The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

My wife, Svetlana was born and raised in Russia. She loves the USA, not just because of the opportunity but most especially the right we have to be "Free Thinkers". What makes her (and I) most frustrated is we(Americans) do not think. The Media in Russia is run by the politicians, the media in the USA is run by corporations. In Russia if you speak contrary to Putin, you die. In the USA if your ratings drop, your show is dropped. So we see the media pander for rating. Investigative reporting is dead. Instead we spend years hearing about OJ, then waste our time getting the dirty details on Clintons BJ, the media helps Bush put in the mind of Americans that IRAQ had something to do with 9/11, ..... and now they have created Barack.

The feel good candidate. My Republican friends who voted for Bush (the guy they wanted to have a drink with) are now voting for Barack (the guy that makes us all feel good). When I ask my Democratic friends who are voting for Obama "why", they answer "he's like me" "its a feeling". We continued to pick people to marry based on feeling, then get divorced when we start thinking. Candidates who challenge us to think such as Kerry, Gore, and Clinton haven't a chance. The media attempts to lump Clinton and Bush together and say out with the old in with the new. I agree, however Barack is the old. I am excited that this year we will not end up with Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have great candidates, anyone of whom is a huge improvement over Dick and Bush.

I am voting for Clinton, not just because she was in the front row for Nixons Impeachment, or because she laid it all on the line for Universal Health Care, that she spearheaded the Children's Health Insurance Program, or that she serves on the Senate Arms Committee, or that we get William Jefferson Clinton back in the WhiteHouse, but because I do not know one thing that Obama has done. I am afraid that we are going to find out that the Media has led us to the outcome again. They have created great ratings for themselves at our expense.

Obama gives great speeches, as did Kennedy. However Kennedy was a war hero, a senator, and vice president. Obama is no Kennedy. Obama gives great speeches, as did my personal hero Martin Luther King. However, Martin Luther King got in the streets and spearheaded the civil rights movement in spite on continued assasination attempts. Barack is no MLK.

Barack is the opposite side of the same old coin (bush is the other side). I ranted and raved, now go vote for who you think has the ability to make change. Clinton is my choice...Hukabee, McCain, and Obama are all great choices. The one thing we can all agree on....no more Dick and Bush!

My wife, Svetlana was born and raised in Russia. She loves the USA, not just because of the opportunity but most especially the right we have to be "Free Thinkers". What makes her (and I) most frustrated is we(Americans) do not think. The Media in Russia is run by the politicians, the media in the USA is run by corporations. In Russia if you speak contrary to Putin, you die. In the USA if your ratings drop, your show is dropped. So we see the media pander for rating. Investigative reporting is dead. Instead we spend years hearing about OJ, then waste our time getting the dirty details on Clintons BJ, the media helps Bush put in the mind of Americans that IRAQ had something to do with 9/11, ..... and now they have created Barack.

The feel good candidate. My Republican friends who voted for Bush (the guy they wanted to have a drink with) are now voting for Barack (the guy that makes us all feel good). When I ask my Democratic friends who are voting for Obama "why", they answer "he's like me" "its a feeling". We continued to pick people to marry based on feeling, then get divorced when we start thinking. Candidates who challenge us to think such as Kerry, Gore, and Clinton haven't a chance. The media attempts to lump Clinton and Bush together and say out with the old in with the new. I agree, however Barack is the old. I am excited that this year we will not end up with Bush, both Republicans and Democrats have great candidates, anyone of whom is a huge improvement over Dick and Bush.

I am voting for Clinton, not just because she was in the front row for Nixons Impeachment, or because she laid it all on the line for Universal Health Care, that she spearheaded the Children's Health Insurance Program, or that she serves on the Senate Arms Committee, or that we get William Jefferson Clinton back in the WhiteHouse, but because I do not know one thing that Obama has done. I am afraid that we are going to find out that the Media has led us to the outcome again. They have created great ratings for themselves at our expense.

Obama gives great speeches, as did Kennedy. However Kennedy was a war hero, a senator, and vice president. Obama is no Kennedy. Obama gives great speeches, as did my personal hero Martin Luther King. However, Martin Luther King got in the streets and spearheaded the civil rights movement in spite on continued assasination attempts. Barack is no MLK.

Barack is the opposite side of the same old coin (bush is the other side). I ranted and raved, now go vote for who you think has the ability to make change. Clinton is my choice...Hukabee, McCain, and Obama are all great choices. The one thing we can all agree on....NO MORE DICK and BUSH!!!

Through out the country Hillary Clinton started with a hefty 20-30 point lead over Obama. These were based on her name recognition and association with Bill Clinton. In every state polls taken just before the election have shown that Hillary's prospects were either reversed or almost erased. This is after people got to hear what she and her surrogates had to say and offer. Now as of today, all polls show that Obama has either surged past Hillary in Texas & Ohio or is about to surge past Hillary. With 35 years of experience to boast all a candidate has to do is show up to win an election. That is possible only if those 35 years of experience are their own and not of their huband's. The problem for Hillary in Texas is she is counting on some work she did there in 1972. People have moved quite a bit from then to now from Texas. A lot of things have changed. One cannot count that anybody in Texas is going to remember her work in the 70s. Not only that people change their associations and even party over a 35 year time frame. Even Hillary switched from being a republican to a democrat. She has zero gain from her work done in the 1970s in Texas.

In order to slow Obama's momentum, Hillary has to do more than tell the people that she did some work in Texas 35 years ago. She may even have to buy each voter a car to get their vote. But we know she is no Oprah.

Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton announced Thursday that Raul Yzaguirre, a prominent Hispanic activist and former president of the National Council of La Raza, would co-chair her presidential campaign and lead its outreach to Hispanic voters. The NCLR are known for their outspoken hatred of whites and blacks in America, and have called for killing all non-hispanics in the southwest US, thus reclaiming the area from America.

THIS GUY IS WORSE THAN FARRAKAHN TIMES 200..

AND WHAT ABOUT HILARY SHRUGGING OFF THE RACIST MEXICAN LADY IN DALLAS...

HILARY IS SELLING AMERICANS OUT FOR PRESIDENTIAL VOTES..
SHE PROMISED THE PEOPLE OF OHIO 5 MILLION JOBS.. IN THE SAME BREATH SHE INTENDS TO LET 12 MILLION ILLEGAL MEXICANS BECOME US CITIZENS IN HER FIRST 100 DAYS OF OFFICE...
I THINK THERE WON'T BE MANY NATURAL AMERICANS IN THOSE 5 MILLION JOBS.....

Whatever happnened to the so called uniters.

Obamas crack pot followers are already targeting moderate democrats for not being left enough. They are targeting centrist democratic congressmen and congresswomen for extinction. Even if Obama talks about uniting, his nutty groupies wont ever allow disenting voices.
I hope they lose to the voice of moderation.

Obama will not only survive the tag team attack of Billary and McCain, but will end up all the stronger for it. After that, he will crush McCain. You cannot stop an idea whose time has come: change we can believe in.

Go to www.lulu.com/aepelbaum and read there the farce -Impeachment of The Art of Betrayal to find out in details who Hillary Clinton is. The entire farce is placed in its preview. Thinker, are you going to follow your mistress Hillary to prison cell or to mental facility? Are you, as svreader, her alter ego? Then be ready, as she is not winning, and ....

In his first major public address since a cancer crisis, Nation of Islam Minister Louis Farrakhan said Sunday that presidential candidate Barack Obama is the "hope of the entire world" that the U.S. will change for the better.

The 74-year-old Farrakhan, addressing an estimated crowd of 20,000 people at the annual Saviours' Day celebration, never outrightly endorsed Obama but spent most of the nearly two-hour speech praising the Illinois senator.

"This young man is the hope of the entire world that America will change and be made better," he said. "This young man is capturing audiences of black and brown and red and yellow. If you look at Barack Obama's audiences and look at the effect of his words, those people are being transformed."
HOPE OF THE ENTIRE WORLD-- ha ha ha

Farrakhan compared Obama to the religion's founder, Fard Muhammad, who also had a white mother and black father.
FOUNDER OF BLACK MUSLIMS HAD A WHITE MOTHER AND BLACK FATHER LIKE OBAMA-

"A black man with a white mother became a savior to us," he told the crowd of mostly followers. "A black man with a white mother could turn out to be one who can lift America from her fall."

Farrakhan also leveled small jabs at Hillary Rodham Clinton, Obama's rival for the Democratic nomination, suggesting that she represents the politics of the past and has been engaging in dirty politics.

Farrakhan's keynote address at McCormick Place, the city's convention center, wrapped up three days of events geared at unifying followers and targeting youth.

It had a different tone from a year ago, when Farrakhan made what was called his final public address at a Saviours' Day event in Detroit. The 74-year-old was recovering from complications from prostate cancer and months earlier had temporarily passed on leadership duties of the organization's day-to-day activities to an executive board.

© 2008 Associated Press.

The Clinton campain, and now the Republicans keep criticizing Obama's huge following as a "cult" or the like. (Gee, I wonder why? Do you think it might have something to do with the fact that he leads them all in the polls?) You know, a leader's main job is to lead. If you are a leader, people follow. If people are not following, guess what? I guess you're not a leader.

The Clinton campaign, and now McCain as well, have also criticized Obama for his "words." Of course, Obama has done a lot more than words. But words are not unimportant. Again, a leader's main job is to lead. Leadership experts consistently stress that the main way a leader leads is by casting vision and inspiring, mobilizing, and motivating people to action. Obama has proven he can do that.

Hillary Clinton keeps saying that Obama has not been "vetted" and that he will not withstand Republican attacks. Well, he has done a pretty good job withstanding the Clintons' attacks--and even turning many of them back on them. And he is already doing a pretty good job responding to Republican attacks. Actually, I'm seeing something else new with Obama's campaign. Democrats like Dukakis, Gore, and Kerry lost the elections in part because they did not respond quickly to the Republican attack machine. Obama, on the other hand, keeps issuing immediate, sharp, effective responses to attacks from all sides--from Hillary, from McCain, from Bush, from right wing blogs, etc. McCain derides Obama about "Al-Qaeda in Iraq," laughing as if Obama doesn't know anything about that. Before the day is over, Obama responds about how if it weren't for Bush's invasion of Iraq, there wouldn't be an "Al-Qaeda in Iraq." The same with other attacks. But what's really amazing is that when Hillary comes out with an attack ad, Obama immediately has an ad that responds to the attack and turns it back on her.

And what's more, he never seems to let any of it rattle him or get him uptight. He takes it all in stride, almost seeming to have fun with it. Oh, I think he's more than capable of handling the Republican attack machine! The days of the Democratic nominee lying down and taking the Republican assaults without a fight are over!

To Sister Niksiz:

I spend many hours reading news articles, both foreign and domestic, also read many progressive writers on websites (e.g. Huffington Post, Truthout, RAW) and of course I continually peruse the blogs as well.

Just wanted to take a moment to commend you on your thoughtful, and very insightful commentary posted earlier. We are from different generations, different genders, and in fact different races, still I am proud to call you a kindred spirit.

As a an African-American I resent the notion that Bill Clinton did so much for Black people while President, among several other things I resent about him, and his Presidency. He was asleep during the Rwandan genocide, too busy playing with girls, cigars and such. Did nothing to alleviate the problem and causes for so many black males incarcerated in prisons. Now, 1 in 9 African-American men between ages 18-34 are in jail. Sponsored Welfare Reform that was unfair, unfeeling, and unresponsive to the needs of the poorest among us.

Hillary brags about how respected she is by the military industrial complex of thieves, contractors, and a "preemptive" military that threatens to swallow the world as Dwight Eisenhower warned us about more than forty years ago.

She is also an ardent supporter of Israel (I am married to a person of Jewish faith) to the detriment of the Palestinian people, whom I guess have no rights whatsoever.

She was a STAUNCH SUPPORTER of NAFTA one of her husband's biggest policy blunders that is still costing Americans their jobs, pensions, and well-being to this day.

Now, she asks us "...who do you want in the White House at 3 A.M when the phone rings..."? Pick up the damn phone, it's your husband saying he's not coming home...again!

We need a change, Sen. Obama cannot possibly be worse than Nixon, Reagan, Bush Sr., and worst of all, the current occupant of the White House.

We need a change and hopefully with people like us to support him...YES WE CAN! Thanks again for your thoughts, sister :-)

Peace.

Actually, Hillary's 3 AM ad implies that the President should make a quick, rash decision rather than a thoughtful one after consulting with advisors. That's the kind of cowboy decisions that got us into Iraq. No President has all the answers, without a need to get other opinions and options. And the mark of a good President would be to surround himself or herself with a good team of leaders and, as far as the military goes, to appoint military leaders who have good judgment and good military command experience (which Hillary does not have any more than Obama does, and even McCain, though he served in the military, was not a General), give them the broad general policy parameters, and trust their judgment on the detailed decisions. The worst thing a President could do would be try to micro-manage the military. And I sure hope the President, whoever it is, would put some thought into major decisions that affect the country's safety and future, rather than doing something rash.

Some posters here are arguing that Hillary is not that far behind, etc. Look, it's not just that Obama has won 11 contests in a row and has a lead of more than 150 pledged delegates, a lead of about 100 overall delegates, and has cut Hillary's superdelegate lead in half. If you look not only at the recent polls but the trend, you can see a consistent pattern, that Obama goes into state after state way behind and ends up way ahead. Go to pollster.com and look at the graphs, with Hillary's polling level or dropping everywhere, while Obama's is a sharp upward spike. I noticed he has already closed to within about 6 points or so in Pennsylvania, and he hasn't even started campaigning there yet.

I've noticed that apparently the amount of Republican comments are picking up on these blogs now. Or perhaps what is really happening is that a lot of the Clinton-bashing, which her supporters kept blaming on Obama supporters, was really being done by Republicans posting, and now they are shifting into bashing Obama, as it is becoming evident that he will be the Democratic nominee.

Those of us who were true Democrats and supporting Obama were not attacking the Clintons, though we were confronting Hillary's distorted attacks on Obama.

Hillary's TV ad asks, in essence, "Which candidate would you want to answer the hot line phone at 3 in the morning?" For me, the answer is easy: John McCain. I certainly would not want Hillary answering the phone. If the news is bad, she might start crying and getting emotional.

I'm so tired of this phony argument by the Clintonites that "Hillary's won the big states that the Democrats must win." Yes, she won California, New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts, but ANY Democrat will win those in November, just as any Democrat will win Illinois, won by Obama.

In the true "battleground" states it stacks up like this:
For Clinton: Arizona, Arkansas, New Hampshire, New Mexico, Nevada. Total 30 electoral votes.
For Obama: Colorado, Iowa, Maine, Minnesota, Missouri, Wisconsin, Virginia.
Total 64 electoral votes.

You can't count Michigan and Florida because nobody campaigned there and Obama's name wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan. Ohio with 20 electoral votes is indeed a big test, but so far the polls show the candidates running neck-and-neck there, so unless one candidate wins by an unexpectedly large margin it's pretty much a push.

Now what's remarkable is that, except for Arkansas, all of Clinton's "battleground": wins were by relatively small to minuscule margins. All of Obama's battleground wins except Missouri were by large or very large margins, reflecting a combination of his strength and Clinton's weakness in those states.

Looking at the matter objectively, then, Obama appears to be much better positioned to carry the fight to the decisive "battleground" states in November, even if you don't credit the claim by the Obama campaign that their candidate is uniquely able to bring additional southern, midwestern, and western states into play.

sv,

You still do not get it (nor will trite, sophomoric inanities assist in making your case)! BJ, please! I thought at least that you were intellectually sincere.

But anyway, the choices folks make in this campaign are not about holding something AGAINST someone - negative. It is about being FOR someone, positive. That's it!
What is with all of this victimology complex? There is truely no need to display rancor, nor need to disparage (at least from me.)

It should all ultimately come down to simply being a matter of voting one's conscience, and respecting the right of others to do the same. Period! Thing done!

'Grey matter', as in brain function is!! Adults possess free will; and, can exercise unrestrained choices. Neither you nor I may agree with another individuals' choices, but that is immaterial.

What is material is that the process remains positive and constructive. Let's not hasten the decline of our society by pandering to base instincts. The outcome of the race to determine he eventual Democratic nominee for President has not been decided yet; but rest assured, the Repubs are rollicking with glee at this short-sighted bloodletting that is transpiring.

Unless we significantly elevate our perspectives, the Repub posters are absolutely justified to be smugly laughing hysterically at Democratic ineptitude. Given our current course we wil surely succeed in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. The choice is ours.

Peace. B

mfj.email , you are a bigot. Obama is not winning because he's black but because he inspires people across racial and other divides. He is a visionary leader. But then again, you wouldn't understand any of that. You just slap a label on someone ("liberal," "victim," etc.) so that you can dismiss them without having to seriously debate their point of view. It's a very old trick in politics. And I'm sure you see everything as black or white, and nuanced positions are "flip-flopping" or "taking both sides." Grow up! Life will not yield to your superficial boxes and categories.

The racist attacks on Obama are out in full force. Calling him by his middle name Hussein is obviously an attempt to imply some connection to Sadam Hussein or Islam or something. They don't call John McCain by his middle name. So it's not just an innocent desire to call someone by his whole name! The fact is, Obama's father was from Kenya, where Hussein was probably a common name. I'm sure there are plenty of evil people in the world whose name happens to be John also. And for the few well-known troublemakers with the name Hussein, I'm sure there are a lot of fine people in the world who have that same name.

Then there are the folks trying to blame Obama for his pastor's statements and actions and even for those of Lewis Farrakhan, whom Obama has specifically and unequivocally denounced. Obama has no association whatsoever with Farrakhan. He did not accept or receive any endorsement from him. Just because Farrakhan had something positive to say about Obama--Obama is not responsible for that. The fact is that Farrakhan is the opposite of the white supremists attacking Obama. Farrakhan is a black supremist. So of course he would be glad for an African American to become President. But so what? Nazis, skinheads, and KKK members are glad for a white man to be President. Does that mean McCain has to be saddled with their baggage?

Nor is Obama responsible for everything his pastor says and does. I happen to be a pastor, and I can tell you unequivocally that my church members do not always agree with (or even support) everything I say and do. (Oh, wouldn't that be nice if they did!) At the same time, I can promise you that they don't have absolute control over what I say and do either.

People should make their judgments about Obama based on what he himself says and does, not what others with whom he is (his pastor) or is not (Farrakhan) associated and for whom he certainly is not responsible.

And he's not even responsible for his middle name. It was given to him by his father, who left him way too soon (at age 2) to have much influence on him in any case.

But you folks who post that racist nonsense really know all of that anyway, though none of it matters to you. You just want to sling mud and use rumor, innuendo, and nastiness to attack a candidate whom you know you can never defeat on the merits. How pathetic! If you can't win on the issues, then give it up! Don't go conjuring up things to cover up your inability to hold up your end on the issues.

Shifting subjects, the "superdelegate" picture amuses me. Basically, the superdelegates are politicians who stick a wet finger up in the air to see which way the wind is blowing, so they'll know which way to go. At first, they came out strongly for Hillary Clinton, since it seemed the wind was blowing strongly in her direction ("inevitability"). But then the wind shifted--dramatically. So now we see the flow of superdelegates shifting dramatically to Obama. There was really no need to debate about whether the superdelegates would follow or overturn the will of the voters. It was a forgone conclusion that they would go with the prevailing winds anyway. They might have spared themselves a little embarrassment, though, if they had waited before jumping on the Hillary bandwagon. There is no "inevitability" in politics.

WAPO: If you're not going to screen out idiots like ebukbuk2004, can you at least limit their posts?? The doors to the sanitorium have been opened, and the loonies are running wild all over here.

VOTERS: Whatever happens Tuesday, the Dem primary needs to end asap. Why? Clinton supporters and Obama supporters are forgetting November - and that it takes a team -- the Dem. team - to beat the Republicans. Democrats have become so divided and angry that it looks like the party may not be able to come together as a team to beat McCain -- unless we stop the bickering and bleeding soon. THE LONGER WE ARGUE INTERNALLY, THE BETTER IT IS FOR THE REPUBLICANS.

Mark my words. If this goes on w/out a nominee until the time of the Penn. primary, we as a party (Democrat) will be so weakened and McCain so emboldend that Dems will likely lose in November.

What a bunch of racist hacks read the Post....

deminFLA wrote:
"My President Obama you say? NEVER! EVER! EVER! The deep seated hatred of whites coming out in the african american community is frigtening."

Unless you can cite documented examples from reputable sources of what you wrote, I'll consider you, not 'deminFLA', but 'the Rovian attack machine from the RNC in Washington, DC'.

Now go off to your meeting - the one where white sheets used to be encouraged. No, not the frat party where sheets are used as togas, but the meeting of the organization that's about 140 years old, and despised by all intelligent humans.

I was the kid who always ran out of the room during sitcoms when someone was about to be horribly embarrassed. If it weren't a matter of national importance, I would be running from the room now. It isn't that I claim to know who will win on Tuesday, but the longer term outcome is pretty clear. And Hillary is like a sitcom character who sees all the signs of impending badness and just keeps on with what they're doing. Combined with her repeated insistence that she has the judgment and experience to lead the country, and the fact that she really believes it, the effect is just surreal.

svreader - I think Clinton would make the better president, but the evidence shows that Obama is the better candidate.

Ultimately, when it comes to executive experience, each of the three remaining serious candidates has been in charge of a $100M enterprise. McCain's was badly managed and blew up in his face. He was fortunate in the opposition he faced.

Clinton has repeatedly changed tactics in the last several months and was utterly unprepared to fight in caucus states. It didn't help her that reporters kept writing about the Clinton machine.

Obama's campaign has run smoothly and is on the verge of taking down another candidate with seemingly overwhelming advantages. On that basis, he is a quite effective executive.

BB

All Obama supporters have to use against Hillary is her Iraq vote, and that her husband got a BJ from another woman.

Clinton supporters point out that Obama repeatedly used cocane which makes him a multiple-felon, that his policy plans are lousy, and that he's never had an original idea in his life.

Clinton supporters have the far stronger argument.

Clinton is the far better candidate.

Re: ebubuk2004

Once again, repeat posting, multiple copies of inflammatory rhetoric.

"Racist and Homley Michelle"

I think you meant to write homely. Personal attack.

"SULTAN Obama Hussien"

Beneath contempt. What exactly does it take to get booted off these boards?

BB

VOTE OBAMA.
The only HONEST person in the election after Dr.Ron Paul (R).

Viva!! President Barak Obama--2008.
You earned it the old fashion way.

"thurston" thinks that California and Texas are "battleground" "swing" states? Unbelievable. I've got news for you: California is solidly blue and Texas is solidly red.

can any one point one (1) single instance where Obama has brought anyone on the other side of the aisle to vote on something that he proposed. Please dont count where republicans like Lugar and coburn co opted him on their proposals. Lugar has been working on this issue for twenty years. Obama did give a speech in oct 2002 re Iraq. What did he do from Nov to the time Iraq was attacked? Right he gave another speech in March 2003. Not only did I oppose the AUMF I also had the judgment that Iraq had no WMDs. Why dont you guys vote me in as the president.

She is playing on other peoples money. Whatever positive outcome she predicts is summarily thumpped by 5PM of the day of elections.
Outcome ,here, in Texas,OH.,Penn. will again be Barak Obama, the winner. Unless votes are mis-tallied just like NY where NO black voted for Obama on many precincts. In CA-LA voting was a problem.
Now, if Mrs Clinton looks to WH2008-then there is a foul plays coming.

I'd rather have Monica answer the phone then Louis Farrakhan. Or Al Sharpton. Al will be sleepng in the Lincoln Bedroom.

My President Obama you say? NEVER! EVER! EVER! The deep seated hatred of whites coming out in the african american community is frigtening. It's a bit Planet of the Apes. Will Whites be enslaved in an Obama presidency to pay us back? Will we be bowing and scraping and saying "yes um President Obama?" Get real America. This is NOT the guy to run this country.

My President Obama you say? NEVER! EVER! EVER! The deep seated hatred of whites coming out in the african american community is frigtening. It's a bit Planet of the Apes. Will Whites be enslaved in an Obama presidency to pay us back? Will we be bowing and scraping and saying "yes um President Obama?" Get real America. This is NOT the guy to run this country.

Sorry but once again I would like to refer back to the comments posted earlier by TAH1 that spoke about Hillary's unmatched record.
Her record is certainly not unmatched - it is atrocious.
Her vote for the war (and lack of apology for having done so)which Obama, Kucinich and Ron Paul among others did not vote for is highly significant -not water under the bridge.
See this site http://www.commondreams.org/archive/2008/01/31/6768/ and you will see that
more than a million Iraqis are now dead. As of 25 th Feb this year there were 3972 U.S. soldiers dead.
Remember for every person killed in war there are countless others maimed, blinded, injured for life. Loved ones suffer tragic loss.
Why don't people ask the soldiers - the one's they send in to fight and die for them while they play at home - how they feel. I don't know what the position is now but at the start of the election the highest amount of donation went to Ron Paul, who also voted against this insane war. In fact it was more than the combined totals given to any other candidate.
Obama's donations from soldiers stood at double that donated to Hillary.
Let the soldiers speak! They see whats on the ground and don't have the luxury of theoretical debate.

Thinker,

I love enlightened political discourse as much as the next person; but in all honesty I am still waiting for an original thought from you. I would welcome the interaction.

I have always felt that reasoned discourse with those who hold differing points of view helps keep us honest and sharp; as well as stimulating intellectual development. However, mindless regurgitation of obviously canned diatribes fail to make the grade.

I have a suggestion. If you will just follow the yellow brick road, you will find a man hiding behind a curtain (that is itself enveloped in lots of smoke and flashing lights) who has a brain to spare. Once you have secured it, then, and only then, will you be able to rightly live up to your pompous but ego-inflated moniker. Check back then with something new and hopefully constructive! B

What else has Mark Penn and Hillary have in their pockets? They have employed every dirty tactic Karl Rove and the Republicans have. The race card in South Carolina, the Muslim Card in Wisconsin and now the middle name and turban in Ohio and Texas. Now another fear tactic, be afraid of his skin color, be afraid of his name, be afraid of what he is. The negativity, pessimism and fear tactics are sure signs of desperation and last ditch efforts to instill fear instead of hope. Hope conquers fear and replaces it with optimism and a vision for a glorious future. The Clintons are increasingly dragging our spirits down with fear where as Barack Obama has lifted our spirits up and sure he will win and lead us into a glorious future. Obama is a champion; his strength will prevail against the entire calamitous onslaught from the hideous and evil machinations of the opponent. Truth will set us free.

To Cali-Gram: thank you so much for wasting precious bandwidth and copying and pasting (probably against copyright regulations) the entire article by Sean Wilentz:

--So Sean thinks the Obama team is at fault for the Clinton team releasing the Somali photo to Drudge? Huh?

--So Sean thinks the Obama team is racist for making Bill Clinton compare Obama to Jesse Jackson?

--So Sean thinks Obama's criticism of Hillary healthcare plan is underhanded and Hillary's criticism of Obama's plan is perfectly on the level?

Talk about objective journalism. I'm an independent voter from Ohio and I will not vote for Hillary no matter how many such moronic articles Sean writes and you copy and paste. In fact, you are doing a good job pushing us independents to vote for Obama.

Keep it up, loser!

How far can 'experience' take a President? Let's look at one example:
Posted by: critter69 |
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Practically no experience like Obama. George Bush. Nuff said.

Have you thought of this? Monica Lewinsky or whoever is the bimbo du jour may answer the phone if Hillary gets elected. Hillary would be wherever she was when Bill did all his philandering.

I am fascinated by this discussion about who would make the better commander and chief. Honestly I cannot think of any president in my lifetime who was much good as commander in Chief (with the possible exception of John Kennedy during the Cuban missle crisis). Certainly none of the three viable presidential candidates have shown much in the way of commander in chief ability.

John McCain was at least in the military, but as an ex military pilot myself I can tell you that being a pilot is not the same as being commander and chief. The best we can hope for in a commander in chief is that he/she will show restraint, won't act rashly, and that he/she understands the limits of what the military can do. Iraq is a perfect example of what our military cannot do. Bush senior and his advisors chose not to go into Iraq during the Gulf war even though they had a military force several times larger than the US had available when we invaded Iraq. Bush senior knew that the cost of invading Iraq would be beyond our ability to pay, and he was right.

Regardless of the intel prior to the Iraq invasion (and those with access to the actual information should have easily seen that the itel was suspect) a commander in chief should have recognized that the US was overextending itself with such a move. If we really though that Iraq was developing WMD we could have attacked that capability without occupying the country. Certainly neither Clinton nor McCain showed the necessary judgement when they voted to support the military action. What Obama may have done if he were in the position to vote for the military action in Iraq we will never know, but he certainly did make his opposition to the war clear.

"'It's 3 a.m., and your children are safe and asleep, but there's a phone in the White House and it's ringing,' says the narrator in Clinton's ad.

"Something's happening in the world. Your vote will decide who answers that call, whether it's someone who already knows the world's leaders, knows the military -- someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.

"'Hello, White House?'"

"'Yes?'"

"'Who is this, please?'

"'Monica ...'

"'Who?'

"'Monica ...'

"'MONICA?!?!?!?!'

"'Yes, remember me?'"

TALK ABOUT AN ANATOMIC, ER, ATOMIC NIGHTMARE SCENARIO ...

Hillary says she's ready to take over on day one because she has 'experience'.

How far can 'experience' take a President? Let's look at one example:

The candidate's credentials included:
State representative - 6 years
US Congressman - 10 years
Ambassador to Russia - 3 years
United States Senator - 10 years
Secretary of State - 4 years
Minister to Britain - 3 years

The candidate? James Buchanan, elected as the 15th President.

Compare that with another candidate's credentials:
State representative - 8 years
US Congressman - 2 years (and failed to be reelected because he spoke out against an impending war)

The candidate? Buchanan's successor as President, Abraham Lincoln.

I think Lincoln's judgment, despite a much shorter resume, trumped Buchanan's experience.

As for negative campaigning, well, I worked as a volunteer in Obama's Missouri campaign, and the paid staffers were insistent that we were to tell why we were for Obama, and not ever to focus on why we didn't like Hillary.

Posted by: smwn
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

smwn- Well it didn't take. The snakes belly always follows the head.

Obama's pastor is a political liability for him, and given his expressed disagreements with his pastor changing churches would be the politically smart thing to do to keep him from being associated with his pastor's more outrageous views. I would suspect that his refusal to do so has to do with a personal affection and loyalty to the person who taught him about Jesus and for the place where he became a Christian. I suspect that his whole life (unlike Hilary's) is not totally about politics and power.
To an number of person who have cited "unfair" ads: I have looked into this, and I don't consider the ads unfair. This is esp. true, re:insurance. Before Hillary started denying that her plan would penalize poor people who couldn't afford insurance, she SAID it herself.
As for negative campaigning, well, I worked as a volunteer in Obama's Missouri campaign, and the paid staffers were insistent that we were to tell why we were for Obama, and not ever to focus on why we didn't like Hillary.

3AM: MICHELE OBAMA ANSWERS THE PHONE
She says. "Call back tomorrow, we're not feeling particularly proud of America today - so just let it go to heck. But there are a ton of lapel flag pins in our house that Barack would never use. Send a few of those over to the dangerous person. Better yet, call Hillary - that's our first choice for answers. I'm sure she can help you, too.

3am: BARACK OBAMA ANSWERS THE PHONE
He says: "Who?"

The 'sleeping child' commercial is something worthy of the Bush Administration. I won't vote for Clinton even if she wins the nomination. Talk about bad decisions....whoever talked her into doing that spot should be fired. VOTE OBAMA!

Over Qualified - On Day One

Hillary Clinton has been thrown under the bus by the Democratic "elite" and has survived in total tact. She has more than survived. She has risen from the media hype. She has also risen despite the White Haired Democratic Trolls of the boys club DC establishment. They thought they would put before us a candidate with no credentials, no experience, no proper resume by his own admission when asked by the press. Later he said they urged him to run - - without the resume.

Hillary has more than proven herself the candidate of the people. The candidate of the party. The candidate of the highest qualifications in this race.

Barack Obama threw his neck out turning to her in the last debate for the answer to the next Russian President question posed by Tim Russert. In her usual brilliance she answered. But really, if Barack were posed that question Hillary would be in double digit leads today. He had no clue. If you rewind that debate you can see him all but spin his head off - hoping AS USUAL that Hillary has the answer to hand him. And at the end of her answer - he did his usual gig - he said "I think Hillary answered that perfectly".

That's his answer to everything. And he speaks the truth. She does have the answers we need, she does have the eloquent responses we need, she does have the informed and articulate knowledge we need, she does give us a sense of security in her brilliance. She is the next president. Because she deserves to be. Because she arrived at this interview with her "proper resume", her proper experience and her proper eloquence.

I am so proud to have Hillary Clinton as my candidate. And I and this country would be so blessed and gifted to have her as their next and first Madame President of the United States of America. Representing us, protecting us, leading us through her intelligence and informed person.

I am honored, totally honored to support this woman at this time and in this place.

Go Hillary. I can't tell you any more than this how much I respect everything about you and thank you for all of your strength, efforts and caring.

Go! Go! Go! We are totally with you. The 50% they all seem to be ignoring. But they cannot. We have a voice. And it is you.

TAH1 wrote : -"Hillary Clinton's qualifications are unmatched. She will be a GREAT President!"
TAH1 also made reference to her "unmatched record."
Come on TAH1. Get real!! Stop fantasizing.
I can see Obama in that role as bright as day.

Recognizing she will lose Texas, Hillary is now planning to sue! She cannot win an election, so she simply sues to get the desired result. This is not 2000, this is a Democratic Party election!

If she damages the party to the point that Obama loses to McCain, Harry Reid should start the ball rolling to impeach her from the senate. NY is hardly a risk to elect a Republican senator.

An update to Hillary's equivalent to the LBJ campaign's 'Daisy' ad might show her desperately looking for Bill, after his spot in their double bed turns out to be empty. "Now where did that man go tonight? Off cattin' around again, just when I need him most . . . "

TAH is naive in thinking that policy wonks make the best leaders. If this were the case, all the backroom kids in the think tanks would be president. For a better comparison, look at who has managed a better campaign - the campaign being a microcosm of the country. It requires diplomacy, strategy, budget management, and discipline. Any objective observer will note that Obama has managed his campaign much better than Clinton has managed hers. What's there to think that the presidency would be any different?

Hillary Clinton has proven she can win in the big states that all the must wins for the Dems in November. It's that simple really. Ohio loves Hillary and if you can't win Ohio you can't win the Presidency. When this obamarama fades (and it will) and the corporate owned media and their republican pals turn on obama (and they will) he's toast, proven to be unelectable. They'll see to it. There has been an orchestrated effort by the corporate owned media to attack Hillary 24/7 while the Republicans urge their voters to "do their duty" and vote for obama now and mccain in November. It's brilliant really. I've got to hand it to the GOP, they have succeeded in dividing the Dem party and suckering people into voting for the Obama. They are good.

It's not too late however, vote for Hillary in Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont on Tues, March 4th!

Hillary Clinton's qualifications are unmatched. She will be a GREAT President!
Vote for the woman in the pantsuit, not the empty suit.

**VOTE SMART! VOTE HILLARY!!

Despite recharged95's comment that "The delegate count difference is within the margin of error for peet sake!", that is simply not the case.

If I use CNN's count, she is behind by 153 pledged delegates, with 1039 left to allocate. If my math is correct, that means that in order to pull even in pledged delegates she would need to get over 57 percent (596) of the rest of the delegates, or to put it another way, a greater than 14-point lead in the rest of the contests. That just isn't possible. And the super delegates are not going to take the nomination away from the first viable black candidate, when he clearly won more popular votes, more pledged delegates, and more contests (unless they want to see another convention like 1968).

I have to believe that she is now planning for 2012 or 2016 rather than 2008.

She would certainly have a better shot in 2012 against McCain than against Obama. Running against Obama as a sitting Democrat, when he had beaten her before, would be almost impossible. But if Obama loses the general election against McCain, she can easily get an "I-told-you-so" Democratic nomination in 2012. In that case, she may think it to her advantage to stay in the race and wound Obama as much as possible, as long as she can do it without alienating too many voters.

OBAMA suppoters: Please read this article from: The New Republic

Race Man
by Sean Wilentz
How Barack Obama played the race card and blamed Hillary Clinton.
Post Date Wednesday, February 27, 2008

DISCUSS ARTICLE [695] | PRINT | EMAIL ARTICLE



After several weeks of swooning, news reports are finally being filed about the gap between Senator Barack Obama's promises of a pure, soul-cleansing "new" politics and the calculated, deeply dishonest conduct of his actually-existing campaign. But it remains to be seen whether the latest ploy by the Obama camp--over allegations about the circulation of a photograph of Obama in ceremonial Somali dress--will be exposed by the press as the manipulative illusion that it is.

Most of the recent correctives have concerned outrageously deceptive advertisements approved and released by Obama's campaign. First, in Iowa, the Obama camp aired radio ads patterned on the notorious "Harry and Louise" Republican propaganda from 1993, charging falsely that Senator Hillary Clinton's health care proposal would "force those who cannot afford health insurance to buy it, punishing those who won't fall in line." In subsequent primary and caucus campaigns, the Obama campaign sent out millions of mailers, also featuring the "Harry and Louise" motif, falsely claiming that Clinton favored "punishing families who can't afford health care in the first place." A few bloggers and columnists, notably Paul Krugman in The New York Times, described the ads as distorting, but the national press corps mainly ignored them--until Clinton herself, seeing the fraudulent mailers reappear in Ohio over the past weekend, publicly denounced them.

The Obama mass mailings also attempt to appeal to Ohio's labor vote by claiming that Clinton believed that the North American Free Trade Agreement, signed in 1993 by President Bill Clinton, was a "'boon' to our economy." More falsehood: In fact, Clinton had not said that; Newsday originally applied the word "boon" and has now noted the Obama campaign's distortion. In this campaign, Clinton has called for a moratorium on all trade agreements until they are made consistent with labor and environmental standards--and account for the effect on jobs in the United States. Obama makes a big deal about how Bill Clinton signed NAFTA. But he fails to mention that, within the councils of her husband's administration, Hillary Clinton was a skeptic of free trade agreements, and as a senator and candidate she has said that NAFTA contained flaws that need to be rectified. Ignoring all that, the Obama flyer features an alarming photograph of closed plant gates, having no connection to any action of Senator Clinton's, as well as the dubious quotation about her from Newsday in 2006. Newsday has criticized "Obama's use of the quotation" as "misleading ... an example of the kind of slim reeds campaigns use to try and win an office." Obama, without retracting the mailing (and while playing to protectionist sentiment in the party) said only that he would have his staff look into the matter--long after the ad has done its dirty work.

Misleading propaganda is hardly new in American politics --although the adoption of techniques reminiscent of past Republican and special-interest hit jobs, right down to a retread of the fictional couple, seems strangely at odds with a campaign that proclaims it will redeem the country from precisely these sorts of divisive and manipulative tactics. As insidious as these tactics are, though, the Obama campaign's most effective gambits have been far more egregious and dangerous than the hypocritical deployment of deceptive and disingenuous attack ads. To a large degree, the campaign's strategists turned the primary and caucus race to their advantage when they deliberately, falsely, and successfully portrayed Clinton and her campaign as unscrupulous race-baiters--a campaign-within-the-campaign in which the worked-up flap over the Somali costume photograph is but the latest episode. While promoting Obama as a "post-racial" figure, his campaign has purposefully polluted the contest with a new strain of what historically has been the most toxic poison in American politics.

More than any other maneuver, this one has brought Clinton into disrepute with important portions of the Democratic Party. A review of what actually happened shows that the charges that the Clintons played the "race card" were not simply false; they were deliberately manufactured by the Obama camp and trumpeted by a credulous and/or compliant press corps in order to strip away her once formidable majority among black voters and to outrage affluent, college-educated white liberals as well as college students. The Clinton campaign, in fact, has not racialized the campaign, and never had any reason to do so. Rather the Obama campaign and its supporters, well-prepared to play the "race-baiter card" before the primaries began, launched it with a vengeance when Obama ran into dire straits after his losses in New Hampshire and Nevada--and thereby created a campaign myth that has turned into an incontrovertible truth among political pundits, reporters, and various Obama supporters. This development is the latest sad commentary on the malign power of the press, hyping its own favorites and tearing down those it dislikes, to create pseudo-scandals of the sort that hounded Al Gore during the 2000 campaign. It is also a commentary on how race can make American politics go haywire. Above all, it is a commentary on the cutthroat, fraudulent politics that lie at the foundation of Obama's supposedly uplifting campaign.

I am white, female and 71, not wealthy, have most of my wits about me, and I am proud to have voted for Barack Obama. He has the all the qualities that should be required of a Presidential candidate. He will to put an end to payback nominations and other accepted political practices that do not benefit us, the people they are supposed to represent. I am aware that Obama will be under the most intense scrutiny ever faced by a candidate before he takes the oath of office as President. The Clintons should not be eligible for the Presidency due to the "conflict of interest" from Bill's many deals with foreign governments. Bill and Hillary have used the pronoun "we" intentionally. POTU should be a forbidden position for them, eight years was enough. There were too many questionable illegal activities, too many "I don't recall" excuses given in testimonies.No thanks. No Way. No more Corporate Clintons, the Teflon Team. No more disastrous plans like NAFTA to help big business reap more profits. Hillary will fight to impose her health care plan, or any other hidden agenda she is entertaining. Do you think I don't trust her ? (Them?) You bet I don't. America is broken, and the Clintons helped get us there. How often do you see the proud label "made in USA" on anything you purchase? We borrow money from China to fight in Iraq. How long before China uses some of their military might against us or other nations. Right now, we are helpless to defend ourselves or any other country in need. Bill Clinton had a chance to stop Osama bin Laden, but he was too busy in the Oval Office to use his power as President to actively and persistently pursue terrorism. Hillary was also busy trying to "protect" Bill from all the women that just fell to their knees in adoration for Bill. The public was not aware of the tension and drama of this marital war in the White House. Bush may have conceived of this "war on terrorism", but Bush wouldn't have had an excuse if the attacks on 9/11 had been averted. The plan for the attacks had already begun to take shape during the Clinton years. Unfortunately, the early warning signs were ignored, and the invasion of Iraq has become a horrific shame to this country. The real cost in lives will never be fully verified, and the horrors of this war will continue to haunt us for years to come. We have saddled our grandchildren with a never-ending debt. Hillary voted for this war, possibly because she did not want to risk being regarded as weak. That concept would not be good for her goal of becoming POTUS. Barack Obama cautioned against this war, said it was a bad idea. Barack Obama is highly intelligent, has integrity and the ability to listen to others and solve their problems. Hillary hides behind a mask, and she has one goal she is determined to attain at any cost. She trades on the Clinton name but won't accept any of the Clinton blame. She has a powerful political machine behind her. I hope Hillary's supporters pay more attention to her "experience", and reconsider. This is not the right woman to elect as First Woman President. This "First Lady" had her chance, and blew it. Vote for Barack Obama, let's bring back the pride we once could boast about...simply put, I am an American! YES WE CAN.

Hillary's not afraid to fight, because she's fighting for you!

After reading the comments posted in response to this article I come away with two conclusions. My first conclusion is that there will always be racist sexist know-nothings who cry that that the world will end if a non-male, non-white, non-christian, non-redneck becomes president. The second conclusion, these are the same morons who voted twice for arguably the worst president in history and as such, their opinions mean squat.

There is really a lot of irony in this life. Take the Iraq war. Rhetoric all about who was for the war and who was against. We now see all this mania for a completely, I mean completely, untested candidate. Thousands of people voting for him who have never voted before. Had these same folks voted for Al Gore in 2000 there would not have been an Iraq war. I have never missed an opportunity to vote in my life since 1956. Where were these dumb butts in 2000? What a shame?

The facts did not change. Obama spelled out very clearly, in a speech that could have cost him his first election to the U.S. Senate, the consequences of invading Iraq. If you look at the text of that speech, just the text - without the fabulous oratory, it is exactly what you would have wanted your president to say to anyone advocating that war at that time - even without knowing what we know now. You can read it at:

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Barack_Obama's_Iraq_Speech

One third of Congress voted against the war, including every single person who read the intelligence report. But you know what? Even worse than her bad judgment, what worries me most about Senator Clinton is that she still to this day refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake. She's made excuses, tried to pass the blame and tried to talk around the issue...but she will not admit she made a mistake. While most who voted for the invasion not only admitted it was the worst mistake in their career, they apologized for it.

She can answer the phone at 3 a.m., but I hope she isn't in charge of making any decisions.

She says she wants to be held accountable, well I hold her accountable for failing to pass health care reform while Democrats controlled the Presidency, the House and the Senate; and I hold her responsible for a gross error in judgment by voting to invade Iraq. I don't want her mismanaging the economy the way she mismanaged over a 100 million dollars in campaign funds and I don't want her filling critical government positions on the basis of loyalty to her the way Bush did and the way she did in her campaign.

She may have accumulated a lot of experience in the last 35 years, but she doesn't seem to have learned anything useful from it and it certainly has not resulted in good judgment.

Wow is it ever gettin' flamey on here.

The wingnuts are truly out in force! Couldn't they at least not double-post their two-pager flameballs? That's what links are for, people!

On the other hand, I do like Obama, and I'm hopeful that if McCain can't control the paranoid zealot / school-bully-insults crowd, they will so turn off reasonable Repubs and Independents that McCain will start to lose them...

"It is so hard so say good-bye to yesterday." I knew the Clinton campaign was doomed when I heard of her appearance at Yale before her old classmates, dressed in sheepskin vest and bell-bottom jeans, and one of the old ladies shouted excitedly: "You are so 1972, dear!" I am sure the lady meant it as a compliment. But she said it all: Hillary is the past, and Obama is the future.

So much for the possibility of decency and grace following her defeat in Texas...Hillary plans to sue. What a surprise.

Obama couldn't vote, as he wasn't in the Senate yet. BUT 23 OTHER SENATORS (including Dennis Kucinich) DID vote against it. So at least 23 of them weren't fooled by Bush's bogus intelligence!
Hillary wasn't one of them.

What I'm disturbed by is that Obama stands on two legs - his amazing rhetoric and his non-vote for the Iraq war. Not sure who I support, but I don't think Clinton should have to apologize for the Iraq vote. Based on the intelligence presented to her AND other Members of the Senate (including many of Sen. Obama's endorsers), THEY voted to authorize the war. Somehow, the Senators felt there was credible intelligence at that time. If the facts have changed since then, I don't believing in praising Sen. Obama's clairvoyance that the facts have changed. Hindsight is 20-20 and I don't for one second believe clairvoyance is a trait that would win the election.

Is Hillary's 3 AM ad an application for the night shift White House operator position? I thought Lilly Tomlin had that job? Barack Obama (the President's job) is to provide the judgment and wisdom the prevents such calls if the first place, such as the Iraq War error.

Does America need Hillary and Bill as our Jr High Prom King and Queen? Their brand of politics divides people and unites no one. They are better suited to be on the Jerry Springer Show than in the White House.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RGW38Zy4bJo

Mark it down, Leap Year Feb. 29, BHO just wrote his political obituary by saying it's now time to put 9-11 behind us.

Haven't you heard?

This campaign is almost over. According to Hillary, if Obama doesn't win ALL the states next Tuesday, it's all over for Obama.

Dang. And i thought he was doing pretty good.

Clinton is playing to tie -- hoping for the opportunity to play the superdelegate card and count Michigan and Florida. In other words, her only hope is to take the election through a means other than winning the popular vote. That's UNDEMOCRATIC by definition.

Obama is playing to win -- beat Hillary fair and square so that even with a superdelegate lead and counting a contest where Obama wasn't even on the ballot (as per DNC instructions), he wins. He's actually running up a steeper hill than Clinton!

Who's running the better race? With more dignity? Pretty obvious -- Senator Obama -- soon to be President Obama.

First, anyone attempting to tie Sen. Obama to Louis Farrakhan is either misguided, or desperately and decidedly ignorant.

I remember in 84' and '88 how Jesse Jackson was "tarred" with the same brush. Sen. Obama has both "denounced and rejected" the support of Minister Farrakhan. That should be enough for people of good faith to acknowledge his position on Farakhan's endorsement.

Secondly, Sen. Obama has two small daughters, does any parent believe he has malice for Natalie Hollaway and what happened to that unfortunate young lady?

Lastly, Sen. Obama will be the nominee of the Democratic party in November. Sen. Clinton would have to run the strongest race in Presidential campaign history to catch him at this point. That will not happen.

Progressives need to find a way to support this candidate so we can defeat Sen. McCain in the fall. Sen. Obama will certainly make a better President IMHO than Sen. McCain!

OBAMA MINIONS, HUSSEIN OBAMA HAS ALREADY DIVIDED THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY. HIS MUSLIM POLYGAMOUS FATHER, HIS UNPATRIOTIC WIFE, MICHELLE HUSSEIN OBAMA WHO IS ASHAMED OF THIS COUNTRY. HE LEGISLATIVE RECORD SHOWS THAT HE was the only vote to ensure that sex offenders can get early release time.
2. He voted to ensure that schools cannot filter porn sites from the Internet.
3. He voted that it is okay for the state pay for frivolous lawsuits that prisoners can make against the state.
4. He voted to ensure that porn shops or strip clubs can be any distance they want from the school and churches. WE DON'T SUCH PEOPLE TO OCCUPY THE WHITE HOUSE AND MAKE IT A DRUG HOUSE.

When it comes to my vote, I want someone who is not married to political division, revenge and derision.

When it comes to my vote, I want it to count for the candidate that will bring a new approach to Washington.

When it comes to my vote, I do not want someone who has made a career of opposition politics.

When it comes to my vote, I want a candidate that owes no favors to special interest groups.

When it comes to my vote, its as simple as ABC..... Anyone But Clinton.

recharged95: Never look at the BIG picture? Hillary Clinton is barking mad. Better America go up in flames than she not get back in the White House. As for her management abilities, she can't run her campaign or her marriage so how is she suited to run our Country? 50% of all Americans have a negative opinion of the Clintons and the other 50% just can't stand to listen or look at her. Many of us are anxious to know how an honest and humble public servant was able to amass a personal fortune of $41 million dollar. Hillary and Bill represent the finest special interest fluffing, business as usual government money can buy.

Dear ebubk20004 ..KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!! Every single time someone like you sub-mitts the "stuff" you do .....Obama just pulls ahead in the polls some more, wins another state election, and gets closer and closer to being YOUR.... PRESIDENT OBAMA. THANK YOU... THANK YOU ....YOU COULD NOT POSSIBLY BE DOING A BETTER JOB!

Two facts sink Hillary's campaign:
1. Liberals are most concerned with admiring their white hats in the mirror, less about real accomplishment. If this weren't true, Libs would be far more energetically skeptical of their dogma. Because of the focus on ideals and motivations, instead of results, Hillary's sales pitch on experience and effectiveness must lose to Obama's sunshine & light.

2. Both Hillary and Obama are in this race only because of their officially sanctioned victim status. It is implausible that either would have any chance whatsoever if either were a white male. Again, it boils down to the fact that liberal ideals, in this case affirmative action, trumps desire for actual results.

These two facts leave Hilary with zero leverage. It's all over but the shouting.

Clinton needs a "sea change" in the voters to get the landslides she needs so it will not get ugly. She needs for people to rally to her issues instead of around a man.
Of course being seen as the
surer bet in uncertain times, especially on
foreign affairs and NS, is her only hope.

Geez, you Clinton haters never look at the big picture.

Clinton is not destroying, nor dividing the democratic party. The delegate count difference is within the margin of error for peet sake! And guess what, the next 6 elections will be likely closely by 5%.

It goes to show that Obama has *nothing* more compelling than Clinton and vice-versa. The Democrats cannot make a decision basically, neither candidate has stepped up and to take a risk. NO GUTS NO GLORY I say. They're both taking the senate approach of calculated risk and not standing up for something they believe in.

Florida and michigan are not counted rather

Leave it to the Post. Yep it is all bad for CLinton. Maybe Washington Post you should let the voters vote first. Maybe we should count the delegates in Florida and DC. YOUR SO CALLED NEWSPAPER IS SO SLANTED THAT IT IS REDICULOUS. How about this headline. Obama can't get to the required delegate count for the nomination becasue he doesn't have enough for the first ballot. THis primary is remarkable close. How about that headline. What haappened to objectivity in Newspapers!

Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration

God Help us From

Racist Farrkhan

Racist Pastor Wright

Racist and Homley Michelle

And

SULTAN Obama Hussien

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway

'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Natalee Holloway

Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

(Story continues below)

The circumstances involving the coed's disappearance remain unclear, and the case remains unsolved. Holloway left Mountain Brook, Ala., on a May 2005 senior class trip to Aruba.

Barack Obama

Attempts to reach her family for comment were unsuccessful. But her mother, Beth Holloway, has written a book, "Loving Natalee," in which she reveals her daughter named Jesus Christ as one of the most influential people in her life in a trove of writings she found in her bedroom.

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

Louis Farrakhan

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces

Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration
Farrakhan pray at Obama's inauguration

WorldNetDaily?????? Oh yeah, there's the Pearl of Western Journalism for ya! It'w where you work if you're too much of a right wing-nut to work at Faux News! Good Grief!

God Help us From

Racist Farrkhan

Racist Pastor Wright

Racist and Homley Michelle

And

SULTAN Obama Hussien

Obama's pastor disses Natalee Holloway

'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

'White girl goes off and gives it up' in Aruba, preacher pal says

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Posted: January 27, 2008
6:49 pm Eastern

© 2008 WorldNetDaily.com

Natalee Holloway

Sen. Barack Obama's longtime friend and spiritual adviser trashed the memory of a missing and presumed dead American teenage girl, according to church publications reviewed by WND.

Rev. Jeremiah Wright, the controversial minister of Obama's church in Chicago, cited the case of Natalee Holloway's disappearance in Aruba in complaining about what he sees as the media's bias in covering white victims of crime over black victims.

"Black women are being raped daily in Darfur, Sudan, in the Congo and in Sub-Saharan Africa. That doesn't make news," Wright said in the August 2005 edition of Trumpet Magazine, a publication of his Trinity United Church of Christ.

But, "One 18-year-old white girl from Alabama gets drunk on a graduation trip to Aruba, goes off and 'gives it up' while in a foreign country, and that stays in the news for months!" he added. "Maybe I am missing something!"

(Story continues below)

The circumstances involving the coed's disappearance remain unclear, and the case remains unsolved. Holloway left Mountain Brook, Ala., on a May 2005 senior class trip to Aruba.

Barack Obama

Attempts to reach her family for comment were unsuccessful. But her mother, Beth Holloway, has written a book, "Loving Natalee," in which she reveals her daughter named Jesus Christ as one of the most influential people in her life in a trove of writings she found in her bedroom.

In the same 2005 church publication, Wright suggested "white America" had the 9/11 attacks coming, while calling for business "divestment from Israel," which he refers to as a "racist" state along with America.

"In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01," he wrote on page 7. "White America and the Western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just 'disappeared,' as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring Black concerns."

Obama says he is "proud" of Wright and values their 20-year friendship.

Though Wright has nurtured Obama's political career as a close adviser and mentor, the Democrat presidential hopeful says they don't agree on everything. Wright married Obama and baptized his daughters.

Louis Farrakhan

In the November/December 2007 issue of Trumpet, Wright sang the praises of Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who has described whites as "blue-eyed devils" and Jews as "bloodsuckers."

"He brings a perspective that is helpful and honest," Wright said. "Minister Farrakhan will be remembered as one of the 20th and 21st century giants of the African-American religious experience."

Wright then held Farrakhan up as a pillar of "integrity."

"His integrity and honesty have secured him a place in history as one of the nation's most powerful critics," he continued. "His love for Africa and African-American people has made him an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose."

Farrakhan's photo is splashed across the cover of the church magazine, which gushes "the Minister truly epitomized greatness."

On Nov. 2, 2007, Wright presented Farrakhan with a "lifetime achievement" award during a Trumpet gala held at the Hyatt Regency Chicago. The tribute included a three-and-a-half minute video lionizing "the Honorable Minister Louis Farrakhan."

"For his commitment to truth, education and leadership, we honor Minister Louis Farrakhan with the Rev. Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Lifetime Achievement Award," the video announces.

Lookout for the "Roadside Obombas" there Billary!

LOL. Who are these two fooling?

O'Billary Vs. McRomney?

I can only Hope! :-)

The Combination of a Military Expert, and a Business Expert is exactly what could defeat two incompetent Congressional Lawyers who are trying to usurp an office they should not be!

It, would ABOLISH the Separation of Powers! :-(

Hussien is the NEW "N" word.

If you used obama's full name, you IS SO RACIST

Dan, when are you going to write anything GOOD Hillary.

If you write bad about Obama, you will be "FIRED". I feel your pain, but try to be fair

Senator Clinton is applying for a management and executive job where she will lead, manage, and supervise a billions of dollars budget, and thousands of employees.

It appears clear that her campaign has been poorly planned and executed. If she cannot lead, manage, and supervise her own multi-million dollar campaign, how does that show she's qualified to be chief executive? Is this how she'd plan and execute our economy, our foreign policy, our {x} put a significant program where the "x" is?

diksagev, Hillary Clinton isn't running the destructive campaign in this race; the Obama campaign's below-the-radar egregious, scandalous attacks on the Clintons are way beyond the pale. Writing in The New Republic, Princeton historian and contributing editor Sean Wilentz spells it out: http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

Todays NYT survey show Hillary losing superdelegates:

"A survey of superdelegates conducted by The New York Times and CBS News, which had lower superdelegate counts for both candidates, found that Mrs. Clinton's edge with superdelegates was more than halved during February. Her Feb. 2 lead of 105 superdelegates over Mr. Obama has since been cut to 42 superdelegates, the survey found." NYT Feb 29, 2008

TERM LIMITS: Wikipedia...
Legal restriction that limits the number of terms a person may serve in a particular elected office. Term limits are found usually in presidential and semi-presidential systems as a method to curb the potential for dictatorships, where a leader effectively becomes "president for life".

Term limits do not technically involve married couples, but the spirit of the law might be respected in this case, especially after not one, but a two term Clinton presidency. Hillary does in fact admit to having had experience in this role for 8 years.

Power can be an insatiable lure for the ambitious. You can see it in their eyes.

Key comment is "Ohio and -- not or -- Texas". It's that simple. Both states or she needs to step out. Hanging in there will only damage the eventual Democratic nominee. End the Drama, Vote Obama!

If Clinton wins Ohio and Texas, and then Pennsylvania, then she will have have won virtually all of the general election Battleground States (also including Michigan, Florida, and California). As such, the Super Delegates should then recognize that these are the critical states they need to win in November, and Sen. Clinton is stronger in those critical states.
The most electable candidate is the one that will win these critical swing states. I think if Senator Clinton wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania, the Democratic race is over in her favor, irrespective of the regular delegate count.

Clinton is NOT going to stop until she has destroyed everything good that the Democratic Party has going for it in 2008! Her extremely negative and destructive tactics already amount to a one two punch, aiding the enemy as she and Senator McCain continue to tag team the likely Democratic nominee. Her devisive tactics of devide and conquor, which involves targeting specific demographic groups within the Democratic Party base as well as targeting particular states rather than appealing to the broader array of voters threatens to divide the party. As unbelievable as it seems, although we are still in the midst of the Primary Season, Hillary has already taken her battle to the courts once (Nevada) in an unsuccessful atempt to win this nomination in the courts where she has been unable to succeed at the polls, and now she is threatening to go to courts again over the rules of the Texas Primary system. This goes beyond her wreckless behavior of blasting every state she has lost and the voters in those states. What we have in Hillary Clinton is clearly a woman who can not play by the rules, unless she believes that those rules provide HER with the advantage. Democrats who have any conscience should think back to how they felt and what they likely said about George W Bush throwing the 2000 general election into the courts in order to secure his election, and have the courage and integrity to send Hillary a message, LOUD AND CLEAR that we do not approve of such tactics in the Democratic Party!

Texas Primary Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Texas Democratic Presidential Primary?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1793

.