The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

anqdst dnwifujry fqhnuvgeb glmywnk ftcmd cmsbezp ksjd

"I think the adults have tried to talk you Obama-freaks out of this pending disaster long enough."

Why such rampant disrespect from Hillary voters? We're not "adults" if we vote for Obama? We're "Obama-freaks"? You're insulting 50% of the Democratic electorate. Is that something you really want to do. If Hillary somehow wins, you'll need those voters.

What about all the major newspaper editorial boards (over 100 at last count) that have endorsed Obama? Are they all immature children and Obama-freaks?

San Francisco Chronicle
Los Angeles Times
Houston Chronicle
Chicago Tribune
Chicago Sun-Times
Dallas Morning News
St. Louis Post-Dispatch
Philadelphia Inquirer
Cleveland Plain-Dealer
Boston Globe
Arizona Republic
Atlanta Journal Constitution
...just to name a few

All have looked seriously at both Clinton's and Obama's records and decided Obama is the better choice.

If you disagree and think Hillary is the better choice, how about engaging on the issues instead of hurling childish insults.

I'm terrified that the Clintons are willing to destroy the Democratic Party in order to win the nomination. If Obama was in Hillary's shoes -- 11 straight double digit losses and 200 less delegates -- the Clintons would have hounded him out of the race by now. It's time for Bill and Hill to call it quits.

Hillary, you seem to have latched onto the phrase "let's get real" when sniping at Barack Obama.

Could you and your husband please get real on honesty, ethics and morality?

You both have some explaining to do.

Martin Edwin "Mick" Andersen

MEMO TO BILL CLINTON

SUBJECT: MEANING OF THE WORD "IS"

BILL, I UNDERSTAND YOU HAVE HAD SOME TROUBLE IN THE PAST AGREEING TO A COMMON DEFINITION OF THE WORD "IS."

HERE ARE SOME EXAMPLES OF ITS USE FOR YOU TO PONDER AND TO LEARN FROM ...

HILLARY is GOING TO LOSE.

BARACK OBAMA is GOING TO WIN THE NOMINATION.

THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY is GOING TO WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.

THE LONG NIGHTMARE OF CLINTON CORRUPTION AND ITS STAIN ON HONORABLE PEOPLE is ABOUT TO BE OVER.

PERSONAL RESPONSIBILITY is THE HALLMARK OF GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

BARACK OBAMA is THE PERSON WHO WILL REMOVE THE STAIN AND RESTORE HONOR TO THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY.

I HOPE ALL OF THE ABOVE is HELPFUL AND YOU ENJOY YOUR RETIREMENT FAR FROM THE WHITE HOUSE THAT YOU DISGRACED.

Don't listen or respond to Piglet. She's a Clinton shill who has done no real research and all of her points are simply the Clinton campaign line without any critical analysis. I wonder that Clintonites call Obama's supporters "cultists" when none of them can critically analyze their own candidate and only parrot everything she says.

Piglet - can you name any substantive piece of legislation that Clinton has put forward in her time in the Senate? If not, then don't talk about Obama's supporters being unable to do so. As they say: those in glass houses. . .

Generally a good analysis of the debate the other night, however Dan Balz needs to do some basic fact checking and not just depend on media myths that is not up to date. Balz says "...he (Obama) has yet to crack the big states...".
However, unless I am missing something, of the 15 largest states in the US ranked by population - both Obama and Clinton have won 4 (clinton - CA, NY, NJ and MA); (Obama - IL, GA, VA, and WA). The other states have either not yet had their primaries or nominating caucuses or include Michigan and Florida where no Democratic campaigning was allowed. It would seem that a reporter on the Washington Post would be a bit more rigorous in his reporting standards.

I support Hillary. She did magnificently during the CNN debate with Barack. Still, I think whoever advised her on her appearance, demeanor. and body language could use serious assistance. I pick up on nonverbal cues that go far beyond the audio content. There was much I saw that detracted from an otherwise stellar delivery. Now I can only pray. -JD

Hillary as Obama's vice president aka Lady in Waiting for him to have an accident?

I think not if Obama wants to get a good night's sleep during his stay in the White House.

Obama is far too smart to be conned into this sort of situation.

P.S. Notice how the Clinton campaign spends "other peoples money" and wisely Hillary will only lend the campaign $5 mil. and not spend her own or Bill's money.

By the way, just who or what is on the hook to repay this loan? Hollywood friends of Hillary even after she is finally relegated to Junior Senator from New York? Or some new Chicom bagman?

O.K. Hillary when will you let us see your Form 1040? What are you hiding and when did you hide it?

But what all the over sixty old ladies of this nation (Hillary's remaining core support) want to know is how another sixty-year old can continue to look so good?

(Isn't this really the question the lady in New Hampshire asked and Hillary dodged an answer by sniffling?)

In other words who is your skin surgeon and botox man? Or is the rumor true that you are a real life female Dorian Grey? Or maybe just another wanna be Barbara Walters?

JakeD... Sorry it is ELEVEN STRAIGHT!

New Mexico was contested on Super Tuesday... that makes the tally 13-9 OBAMA.

Since then, it's ELEVEN for OBAMA and ZERO, ZIP, ZILCH, NADA, NULL for Clinton.

But of course, in Clinton math, those 24 wins don't count.

America is ready for new leadership and it will not come from the Republican Party. Obama or Clinton, one will be the next President.

The Republicans always bring up Ronad Reagan. Remember ge said in 1980 not to vote for him if you are better off now than four years ago. Apply that to today-the Democrats will take the White House in a Goldwater type election year.

Right wing radio and neo-conservatives are mad because they have lost control of the Republican party-about time.

I am actually beginning to think that an Obama-Clinton ticket would work.

I, for one, am an Obama supporter who thinks Clinton would also be a good President.

If they can make peace and put their two apparatus' together, they'd win 45 states.

Unfortunately it's essential to follow-up on any Clinton speech with a hefty dose of truth serum. In the latest debate, Hillary regurgitated her familiar mantra that she would veto the Bush taxcuts which she says favor only the rich. That tired old populist ploy of "soak the rich". However , a brief review of IRS statistics related to post-Bush tax cut revenues reveals exactly the opposite. Specifically, the share of individual income taxes paid by the bottom 40% of American taxpayers, as a result of expanded child tax credits and earner income tax credits, was reduced from 0% to a -4%; and, took another ten million low income Americans completely off of the tax roles. That is, a very significant four(4) % decrease. On the other end of the scale, the tax burden on the top 20% of income earners, the so-called rich, increased to a full 85% of the total tax burden. For example a Single Individual making 30K paid $8400 in taxes under Clinton; under Bush $4500. A married couple making 60K: under Clinton $16,800, under Bush $9000. So Hillaryspeak, an economic strategy that left our Nation in a RECESSION on the Clinton's departure from the White House, would damage the poor more then any other group. One can summarize this quite simply by noting that IF Hillary's Marxist philosophies of soaking the rich were valid, Communist societies throughout the world would be exorbitantly wealthy, in lieu of economic basket cases a' la Castro's Cuba. The same can be said of her forced plan for Socialized Medicine. A program which is failing miserably in such Nations as Canada and the United Kingdom. Canada, as just one example, is now experiencing a dramatic shortfall in physicians.

The second noteworthy commentary was Hillary's closing comment, a subtle and exceedingly well choreographed re-play of the "victim card" which has thus far been so eminently successful for her. Holding back the tears, Hillary inferred that she was the most qualified to be Commander-In-Chief because she "had been tested" by the public humiliation that she was forced to endure with the forced admission of Bill's Monica caper. The unfortunate truth is that in the absence of the "blue dress", Hillary would have led the savaging-brigade against Monica precisely as she had done against Jennifer Flowers, Juanita Broderick, Paula Jones, Kathleen Wiley, etc., etc.. Of course, the by-invitation only audience took the bait "hook, line and sinker".
The real question is do we want Hillary, the serial enabler, and Bill, the serial groper, to once again have the opportunity to scandalize the White House and the Presidency? Greg Neubeck

I am a Hillary supporter and she still can get the nomination. I do not want her to take the VP spot under Obama. I would prefer the democrats lose to McCain and I will be supporting McCain as a McCain Democrat from Massachusetts. We have a big group ready to make that happen. Just you wait and see Obama maniacs. Yes, I am a sore loser but I do feel Mccain will be better for this country than Obama

By his own admission during last night's debate, Senator Obama has spent the past two years "campaigning for the presidency." I believe that equals out to 80 percent of the time he has served as a federal-level politician. This is a most telling statement, and I am very disappointed in how the mainstream media has preferred to turn a blind eye to such statements and instead cram down our collective throat Senator Clinton's "Xerox" quote. I suppose, though, that Senator Obama's smartest move early in his campaign was getting a billionaire media mogul to throw down the race gauntlet for him, thereby bullying the complicit silence of the MSM.

(Side note to Ms. Winfrey: When I say that I think Senator Obama needs more federal-level experience, I do not mean your race-baiting interpretation that Senator Obama needs to "wait his turn." I mean that if my car breaks down, I want the experienced mechanic to take care of it, not the guy up the street who's looked under the hoods of a few cars and is really excited about what he believes he can do. Fixing a broken country is far more daunting and precarious than fixing a car, so why would I entrust my future into any less capable hands than I would entrust my car?)

Now, back on point. When Senator Clinton ran for her New York senate seat in 2000, the MSM and all her detractors could not wait to accuse her of being a "carpetbagger" and of only thinking ahead to a run at the presidency in 2004. However, she was able, during a year when being a Clinton was by no means a positive point, to convince the people of New York (not a state known for being an "easy sell") that she would serve them honorably, and that she would not desert them before her term was up. She kept her word and served her constituents well enough, including during the most horrifying moment of New York's--and this country's--history, that the people of New York thanked her with a second term as one of their U.S. senators.

Now hearing about Senator Obama's self-admitted marathon campaigning during his federal-level years made me curious about his state senate service, and when I look into those records, I see someone who has run for the offices that he has held because they are the inevitable stepping stones to what he has desired most all along.

True, he has done good things. One must make a positive impact of some sort to continue to win votes. However, he also padded his state senate voting record with "present" votes--a lovely passive-aggressive way to keep a cheery, positive record. After a failed run for a U.S. House seat, he received the ultimate series of breaks that led to him capturing his current Senate seat as a virtually uncontested candidate (unless there's anyone out there who seriously considers Alan Keyes to be any sort of political threat). Since then, he has written two books filled with lots of personal confessions as a means of vetting himself to the people as being a "transparent politician."

However, I see a more telling transparency when I look at how each of the senators' states recently voted. Each candidate won the vote of their respective state. Look closer and you'll see that Senator Clinton won every county in New York State except one. This is not true for Senator Obama's win in Illinois. He, in fact, lost almost every county that makes up southern Illinois--a region of the state comprised of blue-collar workers who don't possess college degrees or earn $50,000 or more. These counties went to Senator Clinton. That is a very telling transparency.

Contrary to the beliefs of the current president, the engine of this country isn't its white-collar elite. Instead, the engine is the blue-collar workforce--people like my father, who worked often thankless time-clocked jobs for more than 30 years before injury retired him. I learned an honest work ethic from him. I also learned that the longest day's work won't amount to much if the people in power don't listen to your needs. These are the people who need the most help. These are the people who should inspire real pride in our country. And these are the people who, after 10 ½ years of familiarity with Senator Obama, cast their confidence in Senator Clinton.

At the end of the day, both senators are, as someone rightfully pointed out to me, "just politicians." But when I look at Senator Obama, I see a politician who has spent the past decade avoiding the fights that forge political strength and instead carefully crafting the perfect launch pad for obtaining what has always been his ultimate goal.

When I look at Senator Clinton, I see a politician who doesn't have the mostly spotless track record of her opponent because she has been willing to place herself in the line of fire for who and what she believes in. Yes, she's made mistakes, but she has picked herself up, learned from her errors, and gone on to fight another day. She has sustained incredible professional and personal blows throughout her career, and yet, to paraphrase Maya Angelou, still she rises.

As much as I love the power of words, I'm going to have to say that when it comes to leading this country, words are not enough. Senator Obama won't be able to read a beautiful speech and solve all our woes from the Oval Office. And I see no indication that someone who has yet to know the burn of true political fire will be able to withstand what lies ahead, both in the general election and in the political arena of our ever-changing and often dangerous world.

Senator Clinton has survived the fires time and again, and she stands strong and ready for a new day.

Hillary not going into an attack mode was gracious, but that effect wasn't the cause. The cause is her assessment she risks looking negative to no effect, or worse - much worse. For a candidate to be booed over a small dig - wowser. Flagrant lying insults are normally witnessed with silent group expectation. Remember "Teflon" Reagan? "Asbestos" Obama has forced Hillary to Xerox a page from his book on the power of positive messaging, if it isn't too late for her, which it is, notwithstanding the audacity of her hope.

Obama did not answer the question about his support. He just said "can 20 million people be delusional?" Unfortunately, the answer is that mass hysteria is all too common and yes, 20 million people can be caught up in the moment. So is Obama running as the pet rock of the 21st century? Or is he saying that millions of people were rational for shelling out $3.95 for a chunk of stone as a Christmas present.

His claims about a difficult childhood need to be viewed in light of the reality that he attended wealthy private prep schools, an Ivy League college and an Ivy League law school. Hardly a life of deprivation.

But most importantly, Obama needs to define himself, his beliefs and his policies. If he gets the Democratic nomination, he is not going to be able to adopt and slightly adapt issues and ideas the way he has done with Hillary Clinton. He needs to state his positions clearly rather than hiding behind moving but vague oratory. If he does not, McCain and the Republicans will be free to fill in the vacuum however they choose, and believe me, it won't be pretty.

With Clinton, Obama has taken the strategy of releasing position papers that closely resemble hers so it is almost impossible to debate him on the issues. McCain's positions are well known and very different from those of any of the Democratic candidates. If Obama starts shifting, the voters are going to see it for what it is, pandering.

Those who think there is media bias for Obama and against Clinton have not been paying attention to this the whole way through. The slant in the coverage has fluctuated. There was a time not so long ago when Obama gave a major speech on nuclear disarmament on the 5th anniversary of his anti-Iraq-war speech on the same day that the Clinton camp released their funding figures. Because she had made 5% more than him in that month, the Washington Post led with "Clinton blocks Obama at every turn" on their front page, rather than report a major initiative of huge relevance to the collective security of the world. Anne Kornblut, who along with Dan Balz, has been the main WP journalist covering this, has been practically embedded with the Clinton campaign, and her articles and headlines have had a consistent pro-Clinton slant. In this period, Murdoch's Wall St Journal and Associated Press both also leaned towards Clinton. And most papers, based on the polls, just took the "inevitable Hillary" line, before anyone had even started to pay much attention. This was a disservice to the public.

As the campaign evolved, selected journalists caught the Obama fever, just as the public did, though usually later. The time delays relate to the length of time it takes people to understand the structure of the Obama/Clinton polarity, which was not about policy, gender, race, age or any demographic, but rather about methodology, about two different "arts of war": the bunker mentality versus consensus-building, how to deal with conflict, when to foster it. Because the public are so fed up with the Bush war, the Lewinsky nonsense and the whole manifestly dysfunctional executive/legislature partisan infighting in Washington, the Obama message rang true. The establishment journalists, embedded with the Washington infighters and lobbyists, took longer to work it out. They couldn't see the forest for the trees. Those who are still left scratching their heads are the ones who find the Obama fever to be cultish or demagogic, consisting of "good speeches". Clinton is the only one who makes sense to them because their mental language to understand these things is so impoverished. They are unprepared for the novel political idea that times are so desperate in the world, and things are so broken, that something that is the closest that the US can get to a coalition government, is now required. Hence the bipartisan appeal of Obama.

This journalistic blindness to the big picture is nothing new. In the days before the Iraq war, we protested like crazy against this manifest insanity, but the journalists, TV and radio just ran the Administration's spin, quoted the officials, and not only allowed the atrocity to occur, but promoted it. For those of us who opposed the war, it felt like the country had gone crazy. How many of you remember this period? Later everyone (the Economist, Hillary Clinton etc) all said things like "If we knew then what we know now...." etc, but *we* did know different, and we were right, and we were in a tiny minority at the time. It seems that with Obama, there is every hope for repair and renewal in the country's spirit, and perspective in the political process. It seems possible that integrity, intelligence and accountability could be greatly boosted in Washington. If only these values could spread to the media to replace the fickle, insubstantial, timid, divisive and often infantile coverage we have been subjected to from both right and left, to say nothing of the "passionate intensity of the worst" (Limbaugh, Fox).

Come on, lets have some conviction now in our journalism that matches what is needed in this time of mounting global crisis.

NewEra (6:15), it's true. The link is here:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc

S Crappy,

Saying what over and over? You have a nice weekend as well and make sure you don't drink too much koolaid and drive on your way back to your Moonie ship:)

Let me add one more thing, Storyof5P, unrelated to this thread:

I think one thing younger voters don't understand about Hillary is that she came of age when to be respected as a women in the executive boardroom meant lookingm acting and speaking tough - thus the pantsuit and the sometimes rough-edged demeanor. This is why older voters, especially women, are more sympathetic towards her. This has changed, largely thanks to the women's movement. The more women realize how much she is reviled by some men for superficial reasons, the more they give her a pass on the occasional tough talk. But with Hillary nut-crackers for sale and an entire organized movement of professional white male Hillary haters (See GQ's great story on this: http://men.style.com/gq/features/landing?id=content_6249) it just seems wrong to let sexism determine the democratic winner.

As Andrew Sullivan points out, the number of small donations is having a profound strategic impact for Obama:

"More impressive than the amount of money Obama has raised is the sheer number of people who have donated to his campaign."

What a way to have an impact, and counter the fat cats. If you haven't yet, get off your butt and make a donation no matter what size. It takes under a minute. If not now, then when? Has there ever been a more important election in your lifetime? And get your friends and family to do so too. Yes we can, darn it.

storyofthefifthpeach:

Cool nickname! Glad you brought this up.

You wrote:
"So, basically your decision has nothing to do with positions."

Not so, Storyof5P, but the points I made were the deal-breakers.

For example, I personally think Obama's health care plan can't fly financially because not enough people will be covered, so that's an area I feel very strongly about. She seems to have a deeper grasp of the changes that will be needed to overhaul this dysfunctional system.

I don't like the fact that he voted to weaken protections for people living near nuclear power plants - you'd think a law requiring nuke plants to give early warning to nearby residents in case of a leak would be a no-brainer for our progressive Obama. And yet, he took over $200,000 from a nuclear power company (can you say lobbyists?) and then voted against the law.
That's kinda creepy.

If several news outlets and various posters are correct, then Hillary lifted portions of her closing comments from a speech by Bill Clinton in 1992 and from comments made by Senator Edwards in a December 2007 debate. Too bad. She almost put forth a human side but now it just looks manufactured and contrived. Both Obama and Clinton did well last night and neither hurt their campaigns. Should be an interesting 10 days to March 4.

While Obama will probably get the nomination, don't be so sure that this race is over. If Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, the race will surely continue. Clinton does very well in debates. The candidates have one more crucial debate upcoming next week. It wouldn't surprise me in the least if Clinton takes both Ohio and Texas. If she is able at the same time to take Rhode Island and/or Vermont the tone of the campaign will certainly change as we await Pennsylvania.

Let me give Hillary her props. Ramping down the rhetoric was a smart move. here's why:

She wins among Dems (narrowly, but still). It's crossover Repubs and Indies who are overwhelmingly for Obama, i.e., the Anybody But Hillary crowd. Hillary is the issue, not Obama, and Hillary can't MAKE Obama the issue. So it all comes down to how SHE is seen. Appear less harsh, maybe the ABH crowd stays home. Attack Obama unfairly -- which are pretty much the only attacks available, given that they're 95% identical on the issues and the "experience" dog just won't hunt -- and you give the ABH crowd red meat. You're not changing anyone's minds these days, it's all about turnout.

I've seen a lot of, for lack of a better word, kind words toward Hillary. So she achieved that goal, and I don't think it is by accident -- nothing with the Clintons ever is. But maybe the best testament to her is that she changed course _on the fly_. She tried the Xerox line -- an attack dog line -- and it flopped. Watch how she stumbled as the crowd booed, she's thinking "what do I try now?!" And she went to plan B. Plan Bs have been in short supply with her.

Someone said "the best politics is good government" or something like that. Maybe the best campaigning is to maintain your dignity, be a good sport, and compete aggressively with honor. It's worked for Obama. If Nixon could (at least fake) reinventing himself, she certainly can. And it's _never_ over until it's over. Barack loses the two states, mark my words, he'll get the Howard Dean scream treatment.

Donald Segretti and Lee Atwater are dead. It would be nice if their politics finally was laid to rest with them.

piglet1---

So, basically your decision has nothing to do with positions. That is fine, but it is unfair your own lack of analytical thinking on Obama.

As for the debate last night, his answers were much more forward-thinking. Clinton was just reciting the usual stuff every politician has been saying for the last 50 years. Obama was talking about the future.

****Important point!!!!!!!!!!!********

Obama was the one that reached out for her hand, not the other way aruond!

We are damn*d. Gen Y you are a big let down. Your music sucks, your girl celebs ar H*s, and you have no political judgment.

Our two biggest demographics just plain suck. Boomer and Y's. Boomers you had good music :)

Obama is a Boomer not Gen X. We need a Gen X pres in 2012.

OK who should the Dems run in 2012?

I say a white guy with a recored of accomplishment.

Clinton said today that she is going to insist that FL and MI be seated. The truth is that the only thing this person cares about is gaining power.

Hillary can maybe run in four years. But alas she is a women and little old ladies can't be pres.

BTW - Can any one name the very negative runs for pres. either Clinton made. 1992 1996 2008

I was there but don't remember what was so bad about these runs.

Obama can't be pres either. Such is life.

This youtube on Hillary's "lifting" of the supposedly empathetic "moment" at the end of the debate is pretty hilarious. Her supposedly emotional moments are not only scripted--they're scripted by and for other speakers!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rEOjttmqIrc

brigittepj-- Do you think by saying it over and over it will happen...no...and neither will another Clinton Presidency. Have a great weekend!

I believe in Hillary Clinton and will stay with her until she quits. I'm the first to admit that her campaign was poorly run, but that doesn't diminish her as a candidate. I think she would be a great president because I know what she's about.

I don't feel that way at all about Barack Obama. I should not have to go to his website to find out where he stands on issues.

To copy, not a phrase, not a sentence, but an entire paragraph from someone else's speech without giving them credit is just downright dishonest. Especially when your entire campaign is based on the perception that you are writing these oratory gems and it is what distinguishes your candidacy.

I'm also not impressed that his qualification as Commander-in-Chief is that "I wouldn't be running if I didn't feel I was ready to be Commander in Chief." Really? As a retired soldier, that sends a chill down my spine.

Then there's his wife who's statements are more telling to me than what the media portrays. She'd have to think about supporting Clinton? This is the first time in her adult life that she is really proud of America? Because people are supporting her husband? Got self-serving power syndrome?

But what worries me most are Obama supporters. Those I see inteviewed over and over (and not just the TX senator) who don't have a clue where he stands on issues, but will clap and cheer when he blows his nose. They will swoon and faint and make videos that they try to shove down everyones throat on the blogosphere. And they will trash, yes absolutely trash, the Clintons in an effort to justify their rabid fervor for Obama. They see themselves as a world movement?

God help us all.

You media guys just don't get it.

Here's an analogy. Think of a person whose long time lover has strayed to another -- a fresh, new, exciting love. Suppose he/she wants to win the lover's affections back again. He/she shouldn't try to tear down the new, fresh love. That would only drive the straying lover deeper into the new love's arms.

What he/she should do is try to make the straying one remember the good times, what he/she loved about the old love. The spurned lover should be his/her best most attractive self.

How's that apply to Hillary last night? Well, in Wisconsin, her "old love" flirted with Barack -- heck, didn't just flirt with him, but slept with him. That would be women and downscale whites I'm talking about. Hillary wants to win them back in Ohio and Texas (and also wants to keep Latinos from sampling his wares). The way to do that was to put on display that was most appealing to those constituencies in the first place.

It's not about scoring a knock-out and tearing down Obama. If she had tried to do that she would have just looked like an embittered lover, who couldn't get over the fact that it was over.

That's no way to win back one's straying partner's affections.

Of course, it would be better if the partner had never strayed.

I must be dreaming: it's an Obama fact-check!
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/22/AR2008022202056.html?tid=informbox

This is heartening, but a little after the fact.

Apparently Obama's team couldn't attribute his comments about under-equipped US Army platoons to any one platoon captain. Didn't he do the same thing in his book, making up "user profiles" instead of writing about real people? Guy should be a web producer!

I'm glad to see this board filled up with Hillarybots (and the assorted right-wing kook) yammering, spinning, smearing and throwing up in their mouths a little because they are terrified of losing an election their candidate should have won easily. Why? Because it means you aren't calling voters in Texas and Ohio for your candidate. Typical. If complaining were campaigning, Obama would have had to drop out a long time ago. Do y'all understand that smug feelings of entitlement, not to mention lashing out at better run campaigns, don't actually win elections? You've lost fair and square, so you're trying to change the rules. If you can't beat Obama, then you sure can't beat McCain and the slime machine.

The problem with Hillary's run for the presidency was that she basically wanted to win by getting sympathy votes. Vote for me because I'm a woman, vote for me because Bill cheated on me. Vote for me because people say I'm not likeable. But one thing the campaign faced to realize is that the sympathy thing can only take you very far. After awhile Americans begin to ask you okay give me a reason to vote for you, and Hillary didn't have a reason other than to say I want to be president. Yesterday's debate closing moments only proved my point. The only thing anyone can remember from Hillary last night was that she was sympathethic. All my female friends who were on the fence between Hillary and Obama said after last nights sympathy move they were voting for Obama now because they were tired of feeling sorry for Hillary. In this country feeling sorry for yourself can only take you so far. I'm sorry to say it's over for Hillary Clinton. She just never gave anyone a reason to vote for her.

SpaceGirl:

Please, be quiet. Floridians have no one to blame but their state party leadership for their so-called "disenfranchisement," which in the real world is called "a penalty for not following the damn rules." Your state decided to hold its primary earlier against the wishes of the DNC and there it is. The bed was made. Lay in it. (Ditto that for Michigan.)

If we really want to talk about delusional voters, then let's talk about the HRC supporters. In the beginning, HRC was a lock to win this nomination. Let's not forget the perch from which she has fallen so far and so fast and so unbelievably. She began this race with far more money and connections than Obama but his ability to best her says plenty about the arrogance and assumption of inevitability within her campaign. It's not over til it's over.

But it's darn near close for HRC. She'll need to beat Obama by a landslide in Texas and Ohio. Her campaign has said this first. Not the media. And so, it's interesting to hear her campaign and supporters spin that there are still 15 states left. Whatever. More ground for her to lose.

Honestly, I like HRC but what I don't like is how she has been dismissive of all the people within HER OWN PARTY who have voted for Obama. "It's time to get real," she says. It's time for her to take her own darn advice.

Spacegirl,

Hillmannic has a valid point here. You're yelling at the wrong people. It's not Obama's fault that the Michigan and Florida primaries did not count. Whatever we think about the fairness of it, the DNC decided to punish those states by stripping their delegates. More to the point, though, Clinton and all of the other candidates agreed - in Clinton's case in writing - to abide by those rules.

A funny thing about rules, though, is that once you agree to them you have to follow them, regardless of how mad other people get. I agree that it was stupid of the DNC to take the delegates away, but blaming Obama for this is even more dumb, frankly, because there's nothing he could have done about it. Clinton's attempt to get those votes counted may be noble, as far as you are concerned, but it's still against the rules.

I hate the rules by which we run the general election, too, but we still have to abide by them. In my book, letting 271 effectively unelected delegates circumvent the popular vote in the media age is really undemocratic. However, until that changes, we have to abide by the rules we set out. That applies to Clinton and everyone else.

Keep dreaming and spinning your tales with Obama. Why don't you go do some REAL reporting instead of influencing this election. How about the back room arm twisting by Obama's boys of the black delegates backing Clinton. They've spoken up - but you can't seem to write about anything but your fantasy ending.

50% - 50% is far from over.

Posted by: Thinker | February 22, 2008 01:38 PM
******************************

you might wanna rethink your post name - false advertising at best...

jkallen001: You wrote:

"her fake, shark-like smile she gave everytime obama talked (and she could not look him in the eyes) sent chills down my spine. i think leatherfaced has been dethroned in Tejas."

Now **that's** angry and testy! You misogynistic white males are money in the bank for Obama! (I'm assuming you're a man). And yet, all those who would take Hillary on her merits -- and not based on her past enemys' spurious arguments -- are still routing for her, and we're not going away. Sorry! ;)

very thoughtful post, syoung1, and to the heart of where most non-breathless supporters of HC or BO are. no one truly supporting HC or BO would want to see "their" person lose ugly, when the very real possibility of Madame or Mister Majority Leader looms LARGE for the "loser." HC knows this, apparently better than so many of the (similarly written) posters here of "life long liberal democrats" that claim that "if HC loses I will vote for the other party." because "Obama is a liar cheat and fraud."

The more I listen to Hillary the less I like her. She seems to be believe that a poor solution is better than none at all.
Her health care plan is a bad idea. Forcing the uninsured to purchase health insurance or slap them with a penalty if they can't pay seems ill conceived. Please explain to me how this helps the middle class living pay check to pay check? Also, she likes to push her 'experience' even though she has been in the Senate only a few years more than Obama. I applaud some of her work in the Senate and I hope she can work with President Obama in the future when she returns.

Spacegirl, I am sorry that your vote didn't count in Florida.

However, the people that need to be blamed in this are:
1. Florida Republicans
2. Florida Democrats and DNC (for not appealing in time or preventing this)
3. Howard Dean, for not showing leadership on this matter

Honestly, I think the DNC would have taken this situation more seriously if they would have realized that the race would be so tight and go on for so long. It reminds me of the calls for national election reform that followed the tight 2000 race.

However, the rules cannot be changed and Florida cannot be admitted. Everyone agreed to the rules in advance. The DNC had to act to prevent further insubordination among other states vying for "leader" status amongst the primaries.

The DNC needs to fully evaluate the primary system and make reforms, yes. But AFTER this election, obviously. Perhaps rotating schedules of regional primaries (5 national regions) that can change the order election to election.

No one, no candidate, would want a single primary date. They would KILL themselves and that's not the intent of the process. Caucuses and staggered primaries encourage the candidates to visit all the states and get to know their issues and have personal contact with the electorate. That's the point.

Regardless, these states need to stop one-upping each other and trying to jockey for first. And the DNC needs to really evaluate this issue and come up with some firm mandates before everything goes to hell.

Evan....(sorry, I missed this) "ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid."

I agree, and Senator Bill NElson of Florida has proposed a much more fair system going forward. However, it was Mr. Obama's CHOICE to take his name off the ballot in Michigan. HE was not required to. There was also a LARGE effort by Obama supporters to "vote undecided" as a vote for Obama. This too, like the Florida vote campaign and the television commercials that NO ONE ELSE Ran here in Florida might end up being creating sanctions against his campaign, but I won;t hold my breath. Would I be in favor of another Florida PRIMARY? Sure. As they are closed and there is a residency statute to register. I cannot imagine that there are hundred's of thousands of unregistered Democrats here who would flock to the registrars office to SUDDENLY become registered. If that were the case, it would take some scrutiny. Elections are not perfect, but nor should they be rigged. Just look at what we have in Washington NOW because of it.

Barack Obama as the son of an immigrant father who left his family when he was two years old has overcome incredible odds. He is a man of obvious intellect and integrity. A fresh breeze to do away with the sixteen years of stank in the White House we have suffered through. Yes the Clinton years were better than the Bush ones but should we be proud of Bill? He left and the Democrats lost the House of Representatives, the Senate and of course the White House. Not so great a legacy verdad?

Vote for Obama and our country will be viewed with respect again around the world and we will use our treasure for good like education, health care, and Americas infrastructure.

We are spilling blood daily and spending our hard owned cash in massive amounts for a war that should never have been fought. I am a Cuban-American U.S. Army Vietnam veteran, my grandfather fought in WW1 and my son fought in Iraq. Barack Obama has it right that our enemies were right were we needed them in Afghanistan and we let them get away and now they are getting stronger regardless of what George W. And his surge b.s. tell you. Guns vs butter plain and simple. We need to vote for change before we are totally broke both financially and morally.

As a Cuban America I also support his position on how to handle Cuba. Continuing the same policy which has failed for over fifty years is plain ludicrous.

From a mixed racial background to President of the Harvard law review, to community organizer, to U.S. Senator, to President of the United States. This story is the American Dream in real life. Latinos vote for someone of mixed race born to a teen mother who took this start and made all of us immigrant children proud.

SI SE PUEDE CON BARACK OBAMA SI SE PUEDE!! YES WE CAN INDEED!!

These are my opinions and I am sticking to them!

RAUL DEJESUS PEDRAZA A Texan Latino who got on the bandwagon way early.

JUDGEMENT THE KEY CONCERN. OBAMA IS THE ONE WITH THE MOST INTEGRITY NO MATTER HOW DIFFICULT SOME MOMENTS IN HER LIFE MIGHT HAVE BEEN. HER VOTE FOR AUTHORIZING A WAR THAT HAS COST HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS THEIR LIVES AND OVER 4000 OF OUR OWN IS HER DEATH KNELL ISSUE.

BARACK OBAMA IS CLEARLY THE MOST PRESIDENTIAL AND IS ALSO A VERY QUICK STUDY. HIS DEBATE PERFORMANCES CONTINUE TO IMPROVE TO WHERE IT IS NOW A DRAW WITH THE QUEEN OF POLICY WONKS HERSELF.

TEXAS AND IT IS ALL OVER FOR HER. I FOR ONE WOUL DNOT PUT HER ON THE TICKET MIGHT SPEND ALL THE CASH ON DONUTS AND PIZZA IN THE WRONG CONTESTS.

GO BARACK GO YOU WILL HELP US REGAIN THE RESPECT OF THE WORLD.

BARACK AND ROLL IN 2008!

rajjjj:

As to those who start their posts "As a...lifetime liberal democrat" - My ex-husband probably thought I was/am a troll BUT considering the fact that my first presidential vote was for McGovern, I have always been a feminist, for abortion rights and most definitely against war - more specificially the one in Vietnam, where my brother was killed and this latest one in Iraq...and the list is way too long to go into here. I'd say I'm pretty much a liberal democrat who is certainly entitled to express my views regardless whether small-minded people want to categorize anyone that begins their statement with specific terminology...could just be the truth. Although I didn't burn my bra in the '60's 'cause I really need it. But all things being equal I think I'm pretty liberal. I didn't get my "troll" handbook to know better so I guess I made a "faux pas" in posting phrases...will know better time now that I know the "troll nazis" are patrolling.

You HRC supporters are getting so angry and testy. People are sick of the Clintons and their dirty, win-by-any-means politics and, so, they get no love from the media. What a difference from the HRC supporter SMUGNESS we saw only a few weeks ago. You guys are like cornered animals and just snapping at everything and everyone...get over it.

Anyone who thinks her little speach at the end of the debate last night was genuine needs a reality check. she is devoid of human emotions and compassion but she has plenty of human ambition...maybe too much.

her fake, shark-like smile she gave everytime obama talked (and she could not look him in the eyes) sent chills down my spine. i think leatherfaced has been dethroned in Tejas.

Oh people come on.
The debate last night was a display of how two competitive and exceptional people in the biggest battle of their lives can be decent human beings when it counts. I can't help thinking about how great both of them were. Very few low blows. Obama was right about "silly season" and kind of right about "delusional". Hillary was right about "we're OK, no matter what", taking the high road about why she was ready, instead of saying negative things about him, and wonderful at the end with "it's about all of you, and what's best for the country." Good substantive discussion of health care and relations with Cuba. Thought it was funny watching BOTH of them tap dance around questions concerning the border fence and the bi-lingual nation. They were surprised by those questions, you could tell. That's why they kept riffing off each other on those.

Overall, they showed a lot of grace in this debate. I'm so happy with my party's candidates. Both are wonderful.

But Hillary's my pick. She was the one that really inspired me. I guess Obama's speeches are good and all, but for me, it's her ability to zero in on the ordinary humanity that binds us all that stikes me as truly special. When she shows that side of herself, she literally glows. She was absolutely beautiful last night.

Wake up people and quit whining about the media. Geez!

The media just follows the story. The story is Obama. Why? He has created interest, raised money, and excited people---that's their job, to report.

You think they haven't searched for dirt on him? Ha! The Chicago Tribune has done so for years. Any media outlet that found one juicy scandal would generate tons of ratings and circulation, so they are looking. There just isn't anything to find.

As for Hillary, she has blown a 30 POINT NATIONAL LEAD. How? By not finding her own voice and connecting with voters. Yes, she has years of----baggage, baggage that has to be overcome with newer voters, independents, and disenchanted moderate Republicans. Rather than finding her own voice she relied on old, stale advisers and the typical Clinton attack plan. It just didn't wash.

As for the debates, you Hillary supporters are all over the map. One person says Obama wasn't giving enough detail or policies, while a few comments down another says: "Hillary made her point succinctly in one tenth the time Obama did. At the end of his long-winded discourse, I have forgotten what the point was."

You are hearing what you want to hear.

His policy differences on immigration (requiring a secure border, fines & back taxes, plus illegals getting to the back of the line behind those already in the citizenship application line---plus reforming the system as a whole) was much more detailed that hers.

Obama's differentiation of their health care plans (she thinks it has to be forced, like medicare or social security vs. his point that affordability and access are key) was clear and concise. Yet, she continues to spread falsehoods (he will leave 20 million uninsured while I won't) that he continued to shoot down (no, anyone who wants it will get it under his plan, period). Obama had a STRONG POINT that 20% of the population in Massachusetts has been waived out of their mandatory state health care law because they can't afford it, while some still owing money in fines on top of that, showing that method won't work.

Again, are you going to say that he is too specific? Or an empty suit? Or what??!!! I just don't get it people.

You can say you don't like him. That you like Hillary. That you wish he had more experience. BUT DON"T LIE and ignore the truth about what he says and does.

As for his answer regarding whether the surge worked (Hillary dodged by saying "not as intended" but never answered the question), his reply was excellent: "yes, there is less violence now. It was a tactical victory in a big strategic mistake." This reply was BRILLIANT because it is true and cuts to the heart of his opposition to the war. He used military terminology succinctly and correctly and his entire response to the "commander in chief" question proves he can take on McCain effectively.

Or, was that all too detailed for you people??!!!

Evan, thanks for the reply.

Evan said, and I quote "if you're going to post the Kos list of senate accomplishments, you could post the ENTIRE list and not just cherry picked CLIN-TON's. "

Evan..;.it is not my job to show you or anyone else the accomplishments of Senator Obama. As for Cherry picking, I am surprised even that list I posted here was published here as it was quite long. Scroll up and there is the email list going around of the more "negative" accomplishments of Senator Clinton...what we call now the "Post Office List" that Obama supporters just forward as if it were just another chain letter.

Evan says: "Obama's record in the senate is, perhaps even stronger than hers...."

Perhaps? Ok, I am open minded. And what determines "strength" of legislation?

Evan asks: "whats this about ghost registering voters in florida....feeling ok?"

I posted a reference to TaylorMarsh.com.

Perhaps this too will help you understand I am not suffering from Obama delusions, but pure American Democracy vote tampering annoyance:

Dick Morris' explicit instructions to Republicans: www.youtube.com/watch?v=yt_jnhsyqg0

Obama's Democrat for a Day training video: www.youtube.com/watch?v=JUE4Kp0YERs

Flyer for Nevada Democrat for a Day: www.taylormarsh.com/archives_view.php?id=26826

Evan says "thats the state (Florida) the clinton campaign is trying to change the rules after the game is finished, isn't it?

As for changing the rules, read Senator Clinton's statement of earlier today. Secondly, as for "the game being finished" I AM a disenfranchised Florida voter. The Florida voter had no say in the process, and it was rammed through the Karl-loves-Obama Republican legislature. Voter turn out was the highest in history and ALL CANDIDATES, even those who had dropped out were on the ballot. We exercised our constitutional right to vote. The DNC can Kiss my a**. In additoon, the "game" as you call it is not a game at all. It is for the Presidency of the United States. A very seriious position. I simply am voting for the candidate (of those remaining) who I feel is best SUITED to serve this country for a number of reasons. Had I believed that person to be Obama, he would have gotten my vote. I do not. Nor did I ORIGINALLY believe was Senator Clinton. But the media decided the candidates to this point, and a great many candidates more qualified dropped out. That is sad for this nation. IN addition, the "game" as you refer to it is not over until the process is finished. Senator Clinton has as much right to stay in theis "game" as any other American would have. The delegate count has not been reached. That is the end of the game. Mrs. Clinton will get my vote. I am an issues voter. I do not want our country being again driven by advisers. National Security, REAL National security is my thing....not Bush terror threats. I was in New York post 9/11 with Red Cross. I was with DHS after that. Mrs. Clinton is SIMPLY MORE QUALIFIED to handle National Security. Secondly, Mr. Obama has yet to convince ME, and MANY MORE PEOPLE, how he will wave his hand and get despots and tyrants and murders and thugs to come to the table in world peace. If he can do it, great! I am all for it, but TELL ME HOW. Last night's debate was telling. Mrs. Clinton spoke of what she has done as a road map to her abilities in the future. Mr. Obama just spoke of what is wrong, how it needs to change, listed few accomplishments to sell me on how we will achieve this and just expected me to BELIEVE he can. That is not a risk I am willing to take. It is not about "HHOPE" that things will change, it is about GETTING IT DONE. And in my book, Mrs. Clinton has held her head high under the most hideous of treatments, walked to the floor of the Senate and worked across the aisle to change America. See you in Denver.

ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid.

JKallen001: Yes, it would be unfair to count the primaries that already occurred. The states need a do-over with a full primary, so that all those people who you claim stayed home from the first primary can vote in the second.

what is with you HRC supporters???? Don't you understand how unfair it would be to allow her the votes/delegates from MI and FL considering Obama didn't campaign in either AND he wasn't even on the ballot in MI? Talk about un-democratic and also talk about disenfranchising a large amount of people who decided NOT to vote because they knew a head a time that the DNC has nullified MI and FL's delegates from the convention. Talk about trying to win at ALL COSTS. get your heads on straight and take a deep breath. so what your candidate is losing? whoever we end up with will no doubt lead us in a better direction than where we are headed NOW!

Just a note on trolls:

if someone starts out their post with "as a..." (ie, "as a lifetime liberal democrat," "as a card carrying republican," "as an ACLU-card carrying African-American who voted for...") chances are more than even that they are NOT.

doesn't make the point you are trying to force any more (or less) believable.
sorry, somebody had to say it.

'nuff said.

It is a little refreshing to see that some people are begining to admit that obama is just the media candiate & the press & media has been driving his train, if he is finally the nominee will the media who have hammered Hilary Clinton for the last 3 or 4 months turn to John Mcain & have all the glowing things that were said about Obama now being said about the republican. How will this affect his campaign then & if he is elected president, will the press say that is our guy even though he is making mistakes, I DON'T THINK SO.

Is it just me or have all of these reporters gone to pot? Remember last night's debate was co-sponsored by Univision. The answers Obama gave to the Univision commentator were very knowledgeable, truthful and very interesting and may have resonated with Hispanics viewers. I cannot believe the press is not looking into that part of the debate. I have a feeling that Obama will cut deeper into Clinton's Latino support.

I am Ven Parameswaran,Scarsdale,NY. I have never seen Senator Clinton so humble when she said "It is an absolute honour...."at the end and extended her hand to Obama. It looked real. It was not a political theater. She has come to a point of no return and would like to share honour and power with Obama. I do not discount her agreeing to serve as V.P. Mrs.Clinton is highly ambitious and adores POWER. Wont be better as V.P. than a Senator? Even otherwise it is better to be in the goodbooks of future President Obama. Obama is likely to sweep Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania and the rest -- she knows this. No democrat in the recent past has succeeded in bringing new blood to the party in large numbers as Obama has done. If this trend continues under his leadership he could easily beat any GOP even in the red states. The numbers speak for themselves in predominantly white states/red states. Africa, Asia, Latin America, the Middle East and others will embrace Obama and who knows, he could inspire and radiate his influence throughout the world. When that happens, american economy once again will flourish. Once the USA is popular as a superpower there is no limit to economic and social growth of the usa and the world. Africa is the richest continent in the world and both Africa and the USA can benefit thru cooperation and goodwill. But Obama cannot deliver his goods without the help and cooperation of the u.s. private industry and Wall Street. After his nomination, if he fails to embrace these constituencies he will have problems even if the democrats succeed in landslide election and larger majority in the congress and the senate. There is no govt.of the u.s.a. without private industry that thrives on capitalism, less taxes, less governemnt, more freedom, less regulation. John Maynard Keynes may not be the only choice. Capitalism will multiply jobs. Obama should reread The Wealth of Nations by Smith, father of capitalism.

Patti Doyle for VP !! Mark Penn for Press Secretary !

Hillary just can't win in the eyes of biased media.

If she attacks Obama, she is mean and do anything to win. If she doesn't, she is sensing defeat and playing nice with the party strong man.

Her closing argument last night was touching, compassionate and right on the point - She is a brilliant and tested tough politician that can deliver the changes.

Adding Florida and Michigan this race is split even.

spacegirlart,

if you're going to post the Kos list of senate accomplishments, you could post the ENTIRE list and not just cherry picked CLIN-TON's. Obama's record in the senate is, perhaps even stronger than hers....

whats this about ghost registering voters in florida....feeling ok? thats the state the clinton campaign is trying to change the rules after the game is finished, isn't it? ok, that's what i thought.

the real rationale for not allowing MI and FL votes to count as they stand now is...what would prevent EVERY state from doing whatever they feel like with the primary calendar next cycle? states are very expensive to campaign in and we don't need more dirty money in politics. the primary system may be a mess but muddied waters don't make good cleaning fluid.

Lonewacko:

I could care less whether I'm making Democrats look good or whether you think I make childish comments -- I was asking an honest question -- thank you for drawing the line at separate drinking fountains at least.

Holy crap, you supporters of Hillary are great spinners.

Tell me, is there any state that she legitimately lost, and not because some underhanded, media-driven sneaky maneuver?

None of the streak of losses by at least 17 points was legitimate?

I'd think the group that needs to get real is NOT the Obama camp.

Jeanne1, Hillary might have mentioned lost limbs, but also recall that Obama used the emotionally-powerful word "amputations" to wake up the audience. They're both guilty of throwing the limbs around!

Obama would be a great President - of Norway.

I was once willing to entertain the idea of Obama as president until this series of unfortunate discoveries:

(1) I encountered his online supporters, who don't know any of his positions, and - more frighteningly - don't want to know. Said one, "I don't want to hear the candidates talk about any boring policy issues." On almost every message board I've visited, there's an Obama fan who suggests you "visit his website" in order to know where he stands. That's not just a copout, it threatens the entire democratic process. This is an election, not a product purchase decision!

(2) I realized that the mainstream media despises Hillary now as much as it ever did during the first Clinton era and uses every opportunity to skew headlines in Obama's favor and avoid stories that might shed an unfavorable light on their man. They're a pathetic lot. Baaa.

(3) I realized that this primary season is a pitched battle for the soul of the Democratic party - if it has anything resembling a soul - away from the Clinton New Democrats towards the liberal Kennedy Democrats. DNC chair Howard Dean is naturally biased towards Obama, who is essentially HD with charisma. Which is why the FL and MI decision will probably be rigged in favor of Obama, with caucuses determining the candidate instead of the primaries. More "good luck" for Obama!

(4) We don't know anything about Obama's foreign policy plans. Last I checked he was consulting with a 37-year-old academic and the illustrious Colin Powell, who is best remembered for convincing the Senate that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. Hello?

(5) While he can be amazingly eloquent at times, Obama tends to "borrow" slogans and catchphrases like nobody's business, and then denies that this matters. Did MLK do this? NO! Did JFK do this? NO! Intellectually dishonest people bother me. As in everything, the devil's in the details.

(6) The Democratic party's method for selecting a candidate is inherently undemocratic. They must immediately do the following:

- Get rid of caucuses, which are "exclusive" and biased against working people. Hold a primary in each state so that people have all day to vote and every vote is counted.

- Fire everyone associated with the Florida and Michigan primary debacles, from the state to national level.

- Don't create rules people can't follow, like penalties for early primaries. The cure is much worse than the disease.

- Hold all primaries on the same day. That way, we avoid the need for useless and damaging media spin, which is biased anyway.

If the DNC doesn't move in this direction soon, I'll be voting Independent next time around.

why does she start awkwardly laughing whenever he makes a point.

i'm biased at this point but hillary just creeps me out...

The Home Stretch- Hillary's Personal Alamo: The Google Effect:

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=53

'Ey! Dere's a woid in Sicilian fer Hillary: cicogna. No, it ain't doity.

JakeD:

Ramos is perfectly welcome to drink out of any drinking fountain he wants, but you should note that he's not an "immigrant". He's a Mexican citizen who just works here for now, and who might return home to run for office.

As a Mexican citizen, he can ask questions of the candidates. However, CNN should have noted that he's a Mexican citizen, and they did not:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=cjOJPvDdB1c

They also should have given equal time to a U.S. citizen to ask questions that would reflect the fact that, unlike Obama and to a certain extent Hillary, the vast majority of Americans support our laws.

Other than that, you might consider whether you're making Democrats look good with such childish comments that fail to acknowledge our laws.