You and Bouldin tend to see only what you want to see, and maybe I'm guilty of that too. Yes I do mention Hillary a lot and I happen to like her, but I have probably mentioned Obama just as much. I wrote effusively about him last year well before he decided to run. I was the one who put items on daily gotham about his book signings .etc But I'm not an Obama-bot am I? No I'm a Hillary-bot because Hillary is the one you don't like and therefore any positive talk about her irritates you (or certainly Bouldin) a lot more than similar talk about Obama. So you see what you want to see, which is hillary-bot.

This even when I have also repeatedly criticized her. Earlier I posted a response in Rock's item at room eight specifically saying that Hillary hasn't proved her leadership abilities, her executive skills, yet.

What I am seeing here is more zero-sum mentality. One side is all good and one is all bad. The kneejerk reaction to stereotype someone you don't agree with on one or more issues completely on all issues and all things. Bouldin in particular has gone out of his way to make it personal, calling me foul mouthed names, saying I'm a racist, saying I call other people racists, making character attacks. All because I disagree with his approach to certain political issues. He can't accept that we can have the same goals but different styles. In his view I'm not on the same page as him, I must be evil scum. So since Hillary epitomizes the things he doesn't like, I'm a hillary bot. Stereotyping. Labeling. Just the same sort of tactics the right uses and that we all despise. He won't give me half an ounce of credit that I'm not a hillary-bot, because in his zero-sum mentality where he's all good, I have to be all bad. I *have* to be a hillary-bot right>?