The Clinton Sleaze Machine surfaces:

http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Is..._dark_secret_2

http://tinyurl.com/24hoby

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...21/595929.aspx

http://tinyurl.com/yweo57

witfal, 2/17/2008,10:38:26 PM, wrote:

> The Clinton Sleaze Machine surfaces:
>
> http://digg.com/2008_us_elections/Is...a_s_dark_secre
> t_2
>
> http://tinyurl.com/24hoby
>
> http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archi...21/595929.aspx
>
> http://tinyurl.com/yweo57

In today's age those things are considered a badge of honor. I'm not
sure these won't make the empty suit known as Barack Hussein Obama even
more popular MTV/American Idol generation.

witfal, 2/18/2008,12:01:32 AM, wrote:

> On 2008-02-17 20:18:48 -0800, "badgolferman"
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:
> > > http://tinyurl.com/24hoby
>
> > > http://tinyurl.com/yweo57
> >
> > In today's age those things are considered a badge of honor. I'm
> > not sure these won't make the empty suit known as Barack Hussein
> > Obama even more popular MTV/American Idol generation.
>
> I assume you meant, "AMONG the MTV...", and if so I agree.
>
> If this is found to be a Clinton operation, and I suspect it is, it's
> all over for The Bitch.

Which would be worse for her? If she is soundly defeated by this
upstart or if she becomes President through hook and crook? It seemed
to work for Lyndon Johnson among a few others, why not for Hillary
Clinton?

She's already on the verge of losing, what has she got to lose by
reverting to the old tactics of mud-slinging?

--
“The reason there are so few female politicians is that it is too much
trouble to put makeup on two faces.” ~ Maureen Murphy

On 2008-02-18 20:50:14 -0800, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:

>> If this is found to be a Clinton operation, and I suspect it is, it's
>> all over for The Bitch.
>
> Which would be worse for her? If she is soundly defeated by this
> upstart or if she becomes President through hook and crook? It seemed
> to work for Lyndon Johnson among a few others, why not for Hillary
> Clinton?
>
> She's already on the verge of losing, what has she got to lose by
> reverting to the old tactics of mud-slinging?

You're assuming there'd be no backlash. If there wasn't, then you
could be right.

witfal, 2/19/2008,12:07:54 AM, wrote:

> On 2008-02-18 20:50:14 -0800, "badgolferman"
> <REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:
>
> > > If this is found to be a Clinton operation, and I suspect it is,
> > > it's all over for The Bitch.
> >
> > Which would be worse for her? If she is soundly defeated by this
> > upstart or if she becomes President through hook and crook? It
> > seemed to work for Lyndon Johnson among a few others, why not for
> > Hillary Clinton?
> >
> > She's already on the verge of losing, what has she got to lose by
> > reverting to the old tactics of mud-slinging?
>
> You're assuming there'd be no backlash. If there wasn't, then you
> could be right.

There will always be backlash against Hillary Clinton. She has brought
it upon herself. My point is she is willing to take that chance to
fulfill her destiny.

On 2008-02-19 08:34:08 -0800, "badgolferman"
<REMOVETHISbadgolferman@gmail.com> said:

>> You're assuming there'd be no backlash. If there wasn't, then you
>> could be right.
>
> There will always be backlash against Hillary Clinton. She has brought
> it upon herself. My point is she is willing to take that chance to
> fulfill her destiny.

True, but I'm speaking of backlash from among her current Kool
Aid-drinking supporters.