Fioricet without prescription http://rxwithoutprescription.com/

Anyone who thinks Rush Limbaugh is not affecting these primaries is not living in the real world! They are affecting things big time!!!

If Rush is so ineffective then why in the world are all the libs so upset and can't stop talking about him?

I think it's definitely unethical to register as a Democrat in order to cast a mischief vote. You'd be lying as to your allegiance, which isn't really a small matter. Heck, I wanted very much to vote for Barack Obama in the Washington caucuses, but couldn't, because I wasn't willing to register as a Democrat. (Wouldn't register as a Republican, either).

The only trouble with you analogy with the soccer team is I assume every body was on the same team. This is a primary, the republicans are not on our team. In sports would we let the opposing team appoint our captain! I got an idea, next time let's all switch parties in the primary and try to elect the worse candidate for that party.

At least with Hillary, we have a chance in NOVEMBER. Obama represents a total waste of time and money. All the money wasted.
He can't win the general election.

The media will not continue to show OBAMA bias and keep the voters in the dark, this will not continue.

The Rush Limbaugh effect has been debunked on www.factcheck.org

Rush isn't all powerful and in fact, more Republican have voted for Obama than Hillary and to assign a motive behind each Republican vote is NONSENSE! It's speculative and divisive at most. End this dumb debate on whose Republican voters are genuine, or not. Good GOD!

Chaos is the tool of the devil to create hell on earth. Anyone who uses this tool is inherently evil. It would be better they were never born. Corrupting our political system is not Democratic or Patriotic.

Chaos is the tool of the devil to create hell on earth. Anyone who uses this tool is inherently evil. It was better they were never born. Corrupting our political system is not Democratic or Patriotic.

jhbyer....ok...enough bombastic commentary from my end...

taking an election seriously doesn't equate to making informed decisions. not attacking you...the point is that the information we get, whether from the left/right or middle, is so polemical and untrustworthy as to defy imagination.

attacking Limbaugh is merely finger-pointing at the symptoms - IMO. the real discussion ought to be over how to be informed; how to learn when information can be trusted; how to change the nature and substance of discourse. anyone remotely familiar with what really goes on in, say, a professional domain/community-of-interest...or perhaps behind the scenes campaign financing cross-cutting interests...knows that the media and very often "critical" academia do not analyze with much fealty to the facts. we now have manufactured realities as exemplified by frauds like Mike Moore.

you can't have a well-functioning democracy when the very information voters use to decide is untrustworthy - across the board.

Dear lmao, Hi. Wow.
If average voters' taking elections seriously is to you a "self-important but meaningless self-avowed assertion" what would replying to your comment be?

jhbyer...

- aside from the near histerical projections in Denni's post

-and the rather obvious labeling of entire groups of people (you know, the stuff you and others react to when the swath hapepns to cover your affliations or ideology)

- and the self-important but meaningless assertion of self-avowed "seriousness" you make

- and the even more fatuous notion that you have the insights to make things better by the very fact of your participation in "the process"

I was only trying to point out that what daffy duck on steroids (Limbaugh) stands accused of has been practiced by both of the major parties for decades....and the variants of election fraud (if what Limbaugh is advocating truly is such) have also been legend for decades on end. empty moralizing about one instance without attacking the higher generalization is fatuous and shouldn't be taken seriously....by anyone. the criticism, in short, is transparently political and places the accuser in the same category as the accused: pot stirrer.

Obama's poor judgment in not removing his 2 girls from viewing "Porn-on-the-Pulpit" by his beloved "Uncle Jeremiah" (gyrating and screaming: "Bill is riding us dirty like Monica!") and listening to his Sunday School Hatred Sermons speaks volumes of his "transcending" race. Why did he have to wait 20 years for the "transcedning" lofty speech rather than start conversation with the 'pulpit pervert' a heavenly long time ago? To allow his cihldren to witness such 'profanity-and-hate-laced sermons" (as N.Y.Times wrote), means that the speech was just a politically expedient survival tool. And he dared throw his grandmother under bus calling her racist for making IDENTICAL remarks made by Jesse Jackson in Chicago that he "was looking over his shoulder and felt relieved if the guy following was a white guy and not black"!!.

Also Jesse's son, who is the co-chair of the Obamyopics campaign said this in Iowa:
"it's natural this O.J. comparison...Obama can't be seeen as atractive if he tries to knock the white woman down"!

So, leave the race now Sen. Obama unless you dissociate terminally with the pastor of Hate. Icidentally, why don't you post like someone suggested: an X-RATED WARNING sign PREVENING CHILDREN FROM ENTRY at your Church of Hate. Shame on yoi!

I agree with Sen McCain when he was asked by Tim Russert of Meet the Press back in 2005 in Baghdad what he thought of Hillary:

"THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT"...
"I AM SURE THAT SHE WILL.."

Obama, redeem thyself: a) Take your kids away from Uncle Jerry's Church; and
(b) Get full tenure and start lecturing again.
(c) Take courses in women's history 101, Ethics 101 and Philosophy 101 and Ethics; and
(d) Visit Rome and Athens for a change, find out the real birthplace/cradle of civilization and democracy;
(e_ instead of donating to your church, donate to the Holocaust Memorial and to the memory of the 620,000 white soldiers who fought 1861-65 for Civil Rights.

Obama's poor judgment in not removing his 2 girls from viewing "Porn-on-the-Pulpit" by his beloved "Uncle Jeremiah" (gyrating and screaming: "Bill is riding us dirty like Monica!") and listening to his Sunday School Hatred Sermons speaks volumes of his "transcending" race. Why did he have to wait 20 years for the "transcedning" lofty speech rather than start conversation with the 'pulpit pervert' a heavenly long time ago? To allow his cihldren to witness such 'profanity-and-hate-laced sermons" (as N.Y.Times wrote), means that the speech was just a politically expedient survival tool. And he dared throw his grandmother under bus calling her racist for making IDENTICAL remarks made by Jesse Jackson in Chicago that he "was looking over his shoulder and felt relieved if the guy following was a white guy and not black"!!.

Also Jesse's son, who is the co-chair of the Obamyopics campaign said this in Iowa:
"it's natural this O.J. comparison...Obama can't be seeen as atractive if he tries to knock the white woman down"!

So, leave the race now Sen. Obama unless you dissociate terminally with the pastor of Hate. Icidentally, why don't you post like someone suggested: an X-RATED WARNING sign PREVENING CHILDREN FROM ENTRY at your Church of Hate. Shame on yoi!

I agree with Sen McCain when he was asked by Tim Russert of Meet the Press back in 2005 in Baghdad what he thought of Hillary:

"THERE'S NO DOUBT IN MY MIND THAT HILLARY CLINTON WILL MAKE A GREAT PRESIDENT"...
"I AM SURE THAT SHE WILL.."

Obama, redeem thyself: a) Take your kids away from Uncle Jerry's Church; and
(b) Get full tenure and start lecturing again.
(c) Take courses in women's history 101, Ethics 101 and Philosophy 101 and Ethics; and
(d) Visit Rome and Athens for a change, find out the real birthplace/cradle of civilization and democracy;
(e_ instead of donating to your church, donate to the Holocaust Memorial and to the memory of the 620,000 white soldiers who fought 1861-65 for Civil Rights.

luxveritasetlibertas,
I've come around to your way of thinking. A noncriminal law, for which a small fine would be levied by mail, say $20 that you could protest by letter, or in court, like a traffic fine and get released from, for cause, would command more public attention to issues.. In due course, the bar on political discourse might be obliged to get out of the gutter. If the poor then vote more than the rich - excellent - because they're the ones who suffer now from not being able to contribute to candidates. Workers ought to be given time off like they are by law for jury duty. 24 hour polls, say, sundown Friday to Saturday, is not too much to demand of our government. The cost increase would be a mere rounding error.

I too served on a grand jury for a fed circuit court that selects four every January, each grand jury to serve a 4-day week, one week a month, for a year. Four appellate judges each selects 25 citizen souls who will send bills only to him or her. We sent up 139 bills. Whew! While the boredom at times rivaled any bad job, at times I was spellbound. Did you find the insight into our system was an opportunity, as did I, that ultimately you'd not have missed for anything?

BTW, Andres surely knows that negative rights don't actually exist outside the domain of language - or so I learned on jury duty. :)

Dear lmao,
For us, with kids and grandkids, this election is something you'll just have to excuse our taking seriously, if that's the problem you had with Denni's well-reasoned post on which you projected rancor. "A sword that cuts both ways" sounds like you imagine Denni has done what maybe you've done, whatever that is. Is that the "it" to get with? I don't want to misunderstand you.

Dear Denni...get with it. that sword cuts both ways. why now the sudden rancor?

btw...have you served? or are you another polemicist standing on the sidelines googling for 2nd and 3rd party "facts"?

Actually, Limbaugh and his "Operation Chaos" voters are being investigated for election tampering. His 'Operation Chaos' is illegal, at least in the state of Ohio. No one should be told to 'get over it' when 1 - an act of fraud is committed (voters have to attest to voting for the party out of belief in the values, etc, of that party). 2 - the future of this nation is at stake. 3 - a right bought and paid for by veterans who've given their lives is treated as a game.

It astounds me that the 'patriotic' party, one that supports this war, almost without question, doesn't think it's such a big deal to dishonor the system and those who've died for it. Maybe that explains the lack of concern for the 4000+ soldiers who've died... whose roles in Iraq have been reduced to 'so' and 'they volunteered'.

Stumped wrote: "The right not to vote is also sacred, by the way.. I don't want to live in a country where voters are compelled to vote"
I disagree. Australia fines it's citizens for not voting. I believe that citizens should be compelled to vote, (the option to vote: "Choose not to cast a ballot for any candidate" should be provided). Our Constitution provides for freedom of political *thought*, NOT an abdication of our Civic Responsibilities. Voting is more fundamental to a vibrant democracy than Jury Duty, and for that we seem OK with compulsory service - something that requires far more time & effort (I speak from experience having the luck(?) of recently getting put on a Grand Jury panel for 19 days).
Freedom comes with responsibility. Likewise that expression "you get what you give" rings true. Both the Congress and the President have approval ratings under 30 percent. We don't like what we're getting, yet we seem surprised, despite the fact the U.S. has one of the lowest rates of voter turnout in the world. According to The International Institute for Democracy and Electoral Assistance, in an analysis of all elections since 1945, the U.S. had an average voter turnout rate of only 48.3%, placing us nearly at the bottom. We've earned the dubious distinction of landing at #139 (out of 172) We're lower on the list than Uganda!
Perhaps 'Stumped' should reconsider the sacredness of the "right" not to vote - As a friend of mine would put it, "So how's that working out for you?"

Ego Nemo,
I was serious, but I guess I gushed. Your post IS great. Full disclosure: my late husband was a lawyer. After working 16 hours a day for two months straight without a day off, he came home at the dinner hour (VERY early for him!) and promptly died of a heart attack. Take it easy :)

annonymouse- yes! Gore/Obama for 2008-16 then Obama from 2016-24.

Not because Barack lacks experience. Far from it. He has more than Lincoln (2 yrs US Rep) and Washington (zilch) our two greatest POTUS and as much as FDR and JFK. He does have less than Andrew Johnson, Fillmore, Coolidge, and Hoover, I admit.

No, it's not Barack's experience that is lacking - it's the experience of some voters. Barack grows on us, that's what the polls show. Some voters may need a little more time than others to learn about Barack.

Also, Gore was ripped off and so was America by the Supremes stopping the FL recount. Alas, I fear Al may be glad he's gone on to other heights. Winning the Nobel is a hard act to follow by a wallow in the filth of American politics.

YO,FLORIDIAN DEMS! Where were you in 2000 when the Supremes stopped your recount? You know, like, when it was an actual ELECTION not just a primary? When you had an actual Constitutional leg to stand on? You Dems who are now threatening *sniffle* to throw the general *sniffle* if you don't get your precious delegates sat? Where were you in 2000? If you protested then, I apologize. Otherwise, I have to wonder if a tropical bacterium is eating your Democratic brains.

The amazing thing about Limbaugh's pilonidal cyst is it truly did get him out of a war he wanted others to die in and isn't just a perfect metaphor for the man, a signature physical trait, and capsule biopic.

Buddy K - Well said! Thanks.

It seems to me that voting in another political party's primary for the sole purpose of picking the weakest candidate is as unethical as plagiarism. It's patently dishonest, even if there is no legal penalty and scant chance that you'll be caught.

Nobody expects Limbaugh to care about honesty or ethics. It wasn't too long ago that he was telling his audience that he would rather see a Democrat in the White House than McCain. This was reported by the Post, but I guess Stumped cannot bother to read what the providers of his paycheck report. Nor is he concerned with doing what is right even if it is not expedient. I'm not sure that a blogger can rightly be called a professional journalist, but perhaps the Post should offer remedial training in ethics to its blog staff.

Honesty is the best policy, Stumped. Didn't your mother teach you that? Fortunately most of the voters do understand this principle and will not vote in the other Party's elections.

I am still surprised Rush has any credibility with anyone.

I mean, this is a guy who dodged the draft during the Vietnam War by refusing to have a pilonidal cyst operated on.

For those who don't know, a pilonidal cyst is a painful boil in the crack of your ass that fills your underwear twice a day with the foulest pus one can imagine. A simple surgical procedure remedies the condition.

Rather than defend his country, a duty he now so stridently claims belongs to others, Rush *chose* to live with this non-life threatening, oozing, smelly cyst on his posterior for 3 years.

What a guy.

Forget the Clinton/Obama fight. Now an "expert" is saying that it could be a Gore/Obama ticket with not much problem:

"Which brings us back to Al Gore. Pish-tosh, you say, and you're probably right. But let's play a little. Let's say the elders of the Democratic Party decide, when the primaries end, that neither Obama nor Clinton is viable. Let's also assume - and this may be a real stretch - that such elders are strong and smart enough to act. All they'd have to do would be to convince a significant fraction of their superdelegate friends, maybe fewer than 100, to announce that they were taking a pass on the first ballot at the Denver convention, which would deny the 2,025 votes necessary to Obama or Clinton. What if they then approached Gore and asked him to be the nominee, for the good of the party - and suggested that he take Obama as his running mate? Of course, Obama would have to be a party to the deal and bring his 1,900 or so delegates along."

Stranger things are happening.

there has been a terrible smell (oder)detected in this primary after the use of highly sofisticated detectors it has been found to be B O

5000 dollors price of an island getaway to escape negitive madia and truths of mentor hillary clinton for president priceless

JUDAS IS ALIVE, WELL, AND IN THE U.S. SENATE

CONSTUENTS FOR SALE!
___________________________________________
READ WHAT HAPPENED:

Nuclear Leaks and Response Tested Obama in Senate

By MIKE McINTIRE
Published: February 3, 2008 Read complete story at NY Times

When residents in Illinois voiced outrage two years ago upon learning that the Exelon Corporation had not disclosed radioactive leaks at one of its nuclear plants, the state's freshman senator, Barack Obama, took up their cause.

Mr. Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was "the only nuclear legislation that I've passed."

"I just did that last year," he said, to murmurs of approval.

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story.

While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate.

The history of the bill shows Mr. Obama navigating a home-state controversy that pitted two important constituencies against each other and tested his skills as a legislative infighter. On one side were neighbors of several nuclear plants upset that low-level radioactive leaks had gone unreported for years; on the other was Exelon, the country's largest nuclear plant operator and one of Mr. Obama's largest sources of campaign money.
___________________

So the Lobbyist becomes a fund raiser, then milks workers in the industry to contribute to the campaign....no footprint of Lobbyist!

Dear Andres,

Greetings from Dubai!
In believe you did lie when you said that in the story where you mis-spoke about there being a fire at Starbucks, you left your laptop in the coffee shop, and then ran back in. If there had been a real fire, you would never have left your laptop there in the first place. Had there been a fire, your laptop would have been the first thing you would have grabbed before rushing out. You might have left the laptop bag, but NOT your laptop! So there, you definitely lied, even though the whole thing was hypothetical!

Just riding on an air plane today justifies a medal in any war zone Hillary not a scratch. Obams has flown over the pacific and US and not a scratch. G W Bush made so many trips to Crawford Tx the plane needs no pilot. So what does mean. Nothing just like the question!!!

CONTINUED: And so started the Secret Grooming of Hillary Clinton for President after all there were no other candidates in view yet that would do anything to saatisfy personal gain and the TriLateral Commision was the ultimate coo. So what Kissenger was to Nixon, what Baker was to Regan and Bush Sr and what Cheney is to Bush Jr. Bill Clinton would be to Hillary Clinton. So a no stop, get down and white trash dirty became the banner which brings me back to the Rush yakker. He's just another Carville, discusting and vile to the bought off core. This fairytale was brought to you by a concerned American Citizen.

Once upon a time there was a guy named Rush who wasn't too bad at radio yakking and then he got in trouble with a drug thing. Instead of paying time he was indoctinated into the TriLateral commission and his yakking radio program became pro anything TriLateral. So when Bush Sr. being at bad bad odds with B. Clinton wound up becoming pals to such an extent with their joint international charity work that B. Clinton even gushed 'golly gee if I had a father, I'd want him to be just like Bush Sr. I kinda do think of him just like the father I never had." TO BE CONTINUED.

Should the Democrats turn their backs on the woman who ...

braved sniper fire and bad hair in the Bosnian wind ...

helped Ireland achieve peace after decades of strife ...

tried to stop Nafta (by buttonholing women's groups in the White House and telling them to support it) ...

etc.,

etc.,

etc.

Yes!

Credibility counts.

Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability.

No one believes that a party represents change if it is also a party to corruption.

The Clintons used to be able to bully people in the Democratic Party.

Look at the Pavlovian response by Party fat cats who support Hillary--how they tried to push Nancy Pelosi around.

But they are burdened with more quiver than arrows.

Their no-holds-barred threats have been transformed into ineffective heavy handedness.

The Democratic Party can do better.

It will do better ...

With Barack Obama as its nominee come this November.

What Hillary has to say about the democratic leaders saying she should leave the race.
"In a conversation with two Democratic allies, she compared the situation to the "big boys" trying to bully a woman, according to interviews with them."

That's right Hillary, keep stirring the women's lib thing and you might get a few more votes, but you mathematically can't get enough. "Oh, poor little me, I's so feminine and I am being bullied by the big boys" Gag! What is next? Do the right thing and quit, before you take the general election down with you.

I agree (reluctantly because I personally have a distaste for Rush) with "Stumped" that the action of voting in a primary for the person you think would be weakest against the person in the other party you really want is fine as long as legal rules are followed, provided your own personal code of morality allows you to do so. Traditionally, I conaider myself an independent, but in my area and state, I have long registered as a Democrat because I want to have a say in the nominating process and generally the democratic party in my area has a greater choice of candidates. I will vote for one of them even if I think I will vote for the other party's representative in the fall, but not on Rush's basis - my choice will be on which one I would prefer if he/she should prevail in the fall whether or not he/she seems less or more likely to win. I refuse not to vote for whom I think is the best of the candidates I am selecting between. In the upcoming PA primary I will definitely vote OBAMA, and I want him to win in the fall as well, but I think it's a silly role of the dice to predict as Rush does that McCain would have a better change of beating Hillary than Barack! This campaign has had amazing twists and turns, and may continue to do so til November.

Quote: 'Sen. Patrick Leahy, a Vermont senator who endorsed Obama in January, said she was never going to win enough delegates, and he suggested she should throw in the towel in "the interests of a Democratic victory in November." A number of Democrats have expressed concern that Republican John McCain is getting a head start while Obama and Clinton fight on.

Undeterred, Clinton said the competition would only strengthen the party in the long run.

"This spirited, exciting contest is actually a real plus for us," she said while campaigning in Indiana, which has its primary two weeks after Pennsylvania's April 22 vote."

It may be a real plus to her, but it is a blight on the democratic party. McCain will laugh all the way to the White House. Somebody needs to get Senator Clinton some fast psychiatric help.
But not to worry, the senate majority leader says he has talked to the democratic party leader and "things are being done" to stop this before the convention. The Clintons are toast.

Should the Democrats turn their backs on the woman who ...

braved sniper fire and bad hair in the Bosnian wind ...

helped Ireland achieve peace after decades of strife ...

tried to stop Nafta (by buttonholing women's groups in the White House and telling them to support it) ...

etc.,

etc.,

etc.

Yes!

Credibility counts.

Individual responsibility is the cornerstone of government accountability.

No one believes that a party represents change if it is also a party to corruption.

The Clintons used to be able to bully people in the Democratic Party.

Look at the Pavlovian response by Party fat cats who support Hillary--how they tried to push Nancy Pelosi around.

But they are burdened with more quiver than arrows.

Their no-holds-barred threats have been transformed into ineffective heavy handedness.

The Democratic Party can do better.

It will do better ...

With Barack Obama as its nominee come this November.

"Senator Clinton went into a very dangerous situation.
In an attempt to convey that, she stepped over line by "over dramatizing"

Hmmm, the people who accompanied her said the only "red phone" moment was where to eat next, and the posters that I have read who were there said there was no sniper fire anywhere around. She herself said, "I was sleep-deprived and 'mis-spoke'. In other words she lied. Get over it.

"Let's hope that the superdelegates will put an end to the campaign of this kamikaze who believes in ressurection; after all, she is supposed to be Jesus or one of his associates if Bill Richardson is Judas."

Not to worry, the Democratic Senate Leader said he has talked to the Democratic Party Leader and "things are being done" to end this squabble long before the convention. Hillary Clinton is toast.

Jeff Dulin, Whoooa,
We don't live in Wisconsin. Why are you blaming us in DC for your problems? I live in the Virginia 'burbs and own 18 firearms. You're welcome to join us here in Virginia, where our Democratic governor is a really good man.

I love DemocRATS! Here in Wisconsin, Milwaukee regularly shows up with 4 to 5,000 more voters in a district than they have regisered voters! The Gov., a shill for the NEA, doesn't think we citizens would like to have VOTER ID to make sure those who vote to spend money at LEAST LIVE HERE! A nice lady selling houses, recently was MURDERED by some early relaese sociatal misfit and was prevented from carrying a gun by our great Governor! He left her undefended so he might not loose a constituant if she shot him when he attacked her!! Now someones Grandmother is DEAD because of you fools!!

And you hypocritic, slime balls have the guts to whine about Limbaughs tongue-in- cheek "attack" on your power structures elections methods! What a joke!
You might note that we, the truely LOYAL OPPOSTITION, don't need "super Deligates" so that our centeral commitee can direct the outcome of the voting process! You bunch of sick clowns. I so have no use for you other than fertilizer!

Jeff Dulin - Retired UAW member, Janesville, WI

One subtle point of this article is that that Caucuses are more democratic than popular elections and as such that Hillary's wins are tainted by cross over repubs. In truth, only Obama's past actions and affiliations, and his extremely thin resume as an an accomplished politician, can defeat Obama.

The under-lying platitudes of Mr.Limbaugh's 'system-gaming' would appear to be:

A) He has 'No Confidence' in the Presumptive Republican Candidate's chance of winning a 'fair and balanced' election.

B) He is, convinced that Mr. Obama, has the best chance of becoming our next President.

C) He is admitting that his cult of hate and vilification only works if 'The Presumptive Candidate' (Hillary Clinton) wins, since it is in fact the ONLY strategy that Republicans, especially Rupert Murdock ala F.O.X. and Rush 'Limp Jaw' have thus far been capable of pumping into this particular national debate.

*******************************
*******************************

TAKE THE POLL IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CANDIDATE ON:

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

********************************
********************************

Rush needs to get a "real job" as G.W. Bush would say (I know, that's rich coming from him). If this is what he spends his time doing he is obviously way over paid and needs do some time working a mine or something to get some perspective on life.

Rush needs to get a "real job" as G.W. Bush would say (I know, that's rich coming from him). If this is what he spends his time doing he is obviously way over paid and needs do some time working a mine or something to get some perspective on life.

Why in the world should we attempt to analyze this article.
Gaming the system is as old as the hills and it is easier to do that than it is to be forthright and honest. As childish as that in itself seems.

Why in the world should we attempt to analyze this article.
Gaming the system is as old as the hills and it is easier to do that than it is to be forthright and honest. As childish as that in itself seems.

Can they? Yes. Will they? No. Most people, even republicans, have better things to do than try to subvert the democratic process.

Mr. Dave Myers, Hi,
That you had no choice but to endure, I recognize, so the miracle to me is your brave willingness to tell with startling grace your gripping tale, for which I thank you. I'm white, female, and not a lot older, so know of the era and its stifling values, plus, worse, I grew up in the segregated South with its pointless, absurd mores. Parents didn't know better, because society didn't do better. Injustices as you survived, I fear, were likely not as uncommon as the isolation of individuals such as yourself would cause us to hope. I'm really, really glad to know children and adults today have you to help them understand what was once easier to hide than to reveal.

I'm not going to bother reading the previous comments because the inter-party bickering drives me crazy. When the dust settles there will be few, if any, democrats who will withhold their vote if their particular nominee is not the choice for the democractic ticket. Alkl the talk is just THAT. Whomever the democratic nominee is, will be embraced whole-heartedly by all or democrats risk giving the presidency to another half-whit, and being "self-haters" looking in from the outside AGAIN!
Now as to the intial opinion, I agree democracy is a bit chaotic if republicans can succeed in throwing the democratic nomination Hillary's way, more power to 'em. They'll their but kicked in the general if the dems. ran Daffy Duck! However, it's fairly clear to me Hillary's time has passed her bye.

RUSH LIMBAUGH. HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA! HE MUST BE BACK ON DRUGS AGAIN! SOME STRATEGIST! WHO GAVE HIM THIS NEW STRATEGY, HIS DRUG DEALER IN PALM BEACH? HE COULDN'T EVEN KEEP HIMSELF FROM GETTING CAUGHT, SELF-RIGHTEOUS MORON THAT HE IS!!!

HE'S WORSE THE THE MOST ULTRA-LEFT WING LIBERAL COULD EVER DREAM TO BE!

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!! ROFLMAO

Blind ambition is just that. Blind. Bill and Hillary don't see how badly they are hurting the country with their "politics". They are only thinking of themselves. Queen Hillary. Obama would be good for the Nation both domestically and foreign. Hillary do the right thing: throw your support to Obama.

Defacing these posts seems to be a specialty of many, but I have been upset at the vile bodily function analogies atttributed to a radio host--when clearly the posters here have never listened to him (he never uses vile language, and he is genial and collegial in his assertions, unlike his adversaries here and elsewhere in vile-land); the kicker is that the same people besmirch Stumped too, who appears to be the sane liberal so few others can claim. Not a place to revisit, after my debut intro today. A pity.

Defacing these posts seems to be a specialty of many, but I have been upset at the vile bodily function analogies atttributed to a radio host--when clearly the posters here have never listened to him (he never uses vile language, and he is genial and collegial in his assertions, unlike his adversaries here and elsewhere in vile-land); the kicker is that the same people besmirch Stumped too, who appears to be the sane liberal so few others can claim. Not a place to revisit, after my debut intro today. A pity.

This plot is nothing more than a race for the bottom of the barrel. Unfortunately for us all, probably the barrel will be at the end of a gun because we'll end up with the worst person either party decides the worst of the opposing party could beat. Uggh.

Rush Limbaugh is advocating the moral destruction of this country's right to free and fair elections from the airways through personal acts of sedition.

His only motivation is making the election of the leader of the free world an absolute farce. This makes of him a true enemy of the State, and therefore all freedom loving peoples.

He must be treated as the 'terrorist' that he is. There is nothing funny, nor entertaining about what he is advocating.

The numbers I saw in the Wash. Post this week of changes in the Republican and Democratic Registrations, means that Rush's endorsement of Hillary will not play a big role in the election.

It might be a ploy to help his own ratings. Conservative talk radio hosts might be concerned that they are going to lose their audience. People might blame all conservatives for the mess the country is now. Republican supporters are demoralized.

So if you can't beat 'em; join 'em. Sort of political jujitsu. Rush might develop a new audience of Clinton supporters by urging Republicans to switch temporarily. Plus it might energize his audience, by encouraging them to participate in an election that is still close.

So, Andres, you were unethical in high school, and you're unethical now. (Do you still dig porn too?) Also, as a reporter, you're a liar, plain and simple. And did you also get shot at in Tuzla ? Just because people do something, like lying about their affiliation to play a crude political game, doesn't make it right, nor is that everyone's idea of "democracy." (I guess we just don't all agree on that point.) When do we draw the ethical line? It seems we have stretched it just about to the breaking point. So much so that I know businessmen who say, "the only thing wrong with what the guys at Enron did, is that they got caught. It wasn't crime; it was just business."

I don't think the sniper fire in Bosnia thing was a big deal. Who the hell remembers what they were doing 8 - 16 years ago? Especially if you are doing it all of the time. Getting off planes and landing into hostile territories was something she did often, even if when she landed there was no fire right then and right there.

Geez, get over it. If Starbucks had an explosion last Wednesday, and you were there, then I'd expect you to remember it.

If it happened a couple of times in 6 months, between 1990 and 1998, I'd expect you'd forget!!!!!!

Mr. Paul A. Ticks,
Please don't be put off these mean streets by rude drivers. Little old ladies careening in clunkers like me need guys like you, in fine new vehicles, to give us a lift when we have a breakdown. Seriously, except when aimed at public figures, like Mr. Rush, "road rage" here isn't a problem, not like on that treacherous autobahn/dirt-road meandering through most of WaPo, where drivers run over pedestrian writers just to hear them crunch. Courtesy of Mr. Stumped himself, we have our private highway patrol. That delay after you click "submit"? If you notice, it lasts just as long as it takes to read your post.

The suggestion that Reps. would vote in Dems' primary for Hillary in order to defeat Obama because Hillary is easier for McCain to defeat is a joke. If there is anyone out there convinced that the Reps. want to tangle with the Clintons again, you have to be missing a screw.

The Reps. did vote and will vote in Dems' primary. But, you can bet your bottom dollar that they didn't vote for Hillary. There is nothing of substance that they can use against the Clintons in Novemeber and Reps. know it. They (The Reps.) have shot their best shot against the Clintons already and came up empty! Nothing. Zit!

Obama, on the other, is not really known. There can be something out there truly damaging that has yet to be revealed. Even if there isn't, if, no, when the Reps invent something about him at the last second, with Rev. Wright as a back drop, voters will have no history about Obama strong enough for them to give him benefit of doubt.

The scenario about Reps. voting in Dems' primary is real. The only thing unreal is that they're voting for Hillary. They're not. They're voting for Obama because win, lose or draw, in November, they believe in their hearts of hearts that it will be easier for them to rally their base against a Black male than it would be for them to rally that same support against a white female. Additionally, they can get away with attacking Obama more severely than they can Hillary in the general. Why? because they have only a handful of Negroes in their party who'll be offended, when they do attack Obama. On the other hand, half or more of the registered Reps are females.

Do the math. Who would you rather offend, if you must, as you will, Obama or mrs. Clinton, if you're a Rep. strategist?

Obama's life story:

Born to polygamist muslim father and converted mother

Brought up by muslim step father and converted mother in Indonesia, country of Bali bombing

Converted to Christianity and mentored by "Black KKK" leader Wright

Funded Wright to reward domestic terrorist "Farrakhan"

Friend of "Liberal Tim McVay" Dorhn and Ayres (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/15723/1610)

Other than that he is "Gandhi" or

Enemy of the state

While I completely agree that it was absurd for Hillary to suggest that she was exposed to sniper fire, the media certainly doesn't mind picking and choosing which hyperboles to expose and which to ignore.

No one can deny that as first lady, she was under constant danger, particularly when traveling to those regions most hostile to the United States. Now, did she face immediate threats like bullets wizzing by her head?? Certainly not...but to claim that her attempts to "pad her resume" are worse than the times I've said in job interviews that I have had extensive HTML experience is a bit extreme. She's not in the running for a medal of honor here people...she's running for president! And yes I know that she would be commander in chief, but they hardly fight from the front lines now do they.

What I really find interesing is how The Economist (a foreign paper) is the only news source I've found that has acknowledged Obama's propensity for fudging details as well. I just learned today in fact that he was never actually a law professer at the University of Chicago, but rather a "senior lecturer". Now THAT'S a pretty big exaggeration...

But of course, I'm sure you'll find some way to discount this fact so that you can continue to claim you and the rest of your colleagues in the media don't treat him with kid gloves.

Those of you calling for Hillary to drop out let me ask you this - why doesn't Obama drop out? How about me calling for that?

Look, if the election were held today, you don't know, I don't know and neither does the fence post know who would win, Hillary or Obama so for you to call on her to drop out would be like me calling for Obama to drop out - he doesn't have that great of a lead and why should someone who has worked very hard to win the nomination just up and quit? I certainly would not respect her if she did and I'm not calling on Obama to drop out either but his chances are not at this point and time any better than hers.

You must be 1 of the last 5 people in America that listens to that bloated nit wit Rush, nobody takes what he says serious.
I hope he keeps promoting Hillary, it'll save her a lot on advertising expenses and free daily exposure by a numb nut will only benefit her.

The use of strategically crossing party lines only to later return to the party of one's loyalty is the reason McCain is the GOP nominee. His greatest strength was in regions with open primaries, where liberals crossed parties , got a semi-liberal Republican who has been ever so willing to collude, compromise and endorse progressive, socialist agenda of the Democrats. McCain Feingold as prime example, or how often McCain and Kennedy foisted their legislative liberalism on the American people. So if Rush Limbaugh prefer the ever Machiavellian MS Woodstock over a Re-incarnated Booby Seale, Huey Newton or Elridge Cleaver, so much the better. Better one who is renown for white lies than one who hates white men. After watching the MEIN KAMPF inspire diatribe of Reverend Wright, with his OBama family audience, we acn only ask,"How do you say Sieg Heil in Swahili?

If Obama is the nominee, I'm voting McCain. The guy is the biggest scam artist I've ever seen. He takes more money from subprime lenders than Clinton and McCain combined, and he talks about being free from insiders' influence? The audacity of hyperbole rolls on...

Markos, site owner of Daily Kos, played mischief for Romney in Michigan. This stuff goes on all the time, by all parties.

"There is no fraud here, no moral issue (unlike the sharing of porn with impressionable 8th-graders)." -- I don't see a moral issue here. Pablo for President. :)

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race... Several sources in her own camp admit that she has virtually no chance of winning the nomination except if she succeeds in finding James Hoffa's body and moving it in Obama's flower garden to put the blame on him.

Since there is little chance for the body to be found, she makes all these negative assertions. The goal seems to be the 2012 election. By putting enough doubts on Obama, Hillary is hoping that he will lose to McCain and that she or Chelsea (who is also an experienced leader after her journey at the White House mansion) will be able to run in 2012. The Clintons might then be able to capitalize again with the rental of the Lincoln Bedroom to big lobbyists.

Whatever happens, since the Judas story with Richardson, we know that Hillary believes in ressurection; she or her husband Bill would be Jesus if I understood correctly the story. So, we can assume that Hillary will not hesitate to play the kamikaze with this election or the next one since she will probably reborn again, as the savior.

Hillary Clinton needs to begin to prepare her exit from the race before she hurts herself or others.

I think you are being quite flippant about what is a serious, if not sacred, right that we Americans have.
This is just another reason for Hillary to drop out of the race right now.
She is trying to spoil Obama's chance to become president and, at the same time, putting all Democrats in a position to be laughed at by Republicans - that is what Limbaugh seems to be trying to do when he encourages Republicans to vote for Hillary
in the primary.
Ruth Beazer

My fan club needs a president. I'd like jhbyer for the job, but unfortunately, we have a long a tedious nominating process.

I'll start from early on in my evolution... I am a biracial man whose father is African-American and mother is Caucasian. My parents met in 1959 when my un-wed mother was in a nursing school where my father was employed as a nurses aide... my mother was engaged to a white man who was attending engineering school. My father had an African-American wife and (5) children at the time of his extra-marital relationship with my mother. At some early point of my mothers pregnancy with me she made the decision to marry her fiance, and to lie to everyone about who the father of her un-born child was... she achieved this by claiming that I had been afflicted with a skin-disease called "melanism".

My mother and step-father had four more children together in the space of nine years after I was born, and we grew up together in a middle-class household in white america where the subject of "race" was never discussed. My earliest recollections of having to be aware of race was when I was asked questions about the color of my skin by other classmates in first grade... "Why was my skin dark?", "Was I adopted?" race was certainly a hot-button issue in 1965-66 when I began school , but any awareness that my mother and step-father had achieved from growing up in their white neighborhoods in the 40's and 50's was insufficient in preparing them for raising a biracial child... and to complicate things, they were both in complete denial of their complicity in my mis-education. When I came home from school after having been asked questions by fellow students from my all-white school district, my mother then explained "the skin-disease story" to me... "other kids with this disease usually have dark blotches all over their bodies, so you should feel fortunate". When I would tell my mother about other boys and girls who would call me names or act aggressively for no apparent reason, I began to understand that I would get no further assistance from her to explain this rationale... my step-father was even more removed from the conversation and would only add, "You know what your mother said".

By the time that my step-father transferred jobs and our family of (7) had moved from the all-white Cleveland, Ohio suburb of Stow to the all-white school district of Portville in Western up-state N.Y. it was the spring of 1970 and I was in fourth grade, and already the veteran of many racial incidents and altercations between myself, classmates, and even some adults. My four younger siblings had also been told the same story, and had to explain the same things to their friends when asked why they had a brother who was black... "Hey, did your mother fool around a little bit??" I remember how much that hurt me when I heard it, and I'm sure that they felt just as badly when they did... nonetheless, this was a "subject" that we never discussed as a family, not once, at least in my presence.

I was taught through my observations of my mother and step-father to keep quiet about things that I wasn't sure about, and I was also taught to ignore the obvious.

As I matured into my teen-aged years and began to experience societies issues and insecurities in coming to terms with this countries racial in-equalities during the 70's, I felt an increasing need to rationalize and then codify the information that my mother had given me, regardless of what I was beginning to realize inside... I felt a growing discomfort/conflict, yet there was no one in my life to offer any other perspective... I had learned that black people were a part of society that we didn't talk about. ( There was a black family in my small town, and they were poor and lived in a run-down house near the river...I never had any opportunity or reason to associate with them)

I was a "B" student and also began taking an interest in sports where I was above average. Meeting other schools and student athletes were opportunities to then be exposed to populations that had not been inured by my story yet...I was just another black kid to them.

Communicating my experiences to my mother and step-father was difficult because they had no experience with racial prejudice, therefore when I had problems with other children it would be looked at as an issue that "I" had in getting along with others(as well as intra-family sibling issues).
Because "race" was being ruled-out entirely, by my mothers denial of my father, she could not logically use that rationale to explain any conflicts that I would have. My step-fathers complicity in this was to blindly support my mothers viewpoint.

The "white" viewpoint has always been that blacks(black society) were pretty well cared for, and what contact they did have would be polite and careful... What, with the Voting Rights and Civil Rights Acts being passed, the playing field had been leveled.(re: my mother and step-father's generation)
The feelings and comfort of my mother were apparently what was important, and her inculcation had to have been partly comprised of the idea that white society acted as the gate-keepers and care-takers of an infantilized black population.

questions:

How has black society formed its identity?

What role models have been used, and how does white society react to positive
black role models today? (Are they held to a more critical prism??)

Is there enough information readily available for black people to easily form a
positive racial identity?

Is it important that black society is able to connect accurately the dots of its social
evolution in America? and is it also important that white society can connect those
same dots??

What is White Privilege?

What is White awareness?

What is Whiteness?

What about Affirmative Action?

Is" Race" a social construct?

How do we improve our society in America?

Is there any other way(besides the attrition of the old guard) to achieve this??

...** These questions are not rhetorical... I'd like to hear from those of you that have
courage... and the wherewithall, to provide feedback.

Dave Myers
www.discussrace.com

Mr. Martinez,
Your bias is so obvious it is disturbing. Are you serious with this column, defending a hypocritical radio host's agenda of rigging the democratic primaries so that his guy can win?
This is democracy? This is what we espouse to bring to Iraq???
How embarrassing! I am so sick of politics and government representing everything else BUT the people and this is just another way the conservatives want to make sure they stay in power regardless of what a mess they have made of things the past 7 years. Voting for Clinton, a candidate that conservatives infamously hate so that McCain has a better shot at winning is NOT practicing democracy no matter how you try to dress it up in your ridiculous self satisfying rhetoric. The fact that you have the audacity to justify this is repulsive.

Boyd, Hi
Your mom told you she voted for JFK, because of his hair, but no kidding, there was more to it than that. I tell my kids things to amuse them, because life is hard, and we don't burden our kids with all the dirty details of it, unless it's their need to know. And then, yes, try to get them to listen. Suffice it to say he had great hair - and that Barack? A tall, cool drink of water. Or, depending on the weather, hot. HOT. Enough said.

WHAT? Honourable Fathers of honourable future
journalists are (were...hopefully?) buying Porn Magazine their boys shared at school!!!!! I can't believe it

Tony

Your column is just shy of outrageous. I disagree completely with your position. Call me simple, but I truly think one's vote in a democracy is meant to measure one's choice. Your claim that faking votes, voting for the wrong guy in order to vote for the right guy, etc. etc. is frankly just perverted. Imagine that you are a citizen of a recently democratized society. And then imagine that person reading your column. How sad, how dark, how really ... well, un-American. Way, way too glib and narcissistic of you. This is the sort of very dark logic and twisting of ideals that makes people like me, well outside the Beltway, look at you all with disgust. Throw the bums out, I say. And that includes you, Tony.

Stumpy,

Thanks for taking my question. I still consider it "lying" to misrepresent yourself when you vote. I understand the need for fluidity, but this is ridiculous. Because I thought telling the truth was important to a guy like Rush, you know?

I accept your answer, although I'm not sure you had to mention middle-school hijinx with adult reading material at the same time!

That said, I appreciate those who are as bothered as I am by Rush and the so-called conservatives who treat every political season like it was a frat boy prank. If it feels like it cheapens the process, then it probably does.

I mean working late at night at FOX CABLE NEWS, "accidentally" calling Florida for Bush in 2000. Ha, that was hee-larious, wasn't it? We got the bestest President ever with that one.

The DNC just needs some knee-slappin' frat pranks of its own, I guess. Lesson learned, pardner.

It's gonna be weird having either Obama, McCain or Hillary for President. They all speak in whole sentences. We won't be able to trust of any of them--way too smart.

This is my first time on this paper's letters column. I am appalled at the imbalance and contumely thrown about, from vile physical-function names of radio hosts that it is clear the poster(s) has/have never actually listened to, to aspersing the host of this column, a host/writer who seems to be one of the few actual liberals around, trying for fairness and honesty. But the vast majority of the listed above seem damaged mentally by rage and craziness. Imbalance and hysterics--not something that makes a newbie rush back to re-visit. Sadly enough.

This is my first time on this paper's letters column. I am appalled at the imbalance and contumely thrown about, from vile physical-function names of radio hosts that it is clear the poster(s) has/have never actually listened to, to aspersing the host of this column, a host/writer who seems to be one of the few actual liberals around, trying for fairness and honesty. But the vast majority of the listed above seem damaged mentally by rage and craziness. Imbalance and hysterics--not something that makes a newbie rush back to re-visit. Sadly enough.

Story: YOUR POST MAKES ABSOLUTELY NO SENSE!
Please think before you write, OK?

I support Senator Hillary Clinton.
She is the best candidate. Even Republicans are crossing lines to vote for her. Senator Obama no longer can claim his appeal among Independents and Republicans. His comfort zone is over.

It sickens me that so many people are so blinded by their ideology that they would cross party lines and vote for a woman who they claim to hate more than Satan -- all because a morally bankrupt, dishonest, immensely hypocritical, highly out-of-touch and elitist talk radio gasbag tells them to.
It's especially amusing because these so-called Dittoheads whine so much about "character" and "moral values."
But or course, as we've all seen, conservatives have long since traded their once-honorable ideals for power. They are a sad, sad bunch.
To these people, I say: Start thinking for yourself. Get a life.

And to svreader: Please quit your non-stop stumping for this Sen. Clinton. OK, we get it: You love her. But give a rest for one day, OK? Go outside, enjoy the fresh air, find a hobby.

No agenda here, right?

THIS IS CRAZY
BUT....
REALLY IF CLINTON IS THE NOMINEE
SHE CAN @ MCCAIN
ON THE OTHER HAND
IF IS OBAMA THE NOMINEE
I THINK MCCAN WILL EAT @ POTATOES
US PRESIDENCY IS NOT A REHERSING PLACE
AND OBAMA IS IN THE PROCESS OF LEARNING
HE TALKS & TALKS, BUT NOTHING CLEAR
US PRESIDENCY IS NOT ABOUT RHETORICS

As further evidence of bad faith, Clinton immediately counter-attacked against Obama by accusing him of padding his resume, calling himself a professor at U of Chicago when he was "only" a senior lecturer. It's hardly comparable to her "misspeak", but it turns out to be entirely without foundation, anyway, as the University have just confirmed: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/28/university-of-chicago-obama-was-a-professor/

Only a small incident, perhaps, but highly indicative of the mindset of the Clinton campaign and, unfortunately, many of her supporters.

Note that the Obama campaign neither invented nor inflated the "Tuzla misspeak" incident; the entire sorry story is a direct consequence of HRC's own actions and speeches. Moreover, unlike the Wright affair, where a few soundbites were wilfully taken out of context to create a politically damaging impression of the content of hundreds of sermons, the Tuzla incident was a direct contradiction on HRC's part of known facts.

And it was quite unnecessary into the bargain - no one would expect the First Lady to have put herself in personal physical danger. The fact that she told, and continued to embellish this incident, reveals a habit of mind and an attitude towards the truth which is deeply worrying.

I guess Stump would think it's OK for Rush to Break FCC and Election laws (Like the one you sign when switching parties on the Voter Registration form).
After all, What can we come to expect from a man (Stump) who advocates it alright for our Children to see Porn????
Get some Moral values Please.

I keep telling you people....The days of good honest news reporting in politics are gone....most of the good jornalist too..I guess they couldn't stoop to the level
that their bosses wanted them to do and we got left with something like CNN and FoxNEWSand the rest.......jack cafferty and O'reily...what a joke that is...

At least the old hypocrite blathering DRUG ADDICT limbaugh is honest for once!

Republicans FEAR OBAMA, and KNOW that hillary is UNELECTABLE in the general election!

VOTE OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

If Rush is pushing Clinton, it is clear that he thinks she is the more vulnerable and the more unelectable.

So, Democratic supporters of Hillary, this Rush push should give you pause. Even with the Wright issue that is more media and Clinton created than anything, the people are thinking 4 or 5 levels above these two entities. That is why Obama is still in contention in those states he always believed he could win.

Pennsylvania has never been in the win column for Obama. Therefore, a Clinton win in that state doesn't really mean anything. This is especially so, because Rendall, the governor of PA, owes his wife's lifetime federal judgeship to Billy boy.

I am a Hillary supporter and that makes no difference,even if i had been supporting Ocama after finding out he went and carried his family to a church like he did....there no way i will ever vote for anyone like that....he had to agree to WORDS said some times or he would have left......or I would and thats why I will never vote for him...I never have heard him take credit for anything that he has done only because he's never done anything...he takes credit for a lot he hasn't done...Senator Dodd put the brakes on him just week or so ago for that...he's modeled his campaign after the mass govenor for a change..the last I heard..he hasn't changed anything in Mass....GO Hillary

Rush Limbaugh is a sweltering, suppurating pus-ridden boil on the *ss of the body politic.

LAWLZ. As if Rush's listeners could operate a voting machine...

My mom voted for JFK because he had such great hair. No kidding. Under a microscope Democracy can look pretty ugly. Luckily it is the broad scheme of things that decides our fates not individual silliness.

I double-damn guarantee you that if Katrina VandeHuevel spearheaded an effort to get democrats to lie on an election form in order to switch party affiliation simply for the purpose of throwing an election in a primary to someone she believed would be an easier candidate to defeat in a general election, the reaction would be totally different. I have seen this sort of double standard before. It is the same double standard that allows for John McCain to accept the indorsement of Pat Robertson--who said amost exactly the same things about America that Wright did--and get away with it while dumping on Obama every single day for three weeks.

Limbaugh is an expert at peddling feces. It is what he does every single day. Imagine that the scenario above had actually taken place and had resulted in Ron Paul actually becoming the nominee of the GOP. Limbaugh would have popped an artery and would be demanding from his Intensive Care Unit that VanderHueval be charged under Election Fraud laws. And Stumped--being the dutiful little liberal mascochist that he is would be championing Limbaugh's right to do that.

People who say things like "Hillary couldn't deliver on health care" (see above) are either stupid or totally uniformed about what the health system is like in this nation. Since Truman, American leaders have been desperately trying to change the pharmaceutical/insurance company monopoly on health, and each one has failed when faced with billionaire opponents who like the for-profit system and get rich off it. Hillary made a valiant attempt, got no help. Times are different now and she might succeed with another President.

This is about the most brazen resume-padding I can ever recall from a politician (given that Al Gore never actually said he invented the Internet)
================

Why does the Washington Post publish another clueless blow hard? Would it just kill you people to find an informed, responsible person that adds to the quality of our political discourse?

Why is it alright for Obama to encourage Republicans to vote for him, but not for Hillary. Obama is taking help from many anti-Hillary people. He has no problem in taking support from people like Farakhan and Rev. Wright who have no hesitation in supporting Obama because of his race. Suddently Obama supporters don't want Hillary to get support from Republicans and others offended by By Rev. Wright. Moreover, many of Obama supporters want Hillary to drop out because their candidate is getting the pressure on his background. I think it is about time democracy is allowed to express itself and the race for the nomination go all the way to the convention. If Obama wants to get out, he should do so. But don't ask Hillary to quit unless she wants to.

Gee, didn't the Democrats arrange to have Gore and Nader SWAP VOTES in an actual general election?

And you've got the nerve to come on here and fake outrage that Republicans would DARE to try and influence a primary election.

Its impossible to take you seriously because your outrage is suspiciously selective.

Member of "Black KKK" can not win- David Duke could not even win in Southern state of Louisiana

Friend of "Liberal Timothy McVay" can not win. Supporter of domestic terrorist Dorhn and Ayres can not be trusted (http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/22/15723/1610).

Wright's hateful words and Obama's support for him has lead to death of innocent whites in Chicago. Osama's word and his supporters killed innocents in World Trade Center.

Liberal terrorist and their supporter like Obama has encouraged conservative terrorist like Timothy McVay.

American will not vote for cold hearted killers and their surrogates.

Vote smart. Vote to win. Stop those who prevents others from voting and only try to win through liberal gang politics in unwinnable red states.

Rush has been wrong on most things over the past 20+ years, and he's wrong on this too. Hillary would be an easier adversary for McCain than would be Obama. There are plenty of people who would vote a yellow dog into office before they'd vote for a Clinton. Obama doesn't have the high negatives Hillary has, and if McCain ever has to debate Obama, Obama will wipe the floor with him. McCain's biggest claim to fame is his supposed "experience" when it comes to the military. But he's on the wrong side of the argument when it comes to Iraq, and the rest of his game is really pretty weak. Here's hoping Rush gets what he wants, a McCain v Obama general election.

What Rush is doing is a very antidemocratic thing.
Let say that a majority of Americans will vote for Obama in November.
They will be denied to vote for him from this kind of maneuvering.
Democracy is based on the respect of the will of the people, and that is exactly what he is trying to avoid, in order to promote a minority agenda.

How anyone can defend the slimy tactics put forward by the hypocrite drug addict Limbaugh is absolutely beyond me. This isn't a high school prank we are talking about, this is the integrity of our constitutional rights. Of course, Limbaugh has no integrity, so that is a moot argument in his case. But anyone who uses his tactics to subvert our democratic process is a traitor to this country.

What lame-os some of you are. Cross voting has been going on forever. Democrats have even been known to do it - gasp. Grow up.

General question.

Is MoveOn.org the most ironically named website on the internet?

Stumped's responses were very finely written and well reasoned. It is nice to find sober, reflective thought on the internet.

It is a shame that so many comment posters wish to use the power of the state to limit the voting rights of US citizens and crush media commentary (c'mon, is RL that big of a threat?). I don't understand this.

We have laws and we have a process; neither of these are being violated. So please, hush.

by your logic on the right to vote mischieviously.....doesnt a politician equally have the right to comment on a controversial issue at a time when it will be most helpful to him or her? you are hypocritical when you say yes she has a right but you have a problem with it when it serves to deflect negative attention away from her. isnt this what politicians do?? the media has characterized BO as pure and hillary as evil....just goes to show that the media simply cannot be objective for the good of the public... this year, more than ever in my entire life, I see the media for what it truly is....a biased pack which simply does not have it in them to be objective for the sake of the public. still, to this day, the media is refusing to put BO through the ringer and truly vet him. we have to rely on the repubs to do your job. you are truly pathetic.

by your logic on the right to vote mischieviously.....doesnt a politician equally have the right to comment on a controversial issue at a time when it will be most helpful to him or her? you are hypocritical when you say yes she has a right but you have a problem with it when it serves to deflect negative attention away from her. isnt this what politicians do?? the media has characterized BO as pure and hillary as evil....just goes to show that the media simply cannot be objective for the good of the public... this year, more than ever in my entire life, I see the media for what it truly is....a biased pack which simply does not have it in them to be objective for the sake of the public. still, to this day, the media is refusing to put BO through the ringer and truly vet him. we have to rely on the repubs to do your job. you are truly pathetic.

Consider that some Republicans may have registered as Democrats so they could vote for Barak Obama because (a) they know McCain doesn't have a prayer of winning in the current political climate, and (b) they'd rather have Obama than Clinton.

Throw this into your calculations of the effect of Republican "strategic voting."

Dear Andres,

You are the funniest writer I've ever seen who claims to reside in Washington, D.C. It's the first evidence I've seen that anyone in Washington (or at the Post) has a sense of humor (Those goofy National Press Club events don't cut it). Congratulations. Are you sure you are in Washington...?

Beyond that, who cares about this whole Obama-Hillary-Wright scrapple? What a bore. These are the most self-satisfied, pandering candidates we've ever seen. When is MoveOn.org going to make a statement about this "war"? It's boring us to death.

So Limbaugh wants Clinton (whom he despises) to win the primary so that McCain (whom he despises) can win the general election.

Maybe that will help Obama because Dems wil l realize they should do just the opposite of what Limbaugh (who basically works for Karl Rove and for all we know might BE Karl Rove) wants them to do.

But maybe Limbaugh knows this and is really trying to create a backlash to help Obama because he secretly thinks Obama is more vulnerable.

In which case maybe that means Dems should rally around Clinton. But maybe they shouldn't, because Limbaugh and Karl Rove both have turned out to know a little less about the American electorate than they thought they knew.

I keep seeing all these people refer to some strange need to "switch back" their party affiliation before the November.

This is a completely made up need. There is absolutely positively nothing that stops a registered Democrat or Republican from voting for the other side in a general election.

I think that Senator Obama might pull a Lieberman and run as an independent, if not nominated. Who could blame him? Senator Clinton might do the same, so don't expect this to be over in July, or August or September. Thanks Rush.

Since Mr. Limbaugh (and Fox New for that matter) isn't thinking more than two steps ahead to what a three-way race could mean in voter turnout, the Democrats could well take a super-majority in the Senate. Wouldn't it be ironic if McCain were elected and the democratic governor of Arizon, Napolitano, installed a democrat to replace him in the Senate?

When linguists announce that 'damn' is a synonym for 'punish' everyone will realize that the black guy is saying the same thing that white guys have been saying for years, like 'God punished New Orleans because of its immorality' or that he (or she) is punishing the United States for letting gays have sex together.

I think if Rev. Wrights words had come out in a more eloquent manner from a white minister, they would have never caused a stir. Sometime soon, some bright youngster will make a YouTube post of a mix of Rev. Wright, Rod Parsley, Osama bin Laden and some of the other nut cakes out there trying to scare people into thinking that God or Mohammad or whoever wants our laws changed and that we become a non-secular society.

There are certainly a lot of interesting possibilities in this election.

Look Stumped. I laud you fealty to the democratic process and individual voting rights, but I disagree with you on this Limbaugh thing. And, it seems to me that everytime this bloat gets in any kind of trouble, he gets bailed out by liberals. Whan he was in trouble with Florida legal authorites for skulking around parking lots making deals for illegal prescription drugs, who saved his outsized hind end? He scurried into the arms of America's most liberal lawyer (Roy Black) and accepted an Amicus Brief from guess who? The hated ACLU!

Everytime this foul, ignorant excrement peddler gets in deep yogurt, you squishy, masochistic liberals that he loves to whip and sodomize. come eagerly crawling to him on all fours pleading for more. Frankly, I hate the lot of you on both sides. Talkmongers are really what is turning our country into a squalid, stinking outhouse.

Dear Andres,

Why are you such a jerk?

No need to reply. Your amoral, shame-free 'philosophy of chaos', and bizarre defense of the even bigger jerk (RL), speaks for itself. Your 'fine-print' caveat about being facetious is thin cover. Cavalier, no-personal-responsibility attitudes like this helped bring us Iraq, Abu Ghraib, and Guantanamo.

Some of you guys at the Post have really lost it.

Wow! This is a column about Rs crossing party lines to vote for Ds in the primary, and all you guys can do is bicker about which of the D's candidates is the bigger liar. I love it!

BTW, just because I'm registered and vote w/one party in the primary doesn't mean I have to vote for that party or candidate in the general election. Get a grip.

If the states don't like primary crossover voting change the rules. Otherwise, STFU.

I am tickled spitless that your little soccer analogy worked out so well for you. Supposedly the school bully had whispered in your ear that by not voting for his choice, your world will collapse, your grades would be changed, your mother's likeness would appear on the wall in the boys restroom and you would be beaten frequently after school. Limbaugh uses different language, but the result for the listener is the same. You are screwed if you don't listen and act accordingly.

With rights come responsibilties. Limbaugh has a right to talk like that, but can not dodge the responsibility of his actions, especially due to his prominence. He is many things to many people, but this time, he is the schoolyard bully.

again, i have to question the moral judgment of saying that "anything goes". this is a question of morality, not party politics. what limbaugh is doing with his operation chaos reflects the cynicism and corruption of our electoral system.

it's not about "democratic mischief"; it's about integrity and being loyal to a cause you believe in. this type of thinking is why there has been so many scandals in government these past several years. no scruples, no morals, no values. at all costs, do what it takes to win.

what are you qualifications to be in a postition to dispense such immoral posterings to those who deserve impartial, thoughtful and mature responses to legitimate concerns. again, your parisanship and ineptitude astounds me...

Let me make one correction for those out there who are uninitiated into the rather mundane world of academia and law schools. Obama says he taught constitutional law at the U of C. This is true. He was not a fully-tenured professor, however. Instead, he taught classes in constitutional law, for which students received full credit and which had exams, etc. as any other class at the Law School, but did not spend his spare time researching and writing law review articles, as law professors did. Instead, when he was not teaching at the law school, he was out helping the community with his legal expertise.

So what do you call a person who teaches a bunch of law students? We called him professor.

Ego Nemo,
Your pithy letter exemplifies why, in a perfect world, we should kill any EXCEPT the lawyers. For lack of fine legal-minds like yours, all the fair-minded, I'm convinced, would have had to this day to keep to our caves, our backs to graffiti-covered walls, hugging our clubs and beloveds for dear life. Thanks for posting.

As we all know, Obama was emphatic on FoxNews that he was not present in church during the many anti-American and anti-Semitic hate speeches given by his long-time advisor, Rev. Wright. However, a recent report by investigative journalist and NewsMax reporter Ronald Kessler has uncovered damning evidence which directly refutes Obama's unequivocal claim that he never heard Rev. Wright "preach hatred" of America.

The report further details that Obama was in fact in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks and release of the AIDS virus. Moreover, the FOXNews interview conducted just 3 days before the Philadelphia speech contradicts Obama's own words.

Posted by: Meena_Miami | March 28, 2008 08:22 AM

Please get the facts before you post information. Obama's was in Miami giving a speach that day. Bill Kristol of FOX already said he had incorrect info after he first reported it. He also issued a correction in his article for not checking the facts on this "issue". This is what people refer to as the ignorance of Americans. Stop being lazy and get the facts before you make comments which spread lies.

I think it is a dirty trick to vote for someone you don't want after the race has been decided for your party. If it backfires and Hillary wins because of it and these jokers get stuck with their worst nightmare, there would be some poetic justice in that. However, I think corporations like the ones that own this paper would rather have McCain then Hillary then Obama, so those fools Rush and this author persuades is playing right into their hands. Paycheck, please?

Let's do a do a bit of name replacement, Bush for Hillary from Huma Huma's post:

GWB is not only a bad choice, but a dangerous one, because he will fail to see his mistakes and will continue to plod along bringing ruin and destruction to the country.

Well, golly, party affiliation matters not at all when one is afflicted with abysmal judgment.

Let's face it - ALL politicians exaggerate, stretch, dodge, parry & thrust, and even outright lie - er, misspeak, mis-remember - to get into and stay in office.

Thanks, too, Andres, for the link about Al and the internet. Excellent to have the truth outed on that for the lesson applicable today.

On the question of election fraud, sir, you are practicing law without a license.
It is indeed fraudulent to register with a party in bad faith or for an insincere reason.
What you have advocated her, as Limbaugh has done, is lawbreaking.
The laws in question, particularly in Ohio, are poorly and rarely enforced, but as you know, this is little excuse. You use the Eichmann and slavery defenses -- we were following orders and that's the way it's always been done.
You have also inaccurately described the nature and function of a primary.
A primary is a party's property, not the people's. A primary is supposed to be a transparent process by which members of a party pick their nominee. Some states, such as Oregon, don't recognize parties. Fine.
But states such as Ohio, Pennsylvania and North Carolina do.
What you've asked Democrats to get over is criminal mischief by members of another party.
Your line of argument would also require Boy Scouts to admit atheists and Augusta National Golf Club to admit women. Would you say the law requires that? Would Rush?
The law in Ohio is clear -- it is a crime to switch party affiliations merely to vote in the primary. Beyond that, it is unethical to bias a process that is not your own.
People are free to change parties yes, but because they wish to join a party, not subvert it.
Please review the law, and review your conscience. You haven't done either in quite a while.

I've been leaning back & forth between Clinton & Obama for months. I've tried to keep an open mind about Hillary because I felt that a lot of the early attacks on her were misogynistic and crude, and that she was being judged in ways that weren't applied to other candidates: e.g. her laugh, cleavage, ankles, emotional output or lack thereof. And all the while, the media seemed to be swooning over Obama.

I have to say though that Hillary has completely lost me over her remarks about flying into Bosnia under sniper fire. Her baldfaced fabrications were confirmation that she will indeed say anything in order to get elected. I cringed when she suggested Obama could become her VP even though he led her in votes. Her kitchen sink tactics smacked of desperation. I tried to keep an open mind, after all it IS politics. But her statements about the Bosnian trip revealed a person who is comfortable telling blatant lies when it suits her purposes.

There was no vast right-wing conspiracy involved this time. She effectively destroyed her own credibility.

Stumped's second answer, in its fractal beauty, is a masterful evocation that transcends politics to lead us to understand the limits of our awareness and the grace of humility. Thanks, Andres.

*******************************
*******************************

TAKE THE POLL IN SUPPORT OF YOUR CANDIDATE ON:

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

********************************
********************************

According to the ObamaBlogMeter.

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Since neither Clinton nor Obama is likey to clinch the magic number 2025, each super-delegate will have to vote to endorse the candidate he or she believes has the best chance to win against John McCain in November. Despite the threats and pressures from all sides, they will decide just who is the best candidate. In spite of the rhetorics by the Obama camp, the rules state that super-delegates are not required to follow the pleged delegates. Instead, they have the option to select their candidate of choice.

According to a Democratic insider, following the Rev. Wright fallout, several super-delegates have privately asked Obama to consider withdrawing from the race. In spite of his mass appeal to many voters, the consensus is that Obama's involvement not only with Rev. Wright, but also with disgraced Tony Rezko and the self-proclaimed Pentagon terrorist William C. Ayers could cost the Democrats a win in November.

Shame on you HUSSEIN OBAMA!

As we all know, Obama was emphatic on FoxNews that he was not present in church during the many anti-American and anti-Semitic hate speeches given by his long-time advisor, Rev. Wright. However, a recent report by investigative journalist and NewsMax reporter Ronald Kessler has uncovered damning evidence which directly refutes Obama's unequivocal claim that he never heard Rev. Wright "preach hatred" of America.

The report further details that Obama was in fact in the pews last July 22 when the minister blamed the "white arrogance" of America's Caucasian majority for the world's suffering, especially the oppression of blacks and release of the AIDS virus. Moreover, the FOXNews interview conducted just 3 days before the Philadelphia speech contradicts Obama's own words.

Thanks meksi for this: I was not aware!

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Nationwide straw poll conducted here as of 6:00 PM March 26 show Clinton is leading Obama 63 - 37 percent. Results also show that 34% of Clinton supporters will vote for McCain if Obama becomes the nominee in contrast to 18% of Obama supporters if Clinton becomes the nominee. These results were tabulated based on more than 31,400 online responses received. The results are consistent with other national poles conducted by Gallup, Rasmussen and AOL polls discussed later.

According to ABCNews, in a January 2008 speech at the University of South Carolina, Michelle Obama made more anti-American remarks which are making the rounds on the Internet today. Talking about her experience at Princeton where she hung with a largely African-American crowd, she said, "We don't like being pushed outside of our comfort zones. You know it right here on this campus. You know people sitting at different tables - you all living in different dorms. I was there. You're not talking to each other, taking advantage that you're in this diverse community."

Michelle Obama went on to say "Because sometimes it's easier to hold on to your own stereotypes and misconceptions. It makes you feel justified in your own ignorance. That's America! So the challenge for us is are we ready for change?" I'm sure we all know what she's talking about when she reflects on the comfort many of us feel with those of our specific cultural or ethnic groups. Listen our future First Lady calling American people ignorant.

See it on ObamaUnveiled:

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Bad news for Obama!

News from the wire: Michelle O at it again! Read and cringe on ObamaUnveiled:

http://votersusa.blogspot.com

Still want Obama?

How much more do we have to endure to realize that she is anti-White?

Don't be fooled by Operation Chaos. It isn't designed to cause confusion. It's true purpose is to get Hillary nominated so that in case McCain loses, they'll have the next best thing, Hillary Clinton.

She isn't but a dime's worth of difference from McCain.

What Rush is truly worried about is Obama becoming president.

Hillary is not liberal. Check her voting record. She is to Republicans what John McCain was to Democrats. The lesser of two evils.

Is Rush leading "Drug Addicts for Hillary". Are they lobbying for free Oxycodone without those inconvenient arrests?

Look people - there's no need to vote!

The media and press have chosen Obama - and Obama it will be.

If the media had vetted Obama, he'd have dropped out last summer.

But we hear nothing about his $1M earmark for his wife's employer...
Nothing about SEN. Obama seeking personal financial assistance from a wealthy donor -Rezko -WHILE he was the target of a federal investigation....

Obama initially LIED about his relationship with Rezko - claiming he "barely knew the man."

If the media aired even one of Obama's LIES he'd be done....

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/27/212716/396

Let's all just hope that Ditto head leader wasn't in a drug induced high when he said what he said.

Let's hope the superdelegates are aware Obama has gamed the system with his "Dems for a day" ploy.

Ohio is investigating Limbaugh for interferring with the election process by encouraging Republicans to switch registration and vote for Hillary.
This may benefit Limbaugh indirectly.

But Obama has implemented his "be a Democrat for a day" in various states which DIRECTLY benefits Obama.

In every state, Obama has urged Repubs and Indys to switch registration for ONE DAY - and vote for HIM. Then switch back before Nov.
Here's his Florida info to be a "Dem for a day" ---

April 2007
>>>>That's why "Democrat for a Day" was launched this spring by ObamaFlorida2008....

But this is not about some "hard sell" to recruit voters to become permanent Democrats. Not at all. After the primary, you may re-register back to the
Republican or Libertarian parties, or revert to your previous status as an Independent! There will be plenty of time before the general election in November 2008.

http://my.barackobama.com/page/community/post/jacksonvilleforobama/CrsJ

Has this been in the media or press? NOOOOO!

cj, hi,
Obama didn't say those things. Please correct me with citations if you have them to the contrary, Fact is, Hillary's campaign said he said those things only to say he was wrong. Straight out of the book of dirty tricks..

"Bush Limpjaw" and "Bush III" combined with "dodge the bullets Hillary" would like us to believe that they have no intention to destroy the government of the people, by the people , and for the people and that is the BIGGEST LIE OF ALL. At least with Obama we have a chance and hope for the future. LET US GIVE HIM A CHANCE !

Dear Stumped: Can we come to terms?

Twice you've avoided doing that on a certain subject you've covered twice, a subject I'd never heard of until I read it in your column. Here. You tell me "to get over" what you brought to my attention. Heh, heh.

What I actually need is for you to get it straight. Words are all we have here.

It's neither glorious, cynical, or idiotic. IT's DISHONEST. Period. TELL IT LIKE IT IS, STUMPED. Like all acts of dishonesty, it's liable to bite the GOP primary voter who may get Hillary for a President. I have no problem with MY second choice. I do have a problem with Republicans being encouraged to delude themselves that dishonest voting is clever and helpful to their cause.

Andres's H.S. experience is endearing. Despite or because of my advanced age, I'm somehow convinced boy's taste for porn is linked to us women being granted the right to vote among other fun things. I use "fun" sarcastically. Voting is serious. Sorry to be trite, fellow commenters, but with Andres, I'm not preaching to the choir.

As I said, Andres's high school experience is fun, but irrelevant. He got lucky with Pablo, and often figuratively in other ways with girls, I'm sure, judging by his WaPo photo. Alas, a H.S. soccer captain is not the POTUS. You can argue he/she is more important, but you can't argue he has more power, his football not being nuclear.

What's relevant is that voters who gamble with their primary vote will influence the general election in UNCERTAIN ways.

Not being a listener of GOP radio, I never heard of this UNCERTAIN practice of voting across party lines for the DISHONEST purpose of throwing the general. I'd heard of GWB's trust-funded business failures, his mediocre academic record, his smirking over lethal injection, and his lying about his and Al Gore's records. Despite all that, he was first choice of Republicans. Oh, dear, should I say "because of that"? That he was reelected in 2004 after lying about his presidential record, lying about Kerry, and lying us into "endless" war stunned me. Is this owed to the power of Rush and the likes of Andres, a seemingly truly decent man, to validate DISHONESTY as a potent tool of democracy? Have Republicans gotten over honesty? Is that the problem, Mr. Stumped? And you advising we Democrats do the same?

Stumped
Reading your article is like jumping into a pool of cold water. After reading the usual pandering, one sided articles on other sites it's bracing to read your extremely objective and sharply funny answers.

In politics what comes around, goes around and you made that perfectly clear.

Keep up the good work.

Right out of the gate, mentioning Rush Limbaugh without noting that he is a heroin addict, a drug dealer and a dope fiend, is in and of itself misleading.

Hillary has been playing racial politics for her entire campaign and Rush Limbaugh is a confirmed racist and a bigot. It is nonsense to say that the dope fiend Limbaugh wants someone to vote for Hillary first and then turn around an vote for McCain.

Hillary, with her penchant for playing the race card is obviously the favorite of the dope addict, Rush Limbaugh.

Clinton said she would have left Wright's church but she and her husband had no problem inviting Wright (among others) to the White House to offer prayer and forgiveness when Bill got into hot water over the Monica business. This information is in the public domain (NYTimes) and Stumped should have mentioned it becuase it shows the candidate's duplicity.

I mean, how did Wright even get on the list of invitees? There are thousands of black preachers in this country but that Clinton invitation to the White House (after the vetting process - the White House would never have invited Farrakhan for example)) suggest that Wright was seen as being in the mainstream, or then again maybe Wright was just useful to the Clintons for the moment.

Had candidate Clinton responded to those Pittsburgh reporters by saying, "Well I have not previously commented on this matter because I do not believe in guilt by association" or "As I have said before, I do not believe in the politics of personal destruction" or something to that effect, THAT would have made national headlines and gone a long way to improve her image and garner sympathy. But she did not.

The sad part is that those right wingers who are fuelling this issue are NEVER going to support her and will say even more vile things about her if she wins the nomination. And the supreme irony is that if she wins, it will be preachers out there like Rev Wright who will be asking their parishioners to go vote for her.

While I think Limbaugh is an idiot, I do find the frustration that Operation Chaos is causing to be hillarious.

One thing this year has shown is that maybe it's time for an open, national primary day, to get this junk over with all at once.

Your analogy glosses over what's offensive about operation chaos. It's not offensive if Republicans who prefer Clinton to Obama are voting for Clinton. It's the Republicans who dislike Clinton but want the weakest candidate. Here's how your analogy would work. You are a goalie and you want Juan (who is the candidate of the defense) to be the captain of the soccer team. So you pretend to be a member of the offense and participate in Offense primary voting for the hated Pedro in your class election because you think Pablo would be a weak candidate and who would lose to your favored Juan in the teamwide election.

It may be legal, but it ain't right. The reason it ain't right is that, like many tactics of late, it hijacks democracy. It distorts the debate in order to gain temporary advantage.

It's true democracies need to be a bit chaotic and unwieldy, but it's also quite possible to wreck them. And that's not nice.

Tick..Tick..Tick.. It is 3:00 AM in Bosnia. Do you want HRC making up lies in the White House?

Once we elect a President, there is no practical way to replace that person if we find out that we've made a bad choice.

Some say its a basic flaw in our system.

We can't afford to make the mistake of electing someone who doesn't know what they're doing, but thinks they do.

Hillary is not only a bad choice, but a dangerous one, because she will fail to see her mistakes and will continue to plod along bringing ruin and destruction to the country.

As both the first lady in Arkansas and in the White House, and in the Senate, Hillary has been a huge disappointment. The term "non-producer" defines her accomplishments.

She just likes power for the sake of power

Hillary doesn't like the day to day grind of doing the job.

There was a time when some thought Senator Obama would be wise to select Hillary as his VP. But as the campaign has progressed, we realize that Hillary only brings blind ambition to the table.

The fans of Hillary still fail to realize what a mistake it would be to elect her President and how much damage she would do to the country.

Both Hillary and Bill think they are so smart that the American voter will never catch on to them. But we have.

As Hillary has shown with health care, she can't deliver.

Her rich supporters have have threatened the Speaker of the House with a lack of financial support if they don't get their way with super delegates. Like little children, they will take their toys and go home to sulk if they don't get their way.

Hillary is not and never will be Presidential material.

After this campaign, Hillary has no future in the Democratic Party and the voters of New York will reject her for re-election to the Senate in 2012.

Like many other Democrats, I no longer can support Hillary for any elective office.

Hillary, when it was convenient, threw her long time friend and campaign manager off the campaign after the lady delivered the Hispanic vote in Arizona, California and New York on Super Tuesday Hillary no longer needed the "Hispanic Lady." Hillary's slime filled campaign has turned off so many Democrats and Independents that her nomination would make the Mondale debacle of 1984 look like a victory march.

The best thing for this nation is for Senator Obama and the Democratic Party voters to eliminate Hillary as a candidate in any sense of the word. Hillary has already made a joke of herself in the type of campaign she has run. Pathetic is the word now used to describe her.

There's no way Hillary can be elected president, but she may well enable the Democratic Party to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

As a Democrat, I hope that does not happen.

When Senator Obama finally becomes the Democratic Party Presidential nominee, we will move forward as united Democrats with Independent and Republican support to a major victory and a new direction for this country in November.

Stumped,

You talk a lot about rights, but you are forgetting a very important one: the freedom to assemble. Part of that freedom to assemble is that there is also the right to exclude others from that assembly. The entire basis for political parties is undermined when people who do not associate with that party help make the decision for who that party should nominate as its candidate for president. I have no more right to vote for Mike Huckabee in a GOP primary as Republicans do to vote for Clinton in a Democratic primary. Rush Limbaugh's tactics are strong evidence for exactly why we need to protect this freedom.

In fact, people don't have the "right" to vote in primaries at all, anyway. Primaries are just the latest way parties have made these decisions. How many people voted for Warren Harding for the GOP nomination in 1920? Or Hubert Humphrey for the Democrats in 1968? Parties get to choose how they nominate their candidates, and present them for the American people to decide in November - just look at the superdelegates.

Unfortunately, the Democrats have made it too easy for Republicans to be fake Democrats for a day, and what they are doing is within the law. But let's not frame this debate as a defense of the fundamental rights for which our forefathers fought and died. The only fundamental right at issue here is being eroded by Limbaugh and his faithful.

Let us assume that Hillary went into a very dangerous situation in Bosnia.

And in an attempt to convey that, she stepped over line by "over dramatizing"

We all agree that was wrong.

And we agree that she didn't need to do it, but by bringing her child into a very dangerous situation where Chelsea could have been murdered, she should have been brought up on charges of child endangerment, if as Hillary says, this was a dangerous situation. As a parent, she showed a complete lack of judgement in the care of her child by "placing her in harm's way,". What kind of bad judgement can we expect from Hillary if she should ever become President. Fortunately, that will never happen.

Hillary, for most of her 35 years of public service, has a record of shamelessly taking credit for the work that her husband has done as Governor and then as President. Hillary does have a failed health care program to her credit. She has no notable public record in the Senate.

As the Washington Post and others have reported, Hillary has been taking credit for the work of others since she began her short career.

Stumped's advice was good. We have the freedom to vote for whoever we want or do not want. Many of the negative comments seem to have come from people who are afraid of freedom. If somebody disagrees with them, they want to restrict their freedom to express their opinion (including their freedom to vote anyway they want). Stumped hasn't mislead anyone and he hasn't given any bad advice. I vote for Stumped.

So Hillary did lie about the danger involved in her Bosnia trip. She wanted to impress. Fair enough.

The media have been in the tank for Obama since Iowa. So Limbaugh is on her side and almost everyone else is for Obama. Seems fair to me!

Since none of the rest of you want to give us information about him. I have to hear from Karl Rove about Obama's lies.

1) Obama said his parents met at the Selma march, Reality: he was born 4 years before that.

2) Obama said he was a constitutional law professor Reality: Obama was an instructor and never was a professor.

3) Obama said he spoke fluent Indonesian as a child Reality: His teachers there say no.

4) Obama said he was involved in community asbestos and housing project for the poor Reality: Didn't happen and this was the basis for Obama and Michelle's claims that he was a community activist in Chicago. Which both he and Michelle Obama have been saying this year.

5) Obama said in his book that he received his racial awakening at age nine reading a Life/Ebony Magazine story about a black man who was scarred trying to dye his skin white Reality: Didn't happen. Both Life and Ebony say there was no such article.

So the Lie Meter is 5 Obama 1 Hillary.
AND, Hillary admitted the untruth; Let Obama do the same.

We could continue in this way, Tit for Tat or we can ask who is best qualified.

Hillary Clinton is courageous (regardless of her exaggeration), knowledgeable, tough and she is widely acknowledged as a policy expert. I am for her as I see she has the chops to do the job.

Obama is a terrific speaker and his policy chops are thin as is his good friend Duval Patrick's (read the New York Times article). He is a dazzling presence on the
stump and not much else. The books he brags about writing have falsehoods (as listed above).

What can a voter do? Either he is qualified or he is not. And all the diatribes and trash talking will not help us decide. What is worse, if he should be the nominee, the right wing will cream him in November.

What if most Republicans were changing party because they, like most Americans, are disgusted with what the Republican Party has done to America. They're disgusted with self-righteous drug-addicted radio announcers blathering on and on about how unpatriotic everyone is that doesn't agree with him. They're disgusted with the Bush Crime Family.

Now, if they're leaving the party for those reasons, what's a right-wingnut to do? Ask Karl Rove! Karl will say, "get on the air and tell Republicans that they should switch parties and vote for Hillary! That way it looks like they're doing what you say (makes you look good) instead of abandoning the Party (which makes us look bad)". Curse their deviousness!!

The polls say that, with the exception of Mississippi, most R's are moving to Obama.

Stumped. You are being completely irresponsible.
It is not in fun and games for these gullible republicans to go out and do what Rush encourages them to do.
You see, they are now being prosecuted for doing something illegal and Rush is being investigated for this as well.
It's one thing to play dirty tricks. It's another to not only encourage illegal behavior but, to get those who don't know it is into serious legal trouble.
Your answer was the height of irresponsibility and instead of informing people and probably keeping someone from paying large fines or doing jail time, you berate the questioner and have a so what attitude.
Maybe next time you can inform people that it's okay to rob a bank.

Hillary Clinton began her negative campaign way before Iowa and she is continuing to this day with her lies and deceptions. She won't hesitate to cross any line for more money and more power, even if this means crossing her own party.

Hillary understands very well that she will not win the nomination and she is playing for 2012 by making sure that the democrats will lose in 2008. Insiders in her campaign admit that the chances for her to win the nomination are slim to none: see the articles

CLINTON'S CHANCES VIRTUALLY NIL...

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=301838

STORY BEHIND THE STORY: THE CLINTON MYTH

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html

Let's hope that the superdelegates will put an end to the campaign of this kamikaze who believes in ressurection; after all, she is supposed to be Jesus or one of his associates if Bill Richardson is Judas.

Vote Obama or McCain rather than for this power and money driven heartless #$@%! who wears faith and patriotism on her sleeves.

Senator Clinton went into a very dangerous situation.

In an attempt to convey that, she stepped over line by "over dramatizing"

That was wrong.

She didn't need to do it, because what she did was brave enough already.

What Obama has done is far worse, because his entire career has been one of shamelessly taking credit for what others have done.

The WP reported on this, as has a well known chicago reporter who has known Obama since the beginning of his career.