I was just pointing out that he consistently only gives Clinton the little nicknames. It's something I've noticed elsewhere as well. Sure, Obama gets plenty of the "Osama Hussein" crap, and that is obviously motivated by racism.

I'm simply stating that calling a female senator running for president "Hillary Clinton", or as he previously called her, "Hillary Clinton", isn't productive. It's obviously motivated by a mmisogynistic dislike of her.

FWIW, I really don't like Hillary as a candidate, but that's based on her positions rather a nickname implying that she's a shrill sounding old woman.

edit: Ooooh... swear filtered?

I was just pointing out that he consistently only gives Clinton the little nicknames. It's something I've noticed elsewhere as well. Sure, Obama gets plenty of the "Osama Hussein" crap, and that is obviously motivated by racism.

I'm simply stating that calling a female senator running for president "Hillary Clinton", or as he previously called her, "Hillary Clinton", isn't productive. It's obviously motivated by a mmisogynistic dislike of her.

FWIW, I really don't like Hillary as a candidate, but that's based on her positions rather a nickname implying that she's a shrill sounding old woman.

edit: Ooooh... swear filtered?

Er... he's not saying "shrill," he's saying "shill." You might want to rethink your theory in light of this information.

Since we're on this topic, I've been meaning to ask about this: As I see it, "shill" doesn't make much sense as an insult for her. A shill, as an example, is the guy who wins at three card monte to get you to play the game. He's in on it with the monte dealer, but his role is just to win a fixed game and get you to play. That's his only part in the ruse. The role of "dealer" and not "shill" would seem to be the role for Hillary in any campaign analogy...unless there's something I'm missing. Is the nickname leftover from her husband's administration or something?

people tend to give derogatory names to the candidates they don't like

From Dictionary.com:

shill: a person who publicizes or praises something or someone for reasons of self-interest, personal profit, or friendship or loyalty.

That makes more sense in the political context. Sure, that label could apply to every single candidate in the entire history of politics, but as I mentioned before people tend to give derogatory names to the candidates they don't like, whether or not it makes sense in the bigger picture. Plus it works as a nice play on her name.

But does it apply to the candidate? Aren't they the something or someone being praised or publicized in a campaign? If Hillary's the shill, what's the con? If Hillary's the con, someone else has to be the shill. It's an insult that doesn't seem to have any context beyond "it rhymes".

Bitchy partisan name-calling?

Heavens, no. My semantic argument with Hobbes is what I'm referring to. That flag to the left waves so two nerds can talk about alternate definitions to words only people who find Don Rickles funny would use. Or something.

But yeah, the partisan crap is a cancer.

Which is my major issue with Hillary. She seems much more "us against them" than Obama does.

I think it's more "me against them", personally. I don't doubt that she would be an effective president, but the sense I get from her of "I know what's best for you, just let me do it" is better suited to a monarchy than a democracy IMO.

And, in that semantic argument, I think that "shill" definitely implies a conning or duping. And I don't think you can shill yourself - otherwise, why not call him "John McCampaign. Because he's campaigning. For himself. And it rhymes. Burn!"

Which would be a retarded thing to say.

your voting record in the last two elections nullifies your opinions on that particular subject

On another topic altogether, I'm personally loving the fact that the two most probable nominees (Obama and McCain) have had such a large presence in the entertainment side of media. I mean, we could end up with a president that hosted "SNL," for crying out loud...

Huckabee pwns all of them on that count IMO. Colbert Bump'D

he's been saying about the woman for several months

Noooot funny

CNN) — President Bush is often reluctant to talk about the presidential race, but he couldn't resist weighing in on Democratic candidate Barack Obama's remark this week about Al Qaeda camps in Iraq.

"That's an interesting comment," Bush said at press conference Thursday. "'If al Qaeda is securing an al Qaeda base — yes.' Well, that's exactly what they've been trying to do for the past four years…. That's one of the challenges we face, is denying al Qaeda a safe haven anywhere."

The comments are in reference to an answer Obama gave at Thursday's Democratic debate, when he said he would redeploy troops to Iraq if al Qaeda was successful in establishing bases there after the U.S. withdrew.

"I believe Senator Obama better stay focused on his campaign with Senator Clinton, neither of whom has secured their party's nomination yet," Bush added.

Bush's remarks echo those of GOP candidate John McCain, who on the campaign trail Wednesday sharply criticized Obama for his comments at the debate, and suggested the Democratic presidential frontrunner wasn't aware members of Al Qaeda are already in the country.

"I have news for Senator Obama, al Qaeda is in Iraq and that's why we're fighting in Iraq," McCain said Wednesday while campaigning in Texas. McCain's press office also released a statement Wednesday stating, "Is Sen. Obama unaware that al Qaeda is still present in Iraq, that our forces are successfully fighting them every day, and that his Iraq policy of withdrawal would embolden al Qaeda and weaken our security?"

Obama sharply rebuked those comments, saying at a campaign rally Wednesday, "Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

Bush declined to talk about the White House race further in his press conference Thursday, saying "there will be ample time to discuss whoever their candidate — the positions of whoever their candidate is."

Obama issued a sharp response to the president and John McCain, saying both have "called for staying the course with an endless war in Iraq and a failed policy of not talking to leaders we don’t like."

"Americans of all political persuasions are calling for change," he said. "The American people aren’t looking for tough talk about fighting for 100 years in Iraq, because they know we need to end this war, finish the job in Afghanistan, and take the fight to al Qaeda."

Obama sharply rebuked those comments, saying at a campaign rally Wednesday, "Well first of all, I do know that al Qaeda is in Iraq. That's why I've said we should continue to strike al Qaeda targets. But I have some news for John McCain, and that is that there was no such thing as al Qaeda in Iraq until George Bush and John McCain decided to invade Iraq."

MTP Guy is Tim Russert.

As for "hypothetical" like how Sh!llary tried to tell him that he was speaking hypotheticaly (INR to Iraq), Tim replied back in a tone "This is reality".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GVgpPGSUJVk

It's probably just that this is the first political campaign where I've actually felt like the options aren't just the same package in a different wrapping, and that the results might actually matter. On the other hand, maybe I've been drinking too much .

I have to agree, this isn't anything out of the ordinary for political campaigns. People will try gotchas and reverse gotchas all day long. None of it really means anything.

There is a lot to be said for having a horse in the race that you actually like, not just tolerate. Only this year, I'm feeling more and more torn which guy to go with (i.e. not Hillary...but assume no bias because of that). You could say I've got two horses I actually like. But neither have offered me .

Seriously, you guys...is this the first political campaign you've actually paid attention to?

I didn't mean to imply that this was somehow not par for the course in terms of campaigning, just that there is a reality to what was said and in what context.

Oh, definitely. That's what factcheck.org is for. But unless any of this becomes part of a campaign theme, it's going to be forgotten in a week. I'm just thankful that it isn't 2004 and the Democrats aren't cowed anymore by the Republicans' "U HATE AMERICA IF U DISAGREE WITH US" thing.

2004 sucked BTW

Kinda woke up to a potential nightmare...Turned on Fox News and caught the end of a segment where they were reporting that Bill may be Shill's running mate for VP and that Constitutional Scholars were looking into it. Bill also wanted to know what the word "electable" means. He should really buy a dictionary, this is at least the second time he needs to know what a word means.

Hopefully I'll hear more about this soon or at least hope it gets post on their website.

Reminds me of the discussions in the late 80s/early 90s to if Nixon could run as VP on a ticket...

You guys realize even at this point they're still at a statistical dead heat right?