Even if HIllary does win in PA, I still don't think that she has a chance of winning the primaries just based on the math. Also not helping her is the recent comments she made regarding the bosnian snipers. check out this video. a sample of what's to come.

http://campaigncircus.com/video_player.php?v=8816

Clinton - Forget about your bloated ego... and get out of the way of the NEW Democratic Party ! America needs a 21st Century Candidate -

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Peterdc, Hillary Clinton should graciously step out NOW! Her campaign is ruining chances of democratic victory in November. She causes a lot of damage ; and she can't win the nomination in August any way. To step out, and the faster-the better, is the only graceful move, which is available for her.

mark_in_austin, I agree at the politics/religion mix. That's what scared me about Huckabee's "rewrite the constitution in line with the bible", which I heard him say. (I don't think, it would have been an issue with Romney.)

With Wright - I don't like him and I would not vote for him for President. But I would vote for Obama.

-----

egc52556,

about campaign managing and funds:

obama
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80003338

mccain
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P80002801

clinton
http://www.fec.gov/DisclosureSearch/mapApp.do?drillLevel=US&stateName=&cand_id=P00003392

( The PAC category is what caught my eye. These are the "lobbyists" and "special interests". )

It is sad to see all these negative comments about HRC. Reading some of your comments, one would think that she is an evil person and also all those people voting for her are either brain-dead or lacking any fair judgments, including half of the primary voters in the big states. I have voted for both parties in the past. This year I would vote for democrats as economy and Iraq war is my main concern.
I believe in Hillary's ability in leading this country. I voted for her in the primary. But I also admire Obama's ability to bring upon change and energy among our young voters. I support HRC but I would not bash Obama as I think he will have a very good chance to get nominated. But referring HRC as dead man walking is naive. Had winner takes all applied to the democratic primary as in the national election, HRC would have had more delegates.
You have your right to choose your candidates but don't bash the other candidates or the ones who vote for them.

rickozz- as a humourist you have no future- as a politcal pundit you haven't one either- as someone who is nasty- there you may have a future.

It is comments from those like you who support Obama that will hurt him rather than help him. The nastiness of the Obama supporters on line is a little mind boggling. Also your failure to see any of the flaws in your candidate. And mind you he is flawed, as is Clinton, perfect people don't run for President. The give and take of politics and it is a tough game doesn't allow for perfect people. Hillary may have her Hsu and Obama has his Rezko.

The reality I wish that people online would focus on especially if they are Democrats is how we beat the Repbulicans. I will vote for either Obama or Clinton. I know people who say they are Democrats and sadly say they won't vote for one or the other.

But i want a Democrat picking the next Supreme Court justice. I want a Democrat producing the next budget. I want a Democrat to lead us out of war and I think that both Obama and Clinton will do those things well.

The issue is who is electable and I haven't seen a reality scenario where Obama is. I give both of them credit to be able to win all the states that Kerry won. Clinton is ahead of McCain in Ohio and Obama is far behind him. If Clinton has Strickland as her VP she will win Ohio. She will also most concede win Arkansas. That gives us the Presidency.

There are no southern or Bush states that Obama is yet sure to win. Women make up about 54% of the electorate in the county and are the majority in many states. Hillary will win the women's vote in a general. Even if she wins it by a small amount due to the fact that it is the majority vote it will make a difference. Obama will win the African American vote by a big margin but they are not nearly the majority in any state. Overall they make up only about 9% of the electorate. And don't let anyone fool you we are a racist country. We are racist, sexist and homophobic, but this will be an election where white men with incomes of less than $50,000 can make the difference and Hillary has shown she can get their votes in crucial states and Obama has not.

So the way I see it Hillary Clinton is the candidate who can win the Presidency. That is what I care about.

I won't trash Obama becasue if he is the candidate I will vote and even work for him. I just think he can't win. I am just hoping that some reasonble people on here will be just as gracious to Hillary even if you don't see her winning. After all its about issues not people. Its about keeping John McCain out of the White and keeping Joe Lieberman from being secy of state. It's about the next justice and about decency.

Hillary Clinton will never be President of the USA. Her negatives are way too high. When have of the country is against you from the start and then you lie about everything you've been through, how in heaven's name do you expect to win? Stupid Economy or not, Hillary has NO SHOT.

CLINTON'S 2012 STRATEGY!

Some say that I, Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, should have spent Easter weekend in Chappaqua, writing my withdrawal speech and preparing for my return to the Senate. They ask why I stay in the '08 race when Obama has an insurmountable lead in states, delegates, and popular vote. My strategy is for victory in the 2012 presidential election. I will continue to pursue several lines of attack on Obama including denouncing his experience, blaming him for the fiascos in Michigan & Florida, and even praising our Republican rival Senator John McCain as more patriotic and experienced than Obama. My goal is to do extensive damage to Obama to ensure that he looses the general election in '08 and pave the way for my eventual election in 2012! It's a HILLARIOUS strategy, but I will be president by any means necessary.

proud, you are correct that it makes me feel uncomfortable. But I am always uncomfortable with the religion/politics mix. I assumed Romney's religion had nothing to do with his candidacy despite numbers of posters here who thought otherwise. That is the closest analogy I can draw.

I did not bother to ask Rufus to give "Mormonism" a rest, although I did once crticize his anti-Catholic rant. I do not like Hagee, but there the analogy is weaker than with Romney and his church.

I think so much better of you than I do Rufus [do not take that as damnation by faint praise!]. You have a lot to add to this blog. Seriously.

Mark, Anytime there is a major development during campaign season, it is cause for much discussion. I would say this qualifies as a major development, and it is not becoming of your stature as the self-appointed voice of moderation here, to so quickly try to silence the conversation. I understand this whole topic may make you uncomfortable, especially as it casts a negative light on a candidate to whom you have given the benefit of the doubt and have grown to admire over time it seems.

Your objectivity is waning, it would seem, oh independent thinker.

It is Obama's failure to nip the problem in the bud long ago that is the real issue, not whether he agrees with every invective from the pulpit of his church. I've never said that I think he does. Obama continues to put the issue front and center, with his speech and his subsequent remarks to defend it.

And just last week, Obama told America: "I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community."

What is the plain meaning of that sentence? That the paranoid racist ravings of Jeremiah Wright are now part of the established cultural discourse in African-American life and thus must command our respect? I beg to differ.

The debate will continue.

Posted by s_nick_k on politico.com board:
The mortgage and credit crisis is a problem that does need to be dealt with in a timely manner. It is important to design a response that is well though out, not a shoot from the hip "solution" that fails to consider all of the consequences.
Forming a high profile commission might be a bad idea, it undermines the position and effectiveness of the Federal Reserve. It would be far better to work through the Federal Reserve than to appoint a commission of former board leaders who are going to need time to get back up to speed with the data and are frankly getting a little old for this kind of thing. We should help the Federal Reserve as much as possible with this situation, but we need to remember that help is assistance that they ask for, interference is assistance they don't ask for. The last thing that we need is to distract the Federal Reserve by forcing them to deal with another commission.
The plan calling for the government to buy out and guarantee the mortgages does not appear to be well thought out at this point. The lending institutions had a large part in creating this crisis, first in using questionable qualification process in granting loans and second in building catastrophic conditions like balloon payments and adjustable rates. Our first step should be to regulate the lenders predatory practices, not to throw them more money. The Federal Government might have to buy out and guarantee loans, but we need to address the root cause before we start writing blank checks.

If Sen. Clinton "will spotlight the nation's fiscal troubles and her allegedly unique ability to solve them.", isn't it fair that we look at how she manages her personal and campaign finances as a way of measuring her financial abilities?

Exhibit #1, personal: No tax returns available. What is she hiding?

Exhibit #2, campaign: At end of February had only $3M in the bank compared to Obama's $30M. See this article, "The Woman in Red": http://www.capitolhillblue.com/cont/node/4977

Peace.
.
.
.

Furthermore, it's been widely documented that "Limbaugh Republicans" tipped Texas to Clinton. But at the rate you're going, you'll find that out in a month or two.

A commenter above says you erred in claiming a 16-point margin of victory for Clinton in California. And you did.
According to the California Secretary of State's web page, with 100 percent of the vote counted, Hillary Clinton had 51.8 percent of the vote, and Barack Obama had 42.9. That's a difference of 8.9 percentage points. Not 16.
You need to run a correction, and maybe take a remedial course in basic reporting. That's sloppy work. Ironic, considering your posture as Mr. Know-It-All. Readers beware.

Agreed, Mark.

Ahh! Lamb in NZ. Thanks for the pastoral imagery.

I have now watched the HRC speech on my computer. I do not think it adds anything new to the discussion. In fact, everyone on this blog, from right to left, saw the stimulus plan as bipartisan junk.

HRC is proposing, quite openly, to have a fed bailout of the ten localities that are hardest hit. I question if that is good public policy. For a state or locality to issue bonds to refinance home mortgages to keep the property tax base in tact makes sense, but why is that a federal responsibility?

The levees in south Louisiana are a federal responsibility. Impounded navigable water
is federal. But local property tax bases are not constitutionally federal responsibilities and I would hate to see this as precedent.

earlier from drindl:

"Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups continue to have access to the funds they need for active and expanded indoctrination, recruitment, maintenance, armament and operations," said Victor D. Comras, a former United Nations terrorism finance official."

And

"Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other key nations have not taken the necessary steps to crack down on terrorist financing or suspect money flowing across their borders."

This is the KEY.

This is one the reasons we need to re-deploy our troops immediately. Get them out of Iraq as quickly as possible. Use our money much more effectively. Use our influence much more effectively. Utilize our fighting men and women much more effectively.

Iraq is not the 'central front' in the War on Terror. It is disastrous, draining, weakening diversion.

'You're not only a lying SwiftBoater, you're a cowardly one.'

and you, bonehead, lack the ability to reason coherently.

mark, The Preacher is all over the rightwing talkshow spectrum, 24/7. it's all they talk about. turn on rush, hannity, fox, coulter, et al -- anytime, this is all they are focusing on, to try to prey on white americans' fears. since that's clearly all she listens to, it's going to be al she talks about -- my guess till November.

Getting back to the economy, there was an interesting side point in an article in the LA times about preparing lamb for Easter: the lamb industry in New Zealand has become a thriving and dominant business ever since the gov't stopped subsidizing it.

Three remarks of Rev. Wright have brought condemnation, which I will shorthand:

"Chickens coming home to roost";
"GD America"; and
"HIV".

[Are there more, I do not recall]

The first was relatively common in UCC, UMC, and UPC churches in "liberal" communities; I would say unfortunately. While the point that we could do a better job "keeping our side of the street clean" is a valid one, the sound of blaming victims is ugly.

The second was said in a sermon that ended with a call to the congregants to do what was right to seek God's blessing - a valid point, made in a grossly insulting way.

The third was plainly ignorant and paranoid.

What surprises me is that we have not seen more. If these come from his published sermons, I am sure BHO's opponents have poured over them for these gems.

I had not wanted to comment on this as a distraction, but Proud is insistent that this is a measure of BHO, himself.

Proud, if these are not typical of the guy's sermons, then they are completely meaningless in the campaign. If they are typical, I am sure we will see/hear more in weeks to come. But you could leave it alone for a day or two.

Chris,
Did you stop checking the CA results at midnight on Feb 5th and never look again? Even your own paper lists the final result as a 10% margin http://projects.washingtonpost.com/2008-presidential-candidates/primaries/states/ca/d/Maybe It's my understanding that the final tally including the late absentee ballots (as distinct from the early votes,and counted last) was closer to a 7.5% margin. Thats a far cry from the 16% you assert in your post.
I may have misread your original post, but, if that's the case, you need to clean up the writing.

So let me get this straight.. Hillary's plan is for the Government to take over the failing loans from citizens that were too stupid or too greedy not to live within their means? Great plan based upon experience obviously, notably the WHITEWATER Savings and Loan contribution to the last mortgage (savings and loan collapses) crisis. Whereby the Clintons were part and parcel in creating the last national crisis and the last taxpayer financed buyout of failed loans. Whatever Hillary, get your hands out of my pockets, still a crook. Fool me once...

"your hatred of hillary has driven you insane, 'bondjedi' -- you are seeing stuff that's not there."

drindl wrote: "I guess it's either naivete or depravity that keeps Catholics in the Church, considering its centuries long policy of institutional coddling and protection of child-sodomizing pedophile priests."

You're not only a lying SwiftBoater, you're a cowardly one.

Why is anyone paying attention to the Clintons? Hillary can't win the nomination. She's a Dead Candidate Walking. If the roles were reversed, you know Obama would be getting no coverage. He would be asked constantly why he was still running, he would be ridiculed as completely unrealistic.

Obama has out campaigned her, he has more delegates, more money, more energized supporters. He has done an end run around the Democratic power structure and they don't even know what hit 'em. They, and that includes the MSM, can't imagine how it ever happened because all they do is talk to themselves. Pay attention to what's happening on the ground.

It's time or Hillary to stop the drama and support Obama. Enough of this whitewater river trip down down deNile. We've got real work to do.

Proud: Many of my friends have stated there was no way they would support Obama because of recent revelations. I think my "Feeling" about something being bad wrong about him are now being realized as accurate. I don't see how I could ever vote for him, and will support McCain if he is the Dem nominee.

I'm an Obama supporter, bonehead.

'Typical Clintonista doubletalk - I am not criticizing Catholics, I am just pointing out that they are naive and depraved.

Up is down, white is black, the sun rises in the west, Hillary clearly won the nomination.'

your hatred of hillary has driven you insane, 'bondjedi' -- you are seeing stuff that's not there. Get some fresh air.

"I am not criticizing Catholics at all. "

Typical Clintonista doubletalk - I am not criticizing Catholics, I am just pointing out that they are naive and depraved.

Up is down, white is black, the sun rises in the west, Hillary clearly won the nomination.

Then drindl writes
"I guess it's either naivete or depravity that keeps Catholics in the Church, considering its centuries long policy of institutional coddling and protection of child-sodomizing pedophile priests."

You misunderstand. I am not criticizing Catholics at all. I am saying that people sometimes accept that their church leadership or their religion is imperfect, is human, makes grievous errors, but still believe that it serves a greater good overall, and continue to attend.

And that is all I am saying about Obama and his church and Catholics as well. My sister is one. We have had this discussion.

"Do you think Romney's Mormon faith was a valid political issue?"

Anytime a candidate for President is a memeber of a church that is seen as outside the mainstream enough to provoke valid discussions of said candidate's core beliefs, then it becomes an issue.

It is perfectly reasonable to question whether one's words on the campaign trail are consistent with their actions over time and with whom they chose to associate and have advise them.

If Romney had put a bishop from his church on a committee in his presidential campaign, then it would've been a huge issue to you, no?

'Since their attempt to use the great Rev. Wright as a millstone was such an abysmal failure, maybe they can use the bizarre links you have created between Obama and his endorser as proof that the Senator supports pedophilia.'

what on earth are you talking about? huh? that doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

ProudtobeGOP writes:

"All this bunk has been disproven in last week's revelations about Senator Obama and his lifelong mentor Rev Wright."

Lifelong mentor? Please do not stretch the truth. For twenty years, Wright has aided Obama in his community organization efforts to great avail. He said some mean things about our country in the process. But accusing America of being racist is not racist in itself; there's a fine line here that is not being recognized by the media. Wright never said anything about whites being bad people for being white, he said that our country runs on white supremacy and black inferiority - a truth that was perfectly accurate decades ago and now exists only in obscure and intangible ways, though it exists nonetheless.

"Either he joined the church out of political convenience, rather than faith or else he last week jettisoned the long relationship with Pastor Wright out of convenience rather than conviction."

One, this church is clearly not politically convenient, and I'll remind you, the black vote was behind Clinton for almost all of 2007, until Billy screwed up in South Carolina. After SC, the Clintons recognized what many Republicans did long ago - they can still win even while entirely ignoring the black culture. They just need to get more white people to compensate for the difference.

Two, he did not jettison his relationship with Wright. If you watched the speech, you'd know this.

And don't quote pundits to me. I don't need to know what the Townhall people are saying. Remember, pundits are not sources for facts or true information. They are merely opinions from people who may or may not present qualified ideas or theories regarding politicians - they all have their motives - to say ridiculous and outlandish things so more people read them. Case in point - Ann Coulter.

See, drindl? Even the rabid lib bondjarjar has now heaped scorn on you. You've managed to piss off even the angriest lib on the board. Well done!

Proud... Obama has stated that he was an unbeliever prior to joining Trinity, so it was a search for faith that led him there.

If it were political calculation (the need to be seen as part of a congregation acceptable to the mainstream), he'd hardly pick a church that is "Unashamedly Black". For that matter, why not make a simple slide to a blander congregation once he ran for statewide office? Then at this point, he could simply say he felt uncomfortable with some views expressed in the church and the wedge issue wouldn't exist. He didn't take the easy way out.

Let's put the double standard a different way. The Mormon church has a long history of racism and a strictly male heirarchy. Married women have to go to confession heard by a teenager (a friend of mine in high school was a bishop). I, like many, found Huckabee's insituations beyond the pale. Do you think Romney's Mormon faith was a valid political issue?

BB

Chris -
I'm a huge fan and an Obama supporter, but even I can read a little (probably subconscious) bias in this article.

You say: "will spotlight the nation's fiscal troubles and her allegedly unique ability to solve them."

The word "allegedly" is a bit pejorative and is almost challenging in its tone. Perhaps a more neutral: "and her belief that she is the best candidate to solve them" might be better?

As much as I love Chris, MSNBC and Obama, I love an impartial media most of all. Sometimes, as in Chris Matthews' absolutely fawning over Obama has me feeling the right wing sometimes is right about these things.

"I guess it's either naivete or depravity that keeps Catholics in the Church, considering its centuries long policy of institutional coddling and protection of child-sodomizing pedophile priests."

That's a good bit of grass roots spin. Carry it to Wolfson & Penn, like a cat drags a downed blue jay to its mistress. Since their attempt to use the great Rev. Wright as a millstone was such an abysmal failure, maybe they can use the bizarre links you have created between Obama and his endorser as proof that the Senator supports pedophilia. You are scum and filth and deserve the scorn heaped on you.

Certainly its the economy stupid! The folks in Ohio who are desperatly trying to hold on to body and soul can tell you this in no uncertain way...

Maybe, for you white glove liberal effiets you all can afford to quibble and whiff about such esoteric things like "G-Dam America" doesn't really mean G-Dam America it only means Bean bag... However for the working class stiff, we have more pressing matters. Like how are we going to continue to pay our morgages, put bread on the table and get our kid in to see a doctor after he breaks his arm and we've just lost our insurance because we NO Longer HAVE A JOB (or have had our insurance dropped because of cost cutting by our employer)!

Tell me whose the stupid one? The educated idot who wishes to focus on White Washing the issues so that his or her fellow gets elected. Or the person that knows that its time to vote his or her pocket book if they wish to survive......

Bah.....Birddog

You are now officially a shill for Hillary.

Wisconsin doesn't care about the economy , so they voted for Obama.

You really believe this, or are you now paid to keep the Hillary Lie Machine in busieness.

The media is sickening.

Why would Hillary do anything for the poor and uneducated and risk cutting into her base?

Why would Hillary do anything for the poor and uneducated and cut into her base?

drindl writes "This, to me, says it all. This man endorses Obama:"

"This man" ,Douglas W. Kmiec, who happens to be a bigwig in the Catholic church, not that there is anything wrong with that.

Then drindl writes
"I guess it's either naivete or depravity that keeps Catholics in the Church, considering its centuries long policy of institutional coddling and protection of child-sodomizing pedophile priests."

Can you please get your message straight drindl, Is the catholic church good or bad? Your'e trying to have it both ways, like Senator "not a crackpot church" Obama.

drindl, attacking Catholics serves you poorly. let's refocus on issues.

Just taking a quick glance at a summary of what Clinton plans to propose today, she appears to be stealing part of Obama's superior economic plan. Will you be reporting on that?
In considering Clinton's talents for managing the economy, we might want to keep in mind that her poorly managed campaign has left a trail of unpaid bills from small businesses, including many from Iowa. Does the Post ever bother to report such things?
Or the fact that Bill Clinton's administration helped create the conditions that led to our current mortgage meltdown? The only writer who seems to have the guts to talk about that is Robert Scheer.

The economy is key in PA and the rest of the nation. Perhaps this is one reason why Clinton's stats are on the rise against Obama;

Pennsylvania Primary- Hillary vs. Barack:
The Google Factor...

http://newsusa.myfeedportal.com/viewarticle.php?articleid=57

I guess it's either naivete or depravity that keeps Catholics in the Church, considering its centuries long policy of institutional coddling and protection of child-sodomizing pedophile priests.

I mean, what else could it be?

While Hillary is talking about substanitive issues, Obama is still defending his church. This is today and it sends a HUGE message to all... You can't have it both ways, and that's what he is trying to do. He does not want to alienate his base, and at the same time he's trying to put out the fire. If he wins the nomination, he may never gain the support from the demographic he never owned....Hillary's diverse base...

Clinton makes housing push
By MIKE ALLEN | 3/24/08 9:07 AM
In major campaign speech, she says both Congress and administration must provide swift additional relief.
Obama: 'This is not a crackpot church'
By BEN SMITH | 3/23/08 2:34 PM
Obama says he's talked to Wright about "some of his views," defends Trinity, saying it's "not a crackpot church."

I'm sorry, but once again HRC is demonstrating her hypocrisy - Bill Clinton and his Treasury Secretary (Robert Rubin, former Chairman of Goldman Sachs) promoted a significant deregulation of the securities industry back in the '90's. Robert Rubin is of course a strong backer of HRC and she has received substantial financial support from Wall Street in her presidential bid. Obama has had a plan to crack down on the mortgage industry on his web site for months and months. I believe Edwards had proposals on this issue as well.

Where are Hillary's 2004-2006 tax records ? How long is she going to dodge this question? What is she hiding?
Her "around April 15th " answer is so lame and typically misleading. Weren't they filed? Are they being "amended"? If so, why? If everything is in order, relaese them? What, is Kinko's closed?

"All this bunk has been disproven in last week's revelations about Senator Obama and his lifelong mentor Rev Wright."

All that was proven last week is that you are an unemployed hack who holds up perverts like Larry Craig and Mark Foley as paragons of virtue. You also have stabbed your candidate McCain in the back several times.

"is like comparing her 14 HUMMER sized wins to his 30 VW Beetle sized wins.
Yes, sjxylib, size does matter."

It is a well-known fact that the only people who buy Hummer's are those obsessed with their little willies, so size does matter - who it matters to is quite disturbing.

By the way, genius, characterizing the states Obama has won as VW Beetle-sized is typical Wolfson & Penn spin. Illinois, Washington, South Carolina, Missouri, Nevada, Texas (that's right, he won that one too!) -- the list goes on and on.

Vanmap...there will be no riot if Obama gets this election stolen......it is about our nation...not yours...not mine...ours...Can you convince Hillary of that as well?

proudtobeGOP writes
"Either he joined the church out of political convenience, rather than faith or else he last week jettisoned the long relationship with Pastor Wright out of convenience rather than conviction."

Your obsession with Obama's relationship with Wright seems unhealthy. Good thing new weather is on the way - I think you could use some fresh air after a long winter.

Regarding the comment above, your either-or argument doesn't accurately reflect the facts as we know them or the alternatives available to Sen Obama. In fact, they imply that whomever actually came up with that set of possibilities either hasn't read or heard the Obama speech, or has deliberately chosen to ignore Obama's statements on the subject.

Maybe I missed something.... but where was the reference to and coverage of Obama's major policy speech on the economy last week?

I agree with all of those who say Hillary has no concern for the party, or the country. It's all about Billary.

Talked with some formerly die-hard Hillary supporters in California over the weekend. They (and they said their friends) are disgusted with her and wish they could have a do-over on their primary vote. They're now supporting Obama.

And, it was reported this morning that Obama is once again polling ahead of Hillary.

Evidently the voters are deciding to sink the Wright swiftboating... regardless of the relentless media saturation coverage.

Fool us once, shame on them.... fool us twice, I don't think so.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

"Superdelegates, though they were inclined toward Clinton as recently as three months ago, now flinch at the idea of rejecting Obama. They fear antagonizing African Americans...."

Robert Novak

If that's who Democrats want to elect, based on fear, than this is really a Black problem.

Hillary represents half of the party, a diverse demographic, who might not conduct race riots, but will surely vote for another moderate, rather than support the radical liberal left side of the party.

It would seem Obama has brought out the worst in the Dems, not the best.

I find Clinton's new tact of looking at the number of electoral seats of each of the states won by Clinton and Obama as a new tactic for convincing Superdelegates to support her to be so completely disingenuous as to be revoting.

To somehow suggest that because she won New York and Texas in the primaries that somehow New York will support her if nominated and McCain if Obama is nominated ... or that Texas will support her over McCain but not Obama over McCain is absolutely ridiculous. We all know that in the general election New York will go Democrat and Texas will go Republican no matter who is nominated.

The straws she is grasping at are becoming weaker and weaker. Her unending quest for power in the face of an upstart will undoubtedly have a negative impact on her legacy.

c_reid21 writes
"Yes, sjxylib, size does matter."

Which is reflected in the delegate counts & popular vote totals. Both of which show Clinton losing.

The superdelegates are attacked from so many directions--the latest one comes from John Yoo who even looks to the Founding Fathers to argue against this feature. But all the arguments disregard that the superdelegates were created in order to give party officials, most of them elected in their own right, a voice. If the party does not like this, the upcoming convention is the place to make that change.
For more on this, read:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/

"[Obama] has sound judgment, he embraces bipartisanship over division at every front and he will surround himself only with the best and brightest people" the crisis writes.

All this bunk has been disproven in last week's revelations about Senator Obama and his lifelong mentor Rev Wright.

Either he joined the church out of political convenience, rather than faith or else he last week jettisoned the long relationship with Pastor Wright out of convenience rather than conviction.

"It's possible that both decisions reflect political calculation rather than heart-felt faith, or that one of the two shows his true feelings, but there's no credible way to claim that he was completely straight and genuine in both his original decision to join the church and his recent denunciations of the intemperate extremism of its spiritual leader."

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/7900d453-0d86-43a2-a02a-65085915593c&comments=true#commentAnchor

She is so pathetically desperate for attention and something that works for her, after so may failed attempts. Ding Dong the witch is Dying, Dying, DEAD! Will it be President McCain or President Obama? A choice between 2 patriots who didn't try to STEAL or an election.

To POSTER NAMED "sjxylib",

Your comment, "...When you say major triumphs, you mean the 14 contests she has won, compared to Obama's 30 contests?...", is like comparing her 14 HUMMER sized wins to his 30 VW Beetle sized wins.
Yes, sjxylib, size does matter.

Why people think Hillary would be any good at managing the economy is beyond me.

This is a Senator from New York who happened to be sitting in the White House while her husband, and the GOP-led Congress, found ways to improve the economy by leaps and bounds. But Hillary had nothing to do with that.

The fact is that no matter how clever her economic proposals are, the Republicans and Independents in Congress who cannot tolerate her divisive nature will never go along with her ideas and pass her sponsored bills. She doesn't even like to negotiate with those in her own party, let alone those across the aisle.

Obama is the frontrunner for a reason. He has sound judgment, he embraces bipartisanship over division at every front and he will surround himself only with the best and brightest people needed to run the country in an efficient and intelligent manner.

Now that the wheels are off the Georgetown bandwagon, The Fix can return to what it does best -- carrying water for the Clintons.

I disagree with glclark. I say keep attacking Obama: kitchen sink and then some. Weaken him to the point where McCain wins in November. Clinton '12!!!! Clinton'12!!!! Clinton '12!!!!!

With every day that passes Sen. Clinton moves farther from being the nominee EXCEPT if the Superdelegates overturn the candidate with the most popular votes, the most pledged delegates, and the most states won. Yet on she soldiers.

Doesn't she see or care what her continuing candidacy is doing to the Democratic Party? No, she doesn't care. Her blind ambition is bigger than the needs of her party.

Every day that passes I want Hillary Clinton as the Democratic nominee less and less. It is SO time for the cooler heads in the Democratic party to end this train wreck. Question is: are there any?

Peace.

We need a president who can regain the trust of our allies and former allies, so that they will join us in fighting the financiers and sponsors of terrorism--not a bush retread. As long as there is funding, there will be terrorists. And we need a president who is willing to stand up to Saudi Arabia and Pakistan, not grovel before them as Bush has done:

'Al Qaeda, the Taliban and other terrorist groups continue to have access to the funds they need for active and expanded indoctrination, recruitment, maintenance, armament and operations," said Victor D. Comras, a former United Nations terrorism finance official.

Internationally, the sense of urgency over terrorism financing has waned since the 2001 attacks. As political climates have changed and negative perceptions of the United States have risen, key allies are cooperating less, current and former officials say.

In the Middle East and elsewhere, many countries have resisted U.S. pressure to investigate and identify financiers.

Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and other key nations have not taken the necessary steps to crack down on terrorist financing or suspect money flowing across their borders. Other countries, including Afghanistan and some African nations, lack the financial infrastructure to cooperate meaningfully. '

Clinton my somehow gain the nomination - but she has destroyed her chances of ever being President......
http://thefiresidepost.com/2008/03/24/why-hillary-will-never-be-president/

Can we please retire this phrase? I'm so tired of it, and its many variations. ("It's the ____, stupid!") It makes some amount of sense as an internal campaign memo, but it's thrown around far too often.

I wonder whether Hillary will explain the basis for her supposed ability to solve the nation's economic problems. Is it based on anything besides being married to the president in the 90s? My guess is that she won't tell.

Based on what experiences is Sen Clinton allegedly the most prepared to handle the economy? Is this just another example of Sen Clinton taking credit for the positive aspects of her husband's Presidential term?

When you say major triumphs, you mean the 14 contests she has won, compared to Obama's 30 contests?

What you should say is "when the one time inevitable nominee got around to winning once in a blue moon, she won on the economy, which is based on economic cycles from the 90s and the stock market, nothing actually to do with the Clinton's or specifically Hillary, kinda like SCHIP not NAFTA"

Forgive me, please, for those who have seen this. But I think it is so true and important.

This, to me, says it all. This man endorses Obama:

Douglas W. Kmiec is Caruso Family Chair and Professor of Constitutional Law, Pepperdine University. He served as head of the Office of Legal Counsel (U.S. Assistant Attorney General) for Presidents Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Former Dean of the law school at The Catholic University of America, Professor Kmiec was a member of the law faculty for nearly two decades at the University of Notre Dame.

'Today I endorse Barack Obama for president of the United States. I believe him to be a person of integrity, intelligence and genuine good will. I take him at his word that he wants to move the nation beyond its religious and racial divides and to return United States to that company of nations committed to human rights. I do not know if his earlier life experience is sufficient for the challenges of the presidency that lie ahead. I doubt we know this about any of the men or women we might select. It likely depends upon the serendipity of the events that cannot be foreseen.

I do have confidence that the Senator will cast his net widely in search of men and women of diverse, open-minded views and of superior intellectual qualities to assist him in the wide range of responsibilities that he must superintend.

This endorsement may be of little note or consequence, except perhaps that it comes from an unlikely source: namely, a former constitutional legal counsel to two Republican presidents. The endorsement will likely supply no strategic advantage equivalent to that represented by the very helpful accolades the Senator has received from many of high stature and accomplishment, including most recently, from Governor Bill Richardson. Nevertheless, it is important to be said publicly in a public forum in order that it be understood. It is not arrived at without careful thought and some difficulty.

No doubt some of my friends will see this as a matter of party or intellectual treachery. I regret that and I respect their disagreement. But they will readily agree that as Republicans, we are first Americans. As Americans, we must voice our concerns for the well-being of our nation without partisanship when decisions that have been made endanger the body politic. Our president has involved our nation in a military engagement without sufficient justification or clear objective. In so doing, he has incurred both tragic loss of life and extraordinary debt jeopardizing the economy and the well-being of the average American citizen. In pursuit of these fatally flawed purposes, the office of the presidency, which it was once my privilege to defend in public office formally, has been distorted beyond its constitutional assignment. Today, I do no more than raise the defense of that important office anew, but as private citizen."

http://www.slate.com/blogs/blogs/convictions/archive/2008/03/23/endorsing-obama.aspx

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.