Interesting CNN article about Democrats' concern regarding Hillary

Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate are that she isn't a good campaigner, she's not naturally likeable and she doesn't choose great people. Mark Penn sucked at running her last campaign. Her campaign was slow to react to Obama's and really got whipped. But then the Obama machine was pretty incredible at campaigning.

Scandals and gaffes are what the media tries to sell. It's garbage. Is there one person in the country that said, "I was for Romney until I saw that 47% tape" or "I liked Obama until he made that guns and religion crack"? I doubt it.

Presidential campaigns are about demographics and turnout. Can the democrat turn out enough young people and minorities? That's about all there is to it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Quote:

---

By "scandal", I mean anything that has been a controversy surrounding her.

- Whitewater
- Weird Vince Foster suicide
- Vanishing Rose Law Firm billing records in Arkansas
- The fortune she made in cattle futures under questionable circumstances
- Hiring Sandy Berger as an adviser after he was caught stealing from the National Archives
- James Riady, Indoneisan longtime Clinton/Democratic fundraiser and convicted criminal, allowed to enter US somehow in 2009
- Benghazi
- NSA data collection scandal
- Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea Clinton Foundation taking massive foreign donations while she was Secretary of State

---

Are we voting for the next Eagle Scout or for the best "politician". Stop fagging this up with idealism.

Clinton's pain threshold and cunning as evidenced above is the stuff of legend.

She's ruthless without crippling vindictiveness. She's crafty and cunning unlike guys like Chris Cristie. I once thought Christie was my boy but Clinton has bigger balls.

She's a dark, manipulative bitch. She's evil and scary. She can't be taken down - try and she might have you killed.

Clearly she is the best politician and worthy of your vote for MVP.

---

I noticed you've been trolling Druff quite a bit lately. Any particular reason?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate are that she isn't a good campaigner, she's not naturally likeable and she doesn't choose great people. Mark Penn sucked at running her last campaign. Her campaign was slow to react to Obama's and really got whipped. But then the Obama machine was pretty incredible at campaigning.

Scandals and gaffes are what the media tries to sell. It's garbage. Is there one person in the country that said, "I was for Romney until I saw that 47% tape" or "I liked Obama until he made that guns and religion crack"? I doubt it.

Presidential campaigns are about demographics and turnout. Can the democrat turn out enough young people and minorities? That's about all there is to it.

---

Its also a byproduct of the GOP semi-informally handing over their entire public outreach program to Matt Drudge earlier this year.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesparten

The New Forbes list of the world richest billionaires is like a who's,who of socialist and PROGRESSIVE idea supporters..DO YOU THINK THERE BEING ALTRUISTIC OR THAT'S WHAT BENEFITS THEM AND THERE CONTEMPORARIES?? This notion that republicans are for the rich is nuts...PROGRESSIVES consolidate power and wealth, it's like a feudal system..hello Detroit!! Lol

---

lay off the caps asshole

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sonatine

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate are that she isn't a good campaigner, she's not naturally likeable and she doesn't choose great people. Mark Penn sucked at running her last campaign. Her campaign was slow to react to Obama's and really got whipped. But then the Obama machine was pretty incredible at campaigning.

Scandals and gaffes are what the media tries to sell. It's garbage. Is there one person in the country that said, "I was for Romney until I saw that 47% tape" or "I liked Obama until he made that guns and religion crack"? I doubt it.

Presidential campaigns are about demographics and turnout. Can the democrat turn out enough young people and minorities? That's about all there is to it.

---

Its also a byproduct of the GOP semi-informally handing over their entire public outreach program to Matt Drudge earlier this year.

---

Good point. It's shocking to see the difference in GOP Latino outreach currently versus when GWB was president.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by thesparten

The New Forbes list of the world richest billionaires is like a who's,who of socialist and PROGRESSIVE idea supporters..DO YOU THINK THERE BEING ALTRUISTIC OR THAT'S WHAT BENEFITS THEM AND THERE CONTEMPORARIES?? This notion that republicans are for the rich is nuts...PROGRESSIVES consolidate power and wealth, it's like a feudal system..hello Detroit!! Lol

---

The top ten list for sure has two Kochs and at least two Waltons, so STFU.

Deflect and redirect...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

I noticed you've been trolling Druff quite a bit lately. Any particular reason?

---

I dunno Simp, Atlas Shrugged.

Poker is a form of social Darwinism.

I have never (before) met a poker player who felt that the world owed him something or that big brother needed to protect him from the big bad world, least of all other poker players.

The method used to pass UIAGA was somehow an anomaly of our political process? It IS our political process at work. Yet Druff wistfully looks to politicians to enact poker legislation that will have a "light touch". All the while, he professes that he does not do drugs.

The threads on this site offer endless examples of our political process perverted beyond any reasonable defense. Shit is entertaining and endless lulz. It is usually a layup to offer yet another example for Druff's consumption.

Something leads me to believe he has a motive I have not sussed out.

What is his personal mission statement for his weekly podcast? You would think it would be to inform and educate the poker playing consumer. He should be encouraging players to stay informed and choose wisely. Encourage sites to be transparent and bear scrutiny. Still don't trust the site owners? Allow only publicly traded sites.

I offer some possible laisse faire solutions. I challenge him to do the same short of legislation. Asking for help from our greasy politicians should be a last resort.

Druff does not reference posters or threads on his site. I read his explanation regarding readership vs listenership. I believe he is sincere but puzzled that he forfeits the obvious entertainment. No, he clearly wants to be some kind of "got to" poker resource. He doesn't want to dilute his "poker fraud" message with lulz from his community. Yet he doesn't think the poker community is sharp enough to fend for themselves given all the information and past lessons available to them.

So what is the point, Druff?

I have learned a lot from following him. I was oblivious to the fraud prior to signing up. Chad Elie was god. First couple of years of Lock etc was excellent. It's on me now.

I am not a troll. Trolling is an art. You are born to it. Yet I was as pointed and disappointed in him as I have ever been posting & reading in the SwC DD thread. The troll gene was almost flipped on. I am praising a poster named Cokehead for delivering the thread and riding Druff for posting four times when the post count was 700. wtf

This was a low point and a weak fold.

Sparten and I were laughing about the worst thing that can happen to a horseplayer on his first trip to the track. Obviously, he wins. Druff caught some early press - 60 Minutes(?). I guess his early stance was regulation of the bad guys and he can't shake the thrill of this early experience (or position). He's parlayed this message in an unwavering fashion.

Could be this, Simp, or perhaps I am just sick of losing money and I'm on tilt.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

I noticed you've been trolling Druff quite a bit lately. Any particular reason?

---

I dunno Simp, Atlas Shrugged.

Poker is a form of social Darwinism.

I have never (before) met a poker player who felt that the world owed him something or that big brother needed to protect him from the big bad world, least of all other poker players.

The method used to pass UIAGA was somehow an anomaly of our political process? It IS our political process at work. Yet Druff wistfully looks to politicians to enact poker legislation that will have a "light touch". All the while, he professes that he does not do drugs.

The threads on this site offer endless examples of our political process perverted beyond any reasonable defense. Shit is entertaining and endless lulz. It is usually a layup to offer yet another example for Druff's consumption.

Something leads me to believe he has a motive I have not sussed out.

What is his personal mission statement for his weekly podcast? You would think it would be to inform and educate the poker playing consumer. He should be encouraging players to stay informed and choose wisely. Encourage sites to be transparent and bear scrutiny. Still don't trust the site owners? Allow only publicly traded sites.

I offer some possible laisse faire solutions. I challenge him to do the same short of legislation. Asking for help from our greasy politicians should be a last resort.

Druff does not reference posters or threads on his site. I read his explanation regarding readership vs listenership. I believe he is sincere but puzzled that he forfeits the obvious entertainment. No, he clearly wants to be some kind of "got to" poker resource. He doesn't want to dilute his "poker fraud" message with lulz from his community. Yet he doesn't think the poker community is sharp enough to fend for themselves given all the information and past lessons available to them.

So what is the point, Druff?

I have learned a lot from following him. I was oblivious to the fraud prior to signing up. Chad Elie was god. First couple of years of Lock etc was excellent. It's on me now.

I am not a troll. Trolling is an art. You are born to it. Yet I was as pointed and disappointed in him as I have ever been posting & reading in the SwC DD thread. The troll gene was almost flipped on. I am praising a poster named Cokehead for delivering the thread and riding Druff for posting four times when the post count was 700. wtf

This was a low point and a weak fold.

Sparten and I were laughing about the worst thing that can happen to a horseplayer on his first trip to the track. Obviously, he wins. Druff caught some early press - 60 Minutes(?). I guess his early stance was regulation of the bad guys and he can't shake the thrill of this early experience (or position). He's parlayed this message in an unwavering fashion.

Could be this, Simp, or perhaps I am just sick of losing money and I'm on tilt.

---

I think you meant Pooh. Did you dip into some fine liquor tonight?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by simpdog

I think you meant Pooh. Did you dip into some fine liquor tonight?

---

Lol, SNL classic skit of Gilda Radner and Chevy Chase where Gilda Radner goes on a long, mistaken rant and then suddenly declares, "Never mind.

http://youtu.be/V3FnpaWQJO0

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ToasterOven

Clinton's weaknesses as a candidate are that she isn't a good campaigner, she's not naturally likeable and she doesn't choose great people. Mark Penn sucked at running her last campaign. Her campaign was slow to react to Obama's and really got whipped. But then the Obama machine was pretty incredible at campaigning.

Scandals and gaffes are what the media tries to sell. It's garbage. Is there one person in the country that said, "I was for Romney until I saw that 47% tape" or "I liked Obama until he made that guns and religion crack"? I doubt it.

Presidential campaigns are about demographics and turnout. Can the democrat turn out enough young people and minorities? That's about all there is to it.

---

The 47% thing really hurt Romney. He probably still would have lost even if that didn't happen, but that was seen as a go-to piece of "proof" that Romney didn't care about the poorer half of the country. And that was a killer. Never mind the fact that Romney was talking campaign strategy, and not dismissing that segment of the population. The sound byte, and what it represented, was enough to seriously damage him.

If you think there isn't a single person whose mind wasn't ultimately made up by the 47% thing, then you don't understand the simplicity of undecided voters in this country.

Let's go back to 1988.

I don't know how old you are. Perhaps you aren't old enough to remember the Willie Horton ads against Michael Dukakis, but I'm sure you've heard/read about the situation. That was another fatal blow to a Presidential campaign, and amazingly, it involved an area (crime and punishment) which typically doesn't involve the President. But people were disgusted by Dukakis' policies on weekend furloughs for dangerous criminals from his days as governor, and it really put a dent in his political chances. Ask anyone knowledgeable about the 1988 election, and you will hear that two defining moments of Dukakis' loss were the Willie Horton ads and the ill-advised tank picture.

http://images.politico.com/global/20...s_tank_2_c.jpg

Dumb things can sink Presidential campaigns.

Think of how far down Howard Dean's Presidential stock fell just because he let out a stupid scream at a campaign rally.

The Republicans have a very deep well to draw from when it comes to scandals involving Hillary Clinton. They probably won't focus on Vince Foster (too long ago, and too hard to prove) or James Riady (too minor and too difficult to explain quickly). However, many other times on my list, especially the more recent ones, will definitely be used against her. It will be effective to at least some degree. Might not be effective enough to beat her, but it will be effective.

Hillary has not faced a high-profile, well-funded, negative campaign yet. Her Senate campaigns and 2008 run for President will pale in comparison compared to what she will face in 2016 against the Republicans.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sanlmar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pooh

I noticed you've been trolling Druff quite a bit lately. Any particular reason?

---

I dunno Simp, Atlas Shrugged.

Poker is a form of social Darwinism.

I have never (before) met a poker player who felt that the world owed him something or that big brother needed to protect him from the big bad world, least of all other poker players.

The method used to pass UIAGA was somehow an anomaly of our political process? It IS our political process at work. Yet Druff wistfully looks to politicians to enact poker legislation that will have a "light touch". All the while, he professes that he does not do drugs.

The threads on this site offer endless examples of our political process perverted beyond any reasonable defense. Shit is entertaining and endless lulz. It is usually a layup to offer yet another example for Druff's consumption.

Something leads me to believe he has a motive I have not sussed out.

What is his personal mission statement for his weekly podcast? You would think it would be to inform and educate the poker playing consumer. He should be encouraging players to stay informed and choose wisely. Encourage sites to be transparent and bear scrutiny. Still don't trust the site owners? Allow only publicly traded sites.

I offer some possible laisse faire solutions. I challenge him to do the same short of legislation. Asking for help from our greasy politicians should be a last resort.

Druff does not reference posters or threads on his site. I read his explanation regarding readership vs listenership. I believe he is sincere but puzzled that he forfeits the obvious entertainment. No, he clearly wants to be some kind of "got to" poker resource. He doesn't want to dilute his "poker fraud" message with lulz from his community. Yet he doesn't think the poker community is sharp enough to fend for themselves given all the information and past lessons available to them.

So what is the point, Druff?

I have learned a lot from following him. I was oblivious to the fraud prior to signing up. Chad Elie was god. First couple of years of Lock etc was excellent. It's on me now.

I am not a troll. Trolling is an art. You are born to it. Yet I was as pointed and disappointed in him as I have ever been posting & reading in the SwC DD thread. The troll gene was almost flipped on. I am praising a poster named Cokehead for delivering the thread and riding Druff for posting four times when the post count was 700. wtf

This was a low point and a weak fold.

Sparten and I were laughing about the worst thing that can happen to a horseplayer on his first trip to the track. Obviously, he wins. Druff caught some early press - 60 Minutes(?). I guess his early stance was regulation of the bad guys and he can't shake the thrill of this early experience (or position). He's parlayed this message in an unwavering fashion.

Could be this, Simp, or perhaps I am just sick of losing money and I'm on tilt.

---

You are overthinking this one.

There is no agenda to my radio show. It's a combination of entertainment and an opinionated look at poker/gambling news stories. That's all. I don't make money from it, I don't expect to ever make money from it, and I am not looking to use it to elevate my status in poker or anywhere else. In the '70s and '80s I used to listen to the radio a lot, and thought how cool it would be if I had my own show one day. While a career in mainstream radio is very difficult and painful to achieve in 2015, the ability to have an internet show satisfies my desire to do something that I always had an interest in from an early age. If I can educate people about the dangers of fraud in poker and save them money that would have otherwise fallen into the hands of scammers, that's an added bonus.

I don't talk about forum stuff much on the radio simply because most of the radio audience doesn't read the forum actively, and it would be boring for them.

I am not looking for big government to rescue online poker. I do think that some form of regulation is necessary. You may not agree, but I have seen enough from the self-regulation model to know that it's a complete failure. I don't think that modified forms of self-regulation, free-market regulation, or independent audit regulation will be much better. The gambling industry attracts a lot of corrupt/shady types, and therefore some light touch regulation is necessary. I don't see you complaining about government regulation of brick & mortar gambling. That model has worked for many decades. It can work for online poker, too, if done correctly.

Why did I stay away from the Seals thread at first? Because I had a gentleman's agreement with Micon that we wouldn't talk shit about each other, and that I wouldn't discuss Seals. He violated that agreement for no reason during the 2014 WSOP, but we came to terms again and I kept to my end of things. However, I knew that one day Seals would get busted in some way, and then it would be too hard (and in fact contradictory of the mission of this site) for me to stay quiet about it. So I was torn between feeling a need to comment about Seals and wanting to keep the peace with Micon. I finally decided to comment, but only focus on the situation, and kept my personal feelings about Micon to myself. While I haven't posted a whole lot in the thread, I think you will agree that the posts I did make about the matter were thoughtful and worth reading.

You brought up my appearance on 60 Minutes. I caught a lot of shit for my comment at the end -- stating that other sites might also be cheating, and it might be harder to catch. There were 50 pages of angry messages about me on 2+2. Nolan Dalla, who I otherwise like for the most part, also bashed me about it in a blog, and called me irresponsible.

Guess what? I was right. In Dalla's piece, he chastised me for calling into question the integrity of "legitimate businesses" such as Full Tilt.

Few people would take my position seriously. I was told that Pokerstars and Full Tilt were pillars of the community, and could do no wrong. I was told that the model of self-regulation was working great, and that I was just scaring away potential fish from the game by daring to imply that these companies were anything but above board.

I can't say that I knew Full Tilt was stealing our money, but I can say that I knew there was no guarantee that they weren't, and I was trying to warn people that even the biggest sites can't be trusted without regulation.

That's still how I feel.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

Let's go back to 1988.

Ask anyone knowledgeable about the 1988 election, and you will hear that two defining moments of Dukakis' loss were the Willie Horton ads and the ill-advised tank picture.

http://images.politico.com/global/20...s_tank_2_c.jpg

Dumb things can sink Presidential campaigns.

Think of how far down Howard Dean's Presidential stock fell just because he let out a stupid scream at a campaign rally.

---

That whole thing about the "Dean Scream" was way over done by the media. The media knew Dean couldn't beat Bush in 2004, and when they had their chance they made him look like as big a fool as possible. The Republican talking heads got hold of it and Dean was the butt of every joke for a few weeks. All the guy was trying to do was fire his people up and got carried away with himself. I probably disagreed with 95% of his politics, but I was feeling sorry for him through this stretch.

Found an interesting video about the Dukakis in a Tank episode from one of the Democrat advance team.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uBlEOvIBTEs

I accept your answer that the show is simply done for kicks. Actually, I have heard you say this before. I will layoff and apologize. I will listen with a new point of view.

You are not trying to be HaleyH but you find it interesting and have your opinions.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

The gambling industry attracts a lot of corrupt/shady types, and therefore some light touch regulation is necessary.

---

I think modern politics attracts ambitious corrupt/shady types and therefore Federal light touch regulation is impossible. So far, I am right.

Hopefully, someday our representative form of democracy will be replaced by a web driven - (blockchain based?) direct democracy. Transfer your wallet of votes to whomever you wish on certain issues if you like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Dan Druff

I don't see you complaining about government regulation of brick & mortar gambling. That model has worked for many decades. It can work for online poker, too, if done correctly.

---

Brick and mortar casinos are failing on their own. This time I cannot blame government except that the approval process outside of Nevada somewhat drives them to build on too grand a scale. They would probably overbuild anyway. Maybe no Ferris wheels.

Bigcharts CZR, LVS, WYNN & MGM. Stock market at all time high. Record employment. Free Fed money. Whatsamatta?

I promise you the Massachusetts planned casinos ARE too big and will fail, as an example.

That the government prohibited casino gaming for a century irks me as all similar laws intended protect me from myself do.

Consider the politics and legal shenanigans employed by the first brick & mortar casino outside of Vegas, Foxwoods, to become legalized. A Tribe of white & black people (show me an Indian in Connecticut) and their lawyers bamboozled the legal system and Federal & State laws. A classic and entertaining case of complete legal & legislative bullshit. There are a couple of tremendous books written about the Foxwoods story.

There was no "light touch" thoughtfully crafted legislation. The Feds and Connecticut got stuffed.

I will voluntarily sit out a couple of orbits cause we are at an impasse.

Back to Mike Dukakis. A nice academic who wasn't cut out for real politics without helmets and pads.

toaster ,I hate to admit it, but druff landed a few body blows with his last two posts. You're still ahead on points

facebook sentiment data?

:lol2

I'd show this geezer taking a header every chance I got...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JwuEPoeZxzg

Interesting column by Dick Morris on Hillary.

http://thehillarydaily.com/obama-thr...under-the-bus/

Obama Throws Hillary Under The Bus

By Dick Morris and Eileen McGann

With friends like Obama, Hillary doesn’t need enemies. Asked about his Secretary of State’s insistence on using her own e mail server, located in her house, the president was quick to contrast Hillary’s behavior with his own policy of “transparency.”

“The policy of my administration,” the president noted, “is to encourage transparency, which is why my emails, the BlackBerry I carry around, all those records are available and archived.”

He then defended Hillary with faint praise, sidestepping the chance to offer a substantive defense of her private e mails and, instead, blandly noting that “Let me just say that Hillary Clinton is and has been an outstanding public servant. She was a great secretary of state for me.” Some defense!

The next day, Obama’s press secretary was questioned as to when the president learned that Hillary wasn’t using the government emails. He noted that the president had gotten e mails from Hillary and must have noticed the address on them. But, he too, sidestepped a chance to defend the actions of the former Secretary of State.

Were Obama’s comments merely about the actions of his former Secretary of State, they would be surprising by themselves. But to leave the all-but-certain Democratic nominee out there slowly twisting in the wind is incredible.

It can mean only one thing: that Hillary Clinton is no longer the all-but-certain nominee.

For a year or more, Obama has hinted that we would welcome a Warren candidacy. Worried that Hillary would be insufficiently liberal to protect his legacy of power grabs and stop their reversal by more balanced cabinet secretaries, he wants a real radical to succeed him.

Now, his tepid defense of Hillary makes clear that he sees an opportunity to leave Hillary out there by herself and is in no hurry to pull her chestnuts out of the fire.

Especially since Hillary cannot defend herself, Obama’s reluctance to come to her aid is surprising. The former Secretary of State has been virtually mum in her own defense, confining her justifications to a short tweet expressing the hope that the public will be able to see all her e mails. Mrs. Clinton’s lawyers doubtless have her muzzled so that she doesn’t say anything that could hurt her should criminal changes be brought.

In the larger scandal, we are still waiting for the other shoe to drop: did Hillary keep classified information on her in home server? If she did, she is as guilty as former CIA director John Deutch, General David Petraeus, and former National Security Adviser Sandy Berger, all of whom have been cited for breaching security and punished accordingly (except for Deutch who got a presidential pardon).

If there is classified info on that server, Hillary may be finished. But she doesn’t look too good right now.

"Inside baseball" the Obama democrats and the Clinton democrats are at all out war.