Let me try this again.

I think Hillary is ahead in the electoral college race. She'd be even farther ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

Let me try this again.

I think Hillary is ahead in the electoral college race. She'd be even farther ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

I think Hillary is ahead in head in the electoral college race. She'd be really far ahead if Florida had counted.

Too much focus on Hillary not having enough delegates to be nominated when the same holds true for Mr. Obama.

So just what is the electoral college totals head to head?

Michigan and Florida: The states' legislatures and governors knew they were throwing away their states voters' right to be seated. Why isn't anyone in those states blaming their legislators? Why isn't the media asking this question? Don't count the delegates until the states take responsibility for their irresponsible actions and fix it themselves by footing the bill.

To gandalfthergrey
We don't want someone in the White House who voted no on raising the minimum wage
also voted no on dental health for SCHIP
Read his voting record when he was Senator in Illinois

I live in England.
If enough of you believe that 'change' is possible - and Obama is the only one of the three with a chance of doing that - then the question of electability is answered.
Recently on the main BBC politics programme leading politicians from each of the three main parties were asked who they wanted to be the next President of the United States. They all said Obama. The audience agreed.
He is what America needs, and what the world wants.

"She is a good legislator - she will return to the Senate and wonk away"

Clinton for Senate!

Hillary is crippled as a candidate on the most important issue of this election....

George W. Bush took our nation to WAR.

There is no higher duty or responsibility for any President than taking this country to WAR.

NONE !

On that critical issue - more critical than any other

Clinton voted YES.

Now, if she believes that we should have gone to war...like many, many patriotic Republicans and millions of Americans...all she has to do is say so. Just say she was for the invasion and war.

But she won't.

I'm sure because she knows to say so now would kill her.

So why can't she do as John Edwards did? Just admit that her vote was a mistake?

The truth is sometimes very simple.

She voted YES to position herself for this election cycle. There is absolutely no other explanation.

That is an act of personal cowardice and her deceit since then disqualifies her from the highest office in the land where she would have the power to try it again.

She is a good legislator - she will return to the Senate and wonk away - and in the Senate, Bill is kept at bay.

She blew her shot at the White house by stepping over the line beyond cunning...

And, now - still fearful of McCain's attack - she steadfastly refuses to admit that her vote was a mistake -(unlike John Edwards who is an honest man).

WE DO NOT NEED ANOTHER PERSON IN OUR WHITE HOUSE THAT CANNOT ADMIT A MISTAKE.

Clinton must be denied the nomination.

"A muslim for Presdient? Na"

Not this year. But we already have a Muslim in Congress, representing a district that he is likely to retain for as long as he wants to keep it. Give him a couple more terms to move up in the Congressional leadership and who knows - Speaker Ellison? Its not impossible.

And once you're speaker, you're only a couple heartbeats away from becoming President. Not that its happened yet, of course.

Shoot, if Obama wins this year, I could see a whole new wave of younger Dems entering government. As the boomers continue to age & start retiring from gov't, people like Ellison are well-positioned to rapidly rise in the party ranks. Looking on the GOP side, its pretty clear they need to entirely rebuild their party, so just might get the jump on the Dems in that regard.

Obama supporters get offended when you use his full name because you're clearly doing it to be offensive. It's very simple. But I'm not surprised you couldn't figure that out, since you don't seem too bright.

But congratulations on noticing that "Obama" rhymes with "Osama". That's a brilliant insight. And so original, too.

Osama Bin Obama
Osama Bin Obama

Why is that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama supporters get offended if you call him by his full name?

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama - Don't buy the hype - see "OPERATION FLIGHT SUIT"

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama -
Don't buy empty speeches - see "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

A muslim for Presdient? Na

Why is that Sen. Barack Hussein Obama supporters get offended if you call him by his full name?

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama - Don't buy the hype - see "OPERATION FLIGHT SUIT"

Don't Vote for Sen. Barack Hussein Obama -
Don't buy empty speeches - see "MISSION ACCOMPLISH"

A muslim for Presdient? Na

It's a shame JD that all you can do is personally attack me and Hillary. You are extremely rude and belligerent and still not talking about anything of consequence. My typing is not the best right now and I am using a voice software program because my arm is broke, which is why I am at home, after a fall down a set of stair after teaching at our university. Where I have taught careers, math and computers. I also have minors in psychology, philosophy, business and economics, and two post graduate degrees in education. I also have devoted over 10 years of teaching to minority programs to students from inner city schools. My T.A. usually does my typing. But I am sure my credentials don't mean much to you.

I think you are really good at presumptions...only time will tell. Those of you wishing to debate, not argue, really debate the issues, although there is some rude people on either side, might want to go to: http://www.sodahead.com. Its not a perfect site but it is better than most.

But some other facts you might want to know: source: http://projects.washingtonpost.com/congress/110/senate/vote-missers/

56.0% Missed votes
Sen. John McCain (R-AZ)
Representing: Arizona
Votes: 257 votes missed (56.0 percent of 459 total votes)

37.9% Missed Votes
Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL)
Representing: Illinois
Votes: 174 votes missed (37.9 percent of 459 total votes)

25.5%
Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY)
Representing: New York
Votes: 117 votes missed (25.5 percent of 459 total votes)

PERSONAL CALLENGE: Please step back and look what is best for the party which is a Hillary/Obama ticket and 16 years in the white house. Compare their resumes side by side, look at each of their plans, look at what each person has done in the whole of their life, look at who has the most respect of their peer to get things done, figure out how we can be in the white house for 16 years not 4. Then what ever your decision, it is the right one for you. No one can take that from you. Not by insulting someone's typing skills with a broken hand and no one can argue that you don't know what the detailed platforms are. Best of luck to the democrats...not matter what your personal decision.

country, this one's for you. How to explain this latest news flash? What, her coal-miner's daughter upbringing caused her to become, as Carl Bernstein called her " among the most self-righteous people I've ever known"?

It appears that Bill Clinton's extramarital affairs can't stop coming back to haunt his wife, presidential hopeful Sen. Hillary Clinton.

A new book by Watergate journalist Carl Bernstein alleges the former president was on the verge of divorcing his wife, leaving her for "the other woman" now identified as marketing executive Marilyn Jo Jenkins.

The Daily Mail reports that the crisis ended with his wife talking him out of the divorce. She supposedly told a friend, "there are worse things than infidelity," according to the Mail."

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,275697,00.html

countrygoddess, frankly, you don't make a lot of sense.

But I will correct another misconception on your part. I'm not a Democrat. I'm an Independent voter. From what I can tell, Hillary Clinton's greatest accomplishment in life was deciding to marry a future president. Once she made that decision, she jumped on the fast track to notoriety. I don't see anything in her life prior that set her up for a future presidential run. Come to think of it, I don't see how marrying Bill qualifies her either.

And that is the crux of the issue. What has Senator Clinton accomplished, on her own, that qualifies her for the job of being the most powerful person in the world?

"I hope their are more well read and well informed members..."

you mean "there"

"The republicans are watching--their watching this party tear itself apart..."

you mean "they're"

Guess none of those 6 degrees was in English, eh? (Rufus?)

You have not addressed anything? I have asked questions? Go back and read...Their the one's with the questions marks at the end. But I have a life and it is apparent that you don't, because you are so for you candidate that you don't see the problems on the horizon for the party. When you are ready to answer the issues that he has no experience and review their resumes, offer comment on uniting the party, address that he has been campaigning more for president than representing illinois interest such as the 1.5 billion dollar coal project that would have brought jobs to Illinois? Addressed that he earns over 1 million a year and he is not a 40k a year nominee, not that really matters, I would expect either candidate to be financially sound but lets not make him out to be "Oliver Twist." For the parties good, I hope their are more well read and well informed members of our party out there that see the big picture...Right now...not in November we are having the General election---doubt it not. The republicans are watching--their watching this party tear itself apart---and your attitude is a perfect example of how quickly its down fall can come unless the party smartens up and in a hurry. Like it or not, it comes down to united we win, divided we fall...THE END

thecountrygoddess, I respect the fact that you like your candidate, but it's a little difficult for me, as an Obama supporter, to get excited by the idea of a dual ticket when you come on this site say that I haven't done my research because I support Obama. Can you appreciate that?

I have done research, and I've made a decision as a result of that research. I'm willing to have a discussion about issues, but your posts so far haven't included anything that would make me want to change my mind.

wow country, for someone with 6 degrees you might study a bit more about the concept of a 'paragraph'. Feels like I'm talking to Rufus. Oh well.

Even overlooking your several thousand grammatical and syntactical errors, we've been able to divine that you don't like Obama. We get it. Good for you.

Notwithstanding my previous prediction to M in A, I now don't think he'll accept a vice spot. I think he'd rather be Gov of Illinois until 2012, after McCain beats HRC (assuming she wins the Dem nom).

Then, barring McCain personally inventing cold fusion and single-handedly defeating Osama BL in a duel, Obama has a cakewalk to the WH.

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

countrygoddess writes
"Again, you avoid the questions?"

What questions? I reviewed your 12:06 post (to which I first responded) and your 12:40 response to me. I didn't see questions.

I was merely correcting your mis-statement about the coal miner background (thanks JD for the cite). My only point is that if you want to promote Sen Clinton, try to do it factually, rather than making up a good story.

Clinton and Obama now spar over who is best able to beat John McCain in November.

Their basic pitch is: McCain will run against the D nominee with assistance of the Well-Oiled "Republican Attack Machine" (WORAM) and only I am tough and savvy enough to fend off McCain and his fearsome goon squad.

Documentary on MSNBC, but that's not the only place I have seen that doc....and apology? Who do you think your are? Why don't you address the real questions? You don't? Do you have NARCISSISTIC PERSONALITY DISORDER? This party is divided? We in Illionois know in terms of just the amount of work OBAMA has done in Illinois, he has worked less that any of the three candidates (no show and no voting). Those of us not from Chicago, have been watching him...he has not kept a singel campaign promise to us. He talked change, and yes it go him elected in Illinois, of course when Jerry Ryan's exhusband had to drop out of the race because of a sex scandal he pretty much ran unopposed. He's not had to do any work, he's not paid his dues, you have to earn peoples respect...A lot of people would cross the Republican line not to vote for him....The best thing can happan...and it is a real possiblity...if you do the math as other political historians have...is both of them are going to end up tied going going into the convention. There is going to be a lot of pressure to count Michigan and Florida which will give HIllary the edge but at a cost, so more pressure will be applied for HIllary to pick Obama as a running mate, and even though I absolutely do not support him, together it is what is best for the party. They have to run together Hillary P, and Obama VP to win the ticket. Together they are a force, seperate Hillary may win by herself but Obama will not--the Republicans will eat him for dinner. There are a lot of consertative democrats that just will not vote for him alone, they will cross party lines--he can't afford that. She can't afford to loose the african american vote, they both bring to the table what it will take to win. For those of you don't know history a fight like this in terms of numbers has happened before...the party did not unify and the party losts each time...can we afford that?

countrygoddess posted:

"My husband and I (who both wrote it) hold 6 degrees."

What did you both write? The antecedent was a reference to a book by BHO, I think.

Perhaps I am confused.
-----------------------------------
Mike, Aside from "The Fair Tax", my other problems with MDH are that he made a speech about amending the Constitution to God's word and he does not believe in genetics or cosmology, which could be seriously limiting to a 21st C. President. Nevertheless, I think well of him, because the practical applications of my "issues" with him do not keep me from thinking that there are a great many public service functions he would perform honorably and capably. He was a good Governor, for instance - incomparably better than Rick Perry.

If we're dredging up biographical info, here's a neat tidbit...Bill Clinton's name at birth was William Jefferson Blythe IV, born as the only son of Virginia Kelley and William Jefferson Blythe 3rd, a traveling salesman who died in an automobile crash three months before his son's birth.

So, Hillary's name may have ended up being Hillary Blythe if she had married him with his original name. Because her marraige to Bill was the singularly most important event in her politcal life, and without that she would never be where she is today.

Hey, look at this

http://www.firstladies.org/biographies/firstladies.aspx?biography=43

Her dad actually was a small textile supply owner, not a 'coal miner'

However, the Dad did in fact descend from a line of Scranton coal miners

http://www.spock.com/Hugh-Ellsworth-Rodham

Still, you were wrong countrygoddess. We accept your apology in advance, and thank you for your vote for McCain as reparations.

The Clinton campaign didn't have a healthcare plan before it felled and they don't have one now. Well to be honest, if everyone is a goverment employee, then the Clinton healthcare plan will work for everyone. Unfortunately some are self employed, independent contractors or work for private employors or small business. Under the Clinton healthcare plan these people would be penalized if they don't pay for their healthcare. This means that most of your family members and friends will have their paychecks garnished. We all know that it doesn't stop there if it is a goverment enforcement. There will be fines and then misdemeanors which is a criminal offense defined as less serious than a felony. Why did Ms. Clinton decide on this approach? It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure this out. Big business, big Corporation call it what you will, they want their money back and in order for Ms. Clinton to get their support in her race to presidency she is giving victory to one side (the healthcare providers) by promising to them that she will have the poeople wages garnished if they continue to give healthcare. Thus allowing her to shout the words "UNIVERSAL HEALTHCARE" This is a shady tactic and makes fools out of every american that falls for this trick. The Obama healthcare plan is for the people. Poor people, middle class and rich people can rest assured that there is no tricks or penalties in the Obama healthcare plan. VOTE OBAMA!!

countrygoddess, either provide a cite, or provide bsimon an apology for acting like an a$$

As I said, he raised himself up...Wicipedia by the way is incomplete and can be edited by anyone. Universities bar students from using Wikepedia as a source of information for that reason..Again, you avoid the questions?

countrygoddess, what's your source? Wikipedia says: "Her father, Hugh Ellsworth Rodham, was a son of Welsh and English immigrants and operated a small but successful business in the textile industry."

Considering the baselessness of the rest of your rant, I suspect you choose to believe what you like, rather than what is true.

Yes, I am sure her father was a coal miner and yes there are coal mines in Illinois. Her father raised himself up to be more and he wanted more for his children. Isn't that the Americna dream. My father was a coal truck driver my mother was a historian and shop owner, they raised theirselves up to own a mine in Virginia. Raised all of us to study and we all have degrees, two of us, me included, have advanced degrees and devoted a good portion of my life to public service and minority rights and education. I am sorry you are so bent on attacking people that you don't want to ask the hard questions, do your research or compare resumes and experience. I am sorry you don't want to ask yourself even if he got elected--which is doubtful without Hillary and visa vera considering how the party is divided right now--because historically, this has happened three times and of those times, the party lost. Mathmatically, neither can win enough delegates to secure the nomination. Hillary still has Florida and Michigan and they will be seated...because you can't ignore their votes. Obama will get a portion of those delegates, Michigan about 40% of them and Florida about 33%. Hillary will win Texas I believe at least one of Penn and/or Ohio.It will come down to the superdelegates, their are informed and knows who is more likly to get congress behind them for make concrete change "Hillary"...but as I said, great pressure will come to bare, on it being a dual ticket or the party looses.

um jduran? technically, I think Bubba was in fact impeached. Just not convicted (although he did lose his law license because of his lying).

"Many questions linger regarding Obama's gifted speechifying. Do his speeches give us a glimpse at a very special man with a unique vision? Or are we merely witnessing a political one-trick pony?

Yes, Obama can turn a phrase better and do more with a Teleprompter than any other modern era politician. But does his special skill set here actually mean anything, or is it instead the political equivalent of a dog walking on its hind legs--unusual and riveting, but not especially significant?

It was thus interesting to see Obama climb to the stage at Virginia's Jefferson-Jackson Dinner. As he strode to the podium, Obama clutched in his hands a pile of 3 by 5 index cards. The index cards meant only one thing--no Teleprompter.

Shorn of his prompter, we saw a different Obama. His delivery was halting and unsure. He looked down at his obviously copious notes every few seconds throughout the speech.

Unlike the typical Obama oration where the words flow with unparalleled fluidity, he stumbled over his phrasing repeatedly.

The results weren't just interesting because they revealed Obama as a markedly inferior speaker without the teleprompter. Obama's supporters have had ample notice that the scripted Obama is far more effective than the spontaneous one.

The extremely articulate and passionate Obama that makes all the speeches has yet to show up at any of the debates. For such a gifted and energetic speaker, he is an oddly tongue-tied and indifferent debater."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/728ofzey.asp?pg=2

The question is which Obama is the real Obama? --the one who read beautifully crafted words from a Teleprompter after his victory in Iowa, or the tediously angry liberal who improvised in Virginia?

We all know what the Clinton's were like, and we took a chance on a young JFK and he did well. Why doesn't someone ask the Clinton's to pay their bill in Des Moines, IA so those people are not stuck. She throws dirt at Obama to turn the story from her, but it was on NBC and ABC this AM. She is no better than a common criminal and is married to someone who committed Perjury in the White House. Remember people, REMEMBER.

When exactly has Hillary been tested against the "Republican attack machine?" Was it that rough and tumble contest against Rick Lazio? The central myth of her campaign is that her husband's accomplishments = her accomplishments. Contrast that notion with the assertion that this isn't two for the price of one, it is her campaign and she is calling the shots. If so, then perhaps she should stop beefing up her resume - lawyer with disgraced law firm, famous wife of accomplished individual, and two term Senator - with her husbands credentials.

thecountrygoddess writes
"She was the daughter of a coal miner people, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth..."

Are you sure? Far as I know, there aren't many coal mines in or near Park Ridge, IL. Perhpas you're confusing her with Loretta Lynn?

Did you know that Hillary changed military parties to speak out and stop the war in Vietnam. She was also one of the lead investigators on the highest comittee in Congress to start and investigation into the stories that were coming down from the current adminstartion. She has visted our troops 6 times (that 6 times more than the current president in Iraq itself, not on neighboring bases). She was the first sentator there to help the police and fireman after 9/11 walking the streets but a day after the tragic event at risk to her own health. She has fought for them, she has fought for minorities in this country (although some seem to have a short memory and have feed her to the wolves just because of the other candidate's race--it make you wonder for those us us that give our lives working at programs for the disadvantaged and minorities are we even appreciated--I'm one of those people who gave a considerable time of my life to this very cause). Hillary has done nothing but scarfice a millions a dollar year salary at any lawfirm she could ever want or to have her own multi-million dollar law firm for public service. She was the daughter of a coal miner people, she was not born with a silver spoon in her mouth...She is a role model to all people that from humble beginnings even in the face of the most difficult times in our lives, we too can endure and excel. The way people act, its a wonder anyone ever goes into public service.

The Clinton "wait until next month" strategy is sounding a lot like Rudy Guiliani's pitch to supporters last month.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/12/fighting-the-big-mo/

For one thing, I am tired of Hillary supporters saying that she is better on national security and is better fit to survive the "Republican Attack". I would like to know how being a senator from NY provides one with better national security credentials than being a senator from Illinois does. Oh I know...they must mean when she was First Lady she was able to travel to more places and meet more leaders AND she voted for the Iraq war. Hence, she is better suited to address national security issues. I see now.

And let us not forget how strong the Clintons are against the 'republican attack'. While her husband was being slaughtered in the final years of his presidency both Hillary and Bill made it through alive and he was not impeached! Duck and cover, congrats on the survival tactics! It is hard to imagine exactly how much the republicans are drooling over the possibility of using all their old ammo on the Clintons.

I believe that the Clinton-Bush era will come to an end and that people will look to a change. Unfortunately, this country has not voted for drastic changes and that will be Obama's battle. He must convince moderates that it is time for a different pace. Without that...duck and cover.

LeftwithNochoice--can't handle the truth...Read his book, he describes down south in Illinois as Bloomington, there are 300 more miles of Illinois south of Bloomington. Did't take days to write it either, despite the Media's trying to convience people that Hillary's supporters are uneducated. My husband and I (who both wrote it) hold 6 degrees. Those with commonsense and an education both are asking what has he done for anyone? what experience does he have? and just who is he? He has not been in office long enought to answer any of those questions--but in Southern Illinois we can def. answer them thus far and the writing on the wall is not pretty.

This from an NYT article about the Clinton campaign's struggle; the quote is from a national finance chairman:
"I'm telling donors and supporters: Don't be overly concerned about what goes on in the remainder of the month of February because these are not states teed up well for us,"

Left unsaid is that, if the ball ain't teed up just right, they can't hit it. This strategy works if you can drive the green on every hole. Problem is on all the other holes, when you have to hit the ball off the grass. God forbid you have to take a swing in the rough.

In short, the speaker unwittingly chose a rather apt metaphor for the Clinton campaign. They hit a great tee shot, but discovered they're on a long par 5, not a short par 3. This game is played without mulligans.

Do Clinton supporters honestly think that she has national electability when half the country can't stand her to begin with and she continues with the status quo Hillary standard procedure of blatant lack of transparency in refusing to release tax returns AND refusal to release her papers from the Clinton library??? Ok she really represents "change" and has national appeal...wake up and get real!

what do people think about the possibility of an Obama - Bloomberg ticket? Talk about breaking from the politics of the past, looking for real solutions, and stealing the middle from John McCain . . .

I'm sorry - but I just don't see Senator Clinton having a chance at being elected President. She's got way too much baggage and the "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy" she railed against while her husband was in office has done an excellent job vilifying and demonizing her. Even from within the Democratic party she's going to have a tough time. Remember all of those "Reagan Democrats" from nearly 30 years ago? Traditional blue-collar democrats jumped ship to install a Republican dynasty that we're still living through today. If Ms. Clinton is the indeed the choice of the Democrats, then history will repeat itself and McCain/Huckabee will win in a landslide.

I've supported the Democratic party for a while, and have worked on a number of Democratic Campaigns. However, there is no way I will vote for Hillary. If I had too, I would vote for Bush a third term before I voted for Hillary.

Whether or not it's fair, Hillary is too much of a polarizing figure outside of the beltway that would drive independents and a lot of Democrats to either not vote in 2008, or vote for McCain (especially since McCain has done a pretty good job of courting independent support).

If you talk to any Republican insider and McCain supporter, they are hoping and praying for Hillary to win the nomintation. They believe Hillary will simply get into a policy debate that McCain can win.

However, Obama (whether he deserves it or not) has turned into a movement, and respresents more than a laundry list of campaign promises.

Here's my prediction for all Democrats, Hillary's nomination will drive a wedge in the Democratic Party. On one side you'll have the old Washington guard and on the other side will be the younger Democrats (regardless of their race, gender, sexual orientation or ethnicity), and frankly, the future of the pary.

It's time for new blood in politics and the Democratic Party. Not only are the 30 and under voters looking for it, Baby Boomers not attached to any special interest groups are looking for it as well.

Fair or not, Hillary represents the old guard in the Democratic party. It's time for her and them to step a side, and let the Democratic Party become the party that represents change and hope - much like her husband did in 1992.

..where we stand today...

'USA Today leads with a poll that shows Democrats remain deeply divided about their choice for a nominee but most think they're both good candidates. For his part, Sen. John McCain is clearly the front-runner, but almost half of Republican voters would rather have someone else. In a hypothetical matchup, McCain runs about even with both Democratic candidates, although Sen. Barack Obama does have a slight lead that is within the poll's margin of error.'

Ho much is a dead boy worth?

'The father of a 9-year-old Iraqi boy who says his son was killed by Blackwater security guards tells ABCNews.com the company has offered to build a monument and make an unspecified cash payment to compensate him for the death of his son, Ali.

Officials familiar with the case told ABCNews.com that Blackwater had resisted U.S. government demands that the company pay at least $100,000 per death, claiming the U.S. government has not paid that much in similar situations in Iraq.'

If the Democratic Party plays not to lose, the only thing they are promising themselves is not to win. Kerry was the safe choice. Unfortunately, he was the wrong choice. Do not do it again.

Posted by: clwhitworth | February 11, 2008 11:01 PM

That's SOP, isn't it? Democrats love to date one guy then marry the other (Date Dean but marry Kerry, date Hart but marry Mondale, etc). So will the Dems date Obama but marry HRC? Yuk.

For you paranoid lefties out there:

Read Robinson today in WaPo. He talks about the left's fretting that the GOP is trying to manipulate the Dem nominating process to get the most easily beatable candidate.

AggieMike, i saw your Sunday post directed to me and responded on the "Heirarchy" thread at 10:43P.

Let me add to it that I thought Jack Kemp was a terrific HUDSec who reversed years of waste and graft in that Department.
---------------------
bradcpa, are you a 'Horn?
---------------------
NovaMatt, did you see the bb game last night?
--------------------

Hook 'Em!

certainly a lot of loonies on here recently..

check out john stewart on mitten's withdrawal. funny...

http://www.universalhub.com/node/12782

also, listen to what romney says. it's the new script, well a actually the old script. it's everything john mccain will be saying, over and over and over and over, until November. the bush 2004, word for word. it goes like this, sort of like what dogs hear:

'liberals' 'surrender' 'terror' 'taxes' 'borders'

now, simply repeat that 5 trillion times, and you have the next several months of your life. it's just like deja vu, is't it? groundhog day...

Last night I went down the Victory Grill to welcome the Obama paid staff into Texas. About 300 enthusiastic supporters welcomed 25 young paid staff people into Texas (if you call $50 a day paid). Most of these 20 something's have been on the road for Obama for over six months. Coming from Idaho, Nevada and New Mexico they have poured into Texas the new battleground. The author of the "Audacity of Hope" has an inspired army of volunteers who have put their lives on hold I have not seen since my first caucus where I supported George McGovern. Yes I signed up to be a precinct captain for Obama last night and will go to my first caucus in 36 years.

Oh, Chico, I totally empathize with your plight. I, too live in Senator Clinton's district, and am Very Unhappy with her.

You see, my name is Geoffrey Smith, and I own a factory on the north side of town. Ms Clinton promised to allow me to expand my factory if she got elected, which she did, thanks to my financial contributions, not to mention the large posters of her all over the plant that I forced my workers to view all day.

Anyway, what had happened was this:

She got into office, stopped calling to check on me, and never readjusted the zoning to allow me to expand my factory. And what a fine factory it would have been, too.

We were gonna turn political propaganda into horse manure, to fertilize fields of daisies and daffodils. But, NOOOO, she didn't want daisies, she wanted to keep churning out political propaganda.

So, Chico and Sra Salgaputa, I feel your pain and suffering at the hands of Hillary Clinton, too, though for different reasons, OK?

So, in conclusion:
I, strongly believe,
that Hillary Clinton
Is
WRONG For America.

Seriously, America, take it from the people who live in her district... DO NOT LET HER DO TO THE COUNTRY WHAT SHE DID TO OUR POOR LITTLE DISTRICT

THINK OF THE MANURE FACTORY AND THE DAISIES AND DAFFODILS SHE SQUANDERED AWAY

BOO HOO sniff

My name is Chico Duarte and I am a Latino voter in Hillary Clinton's district in New York. I am writing to warn other Latinos about what she really trying to do.

First, I bote for her, because they tell me, Latino voters, they like Hillary. But then, she change. All Latinos in her district have to show Birth Certificates to drive, and to rent apartments.

Then, Police is locking up everyone, sending them to immigration. Nobody can get a job because they start checking social security numbers. Lot of Latinos have to leave the state. They cannot even open the bank account!

Then, she makes it illegal to look at the women's hind areas. That's what I want to say, now I'm writing from jail. Hillary Clinton is bad for Latinos. Hillary gonna do the same to whole country.

You gotta be real scared of her. Hillary Clinton is SOOOOOOO Bad, OK?

Believe Me. And my wife, Carlotta Asuncion Garcia Salgaputa.

Por Favor! Diga "NO" por la bruja Clinton!

Salvate!

WOW, countrygodess, or Michael Payne or his wife or whoever:

Very well written... must have taken you days.

Nice emotion, urgency, and Fear Mongering, you slimey, slithering, slack...

I hope you got paid well for that BS. Why not go on the road with your losing candidate if your so worried? Put your money where your loser mouth is.

Fear Mongering Fools... How are you gonna scare anyone anymore?
We survived 8 years of Georgie Bush, and you think we're supposed to be squeamish about Obama?

THINK ! Crybaby!

Nobody's buying it. Keep your Fear in your panties, Michael Payne and his caring and emotional Wife.

More Fear mongering by the Clinton people.

"if we elect Obama, the Evil Republicans (who, it is noted, are actually laying in wait) will tear him limb from limb, enslave our children, kill us, and rape our wives"

Fear, Fear, Fear, blah, blah, blah, scaredy-cats.

Bad enough to have all this fear-pushing from the Clinton Camp during the Primaries,

But then, you have to Fear the Republicans,

THEN, Back to fearing the Terrorists,
the Chinese,
the Immigrants,
the Economy,
H5n1,
Sars,
AIDS,
Serial Killers,
Chinese Toys,
The Planet,
Killer Bees,
And Finally, the Old Standby,

Barack Obama (as the BoogyMan)

What a bunch of Chickens.

(I had a better word in mind, It rhymes with Wussies)

How can they look themselves in the mirror? All this Fear Mongering is weak.

After today's Potomac wipeout, I suspect the polling numbers in Texas and Ohio will change dramatically in Obama's favor. Then we may start to see "Supers" moving to Obama even before March 4th.

BREAKING -- FRom NYT article today:

"She has to win both Ohio and Texas comfortably, or she's out," said one superdelegate who has endorsed Mrs. Clinton, and who spoke on condition of anonymity to share a candid assessment.

Several Clinton superdelegates, whose votes could help decide the nomination, said Monday that they were wavering in the face of Mr. Obama's momentum after victories in Washington State, Nebraska, Louisiana and Maine last weekend. Some said that they, like the hundreds of uncommitted superdelegates still at stake, might ultimately "go with the flow," in the words of one, and support the candidate who appears to show the most strength in the primaries to come.

=========

Wow. That is indeed candid. I also like that "go with the flow" statement but maybe it should be "go with the tsunami!"

The question, for better or worse, in a typical voter's mind will be: Which candidate do I like the most?

I have no doubt that the GOP smear machine can effectively bring Obama's negatives up to the current level of Hillary's.

If Obama is the nominee, where will the energy and commitment of the Clinton -Carville -DLC machine be focused? For him, against him, or sitting on its hands?

If Clinton is the nominee, where will similar support from the Obama-Kennedy machine be focused? And, will Clinton's people again try to win eight states plus another one that will magically drop into their laps against McCain?

With all the problems the next President will inherit, there is a strong motivation for all three (Hillary, Obama, McCain) to simply wait for a one-term president to fail and then run again in four years.

HILLARY BEST FOR US--OBAMA & ILLINOIS LOSES 1.5 BILLION DOLLAR COAL PROJECT

Greetings to you America, home of the free, the brave and the disenchanted. Home of the internationally disgraced, economically challenged and the politically confused. This year is a year that we can turn around our fortunes, both internationally and economically. This is the election year.

A year that has finally come around after seven years of embarrassments by a leader that no more cares for the lesser citizen than the lint in the back of his sock drawer. A chance for you and me to go to polling places across this nation and vote our conscience for who we know will be the leader to rub off the tarnish that once was most powerful, wealthy, and respected nation on this planet. Our dollar is weaker now than what it was when it was created. Our leaders are mocked rather than respected. Our leadership is more feared for its stupidity than its financial and military might.

Our three choices for our next leader boil down to a centrist conservative, a woman that has had the benefit of seeing politics from many different career angles and the third choice is a wannabe rock star.

Barack Hussien Obama the newest, latest American idol craze of politics. Whose resume barely includes two and half years of national-level work and a spotty performance as a state legislator as well as a U.S. Senator. A man who basically ran unopposed for his Senate seat and has no idea how to protect the interests of his home state, let alone run a nation.

Obama says his is the voice of change from the typical Washington politics. Who stands on bipartisanism but could never get the support of the republicans due to his lack of experience wants to unite the country. Being from the southern most part Obama's home state I can tell you when word of this man running for US Senate filtered down south, my thought first was - "Great another Chicago politician whose wallet is fattened by my tax dollar and wants me to vote for him while he gets his pet Chicago projects paid for." Well, unfortunately, I gave the man a chance since he was a Democrat--it was a costly mistake. His message of change was his rallying cry. That jobs would be created for southern Illinoisans and our coal would be used again. That all Illinoisans would be heard and their voices would enact that change.

Sound familiar?

I can tell you, as well as many others Illinoisans from across the state, my voice is still the same as it was before he was elected. A little hoarser from shouting into the wind, but still the same While he works for relief packages for the Congo, most Illinoisans go without adequate healthcare and can't pay their electric bill, we just lost one of the biggest job projects in the history of this state from the federal level, think about that on a national level. His constituents, the one's who elected him in overwhelming numbers, have now lost a $1.8 billion dollar coal refinery earmarked to help produce cleaner coal including the high sulfur, nearly unusable by EPA standards, coal of southern Illinois. The project known as the FutureGen Alliance was to build a coal energy producing plant that would reduce the amount of carbon dioxide emissions from coal refinement into energy. The fact that the state of Illinois only spent $1.5 million in their bid and the state of Texas spent $5 million in their bid to woo the FutureGen Alliance was at the forefront of a controversial Department of Energy decision to not move forward with the construction of the plant when east-central Illinois was announced as the site for the plant. What was Obama's response? Nothing yet.

America, it's time to stop thinking this is an episode of American Idol.

It is time to look hard in the mirror and get behind the one candidate, Democrat or Republican that can expertly guide this nation and turn things around.

Hillary Clinton.

Senator Clinton has been there time and time again, from Watergate to fighting for Arkansas less fortunate and as First Lady going up against Congress in an unprecedented role in the fight for health care that would be a precursor of things to come. She has the experience, the tenacity, the knowledge and more importantly, the know-how and the respect of her colleagues to navigate and effect real change this country's capital of legislative swamp. She doesn't talk change, she is change. She is growth, she has overcome and she can lead us back to respectability.

The here and now that we live in is almost as critical as when we broke free from British rule. Experience and maturity are the most important qualities that we as Americans need right now. Do we want a leader that barely has two and a half years of experience as a junior senator with no international experience and has spent more time campaigning than working for his own state? Or do we want a leader that has been entrenched in American politics from her days as a law student to a powerful voice alongside one of America's most effective leaders of all time, and one of the most effective leaders in her own right, such as 9/11 in New York and serving on the highest Congressional committee in Congress. She has been to IRAQ to talk to our troops and survey the land 6 times.

Hillary's voice is one that represents all of America. Not just the poor or uneducated as most have been misled to believe, my wife and I hold six degrees. The media's sexist bias and misinformation campaign is afraid to give her a voice and ask the tough questions of her opponent, notice how the media handles Obama with kid gloves? They don't even give her equal air time and resort to personal and family insults. What are they afraid of? A real leader?

All this voting season has been a popularity contest. This isn't high school. This is life. Vote to reclaim your life and your nation with a real candidate, vote for Hillary Clinton not a rock star wannabe.

By Michael Payne of Illinois and Crystal Basler Payne of Illinois, formerly of Virginia

IT'S AMAZING GRACE!

With Barack Hussein Obama's PULPIT PASSION, and his "CONGREGATION" lapping it up like gullible fools, one has to wonder if his supporters ARE IN DIRE NEED OF SOME GOOD OLD-FASHIONED, DOWNHOME RELIGION and should attend church services this Sunday.

"THERE IS HOPE!"
"AMEN!"
"YES, WE CAN!" (Yes, we can what?)
"HALLELUJAH!"
"CHANGE IS COMING!" (In the form of a contribution.)
"AMEN, DEACON!"

WE do not need a black PREACHER in the White House! WE do not need someone who is doing nothing but stirring emotions and tugging at the heartstrings of AMERICANS!

THINK! FOR THE LOVE OF THIS COUNTRY!

ALSO,OBAMA is using the same strategy that Karl Rove used when Bush ran for office---DIVIDE AND CONQUER---he certainly isn't uniting us. The media supported Bush just as it now favors Obama.

WE all realize that a MAJORITY of OBAMA'S supporters are the elite/well-educated and African-Americans. How sad it is to notice that RACISM HAS REARED ITS NASTY HEAD.

AMERICANS need to pull themselves together EMOTIONALLY and rely on their INTELLIGENCE, NOT THEIR THROBBING HEARTS! Selecting a presidential candidate is not the same as buying a valentine.

HILLARY is more qualified than OBAMA, she is more informed on issues. (This is why Obama does NOT want to debate her.) AND HILLARY STANDS FOR, AND WILL REPRESENT, ALL-AMERICA!

AND, it too, shall come to pass and come November, we shall have another Republican occupying the White House.

AMEN, BROTHER!

Does anyone on this blog actually remember anything REAL about the previous Clinton Administration? Say what you will in your Obama induced revery, but this Nation prospered during Bill's years in the White House and he would have been re-elected in 2000 if he was eligible to run. I suspect that is also true today. Hillary is the right candidate, and Senator Obama should be her running mate to unite the party. She has the experience, and despite what you are all deluding yourselves about, the vicious and well funded right wing noise machine will devour Senator Obama if he is the nominee. She can win the big States that we need to have an electoral victory. I am not moved that Obama got 60% of the vote in Idaho, Idaho has eleven people in it and they will all vote Republican in November. The neo-conservatives want to run against Obama. That is why they are playing nice with him right now. Hillary Clinton is a decent person who has spent much of her life trying to help the forgotten children of this world. Stop the snotty comments and recognize that this is a serious business and Senator Obama, no matter how smart he is, is untested. The guy makes a great speech, I will give you that, but so do a large number of televangelists. He is just as effective as Joel Osteen, and just as experienced on issues of national importance. For those of you who only know the previous Clinton Administration from the current media reporting, look at the current state of our Country. When Bill Clinton left office we were at peace, we were respected by our allies throughout the world, and our economy was healthy and Americans were working, buying houses, and generally happy. Look around and realize how far we have fallen under the pathetic leadership of George W. Bush. Get Barrack Obama on board with running for Vice-President. Let's have someone who can actually beat John McCain, and then really run the Country starting next January. I don't have time for on the job training with my next President and neither do you.

Thank You KRUMBAGEL -

I was hoping that someone was going to tackle this point, which I see as yet another false claim by the Clinton Administration concerning Hillary's qualifications, and hoping it would be someone located a little closer geographically to NY who might have a more detailed memory about Hillary's battles for her Senate seat.

I do remember Rick Lazio (what ever happened to him?) being thrown into the campaign at the last minute in the hope of derailing Clinton's Senate bid, but did she face anyone at all in the Democratic Primary that year, or was it a complete gift nomination from the Democratic Party? There is no doubt that New York was an easy fit for Hillary's Senate (stepping stone to the White House) bid which was why she went the "carpetbagger route" rather than return to her home in Arkansas or her previous home in Illinois where she might have to actually run against real opponents. Clearly, her reelection was nothing but a formality in 2006. So where does all of this history of defeating Republicans in hard fought campaigns against tough competitors where she was required to fend of viscious GOP attack dogs? That clearly never happened in Arkansas! Hillary did actually seek to become governor of Arkansas, again hoping to follow in her husband's ex governor footsteps. Unfortunately, she dropped her bid when polls revealed that she was likely to lose the race to her GOP opponent and Bill had to step in and run successfully for a third term as governor of Arkansas. Thank God he can't due that with the Presidency or we might be looking at Bill taking this campaign off Hillary's hands too.

Well lovelace, perhaps you might be right in a normal year...but 2008 is not normal. The level of disgust and outright loathing agaionst the Bush administration is palpable. This seems to have led to a general mobilization of voters to go to the polls in these primaries in huge numbers. If, for example, you look at the democrat versus republican turnouts across the country (even in a traditionally red state like S.C., you will find an enormous advantage for the Dems.

Now, I do not believe that huge numbers of Reps afre crossing over to the Dems -- although many are.

Rather, it may be that the way in which the Republicans are registering their disgust with Bush's inept admionistration - is to just stay home on election day.

Either way, the numbers in nearly every case are decidedly in the Dems favor.

Whether that holds for the GE, depends on who the Dems nominate and what else is happening in the world between now and then.

Well said - citystreet.

It gives me pause to think about how fragile and tenuous this leadership versus management notion is, as well.. I've been making the case, with some passion, about the differences between the guy I've come to support and Mrs. Clinton. One of the arguments I've tried to advance is that Hillary seems to be a very good legislator, smart, extremely quick on her feet with regard to policy detail, and able to "horse-trade" across the aisle. But, I've argued, she does not seem to have that capacity to inspire, the innate ability to paint a vision for folks and then to marshall the forces to work together to achieve a goal.

Now, this stumble suggests that perhaps her judgment about selecting and delegating responsibilities may not be as keen as one would hope. Of course, we are all hypersensitive about President being able to choose the correct key players to handle the work of our country...Bush has failed time after time.

So, I find myself, feeling just a little bit sorry for Hillary...but validated in my original assessment of her strengths and weaknesses.

I'm glad I've made a real commitment to Obama.

As far as the red states that Barrack won he won't win them in general election. South carolina will never be a blue state (GA,AL,Utah, etc) Hillary can win AR, TN, OH, and maybe even FL.

Barrack destroyed his chance with hispanics when he ran the spanish ads in Nevada. Bad decision.

The dilemma with Hillary's campaign is that her senior management team despite being well financed and she being the establishment candidate with access to huge resources has done a very poor job in managing her campaign. They have been completely outsmarted and out strategize by the Obama's team. One very recent glaring example was the timing in replacing Doyle, a Hispanic female, as campaign manager with Williams who happens to be a black female. They have already lost the black vote, at this point, and with Texas and Ohio having a very large percentage of Hispanic voters who they will need to rely on to stay competitive, why alienate Hispanic voters by playing another race card? The Williams for Doyle swap could have certainly waited a couple more weeks until after the Texas and Ohio primaries. They really had nothing to lose and much to gain. From the looks of thing, Obama's team does not need much help into "hacking" into the Clinton's firewall in March ...They have already provided them with the encryption key to decode the circuit. I shutter to think that these would be the same people who would be running her campaign in a general election in the event she so happens to beat Obama to the finish line for the nomination

"Either choice represents a risk for Democrats."

You nailed it, Chris.

This was true a year ago. It's still true today. The Big 3: Clinton, Obama, Edwards have always had big problems.

I voted for Obama in my state caucus, but I think Joe Biden was the most solid candidate across the board from the beginning. No one ever gave him the time of day.

Hillary and Barack have had all the flash, but also the highest potential negatives. That's what we're left with still today.

Grey is Obama your daddy???

The Clinton Campaign has now come full circle; returning to the claim that she repeatedly trumpeted during the Iowa campain that she was the "most electable" of all the Democratic candidates. If this is the best her newly restructured campaign team can do, she is in even deeper trouble than I thought. I did not believe those claims before Christmas when Hillary still enjoyed leads of more than 20% over Obama im virtually every national poll, and I'm certainly not going to buy into it at this stage of the campaign.

By suggesting that the GOP will be able to define Obama in some negative way that will destroy his candidacy is the same old "politics of fear" that both the Clintons and Bush have been using for decades. Hillary fails to remind voters that it was largely the spector of the Clinton campaign that the GOP used to define Al Gore and many people (certainly Democrats) believe that he still beat George W Bush in 2000. Four years ago, John Kerry came very close to defeating Bush despite the fact that Bush was an incumbant and had very strong support from the right wing evangelical base. If Kerry would have ben able to turn out the vote better in one or two key states (Ohio in particular) he would have taken that election away from an incumbant who is much more popular with the GOP than McCain is in 2008. With all due respect to both Gore and Kerry, neither had the grassroots organization that Senator Obama has been building or the inspirational leadership that has created the groundswell of enthusiastic support that has been responsible for record democratic turnout in virtually every state this primary season.

Make no mistake about it; the Clintons have been looking for any way they could find to redfine Barrack Obama for the entire primary season. They have not shyed away from trying to exploit every little thing they could find or inventing lies when they came away empty in their search for skeletons in his closet. The fact that the Clintons apear to believe that every candidate running for President must have the same kind of baggage (scandals and corruption) in their background that Bill and Hillary have should tell voters everything they need to know about Hillary's candidacy.

The premise that Hillary would be better equipped to take on McCain on the issue of National Security is absolutely absurd. National Security has been the weakest area for Hillary against Senator Obama and it's downright insulting to the intelligence of Democratic voters for her campaign to suggest the she (who voted to authorize the War in Iraq) and her draft dodging husband would somehow fare better against a war hero than Senator Obama.

With McCain as the apparent GOP nominee, the independent voters will likely once again be critical in this election. It was that important block of voters that allowed the Democrats to wrestle control of Congress away from the GOP (after they lost that control in the first mid term elections after Bill and Hillary's first trip to the Oval Office. I doubt there is a political pundit anywhere who would say that Hillary has a prayer of winning the Independent Voters against McCain, but most of them would give Obama at least a slight edge with Independents. In addition to the all important Independent voters, Obama will energize the Democratic base and create a higher turnout which can deliver states that have gone to the GOP in close elections the previous two elections (the MidWest could be the key). Obama is even a threat to capture a fair amount of votes from dissatisfied Republicans (those dissatisfied both by 8 years of George W Bush's failed leadership and the nomination of McCain). All Hillary will do is energize the Republican base and those right wing radio talk show host who have not been able to get themselves into this race on their own or be inspired by Senator McCain. In addition to taking key MidWestern states away from the GOP, Senator Obama is a possible threat in several southern states that have large African American voter registration - states that Hillary has no chance whatsoever of taking. At the very least, Obama would require the GOP to work much harder and invest far more time and money to hold those states which could make them more vulnerable in several key swing states. I see no reason to doubt what the polls are saying about Clintons chances VS Obama's chances for defeating McCain. Look at the HUGE swing in momentum that has occurred over the past 3 months. Would you rather place your money (or your hopes) on the candidate who has lost 20-30 points in most states that have voted, or would you rather have the candidate who has been making up that kind of ground? Obama has fared far better in states when he has had more time on the ground to make himself known to voters; while Clinton has suffered more in states that presented a more prolonged campaign on the ground. A prolonged National campaign against McCain clearly favors Obama and works against Clinton.

I hope the Clinton campaign continues to make electability the cornerstone of their campaign for the rest of the primary season, because it is a case they can NOT win with the voters. The only thing that has prevented Clinton from losing all viability as an electable candidate at all over the course of the last 3 months is that large cushion of Super Delegate votes she has been counting on to steal the nomination away from Senator Obama. Democrats need to keep in mind that Hillary will not benefit from a single Super Delegate vote in the general election.

Barack Obama is the candidate who is best qualified to provide real "leadership" and change the direction of this country's government at a time when change is absolutely essential, AND Barack Obama is the most electable candidate in a general election against John McCain. Obama '08

dcmenefee1,

I apologize for my last comment, I did you a great injustice. I hit send too soon. I totally sympathize with you. You are making very, very valid points, and I'm just as annoyed as you are with this horse race nonsense where strategy is a daily headline and issues are buried, if considered at all.

I deeply feel that either Democratic candidate will vastly exceed anything you can expect from even the very best Republican candidate -- who I feel is Mr. McCain, by the way.

My personal measure is: who is most likely to lead a national unity government? Because I do believe we are on the edge of a precipice, and many people are laying aside ideology at the moment to deal with that. So I hate seeing ideological ranting. Which your message most certainly was not.

Again, I very much apologize.

OK, enough. Rezko has been fully vetted, and amounts to nothing. Besides, Rezko was widely considered a decent developer in Chicago for a vey long time. But, assuming we accept that Rezko is a problem, that pales in comparison to the Clintons' laundry list of shady deals (which are too numerous to list). And what about McCain and the Keating 5 scandal? Seriously, Obama looks like a saint compared to the Clintons and McCain.

What about the 5 hours he spend working for Rezko. He received $200,000 in campaign money not to mention the cash he got!!!

Posted by: mw_lovelace | February 11, 2008 11:39 PM

^^^^^^^^^^

Hey Lovelace -- got home from work early eh?

Another hot time on the old town?

Make sure you hang up your sheet and hood.

BTW - How's that cross-burning thing workin' for ya.

dcmenefee1,

"So where are the tough questions for Obama?"

Well, Hillary has had 18 debates to pose them directly to Obama, so I think it's a little lame to blame the MSM. Maybe you should blame Hillary? But don't: so many others are already blaming her for so much irrational nonsense, it would just be piling on.

FirstMouse, so many facts, so little context! Nice example of cherry-picking.

Re: the statement: "Clinton is the more polarizing figure of the two, but what else bad could be said about her that voters haven't already heard?"

This "conventional wisdom" totally ignores that the Clintons have not been under presidential race-type scrutiny for 8 years -- 8 years in which they made a lot of money and raised huge money for Bill's library. Does anyone really not believe that the Repooblicans are not busy turning over every leaf regarding supposed Saudi contributions to the Clinton libary (the Clintons won't even release the donor list), Bill's shady dealings with Ron Burkle, more very shady sounding dealings with a Candian uranium magnate in Asia (as chronicled in the WP and NYT), etc., etc.? The vetting of Hillary (and Bill's financial dealings will be a "valid" issue, thanks in part to the $5 mil loan to the campaign) has not even begun! I am not making a pro-Obama point here, I just think the "they've given her everything they've got and she's still standing" argument for Hillary's electability is empty-headed: afetr all, her nagatives are in the mid-40 range, NOW, before the "attack machine" has even revved up this cycle.

And, BTW all those who think that either theReps are going to eat Obama for lunch
Or
would not have tried to give Hillary her just rewards for all the "35 years of experience" she has...

Here's what I think:

Obama is a clean, lean fighting machine..

and Hillary would have been hoist on the own petard (as they say).

Luckily for her...the hundreds of bombs the Reps have waiting for her will not get dropped on her sputtering, tap-dancing candidacy.

Enough is enough.

Your ball.

What about the 5 hours he spend working for Rezko. He received $200,000 in campaign money not to mention the cash he got!!!

kingofzouk spews undigested Limbaugh episodes for our amusement. Thanks for the laugh, "king!"

I agree with the previous poster and would add that any cursory examination of Mrs. Clinton's 35 years of experience will find several interesting anomolies - including the 15 years she worked as a partner at the Rose law firm in Arkansas.

Then there is the time she spent as first lady in the white house...during which she crafted and guided throught Congress a comprehensive healthcare bill - with the help of her husband and a Democratic Congress.

What's that?

Oh yes, she FAILED to craft and pass a comprehensive healthcare bill with the help of her husband (the PRESIDENT) and a Democratic Congress.

Here are a few other facts that bear directly on the tremendous job the junior Senator from New York has done since she actually started earning her own political experiences.

(This listing was complied by another resercher and I post it here for your edification).

Senator Clinton, who has served six (6.) years in the Senate including a year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation.

1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.

2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.

4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.

5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.

6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.

7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.

9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.

10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.

12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.

13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.

14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.

15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.

Only five of Clinton's bills are, more substantive.

16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.

17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11 18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.

19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.

20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.

Obama's list is too substantive, so to categorize, (however) during the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills.

He introduced:

233 regarding healthcare reform,

125 on poverty and public assistance,

112 crime fighting bills,

97 economic bills,

60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,

21 ethics reform bills,

15 gun control,

6 veteran's affairs and many others

His first year in the U.S. Senate, he co-authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427.

These included **the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),

**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),

**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate, **The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),

**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.

www.thomas.loc.gov

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

As even the untrained eye can see...Hillary has contributed mightly to advance the cause of freedom, justice and the American way.

NOT!

Umm, Thinker, proudtobeGOP, why are so intent on maintaining that Obama has no substance? You both seem adept at using the internet - why not do a simple search and watch one of the numerous Q&A sessions Obama has done in the past few months? See, for example, the nearly hour-long discussion with the SF chronicle editorial board. He is just as good, if not better than Hillary at details and issues (he was president of HLS Law review after all, where details are key). Obama makes inspirational speeches because that's what you're supposed to do in front of 20,000 people. His speech fits the forum. Obama supporters are not just blind followers - we know he is both substance and style.

mgcrhcp:

"I am a registered democrat. I will vote for ANYONE running against hillary clinton !!!"

Then you should certainly un-register as a Democrat. Obama and Clinton are two of our very best hearts and minds, and if you can't support either, I don't know what you are, but you certainly aren't a Democrat.

Barrack likes to say that his judgment is superior to Hillary but if you look at his record as an Illinois State senator you will see bad judgments and poor decision making. His dealings with Rezko and the poor people he let down as their only representative is unbelievable. His past will be his undoing.

Clinton feels experience is the best measure of leadership and being there taking heat makes her best able to take more heat.

Obama believes leadership is about vision, about his ability to work with others, about making decisions based on moral guidance.

Which kind of leader do you want, one with lots of experience who others dislike alot and attack alot? Or, a leader with a vision of where we need to go in the future and how to get us there by working with others. The choice is all ours. Go for it.

I'll say it! Race will be a factor in the general election. More than sex, race will cause Barrack to lose. He has used it when he needed to (South Carolina) and it will come back to cost him. Barrack would be a disaster for the Democrats. The people I know will not vote for him because they see him as using his race to beat down his opponents and at the same time saying he above all the race baiting.

As we know, the Thinker likes to get in someone's face and ask questions.

A couple of days ago the Thinker threw out a different sort of challange.
I responded, as is my wont to do, but he never signed back on...

so I thought that maybe he would enjoy reading what I had to offer on the Idea that Republicans would never...

Thinker wrote:
Republicans are never going to vote for Obama - what a ploy.

^^^^^^^^

Hey thinker --you must be right - of course. I think that you must be mostly right...

But this is what they (the moderate Republicans) are writing about in the public press:

"What is at the core of Obama's appeal?

Part of it is the eloquence and uplift of his speeches, combined with his personal grace and dignity. By all accounts, Obama is a well-grounded, decent, thoughtful man. He comes across, in his person and manner, as nonpartisan. He has an unsurpassed ability to (seemingly) transcend politics. Even when he disagrees with people, he doesn't seem disagreeable. ....

A second reason Republicans appreciate Obama is that he is pitted against a couple, the Clintons, whom many Republicans hold in contempt. Among the effects of the Obama-Clinton race is that it is forcing Democrats to come to grips with the mendacity and ruthlessness of the Clinton machine.

Conservatives have long believed that the Clintons are an unprincipled pair who will destroy those who stand between them and power --

When the Clintons were doing this in the 1990s, it was viewed by many Democrats as perfectly acceptable. Some even applauded them for their brass-knuckle tactics. But now that the Clintons are roughing up an inspiring young man who appears to represent the hope and future of the Democratic Party, the liberal establishment is reacting with outrage. "I think we've reached an irrevocable turning point in liberal opinion of the Clintons," writes Jonathan Chait of the New Republic. Many conservatives respond: It's about time.

A third reason for Obama's GOP appeal is that unlike Clinton and especially John Edwards, Obama has a message that, at its core, is about unity and hope rather than division and resentment. He stresses that "out of many we are one."

And to his credit, Barack Obama is running a color-blind campaign. "I did not travel around this state over the last year and see a white South Carolina or a black South Carolina," Obama said in his victory speech last weekend. "I saw South Carolina."

That evening, his crowd of supporters chanted as one, "Race doesn't matter." This was an electric moment. Obama's words are in the great tradition of Martin Luther King Jr. Obama, more than any figure in America, can help bind up the racial wounds of America.

In addition, for the past eight years, one of the most prominent qualities of the American left has been anger, which has served it and the country very poorly. An Obama primary win would be a move away from the politics of rage."

The writer, formerly deputy assistant to President Bush, is a senior fellow at the Ethics and Public Policy Center.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

So... thinker, if you take a few minutes to read the newspapers (opinion pages and letters to the editors) of 2 dozen daily newspapers - and do that every day - like some political junkies do - what you see is a huge number of Republican faithful beginning to listen to Obama's message of HOPE and TRUST in each other.

As he tells audiences (he spoke yesterday in Seattle while Hillary was just down the street) like the 17,000 who completely filled the arena and to the additional 4,500 who stood outside (in the rain)"

"We ARE the ones We've been waiting for."

If the Democratic Party plays not to lose, the only thing they are promising themselves is not to win. Kerry was the safe choice. Unfortunately, he was the wrong choice. Do not do it again.

Like many of us - I read a lot of comments and blogs posted to open (or close) conversations.
Yesterday I ran across a sudden flood of commentary that addressed criticsms of Barack Obama's record.

One was posted by: Chilmark on February 10, 2008.

Here is an excerpt worth taking the time to read.

***
Similarly, people often wonder whether Obama's call for a new kind of politics is just empty words. Here again, I think he has a real record to point to. He has consistently worked for ethics reform. In Illinois, where he helped pass what the WaPo called "the most ambitious campaign reform in nearly 25 years, making Illinois one of the best in the nation on campaign finance disclosure."
In the US Senate, he was the Democrats' point man on ethics, and was deeply involved in the ethics legislation passed this year. He didn't get all he wanted -- for instance, he and Russ Feingold couldn't get a bill establishing an Office of Public Integrity to deal with Congressional scandals. But he accomplished a lot, and wants to accomplish more.

Moreover, he is very interested in open government. The searchable database of government grant and contract recipients that I mentioned above is part of that.

But Obama's proposals (pdf) go further.

For instance, consider these proposals:
* Centralize Ethics and Lobbying Information for Voters: Obama will create a centralized Internet database of lobbying reports, ethics records, and campaign finance filings in a searchable, sortable and downloadable format.

* Create a Public "Contracts and Influence" Database: As president, Obama will create a "contracts and influence" database that will disclose how much federal contractors spend on lobbying, and what contracts they are getting and how well they complete them.

* Expose Special Interest Tax Breaks to Public Scrutiny: Barack Obama will ensure that any tax breaks for corporate recipients -- or tax earmarks -- are also publicly available on the Internet in an easily searchable format.

* End Abuse of No-Bid Contracts: Barack Obama will end abuse of no-bid contracts by requiring that nearly all contract orders over $25,000 be competitively awarded.

* Sunlight Before Signing: Too often bills are rushed through Congress and to the president before the public has the opportunity to review them. As president, Obama will not sign any non-emergency bill without giving the American public an opportunity to review and comment on the White House website for five days.

* Make White House Communications Public: Obama will amend executive orders to ensure that communications about regulatory policymaking between persons outside government and all White House staff are disclosed to the public.

* Conduct Regulatory Agency Business in Public: Obama will require his appointees who lead the executive branch departments and rulemaking agencies to conduct the significant business of the agency in public, so that any citizen can see in person or watch on the Internet these debates.

These are all proposals designed to allow public scrutiny of the business of government. As I read it, one of Obama's goals in introducing them is to permanently alter the incentives politicians have.

As long as legislators did not have to disclose their earmarks, there was no way of finding out that the person who stuck a favor for an obscure casino in one state into an appropriations bill was from another state entirely. There was therefore no way for that person's constituents to wonder why s/he was expending political capital on people outside the district, and no way for reporters to see just who was doing that casino favors. Once legislators have to own up to their earmarks, however, that changes. It won't make abuse go away, of course, but it does make it a lot easier for people to notice and object to the fact that their representatives are doing inexplicable favors for people they have no obvious reason for caring about.

Likewise, if all bills had to be posted to the internet five days before they were voted on signed (oops), it would be much, much more difficult for Congress to sneak some appalling provision through in the dead of night.

If all contracts over $25,000 had to be competitively bid, certain sorts of corruption would be a lot more difficult to carry out. And if there were a database of tax breaks and tax earmarks, not to mention a database of lobbyists, it would, again, be much, much easier to track who was doing favors for whom, and why.

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

Posts like these can help those of us who like the person to begin to see how he might debate against John McCain, (who is a fiscal hawk), and how he will lead this country.

Michelle Obama is on Larry King right now. Obama is uniting folks around hope not race.
______

Is that like when she says to an all black audience, "It's our turn" or "Black People should vote for Barack because we need a black President". Just wondering,