yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

yzvag rludf ynxd tmib tehmwja jhmrlgznd hkzugmo

I've done the math.

Clinton can have Texas, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Kentucky, Indiana and West Virginia all by 6% margins.

Obama can have Wisconsin, Hawaii, North Carolina, Wyoming, South Dakota, Montana, Mississippi, Oregon, Rhode Island, Vermont and Puerto Rico all by 6% (the same) margins.

Obama will still be up in delegates by 100+. Do the math. All of the delegate counts are at realclearpolitics.com.

Based on polls and the geographical results we've seen, I think the states I've given both of them are more than fair, especially considering that Obama will win North Carolina, Hawaii, Wyoming, South Dakota, Oregon and Puerto Rico by much, much larger margins than 6%, and now it's looking (by the polls) that Obama will do better in Texas than we originally thought.

But I wanted to give them small margins to keep it competitive. For Hillary to win this nomination battle, she would literally have to convince the super delegates to overturn the popular vote and the pledged delegate count, which simply won't happen. Good night Hillary.

I have to laugh when I read about claims that the press is giving too much coverage to Senator Obama. If you combine Hillary and Bill Clinton's press coverage, and I mean the round-table discussions discussing mainly Bubba's attacks and whether they hurt/help his wife... You could probably say Hillary's campaign is probably getting more than double the coverage.

Stooping to calling Obama's speeches plagiarism is the latest pathetic tactic in trying to paint a big question mark in front of Obama because they have no other ideas. Deval Patrick is a personal friend of Obama's and they routinely discuss issues and politics. Discrediting someone for their ability to speak well, motivate, and enlighten voters is childish.

Hillary is trying to speak like an old-time politician, promising millions of new jobs when in her heart she knows she can't hire millions of interns to keep Bill busy. Yeah, that's a shot. But seriously, she wants to garnish our wages to make sure that even illegals are covered?

I would really like to see Obama win the majority of the delegates in these upcoming elections and see if Hillary has the decency to admit that she is stepping down in the name of party unity. Lets face it...the majority of voters who have cast ballots for a democrat HAVE voted for Obama and that means the super delegates should follow the lead of the people.

Hardly vituperative! Only a second grader would say so! What is vituperative is your and the rest of the MSNBC crowd coverage. She is still winning Democrat vote after Democrat vote. Sure she lost those red states That will stay red in the general election . She lost a close one in CT even after months of biases B**Sh** you and the MSNBC power house of GE has thrown at her with not a question of THE MESSIAH. Not once have you aired any reporting of Rezko or the Messiahs dealings with Exelon. Never a question where he got all his money to start his campaign. Not to mention where did a community organizer get the money to buy his house. Never a question as to who he actually brought together? Who did he reach out to! What people of differing ideas did he "BRING TOGETHER". What is he talking about "CHANGE" CHANGE WHAT? I've never heard him say what he is actually going to change!

Stop INSPIRATION & HOPE.... Support DENIGRATION & DESPAIR. GO CLINTON '08

I'm still calling for Hillary winning in Wisc. By a nose.
But then a big loss in Texas. Much bigger nose.
Happy President's Day!

I used to think that a candidate like Barack Obama was too good to be true, and now I know I am right. I also know that he has become big-headed since getting Oprah's and the Kennedys' endorsements. He has changed and not the same. He already sounds like the very same politicians he so critizes. He is riding high because of all the free media coverage he has received. The news media pundits have made Obama the "Golden Boy", "The Darling" of most pundits. If he had not gotten Oprah to get him started where would he be now?

I can't help but think how Obama is going to repay Oprah all she has done for him.
Since she has done it and has it all, what else is there? An Ambassadorship perhaps?
What will Obama have to do for Ted, or is Ted Kennedy going to be pulling the strings in helping Obama run the country? Ted Kennedy does not do anything without calling in the favors later on the road. Ask anybody in Washington, D.C.

My vote is now going to go to Hillary Clinton.

The Clintons will stop at nothing, there devisiveness brings out the people underline prejudice; Lou Dobb on CNN never have anything good to say about Obama; but, always looking to expose his prejudice; it is evident and he should be aware that people listening to him are intelligent and can "understand" his co-word "rheteric" against all minorities that the Clintons are skillful in trying to explot for polictical purposes.. The afro-american community became very much so aware in this campaign, I hope the hispanic community become aware soon. Brown, Black & White are erasing the divide and the people who profit off that devide are angry.
I would prefer voting for McCain rather than for Hillary. At least with McCain you know what you are getting. And, I think all Afro-americans should do the same, the democratic party have taken the afro-american votes for granted for years; and, now when they are voting for a democrat that is of color they use the racial divide "Afro- voting for Afro. It is an insult. Afro-americans will always vote for who they think can best run this country. That is why they are voting for Obama, not the spouse of a President that used the highest office in the land for his sexual appetite and his wife maintained only so that she could become a senator and run for president. Once a president abuse that office as he did, the doors should never re-open for a second chance.
Vote Obama08 or relectantly, McCain

Your comment is awaiting moderation.
The Clintons will stop at nothing, there devisiveness brings out the people underline prejudice; Lou Dobb on CNN never have anything good to say about Obama; but, always looking to expose his prejudice; it is evident and he should be aware that people listening to him are intelligent and can "understand" his co-word "rheteric" against all minorities that the Clintons are skillful in trying to explot for polictical purposes.. The afro-american community became very much so aware in this campaign, I hope the hispanic community become aware soon. Brown, Black & White are erasing the divide and the people who profit off that devide are angry.


Thinker February 18th, 2008 7:51 pm ET
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
I would prefer voting for McCain rather than for Hillary. At least with McCain you know what you are getting. And, I think all Afro-americans should do the same, the democratic party have taken the afro-american votes for granted for years; and, now when they are voting for a democrat that is of color they use the racial divide "Afro- voting for Afro. It is an insult. Afro-americans will always vote for who they think can best run this country. That is why they are voting for Obama, not the spouse of a President that used the highest office in the land for his sexual appetite and his wife maintained only so that she could become a senator and run for president. Once a president abuse that office as he did, the doors should never re-open for a second chance.
Vote Obama08 or relectantly, McCain

If Hillary wins Wisconsin or even comes close, Obama looses his mo. Remember he has been campaigning there for weeks as part of his small state strategy. If Hillary can do decent in Wisconsin, she will get the momentum to knock out Obama in Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania. It is all about expectations. The media has been predicting for weeks a big blow-out for Obama in Wisconsin. Remember prediction of unbroken string of 10 winning states for Obama? Wisconsin is perfect for Obama win, and Hillary should do decent if she wants to show that she can fight back, when on a loosing streak. Sometimes, a small state can give a big boost to the candidate, just as in Iowa and SC for Obama and New Hampshire for Hillary. Let us see what happens in Wisconsin.

If you want to search sth online, you can google it.
If you want copy&paste sth, you can obama it.

Thanks for obamaing the above on internet.

I hope Clinton does win Wisconsin and does win the nomination and does win the presidency so that wpost4112 has to get her head examined and finally learns what rationalization and projection mean to head shrinkers. I am also from Wisconsin and most of my white working class family still live there. They like Obama a lot but they like Hillary more. They do not decide anything on the color of skin but are devoted to the quality of work and the quality of character. They honestly don't know much about Obama but they do know Clinton has been fighting for working class people her entire life. The ugly remarks about Wisconsin I think reflect of the ugly reflection some people see in a mirror and then need to run out and find a scapegoat.

What? Not enough Moonies in Wisconsin for Obama to put under his spell? Oh well, I hear there's plenty of Kool-Aid drinkers in Hawaii.

Chris, I guess you are for Obama. You forget to say it is the same old thing with Obama, too, except for that sign in front.

It appears Obama leads people to believe he voted against the war. He entered the US Senate in 2005 almost two years after the war started. Since then, his votes have tended to keep the same old status quo for the war. He's not 42 as the papers said, he is closer to 50, definitely middle aged.

I doubt Obama is responsible for these discrepancies. I believe it is the press.

Chris,

It sounds like you are for Obama. When you say the same old thing, you forget to mention Obama, too. I don't see anything different except that sign.

Obama makes claims that he voted against the war, but I don't see it in his votes. In fact, he wasn't in the Senate until 2005, almost 2 years after the war started.

To the poster who wrote "Barack is financed by us, the little people." Which one of the little people shelled out a milion bucks and bought Obama's front yard in Chicago? Or did they all chip in to help him out? I am sick to death of the Saint-Barack-vs-the-Evil-Clintons narrative. A truly colorblind society is one where media and voters alike subject candidates of all races to the same level of scrutiny. That has not remotely happened with Saint Barack

"Negativity" gets a bad rap. Someone is going to win, and there is nothing wrong with noting why it should not be your opponent.

These Wisconsin posts are hysterical = Germans, cheese, Nazis, blacks, unity, blah blah blah.

So you all seem to think that to vote for Clinton means you have no heart.

And to vote for Obama means you have no brain.

Count me amongst the heartless then.

The comments about WI being mostly German, largely Catholic, non-diverse...and therefor will not vote for Obama are hyserical!! Take a look at what happened in Iowa, folks. In my part of the state, we're mostly white, German and Catholic...And we voted for Obama!! Hillary came in third. 'nuff said!

Florida and Michigan voters(the people)did not break a rule the big wigs in the democratic party of these states and thier state legislature changed the date.Have they been punished the state democratic big wigs no they havent the people have been.The Dnc broke the peoples constitutional right to vote,but hey the constitution isnt as important as a political parties rules are.I wonder how those people spouting rules will feel when its there turn?

Florida and Michigan voters(the people)did not break a rule the big wigs in the democratic party of these states and thier state legislature changed the date.Have they been punished the state democratic big wigs no they havent the people have been.The Dnc broke the peoples constitutional right to vote,but hey the constitution isnt as important as a political parties rules are.I wonder how those people spouting rules will feel when its there turn?

Wisconsin produced both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette. In 1972 the democratic primary was divided p between George McGovern, Hubert Umphrey and George Wallace!

Anything can happen on Tuesday.

I am very interested in the bloggers' debate about potential racism in Wisconsin. I haven't campaigned there since 1972 (for McGovern) so I do not have an up to date take. However, I do remember the campaign then and it was dominated by three personalities: Humphrey (almost a local from neighboring Minnesota; McGovern (the upset winner); and George Wallace! I also remember a very active and informed African-American community in the inner city of Milwaukee which (in a primary) will give Obama a 7-10% cushion (and some bonus delegates) if previous states are any indicator.

If there is any continuity from so many decades ago, or from Wisconsin history in general, it would not surprise me if "anything" happened there on Tuesday. This is a state more than any other in the country that goes its own way--and in every direction. Its history includes producing both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette.

Go figure!

I am very interested in the bloggers' debate about potential racism in Wisconsin. I haven't campaigned there since 1972 (for McGovern) so I do not have an up to date take. However, I do remember the campaign then and it was dominated by three personalities: Humphrey (almost a local from neighboring Minnesota; McGovern (the upset winner); and George Wallace! I also remember a very active and informed African-American community in the inner city of Milwaukee which (in a primary) will give Obama a 7-10% cushion (and some bonus delegates) if previous states are any indicator.

If there is any continuity from so many decades ago, or from Wisconsin history in general, it would not surprise me if "anything" happened there on Tuesday. This is a state more than any other in the country that goes its own way--and in every direction. Its history includes producing both Joseph McCarthy and fighting Bob La Follette.

Go figure!

While I truly enjoy reading a majority of the comments here (well thought out, educated, factual, etc.), and am learning more from them myself (and I have been following this election for a LONG time),
I am seriously distressed by the ignorance of some who, obviously, have not done ANY research on the candidates.

svreader, barajo, alan4 - before you make any more comments, DO MORE RESEARCH PLEASE!!! Your lack of information on your candidates is really showing!

jsindc ... Thank-you!!!

I was a Obama supporter until I listened to the debates. The difference in answers is what swayed me to Hilary. She knows how to handle these tuff situations. For 8 years I can tell she wasn't just the "little First Lady". She observed and I am sure had a lot to say to good ole Bill. I can tell she is trying to please everyone, and that just isn't working. She should get smart and utilize the Barack strategy "don't tell them anything of substance, it will be used against you"!

I also agree that we need to rally around our Democratic candidates and prepare them for the "Dirty Politics" that the Republicans play. I have already started hearing the Republican vs Democrat slings. Presidential races are always brutal, they are like war, and our candidates need to learn to fight. I don't think playing nice will win the general election.

With all of the negative blitz being flung by the Clinton campaign in Wisconsin (look out Texas, Ohio, & Pennsylvania), I think Democratic voters ought to ask themselves one fundamental question: Why does the Republican Party want Hillary Clinton to be the Democratic nominee?

Answer: No other candidate will arouse the passion and flame the willingness to put aside political differences than Sen. Clinton. Clinton will be THE CANDIDATE who UNIFIES the REPUBLICAN PARTY, a group of very disspirited individuals who have noting to cheer about other than George W. Bush re-packaged in the body of a 72 year old aging white guy from Arizona.

But Democrats, the issue goes beyond this. We have seen the result of essentially a 50-50 split in the Senate (considering where Lieberman is going next) and the most threadbare of majorities in the House. The result: GRIDLOCK. No one party can advance their agenda, and if something good emerges, the other side throws kerosene onto the fire or engages in procedural slow-walking of legislation. In this sense, Obama is absolutely correct - there has got to be a fundamental shift in the way things are done or worked in Washington DC. Otherwise, the American public will lose confidence in their government.

I can't imagine McCain winning, but if Sen. Clinton is the Democratic party's candidate and if she advances to the White House, what might be the outcome in the House and Senate races in play in 2008? I suspect the Republicans will throw every resource into the fray to retain every seat they've got, and look to snipe off a few others where Democratic candidate(s) are weak. President Clinton will not be able to utilize her "toughbness" and that mystical "experience" garnered from Clinton '42. It will be UGLY and GRIDLOCK will be the kindest word Americans will use when describing the elected leaders.

Maybe all of those "Super Delegates" will see through the potential prattfalls which will visit upon them under Clinton '44. Simply put, do they want to get re-elected or be swept out of office like Newt Gingrich and Tom DeLay excised Dem's?

For many years now I have been concerned with the news media not accepting the responsibility to be fair arbitrators of information. Ratings and entertainment are more important than educating the electorate. I now feel manipulated so the press can have a horse race. Any objective analysis of political news coverage will show the so called "free press" is stumping for Obama. Pay particular attention to the graphics during election coverage emphasizing Obama wins. The legitimate issue of qualification and competence to be POTUS is being ignored and discouraged. Chris Matthews (Feb.9) had a guest, who happens to be black, say he questions Obama as a "viable and serious" candidate; they could not get his face off the screen fast enough, the same for the other guy who try to say it was silly to believe polls today can tell what will happen in November. My question is do you think this will continue through November? Will the news machine try to salvage credibility?
I think once Hillary is disposed of the issue of qualification, competence and experience will result in another republican victory.
Many democrats do not have the excuse of youth in believing polls suggesting Obama has the better chance. We should all know the most pressing concern come November will be who is best qualified to be commander in chief at a time of war and McCain is already staking claim to that moniker.

Obama is afraid of the debate becuase it will reveal his lack of grasp of complex issues facing America. During the first debate Brian Williams asked Obama:" Senator Obama, if, God forbid a thousand times, while we were gathered here tonight, we learned that two American cities have been hit simultaneously by terrorists and we further learned, beyond the shadow of a doubt it had been the work of Al Qaida, how would you change the U.S. military stance overseas as a result?"

Obama: Well, the first thing we'd have to do is make sure that we've got an effective emergency response, something that this administration failed to do when we had a hurricane in New Orleans.

And I think that we have to review how we operate in the event of not only a natural disaster, but also a terrorist attack.
_____________________________________________________

Senator Clinton's answer on the other hand was right on:

Clinton: Well, again, having been a senator during 9/11, I understand very well the extraordinary horror of that kind of an attack and the impact that it has, far beyond those that are directly affected.
I think a president must move as swiftly as is prudent to retaliate.

If we are attacked, and we can determine who is behind that attack, and if there are nations that supported or gave material aid to those who attacked us, I believe we should quickly respond.

It is time that the American press and the American people seriously look at Obama and see that he has no substance in his run for for President except using the word Change (?). Is there anyone knows what change he is really talking about. Maybe we should be asking Obama where's the beef? Give us something concrete and stop being so vague. Change to what is what I keep thinking Is he running a snow job on us or what?

"Dumbing of America."

Do read it.

Barack is an entirely a different political animal than Bush or Clinton.

He has integrity.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:33 PM

__________________________________

You're entitled to your opinion, but Obama is using the same ploy Bush used, no matter how you try to run away from it. "Honor and intergrity to the White House". "Uniter, not a divider". "Washington outsider".

Obama has stolen a page from MLK, a page from JKF, a page from Bill Clinton, and a page from George W Bush.

Remember when Bush was going to clean up Washington DC and to bridge the partisan divide? And just like Obama, the media bought the hype and loved him in 2000.

Bush admitted he was drunk until 40. Obama admits he used drugs in his youth.
They both have wonderful, loving marriages. Family guys all the way.

Obama is not Bush, but his campaign absolutely does resemble Bush's campaign circa 2000.

Obama IS a politician, and knows what a wining campaign looks like.

Obama is a blank slate on the national scene(like Bush was in 2000) compared to Clinton or McCain (who've been on the national scene for decades). So he can sell hope----just as Bush sold his wares in 2000.

Ignore the comparison at America's peril. Americans are definitely a hopeful bunch. Even when they keep repeating the same mistakes.

"If he didn't have charisma and wasn't black there wouldn't BE a campaign, grassroots, top heavy or whatever. And I guarantee we wouldn't be having this discussion right now..."

Again, read "The Dumbing of America."

That doesn't explain his brilliant and decided victory in Iowa. Everyone agrees he has run a brilliant campaign compared to Hillary. And it has little to do with charisma and everything to do with grassroots organization.

If he didn't have charisma and wasn't black there wouldn't BE a campaign, grassroots, top heavy or whatever. And I guarantee we wouldn't be having this discussion right now...

"These are two of the obvious explanations how anyone looks "brilliant" under extremely favorable conditions. "

That doesn't explain his brilliant and decided victory in Iowa. Everyone agrees he has run a brilliant campaign compared to Hillary. And it has little to do with charisma and everything to do with grassroots organization.

Facts are facts.

Except in Hillaryland, of course.

Not only has Barack had a completely positive campaign, he did it brilliantly without drama, organizing an extensive grassroots organization in every state.

1. Obama plays very well to crowds which is a built in advantage to capturing young actvists. If you've seen any of them after attending one of these rallies, many will basically admit to doing ANYTHING for him -- which is crucial to organizing Caucus states but of limited importance to day to day governing.

2. He has had the media cheerleading him the whole way and so far has not been held to the fire on any difficult questions or questionable past judgements and associations.

These are two of the obvious explanations how anyone looks "brilliant" under extremely favorable conditions. It goes without saying, though, the higher the rise, the further the fall. It's inevitable and the only question is before or after his fate has been sealed.

Actual living, breathing Wisconsinite here.
I was at the Madison rally. There were probably closer to 20,000 people there. The Kohl Center holds 17,000+ people which was filled, including half the actual floor AND there was an overflow room with 2,000 people.

Sure, Madison will probably go for Obama. This "Milwaukee" you speak of. Oh sure, there are incredibly conservative people in suburban Milwaukee, after all they kept electing that neanderthal Sensenbrenner. Those are Republicans, I wouldn't expect them to vote for anyone but McCain.

As for the people up north, sure older generations and probably some younger people are racist, sexist, and antisemitic. But please don't assume the entire state is filled with quasi-Nazi Klansmen. I grew up in the conservative north and in the last election Democrats managed to make inroads in the state.

If the good, lily white people of Iowa can vote for Barack Obama, I'm pretty sure the people Wisconsin can too.

You first list Obama's accomplishments since he's been in the US Senate.

Neither Obama or Clinton have been executives, until now. Running their respective campaigns is the largest undertaking either has been involved with in their lifetime. OK, let's look at things objectively.....Clinton has replaced her campaign manager and other staff/surrogates and is lagging far behind in fundraising, smart media buys and when to spend the money (she even had to lend her campaign 5 million dollars).

Obama's campaign has been smart and effective; winning more states, delegates and the popular vote thus far...his campaign is organized and ready to promote his message in all the remaining contests. He continues to raise more money and has not had to fire a campaign manager or top staffers; his message has been consistent(What's Hill's message today?)

Yes, Hillary has experience, and knows her policies; Obama has intelligence, judgment honesty, and inclusivity as part of what he brings to the contest and will bring to the office of President. Obama will not magically make things better; he has said many times that it will take hard work and all Americans coming together.

Hopefully the Democratic party will be the first example of this coming together, by choosing Barack Obama as the candidate for the general election.

The time is right to turn the page...going back to the Clintons would be a huge mistake....Hillary as the candidate would ensure that the Republicans win again...even after 8 years of a Bush disaster.

How sad will that be?

wpost 4112 wrote, "This has nothing to do with women in power...it has everything to do with the one woman running for office and her proven corrupt past.

Cattle futures. Whitewater. Troopergate. Failed Health initiative, Monica, War vote, Flag-burning vote, Chinese donations, Travelgate, no access to documents at Clinton library, No tax return release, race baiting, Mark Penn, Co-presidency, no FISA vote, negative ads, lies, deceit, fear-mongering.

NOTHING to do with women in power, just THIS woman."

Hey, wpost 4112, you forgot HRC's former partner in the Rose Law Firm who was working in Washington: Vince Foster!! Did they figure out exactly how and why he died?

I personally think the country has had enough of the Clintons' "experience" as she calls it!!!!!

"I guess you could say George W. Bush out-smarted McCain, Kerry, Gore and others over the course of his political career."

I could but i wouldn't because it wouldn't be true.
Georgie used the dirtiest possible campaigning to
win his nomination and stole the election from Gore.

Not only has Barack had a completely positive campaign, he did it brilliantly without drama, organizing an extensive grassroots organization in every state.

Somethnig Hillary didn't bother to do because she assumed she would have wrapped it up after New Hampshire.

Barack is an entirely a different political animal than Bush or Clinton.

He has integrity.

""pruevable" proves you are a provable nincompoop."

LOL. No, it proves I am a poor typist. I can live with that.

"Hillary has more intellect than Obama."

The fact that Barack has out-smarted her during this campaign disproves that rather decisively....

...From a strong marriage to an amazing woman to his campaign team, his people-sense is superb.

Posted by: wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:05 PM

I guess you could say George W. Bush out-smarted McCain, Kerry, Gore and others over the course of his political career.

A "smart" campaigner is not automatically a good leader--as George W Bush has proven decisively. (By the way, Bush seems to have a pretty good marriage, too.)

I'm reminded of how people commended the team of Colin Powell, Dick Cheney, Condi Rice and others that Bush put together...

wpost4112 | February 17, 2008 05:18 PM

"pruevable" proves you are a provable nincompoop.

"Other than that, things feel pretty much the same if not even more divisive than ever... "

You should get out more.

"Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. "

More nonsense.

It was Hillary who advertised herself last year as the inevitable nominee and made no plans beyond Feb 5. Her arrogance was shattered when Barack brilliantly won Iowa with lots of humble grassroots work. Her arrogance ran through 130 million dollars in 2 months and she had to loan herself 5 million while Obama was and is raising 2x the money by grassroots internet organization.

The only arrogance that is proveable belongs to Hillary.

That fact that she hires people based on their loyalty and not their competence completes the comparison between her and George W Bush.

Spin all you want. The facts will never lie.

The only fairy tale is the one called Hillaryland.

Hillary is hoping there are enough who are too lazy to think, too lazy to work, and too afraid to have courage. "The world is falling and only I can fix it for you."

Barack is showing us that together we can make the changes necessary to get this nation out of the rut it has been in for years.

Gee, that wouldn't by chance be rooted in the accident of birth symbolism of being gifted with a dual racial background, would it ??? Just think, if the guy were fully caucasian he would have garnered less attention than Dennis Kucinich, who btw happens to have an equally uplifting life story without the color advantage.

No, the only truly substantial bipartisan change I've seen demonstrated this campaign season is the invention of his own super sized, self-referential "Experience BO" revival rallies. So I do give the guy credit for an instinctual and inspirational ability to mesmerize non partisan fans of all stripes, including Republicans and Independents.

Other than that, things feel pretty much the same if not even more divisive than ever...

Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. He is very similar to the Republician President he spoke of admiring recently. " It's the same old politics" and "There you go again". These are his current responses to Hillary's truth ad. The Same as his admired Republician President had Stated to Jimmy Carter during their debate. Obama, does not seem to have any original thoughts. His Campaign messages Echos those of: Jessie Jackson (Hope, Yes We Can) Bill Clinton (Working Harder Less Pay)

Obama, will not debate Hillary, because he is too arrogant and thinks' that he has won the Democratic Nomination. He is very similar to the Republician President he spoke of admiring recently. " It's the same old politics" and "There you go again". These are his current responses to Hillary's truth ad. The Same as his admired Republician President had Stated to Jimmy Carter during their debate. Obama, does not seem to have any original thoughts. His Campaign messages Echos those of: Jessie Jackson (Hope, Yes We Can) Bill Clinton (Working Harder Less Pay)

"Hillary has more intellect than Obama."

The fact that Barack has out-smarted her during this campaign disproves that rather decisively.

As does the fact of his standing at Harvard, compared to Hillary's repeated failure to pass the bar.

The more important thing, besides Obama's proven intellect, is his heart and vision. From a strong marriage to an amazing woman to his campaign team, his people-sense is superb.

Hillary has more intellect than Obama.I'm' Democrat and will vote for the nominee,but the more I see of Obama,the less I like him. He has a mean attitude.
Also,Why is it racism to state the fact that Obama is confident that he has the vote
of an overwhelming precentage of Black Americans because he is black.Hillary has mostly women voting for her but the pundits
try to make it a negative.The vote in both cases should be on yhe merits of the canidate.Any thing less does not meet a higher standard.
Obama played the race card when he made a
big deal out of the remark by Pres.Clinton
Hillary has my vote.

McCain would love a 3 way split. That's how he got where he is today.

The interesting thing though is that Barack received more votes than Hillary and McCain combined in the last primary in Virginia.

The real issue is whether the nomination is won fair and square, and it seems to me 2 things are essential for the Democratic party to remain united after the convention in August:

1. Florida and Michigan cannot alter the final count. They broke the rules. There is no way around this one.

2. Whoever receives the highest popular vote and the highest number of delegates should be our nominee and the superdelegates should not deny the pick of the majority, be it Hillary or Barack.

Should either of these principles fail, the party will split and the fall-out will be felt for years.

It is indeed possible that a third party will form around Barack because that is where the energy and momentum is. That would make for a fascinating election...3 parties. McCain, Clinton and Barack.

Fact: Everyone who votes for Clinton is not a racist.

Fact: Everyone who votes for Obama is not a misogynist.

Some people actually like Clinton, and don't believe she committed all those crimes she's accused of (none of which she's ever been found guilty of).

Some people actually like Obama, and believe he has enough experience to be president.

Unless Democrats want McCain to continue Bush's policies, you're going to have to get out of this "destroy" the other candidate mentality.

The GOP is watching, and they're loving the attacks. They're the ones who thought up most of them ("Billary", "say anything and do anything to get elected").

True, they've had 17 years to build up a history of hatred against the Clintons. But watch how fast they compile codewords and snide comments (e.g., Barrack HUSSEIN Obama, attends a black separatist church that praises Louis Farakkan, etc.) when he gets put under the microscope. Facts don't matter, the accusations alone will tarnish him in the minds of voters just as they've baselessly tarnished Clinton.

Don't forget: George W Bush won a national election just over 3 years ago. Do you really think droves of voters will be flocking to Obama just because he gets 90% of the black vote in the primaries (which all Democrats get in the general election anyway)? Don't kid yourself.

"Obama are trying to show to the whole world. Vote for being black"

Nice try.

Accusing Obama of using race will never make it so. But that hasn't stopped you from using race in doing so.

You well represent Hillary...so desperate that all you can do is play the tired old race card.

Viva? isn't that a paper towel? Why don't you use that to clean up your act? It's dirty enough.

We are all "IRRELEVANT". States that have already voted and states like Wisconsin, Texas and Ohio that are yet to have their voice heard are all "IRRELEVANT". The voters across this country who follow the campaign and come out to vote in their state's primaries and caucuses have been described as less qualified to determing who is the best candidate for President among Democrats than are those coveted Super Delegates, and therefore, we are all "IRRELEVANT".

These are the arrogant and insulting words of top Clinton Campaign chief, Harold Ickes, boldly telling it like it is (at least in the eyes of Hillary Clinton and her campaign). Here are some excerpts from Ickes interview, which reveals the total lack of respect Hillary Clinton has for voters in this country and for the process of voting in primaries and caucuses to elct our party's nominee for President:

A top Hillary Clinton adviser on Saturday boldly predicted his candidate would lock down the nomination before the August convention by definitively winning over party insiders and officials known as superdelegates, claiming the number of state elections won by rival Barack Obama would be "irrelevant" to their decision.

Harold Ickes, a 40-year party operative charged with winning over superdelegates for the Clinton campaign, made no apologies on Saturday for the campaign's convention strategy.

Even though averages of head-to-head polls on RealClearPolitics.com show Obama beating presumptive GOP nominee John McCain in a general election and Clinton losing, the Clinton camp is stressing the electability argument.

But he said superdelegates -- who "have a sense of what it takes to get elected" -- would determine the outcome and side in larger numbers for Clinton. Ickes said superdelegates must "exercise their best judgment" about who can win the White House. In essence, he argued the party's 795 superdelegates (Connecticut Independent-Democrat Sen. Joe Lieberman recently was stripped of his superdelegate status) were in a better position to assess electability and suitability for the presidency than party regulars who will attend the national convention in late August as pledged delegates.

The Clinton campaign just said they have two options for trying to win the nomination -- attempting to have superdelegates overturn the will of the Democratic voters or change the rules they agreed to at the eleventh hour in order to seat non-existent delegates from Florida and Michigan,"

Many top Democrats, among them House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, have said superdelegates should follow the will of voters expressed through primaries and caucuses and not trump those votes.

---------------------
It's hard to believe this is the same candidate who hypocritically preaches about the importance of letting the voters in Michigan and Florida having their voices heard. There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton would very much like to win the vote of people in Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania - but the truth is that she really doesn't care how those voters feel - she has a plan to win without us anyway and stifle the voice of the people, because we are "IRRELEVANT".

It has been very good showing that Clinton is emerging. Finally, the voters are showing how much they really care for our country. The voters know what's going on expecially with our economy. The voters realize that this is not thetime to be joking around. This is the very crucial time to be serious about our country. We need someone that has proven good results. Under the Clinton Administration, our economy was good and even had surplus. they have done it before, Hillary will do it again.We are just so fortunate that there this woman who mean business for our country. there is this woman who really care for the good of the people of the United States, who cares for children, who cares for the health of everyone who cannot afford. Housing is so bad that homeowners have to leave their houses since they cannot afford to make pay,snts. Our time for recovery is forthcoming. Welcom Hillary! Our country need you. It is not Obama as his wife suggest, to vote for her husband because he is black. They changing now the standards for presidency. Do we need to vote because of our color? Are we doing down or try to degrade ourselves to vote for our color not about experience, knowledge proven results or accomplishments? I think we are better than that. No matter what color or race you are if you are the best qualified, experience candidate, so be it. We are just fortunate voters that we are intelligent that we understand what the Obama are trying to show to the whole world. Vote for being black.......It is very sad...very very sad. It is because of theri inner ambitious intention that whatever they want to do to be elected. Like I said over and over again, we are intelligent voters. Even peopel who did not go through fromal education know better than that.......voting because of color is not the right thing to do. We are going to elect a President of the United States, with dignity and to be proud of. This is huge job, not just a job. We are not going to vote for because he is black or white or asian or hispanic, Qualities, experience.......We love our country and I think we deserve the best. We are country need help for recovery and that means we need an experience, knowledgeable candidate. And so far, Hillary is the one. they have proven good results before, Hillary will do it again. Viva America! Viva Hillary!

"Not even a 1/4 of the Senators voted againt the war. Unlike Obama who as a IL state Senator voted Present a good deal of the time a US Senator has to vote yes or no based on the best available info. Which Hillary and 75% of the SENATE did."

More nonsense.

Voting "Present" in the Illinois Senate is a recognized parliamentary tactic. And Barack's "present" votes were less than 1 percent of all his votes.

Speaking of real US Senate votes, where was Hillary on the recent FISA vote?? Barack voted.
Hillary didn't.

Guess she isn't ready on day one after all.

Not even a 1/4 of the Senators voted againt the war. Unlike Obama who as a IL state Senator voted Present a good deal of the time a US Senator has to vote yes or no based on the best available info. Which Hillary and 75% of the SENATE did.

"Chris Mathews had the Gov. of Wisconsin on hard ball last week and ask him to name some of Obama's accomplishments he couldn't name any yet he endorsed him go figure!"

Not true. I was watching that show. Gov Doyle rightly mentioned Barack's landmark bill on Ethics Reform. Watch the show again...Chris spun it the way he wanted to.

Now mention any meaningful bill senator Clinton has passed in her 2 terms.

um. Not everyone allowed themself to be so easily duped.

All the Senators who voted against the war...

Akaka (D-HI)
Bingaman (D-NM)
Boxer (D-CA)
Byrd (D-WV)
Chafee (R-RI)
Conrad (D-ND)
Corzine (D-NJ)
Dayton (D-MN)
Durbin (D-IL)
Feingold (D-WI)
Graham (D-FL)
Inouye (D-HI)
Jeffords (I-VT)
Kennedy (D-MA)
Leahy (D-VT)
Levin (D-MI)
Mikulski (D-MD)
Murray (D-WA)
Reed (D-RI)
Sarbanes (D-MD)
Stabenow (D-MI)
Wellstone (D-MN)
Wyden (D-OR)

Chris Mathews had the Gov. of Wisconsin on hard ball last week and ask him to name some of Obama's accomplishments he couldn't name any yet he endorsed him go figure!

OH by the way a lot of people trusted Bush on both sides of the isle. I repete who would have thought the President of THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA would lie to get us in a war.

Which older Bro would that be?

Someone like the civil rights giant Representative John Lewis of Georgia?

He's down with it. Bro.

UM,Um ask a Bro what he thinks especially an older Bro.

"wpost 4112 - that was a terrible thing to say about ANY state."

It's quite a reasonable observation.

I'll be thrilled if they prove me wrong.

It's really quite extraordinary because what Hillary and the Clintons are saying is that the votes and delegates don't really matter because the caucuses are not democratic and shouldn't count.

Talk about voter disenfranchisement!

How anyone can defend this blatant attempt to steal the nomination is beyond rationality.

Desperation, thy name is Hillary!

wpost 4112 - that was a terrible thing to say about ANY state. Frankly, it sounds like the kind of thing I would imagine the Clinton Campaign would say in their meetings behind closed doors when planning their strategy and how they can best target certain demographic groups in any state holding elections, but I choose to believe that those Clintonesque assessments are only true of a small minority of voters from any of those Clinton targeted demographic groups and should not be used to paint entire segments of our society or the citizens of an entire state with a broad brush. Certainly these are NOT the type of things that are said or thought concerning people by Senator Obama or those who support his candidacy. No wonder you use the generic ID rather than identify yourself while making a post of that nature!

How does it feel to be "IRRELEVANT, Wisconsin. That's exactly what top Clinton Campaign executive Harold Ickes said about you and all of the other states that have yet to vote this year. He very clearly and unapologetically stated that Hillary Clinton is going to win the nomination because the Super Delegate (which he refers to call "alternate delegates") will strongly support Hillary and that this makes states like Wisconsin, Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania "IRRELEVANT".

Why should Barrack Obama agree to yet another debate with Hillary Clinton? I have NOT watched all 18 of the debates so far, but I have seen more than enough of them to get a very good idea of who the best candidate is, and I'm sure that voters in Wisconsin have had the same opportunity that I had down in Florida. It is always the losing candidate who seeks more debates (feeling as though they have nothing to lose) and the more desperate the candidate - the more they feel the need to debate. There is absolutely no reason that Senator Obama should give into Hillary; allowing her to get free TV time, tie Senator Obama down to debate while there are 3 Clintons camapigning against him, and all Hillary wants to do is use the opportunity to repeat more lies about her opponent.

Whether it is in debates, during her stump speech, or the negative campaign ads that she is running in Wusconsin, Texas and Ohio; virtually everything Hillary Clinton has to say lately regarding Senator Obama is Hillary's atempt to distort Obama's positions with lie after lie after lie. I hope that everyone has read FACT CHECKER's debunking of Clintons distortion of Obama's vote on the energy bill that she uses to lie about his giving tax breaks to the oil companies. Former President Clinton;s own Labor Secretary, Robert Reich, is as good a sourse as any to consult when comparing the Universal Health Care proposals of both candidates. America is counting on the "IRRELEVANT" voters of Wisconsin to see through the Clinton lies and support the candidate who provides a new course for American politics with a plan to restore the government of the people, by the people and for the people of this country.

Um.

1. His father is an african. His mother is american. If anyone is an African-American, it is Barack. Racism doesn't ask if your ancestors were slaves,it only looks at the color of your skin.

2. Barack was in the midst of a campaign to become a Senator when he took the position he did. A gutsy thing to do. Hillary didn't even read the full National Intelligence Estimate. She TRUSTED Bush and Cheney. That's a serious lack of judgment. She was more concerned with her re=election than our safety.

Fact about Barrack Hussein Obama. His father was a blackman from Africa his mother from Kansas. Although his skin is black he is not a Afro-American His father and his ancesstors didn't follow the same plight as an AA and his mothers side didn't either.
Obama wasn't sworn into the Senate until Jan 4,2005 so he couldn't have voted one way or the other on the war even if he wanted to. Had he actually been a US SENATOR and been privy to the same lies Bush presented as intelligence (who would have ever thought our President would lie to get us in a war) how can he honestly say which way he would have voted! Since he has been in the Senate his voting record on the war is identical to Hillary's

Speaking of blank sheets of paper, where is
Hillary's tax returns??

We certainly know what she did with 130 million dollars in her campaign fund....gone after 2 months of wasteful spending. And still she doesn't have enough to leave a tip in a diner...or pay the dry cleaner guy for past bills.

Wonder what she'll do with our money in DC!

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.

nicole

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.

I don't understand why people call the Hillary add negative. Is a fact, even Obama manager said they don't want more debate so that what she is saying in a add.
And I thought when you running a add you need to talk about the differences, so look at the add again and I think if you not hard core Obama fan you will say this is pretty normal add.
I love the Washington post article about Obama blank CV basically, is easy to promises when you had white page when it come to experience. Yes he done some services but I know more citizens that done more for people that need our help than he done with all his wealth and power.

SORRY HILLARY.....It's OBAMA-TIME !!!!!!!!!!

WISCONSIN FOR OBAMA !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwNlaY8busw

The Florida/Michigan matter and the Superdelegate matter are completely different.

Florida/Michigan is a matter concerning rules. Those 2 states broke the rules, which all parties had agreed to, knowing full well that they would lose their delegates. Without the rule of law, without respect for rules, we would have no country at all. If these 2 states are allowed to seat their delegates, future Democratic primaries or any process of the Democratic party will be subject to willy-nilly changes...in other words, chaos.

The role of the Superdelegates is also set. They are independent votes. Barack is asking them to vote according to how the popular vote goes. He is not demanding this, just asking. Superdelegates can do what they want. No one, including Barack, is saying that they must vote that way.

One has to do with changing the rules.
One has to do persuading voters to vote a certain way.

Two different things altogether. No hypocrisy.

I'm not surprised by Hillary's negative ads. These are mild compared to, oh, say, trying to STEAL an election by breaking the delegate rules in Florida and Michigan. I had so much respect for the Clintons until this election season. They are willing to do anything to anybody at any time to "win" the election. I do not want a president who will push her agenda by any means necessary. I'm voting for Obama,and if he doesn't win the nomination, I won't be voting at all.

In all fairness the DNP should step up and admit signals were given before the campaigns even began that Florida and Michigan delegates would be seated no matter who won the state.. Especially Florida since it was republicans in control of moving their primary up and breaking the rules. The party can ill afford to have Florida feel alienated in the general election. Instead they let Clinton take the fall.
No one thought then these delegates could determine the nomination and I do not think they will or should now. But to bash Sen. Clinton for trying to do what is best for the party while giving Obama a pass for trying to change the super delegate rules put in place long ago is the height of hypocrisy!
Super delegates were put in place when the party decided to make the nomination so open to outside influences. They were created for exactly the situation we now face, when a movement threatens to co-opt the political party and/or the voters are swayed toward someone who may not be best for the party or country.
We are seeing the price to be paid for opening up the nomination to the general public. What is next; a general election for the democratic nominee, then another in November? In all likelihood this will be decided on popular vote, I only hope Florida's count does not have an impact. God help us if (shades of 2000) the overall popular vote is thwarted because of a technicality (not counting) involving Florida! I blame the Democrat National Party for this fiasco and for not having the courage to defend their position(s).

I am a Obama supporter, but all this talk of "post-age," while understandable, is not at all what Obama is about.

This is no yellow brick road to Oz. This is an opportunity to become responsible citizens again. To protect the Constitution and the re-balance the power sharing amongst the three branches of government.

While it is true that many have just jumped on the bandwagon because of the human tendency to go with the flow, Barack has been very clear that any change will depend on us, the citizenry.

There will still be racism, culture wars, cynism, et al...we are after all still human...but we weil have elected a leader for ourselves who is experienced in and committed to dealing with those matters and finding compromises that work towards the GREATER GOOD.

Barack isn't divine. He's as human, as imperfect, as the rest of us. But he is smart, hard-working, and inspirational...everything Bush is not. He does not have the narcissistic and emotional baggage of the Clintons, which overshadowed their 8 years in the WH, undermined their agenda, and allowed Bush to take the WH and characters like Tom DeLay to rise and flourish.

This is not a "post"-age. This is an age of renewal...renewing the core promise of the Constitution...all persons being equal under the law and free to pursue happiness as they see fit.

Human nature will never change. Human behavior can, but only with intelligence, hard work and courage.

Hillary is hoping there are enough who are too lazy to think, too lazy to work, and too afraid to have courage. "The world is falling and only I can fix it for you."

Barack is showing us that together we can make the changes necessary to get this nation out of the rut it has been in for years. It is a message of hope grounded in reality....He is hoping that we are smart enough to want to take responsibility for our lives, that we are willing to work hard for our country and our children's future, that we are courageous enough to trust in ourselves and our ability to do the right thing for the right reason....at least enough of us to make a difference.

We know how dysfunctional the Clintons were. no need to go back there. We must look ahead and build on the best of the past.

It's a gamble worth taking.

I don't think I've ever seen a movement as strong as the Obama campaign. (well, maybe Ron Paul for the true believers). It's almost messianic.

I wonder, can anyone put their finger on exactly *why* they like him? What's at the essence of his cult of personality? Is it that he doesn't demonize his opponents, as most politicians do?

WISCONSIN FOR OBAMA !!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AwNlaY8busw

If you think Obama is funky to have near the white house you certainly will want to see this you tube video that Hillary and Bill don't want anyone to see. Look at the largest fund raising fraud in American History accomplshed by our very own "Bill and Hillary" against Peter Paul and Stan Lee from the Hollywood Marvel Comics group~
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw&feature=related

***
The change isn't him, it's us. This is the post age.

Post-racism, post-culture wars, post-cynical, post-irony, post-identity politics, post-old ways that don't work, post cronyism, post buying people, post-cutthroat, post-apathetic, post-pathetic, post-giving up on everything, post-giving up on ourselves, post-surrendering, post-breaking down, post-fighting, post settling for far less than our potential, post-being ashamed of our president, our country, ourselves, post being humiliated by those elected to serve us, post-dynasties and machines, post-ugly.
***

Go krnewman!!!

svreader is a troll - just ignore them.

My Washington Post "Post" Post

A little forest for those too pre-occupied with the trees. You can't put live coals back in the sack. It might be 9 years late, but the millenium has at last arrived. And it's not about Obama, as he himself acknowledges. He's just the first big politician to be associated with the new pirit of the times. There will be many more. It doesn't matter if he wins the nomination or gets elected, the change has already happened. The change isn't him, it's us. This is the post age.

Post-racism, post-culture wars, post-cynical, post-irony, post-identity politics, post-old ways that don't work, post cronyism, post buying people, post-cutthroat, post-apathetic, post-pathetic, post-giving up on everything, post-giving up on ourselves, post-surrendering, post-breaking down, post-fighting, post settling for far less than our potential, post-being ashamed of our president, our country, ourselves, post being humiliated by those elected to serve us, post-dynasties and machines, post-ugly.

The Obama campaign forced Clinton to spend a lot of money and time in Wisconsin in a fruitless pursuit of victory. She is now leaving the state a day earlier and a lot poorer.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/17/rope-a-dope/

Go LaCrosse!!!

jmschaldach | February 17, 2008 11:13 AM

Sorry to hear you are very sad.

As we speak, there are 298 comments above mine. Did you read 66.6% of comments or four of every six?

Just asking.

Hopefully people will wake up before its too late.

The more I learn about Obama the more I don't want him anywhere near the whitehouse.

The personal attacks posted here coming from both camps make me very sad. All people deserve respect. We may oppose their ideas and actions vehemently but to disrespect one another is to disrespect ourselves.

The view from La Crosse, WI, is this:

All of southern and western WI will go solidly for Obama (not just Madison as wpost says). The question is, will Obama win WI 2 to 1 or just 3 to 2.

If Obama is such a grand and great consensus builder, why didn't he do more in his 3 years in the Senate? Isn't Hillary the more respected and powerful Senator? If experience does not matter, why didn't Obama become an immediate star in the Senate? Instead he has a pretty ho-hum record that smacks of covering his tracks for a run at President. Isn't that kind of politics that Obama claims he does not do? How about Excelon? What about the public financing waffle? Hillary's ads seem quite tame compared to the stuff Obama's campaign throws out there.

All these great changes are to come from Barack....

Just once tell me how you are going to make all those changes??? I never here how, just we are going to make change.

Well that won't cut it in the general election and if he was to win, you better have answers for the congress or else you will get nothing done. I don't want the Republicans bashing Democrats in 4 years, going on and on about our vision that was never to be.

Now we know that Hilary is a person that is tough and will fight for her cause. She can take a stab in the back and defiantly play with the international community.

She is far from perfect, but to be president you have to play hard.

I think Barack would make a great Vice-President but I think the Republicans, as dirty as they fight, would walk all over him.

Don't you worry about Clinton's finances, her supporters are strong and many and we will make sure she has enough to counter Obamas empty rhetoric

Be prepared WI, TX & OH, to witness the Clintons descending to the darkest depths of gutter politics, a place they both call home. Their disingenuous attempt to seat the bogus delegates from FL & MI is utterly nauseating. Cheating, lying, distorting, triangulating are all second nature to the Clintons. Their arrogant sense of entitlement and ruthless determination to extend the Bush/Clinton dynasty at any cost should make all Americans turn their collective backs in disgust.

The Clintons epitomize the broken, dysfunctional status quo. For sixteen, long years they have fueled the rabid, polarizing partisan division that has crippled Washington.

Barack Obama represents the opportunity to reject the failed politics of the past and unite Americans around an uplifting, inspirational vision for the future. Those, whom have never felt a reason worth participating in the political process, are supporting Barack in record, unprecedented numbers. They have found in Barack Obama a candidate worthy of believing in. He is a man of integrity, wisdom, and compassion with the strength to take on the political machines that are determined to destroy his message of hope and unity.

Our nation is at a historic crossroad, facing enormous challenges both at home and across the world. It is time to seize this moment in history, look to the future with an optimistic, unyielding resolve and make Barack Obama the next President of the United States.

Robert Luciano- Atlanta, GA

Check out the phony, pandering fraud....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1

I am funding Obama's campaign. I and over 500,000 others. Who's paying you?

Stop asking stupid questions you know the answers to.

You and your fuhreress are negative, insinuating, Liars.

Same old politics. I can't believe you people are seriously passionate about Hillary Clinton. You MUST be getting paid.

White House or Bust, huh? Let's hope it's Bust. For the sake of the U.S. we must stop this over-ambitious woman!

Hillary's exposing her own A$$.

We all knew she was a Nasty Betch, but now we can see why.

Let nothing stand in her way. She has been waiting for this for a LOOONG time: Her Piece of History.

She is a flat out Liar. Like her "husband"

George Bush has been your president for the last eight years. He is a bumbling idiot. Surely Obama is more intelligent and can also handle the job. It isn't so much the President, but all his support staff that run the affairs of the Office of President. The president does not make decisions in a vacuum.

So your argument that Obama cannot do the job simply does not hold water.

What is important is that here is a young man who motivates the nation to believe again in its government. Who wants to do something different in Washington. It would not matter if Hillary or McCain were pure governmental genuises...what matters is that Obama is different and the people want change. Time to pass the torch to the next generation. Old ideas die and new ones have arrived. This is a new day.

TO ALL WHO THINK OBAMA IS THE ANSWER TO YOUR PROBLEMS PLEASE CHECK OUT THE FOLLOWING WEB SITE. IT TAKES JUST A FEW SECONDS TO SEE WHAT AN EXPERT HAS TO SAY ABOUT OBAMAS SPENDING PLAN AND HOW IT WILL AFFECT YOUR POCKET BOOK. THIS INFO IS NOT PARTISAN BY ANY MEANS The site is realclearpolitics.com/articles/2008/02/obama IT IS REAL INFORMATIVE. MUCH DIFFERENT THAT WHAT OBAMA SAYS

Once we dump the toxic hag onto the ash heap of history, svreader will disappear.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | February 16, 2008 10:22 PM

Comments like this one terrify me.

Every day I read about this election, I get more disappointed. It seems that the American public is determined to continue the policies of this administration in the name of McCain. The Democrats are committing suicide by nominating Sen. Obama. The Republican smear machine will make minced meat out of him and then they will add the utterings of his Omarosa type wife, thus making McCain a sure in. I admit that Mrs. Clinton is not an angel, however,she is the least of the two evils.I am sure that Sen. Obama has done some pretty nasty things when he was growing up, things that will make people think twice before voting him as our next President. I would have loved to see former US Representative Ford, from Tennessee, run and he would have been more electable than Sen. Obama.

Hillary Clinton is experienced at what? She is a first term senator just like Obama. Just because she is married to a person with experience doesnt meand she has it. My wife is a nurse and I am a surgeon, just because we are married doesnt mean she should operate on people!!! Wake up and smell the charade she has just as much or as little experience as Obama, she is a complete falicy. Please, please tell me something she has accomplished on her own?

Who thinks Barack will be a disaster? Name me one thing that Hillary not Bill Clinton has accomplished (health care reform...not, blocking Bush irresponsible tax cuts.....not, Preventing authorization of the disasterous Iraq war...not). Please she is running on his record, if her last name were Rodham we never would have heard of her!!! Barack made his own way in the world and despite overwhelming odds made his way to Harvard Law School, to the Illinois legislature, to the Senate and to be a contender the the office of the President of the United States. This man is a doer and will work to change Washington. In contrast all Hillary cares about is getting elected AT ALL COSTS. If you cannot see through this thinly veiled charade you do not deserve the right to vote!!!!!

I am a lifelong Democrat, and it frightens me to know what may happen to our country if Barack Obama is elected. He is not presidential material at all. Just hype without substance. He is the one who is on the Straight Talk Express without ANY wheels. He is all about hype and fancy speeches. I think Obama should disclose where he is getting millions of dollars pouring in each week for his campaign. Who is funding his campaign? I don't believe for a second that it is all public funding. Let's get real. Somebody is bankrolling his campaign big time. Could it be "Vice-President" Oprah? He is suppose to be accepting public funding for campaign contributions. VOTE FOR HILLARY CLINTON, she is the best candidate for President. She is experienced, strong and knowledgeable. She knows what the job of being a President entails, and will leave office with a strong, effective legacy for this country. Hillary will not embrace cordial chats with leaders of terrorist countries, nor will she flounder when the arrogance of global challenges confront her. Obama simply is not experienced in this. Anyone can give fancy speeches when a professional speech writer composes them. Obama will not be able to put his money where his mouth is when it's time to stand on the front lines for this country. He may be a nice man, but in my opinion he is not leadership material for this country. Perhaps in 8 years, but not now.

I guess what I dont understand is that Barack has swept the last 8 or so primaries and has a lead in delegate counts and all CNN, The New York Times and The Washington Post can talk about is the about this devisive family that cares more about their success than the future of this great nation. The Clinton's are good at stealing the headlines with all of Clinton's. Can we please stop talking these same as usual Washington political games. I hope the voters in Wisconsin and beyond can see through all of the Clinton created smoke and mirrors and elect the best candidate for the job, the best candidate in recent memory, Barack Obama.

The smugness of Obama and his cultish supporters grows by the hour. Now we're told that if Clinton takes the Wisconsin primary, it's because Wisconsin is full of racist Germans.

Not that Obama is being (gasp!) "negative." No, no, no! Don't you know that Obama is a saint? Someone tell me where to vomit, because I feel tonight's dinner coming back up.

The smugness of Obama and his cultish supporters grows by the hour. Now we're told that if Clinton takes the Wisconsin primary, it's because Wisconsin is full of racist Germans.

Not that Obama is being (gasp!) "negative." No, no, no! Don't you know that Obama is a saint? Someone tell me where to vomit, because I feel tonight's dinner coming back up.

mibrooks --

I'm a guy. I donate to campaigns, not the other way around. I've worked for myself my whole life and have made millions over the years.

I not only used to be a Republican, but a major Republican campaign contributor as well.

I became a Democrat after suffering a near-death experience.

The fact I'm bothered by Obama's repeated cocaine use comes from the fact that I'm a parent.

Kids are constantly looking for role models.

By giving Obama a "get out of jail free card" we are sending a horrible message to our children.

Obama's messsage is that if you don't get caught and you publish it in a book, it doesn't matter that you committed multiple felonies.

That's morally indefensible.

If we choose Obama as our standard-bearer it sends the message that doing anyhing illegal is alright, as long as you don't get caught and have a silver tongue.

Obama is the most slick salesman I've seen in quite a while, but I'm lucky to have seen a lot of them over the years.

My personal experience has been that the slicker they are the less they deliver.

I'm sincerely concerned that Obama will be a disaster.

He's good a "faking it" but he doesn't know what he's doing, and it shows in every debate.

That's why I post.

In the perhaps futile hope that I can get at least one person seduced by Obama to focus on the issues instead.

Chris,

Do you really believe what you write:

"The way in which politics has been conducted ill serves the American public, but his new politics of hope can change things."

Stop daydreaming. You sound like a rookie and should be writing a sports column!

Obama's answer to anything negative said about him is

A) You are a racist

and or

B) Same old politics

Sadly the media happily went along.

Right she pulled out early and left junk on the airwaves. It is pathetic. And they actually think they can win running a campaign in that fashion. Someone needs to document this entire dabacle and title it "How to Lose a Campaign".

Re: The Wisconsin Debate Flap

Anyone who's followed politics for any length of time can see what's going on here. The person who's lagging behind in the polls and in fundraising demands a debate (i) for free air time and (ii) to pull the opponent off the campaign trail for the debate and the preparation. They're debating next week in Texas and the week after that in Ohio. This is a phony issue and Hillary knows it.

P.S. - Hillary's canceled her last day in WI. Can it be that she thinks it's in the bag, so she can get back to TX and OH? I think not. I suspect her internal polling tells her it's out of reach so she's cutting her losses and going back to TX (where an ARG poll puts Obama up by 6) to hold him off there. Running out of chances!

hikay - Ignore svreader. She is one of the Clinton campaign hacks that pop's up on these pages (and elsewhere). They take their "talking points" from the campaign. Earlier is was thinly veiled racist remarks. When that backfired, they came up with the current garbage. Once we dump the toxic hag onto the ash heap of history, svreader will disappear.

Why are people so quick to label everything Mrs. Clinton does or say as negative? As the front runner Mr. Obama better toughen up because if he thinks this is negative, I have news for you. I sure hope he doesn't think no one is suppose to question him. This is a campaign after all.

By the way, of course Mrs. Clinton wants to win, that is the point.

Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama have had one debate with just the two of them. Why is he sfraid of debating her one on one?

"He said he convene meetings with the insurance companies, etc, and put it all on CSPAN to figure out what to do about health care."

OK, so what's wrong with that? I'd like to know what their thoughts are too. With the overwhelming failure of healthcare reform, it surely can't hurt. And its a much more worthy to put that on TV, IMHO, than hearings about which baseball player used steroids.

In response to vegetablesplease, I throw my support to Olympia Snowe.

Let's get a "Draft Olympia" website going for 2012. I'd volunteer to work for her.

i have believed from the beginning that hillary is the best and have not changed my mind.

obama's supporters and hillary's critics are a nasty and calculating lot. they slander people who vote for hillary, accusing them of voter fraud. they started a fight by calling hillary the 'democrat from punjab' and accused her daughter of 'pimping'. and obama has been been collecting a lot of campaign money from lobbyists.what happened to the guy who claimed he is an 'outsider to washington'-he is playing the washington game in and out since then. obama has been selling 'hope' and no substance. he should be running for church minister.his supporters label anybody who backs hillary a 'racist'.every obama supporter has a different story about bill clinton's 'racist' comments.that is their version-bill clinton is not remotely racist. and their excuse is that they are voting for obama because of bill's alleged statements. then the press jumps in,the republicans(who have a racist voting record in the immigration debate of 2007) get gleeful.

i despise mccain because of his racism on immigration, his warmongering,his flip-flopping and poor political record.

but america does not seem to ready for a woman president or a second generation immigrant president, whose mother was white but his father was from kenya.

Let's face it: . . the media has gotten their marching orders. Obama is to be the Democratic nominee so McCain can beat him in November. . . . Every time Hillary sneezes, she's a loser, but Obama can pass gas and he's a winner. Obama is a walking race card, but let Bill Clinton say that Obama's campaign is a lot like Jessie Jackson's because Obama drew 80% of the black vote, and the press hammers and hammers and hammers and hammers on him for being a bigot. . . . . Hillary has four times the understanding and experience than Obama; her health care plan is more of a change than Obama's, but Obama is the change candidate. . . . It's crazy but who's driving the media???????????

By the way, what change is Obama really for? . . . . The only real change candidate is Ron Paul. He lays it out; there's no question about his vision. But Obama just says, change, change, change, but gives us no vision as to what he's talking about. . . . . Believe me, it's Obama that the Republicans want to run against, otherwise, why is the media so much in his camp.

PS: . . No candidate to date has mention the "OVERPOPULATION" word. Overpopulation, the unspeakable issue.