--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Apr 20, 2008, at 5:43 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> > >> Sure she does, Judy, which is why she surely would > >> have been elected to the Senate even if she had been a total > >> unknown named Mrs. Jones and why he's played no role > >> whatsoever in her campaign. > > > > As usual, you're making no sense at all. > > Physician, heal thyself.
It's really funny, Sal, you get one damn thing wrong after another and never acknowledge or admit it, and you tell *me* to heal myself! For example: > > But if she didn't have a long record of > > activism and achievement of her own, it's very > > unlikely she'd have been elected the first time, let > > alone the second time. > > > >> She has no record as an "independent person." > > > > Oh, good lord. Of course she does, a long one. > > > > Again, you won't read it, but here's a good > > history: > > > > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_Clinton No acknowledgment of your silly error about her not having a record as an independent person. And now you're about to make another one, which you won't acknowledge either: <snip> > > Roughly half the Democrats in the country are supporting > > her, Sal. > > Quite a bit less than half at this point, Judy, if you > believe the latest polls Latest Gallup tracking poll has Obama 47, Clinton 45. That's within the margin of error, Sal. It's a dead heat, in other words. --but whatever, we can say > half if that makes you feel better. But of course, what you're > *not* saying, and what you seem to want to forget, > was that she started out with a *whole lot more* > supporting her, many more than Obama, but lost > both the support and the good faith of millions along > the way, including old friends and formerly staunch supporters > like Richardson and Robert Reich--mostly because of > bad faith and abominable tactics. Actually I've already said, several times, that she's lost support. But it's not because of *her* "bad faith and abominable tactics," it's because of media bias and "bad faith and abominable tactics" from the Obama campaign. In any case, her big early national lead was more a function of name recognition than anything else, so it's no surprise at all that she didn't hang onto it. And Reich hasn't been a "staunch supporter" of hers for a long time. > And, I'm proud to say, I believe Iowa played a major role in > that. Once the myth of Hillary's "inevitability" was shot, > (which is basically the kiss of death to any kind of democratic > process,) her chances seemed to evaporate almost overnight. No, they didn't, not after she then went on to win New Hampshire. It took a lot longer for her chances to begin to "evaporate," and they're not gone yet despite Obama's best efforts. You've also forgotten that it wasn't a two-way race in Iowa; Edwards came in second. He'd been a frequent presence there for the past two years. And Obama had a head start in getting his organization on the ground. She was never expected to have an easy time in Iowa, so her loss there, while disappointing, wasn't some huge upset.
