How can you claim Hillary won Texas when in fact she did not??
You seem to do so by totally ignoring the caucus votes, which account for about a third of the delegates.
Even CBS accurately reports that Obama won (or is winning - since the final certification won't come til the end of this month). CBS is one of thew to report the facts accurately.
How are we to trust a media that seems as intimidated by Clinton as the Russian media is by Putin?

You are kidding, right? Ga the hope of the country and the rebel flag, Saxby Chamlis and Perdue slime machine is now the future of this country and California, New york and Ohio are the past?

In what parallel world is your statement: "Ohio is the past center of Democratic strength, not the future. It hardly represents the present, in terms of jobs. Look at where the jobs and population are moving to: GA.."

dlove: you understand that Mo was essentially a tie that out of a million and a haf voters Obama prevailed by less than 10,000 vote which is less than a 1/2 of one per cent difference.
Both candidates of course are honorable patriots.

"First off, you ask where I got my numbers. These were taken directly from the Washington Post today (I think from Ohio and Texas voters). Roughly 45% of Democratic voters were happy with both Clinton and Obama and would support either in a general election. Around 25% would support one or the other. More for Clinton than Obama, belying the claim that Clinton voters would go for Obama but not vice versa. So, that makes around 70%. There were previous polls indicating 80% of Democrats were happy with their choices."

Ok so you admit your number are only from tx and clinton. Ok. Cool. I thought you were talking about over the whole country. Which would have made you a liar.

What were clinton's poll numbers in those two states two months ago? HAHAHHAHA

You show you are a propogandists blade. You got gop texas and union old style ohio. WOW. you got numbers as a whole? I'd love for you to front yourself off.

Clinton won the right to stay in the race past PA if she wins there. Then it will go to superdelegates and a possible primary re-election in MI and FL. Hopefully they will choose the will of the people in making their choice. A disaster would enfold in the loser of the primaries were to be selected.

WE all lose as we sink back into the good old slash and burn strategy that has led to so much acrimony in politics. If Hillary wins, how the hell will she be able to deal with Congress, it will be just more backbiting and gridlock. Obama's ideal of change just wont happen with such a polarized person as Clinton.

I will concede the point, Bongo. Given that, it would indicate that MO is truly a reflection of the electorate, because the end result will be close, however the numbers suggest that Obama will be the one to come out on top.

Our state also has a heavy Independent presence which leans more toward Obama than Clinton and that, Mr. Bong, seems to further support the results we have seen from MO for the General, as well.

By the way, I was a Clinton supporter until I witnessed her willingness to tank the party for her own gain. I was one of her female constituents. And as we used to say in my Clinton circles, bonguser200, A WIN IS A WIN!!!!

SO GOES MISSOURI, SO GOES THE PRESIDENCY! ;o)

Yeah you are right about Missouri ... except Obama only won it by 10,000 votes. Additionally, the state went exactly 50/50 among registered DEMOCRATS according to exit polling ...

Sorry Obamacan!

Yeah you are right about Missouri ... except Obama only won it by 10,000 ... and according to the exit polling data the state went EXACTLY 50% / 50% among registered democrats.

Sorry Obamacan

It's hard to believe that so many are being taken in by Clinton's spin. Obama made up an enormous amount of ground, he still leads in delegates, he's won states across the US and will win more, and she's "ahead" and a "better leader" because of fear mongering?

Ohio is the past center of Democratic strength, not the future. It hardly represents the present, in terms of jobs. Look at where the jobs and population are moving to: GA, NC (my nephew and his family just moved there), other parts of the South and SW. It's not over yet.

hmm, real tough question Chris ...

Hillary BLEW OBAMA OUT OF THE WATER.

She won 82 of 87 counties in Ohio - a race where many predicted she either lose or win by a small margin ... she won WHITE MEN by 10% state wide ...

In Texas where Obama was supposed to win - he lost by 100,000 votes or 3.5%.

Rhode Island was an 18% victory.

Who won?

Once PA goes for Hillary, she is the front runner.

Just a bit of correction on the spin d' jour:

SO GOES MISSOURI, SO GOES THE PRESIDENCY!

Missouri has selected the president for the past 100 years, save once.

Being from the Show Me, I just thought I'd chime in!

The media won, of course. CNN, Fox and those other self-proclaimed leaders in objective journalism did a 180 degree flip from their earlier reporting of the Obama wave sweeping the nation and began subtley promoting Hillary during the week before the Ohio/Texas/etc election. With "The Spin Stops Here", one would expect a Bill O'Reilly expose to analyze the sudden change in TV coverage and media influence on the election, but objectivity has its limits. Fox's Sean Hannity even clipped the end of Obama's late hour speech, claiming that "Senator Obama has now received equal time with Senator Clinton...." CNN at least carried the remaining two or three minutes of the speech.

Alan, that makes sense. I understand your point now I think. (Didn't RFK campaign in SD and CA at the same time in 1968?) I would think a rotating regional primary system (I kind of like 8 groups of states voting every 2 weeks instead of 4 groups voting monthly) could go a long way to addressing your legitimate complaint: that a whole region of the nation gets ignored cycle after cycle. Byron Dorgan has certainly championed that aggressively, in 04 holding out his endorsement for someone who'd promise to make a campaign visit to ND. Unfortunately no one took him up on it.

To the person listing VT Gov. Douglas as a loser from last night:
Yesterday's votes in VT have nothing to do with Jim Douglas' reelection chances. Maybe you've missed the years of impeachment resolutions, towns threatening to secede from the state and join New Hampshire, Act 60 controversies, and all kinds of other bizarre, eclectic votes and decisions Vermont towns have made in the years Douglas has been Governor (or any of his predecessors, for that matter). It's the nature of the state and its politics. It bears no relationship to the Governor's race. He won easily in 2006 and will probably do so again. The Dems haven't bothered to field a serious candidate against him since he was first elected in 2002. I grant it seems pretty anomalous that RI and VT of all places have GOP governors. But then again, who thought WY, KS, and OK would elect Democrats?

As an outsider (Australian) I have noted watching the "democrats" that I have become an "anti-Clinton" bystander.

I liked her over the years but having seen the Michael Moore movie "Sicko" her health care position as "first lady", and now her heavierly funded campaign by the "big pharma" I have seen her as a "pure" opportunist!

Her negative attack on Obama, only had to add "Osama" to go the "whole nine yards" on attempting to destroy not only him but the party! I certainly couldn't vote for her if I were an American, it seems it's all about me (Her). Our former prime nminister here in Australia was very much like your Hilary, he lost his seat and a government of over 11.5 years was lost because it was all about (HIM) mememememe!

I like Barrack, I think as the democratic nominee, he will be the person to get the USA back where "she" belongs, an icon of what is possible in our world!

America don't let us down, please!

Friendlyfire - Your post would be powerful in the absence of the Obama campaign's pust to force superdelegates to follow the popular vote. Hello? If the rules are the rules, then the superdelegates should do what their conscience tells them and MI&Fl don't count.

Both campaigns are going for tactical advantage. Obama is cheating on superdelgaets. Clinton on the queue jumpers. Noone is clean here.

BB

Did ANYONE see this guy on Hardball tonight? Terry McAuliffe just did a segment where Chris Matthews asked him whether or not the candidate with the most pledged delegates going into the convention should win. McAuliffe basically responded NO, that the Democratic National Party rules provide for the super delegates and "rules are rules." Ironically, however, as he is talking, the screen rolling below him announces Clinton's plan to make a case for seating the Florida and Michigan delegates when these states held primaries against the Democratic National Party rules. Seems that "rules are rules" ONLY if you are not a Clinton trailing in delegates. And, didn't Senator Clinton say that no president has ever won the white house without winning Ohio? Isn't that exactly what John Kennedy DID?

There is really only one trend that matters now and that's how long Hillary decides to undermine the strength of the Democratic ticket to win in November. For Hillary to win the nomination one or both of two things need to happen: a) the delegates from Michigan and Florida are included and b) she somehow convinces enough superdelegates to support her. I believe both of those scenarios do nothing but damage the integrity of the Democratic party as I believe Obama will come out ahead in pledged delegates.

At the same time she's making the campaign more negative and taking the party through the gutter. Which tells you everything you need to know about Hillary. She'd risk the success of the whole party to even have the most miniscule chance of being elected president. All for the Clinton glory. I actually wonder if she'd have any regrets if it all unfolds that way and McCain ends up president because of it.

Oh, my. That is a delicious post.

First off, you ask where I got my numbers. These were taken directly from the Washington Post today (I think from Ohio and Texas voters). Roughly 45% of Democratic voters were happy with both Clinton and Obama and would support either in a general election. Around 25% would support one or the other. More for Clinton than Obama, belying the claim that Clinton voters would go for Obama but not vice versa. So, that makes around 70%. There were previous polls indicating 80% of Democrats were happy with their choices.

Now for the fun stuff. You asked me to make a choice. I DID. You pose false choices--Obama or facism.

You know little of policies. Please tell me the critical policy differences between Clinton and Obama that make her a conservative Republican. Preferably without any of the innumerable typos that litter your posts. I know--cheap shot--but at some point one has to care about one presents oneself. It's like walking around with an open fly,

Well, enough troll feeding for the evening. I am heartened by the polls posted tonight indicating a significant lead for either Clinton (6%) or Obama (12%) over McCain.

BB

"I am someone who voted for Sen. Clinton and will happily support Sen. Obama. That puts me in with about 70% of the Dem. party. So, I guess we're all sell-outs by your definition. "

Time will tell. Where do you get your numbers? Off the top of your head.

It's all good. You sell-out moderates do your worst saboatage. It's not working. Do yoru worst gop. Clinton cannot win. That is a fact. Say what you will. She and her supporters are now sabotuers with the gop. She is going to be on mccai's ticket. I'll expect an appology in a few months. :)

Check the archeives. Rufus 1133.

When you gop propogandists are right and I'm wrong then I'll start giving you credibility. I haven't been wrong yet. Check the archieves. But you don't have time for that. our here to rip people up. Just like your candidate. Do your worst gop.

I just want america to make a choice. The gop and what they represent and what they've done to this country, Or not. That's all.

Clinton is a false choice. She is the most conservative republcain left. Voting for her is supporting the gop but acting like yoru not.

I just listened to a mlk speech. He said he agree's with dante in one aspect. The hotest fires of hell burn for the people who stand idely by and allow horrible atroicties to take place, while never taking sides.

Pick a side clinton supporters. Are you gop or not. If so fine. Make the choice at least have the courage to be honest about it.

I just want a choice from you people. Is that to much to ask when my brothers and sisters are dying daily. Is it to much to ask people which side they are on? I guess so.

do yoru worst clinton/gop propogandists. Let's see who wins.

I said in the past i would be for three parties. The fascist right nazi's, the moderates and the left. Then when the moderates sell us out at least they will not be in party sabotuers. At least they will have to face the conseqeunces of tehir own treason and sabotage without the good liberals giving them moral cover.

choose moderates. Choose a side and stand strong. I don;t care which side. If your with the gop, be proud. But I do not pity you people for stabbing me and my movement in the back.

The hotest circle of hell burns for those who refuse to take sides and allow atrocities to take place in their name. As a chrsitian man I do not think everyone should think like me (as the gop does). But I do expect you to choose.

CHOOSE A SIDE AND VOTE! (without the cross party sabotage please.)

Who said Hillary won? Figure Obama's percentage of the election delegates (126 total to be awarded)and his current percentage of precinct primary delegates (67 to be awarded). Then do the same with Clinton's. Comes out 96.74 Obama and 93.74 Clinton. Granted only 39% of the primary convention returns are in at this time but it could get worse for Clinton. Texas isn't decided. My precinct convention was 2 to 1 Obama.

Krishna...

I have to thank you for an evening's entertainment. That and PatrickNYC (loved your posts, even if it amounted to troll feeding, a weakness of mine).

I am someone who voted for Sen. Clinton and will happily support Sen. Obama. That puts me in with about 70% of the Dem. party. So, I guess we're all sell-outs by your definition.

So, please, keep blogging. I'm sure that Mr. Nader will appreciate your support.

BB

still it's the principle. :)

"rufus --

Our projections show the most likely outcome of yesterday's elections will be that Hillary Clinton gained 187 delegates, and we gained 183.

That's a net gain of 4 delegates out of more than 370 delegates available from all the states that voted.

For comparison, that's less than half our net gain of 9 delegates from the District of Columbia alone. It's also less than our net gain of 8 from Nebraska, or 12 from Washington State. And it's considerably less than our net gain of 33 delegates from Georgia.

The task for the Clinton campaign yesterday was clear. In order to have a plausible path to the nomination, they needed to score huge delegate victories and cut into our lead.

They failed.
"

David Plouffe, BarackObama.com

Carry on gop. your right your right. Let's just disregard reality or change the rules so you have a chance. Or not. :)

You know, as far as the way the media hypes it (and the Clinton campaign spins it), it's an expectations game.

A few weeks ago everyone (including the Clinton campaign) was saying that Hillary had to win and win big in both Texas and Ohio--that she had to close the delegate gap. That was, of course, when she was about 20 points ahead in both states. But when Obama closed that gap before the election, suddenly the goal post kept moving.

The facts remain that Obama still has a commanding delegate lead, that he racked up 12 decisive wins in a row before Hillary finally won her first 3 after Feb. 5, and that he closed the huge gap enough in both Texas and Ohio to make them both inconsequential in the delegate count, even if he fell just short of completely overtaking her. Just like in New Hampshire, everyone is thinking it's a comeback for Hillary just because they had prematurely counted her out, even though the real story is how much Obama closed the gap down to almost nothing.

All the salivating over her win in Ohio is particularly silly, since Obama never led in the polls there. Yet, again, what he did do was narrow the gap from what it was a few weeks ago.

OK. So Obama was not able to finish Hillary off and force her out of the race. That does not mean that she is ahead or that she has the momentum. You can talk about big states and small states all you want, but the facts are also that Obama racked up 12 wins in a row mostly by huge margins, while Hillary had one win by a sizable margin (Rhode Island), one by a moderate margin (Ohio/ though less than her margin there a few weeks ago), and one by the skin of her teeth (Texas).

Again, the media spin is an expectations game. Hillary did better than they expected her to a few days earlier. Yet, she still did far worse than was expected of her just a few weeks ago. People don't need to lose sight of that. She did manage to briefly arrest Obama's upward spike with a last minute flood of negative attacks, but Obama will adjust to that and turn her attacks back on her.

As it is evident that Hillary is going to run an increasingly negative campaign, it appears that Obama will have to be more aggressive in attacking her--e.g., demand that she release her income tax records and the records on the Clinton Administration that are being kept secret. He has tried to maintain the high road, but sometimes you have to fight fire with fire--sad but true in politics.

here here right pat and dave. forget e primus unum. We are now "the few the proud the propogandists". Bow to the gop cult and their masters of spin and lies or pay the price. So much for e primus unum.

Way to destroy democracy gop. Let's see how histroy recrds your treason.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 05:50 PM
------------------------------

You can always tell when you cuy and paste, it's the only time there are not spelling errors. So if I get you right, anyone who disagrees with the dribble you type is GOP.

Since this site is done for the day.

"ABRAMS: Rush Limbaugh and others on the far right [are] now trying to pervert tomorrow's results, calling on Republicans in Ohio and Texas to vote in the Democratic primary for Hillary Clinton -- not because they like Clinton, but because they want to keep the Democrats in disarray.

RUSH: Perverting the democrat process? What did you guys do to our process? All you Democrats and independents crossing over, not only in 2000, but here in 2008, nominating and voting for Senator McCain. What, you guys are going to vote for McCain in November? You think we don't understand what you were doing here? You're trying to choose our nominee, why can't we try to choose yours? You like people across the aisle so much, you ought to be happy that a lot of Republicans cross the aisle and voted for a Democrat instead of thinking the process has been perverted. You know, I got a note from somebody saying, "William F. Buckley would have never done this! William F. Buckley!" I beg your pardon, William F. Buckley did once -- William F. Buckley and National Review Online -- set up an organization called BuckPac, and you know what the result of BuckPac was? The election of Joe Lieberman! BuckPac was a political action committee to get rid of Lowell Weicker, a liberal Republican. BuckPac most certainly is an example of William F. Buckley standing up for conservative ideals, just as what we did in suggesting Republicans vote for Mrs. Clinton. It's the same thing. Conservative ideals! Yeah, we're trying to cause a little mischief, but how come it's only mischief when we do it and how come it's great democracy when the Democrats cross the aisle and corrupt our nomination process? A little tit-for-tat here, is how I view it. Now let's go to the show after the tease. On DNCTV, Dan Abrams talking with Democrat strategerist Laura Schwartz about my call for more Republicans to vote for Senator Clinton in Ohio and Texas. Abrams said, "Do the Democrats have something to worry about here? I still think there are going to be some Republicans even when they want to engage in this kind of mischief, who are going to have problems actually pulling the lever for Hillary."
"

here here right pat and dave. forget e primus unum. We are now "the few the proud the propogandists". Bow to the gop cult and their masters of spin and lies or pay the price. So much for e primus unum.

Way to destroy democracy gop. Let's see how histroy recrds your treason.

Hillary won because she accomplished her goal which was to win TX and OH. March 4 was do or die and she was able to do.

Also, she was able to get people to take a good look at Barack and see what he's really made of. I like Barack, but think in time he will be matured enough to be president. Currently, he's not quite there.

Hillary for prez 2008!

"By Randall Palmer

OTTAWA (Reuters) - The leak of information about Barack Obama's position on the North American Free Trade Agreement was "blatantly unfair" to his campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Stephen Harper said on Wednesday.

Harper said the government was mounting an "internal security investigation" to find out who leaked the information, which suggested Obama's campaign had said not to pay too much attention to his protectionist rhetoric on NAFTA.

"This kind of leaking of information is completely unacceptable and in fact ... it may well be illegal," the prime minister told Parliament.

"It is not useful, it is not in the interests of the government of Canada, and the way the leak was executed, Mr. Speaker, was blatantly unfair to Sen. Obama and his campaign."

Obama's rival in the U.S. Democratic primaries, Hillary Clinton, had seized on the Canadian information to try to demonstrate that Obama could not be trusted on foreign affairs and that he said one thing in private and another in public.
"

Is the question who won? Or what people will do to try and win? I think yesterday tells us much more about the clintons AND this country. Very sad day for america. One party government is slavery.

I was educated, some could say "schooled", in the ridiculous Texas caucus last night. We were denied entry to our polling place for almost 90 minutes after our polling place closed. The poll workers said "they had to verify all votes cast that day". We called BS on this and they locked the doors in our face! Dozens of people got fed up and left. We were allowed to enter at 8:30 and finished up at 10:00. We ended up with 62 people at the caucus, 34 votes for Hillary and 28 votes for Barrack. Hillary received 7 delegates and Barrack received 5.
I am very proud of all the people who stood in lines last night and hung in there to have their choice recorded (I hope it was recorded)
I was elected a delegate and look forward to going through the process and possibly making it to Denver.

support the troops pat. Or mock them for fun. you show yoru gop face. Use us. Hide behind us. NEver respect us or our opinion. Now you know why yoyr party is done.

What pat. You thought no one would know your one of rush's sabtuers and call you out? Not to bright are ya?

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 03:05 PM
-----------------------------
Not as bright as you sunshine!!!

Maybe your parents didn't drop you on your head after all, maybe you've been building model planes and forgot to put the cap back on the glue.

we know your gop tricks. It may be the internet. But we know gop propogandists when we see you. By your fascist tactics.

Go back to drudge and get you rmarching orders. Let yoru masters think for you as you are unable to think for yourself. i don't hate you for that. Dittoheads are so for a reason. You have to be. Without your masters you would be unable to function in the political enviornemnt. No context no understanding of what is going on.

Enjoy your irrelevance old man. With the gop. you people sure have earned it. don't blame the world for your parties downfall. lasck of credibility and accountability destroyed your party. Not the media, not obama, not judges, not schools. YOU people destroyed your own party. Leave the democratic party alone. I know destroyin gboth parties is your only hope. But we are smarter than the average bear.

support the troops pat. Or mock them for fun. you show yoru gop face. Use us. Hide behind us. NEver respect us or our opinion. Now you know why yoyr party is done.

What pat. You thought no one would know your one of rush's sabtuers and call you out? Not to bright are ya?

Hey JKrishnut, you say you were in the armed services? You mean they gave you a weapon? I hope it wasn't loaded.

wow fish. Nobody goes after obama? Everyone goes after clinton? wow.

"why do I always get asked the first question?"

WOW.

he is fighting gop, the moderate sell-outs and the media. He is fighting the whole gop machine. hillary is harnessing it for her advantage. After what they did to her? WOW.

I have to assume you are a propogandists or don't know what you are talking about. She can't win. not happening. she is just delaying the inevitable. Destroying her party in the process.

"it's important that our next president have respect for the system, and be willing to work within it, as hillary has proven"

you mean like rush limbaugh and coulter getting sabotage vots. you mean like counting and trying to recount mi and fl after the fact? you mean like throwing her party/country under the bus for her own personal ambitions.

I disagree wholeheartedly with your post.

clinton is now a republican insurgant. All the things said about bush and his gop, now apply to clitnon. Her choice. Her ambition is destroying her party. Her party was the only hope to save this great nation from teh gop horde. She's throwing it all away and stabbing us all in the back for her own ambition. gop mindset alright.

See pat.

that is why the gop (clinton) included is done. propoganda. your not real. your not patriots. this is a game to people like you. When no one is looking you hide.

I'm not laughing. Destroying my country for fun? That's your game?

you show all indepenandt thinkers who come here your face.

clinton. and the democratic party. it is becoming increasingly apparent that he cannnot win the big, democratic states. and, the more people get to know him, the more they see that he has nothing to say. this talk of a "movement" is a sure path to a mccain/bush-3 presidency. he needs to put in a little more time to show that he's actually willing to do the work of governing. campaigning and winning is NOT what being president is about. bush/cheney/rove has proved that. once they got there, they knew nothing about governing. it's important that our next president have respect for the system, and be willing to work within it, as hillary has proven. also, fl and mi should definitely count -- millions of people went to the polls and expect and deserve to have their votes counted. no one forced them to remove their names from the ballot. besides, it's the obama campaign that is pressuring the super delegates, behind the scenes, to switch sides, while blaming the clinton campaign. and much of the pressure is racial, as with john lewis. if the clinton campaign did this, their would be an uproar. the double-standard in this race is staggering, but the media can't talk about because they've been too busy slamming the clintons, an easy target. no one goes after him, why? the bottom line, if hillary is not the democratic candidate, those who want an experienced candidate that has paid their dues will probably vote for mccain -- so much for the supposed democratic states. if obama is the candidate, the democrats will lose. if he is truly for the party, he will throw his support to hillary and unite the party for a democratic win, something the country sorely needs after 8 years of bush.

"It looks like Rush Limbaugh's call for Texas Republicans to vote for Hillary worked. She got about 116,000 Republican votes in the Texas Primary yesterday.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/05/republican-mischief-in-texas/

Posted by: Trumbull | March 5, 2008 02:41 PM
"

differant from obama's gop'ers. Clintons are republcain sabotuers. obama's are disallusioned republcains. Big differance. one side is sabotaging the proces, obama's side is engaging in it. you know the saying. you lay with dogs you get fleas.

"Wednesday March 5, 2008 08:39 EST
The "Rezko" game
Throughout the 1990s, the word "Whitewater" was the weapon used continuously by the Limbaugh Right and the establishment press to cast innuendo on the Clintons' financial lives. The word was just tossed around as slippery shorthand for corrupt dealings. It never had any substance. No specific allegations of wrongdoing were ever made about the original "Whitewater" transactions by those throwing the term around. And after $73 million was spent on an endless investigation, no wrongdoing on the part of the Clintons was found.

One could read literally thousands of news accounts about the "Whitewater scandal" and never encounter a single, specific charge of impropriety. The word simply stood for a series of confusing, complex, boring financial transactions that were combined with dark and vague innuendo which, repeated enough, led to a "where-there's-smoke- there's-fire" presumption of guilt. Slothful journalists could not get enough of the tactic because tossing "Whitewater" around required no real work, active investigation or critical thought -- the mortal enemies of most establishment reporters -- but instead was just a cheap and easy way to imply that they were pursuing some sort of scandal.

"Rezko" is the Whitewater of the Obama campaign. It's almost impossible now to find an article or news account about Obama that doesn't include some dark reference to the "Rezko" affair, always with the suggestion or even overt claim that it's reflective of some serious vulnerability, some suggestion of wrongdoing and corruption. But what is it? The reporters throwing the word around quite plainly have no idea.

Having paid only casual attention to it in the past, I spent several hours yesterday morning reading every "Rezko" article I could find in an attempt to understand as much as possible about the allegations. The point isn't that there is no credible evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of Obama, although that's unquestionably true. It's far beyond that. There aren't even any theoretical allegations or suggestions as to what he might have done wrong at all. The person who is accused of wrongdoing is Tony Rezko, in matters inarguably having nothing to do with Obama. Nobody claims otherwise (although many try to imply otherwise).

The only substantive connections Obama and Rezko have is that the latter was a contributor to Obama's campaign and was a partner in a standard residential real-estate purchase which nobody suggests, at least in terms of Obama's conduct, was anything but above-board. But Rezko himself has a sinister-sounding, villain-like last name and is of Syrian origin, which, for multiple reasons, helps build the shallow media drama.

But Obama isn't even accused of -- let alone proven to have engaged in -- any wrongdoing at all. I spent many years litigating all sorts of civil cases involving financial transactions like these. Few things are easier than concocting some nefarious angle to innocuous real estate transactions, yet they can't even do that here. Despite that, the "Rezko" innuendo lurks and grows and clearly isn't going anywhere.

Yesterday, Digby -- citing a post she wrote more than a year ago on this specialized GOP template for manufacturing media scandals out of pedestrian though boring financial transactions -- described exactly how this process works:

Over a year ago I took one of my periodic trips down memory lane and roughly outlines the press treatment of the Whitewater story. At the time, the Rezko story was just starting to bubble up out of Chicago, and I explained how these stories are used to degrade the reputations of Democrats . . . .
These are patented Whitewater-style "smell test" stories. They are based on complicated details that make the casual reader's eyes glaze over and about which the subject has to issue long confusing explanations in return. They feature colorful and unsavory political characters in some way. They often happened in the past and they tend to be written in such a way as to say that even if they aren't illegal they "look bad" . . .

No single story will bring down a candidate because they have no substance to them. It's the combined effect they are looking for to build a sense overall sleaziness. "Where there's smoke there's fire" right?

Once the original transaction gets solidified in Media World as representing something dark and bad, then it's no longer necessary to bother with anything specific. Tossing around the innuendo becomes the only thing necessary to continue to fuel it. Here's a classic and quite common example of this genre. As Digby wrote:
These stories are very difficult to control once they get going. The MSM gasbags start "analyzing" the whole thing in terms of whether the subject of the inquiry is being forthcoming or if he's "stonewalling" and it snowballs into armchair psychology and novelistic character studies. From what I gather of the Rezko matter so far, we can probably expect this to have the same trajectory. The press conference yesterday was deja vu all over again.
Early in George Bush's term, it was revealed that one of his closest and most loyal supporters, Enron's Ken Lay, committed one of the most massive frauds in American corporate history. The President's own brother, Neil, has been involved in numerous accusations of serious impropriety and yet continues to be paid by multiple sources for virtually nothing other than being George Bush's brother. The central cog for the GOP fundraising machine, Jack Abramoff, is now imprisoned as a serial felon. Led by his involvement in the Keating Five scandal, John McCain has been linked to some of the sleaziest figures around.

Yet somehow, the standard in those cases is that, in the absence of specific allegations of wrongdoing on the part of the political official, merely being linked -- even intimately -- to thieves and felons won't be held against the political official. By rather stark contrast, the multiple former Clinton associates who were convicted of wrongdoing -- the McDougals and Webster Hubbell -- were constantly used to imply that the Clintons themselves had done something corrupt, and now, Tony Rekzo's conduct is being sloppily and dishonestly cast onto Barack Obama without the slightest attempt to actually make the case that Obama has done anything even arguably wrong at all.

One very simple and self-evidently warranted rule ought to be applied: no reporter should toss around "Rezko" innuendo unless they're able to explain what it means specifically when assessing Obama's conduct, what specific allegations of any substance are being made against Obama when the scary specter of "Rezko" is invoked. If they're incapable of articulating even those basics -- and they are -- then the whole exercise is just deceitful and worthless.

It's precisely the empty nature of the "scandal" that makes it impossible to resolve. The more he addresses it, the more he fuels it; conversely, the more he refuses to address it, the more he will be accused of "stonewalling" and not being forthcoming. It's just illusory innuendo that, by design, can never be satisfactorily addressed because nobody can ever apprehend what the substance of the "scandal" is. Substance-free scandal is the only kind that attracts the intense attention of the media hordes.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

for mark.

This is why I call clinton supporters republcinas, in a nutshell. How could you fight agaisnt the gop bush and rush all these years, then back clinton. How can clinton supporters resort to these tactics, that have been used so malicously on you?

the answer is simple. Clinton are republcain sabotuers in the democratic party. Would bush have got impeached without clinton being impeached previous? Would bush have gotten away with his crimes without the clinton false crimes to point to.

this is why I assume all clitnon supporters ae really republcains posing as democrats. Either that or they have become what they once fought against. Unless it was all a hoax. Frickin republcains. the internet killed your party. not obama or democrats. Truth killed your party.

To pat. I assume you are against what bush has done to this country. how can you fight bush then back clinton and the same tactics?

Never mind don't answer. I like thinking of you as a rush limbaugh sabotuer. It fits nicely. :)

Keep playing with yourself. you are the master debater or your own world. Call that imaginary land you live in, the land of zouk. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 02:28 PM
-------------------------------
Did your parents drop you on your head when you were a child or was the brain damaged afterwards??

pOCK FUN? You have to have credibility. You are playng games with yourself.

Keep playing yourself out. HAHAHHA

I have to care what yo think for your thinking to work. you have to have credibility here (which I do) for your games to work on others.

Keep playing with yourself. you are the master debater or your own world. Call that imaginary land you live in, the land of zouk. :)

"Hope cc bans me again. you can't touch my posts."

Nice point, the one between your ears. If he bans you no one will see your posts you idiot. I for one hopes he does not. It is so fun to poke a stick at you. I wonder if you squeal like a pig when we do??

I agree, McCain is the winner. If Clinton is nominated, she will not be able to use the national security or experience cards against him, the only big arguments the Democrats have left are Iraq and age. The first is a non-issue because all three of these candidates want an honorable, negotiated end to hostilities -- they phrase it differently depending on the audience -- and the second just depends on McCain picking a good VP. If Obama gets nominated, the Clinton campaign has cast doubts that the GOP can and will exploit. I'm beginning to be less sure than ever that our next president will be a Democrat.

While this has all been an interesting social exercise, the inability of either candidate to emerge as the clear choice of the people only adds to the unescapable fact that neither of these candidates will have enough votes for a first ballot victory and then chaos will ensue. The prayer that they can form a joint ticket is beyond hopeful thinking because you can only have one presidentail cadidate per party and neither will take the second seat to the other. And truth be told, neither of these candidates can hope to beat McCain in the general election. Is that because he's the best candidate, no - unfortunately it's because he will be the only white male candidate. Now before you all run to the sexist, racist biggot card, I need only point to history. In the 70's, Tom Bradly the african-american mayor of Los Angeles was ahead of George Dukemajain in every gubernatorial poll that was taken in California right up to and including the day before the election. In the only poll that counts, the voting booth, George Dukemajian won. Why? Simple. No one will admit to being biased or racist in public but everyone will "vote their true heart" in the booth. While it is sad, it is also true that America, in the first decade of the 21st century, is neither intellectually nor socially mature enough to elect a woman or a minority to the office of the President of the United States. What's to do? Can anyone say Al Gore???

clinton now is gop. I agree with your point though.

Why didn't she fight the last 8 years to "keep the gop out" rather than backing them. Then doing their dirty work now.

use both sides of the brain pat. Start there. Then maybe you can compeate here. :)

Where was your candidate when in mattered? the same place she is now. Behind bush and the gop. Leaders lead when they are most needed. Where was clinton during that time? Scared? What "leadership" did she provide when most needed? What leadership is she showing her party now?

I wonder how much of the Republican vote propelled Hillary over the finish line in Texas? (45%) We all know she's never going to get that in the general...

Ultimately, the Dems lost this one. Hillary Clinton's scorched earth sleazy politics have repulsed too many voters. I will never support her- her dishonesty is an insult to American voters and the issues we face are too important to be skewed and spun through her narcisstic drivel.

BTW- I am a WHITE female, over 40. She will lose much more than the black Democratic vote if she guts the party to get the nomination.

Posted by: arielwire | March 5, 2008 01:55 PM
------------------------
I agree with your point, I was very disappointed with the 3AM phone call ad. That said I hope all Democrats will put the primary behind us and keep the GOP out.

I just love those who say that primary wins in small western states that have gone with the Republican presidential candidate are unimportant.

Look, the old idea that the Democrats need to just hold on to "Blue" states and concentrate their efforts on Ohio and Florida has been a failed formula in the last two elections. It could have been worse, we owe a big thank you to Ross Perot who was the chief reason we won the presidency in 1992 and 1996.

The inland western states have been trending Democrat. To assume, just because of voting patterns of the past 50 years that those patterns will remain in place forever is to deny history. There was a time when few could imagine Montana going for the Republican. That changed, and history says it will change again.

Campaigning in these states in the primaries gives Clinton and Obama exposure they would not ordinarlily have and that helps them make their case in November.

Howard Dean is right about a 50 state campaign. One of the reasons I like Obama is that he seems to have grasped the importance of not succumbing to assumptions of traditional voting patterns.

Whatever you say bsuh/clinton lawyers appolgists.

Someone's got to fight for this country, while you pigs for profit sell us out.

I know this is a moderate/gop site. Why do you think I come here. It's not us liberals/progressvies who are holding up progress. Pat each otehr on the back all day. We are not a nation of dittoheads. your games only work with like minded robots. Not on clear thinking non-partisan americans.

clinton's people are sell-outs. I'm sorry but you are. this is a clinton site, always has been. your taughts and mocking only works amoungst yourselves. Play your games with yourselves. While you do that me and mine will be doing things. Making moves.

while you sell-out people like me do the heavy lifting. Say what you will. Where would america be without my movement? While you while marching to fox's and bush's drumbeat some were fighting the lies and destrouction of this great nation.

I just want you to pick a side. As long as we all knoww hat time it is and clinton is gop, I'm good. I just don't want the coward moderates who have been enabling the gop cult to be able to say they are agaisnt the gop. That's all. I just want it all on the table. Get rid of the sabotuers or at least call them out. that's all.

this is a hillary clinton site. Always has been. your jones effect will not work on me. Hope cc bans me again. you can't touch my posts. Whine cry and complain. That's what you do, right gop (clinton included)? That is your only hope. you no longer can compeate in the marketplace of ideas. All you fascists have is "i know you are but what am I" or "your a dummy."

HAHHAHAHAHAHHAHAHA

who doese elementary shoocl games work on in 2008 political enviornemnt. Grow up children. I'll be waiting when you got something other than fox-like gop propoganda

I wonder how much of the Republican vote propelled Hillary over the finish line in Texas? (45%) We all know she's never going to get that in the general...

Ultimately, the Dems lost this one. Hillary Clinton's scorched earth sleazy politics have repulsed too many voters. I will never support her- her dishonesty is an insult to American voters and the issues we face are too important to be skewed and spun through her narcisstic drivel.

BTW- I am a WHITE female, over 40. She will lose much more than the black Democratic vote if she guts the party to get the nomination.

i really must be untouchable today. So many fascist republicans, so little points of their own. :)

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 01:40 PM

LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU!!!! HE'S GOT A THOUGHT!!!!!

the republcains and their moderate sell-out democrats have to do something. They have to find someone to attack and blame for their lack of credibility and accountability. We'll see who buys it.

Beware of your new freinds clinton supporters. the gop cult is not your freinds. Either you are with them or agaisnt them, you heard the saying. Beware of your new buddies. They will turn on you when it suits them.

how many republican lying propogandists does it take to combat and equal one free thinking american? Let's find out shall we. All of you republican cowards!. What do you got on the substance.

thank you mark for the bio. for the right-wing peanut gallery jones effect. Either attack the substance of my posts, or post somethign to counter.
You people are stroking my ego right now.

I'm I that good that you can't touch my posts? i really must be untouchable today. So many fascist republicans, so little points of their own. :)

Who won? The Republicans. They are united and have months to promote their candidate John McCain. The Democrats are split and will not have time to heal primary wounds to be victorious in November. If Clinton wins, she will not have the black support she alienated in the primary (support she needs for November). If Obama wins, he will not have the female support that stands strong behind Clinton (support he needs for November).
Thus, the winner is the Republican Party. It does not matter if it is Clinton or Obama, the Democratic Party will not be able to recover from this primary.

'This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog.'

funny, mark. i think my oklahoma grandmother used to say that..

that is true novamatt

it just proves we all have fanatics--if only everyone was able to identify them so easily and ignore them with such humor. :)

I sort of like Rufus. His trolling balances out zouk's trolling at least, and it's fun watching people try to reason with either one of them. We all need a laugh every now and then.

mark_in_austin: "This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog"

LMAO :)

Ditto ;)

I like that Obama is talking about getting tougher with Clinton.
Posted by: novamatt | March 5, 2008 01:11 PM

I hope he does. She has been skating compared to what the GOP is going to do in the General. She talks about being vetted, I personally don't think she has any idea about how strong the GOP would go after her.
Just take for example the "experience" claim--McCain would have a field day.

mark_in_austin: "This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog"

LMAO :)

"So what are you going to do if it happens?

Posted by: Spectator2 | March 5, 2008 01:03 PM
"

Move to europe. the gop would be running against itself. a one party govenrment is not freedom or democracy. It will be two sides of the same coin.

If that happens this will no longer be america. I allow with millions of others will flee fascist persecution. the fascist state WILl eat itself, deservadly so.

We risk losing our country this year for good. I am a patriot. you know this spector. You've seen me here. Check the archieves I have been for obama when he was a joke to you people. I was fighitng for obama when doing so got you banned. So you know I am only fighting for my country, in my eyes.

Look at it from someone's perspective who has been fighting the bush's fox's and rush's for years. After all the fighting for the democratic party to sell-out to the gop. for the media to sell-out the country. I mean let the pigs have fox. Why do they need cnn and msnbc also?

It's disheartening for me to see this, after fighting the bad guys all these years. i feel stabbed in the back. Not that i'm whining and crying. I'm not gop. Rather than whining crying or saying "Why does barack get the first question everytime", I'm fighting my enemy. If clinton and her people want to be added to that list, so be it. If the "left-wing" media wants to be added to this list, so be it.

I, and millions of others, are fighting for this great nation. And what it once was. If america is not with that fight, majority rule. But we are no longer america then. And I will leave you people (gop and moderate sell-out dems) to do what you will and face whatever consequences you will face. I will not pity you people. I will live in western europe and pray for your souls. But you don;'t care about that or your souls or your reputation across the world. As long as you got little pieces of paper with old dead guys on it.

Insane to me. But to the insane sanity seems insane. the question is who is insane. Just because crazy people surrond themselves with like minded crazy people does not make them less crazy.

i will not back down until the fight is over. ME PERSONALLY, no one else. I am a soldier and swore to fight our enemies. I said I would not stop blogging until the media was free and open and free of the corporate slavery of money for propoganda. I had said once fox is off the air and rush so will I go.

the fight continues until the end. I and others will not sacrafice my intergrity or this countries ideals. I am not scared of whatever consequence fighting for this country has. I will get jailed or banned or mocked. I am a christian american. I will do that for you people. But I, and my movement, should be alone.

If we are so you are. Pick a side

I just read through this morning's posts over lunch and was amused to see the relative newcomers try to engage Rufus [they know him as JK...].

Rufus has the capacity to bring down any thread with his own hateful anti-Catholic rants; his assumptions that he, a self-proclaimed "democratic-socialist" is somehow within the "liberal" tradition; his rants against FOX news; his rants against Ds, R,s Is, conservatives, liberals, and moderates - all of whom are "facists" [sic] to him.

But what will eventually drive you to wanting to scroll right through will be his cut-and-pastes from "Glen Greenwald", and your recognition that he must actually be ignored.

Every now and then, Rufus writes something that is not lunacy. Do not be fooled. This is akin to the accidental discovery of an acorn by a blind hog.

"So I'm a racist now. I tough I was a sexism because I call hillary a republcain. HAHAHAHHAHA"

Man if this is the kind of people we have in our party backing Obama he should be very worried. Oh by the way you idiot, you are both a racist and a sexist. Not a 'sexism'.

I'd like to see another FIX take on what experts are saying about fixing the Primary system for next time.

Obviously pushing everything up doesn't work and increases the liklihood of buyers remorse and a not properly vetted candidate (no I am not saying this is Obama--I support Obama) but I do see the potential.

What is a logical way to approach every state getting to participate like this year, but without creating increased confusion and in-fighting.

What do you think CC?

I like that Obama is talking about getting tougher with Clinton. For all the guff about how she's been vetted and how all the media hates her, I haven't heard anyone really pressing her on stuff like her tax returns, the Clinton Foundation donors, Norman Hsu, Peter Paul, the relationship between the contributions to her from the financial services industry and her vote on the bankruptcy bill. Or about her weak claims to experience, especially foreign policy experience, all of which seems to revolve around being married to somebody.

Obama's done a great job of staying out of the muck, but making her answer these questions and others like them is a part of the process, and something he should be forcing the media to do, even if it makes Tina Fey mad. The Republicans have a fat file on her filled with lots of stuff that has barely even been mentioned, but absolutely certainly would be before November. Let's get this all out into the sunshine where we can examine it and voters from the remaining states and the superdelegates can weigh it before they make a decision.

peanut gallery. Nobody cares blade.

Post your posts. if you feel I am wrong or worse, propogating, tell me how.

do you. I'll do me. If I'm wrong tell me how. Peanut gallery no longer works. Republcains cannot bring in their buddies to agree with them and trump other opinions. that was the 90's when elementary school games work. now you must win with credibility and making better points. Not school yard bully games.

So I'm a racist now. I tough I was a sexism because I call hillary a republcain. HAHAHAHHAHA

you republcain sabotuer sell-outs show your faces. While we were fighting bush what were you moderates doing? Where were you? the same place you are now. Hiding behind bush and the gop's skirts.

If I feel clinton is a republcain, based on words and actions, would I be a hypocrite to fight bush all these years then back clinton? Yes I would be. As you clinton supporters are now. not that your bad people. But your republcains now, TO ME. And i will treat you like them. If you don't want that you must pick a side.

Are you fighting the fascists or enabling them? Clinton is enabling them. Rush and coulter are getting republcains to vote for her.

so I'm supposed to take the hits from the moderate sell-outs and gop and the media? Not without a fight. If all are choosing the gop side, fine. But I'm going to call them on it.

DanKirkd - "And, btw, there is no way that delegates from MI or FL will be allowed to decide this race. At best they'll be split 50-50, but most likely, they will be left out of the final count as it was always indicated that they would."

Maybe. Maybe not. We'll have to wait and see. Since this is quite the unique situation, I'm not sure any of us knows exactly what will happen. Leaving them out was the intention at the time but that was before anyone thought there would be a race up to the convention. Remember, the whole pushing up of primaries was, in theory, going to allow for an early decision on the nominee. As long as their votes did not make a material impact on the nomination, this theory worked fine. However, if it is close, there will be a lot of pressure on whoever controls the process to allow the peoples voices to be heard and their votes to count. I don't pretend to know how this will happen and you and novamatt might be correct that it won't happen, but I think if the delegate counts are really close, anyone who thinks this is a settled deal and won't become a big issue is in error.

hargrove.steven -thanks for the feedback--I agree with everything you said.

Rounds 77-here's one Obama supporter not squirming.

PatrickNYC and FairlingtonBlade--thank you-

JKre . . .give it a rest.

We get nowhere attacking HRC like this. While I think her ads and tone pandered to the petty ignorance of voters--1> she was successful in turning the MO argument and 2>her "attack" ads are NOTHING like what Rove/Bush/Cheney have done--or their counterparts will do--and as Mr. McCain knows--they'll even cut there own party members (McCain SC 2000). Obama needed to be toughened up some--and examined--if he is who we believe he is he'll handle this and come out stronger because of it.

Dems need to STOP whining and being fearful and ENJOY that the country is leaning in our direction, victory is ours for the taking (or losing) and that we have two AMAZING candidates to choose from--Dems are DEF NOT the Losers in this process--the turn out is higher, our approval is higher; and this is messy because we tend to be the party of democracy and we want ALL voices heard--that gets messy the more people participate. Keep focused and keep pressing forward.

" HEr carrer with the democrats is over if she loses, based on her tactics and actions."

Tell me what is a carrer? Is that kind of like a 'career'?

If you spent some time reading Chris' articles, instead of just attacking those who you disagree with, then you might learn a thing or two. If Howard Dean seats the FL and MI delagates, as he should and is being pressured to, then if Hillary takes PA she will get the nomination.

If not I'll vote for Obama. I would never vote for anyone in the GOP for any office, let alone the presidency.

how long before we start burning witches again?

Posted by: drindl | March 5, 2008 12:59 PM

I understand you have a dread fear of that.

"Let me ask yo something then, hillary appologist. She can't win. It's not possible. "

Of course it's possible, Rufus. May not be the most likely outcome, but it's possible.

So what are you going to do if it happens?

JKrishnamurti - You've gone off the deep end. Not everyone who voted for Clinton is a fascist (and many of us have been Dems for a very long time). You appear to be spending your time attacking other posters rather than making points. The rants about Mexicans are also borderline racist.

BB

meanwhile, out in the 'liberal media' america continues to sink to a level of stupidity so profound it's actually hard to imagine:

'While thousands of Americans went to the polls last night, flushed with the civic pride and enthusiasm that comes when careful consideration and a sense of responsibility culminates in the casting of a vote, CNN's Glenn Beck was honoring the day over at his eponymous Headline News show. There, he was brave enough to ask the tough questions - if, by "brave" we mean "obtuse" and by "tough" we mean "inane."

Yea, verily, last night, Glenn Beck hosted anti-Catholic bigot/fervent John McCain supporter John Hagee. And lo, there was a sound that arose from deep in Beck's wordhole. And those sounds formed a question that sounded out across the airwaves unto disbelieving ears. That question: "Is Barack Obama the anti-Christ."

We are not making this up. Glenn Beck, serious newsman, needed to find out if Barack Obama was the Devourer of Worlds, Son of Harlots, Bearer of the Mark of the Beast. John Hagee had to be thrilled by the question: somehow, Beck managed to make Hagee look almost reasonable.

BECK: Let me ask you, I get so much e-mail on this and I think a lot of people do, and I've got a couple of seconds. They say Glenn, you and the media, you got to wake up. Barack Obama's making people faint and cry and everything else. He's drawing people in. There are people -- they said this about Bill Clinton -- that actually believe he might be the anti-Christ. Odds that Barack Obama is the anti-Christ.'

this kind of frightening drivel would not have come out of my TV before the ascendence of the lunatic fringe radical right. how much scarier is it going to get? how long before we start burning witches again?

"I'm on the side of making fun of clowns like you. The fact that you even suggest that Clinton would run on a GOP ticket, or McCain would ask her, shows how stupid you are. No one with any clue would consider such a possibility, except brain dead trolls like you. You are even more fun to poke with a stick than that other idiot kingofzouk.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:50 PM
"

so your response is you got nothing and are a divide and conquer republican.

Let me ask yo something then, hillary appologist. She can't win. It's not possible. So why stay in if not for sabotage? HEr carrer with the democrats is over if she loses, based on her tactics and actions. So to keep her carrer alive what will she do? Pull a lieberman? I think so. the gop (clinton included) thinks of no one but themselves. Where as teh democrats think of country above all else, in terms of politics.

Her tactics make her a republcain not my words.

So you blog to make fun of obama supporters, yet you are a "democrat"? Ok. if you say so. I'm calling you a republcain sabotuer. I hope clinton and di fi and biden and their sell-out supporters go with the republcains. Then at least teh democratic party could work without your people's sabotage

Whenever you got something old man, I'm ready for you.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:45 PM
-----------------------------------
LMAO

So dave. more money equals freedom? that is your arguement? ok

Just like money is a form of free speech right. money has destoryed our country, or love of it. Over patriotism or religon or even doing what's right. American ideals it can be summed up as. Doing what's right. Being a patriot. Somewher ealong the line money trumped all. It wasn't always that way. When they founded this country was it for money or freedom red coats?

somewhere along the line love of money (capitalism) replaced american ideals. Hence dave's arguement. the gop believes this. Moeny rules them. Money is nothing but paper with old dead guys on it. it's worth is what it is given.

Once we get american values back the money will take care of itself. IF we get american values back. you fascists somewhere down the line succeded in changing american ideals. Where american freedom equals money. It is a LIE. you can be free without money. you can be a slave with it, as many millions are.

Pelase enlighten me dave (hillary's top appologists and a republcain). Are your ilelgal slaves free or not. Does them making more money here make them free? Double think. Is that why the gop fights for ilelgal immgrants rights to come here illgealy? for their freedom? Waht about mine and our's?

I always thought it was so you could flood the housing and rental markets (hugher rent and housing costs), schools hospitals and social programs (so you can argue the government can accomplish nothing) and the job markets (lower wages).

you show your face dave. hopefully obama or mccain gets on the right side of immagration and enforeces the laws. I don't think mccain wil,, obama may switch. That is the gop's biggest fear. With their slaves what do they got?

how do you hurt people who only care about money and power? Take it from them.

I love reading these Obama supporters' posts. They're squirming, and after all the venom they spewed at what they thought was HRC's dead campaigne, some of them are having to eat a bit of Texas crow.

Enjoy the feast.

What side are you on pat? Would that make you happy. A mccain/clinton ticket? Would you vote for that?

If so you belong with lieberman di fi and the rest of teh sell-outs for profit.

Posted by: JKrishnamurti | March 5, 2008 12:43 PM

----------------------
I'm on the side of making fun of clowns like you. The fact that you even suggest that Clinton would run on a GOP ticket, or McCain would ask her, shows how stupid you are. No one with any clue would consider such a possibility, except brain dead trolls like you. You are even more fun to poke with a stick than that other idiot kingofzouk.

Hillary won big. She won three out of four states and proved that she had substantial and overwhelming support in some key constituencies of the democratic party. She also stopped most of Obama's momentum. Although she did not increase her count of pledged delegates substantially that is no longer the main game although it is not unimportant. Neither candidate can win enough pledged delegates to win the nomination. If the race stays at is now in terms of count of delegates---essentially a wash---the main game is to persuade the democratic party and specifically the super-delegates/party elders who is the best standard-bearer for the party in November. That is their role in accordance with long-standing rules of the party and when Obama supporters cry foul as though it somehow overturns democratic mandate of the voters, I beg to differ. They are simply trying to cherry pick the rules. Without challenging their complete discretion to support whomever they wish I believe the following are key factors superdelegates should consider: 1) who carried the key states that must be carried for a democratic win in November, 2) in light of the Republican nominee, who stands the best chance of offsetting his obvious strengths as a candidate, 3) which candidate presents the lowest level of voter attrition to the republicans in key states, and 4)party unity.

Whenever you got something old man, I'm ready for you.

RUFUS - "It's called slavery. It's called indenturned servants. It's called corproate SLAVERY."

So people are risking their lives trying to get into this country, sometimes multiple times, just so they can be slaves? And then they try to bring the rest of their family and friends over to also becomes slaves? That seems an odd reason to do that to me. I always thought the reason they were willing to accept the very high risk was because the reward of life in America was so worth it. So to stop the flood of people at the border, is all we need to do is tell them that the American dream is a myth and you will instead wind up slaves? That seems cheaper than a fence or increased border security.

"For your information you idiot I am a lifetime Democrat who will be happy with either Hillary or Obama. If I spent the time to correct or address every stupid word you type I'd have to quit my job and spend all day doing so.

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 5, 2008 12:32 PM
"

You prove my point for me.

go hillary. go gop!. Down with america and it's ideals

Better pat. Feel confortable now.

clinton is a reulbican. Not because i say so. By by her words actions and tactics. Either you are fighting the fascists or enabling them.

While clinton biden di fi and biden were allowing bush and the gop to destroy this country (zero backbone), millions of americans were fighting them. While yo moderates were setting there allowing our country to be gutted. forgive me, if i feel betrayed by you republcains in sheeps clothing, stabbing us and our movement in the back.

clinton can't win. If she steals the nomination she will lose against mccain. If she loses the nomination she will be his running mate. What side are you on pat? Would that make you happy. A mccain/clinton ticket? Would you vote for that?

If so you belong with lieberman di fi and the rest of teh sell-outs for profit.

If Mr.Obama can´t win any of the bigger states he won´t be able to get the electoral votes needed to become President

Posted by: santmann2002 | March 5, 2008 11:36 AM

You and others saying this are totally missing context. Obama has lost "big" states in the Democratic primary. Those results have nothing to do with the General election.
Unless, of course, you are saying that Hillary Clinton and John McCain are nearly identical candidates. But I think we can all agree they are not.

Why, Hillary Clinton's accountant, of course, is the big winner. Now that she has time to make that 30 second phone call to him, he can release her income taxes to the public and charge her $50 for the service.

"I must be speaking turhts"<