wixq fpcdqer wxvfauqh alpmvbqsj cexqy lsmyj xzjqmtvub [URL=http://www.vgsce.rtpveb.com]lonqcrvwp tonhjc[/URL]

hwefvi tizbvpce mqvloig uvwgi ylfbhi vmcha yxuhj tguebmkx vxjnfgusd

hwefvi tizbvpce mqvloig uvwgi ylfbhi vmcha yxuhj tguebmkx vxjnfgusd

smnzrewq hglnwxp qdwx cmpzytosa etobmhcgy evfwhxur genyuzai http://www.cwzt.jfdobsgec.com

smnzrewq hglnwxp qdwx cmpzytosa etobmhcgy evfwhxur genyuzai http://www.cwzt.jfdobsgec.com

smnzrewq hglnwxp qdwx cmpzytosa etobmhcgy evfwhxur genyuzai http://www.cwzt.jfdobsgec.com

dxlrg iboemlznx zcjw dgnx prigbzwj ygvwcsqp djgarv

postt is absolutely correct about the Fla legislature screwing up their vote but I blame a cynical Gov.Crist and his Rep. legislature for manipulating the long sought after Wexler Fla voting reform bill and cynically linking it to accomodate the Fla Republican desire to move up their primary.

Crist knew that would p.o. the dnc but cynically linked the 2 pieces of legislation knowing that no Fla Dem after
2000 could then vote against it. It was a cynical move by Crist and Floridians should demand that Crist not Dean find a way to pay for a revote; but obviously says don't look at me.

"FLORIDIANS, WAKE UP AND QUIT COMPLAINING!

You people in Florida should wake up and smell the coffee. Don't blame your predicament on Senator Obama... he had nothing to do with the mess. It's your state government and more specifically, your state democratic party that is to blame. They were told up front that changing the election date would get them penalized and they did it because they wanted to be important? The joke is now that if they (and Michigan) had left things as they were... both states would be hotly contested and playing a major role in the delegate count.

SHAME on Billary for going back on their written agreement that Florida's delegates would not count. Now that the Monster is desperate"

another hateful Obama supporter post. Monster, Billary, what is that garbage about, GROW UP!

I truly hope that is not Sen Obama's message to Floridians, Wake up and quit complaining, that will go ver real well in Nov. Again I ask why do Obama supporters seem so afraid of a Fla and Michigan revote. I am still waiting for a response but all I get is vitriol.

Greg Craig, former director of the Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department sent out this memo today:

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton's argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue - not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims - i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign - would conclude that Senator Clinton's claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:

Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."

News of Senator Clinton's claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph's report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn't on it."

Bosnia:

Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn't hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."

Kosovo:

Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments - U.S. diplomats. President Clinton's top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration's National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."

Rwanda:

Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote - urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda - in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America's failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China

Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama's speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women's rights. But Senator Obama's opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton's speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama's speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama's advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation's history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs - Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others - led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:

The Clinton campaign's argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim - as the TV ad - consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation - the War in Iraq - Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued - remarkably - that she wasn't actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization - like a blank check - to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader - an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

THE SKINNY ON STATES WON & DELEGATES

Barack Obama has won 1,578 Delegates by winning Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Missouri, Nebraska, North Dakota, South Carolina, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington state, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Hillary Clinton has won 1,468 Delegates by winning Arizona, Arkansas, California, Florida, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas.

Coming up tomorrow... a likely win in Mississippi for Obama. Perhaps Obama will finally take off the soft gloves and start working hard on Hillary's staggering campaign.

Heck, I voted for Mitt Romney in the Primary, but can't see myself ever voting for McCain. And ever since the last 8 years of Clinton sca

svreader -- STOP LYING!!! And stop spamming, while you're at it.

I think the superdelegates should support the most electable candidate. That said, neither candidate has clearly established themselves as clearly the most electable. In that environment, if one candidate has the most pledged delegates and the most votes, I think you have to go with that one. And that would be Obama.

Yes Sandilong5274, our state democratic chairman rounded up all of Hillary's supporters and sent them to the back of the line and closed the doors to the caucus room before they could come in and vote. Gee, I thought it was interesting that so many Obama supporters were waving those Hillary signs as a decoy. And nobody but you, in whatthef- USA managed to notice this covert chicanery. Yup, uh huh.

The turnout was unprecedented. The caucus had to be held in cycles because there simply wasn't room for everybody--even in the largest auditorium in town! But everybody got in. As a matter of fact, as one of the first group, I was told to reassure those still waiting in line as I left that they would be allowed to cast their vote. Enough with the planted lies Sandilong5274. You're the one that's undermining democracy!

I see sandylong5274, one of Cltinon's "feminist" supporters, are back to name vcalling, racism, and the other ugly politics they practice. I guess, unless you're likewise suffering from LBD, they'll rant on you, too.

For all of you ignorant spastics lamenting the sorry state of democracy in Wyoming:

The "twisted" Obama supporters who "swarmed" our state? Where did you pick up this tidbit of whimsy?

In 2004, I understand about 160 people caucused in Wyoming because Kerry was the nominee and people had to travel to the county seat to participate. This year, it looks like about 12,000 - 15,000 democrats caucused, and I was one of them. I saw the lines wrapping around city blocks and people patiently waiting for hours to let their voice be known. I also know that the Wyoming Republicans held their caucus in January against their party's rules, and lost their delegates as a result. The democrats chose to play by the rules and whether it was 160, 15,000, or 100,000, the preference was for Obama in Wyoming. A caucus amounts to a commitment of time, whereas a primary amounts to a flip of the switch one way or the other. It was exciting to see such turnout and devotion to a fair and deliberative process, and I'm proud to have participated.

What is demonstrated by many of these posts which belittle Obama and praise Clinton's tactics is a very peculiar lack of curiosity and a marked proclivity for being opinionated and jumping to conclusions. For these, it is appropriate for Clinton to question and accuse, and opportune for her supporters to parrot without even bothering to look at the record or to acknowledge that Obama has responded point by point. This war plan nonsense is simply that--nonsense. His plan is to withdraw, but nobody--Clinton, McCain or Obama can say with any certainty right now precisely how that can best be accomplished under the circumstances circa January 2009 after another ten months of the Chimp-in-Chief running things.

As for Obama carrying our state in the general election? We voted for Kennedy, we have a democratic governor, and our lone congressional representative will very likely be democrat Gary Trauner next November. The talking-heads can pontificate all they want and you can listen like the common repugnixon dolts in this country, or you can pay attention and think. If you can't hear nor see the message of change championed by Obama, then you're just willingly deaf and blind.

NEWSFLASH!!! HILLARY LOSES TWO IN A ROW!

Yes, she lost Wyoming and now she will lose Mississippi tomorrow. So in her world, I guess that means she should stay the course. OTH, if Senator Obama lost these two, she'd be on TV asking him to step down. So tomorrow it'll be 31 states, more of the popular votes, and over a hundred delegate lead. Its time for Hillary to suspend her campaign for the good of the party.

FLORIDIANS, WAKE UP AND QUIT COMPLAINING!

You people in Florida should wake up and smell the coffee. Don't blame your predicament on Senator Obama... he had nothing to do with the mess. It's your state government and more specifically, your state democratic party that is to blame. They were told up front that changing the election date would get them penalized and they did it because they wanted to be important? The joke is now that if they (and Michigan) had left things as they were... both states would be hotly contested and playing a major role in the delegate count.

SHAME on Billary for going back on their written agreement that Florida's delegates would not count. Now that the Monster is desperate, she'd do just about anything to get some delegates.

Floridians, why is it so difficult for you to understand it was your state party officials who willingly broke the DNC rules on primary timing knowing full well those actions would disenfranchise Florida's voters. They were given repeated warnings from the DNC regarding the consequences of scheduling an early vote. Now it's up to the state Democratic party to "make it right" and foot the bill for their shortsightedness. And if they don't, you Floridians should hold them accountable in the polls when they run for election the next time.

But memories are short. You'll likely soon forget how your state party officials screwed you over. And you'll just whine...the easy thing to do.

"We Democratic Floridians will remember how Senator Obama treated us, and will probably vote for Senator McCain."

Hey, wake up, dumbbutt!! It wasn't Obama that disenfranchised you; it was (1) your state Democratic Party and (2) the National Democratic Party. Obama didn't decide your votes didn't count; wouldn't matter if he did!

"7500 Democrats voted in Wyoming. There is no trend in either candidate winning or losing!"

I'd call 61 to 39 percent a trend, at least!

Let's check the math. There are fifty states. Obama has won thirty. There are nine to go. How many has Hillary won?

Let's see: Obama only won by 61 to 39 percent, in a state with virtually no black voters. And he's falling off his pace...? Get a grip, Chris! Your prejudices are showing!

Well, considering that a few short weeks ago Hillary Clinton was "inevitable" and "unstoppable," the anointed nominee just awaiting her inevitable coronation, and now she's running second, you Clintonites got some 'splainin' to do!

Hey CPCook,

NEWSFLASH....Obama wasn't even on the ballot in Michigan.

Wake up and stop trumpetting HRC's faith-based talking points.

In pushing to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates and honor the results there, he would resolve the current impasse. It would also show that CHANGE is more than a slogan.

Here is a very good chance for Obama that unlike Clinton, he is not trying to win at all cost. Obama should push to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates. Since nobody campaigned in Michigan and Florida, then everything is fair anyway. This way he would also show that he listens to the voice of the people of Michigan and Florida. Of course, if he thinks otherwise, then just like everything else in his campaign, he is just all words or slogans.

It is very unfortunate that the Obama campaign would rather ignore the voice of the Florida voters by not agreeing to sit them. Nobody campaigned in Florida so whether he won or Clinton won, it should be the same. His campaign blames the Clinton campaign for trying to win at all cost, but it is the Obama campaign that would just like to ignore Florida and even Michigan results. If the Obama campaign is true to its "politics unusual" here is the chance to show that it is not pure rhetoric. The Obama campaign should allow to sit the Michigan and Florida delegates and resolve the impasse. Otherwise, the Obama campaign is quite hypocritical in its claim that it will CHANGE how politics work in Washington.

Senator Mitchell apparently has weighed in on Hillary's claim that she played an instrumental role in the Irish peace process. Senator George Mitchell, the Clinton administration's leading Northern Ireland peace negotiator, said that Hillary was "not involved directly" in the diplomatic negotiations that led to the landmark April 1998 Good Friday agreement on power-sharing. Why is Hillary fabricating these lies? She lied about Kosovo because the peace treaty was signed the day before she even arrived (along with Sheryl Crowe and Sinbad).

In Hillary's world only the states with 100 or more delegates mean anything to her. She is the most divisive politician I have seen in 30+ years of voting. And while her "campaign" managers are doing a great job of trying to discredit/destroy Obama... Hillary and Bill are working 24/7 to do that too.

Hillary's campaign attempted to ignore states.....I am curious as to why that is....I'm not against her, but I am very displeased with her at this point in time. She has shown as of late to be the kind of woman in office I thought she wouldn't be.

Obama divisive........I must've missed the parts where he has attempted to visit as much states given symbols "red" or "blue" that people have been psychologically programmed to think (let's start thinking with our own minds and not let higher officials label us like we don't know who we are and what we stand for--you should find that people's ideals aren't all that different from one another.....I should think for the most part), and Hillary's been divisive and negative and trying to split his capacity of uniting people together be they registered Repubs, indpendents, whatever racial backgrounds, whatever the entire populations' varying status sets that they belong to.....I like Hillary but I really do think she's keeping us as a whole from progressing forward as fast as we all should be.
Instead, she should be backing Obama as fiercely as she is wrongfully attacking him.

The Wyoming Democratic Caucus is proof enough that we need to get rid of this
stupid idiotic stacked deck system as the
Wyoming Democratic State Chairman was doing
everything possible to throw it to his
buddy Barack Hussein Obama,who he was openly campaigning for Obama and set up
such restrictive voting hours that a good
many Wyoming Democrats never got to vote.
Is that the way we want our American Democracy to operate? As it is more like
a banana republic in Wyoming and all the
rest of the caucus states Obama and stooges
stole.

hey HRC supporters, it was actually your campaign that back tracked to the Canadians on NAFTA...another lie propogated by your campaign and the media you rail against:

http://www.drudge.com/news/105099/clinton-official-reassured-canada-nafta

ImpeachNOW - You Clinton partisan's can only succeed in destroying the Democratic Party. MOST Obama supporters won vote for Clinton, wont vote for any Democrat, if you thieves succeed in stealing the nomination from him. Count on loosing black voters, genuine liberals, moderates, the new youth vote, any voter with ethics and brains, and the election. The lying toxic hag was caught in another whopper. She claimed to have played a key roll in the Irish Peace process, but the actual participants tell us she did no more than hang around when things got interesting..

"Hillary Clinton had no direct role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland and is a "wee bit silly" for exaggerating the part she played, according to Lord Trimble of Lisnagarvey, the Nobel Peace Prize winner and former First Minister of the province.I don't know there was much she did apart from accompanying Bill [Clinton] going around," he said. Her recent statements about being deeply involved were merely "the sort of thing people put in their canvassing leaflets" during elections. "She visited when things were happening, saw what was going on, she can certainly say it was part of her experience. I don't want to rain on the thing for her but being a cheerleader for something is slightly different from being a principal player."

-- http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/08/wuspols108.xml

Instead of lies and ethics lapses and a string of felonies and feminist blather, we need an actual leader.

The voters have spoken and it is now time for Hussein to withdraw and end his divisive campaign. It has been fun watching the antics of his frat-boy and girls-gone-wild supporters, but it is now time to take the presidential contest seriously.

Responsible Dems must focus on the fact that Tony's Rezko's partner-in-crime cannot win the presidency by winning in small states with insignificant Electoral College votes, like Vermont, Iowa, Idaho, Wyoming and North Dakota. To win the presidency, it will take winning the Hillary states of California, Ohio, New York, Michigan, Texas and Florida.

The Hope-Change, Change-Hope, Hope-able Change and Change-able Hope BS and assorted plagiarisms of Hussein (along with his theft of most of John Edwards' ideas) has been a delightful distraction from reality. The last thing the Dems need is another gas bag loser like Kerry that can only spout hollow platitudes. Intellectually mature Democrats must get serious and work to nominate and elect a capable president.

Jacksmith @2:48

It's so much fun to see familiar names.. Jacksmith from the Chicago Tribune, with the same comment!!

My question is still where's the link?

After reading your comment on the other Blog, I concluded it was a joke, now I'm not so certain. If it's not a joke, give us the link.

Why would Bill Clinton or JFK at their young (and inexperienced) years be any more ready to be president than Senator Obama? When I say experienced, I mean seasoned in national politics for 20+ years.

And guess what... I'm a 30 year republican voting senior, and I would switch to Obama over McCain in a heartbeat. There are millions of republicans who don't want an invasion of Iran, Korea, or even Venezuela as the first course of a McCain presidency menu.

And sorry, the Clinton years were the most embarrassing and sad we've ever had starting with the mysterious death of Vin Foster and somebody clearing out his desk before an investigative team got there, all the unfortunate women who were"bimbo-ized" by both the Clintons and their cronies, then the missing FBI files, the Health Care fight with congress, the travel-gate scandal, the perjury, the impeachment proceedings, and the disbarment of Bubba's law license. Of course, who could forget the pardons to known criminals, Hillary's brother's actually buying a couple, Whitewater was never truly explained, and Hillary's mysterious killing in the stock market. Why did she not go to jail when Martha Stewart did? Where did the mysterious $5 million come from a few weeks ago? Why won't they simply disclose their 2006 tax returns... its just making a copy and sending them to the NY Times. No... We don't need these two back in the white house again.

I would probably like to see a Barack Obama/John Edwards ticket and I'm sure having a southern-based VP would help Obama more than Billary would.

Breaking News!!! Major Political Scandal!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucasus. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama's. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican cheating.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton's have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton's. Only the Clinton's are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your WINNER! They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. "This is not a game" (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

After the so called loyalist party members dubbed the superdelegates make their decision as to who the Dem nominee for President will be for the General 08 election "We the peon voters" Indies, Newbies & Crossover voters will have a chance to have our say. But NOT until after these superdelegates vote as their rules dictate. ... for anyone and for any reason they decide. thats the rules so nothing more to be said about it.

So what happens after the convention... A few scenarios...

1 In the General vote FOR your states entire Dem Senate and Congressional seats.

2 Decide to vote AGAINST the Dem nominee by leaving the Presidential slot BLANK in Nov 08

3 Vote with your feet by not showing up to vote in Nov 08

4 Vote for the nominee just because thats the only choice you have been given

5 Most importantly vote FOR the candidate because this Candidate is YOUR choice.

I assure you Sen Obama being a loyal Dem party member will urge his supporters to toe the Democratic Party line... I am voting for a candidate for President of the United States... NOT a Party...I don't care about Party.

I am NOT a follow my party right or wrong voter..I'm not even a member ..It will be interesting to see how many Indies and newbie & crossover voters feel the same way.

On to this Convention... Lets see the loyal party democratic party superdelegates make their decision. We will then know if the Democratic Party elders are interested in having us turn out to vote for their hand picked candidate or not.

Chris,

Why don't you save time by just pasting the Clinton spinning memo's intact - since you clearly feel that any win for Obama is tainted, and any win for Clinton is an example of why she should be president right away (except in Texas where you do not seem to know who won in the final counting).

thinker (who sounds dumber by the posting), why do you think Obama, who is ahead in both population and delegate count, should beg Hillzilla for anything? The veep slot is not hers, since she is behind and is unable to catch Obama in the delegate count. Even if Hillary became the nominee, Obama would not run with Hillzilla. Let her pick John McCain, with who she is more comfortable, or let John McCain pick her, since Hillzilla is Republican in posture when it fits her. No shared ticket otherwise with Hillzilla (lest she picks Bill).

Chris, would you be kind enough to bring us uptodate on the totalled votes in all the primary states? (With and without Mich and Fla)

Thanks.

obamatruth.org
obamatruth.org

Thank you nclwtk @ 1:03!!!
I made a big mistake in my last post (12:41) I followed Leichtman's (12:13) numbers for the popular vote in Texas and thus was off by 10 percentage points!!! Sen. Clinton has 51% and Sen. Obama has 49% of the popular vote in Texas. So.....

Clinton barely won the popular vote in Texas.
Obama strongly won the delegate count in Texas.

WYOMING
Obama campaigned there for MONTHS
Senator Clinton campaigned there for DAYS

Obama outspends Senator Clinton at LEAST 2-1 just to keep even

Obama is a shooting star. All show, no substance.

He is now going to flip flop on his "I'm not negative" pledge.

Like he flip flopped on his "I'm agree to use public funding" pledge.

Like he flip flops in secret about NAFTA and FOREIGN POLICY statements.

This man is UnElectible AND UN"BELIEVABLE"

Great front page NY Times article - extremely well researched and written: Thank you NY Times! Truth and great investigative Journalism for the world to read!

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?ex=1205726400&en=cb0ece49adbd89d6&ei=5070&emc=eta1

He should be BEGGING for the VP spot.

God Bless America !

Thank you nclwtk @ 1:03!!!
I made a big mistake in my last post (12:41) I followed Leichtman's numbers (12:13) for the popular vote in Texas and thus was off 10 percentage points!!! Sen. Clinton had 51% and Sen. Obama had 49% of the popular vote.

Clinton barely won the popular vote in Texas.
Obama strongly won the delegate count in Texas

What Gray said is correct: there is a lot of pro-Hillary bias by certain major newspapers and cable news channels. They also ignore Barack ultimately winning slightly more delegates than her in Texas and racism motivating many persons to vote for Hillary.

While part of their slanted coverage seems to obviously favor Hillary, some reporters seem to favor continued conflict over bias for a particular candidate. They are hoping for a highly contentious convention, which will give them a lot of stories to write about. Conflict, wars, sensationalism, trivial stories are their favorite topics to cover, especially by cable news channels.

The Clinton campaign and some of their supporters have lowered themselves to the same level of fearmongering and smear tactics as the right wing GOP in many modern elections. Have they no shame? The way the Clintons are campaigning, they seem to care most about two things: themselves and political power.

The Clinton campaign is desperate to try to associate Barack with a scandal. Talking about scandals, who wants the first president to commit perjury to a grand jury to become co-president?

Clinton campaign: win fairly and democratically. These are supposed to be our basic democratic values.

Next time Hillary promotes her big time Foreign Policy expertise, without a security clearance to boot, someone please ask her about what really happened in the Irish Peace talks and what she learned from all the following screwups -

Somalia
Haiti
World Trade Center I bombing (underestimating what was really going on)
Osama Bin Ladin 1996 manifesto ( what manifesto you ask)
The ten actionable intelligence that the CIA gav the White House to support acting to capture or kill Osama (ooops just no can do for fear of offending someone somewhere)
The Embassy bonbings and retailiation
The Cole bombing
Oops the retaliation for Saddam over the planned assassination of GWH Bush - what retaliation an empty building
Elian Gonzalez - a new low in US/Cuba relations

By the way ask her about Ruby Ridge and Waco and the resultant Oklahoma Federal Building Bombing - such inadvertant consequences....

With such great experience I hate to ssee what Hillary is planning for an encore - At 3am, I guess one doesnt think so clearly.

SHOULD SENATOR OBAMA FIGHT FIRE WITH FIRE?

Frankly, I'm somewhat inclined to think so, but I have to respect his being a gentleman and trying to demonstrate why it is he, and not Billary or McCain that will do his best to reach out to everyone, regardless of party affiliation, not to mention race or gender.

It was refreshing to hear both Kerry and Daschle both make note that with regard to time in elected office, Senator Obama actually has more seniority than Hillary. There should more reference on why her so-called "life experience" is so much more important than Obama's. By Hillary's standards, one would assume that Laura Bush would have better credentials than her... after all, she's been first lady for nearly 8 years, and she was first lady of Texas, and her father in law was also president and former VP as well as head of the CIA... so that must trump Hillary.

Its no secret that when things don't go Hillary's way, she's usually mean-spirited and will stoop to anything to get her way or attempt to make her point.

And it's kind of funny how as the person who IS IN SECOND PLACE AND NOT GAINING... that she and her cronies would even suggest that by winning 13 states including a few bigger ones to Obama's 30 wins... that she will make a better candidate. HELLO? EARTH TO HILLARY!!! Doesn't this suggest that you can't win 30 states? THat would be her logic if the tables were flipped. But when you claim you "won"(?) Texas by 51% to 49% (and lost the delegate battle anyway), doesn't that suggest that the democratic voters in a state where you had a 20-point lead changed their minds about _you_ in a negative fashion? Two weeks ago they predecited an easy double-digit win for Billary. Didn't work out quite that way and they spin it as a "WIN" for her. GIVE ME A BREAK.

Perhaps some of Senator Obama's outside supporters like Kerry, Kennedy, and others should take off the gloves and give Hillary a reality check from a few people who have actually held elected office for a significant period of time. Senator Obama doesn't need to defend his position... after all, HE IS IN THE LEAD!

LET'S FACE IT FOLKS... WHAT WE HAVE IS THE DUAL STANDARD RIGHT IN FRONT OF OUR FACES. IF SENATOR OBAMA HAD TO DATE WON 13 STATES AND HILLARY 30? HILLARY WOULD BE CRYING FOR OBAMA TO BOW OUT NOW.

Caucuses are an important test of strength among the grassroots activists any political party needs to mount a vigorous general election campaign. Hillary Clinton has repeatedly failed that test, by overwhelming margins. Her response: dismiss caucuses as "undemocratic."

Caucuses are also an important party-building mechanism, crucial in key battleground states like Iowa, Minnesota, and Colorado and in "red" states like Kansas, Nebraska, and Wyoming where Democrats are struggling to rebuild a party apparatus from the ground up, not only to make their states competitive in Presidential races again but to win crucial governorships and state legislative seats that will determine policy at the state level and, importantly for national Democrats, play a key role in future congressional redistricting decisions that will go a long way toward determining which party has the upper hand in Congress in the next decade. Clinton's response: dismiss these states as politically irrelevant, arguing the only thing that matters is a handful of "big states."

That strategy failed in 2000 and 2004, and despite the wind being at the Democrats' backs, it is very risky in 2008. It is also a strategy that over the long term relegates the Democratic Party to permanent minority party status. Hillary and her team care nothing of that.

Wyoming Democrats were thrilled at yesterday's turnout which in some areas exceeded previous caucus participation by a factor of 10. It was an opportunity for Democrats to come out of the woodwork, make connections with each other, and begin to build the social networks and political organizations they will need to make themselves competitive once again in one of the reddest of the "red" states. Just as Democrats in neighboring Colorado did over the past decade, painstakingly building up a party infrastructure to the point where they now control the governorship, both house of the state legislature, one U.S. Senate seat and the other a likely Democratic pickup in November. Colorado's caucuses played a key role in all that.

Clinton's arrogant dismissals of caucuses and "small states" send an unmistakable message to Democrats in places like Colorado, Wyoming, Iowa, Nebraska, and Minnesota: "We don't care about you, we don't need your support, we think you're politically irrelevant, just go away, please."

Perhaps that's one reason why the latest polls show Obama beating McCain handily in Colorado (9 electoral votes), while Clinton loses to McCain there by a decisive margin. Clinton's "insult 40 states" strategy will prove extremely costly in November, should she manage to wrest the nomination from Obama. The same polls show her losing decisively in Iowa (7 electoral votes), North Dakota (3), Nebraska (5), and Nevada (5), all caucus states where Obama currently leads in match-ups against McCain. Similarly, polls show Clinton trailing badly in a number of important southern states, including Virginia (13 electoral votes), North Carolina (15), South Carolina (8), and Texas (34), where Obama either leads or is currently in a statistical dead heat against McCain. But these states, too, (apart from Texas) don't fit Clinton's "big state" profile, so she dismisses and insults them, further narrowing the electoral map for the general election. Obama's general election map is much broader. Not only do current polls show him beating McCain by a larger popular vote margin, but more importantly he wins a larger electoral vote margin and puts far more states, with far more electoral votes "in play." Clinton's obsessive focus on a dozen or so "big states" and base Democratic states repeats the error Al Gore made in 2000 and John Kerry made in 2004: it requires the Democratic nominee to "draw an inside straight," winning virtually every one of a small handful of electoral battlegrounds with little or no margin for error. With his demonstrated appeal to independents and moderate Republicans and his ability to draw new voters into the process, Obama has the potential to change the electoral map in a way that favors Democrats not only in the Presidential race, but all the way down to the bottom of the ticker. Obama, not Clinton, is the candidate best positioned to win in November, and the candidate most likely to have the coattails Democrats in small states, caucus states, swing states, and "red" states so desperately need to build the Party for the future.

Leichtman 12:13
I will certainly accept her experience on the Armed Services committee. Without a security clearance, I will not accept as foreign policy and security experience anything from the years in the White House. The Irish have recently described her roll in their peace settlement, check it out. In the 61% who voted for her in Texas, how many of those you cite as feeling" more comfortable with her as Commander in Chief", were Republicans who will feel much more comfortable with Senator John McCain in November?

Robert Reich, Bill Clinton's secretary of labor and the head of Clinton's economic transition team has the following to say about the Health Care Proposal Debate:

Both of them are big advances over what we have now. But in my view Obama's would insure more people, not fewer, than HRC's. That's because Obama's puts more money up front and contains sufficient subsidies to insure everyone who's likely to need help -- including all children and young adults up to 25 years old. Hers requires that everyone insure themselves. Yet we know from experience with mandated auto insurance -- and we're learning from what's happening in Massachusetts where health insurance is now being mandated -- that mandates still leave out a lot of people at the lower end who can't afford to insure themselves even when they're required to do so

Source: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/why-is-hrc-stooping-so-lo_b_75191.html

kccaraballo here is some news for you - - Hillary Clinton did not win Texas - - The real story is "Oh, By The Way", there is a "suspension of reality" with Texas results, according to Keith Olbermann and NPR the culmulative total of the Texas Primary and Texas Caucus delegates is that Obama won Texas with a total 98 delegates to Clinton's 95. A win in Texas is based on the total delegates from the primary and caucus results. The break down is Obama 61 Primary delegates, Clinton 65 Primary delegates; Obama 37 caucus delegates and Clinton 30 caucus delegates.

leichtman, I haven't seen many posts that claim a caucus is any more democratic than a primary although I have seen a lot of posts from Hillary's supporters claiming that the reverse is true. I have an elderly relative in Nebraska who was able to vote in their caucus via a mail in ballot. Btw, she is a Hillary supporter. So, if a State's board of elections wants to take into account those who can not physically participate in a caucus, they certainly can make allowances to do so. A direct primary doesn't guarantee a high turnout. New York had less than 19% participation, but Clinton was happy to have won it along with the Nevada and New Mexico caucuses she won.

A caucus is certainly more democratic than the system of Superdelegates which is exactly what Sen. Clinton is hoping to win by since it is doubtful that she can overtake Obama's pledged delegate count.

Barack is doing an brilliant job of "shining the light" on Hillary's tactics--and continually cutting a better model of leadership. I find his grasp of respect, truth, honesty and discipline totally refreshing. It also hugely powerful, hard to learn and most rare. It taps into the heart of what humans and nations can achieve. He is no foe of women or the poor. Lead on Barack!

Sandra Long 11:42AM
Good, you're agreeing that Texas was a huge delegate win for Sen. Obama if you say Wyoming is a "huge split decision."

jvmurrel: can you imagine what the press and likely you would have said had she had security clearance. That in no way minimizes her involvment in Bill's very successful Kosvo strategy, Irish peace settlement and overtures to China without mentioning her work on the Senate Armed Services Commitee. that is what David Girgin and Madaline Albright have said, folks who know a thing or two about the workings of the Clinton administration. Whether you want to acknowldge it or nor not 61% of Texas voters said they would feel more comfortable with her as commander in chief and signiciant numbers of Texas voters based their vote on that issue.

Nominating Clinton would be a sure sign the Dem's don't want to win this election, that they seriously want 4 more years of Bush. The more I see of her, the less I like her. Given the choice between her and John W. McBush, I'd rather vote for the Green Party candidate, whoever that might be. Or maybe I'll just vote for independent Nader, just to send 'em a message. Gutter politics is as gutter politics does. Don't say I didn't warn you.

The essential nature of this contest between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton is a contest between one Democrat trying to raise the quality of our politics, build a durable Democratic majority, help elect other Democrats throughout the country, enact progressive values in Washington, and an utterly self-absorbed Joe Lieberman character interested in gaining power for herself at any cost, even if it means destroying the Democratic party, even if it means hundreds of Democratic politicians downballot lose, even if it means adopting Republican talking points and Republican tactics.

How can the Democratic Party choose to destroy itself? Suicide is irrational, and giving the nomination to Hillary means, best case scenario, that she wins in November and the Democratic Party atrophies, hemorrhages Senate seats, House seats, Governors, and any meaningful claim to represent the values of the millions of strong liberal and progressive voters out there in this country.

Oh come on here and put down your Toxic
Barack Hussein Obama Kool Aid,as those
Wyoming Democratic Caucus totals of only
7 for Obama and 5 for Clinton is a huge
split decision,that shows Obams is fast
losing his so-called Delegate Edge to
Hillary Clinton as the Obama Supporters are
waking up and sobering up after drinking
all that Obama Toxic Kool Aid and are just
now starting to suffer from "Buyer Remorse"
for throwing their votes away to a lying
phony crooked corrupt inexperienced con man
like Barack Hussein Obama and also looking
at Obama's weirdo wife Michelle Obama and
Obama's close ties to Chicago Slumlord
Tomy Rezko,now on trial in Chicago. I'm
from Wyoming,not that Iam proud to admit it
after the naive country bumkims up in
Wyoming threw their votes away on Obama
and let me point out that the crooked
Wyoming State Democratic Party Machine set
the caucus hours so that hundreds of good
hard working Democrats and even senior
citizens could not attend them to vote or
Obama would never have even won 7 out of 12
in Wyoming. Iam ashamed of Wyoming.

THE ILLOGIC OF THE DEMOCRAT'S SYSTEM (a/k/a WHY WYOMING CAUCUS GOERS ARE MORE THAN 20X MORE IMPORTANT THAN OHIO VOTERS)

In Wyoming, 8,700 Democrats attended caucuses to allocate 12 delegates, that's 725 voters per delegate.

In Ohio, 2,1870,000 voters participated in the Democratic primary to allocate 141 delegates, that's 15,509 voters per delegate.

In other words, under the Democrat's illogical system, a voter from Wyoming (which has no chance of going for the Democrat this fall) has the equivalent power of between 21 and 22 voters in Ohio (which is a key battleground state). How's that for democracy for you?

Mr.Cillizza: Senator Obama won in Wyoming with 61.4% of the vote, Clinton got 38.8%. Because there were 12 votes, he got 7 (rounding his number down) and she got 5 (rounding her number up) only because there couldn't be a split delegate!! It is ridiculous, and frankly unfair,that you allowed Ms. Williams comment about a "near split" to stand.
The Clinton campaign has continually used there own SPIN to characterize each election. She "won" Texas with a small lead in the popular vote, even though he won the most delegates. Obama won 5378 votes in Wyoming, Clinton 3312. Will this now be regarded by MSM as a "near split". Why are the Clintons allowed to characterize each election??
I apologize to my fellow posters if this already been fully covered. I read Cillizza, and I immediately had to comment.

Fact of the day: Hillary Clinton had NO SECURITY CLEARANCE during their 8 years in the White House - not even the lowest level.

\

"I actually asked Svreader several weeks ago for a list of HRC's "accomplishments" (i.e., her own, not those of her husband). I'm still waiting"

Actually I posted a very long post earlier in the week addressing hillary's Senate accomplishments in detail from expansion of SCHIpS, to bringing internet to rural communities to the Cinton and Linsey Gramm bill that went into effect to expand death benefits to reserves and Tri Care to Reserves.

Denise I believe that it was Hillary's experience in 1993 with healthcare that has toughened her and gives her more expertise to finally get healthcare passed. She understand the concept of Anti Selection in healthcare which her opponent either ignores or doesn't understand in his plan. She began working on healthcare record standardization years before Obama came to the Senate. Her plan is universaly supported by doctors I have spoken with who feel that it will bring faster pay to them for their services and unburden our overloaded ounty emergency facilities where millions will continue to use without coverage until an emergency happens under the Obama plan and Hillary's plan and current Senate legislation will do much more to expand healthcare facilities for our rural communites. Being from Texas where we are 48th in healthcare and where auto liability coverage is pretty much voluntary after your car is inspected, we have learned just like with W's VOLUNTARY environmental policies that that philosophy simply does not work, leads to millions who rely the most on our broken healthcare system not having coverage, and ends up costing higher premiums. That is the primary reason that I as a former Edwards supporter believe that Hillary is more knowledgable about and more likely to bring universal healthcare to our nation, which is the number one issue for my boomer generation.

"I actually asked Svreader several weeks ago for a list of HRC's "accomplishments" (i.e., her own, not those of her husband). I'm still waiting"

Actually I posted a very long post earlier in the week addressing hillary's Senate accomplishments in detail from expansion of SCHIpS, to bringing internet to rural communities to the Cinton and Linsey Gramm bill that went into effect to expand death benefits to reserves and Tri Care to Reserves.

Denise I believe that it was Hillary's experience in 1993 with healthcare that has toughened her and gives her more expertise to finally get healthcare passed. She understand the concept of Anti Selection in healthcare which her opponent either ignores or doesn't understand in his plan. She began working on healthcare record standardization years before Obama came to the Senate. Her plan is universaly supported by doctors I have spoken with who feel that it will bring faster pay to them for their services and unburden our overloaded ounty emergency facilities where millions will continue to use without coverage until an emergency happens under the Obama plan and Hillary's plan and current Senate legislation will do much more to expand healthcare facilities for our rural communites. Being from Texas where we are 48th in healthcare and where auto liability coverage is pretty much voluntary after your car is inspected, we have learned just like with W's VOLUNTARY environmental policies that that philosophy simply does not work, leads to millions who rely the most on our broken healthcare system not having coverage, and ends up costing higher premiums. That is the primary reason that I as a former Edwards supporter believe that Hillary is more knowledgable about and more likely to bring universal healthcare to our nation, which is the number one issue for my boomer generation.

Barack Obama, "giant killer."

Wnat to see REAL JOURNALISM?? This article is totally excellent WORK.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?hp

It is real informational journalism - not this armchair blog baiting type of chubby work. Burn some calories Chris. Learn from these two fantastic writers who bring us what we need to know in this important process.

This is all in fun... and apparently anything goes when it comes to making fun of our candidates. Saturday Night Live... pay attention, this could be next week's material!

It's three AM and the red phone is ringing and ringing. The Monster picks it up and its one of her numerous aides complaining about travel accommodations. Hillary grunts that she will fire the person responsible in the morning.

It's three AM and the red phone is ringing and ringing. The Monster picks it up and its one of her broker is telling her that he has inside information on a new IPO and he's going to invest some of her trust money in it. He can guarantee a 200% return in a matter of weeks if not days. Hillary grunts "go for it".

It's three AM and the red phone is ringing and ringing. The Monster picks it up and its one of her realtor in New York State says that she has a big fish on the hook for some property her and Bill are silent partners in. They can make a killing if they falsify some dates... OK? No problem says the Monster... just keep our names off it.

It's three AM and the red phone is ringing and ringing. The Monster picks it up and its one of her numerous aides noting that a congressional committee is looking for thousands of emails and other documents related to campaign finance fraud and who gave them the $5 million loan overnight. The Monster rolls over and asks... "Bill, did you finish burning those papers and cds?" The first husband grunts..."Yeah Hill...nobody'll ever find out where we got the money from."

It's three AM and the red phone is ringing and ringing. The Monster picks it up and a soft, feminine voice asks if Billy is there? The Monster asks... "who is this"? There's a pause, then she hears a breathless... "Its Monica, tell Billy I'll meet him in the cloak room downstairs in 20 minutes... and oh yeah... Jennifer and Paula are here too, we're gonna' have a good'ol time".

Great fodder for Imus, Saturday Night Live, or reality? As the Clintons have noted... isn't politics fun?

Thanks to the person who said- Yeah how condesending and arrogant-really folks can;t you see that-for Clinton "offering" to make Obama her "vice-president," but he is leading! I am a woman and I'm black but I do value honesty-Hilary is smearing and building fear with Half- or not even truths. Didn't Canada respond that what they said was being misinterpreted? Here is a person with more scandals in "her" (her husbands) administration and she gets play very dirty, but if Obama responds folks are saying "oh see he's not so pure" how absurd, maybe he should just lay down so she can Bill can step on him-then he'll truly prove he's noble, right?

08AMA!

They are going to find a way to take this victory away from Obama, just watch.

The plantation owners may let him be number two, but they will never let him run their plantation.

I's a screwed up system when 8500 people can be seen as making any difference. The Knicks get more fans than that for 1 game and they suck. Lets create a system that can't be exploited by a smooth talking demagogue. All of you supporters who just jumped on ship and have paid no attention to politics before or voted Bush last time and are fickle or have no idea what your values are that you can go from a Bush to an Obama would then have equal influence to those of us who have been committed for a long time to making things happen instead of greater influence on the process.

Leon

Obama cultist stop trying to lie about what Hillary implied on 60 min.

You are as pathetic as the VRWC that is push the Obama Islam story.

Put the whole quote and exchange and don't strain you little brains trying to interpret. Let is speak for itself.

Checking the History in the BIG States (otherwise known as the states that will give the Dem candidate the White House in November):

PA - Has gone blue every election since Clinton turned it blue in 1992 and Clinton even took it twice with the widest 9% point margin in 1996. (He kept it blue even while the Republican attack machine was dead on his heels!)

OHIO - Since 1988 the only Dem candidate to take Ohio is Bill Clinton and he took it twice.

Florida - Bill Clinton took it in 1996 and Al Gore tied 49-49 in 2000, other than that it went Red since 1988.

Texas - Clinton came closest to turning the Red state Blue in 1992 and 1996.

Illinois - Has gone blue every year since Clinton turned it Blue in 1992.

Big states do matter and sending Obama into these states will give Dems the same result as sending Kerry in gave us. Sitting on the outside of the WH looking in.

Hillary 2008

This game should be over based on the Math, but no that won't happen because its all about the Clintons

-----------------------------
Neither candidate can reach the 2025 delegate threshold without superdelegates, so like it or not they will end up deciding. Then you'll all be complaining about how it wasn't fair for your candidate.

BTW I don't hate either candidate but I am getting to hate OBama supporters who posts things like this:

HILLARY WANTS TO BURN THE WHOLE SHIP COS SHE CAN'T WIN THE NOMINATION WITH OUT CHEATING!!!!!!

AND SHE WONDERS WHY MANY HATE HER

chersplace wrote: People say they lose respect for Hillary because she brings questions regarding Obama to the light.

They're not questions, they are lies by insinuation. Not unlike her insinuation on 60 Minutes that he was not a Muslim "as far as I know".

If the American electorate would stop being lazy and get their news from more than one source, as well as, do some fact-checking on their own, they'd find the truth. Not the "fair and balanced" truth or the half-truth, but the one and only truth.

Support this liar if you want to, but there are definitely other skeletons waiting to fall out of her closet. The thing with the tax returns?... kind of reminds me of when she magically found subpoenaed records in the White House residence after three years of "searching"; coincidentally on the day after the statute of limitations expired for the crimes she and her husband were accused of.

Barack Obama - Vito Corleone

John McCain - Sonny Corleone

Hillary - 'Fredo' Corleone

Hillary Clinton is the Most Divisive Politician ever, Very Polarizing and Manipulative. This game should be over based on the Math, but no that won't happen because its all about the Clintons

She can't win farely, so she wants to burn the whole ship. Democrats are so dumb, they'll loss again in November

Why isn't the Goal Post North Carolina? Why mUst the goal post be Clinton Country? It Baffles me!!!!!!!!! Hillary has tamed all of you in the press, you guys are scared of her

HILLARY WANTS TO BURN THE WHOLE SHIP COS SHE CAN'T WIN THE NOMINATION WITH OUT CHEATING!!!!!!

AND SHE WONDERS WHY MANY HATE HER

Morganja:

Actually 14% of a possible 59,000 voters caucused.

Obama: 5,378 votes
Hillary: 3,312 votes

Obama did get the popular vote in Wyoming from his itty bitty caucus, but unfortunately the only Dem candidate that has even came close to turning this RED state BLUE in 16 years is Bill Clinton.

Makes me wonder why Mr. "Rock Star" could not get more than 5,378 people out of 59,000 people to caucus for him?

Could it be that the more people see of him the more they realize that even though he has a nice speaking voice he is nothing more than an empty suit that will fold at the first sign of trouble?

The instant that Senator Barack Hussein Obama changes his voice to his preaching style I changed television channels, or turn off the tv set. Why does he has to use the preaching tone? Is it to get more money from religious fans?

Obama did not "fall short" in Texas.

Add up all the delegates: he won.
Add up all primary and caucus votes: he won that, too.

1. Hillary is not tough at all. She breaks down in tears, she cries foul, she says " the boys are ganging up on me!" whenever he hits back. She and her allies are playing a game of lashing out very viciously and then crying about it when hit back.
Remember in the NH debate, where sayin gshe was "likable enough" was considered a huge faux pas! Jesus, how mild a critique can you get. Meanwhile she's saying "shame on you" and gets a pass. This is hypocrisy and delusional hypocrisy.
2. The funny thing is that the Republicans won't worry about offending the feminist wing of the Democratic party.
Hillary will indeed be torn apart by the rabid GOP machine. Race is much more dangerous for the GOP, since while many people, women included, don't mind a little sexism (think of that WOMAN who asked McCain hwo they beat the b----), few people today want to be associated with David Duke. Trent Lott lost his post just for praising Strom, and that was in the GOP.
3. Watch how Obama hits back against McCain, where he doesn't have to worry about offending anyone. He sparred pretty good recently with those comments over Al Qaeda in Iraq.
In contrast, look at Hillary's flipflops on Iraq (she was for it before voting against it) and how she cozies up to McCain all the time. Not a fighter at all, more like a turncoat.

Hillary is a snake in the grass. If she somehow manages steal the nomination, the democrats will lose over half their base. My only hope is that Hillary will BE crushed in the stampede of voters leaving the party.

Morganja said:

I can't believe at this point of the campaign cycle I have to point this out. But to the, no other word for it, idiots who are proclaiming that only 7,500 people voted in Wyoming, that is 7,500 state delegates chosen by many times that number of voters, JUST LIKE IN EVERY OTHER CAUCUS.

How can you confuse this at this point in the election cycle? It's listed right there in the column, just like it always is, STATE DELEGATES.

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

Sorry morganja but I think it might be that you are the one confused.

14% of 59,000 voters = approximately 8,260 voters voted, not delegates.

Please take the time to read the attached article it might help clear up your confusion.

Some people just do not know what they do not know.

http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la-na-nuwyoming9mar09,0,544094.story

Hillary is a snake in the grass. If she somehow manages steal the nomination, the democrats will lose over half their base. My only hope is that Hillary will crushed in the stampede of voters leaving the party.

If Florida and Michigan do not get re-do primaries the entire Dem party will be disenfranchised. Michigan and Florida will matter in the general election and we need to see which candidate is more likely to be able to bring the "electoral votes" to the table because in November, the electoral votes are the votes that will determine who sits in the White House.

Hillary is trying to poison the well, and the DNC should not put up with it.
----------------------

The press has uncovered 2 legitimate cases of when Obama has said one thing to the public and then his aides have revealed the truth. You might not like it the effect it will have on your candidate, but any opponent would have exploited it.

Hillary is trying to poison the well, and the DNC should not put up with it.

Maybe she can join her running mate, John McCain:

http://wonkette.com/364318/hillary-clinton-endorses-john-mccain-80-million-times

http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/03/hillary-clinton.html?cid=106352094#comment-106352094

"McClinton"

What people fell to realize is that for Obama its hard to take punches at her; she always plays the little victim role and no one likes to see a lady beat up by a man. Fighting her is like a two edged sword.

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

The two edged sword is that Hillary has to watch what "punches" she takes at him or be called a racist. Proof of this was right before SC when OB absolutely had to win to prove to the blacks that it was possible. Somehow he managed to turn Hillary's factual statement: It DID take a president to sign the civil rights law that MLK fought so hard for into a racist statement. He turned a couple that were admired and respected by a lot of blacks, up to that point, into racists. Worked too, because blacks have been voting 80-90% for him ever since. (wonder who really played the race card and worked the blacks on that one?) Guess he might have learned that tactic from the black separatist church the Obama's have attended for the past 20 years that gave black racist Louis Farrakhan their Man of the Year Award for what they feel is his greatness?

Clinton is writing John "100 Years" McCain's playbook for him. She's field-tested all the different ways to go negative, and figured out what works and what doesn't against Obama. She's using money raised from Democrats to write and air his ads on TV. She's dividing her own party and uniting the Regressives.

Inexcusable.

This column seems to be following the lead of most news media over the last week or so, in which everything Obama accomplished is dismissed while everything Hillary says is highlighted and lionized. Yesterday on TV while Obama was scoring 61% of the vote in Wyoming, all I heard was how he had to toughen up and be more like Hillary to win. Today, the morning after, I wake to find the news of his win always softened with messages of ....but Hillary. I have no idea what is going on with the news media, but their Clinton bias is in overdrive and I frankly find it quite distasteful.

I understand Hillary played the gender card in trying to shame the media into more favorable coverage, but I would hate to think the media is so easily manipulated that they would do as she ordered. Yet what other conclusion can I draw?

By the way, does anyone here know that Obama just picked up an additional 8 delegates from California? Of course not, because the news folks are covering positive Obama events. Did you know that he is outstripping Hillary in delegates in Texas because of caucus wins? Of course not, because the press only talks about how big Clinton won.

Did you know that 9% of the folks who voted for Hillary in Texas were republicans who were voted for the easier of the two candidates to win? Nope, because that might cast a shadow on Hillary's amazing win (in a state she was supposed to win by double digits).

Did you know that 20% of the folks who voted in Ohio allowed skin color to drive their vote? It appears Hillary is picking up the racist element, but do you read about that anywhere? Of course not, because Hillary has declared herself off limits and the press respect that.

This is a disturbing trend. The same press corps that gave Bush a free ride for much of his administration is now offering the same safe haven to Clinton--a person who mathematically cannot win the nomination.

Of course, the other option is that the press wants the fight to continue because it makes better reading and more excitement for them, so it is there interest to promote Hillary, who has already lost.

Either way, something smells.

I hope everyone reads the NY Tmes artticle

The Long Run
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/09/us/politics/09obama.html?em&ex=1205208000&en=68253654ec463e51&ei=5087%0A

It's a very revealing story of Obama's senate career.

cjones210---

Those are not the number of people, those are caucus votes. Each one represents more than one person I do believe.

"but the 'political positioning' phrase were not Goolsbee's words, who said it was a ham-fisted way to express what he said.
------------------

Of course he says that. And of course the Canadian government calls the contents of the memo "inaccurate". They are embarrassed. The words aren't those of Goolsbee, but of a Canadian staff member reporting on the meeting to the Canadian ambassador.

Read the memo at http://www.slate.com/id/2185753 (on multiple pages).

In the memo summary, and further in the report, the staff member writes that Goolsbee characterized Obama's NAFTA speeches as political positioning, not policy plans. See paragraph 4 and 7, in particular, plus the memo's concluding Comment section. It summarizes Obama's NAFTA talk as not to be taken seriously, that though it sounds negative to Canadians, it should be understood in its context. That is, as just speeches to Americans to make them feel good, but no underlying plan behind them.

Strange that this "inaccurate" understanding of Goolsbee was an overriding theme spread throughout the report, not just one sentence.

Obama slams Hillary for NAFTA, yet he is not going to fundamentally alter it. One thing's for sure - he won't bring back any jobs to the US that were lost due to NAFTA. Midwest workers won't see any changes.

In sum, Obama is all talk. I guess he'll say anything to get the nomination.

If Obama is such a huge draw among Democrats in caucus how can anyone explain the fact that fewer than 8,000 out of approximately 59,000 voters bothered to turn out? Less than 5,000 votes is a "big" win? My, my what spin.

Even if OB takes Mississippi (which it is a fairly safe bet he will) on Tuesday, if Hillary takes PA in April she would have earned more electoral votes than OB.

Electoral votes are what counts in the general election, there are no delegates and it does not matter who wins the popular vote. Gore is an example of the general election voting system.

All this info really does a disservice to the greater purpose of defining this election.... and definitely does not put his caucus only wins in context with the greater overview, which the Obama camp blindly ignores. The country is split in every way with each candidate representing a certain demographic. I'm sorry but today's FIX entry is a journalistic convolution. If they each walk away at the end with the same imbalance, with neither one taking over the other's demog, like Barack winning PA, maybe that could sway the superdelegates. As it stands right now, FL and MI have to vote; this election is too close for either of these candidates to get the boot. The only solution is Desilu production for four. BTW, it was the Lucy and Desi show!

www.edenprairienews.com
The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics

Clinton will say anything, do anything to get nominated? I'm tired of this meme, it's boring.

After all, this latest Clinton memo was just playing back what Obama and his team have themselves said!

Reply to Posted by: camasca | March 9, 2008 12:34 AM

Maybe Denise is asleep so I'd like to respond to a couple of your points.

You say Obama is going negative when he claims he showed better judgment than she did regarding Iraq.

That is not "going negative." He is making an issue-based claim. You can agree with him or not based on his supporting arguments. Similarly, Clinton can claim that she's the one who's ready on Day 1 and, by implication, he's not. That is not going negative, and I can decide whether she makes her case persuasively or not.

In contrast, her sarcastic "heavens will open, celestial choirs" riff was going negative by disparaging his supporters and mocking some religious folks. She was implying that his supporters were delusional, and he deluded us. Plus, it wasn't a great way to win us over.

I could list a whole host of examples of her campaign going negative, with a meaner tone than the above, but I don't think it serves any purpose for our discussion here.

Next, he has never said that she "caused NAFTA" as you state. He has argued that she