The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

You are the greatist!
http://www.newfxlive.com/forex-trading-currency-day.html " target="_top">forex trading currency day

Can anybody tell Me, why the media, and I mean the whole media, hate Senator Hillary Clinton as much as they do?. Is it because she is a woman, or it because she is Bill Clinton's wife?. Why is the media so nice to Senator Barack Obama, the way I see it, he don't need millions of dollars, for his campaign, MSNBC, CNN, and many others, including Fox, are giving him, so much free coverage, that he could, save all his millions, for the general electionscampaign. If Senator Barack Obama, get the same help from all the media, for the general elections, the way his getting it for the primarie elections, he should save all the money, and put it in the bank, with the media been so kind to him, he will not need, to pay for any advertising.

Wow. As the Clinton campaign gets desperate, so do her supporters.
mafox1, your points are well numbered but mostly addressing issues that were answered months ago. Both Rezco's money to Obama, and Norman Hsu's money to Clinton were given (by each campaign respectively) to charity.
svreader - you really should just make a "LEAVE HILLARY ALONE!" video and post it on you tube.
and ebubuk2004 - you're really George W, aren't you? I mean, when you combine DANGEROUS and UNPATRIOTIC, it sounds like we're about ready to burn Dixie Chick records again! Oooo, be very afraid. The black muslim man is 'hyp-motizin' them all.

C'mon you guys. McCain is a genuine hero indeed, but really, do you think ANY Republican could beat ANY Democrat this year? McCain is like comfort food...his voice sounds like Regan and Bush combined. But listen to what he's saying...do you want HIM negotiating with Iran? (bomb bomb bomb..hahaha, ain't I funny.) Yeah, John, you're so cute with that.
You all, as Americans, are very lucky that Senator Obama decided to stand up at a time when we need him the most.
He is the only Real Thing out there, and Americans know it now.
So don't blow it for the rest of the world, okay?

Bravo Ralph Nader.

If Clinton does not gain the nomination, VOTE NADER. OBAMA IS DANGEROUS FOR THIS COUNTRY.

CLINTON SUPPORTERS: VOTE NADER

The centerpiece of Obama's campaign is CHANGE. That goes two ways. Voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania and Texas can also effect CHANGE. These three states are in a unique position to make a CHANGE that will slow down Obama's momentum just long enough to give Democrats time to find out more information about Obama. If the voting in these states results in Obama becoming the nominee, the Republicans will be the ones who will find out what Democrat voters should have known before casting their vote.

1. What is behind the Obama's original decision to keep voters from reading Michelle's college senior thesis by temporarily withdrawing it from all viewing or duplication until the day after the general election? Princeton reported that this restriction is scheduled to be lifted no later than Nov. 5, 2008.

The Obama campaign recently released a copy of the thesis to politico.com who posted it in a Feb. 22 article titled, Michelle Obama thesis was on racial divide. The link is: www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8642.html Her thesis gives the results of a study she did at Princeton, using replies from questionnaires she sent to black Princeton graduates.

2. Oprah said she is for Obama because he is brilliant. Voters should read an article in the Los Angeles times about some of his oops votes in the Illinois senate. The link is: www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/la-na-obamavotes24jan24,1,7079399.story

3. Obama lets supporters believe that in 2002 he voted against the Iraq war. He was in the Illinois senate in 2002. When a reporter asked him how he would have voted, he said he didn't know. Why didn't he just say he would have voted no?

4. He spoke out against the IRAN resolution, but he stayed on the campaign trail and dodged the vote. When a reporter asked him why he missed the important vote, he said he apologizes for that.

5. When he was questioned about buying a piece of property next to his house from Tony Rezko's wife, he calmly said that was a bonehead mistake. He also downplayed his association with Rezko. Maybe there's more to his association with Rezko and maybe there's not. However, voters should be able to find out one way or another.

6. With Obama's oops votes in the Illinois senate, his letting people who are supporting him think he voted against the war, his tendency to worry about what his official voting record shows, and his dodging the vote on the Iran resolution are issues that voters should think about.

7. If Obama wins the presidency, he will run for a second term in four years. He missed the Iran resolution vote because he wanted to make sure that his voting record didn't show any vote. That way, his opponents would not be able to use a no vote against him in case that wasn't the right way to vote...and his opponents won't be able to beat on him like he has been beating on Hillary. Obama supporters can only hope that if he is elected president, his decisions will be geared toward what is best for our country and not what is best for getting re-elected in four years.

Please take the time to go to the links referred to in 1 and 2.

Why are the Clinton supporters, supposedly hardcore democrats, consistently saying that if Hillary doesn't get the nomination, they are voting McCain, Nader, bin Laden, etc....? Could it be that many of the Clinton supporters are really closet racists? Barack's views are not that different from Hillary's, so it can't be that. They are both Democrats. They are both sitting U.S. Senators. The only excuse out there is because Barack is black. Look, Barack did not cause all the b/s thats out there against Hillary. It was there long before he burst on the national scene. The Clinton record stands on its own legs, for better or worse. As for the idea that Barack can be blamed for the comments, views, and responses of his supporters is absolute stupidity. I can say what I want on behalf of Barack, but don't attribute what I say to Barack, fools. Trust me, I don't believe everything you Hillary zealots say about Barack as being her personal view. She puts her foot in her mouth quite well on her own, thank you.

Obama should wear criticism from Nader as a badge of honor. Nader is self-serving scum.

mbrlr:

You are familiar with Rape Shield Laws enacted after she attacked this 12-year old's credibility, right?

CLINTON DEFENDED A RAPIST IN HER PAST

BREAKING NEWS

Yeah, her husband.

If you're an Obama supporter like me, please think Long and Hard before you start knocking Hillary Clinton for "vigorously doing her job as a defense attorney for a child rapist back in '75." Some things just suck--and there are aspects to our legal system that certainly do. But it wasn't as if Hillary chose to be appointed to that particular mission. A court told her to do it, and she was legally and ethically bound to give her client the best defense she could. She did. There's nothing dishonorable about that. There's ample evidence (from her subsequent work) to suggest that she would have been repulsed by that task. But she did what she (ethically) was required to do.

Trying to paint her with this particular brush would be a political smear-job of the worst type (no finger-pointing about anybody else's tactics, please). I'm confident that Barack is ethical (and smart) enough to be above it, and I hope that we, his supporters, will be inclined to be above it as well.

Svreader (and Iowatreasures), if I had only read your last 2 posts I would agree with you and be sympathetic. It is true that everyone has the right to their own opinion and to share it in a respectful way. No one is trying to silence you.

However, I think you both have a real perception problem about how you write on these forums. You need to actually read some of the vitriolic comments that you write about Obama to understand why you have upset people.

You are both well known on the WashPost forums because of the rabid, unbalanced tone of and repetitiveness of your attacks against Obama. You both rarely take "the high ground" and rarely pose your comments in a neutral way based on disagreements with policy. Your emotional attacks are often quite personal to Obama, Obama supporters, and are so polarizing (i.e., "I'll never vote for the democrats again!!!!"), that it is hard to take you both seriously. It also does a disservice to your candidate of choice, Hillary, who can stand on her own to feet and deserves supporters that represent her well.

I find it interesting what "thin skin" you have when you perceive that the attacks are personal against you. Yet, you have no compunction about personally attacking Obama or his supporters. Maybe you should take the feelings that you have when you are the subject of an attack and extrapolate and learn from them.

We all have a right to our opinion. And everyone else also has a right to call us on those opinions. That is called free speech and it goes both ways.

I think everyone should remember that the democratic race is so close because both candidates are capable and attractive. Regardless of who you support, the fact that you support a democrat should be the higher calling if you are indeed a democrat. I am an independent and I will make my own choice in November on who has made the best case. The personal attacks on supporters of Obama and Hillary are unnecessary. Let's elevate this discussion.

She's a lawyer. As an attorney, she had an obligation to represent her client. Everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty (well, except at Guantanamo, may God and the Founding Fathers forgive us) and she was simply representing her client as required by her ethical responsibility as an attorney.

Having said that, with Edwards out of the race, my wife and I are for Obama. He's an American, folks, and he's not a muslim. Even if he were, that would be his right; to be frightened due to his religion is about as un-American as you can get and directly opposite to the views of our Founders.

Also, his wife's comments were perfectly appropriate. Many Americans feel no pride in our country right now due to some shameful things we've done or allowed to happen both within and without the nation. Americans are a free people, and if that means thinking the US is doing something shameful and acting upon that concern is somehow unpatriotic...nonsense. That's true patriotism and love for our country.

maq1:

You know I am not a Hillary supporter, but you have to do more than simply "ignore" her -- it is not a "smear" to publish photographs of Obama -- do you really think that Obama has done an excellent job of responding to this?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

Where is Michelle? They put her under wraps.

I just like facts. Heres one to consider, when posting about all the negative treatment of HRC from the obama campaign.

Do you all know who is running his campaign - you guessed it the same architects of Bill Clinton 1992. Same group, no new comers same team. That is why they are being effective. All the major players from Bill C of 1992 are running the obama camp today. And believe it or not, it is EXACTLY the same campaign they used for him to win then. Hope and change, it worked before and is working again. Hillary did not want to attach herself to that message for fear of being compared to Bill, so the team took their successful strategy to teh next candidate.

So for those of you who truly know politics this should be telling in itself. If they all supported Bill in 1992, why are they suddenly supporting Obama. I do not know the answer, I just find this interesting.

Clinton supporters - turn your back on all the ugly smears coming out of your candidates campaign. She has made clear that her ego is more important than the democratic party. Lets rally around the popular candidate - Obama will lead an inclusive and growing democratic party. if you carry around hillary's ego on your backs forever, it will crush you like it has many others.

Turn your back on the smears and whispers. for the sake of the party.

If Hillary Clinton smears and whispers her way into the general election, I will NOT VOTE and I will at the first opportunity i have change my affiliation to independent. Her ego will sink the party.

Senator Clinton, Please end the smears and whispers.

The Democrats face a big problem after this convention. The word is unity. If Obama wins,many of us Clinton supporters are upset with the ugly comments from Obama supporters that we are old ladies. If Clinton wins,then Obama youngsters will stay home. We old ladies have watched history unfold and fear this lack of unity. After this is over, Senator Clinton will still be around as a national leader for the party. She has shown her leadership qualities in this campaign. Should Obama win the nomination,he will need to provide unity if Clinton supporters are not upset by their unfair treatment also from mass media. A.B.

The Democrats face a big problem after this convention. The word is unity. If Obama wins,many of us Clinton supporters are upset with the ugly comments from Obama supporters that we are old ladies. If Clinton wins,then Obama youngsters will stay home. We old ladies have watched history unfold and fear this lack of unity. After this is over, Senator Clinton will still be around as a national leader for the party. She has shown her leadership qualities in this campaign. Should Obama win the nomination,he will need to provide unity if Clinton supporters are not upset by their unfair treatment also from mass media. A.B.

ASinMoCo:

You really think that Obama has done an excellent job of responding to this attack?

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8667.html

Most posts from Obama supporters are anti-Clinton screeds.

Whenever someone posts in favor of Clinton, or brings up concerns or negatives about Obama, Obama supporters attack the personally.

What does this tell us about the kind of national campaign Obama would run?

How does trashing Bill Clinton, the most successful Democratic leader in recent history, the only one who was able to defeat the Republicans and pass Democratic policies, help Democrats?

How does insulting Clinton supporters help win their hearts and minds, or create good will and unite the party?

Why has the vote count in Washington's (state)Feb 19 primary been stuck at 62% for the last 5 days? Did Hillary win and someones afraid to post it because 800,000 people voted in it as opposed to 31,000 in the caucus'

I think Obama has done an excellent job of responding to the attacks on him that are coming from all corners. I also think it's cute the way some Clinton supporters interpret any response by Obama to Clinton's attacks to be below the belt. When someone says something false about you and you set the record straight, it is not an attack. It's standing up for yourself. Obama's doing a great job of it :)

HRC jeers and ridicules Obama as not having a magic wand that will overcome the dark realities of Wash DC, but seems to think it realistic to consider sarcasm and wise cracks as ways to win over the opposition.

I read the boards here on the WaPo frequently, and I have commented a few times. I am beginning to think if will be hard for Obama to win this election, inspite of the throngs of people who gather to hear him spout his platitutes of "yes we can", "hope" and "change". I see how angry the HRC people are over they way their candidate has been treated by Obama and his handlers/supporters. I don't know how he can mend the serious rift in his own party once he gets the nomination (let's face it, this is indeed inevitable). Once he gets the nomination, he will receive scrutiny at least from the Republicans, and I don't know how he will stand up to that. The Tony Rezko and Jeremiah Wright connections would have destroyed him earlier on if he had been properly vetted. And, despite what others have written here, his wife's remarks on patriotism are going to resonate with a lot of people who, like me, are not jingoistic war-mongers. Maybe, once he is the nominee, the press and the public will do their jobs and look at his very real shortcomings, instead of his dazzling oratorical skills. Otherwise, I fear we could wind up with another GWB in January, 2009.

parkerfl wrote: "Obama can basically ignore Hillary and her rants by now; she's done, so it's time to focus on McCain."

Shhhhhhh! Go back to sleep. Everything will be okay. Sweet dreams. Not to worry. HE will have the choir help you slumber.

Two things: (1) Barack is right in taking the stand that Hillary Clinton has essentially presented herself as a co-president with her husband, William Jefferson, as part of a mysterious 35 years of experience. She only wants to use his presidency when it's convenient. She wants to claim participation for the good things in Bill's presidency (particularly a robust economy). NAFTA was a part of that presidency and an economic policy. Now suddenly she wants to distance herself from his presidency. Somebody tell her she can't have it both ways. (2) What I consistently hear is peopole regurgitating what media personnell have thought and said. Anybody can be a parrot and repeat something previously said. Can anyone come up with their own thoughts on any of these matters?

Obama can basically ignore Hillary and her rants by now; she's done, so it's time to focus on McCain.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Definition of bottom up politics for those who are confused.

If the people want it, it will happen. Just to be clear, whenever, and I mean ALWAYS, when the people demand something of their government they get it - whether right or wrong. I think that is what obama (right or wrong) is saying.

His message is together YOU can do it - congress will 99.9 percent of the time go with what their constituents want - that is who they represent, and they want to get re-elected to their job. That is why the politicians always campaign on the topics that the people care about.

Again, I would support either HRC or obama - but please stop confusing reality of both candidates. Both have good messages and plans to implement them.

The Clinton campaign and the superdelegates supporting her will have to answer for their decision to tear the party apart. Voters will hold them accountable.

In my own search, I am grateful for these comments. The opposition between Spiffy2 and Cali-Gram corresponds to my dilemma.

Undecided, I attended Obama's Dallas rally TRYING TO HEAR SPECIFICS, and I did hear some. I continue to believe I speak for many: Constantly hearing "hope" and "change" in an atmosphere of pseudo-religion leaves us queasy and suspicious. It sounds too much like, "Trust me. I will take you where you need to go. I will figure out some way to pay for it." I can attest that most in the enormous crowd seemed ready and willing to follow. As a senior citizen, this phenomenon does remind me of Hitler, something I have said to my family for weeks even as Obama has charmed me. (Please try to understand before attacking me. I am NOT saying that Obama is Hitler. I do think he parallel's Hitler's magnificent talent for addressing a crowd and rousing an audience to a very high level of trust. Others compare the combination of arena rallies, passionate outpourings, and religion/entertainment to rock concerts. Since this is about politics, they remind me of Hitler.

As much as Obama charms me, "feel" is not good enough when so much is at stake, even when those feelings involve concern, love of country, and a passion for change (that word again!). Thank you, Cali-Gram, for directing us to "issues" on Obama's Web site. I will continue to study.

Spiffy2 says Obama "thinks that totalitarian dictators like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are good people." Although I have not heard Obama make that direct statement, many of the specifics I heard Wednesday can only be described as cries for a more socialistic/communistic approach than we have had in the past. Obama would enter U.S. history as "The Great Leveler." Some of his leveling specifics ("All children will be fully prepared to enter first grade," for example) seem downright foolish; others, like revamping the healthcare system, seemed more reasonable.

It seems true that an Obama office in Houston displayed a Cuban flag with a picture of Che Guavera: http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=28915_Che_Guevara_Flags_in_Obamas_Houston_Office&only If it is true, I have trouble understanding why anyone in a political campaign would do something so devisive and offensive.

Yes he can! Obama is very effective at responding to attacks against him. He is very effective at making trivial attacks look, well, trivial. If the other candidates cannot put forth a solid vision that can transcend his rather ambiguous message, they are toast.

His staff appear to be well versed in coaching him and presenting him in the best possible light. Gotta hand it to 'em. I won't be voting for any liberal in the fall and hope that he doesn't get elected, but its clear he is an exceptional talent and the best the Dems have got.

Great! Hillary has found her inner Margaret Thatcher. Now for some slicing and dicing.

Whew! You fight em, 'Racky! Who's 'untested,' again?

Just vote people, that is what seems to be the big point here isnt it? The voters (american people) are the ones deciding who wins. And from the looks of it, obama is doing well - better than expected.

I like both candidates, and would gladly support either. But a myopic viewpoint of if my guy/gal lost I will take my ball and go home in disgust is shallow.

We teach sportsmanship, honesty and being gracious even in defeat to our kids, but what we are showing is we will do and say anything to contradict that message with clear "free speech" hate.

The people are voting, and if the voters are considered numskulls for how they are voting - then america has a much larger problem on its hands. Especially, if the argument is they are uninformed and making rash decisions.

Clinton and Obama are qualified for the job - do not get lost in the sore loser message. The race is not over, HRC may still pull it off, she is a formidable politician with impressive skills. But the voters will decide and THEIR decision should be the only one that matters.

No one of those football fans is running to become President of U.S.A., except Obama, who probably is one. Just because you are a football fan does't excuse one from being patriotic to his/her country. Even boxers in the ring, put their gloves over their hearts when their country's national anthym is played. Maybe his 5 years in a foreign country, while singing "tanah airku, disanalah aku berdiri," ,,,our native land, where we all arise to stand guard, do not do what we patriotic citizens are doing. This is omenous and something to think about.

Ya, Obama can come up with an explanation for every mistake he or his wife makes, but he can't find any rationale for Hillary's mistakes. Hillary's votes on Iraq war resolution and NAFTA were in keeping with the prevailing wisdom and environment of the time at which the votes were taken. John Kerry made the same mistakes that Hillary made, and Obama used his flowery oratory in 2004 Democratic convention to support John Kerry. And remember, this is coming from a candidate who is willing to give drivers licences to Latinos merely to get their votes in the elections. Compared to NAFTA vote, that is pure pandering. Hypocrisy can go no further. The attack lines from Obama camp are below the belt on every issue. His wife can say that he could not find any pride in her country until her husband became a potential nominee for president. He has no need to show respect for his country's flag or national anthem. He can clarify these actions, and the media is ready to forgive. Beyond his flowery oratory, Obama appears self-centered and mean spirited. This is not the kind of individual who is going to unite the country. He is not even able unite the democrats. His nomination as the presidential candidate for the democratic party may not be wise, because he has not been fully tested like Hillary has been. He is not steadfast in his character, and he can be a serious distraction on the security issue, and his commitment to democratic causes.

We can draw some conclusions from this state of affairs at this point:

1) When you have three candidates, almost all three of them focusing on Mr Obama, by slandering him, you are definitely sure that he is a threat to the three candidates. At least for the two most important. Nader is only the same old ego satisfying.

2) Moreover by doing so, they show that they have nothing to offer to the voters, contrary to Obama.

3)Once again, Nader is here to play his own selfish and sterile little childish game. He knows he has nothing to offer, no program, no supporters nation wide; but he however announces his candidature.
His predicted score:0.2% or 0.3% will do the same thing as 8 years ago: help the Neo Cons keep power.

Disgusting Mr Nader!

and now you all know why the republicans and fox news wanted so desperately to face HRC in the general election.

Whine, whine whine! Would Obama like some cheese with that whine? If he thinks it's tough now, just what until he has to deal with the problems facing the US now--like the economy, jobs, the trade imbalance, the Federal deficit, Iraq, Iran, Pakistan, Russia, China, global trade deals, Nuclear threats, global warming, health care, education, terrorism and a thousand other items that will be waiting to be dealt with on the WH desk for the incoming President. We need a President ready to hit the ground running, not a whiner.

Spiffy 2

When did you leave the human race? I resent being referred to as "deranged". Your "abrasive and ugly" rantings indicate that this word aptly fits your own post. Shame!!

B. Hussein Obama and his deranged supporters will have a sobering wake up call come November if he makes it that far.

I am an HRC supporter and I will proudly vote for McCain if Obama successfully cons his way to November.

Apparently, he (Obama) along with all of his black supporters think that everyone is going to automatically jump on his black boat and vote for him on the basis of his skin color should Hillary not get the nomination. They're wrong!

And, to have the gall to say that he will attain the votes of ALL of Hillary's supporters proves that this closeted Muslim is not only extremely arrogant but also truly delusional.

Obama, along with his equally abrasive and ugly wife think that this campaign is about "Black Power" and that it is their god given right to reside in the White House. Not!

Folks, there's nothing scarier than "black power.

I don't trust this man, I'm not white and I'm certainly not black so I'd much rather have "white power" any time, any day. Heck, I would vote for G.W. Bush himself before I vote for a closeted Muslim and a communist such as Obama who thinks that totalitarian dictators like Hugo Chavez and Daniel Ortega are good people. In fact, I think he thinks of them as "brothers".

Vote responsibly:
Vote 4 Hillary or vote for McCain.

Anyone, but Obama!
(We can't afford another Jimmy Carter)

Our current "deciders" in the White House have failed miserably to act for the people. The failures began long before GWB took over. The large corporations profited immensely from outsourcing, and manufacturing became a foreign affair. We no longer have the option of selecting goods that bear the reassuring familiar tags that proudly state, "Made in the USA".
Terrorist attacks around the world were on the increase during the Clinton years of 1992 - 2000. The bitter fact is that Osama bin Laden was the main suspect, and his Al Qaeda group of terrorists gained in strength and boldness. There is much speculation on the "if only'" and "whys" of how he managed to evade capture. The Bush Administration has not been able to avoid their share of blame after the attacks of 9/11. Americans, whether at home or abroad, can no longer escape the horrific acts of violence against innocent men, women and children. Some say that America is responsible for the death of innocent civilians in Iraq, acts of violence. Other Americans will claim that America was acting "in the name of democracy" and therefore these deaths are just unfortunate casualties of war.
Our country has acquired many enemies among nations that once regarded us as allies. Now, it seems that we have to pay our "allies" to join our war efforts , in non-combatant roles of course. The idea was to present a show of solidarity, a united front in support of G. W. Bush and his "War on Terror." Then, to make it appear that we are bringing peace among the different sects in Iraq, we pay some of these "friendly combatants" in a country that we invaded to "not shoot" us.
I voted for Barack Obama because I feel that there is "an urgency of now", and I want to believe that there is more to life than just "getting by". Life is precious; we do not need to send any more of our people off to fight senseless "no win" wars. There is a stark warning left by John F. Kennedy, who said, "Mankind must put an end to war or war will put an end to mankind". We can't change the past, and should not forget it, but let's look toward the future. Don't you think it's about time we had a say in what goes on in White House? Go for it. For those you who are cynical, try listening to the words that "we" are hearing, and feel the concern, the love of country, and the passion for change that Barack Obama is offering us. He is asking us to feel "hope" instead of "hopeless". I'm just not ready to give up yet. BTW: I'm white, if that matters, (it shouldn't) female, if that matters, (it shouldn't) and I'm seventy-one. (That only matters to me, as time flies now.) I'm just not ready to sit back in my rocking chair and wait for the end. I want to banish my anxiety about the covert behavior of our government. Too many secrets and claims of immunity in the search for truth, it's a parody of justice. I want to CHANGE the way our government operates, I want to be part of that approval group that votes "no" on bridges to nowhere. We have work to do, to CHANGE this country into a government by the people. I want transparency (that's a CHANGE) in government, and spending where it is most needed, not directed by powerful lobbyist pressure. Yes, it will take determination, there is much work to accomplish, but, yes, we can CHANGE this country into a government by the people. There it is again, that word has gotten so popular, "CHANGE".
OK. Yes We Can I want to view the ceremony next January of the inauguration of our next President of the United States, Barack Obama. Yes We Can
Barack Obama has provided his detailed solutions to the issues facing our country, you will find the truth on his views at his website: barackobama.com, under "issues".

Barack Obama has the multi-generational appeal to inspire people of all ages, shapes and shades to feel hope for ourselves and for our country. We need to acknowledge that the concept of hope provides us a powerful motivation for change. We need to have a willingness to "talk it out" instead of "duke it out". Barack Obama has the vision, ability to inspire and the leadership skills to guide us all in the same direction. To rekindle the spark of optimism that lies within us. To rouse the burned-out spirits of cynics who have witnessed the continual erosion of America's government for the people. To challenge those who insist on saying we cannot change government so why bother. Until I really "heard" what Barack Obama was telling us, I was one of the disenchanted. For many years, our country has become more like the "Divided States of America". Our government acquired an "attitude", an "us against them" approach that has led to more animosity from without and within our borders. Our invasion of Iraq proclaimed to the world that we are aggressive and arrogant. We have fallen even further from our once revered role as a peace-loving nation, and our national debt is staggering. Barack Obama was a candidate for the U. S. Senate in October 2002. At an anti-war rally, he risked his political career to state his opposition of invading Iraq, an unpopular view at that time. He stated that war against Iraq would require a U.S. occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. He said that this would only serve to strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. He had the wisdom, understood foreign policy, and accurately predicted the grim outcome of the mistake that has been so costly in so many ways.
As a community organizer for a church-based group, Barack Obama worked to help residents of some of the poorest neighborhoods in Chicago. He determined that he could accomplish more for people if he had a law degree. After he earned his law degree, Obama worked as a civil rights lawyer, and served in the Illinois State Senate for six years. He won his position in the U. S. Senate in 2004. His ten years of legislative experience combined with his unique ability to secure bi-partisan solutions makes him the ideal Presidential candidate. He has integrity, verifiable experience, and comes to us with no strings attached. He does not owe anybody any favors, no "pay-back nominations" for government jobs to unqualified individuals. Barack Obama can help us move forward, to be once more the "United States of America". I believe we can do it, together. Barack Obama continues his work to support educational improvement and opportunity. Our educational system has failed, and only seventy percent of high school students earn a diploma. We need to start with young children and get behind them every step of the way. No child in America should go to school hungry, or ill, or go without health care. Many children of poor working parents return home to no supervision and empty apartments. They even possess a "name tag"; they are "latch-key children". There isn't much waiting for them after school; it gets no better as they age. There isn't much in the way of hope, help and happy faces waiting to greet them. They are children of poverty, nameless, faceless children, who have no voices, and no choices. They need so much to grow into the adults of tomorrow that will be in charge of our world. Let us work together to CHANGE this picture. We need to give them hope, and help, not just crayons to draw a shining sun and bright flowers. Obama has concerns and solutions to the growing problems caused by poverty, by our failing economy, and inattention to the crumbling structures in this place we call home.

Nader and Obama peeps are going to have a wild internet orgy over the next 8 months.

I feel sick again. At least HRC is now mocking Obama. That does not work to well because 20 percent of Americans are priggish dolts. But I enjoy it.

Q. Why is it so much easier for sexist language to be used on the message board than racist? It is so common people don't notice.

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Ahh dude go read a book there is some physics involved can't just wish it.... Or can you?

I found this to be a good article looking at both candidates

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=328070

For those who think Hillary doesn;t have a wealth of support, check out this site

http://www.hillaryspeaksforme.com/

I found it very inspiring to see all these videos about why people are choosing to vote for her. This just launched this weekend and there is already tons of personal videos.

qcs, your personal feelings are contradicted by the polls. Bummer.

Here is why Obama and McCain have sold out America and Nader is best:

Over the past few months, we've heard a lot of rhetoric about change, hope, courage and experience from Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama and John McCain.

But what about the facts on the ground?

Take a moment to test your civics knowledge in this election year.

Of the following Presidential candidates - Ralph Nader, Hillary Clinton, Barak Obama and John McCain - which one supports a single payer, Canadian style, free choice, Medicare for all health care system?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one supports solar energy and would take nuclear power off the table?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would cut the huge bloated wasteful military budget?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would reverse U.S. Middle East policy in Israel/Palestine, Iraq and Iran?

Answer: Ralph Nader

Which one would launch an aggressive crackdown on corporate crime and corporate welfare?

Answer: Again, only Ralph Nader

Can you guess the others?

What's off the table for Ralph?

The empty rhetoric.

The empty gesture.

The empty politics.

What's on the table?

Taking these issues seriously - all the way to action.

Challenging the corporate domination of our democracy.

Organizing young and old alike, 1,000 in every Congressional district in the country, half a million strong, to take back the country from the corporations.

If Clinton, Obama or McCain and their parties had seriously and effectively addressed these and other necessities vital to the American people, there would be no need for Ralph Nader to run for President.

We would be happily out of business.

But we've waited so very long - and still - not a blip on the political radar screen on any of these issues.

So in this pivotal election year, ask yourself this fundamental question:

Which side are you on?

The corporate criminals, the big banks, Wall Street, the credit card companies, the nuclear power industry, the war profiteers, the agribusiness giants, the health insurance industry, the polluters, the drug companies, the unionbusters, Big Oil, the corporate Democrats and corporate Republicans?

Or with people fighting back?

Vote Nader!

I personally feel that Obama has cost the Democrats the White House in November.
I don't think he has a chance against McCain; however, Hillary could possibly have won.
But now with Nader in the race, we are sure to have a Republican in the White House.
How much do you think the GOP paid Nader to enter the race? They should have saved their money, Obama will loose in November anyway!

Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One.

Posted by: monk4hall | February 24, 2008 07:55 PM

-------------------------------
You are using the term "exonerate" to literally mean "cleared of charges". This is also backed up by the primary definition in "The American College Dictionary". You, however, seem to be wanting us to think she was found to be totally innocent in these investigations. To be "cleared of all charges" and "totally innocent" is a far cry from the reality of what the various investigations actually found.

This is an e-mail I wrote and sent to friends several weeks ago. I have posted it on other sites in the past.

Just a brief note regarding two of the items Mr Starr investigated about Hillary; White Water and Travel Gate.

First, White Water.

There were no charges brought, not no evidence found, which is a BIG difference. What was the chief reason, least we forget, that insufficient evidence was found to bring charges? Susan H. McDougal!

Ms. McDougal refused to answer "three questions" for a grand jury about whether President Bill Clinton lied in his testimony during her Whitewater trial. For this, she was one of few people to actually serve prison time; fifteen people were convicted! She served 18 months for contempt of court, though she actually served a total of 22 months. She was pardoned by Bill Clinton on his last day in office.

And then there was Travelgate.

Remember? Unwarranted investigations by the FBI were used to terminate the employment of several people working in the White House Travel Office. These people were replaced by Hillary's friends.

Only media attention forced the Clintons to bring most of those employees back, though in different jobs, and Billary's friends were removed from the Travel Office.

Travel Office Director Billy Dale was charged with embezzlement but acquitted. Ken Starr exonerated Bill Clinton of any involvement. The next Independent Counsel, Robert Ray, said in his final report on Travelgate that Hillary had made factually false statements but did not find sufficient evidence to bring charges against her.

Both of these are examples not of innocence, as seems to be implied in the opening quote, but of a successful attempt to cover up the true depth of her involvement.

I have seen Billary proudly state that she is the most vetted (investigated) of all the candidates and further stated that she was always found innocent. This is a blatant stretch of the truth which, as a lawyer, she is well aware of. The phrases "insufficient evidence being found to bring charges", "innocent", and/or "exonerated" are not synonymous.

LG, in Santa Cruz, CA.

smith.jack
"Making it seem", "it just seems like". Prosecute a murderer in a court room with, "it seems like he committed murder."
In any case, Obama is a politician with political tact. To not offend anyone by saying any candidate had built-in advantages for this presidential election (I'm sure supporters have their arguments. i.e. Hillary has Bill, Barack is black), let's say the playing field was even. With an absolute objective standpoint, Obama and his campaign proved to be superior.

Can we get over these kinds of remarks?

Bravo to Clinton. Cheers to victory, Obama.

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

Sunday, February 24, 2008
Chronic Naderism, Severe, Acute Exacerbation

I am defining a new disorder: Naderism, the diagnostic criteria for which are listed below:

1) The delusional belief that your heroic intervention is needed by the nation, despite any evidence whatsoever to support it (see also delusions of grandeur, erotomanic delusions, narcissistic personality disorder);

2) The compulsive need to attempt to destroy the very outcome that you claim to seek by your intervention (rule out passive-aggressive personality disorder);

3) Verbal echolalia, i.e., the repeating of statements that bear no connection to reality, e.g. "The country needs me now more than ever";

4) Feelings of irrelevance, of being left out or isolated, which are compensated for by grandiose claims of relevance and necessity for his actions;

5) Unconscious suicidal ideation, manifest in statements indicating suicidal behavior, e.g. "I have been collecting pills", or "I have decided to run for President";

6) Destructive behavior without awareness of the consequences of such behavior, e.g., spending sprees, reckless driving, running for national office.

Use the following codes to indicate the severity of the episode of Naderism:

Mild: Mutters at television during Obama rally: "That should be me";

Moderate: Begins making late night telephone calls asking "Shouldn't I really run for President? The people need me";

Severe: Announces campaign for president.

Note: Patient should be evaluated on presentation for whether he is a danger to self or others.

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/02/chronic-naderism-severe-acute.html

"Noise proves nothing. Often a hen who has merely laid an egg cackles as if she had laid an asteroid. -Pudd'nhead Wilson's New Calendar." Mark Twain from "Following the Equator," 1897.

Hillary Clinton and several of her supporters are late in actively using ad hominium attack on Barack Obama. Equate Mr. Obama with Mr. Carl Rove in his tactics is one example of too little too late. What bothers Mrs. Clinton (among many attacks on Mr. Obama) are two brochures or mailers first mailed at least a week ago and presented in blogs like "The Note" and "First Read" at least a week ago. What has changed since their publication is one source Long Island Newsday which characterized her views of NAFTA as a "boon." When the original remarks were published in the NY newspaper, she, nor any of her representatives objected to the characterization of her remarks.

Is this the stuff that Carl Rove is made of? Hillary's experience in the White House she purports makes her ready to lead from "DAY ONE." She is proud of her support for "universal" health care. Some would say her efforts united the GOP to later take over both branches of Congress. Democrats were less rather than more successful while Mrs. Clinton experienced the last years of the past century from the White House. A tactical response to Mr. Obama--days after the fact--is more the response of a Claude Rains played Louie, "There's gambling here, I'm shocked" of Casablanca.

Mrs. Clinton speaks not a word to the consequences to those who do not want to participate in another government mandate. Mr. Obama respects people as adults are able to make their own choices.

pdxgordon

Obama's making it seem like he's going to swoop into Washington, unite Republicans and Democrats together on his side of the issues, tear down all Interest Group and Special Interests, and he won't make mistakes doing it.

This isn't Staples... you can't just hit the Easy button and everything will be fixed.

If he's the frontrunner, why is he lying about Hillary's view on Healthcare? That's not the *change* he's been talking about in his speeches.

I just wish he would do what he says in his speeches... it just seems like the changes he talks about are dreams that he has as opposed to what he'll actually be able to do.

I am thoroughly impressed by Obama's ability to stand his ground. I don't condone the attacks against Obama and even Clinton in these comments.

Stand together, stand Democratic (that is, if you consider yourself one, of course).

Obama and Clinton are politicians. Clinton was simply outplayed and Obama isn't a superior, godly being (nor do his supporters think him to be one).

I'm glad to be a part of this time in history, to be witnessing a strong and respectable Hillary Clinton running against (and with, as a Democratic) a truly impressive Barack Obama.

I stand united with my neighbouring Clinton and Obama supporters to elect the eventual nominee.

Thanks, Jac. I'm actually a white male in his early 40's, so I'm guessing it was also wildly inaccurate.

Cheers

BB -

Shouldn't be repeated. I'll just say that it was blatantly racist and sexist. Glad they took it down.

The fact is both Obama's mailers are distorted. It may not be completely false, i.e. it is true that Hillary supports universal health care, etc. But, he is practicing distortion tactics.

Obama claims that he doesn't practice "old politics" and will provide people "change and hope" of new politics which doesn't practice the same "old" politic tactics.

Obama is lying when he gave his "hope" and "change" speeches. Regard,less of what Clinton did or anybody did, it is Obama who made promises to people that he already breaks right in front of our eyes.

Wake up people! The point is, he is the more of the same!!!

I voted in California in 2004 and did nothing to keep kerry out of office nor put bush in. sorry.

cfc

Then we should thank God for making your vote meaningless.

I voted in California in 2004 and did nothing to keep kerry out of office nor put bush in. sorry.

cfc

jac13 - I'm kinda curious about what ebubuk said before it was deleted (if it was addressed to me). Ah well, the spam and racist post are gone.

BB

THANK YOU WASHINGTON POST!

I truly enjoy the cut and thrust of the boards and feel those with strong, but well-expressed opinions (svreader, usmc_mike, zouk, krishna...) should be given space. One poster, however, went way over the line tonight and I am pleased to see that these posts are gone. [I do think that the penguin book should not have been censored, but I'm waaaay off topic here.]

Incidentally, I think Stewart's comment was funny.

BB

PS, a person good at politics does not make him/her a good president. Bush is a good example.

You can put ethics above competence, especially when the person professing competence has such a thin track record of showing competence. Hillary has only a few more years than Obama in the senate and not a day longer in an executive position. We always take this "eight year" chance and I'm comfortable with Obama. I'm not comfortable with the ethics of HRC in her drive to win. Not in the eight years of Bill in the White House when he showed himself capable of selling out any and all democratic values to win election and reelection. case closed and I'm not a spring chicken with starry eyes. I remember Nixon and his ultimate game of "realpolitik" and i'm not impressed by Hillary's claim to possess that kind of sense.

cfc

The only thing I can see about you is that you are one of the "moral value" voters who help defeat Kerry in 2004 and put Bush in office for another 4 years. I thank you for that!

Poor Hillary! On Thursday she made "nice" by directly quoting hubby and the Tarheel. She even came across as if she finally woke up and smelled the Java. Now, out of nowhere, she explodes in a hissy-fit about charges thrown across the table that she was not as good a co-prezzy as she's implied for the past 8 years. Home-girl is truly coming across as a post-menapausal bi-polarite, which really won't help her much in the eyes of most of the guys. Sorry, had to say that.

You can put ethics above competence, especially when the person professing competence has such a thin track record of showing competence. Hillary has only a few more years than Obama in the senate and not a day longer in an executive position. We always take this "eight year" chance and I'm comfortable with Obama. I'm not comfortable with the ethics of HRC in her drive to win. Not in the eight years of Bill in the White House when he showed himself capable of selling out any and all democratic values to win election and reelection. case closed and I'm not a spring chicken with starry eyes. I remember Nixon and his ultimate game of "realpolitik" and i'm not impressed by Hillary's claim to possess that kind of sense.

cfc

OK, here it comes. Now he's Hitler. I guess it was only a matter of time before that one surfaced.

If you don't want to vote for the guy, don't. If you think your candidate is better, tell us why.

But please, please, stop the exaggerated personal attacks and insults.

Stewart couldn't resist using the platform of the Oscars to make sure everyone in this country knows Obama's middle name is Hussein and he uses his name in the same sentence as Hitler?

What a paranoid bunch!

Nader's been out there, you just haven't been listening. Don't demonize for running again. He didn't make the crucial diffrence in 2000; a mistake made by democrats in attributing the loss of gore in florida. It should never have even been that close that his margin could have made a difference. Gore blew that first by a lousy campaign and second by not challenging results for the whole state. He's got the right to run. He won't be the margin this time either, btw - not if Obama sticks to the issues and keeps running the campaign like he has.

cfc

What's the deal with the whole national anthem and pledge thing anyway? One should be able to go enjoy a game or attend school without having it be turned into a goddamn loyalty test. And the idea that for these poor kids it's day after day after day...

"But Miss Killjoy, I've already pledged allegiance to the flag a hundred and thirty-six times this year! Don't you believe me by now?"

"No! Say it again!!"

You shouldn't have to be required to take some sort of loyalty oath just to participate in normal, day to day activities. It's literally a form of secular religion, complete with self-appointed priests ("patriots") and false prophets (Faux News, Limbaugh, etc.). It seems patriotism is the only virtue where claiming it is equal to having it. Not too many people walk around saying "Look how smart I am!" "I make a lot of money!" "I love my family! Do you?!?" They either do it and people see it, or they don't do it and people see it. Why can't it be the same with patriotism?

Those who are truly patriotic don't need to parade it or pronounce it - they just do it. Those who truly love their country don't make a habit of hating their fellow countrymen.

You make a fundamental mistake when you accuse Obama supporters of only wanting to bash Hillary Clinton. We just don't like her politics, ok? she does have a record to run on and it doesn't look very good from where we stand.

cfc

You make a fatal mistake by trying to understand politics which you have no idea what it is. All professional politicians use tricks that you may consider dirty just to survive. The longer they are in the public eye, the dirtier they look. If you want someone clean, you really should consider a non politician, best a scientist (America never have one) in the white house.

On the other hand, it does not really matter how politician achieve their goals, as long as the goal matches your interest and the interest of most people. This is the only choice people have in a democracy, after Nov. and if you found you made a mistake, it will be 8 years to suffer. We can not put ethics above competence, we cannot let slogans veil the fact. We need to open Obama's closet and let people see if he is really good for us.

It will never change my mind if republicans tell me Obama do more women than Bill, or he is bisexual. But don't tell me he is great for me without evidence to prove it. If no one will be good for me, I will choose the one with the least chance of damage, and vote accordingly.

sv...,sv...,sv...! My, did I strike a nerve? I never once said anything about your not being able to remain on this board. I only stated affirmatively that I reject your liberal 'group think', condecending, repetitive and dissmissive posts of all who whould dare to have a thought different from yours.
I do not recall ever once trying to tell you, or anyone else for that matter, whom to vote for. Nor, have I ever disparaged your choice of candidates. Civil discourse should be just that, civil. So, chill!

Focus now! And just breathe. This, too, shall pass! Don't hate! Just participate!

The only time we hear anything from Ralph is when there's a major election; apart from that, he's hiding under his rock, quiet as a mouse. He's a few years older than McCain; chances are he wouldn't last through his first term.

With all of the attacks on Obama from Clinton, McCain, and now Nader, it only shows me one thing; Clinton, McCain, and Nader are all very afraid of Obama. All the more reason that I will be voting for Obama.

"Please tell me one "scandal" for which Hillary Clinton was not exonerated. One."

The missing billing records.

Posted by: thrh
-------------------------------------------

Gollee. Wasn't the billing records a part of the $60 million investigation. You mean those sorry a**ed Repubs took pity and let her off the hook. Gollee. I read Starr's report, but I don"t remember the indictment. You don't think someone is telling fibs, do you. Surely not a Repub or Obamanite

Who are more irritating - Obama Cultist - Nader Voters - Religious Right - Hillery peeps like me.

Beware of a Demagogue who could lead you Not to Heaven but Hell.....Hitler did it and what about this time in 2008

I must apologize for my earlier post. I just reviewed the current code. It reveals bascially that saying the pledge of allegiance and signing the national anthem require the same protocol. I guess that the event where I was today when the national anthem was song with perhaps a few people putting their hands over their hearts made us all unpatriotic in the eyes of the "super-patriots." At least we seemed to know the words. :))

hey bnw, i sympathize with wondering if anyone ever really reads these things, but i did and if you want a direct response. no we are not sheep; do not believe unequivocally in everything said by Obama and do not believe he's a messiah. just the best hope for something different coming down the pipe. there are significant differences in his approach to health care, beginning with the issue of the mandated care. there are significant difference in foreign policy, beginning with issue of engagement. you got me on the false profit thing, though. somebody is paying attention. it's just that there's so much crap flying around it's hard to discern somtimes. and btw, do you really think HRC isn't trying to cash in some of Bill's "rock star" status? not the only one running on charisma here.

cfc

For a positive campaign and a fresh, untainted start, we choose Obama. For those who want to brutalize a 12 year old rape victim in court, there's always Hillary.

Posted by: gmundenat | February 24, 2008 07:45 PM

News flash Obama cultists don't believe in US court system. They are just like Rove. I don't know about the story but that is not the point / accusations = guilt. Please after bashing Hillery in the most sexist way don't start on we have to defend the women shtick.

Obama does and does not think Hillery was a co-president. I think both sides are guilty on that one. But reports are she was not that crazy about NFTA at the time. Obama is for whatever the people the room are for. Unless they are Weathermen - no I will not be that pathetic.

I thought I'd been taught as a child that members of the military saluted the flag during the National Anthem, and civilians put hand over heart. Of course, few civilians do that 100% of the time they hear the anthem.

But I just now read the official 1942 Code for the National Anthem, and it specifies only that civilians should adopt a respectful stance, and face either the flag, or the person leading the anthem (the anthem is always introduced by someone - "Please stand while we sing the National Anthem..."). Outdoors, men should remove their hats (remember, written in 1942).

It's really a stretch to attack Obama for a photo in which he isn't putting his hand over his heart. I'd have to agree it's silly season.

Obama is like a cat. You throw him in the air and he always manages to land on his feet. He is just too smooth and that ultimately will be why he will not be our next President. There are 9 months till the general election and people will tire of his rhetoric or maybe he'll just run out of come backs.

Then thank god for that, bnw. It's not that liberals have been put up and lost, it's that they never made the case for their liberalism . We finally have who can.

cfc

Posted by: carlsonchafTo the person trying to rally the "Clintonites" to bring down the false "profit" Obama. first of all, do you realize the inherent insult you're paying your own side? Clinton has cultivated a cult of personality from the begining, trying to cash in "rock star" Bill's reputation for turning a phrase. Second, I don't
___________________________________________

I take it you don't question what i wrote? Why ignore the subject. I've posted this on 4 strands today. First two I used prophet and second two I used profit. Used Clinton supporters instead of Clintonites except this one. I knew if I made a mistake you would catch that. Now I know you read my post. You point out my mistakes but avoided the message You know every word is true. Thanks for reading any way. Maybe you be a blind sheep.

Hey cowboy, the first guy that got "swift-boated" by Karl Rove was McCain. Don't you remember 2000.

cfc

Now Clinton is being bashed for defending a rapist. Does anyone out there know that the job of an attorney is to defend their client. Ask the Attorneys that defended OJ what they think.

Ralph Nader is back to remind voters just how far corporate influence has distanced the major party candidates from problems and solutions people in the street talk about- credit card debt slavery, need for a living wage, health care which cuts out the insurance industry,etc. As he did in 2000 and 2004, he will offer Obama the chance to grab these issues and win. That has always been the job of a third party candidate and that is why he is so distained by professional players.Without Nader, nobody will mention what is left out of the debate. Nader refuses to play the game and those truly disenfranchised by that game love him for it.

You make a fundamental mistake when you accuse Obama supporters of only wanting to bash Hillary Clinton. We just don't like her politics, ok? she does have a record to run on and it doesn't look very good from where we stand.

cfc

I'm telling ya, you Obama Followers you are being set up. their are a bunch of the old Swift Boaters on these comment pages that are running Hillary down and pumping Obama up but come next Nov. they will vote for McCain

It's out now. McCain isn't denying an affair with a female lobbyist, and hs'e not admitting to it either. Most of his campaign staff consist of lobbyists. Then there is his membership in the "Keating 5" for which he should be in jail.

McCain is just another Bush.

By the way kevinlarmee, why aren't the Bush twins and Cheney's daughters in Iraq? This is the war that both of their daddys' started.

Since when is putting one's hand over one's heart a part of singing the national anthem? Saying the pledge to the flag requires it. I am afraid that the "super-patriots" among us are now using this as a means of determining our patriotism. Like flying flags on cars, dressing in flags, and so forth. When have we gone too far?

On this forum it is extremely clear that the so called Obama supporters' only interest is bashing the former first lady. There is no sign of wanting for change on these coward's mind whatsoever.

Obama deserve more scrutiny before people could understand where he would lead the country. Just an example, if people knew that 80 year old Zbigniew Kazimierz Brzezinski, another cold war icon from the 70's, once worked as national security adviser under the worst democratic president in recent history, is advising Obama on foreign policy, you would have some idea where this country will be going internationally under an Obama administration.

What "Change" Obama brought in 3 years of his US Senate Career ... that he is capable of solving the world's problems ... being in the WH ...Explain ... Mr. Empty Suit ...

Posted by: PastorGene |Has anyone noticed how it's a little early for McCain and the Republicans to be already going on the attack full force against Obama? That phase of the general election usually starts much later.
----------------------------------------

Old Man McCain will slap that arrogance off you in a New York minute. Obama will be the most liberal, weakkneed wuss on the planet by Nov. I'm going to sit back and laugh and post I told you so's. 2004. An inept incompetant incumbunt with a 30percent approval rating running against a liberal war hero. 70 percent of Americans disproved of the war. Guess what. The Libs screww us Dems again. Guess what. They are going to do it again. What a shame.

svreader's remark about Obama's boxing metaphor and violence against women is one of the most inane remarks I have seen in political commentary. I heard Obama's comments Saturday. I don't believe he even used the term "knock out." He only said that the challenger does not win on points. The "knock out" would only be alluded to. And he clearly was using a sports metaphor merely to make the point that he is still the challenger trying to defeat an entrenched opponent--that the race for the nomination, in other words, is far from over, and his task is daunting.

It's a sports metaphor about winning and losing. To turn that into some kind of statement of violence is absurd to the point of disbelief. It is truly "grasping at straws." Obama said it right in the last debate when he said that the campaign has reached a silly stage. Hillary Clinton is desparately behind, and she and her supporters are trying all manner of desparate attacks on Obama in order to try to make up ground. I certainly hope it all backfires.

Obama does appear very presidential in calmly addressing the facts, while Hillary orchestrates a "flying off the handle" moment about fliers that are not new but have been around for weeks. She is the one who chose to highlight her mandated coverage as what distinguishes her plan from Obama's. What does a mandate mean, if not that it will be enforced? And Hillary wants to claim all the good from Bill Clinton's presidency. Well, if she wants credit for his accomplishments, she has to take the whole package, and Bill Clinton is the one who signed NAFTA into law. There is no way she can deny that.

For any Latinos paying attention, Bill Clinton also signed into law in 1996 the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA), a very harsh immigration bill that made life that much harder for undocumented immigrants. I think Obama should be pointing that out as well.

To the person trying to rally the "Clintonites" to bring down the false "profit" Obama. first of all, do you realize the inherent insult you're paying your own side? Clinton has cultivated a cult of personality from the begining, trying to cash in "rock star" Bill's reputation for turning a phrase. Second, I don't understand the abject fear some Americans display to Obama being a good speaker. That doesn't mean we are blindly following him, it just means we see a glimmer of hope that there might be a real leader there. Give up on the "drink the koolaid rap." we know what we're buying and it's not a false prophet. It's a man who inspires a bit of hope in sightless world. Give it a chance.

cfc

so ok for Clarence Thomas to rant but not Michelle?

At this point Clinton is only doing harm to the Democratic party. Do the right thing Mrs. Clinton... consider the whole rather than your part in it.
Please.

George Bush is more like Jim Jones. White evangelic and tried to steal social security

SVReader: I keep trying to find out why you are getting so much attention on this board. Must have been something you said. "Just words?"

You missed yesterday when I was visciously attacked on another WP board. Terrible accusations - one even said Hitler was among my group of friends. And, even worse, she claimed I was a Republican. lol.

After watching the Black Union conference all day yesterday, when everyone there was so angry and let the fur fly so-to-speak, and then ushering out all the black speakers before Hillary was invited on stage, it was quite a day. I felt like I needed body armor.

Michelle Obama is getting clobbered on the blogs for her saying she was never proud of this country her entire adult life.

Now, they are publishing her thesis from college - where she is very angry at the white professors and students at the college. (The college isn't going to release their copy until Nov. 5th, 2008). Wonder why !

Instead of embracing the opportunity to go to such a prestigious school, she writes a 25 page thesis about racial injustice at the school.

She felt that they didn't want her there. If they didn't want her there - she wouldn't have been there.

I say she needs to quit whining and portraying herself as a victim, just like Barack does and appreciate her good fortunes, not take the bridge to the past and be so angry, hateful and negative.

Anyway, today seems like your day. r u o.k.? gw.

That picture of the national anthem was floated on the Internet 6 months ago, described as the Pledge of Allegiance despite the notation that it was the NATIONAL ANTHEM. LOL... Morons. Most people do NOT place their hand over their heart when singing the National Anthem and everyone knows it!

Hillary is so stinking condescending it's pathetic. She is obviously desperate but is more likely simply emphasizing that she is a B..ch, and a spoiled brat to boot. (She really needs a voice coach.) "Meet me in Ohio..." to "debate...your behavior..."? Who is she, Obama's mother? Spare us. The debate is already set, Sport, and you ain't Obama's mother!

Nader whines every 4 years, but where is he when the fighting is being done, figuratively and literatlly. Not a peep outa him. He has delusions of grandeur.

Last, but not least, the apparel Police are after him!? That's too stupid to even comment on.

The entire article by Alec was to provide Ohama a forum to campaign. Alec is in bed with Obama along with Chris. 35% of the Democrats in Florida will vote for McCain rather than Obama. The media is electing a Republican with their trashing of Hillary and their support of everything Obama.

.
A QUESTION FOR HILLARY:

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ?

Why is Chelsea campaigning for her mother, going to Hawaii...if she supports her mother, why isn't she fighting in Iraq?

A SERIOUS QUESTION

People like the Clintons thinks it's fine to vote for wars, but always expect other parents' children to die in them.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA IN IRAQ?????
.

To Whom It May or May Not Concern: I NEVER, EVER, NEVER, EVER place my hand over my heart when OTHERS sing the National Anthem. By placing my hand over my heart, does it pay my bills, send my child to college, put food on my table, help pay for gas for my car, help me pay for my doctors bills, help me take care of my aging parents. Who are these sick, ill lead people to speak about this anyway. These are the same people from the right that feel their way of thinking is the only way someone should live. I AM SOOOOOOOOO SICK OF THEM AND THIS CRAP! I WOULD NEVER VOTE FOR ONE OF YOU!!!!!EVER...I THINK ALL OF YOU ARE EVIL!!!!!Will someone please put them out of their misery!!! Obama is catching it from all fronts because Obama will stand the test of time!!! I dare anyone, and I mean any one to question my patriotism to this country..

I'm very impressed by Obama's reaction to all this. He's to the point, but doesn't trash anyone. Much like the trees blocking the forest, it's been hard for me to see the Barack outside the noise of the followers (especially here in the forums). I'd probably have a better opinion of him if I had stayed away from reading the WaPo reader comments.

false profit?

cfc

ebubuk2004:

Did you by chance mistakenly address your response to Fairlington Blade instead of me?

FYI, I'm a 59-year-old white male. And your racist, intolerant and ignorant postings are offensive to me.

Hillary has attacked, Obama hasn't. Yeah Right. Man of great words. The media's drawers were in a wad because he had taken the "high road" and had hamstrung himself. Remember Obamanites? Everybody was cordial up to MSNBC debate. Every reporter was complai ning because they wanted blood. Remember Obamanites? Come debate night, old high integrity interviewer Russart sicced and Old Edwards and Old Above the Fray Obama bit. Remember Obamanites? Question her honesty and integrity on special interest (guess who is going special interest, we hear today) and I can't remember all accusations, but their were more. Remember Obamanites? No Obama hasn't changed. He wasn't above the fray from the beginning. A false profit with words, but no substance. You know now why we call you Obamanites. Sheep following a false profit. You damn right I remember that night. It made me sick. Know why? I had real hope that the dems could go through the primaries without damage to each other. Don't blame Hillary. I'll never forget the look on her face that night. She never suspected they would do that. She expected better and deserved better. Remember Obamanites? Been wanting to get that of my chest for a while. Go back to your false profit, Obamanites. Dare you to question anything I said as untrue.
You know who started this bashing. Other Clintonites help me give them hell on this. I'm tired of the Obamanite lies>

bhatttt - Nader isn't running as a Green. He took his marbles with him and sulked home in the last election. In Nader's world, if you don't agree with EVERY thing he says, you've been bought and paid for. Me too, I guess.

Fortunately, his is a geometrical progression. 2.7% in 2000. 0.38% in 2004. So, I'm figuring about 0.05% in 2008. Utterly inconsequential.

I'm deeply disappointed in Tim Russert for giving such an irrelevant individual 20 minutes this morning. One might as well as give the time to Lola Falani.

BB

Has anyone noticed how it's a little early for McCain and the Republicans to be already going on the attack full force against Obama? That phase of the general election usually starts much later.

It seems obvious that they are trying to influence the outcome of the race for the Democratic nomination. They want to run against Hillary Clinton. So they are trying to help her take Obama out now.

Nader is now joining in to help them also. I, too, respect the work that Nader has done for consumers, the environment, etc., in the past. However, ever since 2000 he seems to be helping the Republicans, which makes me wonder about his motives. He did try to say there was no difference between Gore and Bush, which was and is ludicrous. He drew just enough votes in 2000 in some key places (Florida and New Hampshire at least) to throw the election from Gore to Bush. He got less votes in 2004 then in 2000. He cannot believe he will be elected. And based on issues and constituencies, he obviously draws votes away from the Democratic candidate, thus helping the Republican, and thus hurting the very causes he says he supports. Why does he continue to do this? Is he in league with (on the payroll of) the Republicans? Or is it an ego thing? It is just not credible that he either believes he can win or is trying to raise consciousness about any particular issues, since there can't be more than a hair's difference on the issues between him and Gore/ Kerry/ Obama or Clinton. Or is he also trying to influence the Democratic race?

Hopefully, they will not succeed in influencing the Democratic race, and Obama will emerge as the nominee and battle-tested for the general election campaign.

Obama's commitment to meet with the leaders countries in the middle east is the first sane suggestion i've heard regarding foreign policy in quite some time. You're just plain wrong to think this means giving anything away in negotiation. It means facing a reality that hasn't been acknowledged by our current administration in eight years; these people are in charge of their countries and we're fools not recognize that. It has nothing to do with patriotism or the lack of it.

cfc

i understood what michelle obama was trying to say even though she could
have worded it differently....
i too am experiencing my proudest moment as an american....

we are coming together for a common cause...

of the people, by the people and for the people!....

how could we be proud of our country after the Katrina disaster
overwhelmed us and our president stood by for days without real support
for good american people?... and even now the devastation remains and
people remain homeless...

how could we be proud when we have a president who has continuously
lied to the american people about weapons of mass destruction, invading
a country that had nothing to do without 911?...meanwhile an innocent
country has been destroyed and thousands have been killed...

how could we be proud of this country in the past when we do nothing
about the drug problems that have infested our communities, meanwhile
we are making deals with leaders of the countries that are producing &
smuggling the drugs in!...

how could we possibly be proud of this country when we currently have a
president that has let the country spiral into trillion dollar
deficit?...

how could we be proud of this country before when we let racism rear
it's ugly head, with individuals who place nooses at schools and public
places?...

how could we be proud of this country when we forget about the good old
fashion values of working hard,& having a steady income to support our
families, if we allow our jobs to go overseas?...

how could we be proud of our country, if we allow financial
institutions to take advantage of innocent people?..the result, record
numbers of home foreclosures...

how could we be proud of our country when we let hollywood and the tv
industry, glamorize filth, smut, and general bloody gore that fills our
airwaves and eventually fills the minds of young impressionable
americans?

how could we be proud of our country before if our leaders perpetuate
divisiveness amongst each other?...

should i go on?

michelle obama is proud of the fact that she sees an america that truly
wants change in each other and in our country with everyone working
together for the common good and a common cause! as opposed to the
large corporations, drug companies, and politicians slamming us with the
idea of what is good for America!

Kevin - you cite a rather dubious poll. Quoting from the link you posted:

"They say that they carefully selected the demographic compositions used in their polls. Most pollsters thus far have not been fully representing the support Barack Obama gets at the polls because the demographic composition of those going out to the polls tend to be under-represented in traditional polling based on previous turnout."

In other words, the pollster has deliberately skewed the poll to reflect his/her view of why Obama has been winning. A risky gambit and perhaps one that will pay off. However, the methodology is speculative at best.

BB

WOW...
seems it is not a new news ,many friends public this news on a tall dating site~~~~Tallmingle.com~~~~which has many other good projects but dating
But a good news.lol...
~~~~~~Selina1987,as a model playing that site,hope to know you.

HELLO? IS ANYBODY AT THE WASHINGTON POST MONITORING THIS BOARD? IT IS BAD ENOUGH THAT SOME POSTERS ARE POSTING THE SAME MESSAGES SEVERAL TIMES, BUT THE RACISM AND INTOLERANCE OF SOME (e.g. "ebubuk2004)" SHOULD NOT BE PERMITTED.