--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Sal Sunshine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > On Jun 7, 2008, at 3:15 PM, authfriend wrote: > > >> Yep, that's why she claimed that only she and McCain had > >> "crossed the threshold" to be president, knowing full well > >> at the time she was likely to lose the nom. > > > > Not what she said, actually. She said that anybody who > > wants to be president must show that they "can cross > > the commander in chief threshold," referring > > specifically to that aspect of the presidency. > > > > She knew she *might* lose the nomination but was > > determined not to, obviously. She was making a case that > > she was more electable than Obama vs. McCain, given > > Obama's lack of experience. > > > > In other words: nominate me, and you'll have a > > Democratic president, because I can beat McCain. > > Nominate Obama, and you won't, because he can't. > > > > Why is that so difficult for you to grasp, Sal? > > Because it's utter and complete bullsh*t, Judy, and > grasping bullsh*t is difficult for most people, except > for those who happen to be named Judy Stein.
Sal, the issue is what she *meant*, not whether you agree with her. Hillary doesn't exist only inside your head; she's an independent creature with her own thoughts, much as that may surprise you. Did you even notice that you didn't address the issue we were discussing, the one *you* raised? > Only someone with a seriously distorted view of reality > could believe that the representative of a return to > the divisive, angry politics of the 90s would have a > better chance against an equally angry, divisive figure > on the right-- and one who is older than God and feeble > as well in body if not in mind--than an extremely competent, > talented, accomplished politician with real community- > organizing skills who has shown the ability to turn out > new voters in droves and who also managed to defeat the > best-funded campaign in history (and who didn't get to > where he is politically on anybody else's coattails). Uh-huh. Lot of folks out there with seriously distorted views of reality, then. But, you know, some of us don't agree with your characterizations of the three of them. We think *they're* seriously distorted views of reality. What to do? What to do? > Get a grip, Judy. People have shown they have every > desire to move onwards and upwards. Except, of course, > for those of HiIllary's supporters like yourself who are > mired in the 90s because politics-as-usual appears to be > the only way to get Hillary elected. That would be, what, somewhere between 49.9% and 51.1% of the Democrats who voted in the primaries. And here's some breaking news for you: It took politics-as-usual to get Obama nominated (some especially dirty politics-as-usual), and it will take politics-as-usual to get him elected as well. > >> And that was after McCain had both miserably slurred > >> her own daughter, and laughed when someone referred > >> to her, Hillary, as a bitch. > > > > One of her greatest strengths is her almost > > superhuman ability not to let slights and slurs > > throw her off track. > > Medication time, Judy, if you haven't realized by now > that Hillary has an enemies list that would most likely > make Nixon's look sweet and innocent. Buddying up > to McCain served her purposes. Uh, except she didn't "buddy up" to McCain, as I explained to begin with (and you never addressed). Nor did you address my point immediately above. What does her "enemies list" have to do with it? This is absolutely standard with you, Sal. When somebody makes a point you can't rebut, you change the subject. > And the whole reason many of the supers didn't declare earlier > was because they apparently were so concerned about > retribution from the Clintons. That's what some folks are saying, certainly. But these same folks have said a whole lot about Hillary that is quite dubious, such as that her "threshold" comment constituted "buddying up to McCain."
