes this.

[60TrenchesGone]

53. Yes Bosnia is way worse than Wright...

The failure to understand that is classic Hillary supporter syndrome. Wright is not Obama. He is an entirely other person with his own statements. Bosnia was Hillary claiming experience and heroic effort and being caught red handed completely inventing her deeds. In the exact same way Swift Boat worked.

And any hits Obama is taking in the polls are from Hillary's gruesome mud slinging. Let's just deconstruct your delusion for a second. "The idea that Obama magically fixed the problem with his speech is an idea constructed in the MSM and in people like you, and poll after poll about Wright speaks to the contrary."

Okay if that is true then this poll would not show these numbers:


Let's also not forget that Obama was LEADING against McCain nationally before Hillary's attempted murder suicide brought both their poll numbers down.

So to recap looking at the raw numbers... the Wright controversy did not do any longterm damage to anyone except Hillary. The Bosnia story is definitely hurting her and she now has one of the lowest approval ratings nationally:
"As expected, one of the two major Democratic candidates saw a downturn in the latest NBC/WSJ poll, but it's not the candidate that you think. Hillary Clinton is sporting the lowest personal ratings of the campaign. Moreover, her 37 percent positive rating is the lowest the NBC/WSJ poll has recorded since March 2001, two months after she was elected to the U.S. Senate from New York."

How on earth do you guys miss this stuff? How do these facts and figures completely escape your brains? Her ship is sinking. She's the one who sunk it. Why are you refusing to acknowledge these issues?

[BzaDem]

54. Duplicate.

[BzaDem]

55. I am talking about the GE. You can fling up HRC/BO polls all you want.

You are seriously saying that the Wright controversy did longterm damage to Hillary? Seriously? You destroy your own credibility. Bosnia may have hurt, other stuff may have hurt, but Wright did not hurt Hillary. You are the first person I have seen to even try to argue that.

Your graph simply says Obama is gaining on Clinton in the primary battle. It does not say he is gaining in the GE battle, or that he has weathered the Wright crisis. If he has weathered the Wright crisis, he would be polling better than 35% among white voters after the speech (with 26% saying he needs to address race more, 32% saying speech was sufficient, and 31% not having watched the speech: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/27/poll-obama-mccain-most-likely-to-unite-nation/)

[60TrenchesGone]

56. By your own standards, he won...

You said "If he has weathered the Wright crisis, he would be polling better than 35% among white voters after the speech."

Okay then...

"Interestingly, of those voters who said they saw the speech, 47% said Obama sufficiently addressed the Wright issue while 37% said he needs to address it further. Among whites, 45% were satisfied with Obama's explanation, 38% were not; Among blacks, 67% said the speech was sufficient while 25% want him to address it further."

Further more...

"While Sen. Clinton still leads among white Democrats, her edge shrank to eight points (49% to 41%) from 12 points in early March (51% to 39%). That seems to refute widespread speculation -- and fears among Sen. Obama's backers -- that he would lose white support for his bid to be the nation's first African-American president over the controversy surrounding his former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright Jr. of Chicago."

http://rawstory.com/news/2008/Wright_flap_hasnt_hurt_Obama_0327.html

Ta-da. Seriously though, your poll number spin is garbage. It's just sad to watch you try to cherry pick some arbitrary goal post as the new definition of winning. It's also quite typical of your candidate. It's quite apparent the speech is having a long positive upturn on his numbers and Hillary is being weighed down by the garbage she's been slinging both at Obama and to herself.

[BzaDem]

57. We are talking past each other.

You keep pretending that I am saying Clinton has won (and am moving the goal post to that effect). I'm not talking at all about Clinton vs. Obama. I am talking about Obama's massive GE problems, given that he is likely to be the nominee. He is polling in the mid-to-high 30s among white voters in Obama vs. McCain matchups. I am not saying this is the "goalpost" (lol), I am saying that this is simply a problem that he is going to have to overcome if he is planning on winning the GE, and so far he hasn't done it.

[60TrenchesGone]

58. "So far he hasn't done it"?

You have a very short memory and forget the time a little while ago before Hillary's suicide bombing attack commenced. Obama beat McCain in the GE by double digits:


Now she has only managed to lower the poll numbers of both Democrats and elevate the Republican. Excellent strategic work and understanding for a leader. Seriously, doesn't this make you question her ability when one of her many plans misfires this disastrously?

[LiberalAndProud]

59. Let's see what happens to that mid-to-high 30 figure

after one debate since he is the likely nominee. Then we can talk about that mid-to-high 30s figure. mmmmkay?

[BzaDem]

60. K.

I hope you are right, I really do.

[FatDave]

62. "Your graph simply says Obama is gaining on Clinton in the primary battle."

No, it does not say that. It says he's beating her. To be gaining on her, he would have to be behind.

[60TrenchesGone]

64. Indeed.

It seems that nuance and facts are another reality lost on that side.

[my3boyz]

61. Gee...

I have no idea what poll you are looking at. LOL Meet the Press had a poll on Sunday and it certainly did not have Obama's Republican support at zero! LOL I can't remember the exact number (won't make them up as you appear to be doing) but it was DEFINATELY higher than Hillary's support. His support among independents was also double her support. Oh and also he had more support than she did with DEMOCRATS! So you should really look at the polls before you declare Obama destroyed! Even with the worst shit thrown at him during this campaign he is still polling better than Hillary. What does that tell you? So even though Obama has this "scandal" he still does better than her. Guess people REALLY don't like Hill.

[FatDave]

63. And never underestimate the importance of independents.

Independents swing elections. McCain is popular with independents. Of our two candidates, we have one who is and one who isn't. We need to keep that in mind.

[kevinmc]

65. "We never bury our heads ....... Hillary is winning,..... the Infidels are LOSING"