Originally Posted by Password

If Barbara Bush was running for president in a heated battle you're damn straight he would be speaking out.

I do believe that Bill has indeed hurt his wife...as he has in the past personally. However, the media is all about selling their message and being first. They don't really cover news anymore.

I agree with your second paragraph, but not entirely with your first.

Usually when a candidate's spouse "stumps", they talk about the great things that their husband can and will do for the country. It's a positive message about their spouse, not so much a negative message about the other candidate.

I'm surprised that HRC hasn't told Bill to go have a cigar and be quiet by now. He's made his point, and it's becoming distracting to her (their) campaign (IMO).

Originally Posted by matclone

Hardly anyone was talking about Edwards, which is sad.

Yes, I think Edwards is toast at this point.

The ultimate status-quo race would pit Clinton against Romney, which raises the question, would his looks carry him to victory?

Originally Posted by matclone

The ultimate status-quo race would pit Clinton against Romney,

Agree completely on that.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I agree with your second paragraph, but not entirely with your first.

Usually when a candidate's spouse "stumps", they talk about the great things that their husband can and will do for the country. It's a positive message about their spouse, not so much a negative message about the other candidate.

I'm surprised that HRC hasn't told Bill to go have a cigar and be quiet by now. He's made his point, and it's becoming distracting to her (their) campaign (IMO).

Have you actually listened to his stump speeches or just Fox News sound bites? He always brings up her positive attributes, although he needs to tone down some of his attacks.

Not sure why you made your cigar comment but I suspect you meant it in the Ken Starr kind of way. That goes to your credibility as to your perceptions of the Clintons.

"Have you actually listened to his stump speeches or just Fox News sound bites? He always brings up her positive attributes, although he needs to tone down some of his attacks."

Is that called talking out of both sides of your mouth?

I don't know why you guys always accuse anyone who has an alternate point of view from you as Fox News fanatics. That's a weak argument that attemps to change the subject.

Originally Posted by Flop The Nuts

I don't know why you guys
always accuse anyone who has an alternate point of view from you as Fox News fanatics. That's a weak argument that attemps to change the subject.

1. Use of exaggerated rhetoric: see bolded terms for examples.
2. Talking in Fox-like paradigms: simple, polarized, lacking nuance. I'll never forget watching Neal Cavuto (in discussing stats showing a loss of jobs) asking the Vice-President of the United States: "are these (lost) jobs burger-flippers?
3. Using arguments that might be heard on Fox.

Originally Posted by matclone

1. Use of exaggerated rhetoric: see bolded terms for examples.
2. Talking in Fox-like paradigms: simple, polarized, lacking nuance. I'll never forget watching Neal Cavuto (in discussing stats showing a loss of jobs) asking the Vice-President of the United States: "are these (lost) jobs burger-flippers?
3. Using arguments that might be heard on Fox.

Predictable response from you Clone. When you disagree with something, call it simple, compare it to Fox News, and/or call someone a liar.

What exactly did I say that was lacking in nuance, or simple, or polarizing? I have no idea what Fox News is saying about him, but I pointed out that both Grieder and Frank Rich have made similar comments (in print), which would seem to be contrary to the Fox News stereotype. Folks on the right and the left have recently criticized B Clinton for his actions. If figures on both sides of the aisle are criticizing him, how is it polarizing? I'm not criticizing anyone here but Clinton - I said nothing about the D's or the R's.

My point is that B Clinton's negativity towards other candidates (of his own party) is unprecedented, un-Presidential and is hurting his wife's campaign. Password agreed that it is hurting HRC's campaign, but disagrees about it being unprecedented.

Something I've observed: fans of cable TV often will not acknowledge the ways that news coverage is shaped and manipulated (except through the idiotic concept of "liberal bias"). They seem to accept the news as presented, as a reflection of the real world.

True, but I'm not sure whether you're addressing that to me, or just navel gazing.

I was defending myself against Password's claim that I might be getting my news spoon fed from Fox News. I understand the left's perception of Fox News, so I didn't need to have that recited to me. I was only curious as to why the perjorative was applied to me, as I was actually referring to arguments from some of the left's more esteemed sources.