Clinton supporters threaten to run a campaign against Obama
tags:
Stumble ThisTwo supporters of Hillary Clinton appearing on O'Reilly to announce their intention to run a campaign against Obama if he becomes the Democratic nominee.
X Greetings! You are not currently logged in, but please don't let that stop you from voting up any videos you like. :)
|
| |||||||||||||||
hillary clinton,bill oreilly,campaign Clinton supporters threaten to run a campaign against Obama
Comments  playlists with this video bullshit by my15minutes
who voted for this video NetRunner
- siftbot
x28Clinton Supporters Threaten To Run A Campaign Against Obama Related Videos
| Watch this Video NextFriends O' the Sift Top New Videos by Vote               Subscribe Top 15 Sifters of All Time Top 15 Sifters of the Past Week 8. lore_weaver
(234 votes) 14. erikwdavis
(182 votes) Newest Appreciated Comments         | ||||||||||||||
Go home and make me a damn sandwhich! More seriously, go home and stop being a vengeful whore.
What are these supposed examples of sexism? And which of them are actually coming from Obama and his campaign?
Will they really vote for McCain? It looks like he'll support a party platform which doesn't allow abortion even in cases where it's necessary to save the life of the mother, despite of his own past statements about how repugnant that policy is.
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4824779
They're almost as bad as dumb sexists. Go home and learn to spell "sandwich."
But that doesn't mean it's rational.
I've go no love for Hillary, but she doesn't have to answer to this kind of swine.
... talk about sexist.
Thanks, fellow sifters, for some thoughtful comments.
They couldn't even come up with ONE example of sexism coming from the democratic party or the Obama campaign. They just went with one thing that one independent commentator said that wasn't even sexist. Florida and Michigan were stripped of their representation at the democratic convention because they (against the rules) decided to have their primaries before super tuesday to inflate their own influence. Now I think it's a silly double standard to let Iowa and New Hampshire do it without letting other states do it, but that argument has NOTHING to do with sexism. And even if Florida and Michigan counted, Hillary would still have fewer delegates than Obama.
I think if the camera zoomed out a bit, we'd see Hillary with a bandana tied around her head, holding an M16 in her right hand, and a prepared statement in her left.
(edit) I owe you an explanation on this comment - I thought you were actually taking these two even slightly seriously. On second read I see that you weren't actually validating them by considering their extremely misguided opinions. Apologies.
>> ^critttter:
^ No, Snoozedoctor, I don't need to admit that. I proudly consider myself a hardcore feminist, and I am voting for Obama based on character and issues. And who are you to say for whom these ladies speak? Looks to me like they speak for Bill O'Reilly. But then, I can only speak for myself.
^jwray, are you always so gullible?
I didn't comment on their motivations or whom they represent. What are you talking about? I'm not buying in to the notion that these two guests represent anybody but themselves. There is no such thing as a statement too stupid to deserve rebutting, even if it comes from O'Reilly. What was wrong with what I said?
The one on the left looks like she's reading off a script. They're both traitors and idiots, regardless of gender. Please point out how the Obama campaign has been "incredibly sexist" and how anyone is stealing the nomination from Hillary? PUH-LEEZE. This is just trying to make a mountain out of a mole hill. Just because 2 idiots go on TV saying they're going to do something does not mean any significant number of voters will follow along. As long as they're not brain dead sheep, that is.
Regardless of how you feel about these women, PLEASE don't refer to them as "traitors". I think their reasons are asinine, but the term "traitor" has been so abused over the past 6 years that it hurts my ears to hear it unless we're talking about Benedict Arnold. I like you, Mr. Zombies; you know that. I respect your political opinions more than most, but the term "traitor" should surely be reserved only for those guilty of high treason. If I were a Louisiana Republican I would hate to have been called a "traitor" because I refused to vote for David Duke in the '90s. You catch my drift.
Now I know there is a WORLD of difference between endorsing Obama and voting against David Duke. Still, I prefer the label of "traitor" be left at the door before you walk into our house at least, if no one else's.
In addition to everything Kronosposeidon said, the notion that anything about how one chooses to vote could be considered treason is an anti-democratic meme that has been overplayed in all the pseudodemocratic dictatorships of the world. In Iraq under Saddam, or Russia under Putin, the secret police might have come after you if you campaigned for the "wrong" candidate.
Let's just be realists and admit; more votes will be cast in this election solely because of gender and race than ever before, both to the benefit and detriment of all candidates currently in the hunt. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Diversity is progress that comes with its own baggage. In a perfect world every citizen would know the specifics of each candidate's platform, compare them to their own values and beliefs and then go cast a vote solely based on that. It ain't a perfect world. These ladies aren't anomalies, unfortunately.
No more so then when in the 2000 when it was people casting votes for Religious reasons. Or because one candidate looks like you can have a beer with them over the other. Or because one candidate is more MILITARY CRAZED over the other.
These women are Hillary foot soldiers. Guilt trip other women into voting for Hillary.
The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.
see even the left of the left use the ol', "If you don't like it here, move to (insert model country here)-
>> ^critttter:
^ Snoozedoctor your premise is valid, of course, if white guys feel comfortable voting for white guys, that old chestnut, but floating Hillary as a paramount feminist voting cause is like backing Margeret Thatcher just because she's a woman. If this really worked, don't you suppose the Republicans would have had a female candidate if it all boils down to such a basic premise??
The Republicans are masters at dividing the Democrats, who willingly walk right into it. Sad.
>> ^Farhad2000:
>> ^snoozedoctor:
Let's just be realists and admit; more votes will be cast in this election solely because of gender and race than ever before, both to the benefit and detriment of all candidates currently in the hunt. Is it a good thing or a bad thing? Diversity is progress that comes with its own baggage. In a perfect world every citizen would know the specifics of each candidate's platform, compare them to their own values and beliefs and then go cast a vote solely based on that. It ain't a perfect world. These ladies aren't anomalies, unfortunately.
No more so then when in the 2000 when it was people casting votes for Religious reasons. Or because one candidate looks like you can have a beer with them over the other. Or because one candidate is more MILITARY CRAZED over the other.
These women are Hillary foot soldiers. Guilt trip other women into voting for Hillary.
There's a war going on that most people think is a mistake, and want us to end.
There's an economic crisis, with home foreclosures, $4/gal gas, and rising food prices, all made worse by 6+ years of stagnant wage growth.
There's a healthcare crisis -- we pay far and away more for healthcare per capita than any other country, yet our fundamental health statistics put us near the bottom of all industrialized nations (27th-29th overall).
There's an environmental crisis that fewer and fewer people can ignore.
There's an all out frustration with a government that tries to adjust facts to fit the policy, rather than the policy to fit the facts.
More than 80% of Americans think the country is on the wrong track, the highest percentage in the history of the poll.
Bottom line, people are mad as hell, and they're not gonna take it anymore.
Tell 'em NetRunner. I don't want to get started on the health-care part, cause I might not stop. 17% of GDP. Ridiculous. You left tort reform off the list. Got to have tort reform.