[QUOTE="Got Disney";25583499]Hmmm funny how all the articles I read are more on Hillary than Obama or McCain....negative or positive they just cant seem to move on
they are all Hillary lovers in disguise I tell ya. Also funny how they all say the HS are all negative when it's many OS spreading all the dirt
but again that's the double standard...that is
[/QUOTE]
Why is it a great surprise that, when a losing candidate flushes $212,000,000 down the crapper, it stays a lead story? It's a story of hubris, how not to run a campaign, and how to lose.
In that respect, Hillary ought to shake hands with Rudolph Giulani.
Btw, regardless of whether Obama outspent Hillary or not, he came out the winner. That's the other side of the story.
And what "dirt"? Did she spend $212,000,000 on a losing campaign or not? That isn't "dirt". That's a fact. Since when do facts become "dirt"?
Instead of pointing fingers at everyone, Hillary ought to be pointing fingers at herself and wonder why, when she had it all going in (money, name recognition, sense of inevitability, etc.,) she lost. Maybe Mark Penn should've been given the boot instead of a paycheck when it became clearly obvious his advice strategy wasn't a winning one? Maybe someone in Hillary's high priced campaign should've looked at the rise in Hillary's negatives as she was in "kitchen sink mode". They would've seen what the rest of us saw: It wasn't working.
This can go on and on, but the fact is, Hillary spend $212,000,000 to lose.
