--- In [email protected], "raunchydog" <raunchy...@...> wrote: > > --- In [email protected], "do.rflex" <do.rflex@> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], Sal Sunshine <salsunshine@> wrote: > > > > > > On Jun 8, 2009, at 9:16 AM, do.rflex wrote: > > > > > > > It couldn't be more obvious. RD ["Hillary is my champion"] has a BIG > > > > chip on her shoulder and it badly gives bias to her perceptions of > > > > Obama's situation and efforts. > > > > > > > > After all, Obama didn't stop people from picking on poor Hillary - > > > > so it's all HIS fault that she lost. That's why RD and Judy nitpicks > > > > him like the right wing fringe does. > > > > > > > > And in spite of the hostile, bitter attacks by the discontents, > > > > Obama's approval has consistently been in the mid 60% range since he > > > > took office. > > > > > > Not to mention that Judy consistently misses the fact > > > that since the "sexism" used against HC was out in the > > > open, rather than hidden (all according to her) that's > > > about the best situation one could hope for...(assuming, > > > of course, that there really *was* sexism, and that it > > > wasn't just a figment of, um, some of her more fanatical > > > followers trying to justify her loss any way they could.) > > > since having something out in the open usually means it's > > > a lot easier to deal with, right? So why didn't Hillary deal > > > with it? Because either it didn't exist, or it was so negligible > > > she didn't want to waste her time. > > > > > > It's pretty astounding that two people who profess > > > to be Democrats could wish something heinous were > > > hidden rather than obvious. But there you have it... > > > > > > Sal > > > > > > I don't think there's anyone on this forum who can't see that RD and Judy > > are bitterly biased against Obama because their candidate didn't win. > > > > Like I said, it couldn't be more obvious. And each of them goes bananas > > when it's pointed out. > > > > IMO my bananas don't nearly match your bananas when I point out Obama's > broken promises. You have not once refuted any of my posts documenting how > Obama is clearly and arrogantly screwing you on civil liberties.
I'm not here to play fetch-the-answers for your every whine. From what I've read, Obama has given solid, justifiable reasons for the decisions he's made. > > Once again for the hard of learning: It's not that Hillary lost, it's HOW she > lost. Simply put, had it not been for the inane machinations of the DNC and > the irrational worship of Obama that generated egregiously sexist attacks on > Hillary and consequently all > women, Hillary might have won the primary. Get over it. Practically EVERYONE ELSE doesn't care. Endlessly whining about it will solve nothing. It only makes you look like an angry cry-baby. And it's no justification for your obnoxious, perpetual undeniably bitter bias and grudge against Obama. Politics is tough. I really don't think you can compare your claims of 'sexism' against Hillary to the massive orchestrated right wing deluge of smears against Michelle as an angry black woman [note cover of New Yorker] and her husband as a Muslim, a Kenyan born foreigner, a covert Islamofascist terrorist who palled around with a domestic terrorist etc., etc...
