http://www.newsbusters.org/node/10977
notice that, as I said, when Obama attacks it shows he's tough enough to be president... a positive. when Hillary attacks... she's a hitting below the belt ball buster. I will find more.
First...
That's Newsbusters. "Attack" comes from their headlines and not from their content. This, as far as I can tell, is the "attack":
Quote:"We aren't going to get in the middle of a disagreement between the Clintons and someone who was once one of their biggest supporters. It is ironic that the Clintons had no problem with David Geffen when was raising them $18 million and sleeping at their invitation in the Lincoln bedroom."
Ouch. For good measure, Obama himself took this shot at Hillary today: " "It is also ironic that Senator Clinton lavished praise on Monday and is fully willing to accept today the support of South Carolina State Sen. Robert Ford, who said if Barack Obama were to win the nomination, he would drag down the rest of the Democratic Party because 'he's black.'"
Second, what I asked was whether you assert that Obama attacked Hillary MORE than she attacked him -- not whether he ever did.
Then you have to get into what "attack" even means though.
I'll say that from what I can see of Hillary's site, it doesn't seem that bad. It seems to be about policy stuff, things like Obama's "present" votes. (Good article in the NYT about that.) I don't actually mind that. Stuff about madrassas or selling drugs or whatever, I mind.
I don't need to see data of attacks against Hillary personally by anyone other than Obama. I'm just interested if Obama has gone there, re personal stuff.
I'm not as data demanding as most debaters here on a2k (not that I qualify as a debater, I don't) in that I can get that a person has read ziplots of stuff and forges his or her own opinion, and isn't particularly interested in working up an outline form explanation of that opinion, much less gathering backup paper. To the people who do that, I'm an admirer, by and large.
Seems to be cross talk, or maybe, egads, it's me, here -
setting up subsidiary websites to take care of issue attacks and instigate one's own, if they are clearly marked as such, sure.
Slimo attack sites, re, uh, wrinkles, calves, looking like one has colon cancer... bad hair, good hair, expensive hair, no hair...
Assuming those kind of sites will live on, let them not be fostered by the campaigns.
Here is an ABC news article about the attack sites Hillary has set up to attack Obama...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1
Quote:ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.
Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.
The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.
Read the rest of the article, its quite informative.
Informative indeed. And slightly disturbing.
But isn't it a little contradictory to have a website logging attacks against her AND a site launching attacks against Obama?
mysteryman wrote:Here is an ABC news article about the attack sites Hillary has set up to attack Obama...
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4032659&page=1
Quote:ABC News has learned that the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, D-N.Y., has registered the names of two Web sites with the express goal of attacking her chief rival, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill.
It's the first time this election cycle a presidential campaign has launched a Web site with the express purpose of of launching serious criticisms on a rival.
Votingpresent.com and Votingpresent.org are domains hosted by the same IP address as official Clinton Web sites, such TheHillaryIKnow.com, which was launched with much fanfare this week.
The Clinton campaign intends to use these new Web sites to paint Obama as cowardly.
Read the rest of the article, its quite informative.
I wonder MM if you realize that's the exact link to the exact story that is in the original post I put up to open this thread. Did you forget between page 1 and page 3?
Well now at least if you want documentation on attacks on Hillary you can go to that site and do your own homework before you discredit anything I or anyone else might say because you don't like it.
BBB
I don't care who attacks whom.
I like Joe Biden.
BBB
BPB, see your thread about your cub and surgery.
