When you think of John McCain's fitness for POTUS, his "military experience" is probably the overwhelming thought that comes to the fore. Is this one of those cases of a good thing that could prove to be "too much of a good thing?"

No doubt Mr. McCain is steeped in the tradition and heritage of a military family, and the totality of his experience outside the government, including his education, is made up of military service. The United States is the most militaristic society by far among the western democracies and as such the imperative, in my view, is to strengthen the civilian control of (and primacy over) the military. [In other democracies, you will hardly ever hear the head of state described as the "commander-in-chief," in sharp contrast to our practice of emphasizing that role for our president.]

Whatever happened to peace as a desirable ideal?. [after rmgrmg]

Chris,

Are you a (EPITHETING EPITHET HERE)?!

You actually polled people invested in the defeat of the Democratic nominee for their opinions?

When you know quite well that the Republican Party is trying to extend the race and will take square aim at the Dem frontrunner?

Are you completely (THOUGHT-PROVOKING EPITHET HERE)?

Btw, Jac13 just read your leictman post.. great points all...

I think that the Presidential primary and the election in general is very appealing to young voters. Obama has brought a platform that is relatable to young people and speaks to them with hope. All the candidates talk about issues that are affecting our future and this will be a great election year...one that the young people will influence heavily. It all starts with information and opinion-www.yourthreecents.com

leichtman ... I'm glad you feel such passion (politically correctness?) that you cannot forgive a black man his anger, his words, his beliefs... a man who lived in the time of lynching, separate toliets, separate eatting facilities for black WWII soldiers while german POWs could eat w/ the whites...

Not every fight needs to be fought...so you're willing to confront my pastor? A passionate, intelligent, believing christian (raised jewish) who preaches much which I agree w/ from bible and some biggies that i disagree with--i.e., that Jews must accept Jesus to get to heaven...personally, I believe it is up to God who gets to heaven, I love that the new testament tells us jesus made it easy for us christians , but how narrow the door? I believe a merciful god is going to let in good jews, muslims, christians alike...and I don't believe homosexuality is a sin either (though my pastor does, and ascribes to the " love the sinner/hate the sin") but i stay in my church because I love the bible, love ppl who (shockingly) love the bible, even when we interpert it differently and think much that it says is beyond our understanding or got lost in the translation and will not be known til we get to the other side ...but calling a passionate enthusiasm for my candidate, "rabid"...putting others down for their viewpoints ...implying that there's a litmus test for patriotism and wright and therefore obama (and his wife, while I'm at it) somehow fail the good american test, while bush,cheney, limbaugh (draft dodgers all) pass that I'm patriotic and you're not test is... oh, never mind.

svreader, if I find a candidate who plays fast and lose with the truth and gets into legal troubles throughout his (or her) career -- and another who tends to make harder, less expedient choices -- those factors weigh into my judgment as far as character goes.

I am not of the federal city, but I've seen it at close enough range for enough years to understand pretty well how these candidates stack up -- and have friends who have worked either directly or at one remove with each of the major candidates. Obama might be too eager to please sometimes, but he doesn't generally pander.

His reasoning in 2002 before the Iraq War was absolutely on the mark. In 2002 I remember when opponents of the Iraq War were ridiculed and shouted down -- Obama wasn't in nearly as high a profile position so I dock him half credit for political courage, but I give him an A+ for his ability to prioritize and anticipate likely outcomes. What he says about energy independence in particular is an absolutely vital point. If the U.S. had made that a focus in 2002 rather than committing $1 trillion plus to a military occupation in the Middle East we would be in a much stronger strategic position now -- with a lot more leverage against potential adversaries (especially the non-state actors like Al Qaeda).

What's left is a much more challenging field to work with.

In 2002 when Obama said the Iraq war invasion will be quick, but the occupation will be long and costly, and produce negative effects isn't splitting the difference down the middle. It's a pretty accurate read of the situation. He's not falling for self-financing reconstruction costs or a $50 billion tab -- as the other major presidential candidates did.

In some respects Obama's approach is much closer to Bill's than Hillary's is -- without as much dysfunction. He's got a sharp mind, a quick learning curve, and his priorities are ahead of the curve in some areas.

If the voters are wise, they will not let this opportunity pass them by. (And no I am not affiliated with the campaign, but I have given time and money to the effort -- not something that I do every presidential election cycle).

shouldn't the question be "who has a better chance of beating Obama? Clinton or McCain?

FOR WOMEN ONLY

http://youtube.com/watch?v=CsCXh8sgTJU&feature=RecentlyWatched&page=1&t=t&f=b

Please please tell me that in this day and age is would be reduced to "who could raise the most money quickly"??? What has come of us? Time to take a calculated risk and get away from the old damn Washington establishment. It has done us no good at all. It's about integrity, trust, vision, leadership, passion, truths, money management skills (duh), being able to ignite a fire under the masses, a past based on the good works and not lies. A background that believes in LISTENING rather than dictating. Not to mention:
Getting a good report card re: WORKING AND PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS!!!! I rest my case!

Please please tell me that in this day and age is would be reduced to "who could raise the most money quickly"??? What has come of us? Time to take a calculated risk and get away from the old damn Washington establishment. It has done us no good at all. It's about integrity, trust, vision, leadership, passion, truths, money management skills (duh), being able to ignite a fire under the masses, a past based on the good works and not lies. A background that believes in LISTENING rather than dictating. Not to mention:
Getting a good report card re: WORKING AND PLAYING WELL WITH OTHERS!!!! I rest my case!

the young men are without experience?how about John kennedy ?44 years old when was elected as president.how is Bill clinton?46 he made it.now is the Barack Obama,right?Oh,the elder Bush is older,but he could not secure his incumbent with his rich experiences.
come on ,Obama 08'

When the votes are all counted, Barry Obama will LOSE, PERIOD.

This is a CONTEST. Obama is WINNING based on the rules set by the party. PERIOD.

Between the press and his supporters, Barry's gotten more BJ's than Bill could ever have dreamed of.

Don't bend over for Barry.

The Clinton campaign is as disgusting as Monica's dress.

JPRS --

Obama always plays both sides against the middle.

He also made a speach supporting the war, just in case, saying "he's not sure what he would have done"

The guy isn't worth the idealistic supporters he collects.

He's using them just like he's used everyone else in his career.

To Barry, people aren't human beings, they're means to an end.

He's done it his whole career.

He's as bad a guy as Bush.

He isn't worth your support.

He doesn't care one bit about you.

He just likes to be worshiped.

(Whine, and I should know, being the world's bestest number one expert on what a poophead Obama is. I can even show you my "Number One Expert on Stinky Obama" bumper sticker, and I ONLY made two, one for me and one for lylepink, so all you stinky Obama-heads can just sulk. Whine!)

This is a CONTEST. Obama is WINNING based on the rules set by the party. PERIOD.

Obama didn't have a teleprompter when he made the following statement:

"But I also know that Saddam poses no imminent and direct threat to the United States, or to his neighbors, that the Iraqi economy is in shambles, that the Iraqi military a fraction of its former strength, and that in concert with the international community he can be contained until, in the way of all petty dictators, he falls away into the dustbin of history.

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda.

I am not opposed to all wars. I'm opposed to dumb wars.

So for those of us who seek a more just and secure world for our children, let us send a clear message to the president today. You want a fight, President Bush? Let's finish the fight with Bin Laden and al-Qaeda, through effective, coordinated intelligence, and a shutting down of the financial networks that support terrorism, and a homeland security program that involves more than color-coded warnings.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure that the UN inspectors can do their work, and that we vigorously enforce a non-proliferation treaty, and that former enemies and current allies like Russia safeguard and ultimately eliminate their stores of nuclear material, and that nations like Pakistan and India never use the terrible weapons already in their possession, and that the arms merchants in our own country stop feeding the countless wars that rage across the globe.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to make sure our so-called allies in the Middle East, the Saudis and the Egyptians, stop oppressing their own people, and suppressing dissent, and tolerating corruption and inequality, and mismanaging their economies so that their youth grow up without education, without prospects, without hope, the ready recruits of terrorist cells.

You want a fight, President Bush? Let's fight to wean ourselves off Middle East oil, through an energy policy that doesn't simply serve the interests of Exxon and Mobil.

Those are the battles that we need to fight. Those are the battles that we willingly join. The battles against ignorance and intolerance. Corruption and greed. Poverty and despair."

Instead we have a war which has cost thousands of Americans their lives; which will result in a cost of $1.5 to $2 trillion; and which has only tied the U.S.'s hands in fighting against Al Qaeda -- a war which has compromised our security and which is unsustainable.

And yet, 6 years later we still have people lauding the "experience" of someone like McCain who can't tell the difference between Shiite and Sunni and who remains ignorant of the very real divides that exist within the Middle East -- not just between Israel and Palestine -- but between Arab nations -- and even within Arab nations.

At the end of the day we are paying the price for ignorant foreign policy based on sound-bytes. The cost is being dumped almost exclusively on younger generations and future generations while a president cuts taxes for the wealthy during a time of war (a first in our history) -- while also borrowing $1.2 trillion from China.

This election will be an excellent benchmark for where this nation stands -- and whether it is willing to engage in strong AND smart foreign policy -- or whether we will just continue to have more of the same from politicians who either are too weak-kneed, or too ignorant to make the kind of foreign policy choices that actually advance U.S. interests and increase our security.

At least with Obama and McCain we will have a clear contrast between a leader who has anticipated crises -- and another who has simply transplanted Cold War thinking towards the post-Cold War era.

Whine, I am going to hold my breath and pout until Hillary is elected. So there! Whine, intellect is overrated. A nice perm and pantsuit will save America. ESPECIALLY at three in the morning. Whine.

pinepine --

No he's not. His "image" is.

The real Barry Obama is a cold, calculating politician who only cares about himself, money and power.

He uses people.

Look at what he does, not what he says.

He's cold as ice and fake as Bush.

He's a really bad guy.

What's worse, he's incompetent.

He doesn't like doing the job.

He just like the hero-worship of running.

People who trusted him froze because of his vanity and his total lack of interest in anyone but himself.

I'll NEVER forgive him for that.

Thats why I post.

mark_in_austin:

Thanks for the knowledge about sponsored bills. Lugar's batting average is pretty darn good -- quality over quantity, I guess.

That case with the WI kid reminds me of Morse v. Frederick, where the Supremes pretty much stamped their imprimatur on 1st Amendment limitations for student speech.

svreader,

I guess the point is that HRC served well should not necessarily suggest BHO be an "empty suit". Furthermore, BHO is more impressive in all respects.

Thaimex --

You better look at the Washington Post article about Obama taking credit for bills he never worked on, even going so far as to talk about 7am meetings he never attended.

The wheels are coming off the Barry Obama BS express.

There will be a few hard-core cultists, true members of the kool-aid drinking "cult of Obama" who will refuse to read anything that shows what a total jerk Obama really is, but the rest of America is waking up.

Chicago Barry Obama ain't no saint.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Just ask the people who froze in his slums.

The ones that are still alive, that is...

Hillary Clinton can SO beat John McCain. She is brilliant, infromed can talk on her feet and has real policies. Obama stumbles all over himself when he doesn't have his teleprompter. He says the same things over and over - like he's been programmed. He is a baby - no ideas of his own. Xerox, teleprompter fed, goofy looking - no history of doing ANYTHING. No "change", no "unifying", no reaching across the aisles. Sat in that rabid church for TWENTY YEARS and never made one effort to speak out or walk out. He's a pretender. Hoodwinker.

Obamabots - remember how you couldn't believe all those people who voted for a do nothing like Bush?

Get a mirror.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OgNj6nd4i4M

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lAjvlqJTWB4&NR=1

The Bill Richardson article is a piece of work. He should had saved his breath. No one cares.

That email has been debunked.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

This is an April Fools' joke, right? I can't be the only voter who remembers the tape of McCain rubbing his hands and cackling when he was offered a bribe.

Though the Clinton campaign has shown great skill at shooting in the foot, both of them should wipe the floor with the poor old fella.

And svreader, you obviously know as little about legislation as the author of the Newsweek item you cite. These days, all significant legislation has two or three principal sponsors; that piece only looks at items with one sponsor, which are incredibly heavy on post-office namings. It is worth nobody's time, and I'm sorry I wasted a few seconds on it.

Notice how pinepine posted the debunked email that the newsweek article talks about.

Obama supporters are gettng desperate.

They know he will be CRUSHED in Penn.

They can't handle the truth.

Neither can he.

As you can see from Newsweek article, Obama supporters lie through their teeth to try to get him elected.

Its not going to happen.

Like Obama, they have no ideas of their own, they just steal other people's ideas and put their names on them.

The person who created the id sv.reader shows how desperate they are to confuse people.

It shows how afraid they are of the truth.

The truth will be the end of Barry Obama.

It couldn't happen to a more deserving guy!!!

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Whine whine whine. Hillary! Whine whine, whine whine. Whine whine scared of people who don't look like me. Whine not scared of Woody Allen. Whine OR Hillary. Whine safe, familiar, whine no more exciting than am I. Whine, you can not trust someone I would not see whining alongside me at the temple. How do I whine know? Whine because I am whine so much whine whine whine SMARTER than all of you whine. Stamp foot, pout, whine, whine, WHINE!

I hope this piece might help shed some light:

Senator Clinton has based her campaign on an erroneous claim to greater legislative and administrative experience. Former President Clinton talks up her role in his administration on the campaign trail but pointedly refuses to release any documents that would provide greater details on her actual activities there. It is broadly understood that Hillary spearheaded the response team that staved off Republican attacks and spun the many scandals of the Clinton years. As to her Senate record, no one in the press has had the diligence to lay out her record for the public to assess.
Senator Clinton, who has served only one full term (6yrs.), and another year campaigning, has managed to author and pass into law, (20) twenty pieces of legislation in her first six years.
These bills can be found on the website of the Library of Congress (www.thomas.loc.gov), but to save you trouble, I'll post them here for you.
1. Establish the Kate Mullany National Historic Site.
2. Support the goals and ideals of Better Hearing and Speech Month.
3. Recognize the Ellis Island Medal of Honor.
4. Name courthouse after Thurgood Marshall.
5. Name courthouse after James L. Watson.
6. Name post office after Jonn A. O'Shea.
7. Designate Aug. 7, 2003, as National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
8. Support the goals and ideals of National Purple Heart Recognition Day.
9. Honor the life and legacy of Alexander Hamilton on the bicentennial of his death.
10. Congratulate the Syracuse Univ. Orange Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
11. Congratulate the Le Moyne College Dolphins Men's Lacrosse Team on winning the championship.
12. Establish the 225th Anniversary of the American Revolution Commemorative Program.
13. Name post office after Sergeant Riayan A. Tejeda.
14. Honor Shirley Chisholm for her service to the nation and express condolences on her death.
15. Honor John J. Downing, Brian Fahey, and Harry Ford, firefighters who lost their lives on duty.
Only five of Clinton's bills are more substantive.
16. Extend period of unemployment assistance to victims of 9/11.
17. Pay for city projects in response to 9/11
18. Assist landmine victims in other countries.
19. Assist family caregivers in accessing affordable respite care.
20. Designate part of the National Forest System in Puerto Rico as protected in the wilderness preservation system.
There you have it, the facts straight from the Senate Record.
Now, I would post those of Obama's, but the list is too substantive, so I'll mainly categorize. During the first (8) eight years of his elected service he sponsored over 820 bills. He introduced
233 regarding healthcare reform,
125 on poverty and public assistance,
112 crime fighting bills,
97 economic bills,
60 human rights and anti-discrimination bills,
21 ethics reform bills,
15 gun control,
6 veterans affairs and many others.
His first year in the U.S. Senate, he authored 152 bills and co-sponsored another 427. These included:
**the Coburn-Obama Government Transparency Act of 2006 (became law),
**The Lugar-Obama Nuclear Non-proliferation and Conventional Weapons Threat Reduction Act, (became law),
**The Comprehensive Immigration Reform Act, passed the Senate,
**The 2007 Government Ethics Bill, (became law),
**The Protection Against Excessive Executive Compensation Bill, (In committee), and many more.
In all since enter the U.S. Senate, Senator Obama has written 890 bills and co-sponsored another 1096. An impressive record for someone who supposedly has no record according to the spin meisters and mindless twits.

-- Posted by Bill on NYT's comment board

WARNING: Below you will find the
clueless drivle of an ignorant
Hillarite. Billary is the source
of many of this country's woes.

Quote from Ablert Einstien:
'You can not fix a problem by using
the source of the problem.'
-------------------------------
The American people don't even know who the real Obama is. He is so full of contradictions. The Pastor alone would ensure his defeat in November. Combine that with his inexperience, his long term relationships with Rezco and Ayers and it's a landslide for McCain.

The Dems need to go with someone that we already know and who has the experience and leadership ability to IMPLEMENT the solutions to our problems. We need leadership and action, not speeches.

Neither one of the candidates can win against McCain. The reason is because this race has gone on too long and the democratic party has been exposed. All of them are such idiots and what is really scary is that they are our leaders. We talk about all of them like they are the real deal and which one is better and tested. Look who is the front runner. Excuse me, but Obama is a joke. Just an opportunist that has let all this go to his head. He is not a leader. He just wants people to elect him. His voters haven't even been voting on the initiatives because they don't care about local politics that affect them much more. They are just voting on an idea. Hillary just wants to win. The Clinton's are winners so they probably have a better chance but it would be slim. The superdelegates are just trying to win as many seats in the congress and the senate as possible. They are looking at what seats are available in which states and what each candidate can bring to that cause. McCain is the real leader that cares about this country. Maybe it's because he actually fought for her. In the mean time, we all just get more divided just like in every election year. I think maybe we like it that way.

Clinton and McCain are the same candidate. The only chance that the US voter has is in Obama.

Obama will destroy McCain because John McCain is a vile liar. Hillary is a repulsive liar, as well.

The voters want their Democracy back from the special interests.

OBAMA '08

"Gee, isn't this the same argument that Hillary Clinton has tried to make, and failed? It was all, "He's untested, he's too inexperienced, he won't be able to stand up to scrutiny." And yet it turns out that Obama is doing just fine, thank you. For an untested, inexperienced, unscrutinized candidate he seems to have won more of the popular vote, more delegates, and more states.

Gee."
______________________

Hillary has failed in this argument so far because her audience isn't receptive to it. The Dem primary audience is the audience that views the "war on terror" as a "bumper-sticker slogan" and terrorism a by=product of US foreign policy, not that of a devoted enemy who cannot be placated until we surrender our support for allies and our presence in the Middle East, which prevents the extremists from any hope of a wholesale takeover of the region as they aspire to. The Republicans and most independents who also get a say in the election; have a very different view from that by and large, and foreign policy credentials and stance will play far more prominently against, though it may not be enough this year, Obama than Clinton and against either democrat against McCain. Like I said, none of that may be enough this year, but those are facts.

mjno, I would also add that Bill Clinton, JFK, and Teddy Roosevelt were all younger when they assumed the presidency than Obama will be in Jan. 20, 2009.

Obama is at an age where his memory doesn't mis-remember events like dodging sniper fire in Bosnia, netting a Noble Peace Prize for negotiation peace along the Kosovo-Macedonia border, or in North Ireland. His isn't mis-remembering non-existent roles in the Family Medical Leave Act or in passing the first S-CHIP bills. He isn't taking credit that does not properly belong to him -- a common denominator found amongst all second rate managers. He also isn't burning through cash and stiffing small business owners across the U.S. in his pursuit of the presidency.

Many supporters may have little patience for the Clinton's sleaziness and rank hypocrisy -- but through the morass Obama has kept a pretty-level head and has managed a large campaign in a manner superior to that of more politically experienced candidates like Clinton and McClinton.

joep1, #10 is a strange claim -- why did every other candidate except for Clinton and Kucinich remove their ballots from the Michigan primary list? (Kucinich I understand attempted too but filed the wrong paper work)

By keeping her name on the Michigan ballot Clinton was effectively competing in a primary in violation of a written pledge not too.

We can quibble over the meaning of "is" and "compete" -- the bottom line is that Clinton violated the terms of the agreement (in the discussion about the Michigan - Florida controversy a couple weeks ago Clinton even said the other candidates made the choice not to "compete" in the Michigan primary by removing their names from the ballot).

Violating pledges. Violating previous statements about honoring the DNC rules -- classic Clinton.

Rank hypocrisy, and sleazy cheating thy name is indeed Clinton.

It is dangerous to think that because OBAMA is 10 or 13 years younger, he is a better choice for President. Well, hell, I am younger. Voting based on age is as narrow minded as race.

From Earl Ofari Hutchinson
March 30, 2008

Here are ten troubling questions for Democratic presidential contender Barack Obama. There are others equally troubling but these are the starters. The questions were sent directly to him at his national campaign headquarters Friday, March 28. The questions are not campaign rhetoric, gossip, and partisan allegations. They are fully documented, and totally a matter of public record. If Obama won´t answer them, then the challenge is for his supporters to answer them point by point. This doesn´t mean hurling the usual cheap shot, brainless, personal invectives, name calling, personal insults, or character assassination. This is no substitute for factual answers.

1. You stated that you were not in the Senate in October 2002 when President Bush rammed through Congress the resolution authorizing the use of force in Iraq. But you also stated that "perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was I didn´t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence." This implies that you might have voted for the war if you had been in the Senate when the vote was taken. Why then do you condemn Hillary Clinton and other Senators who voted for the war authorization resolution when you admit the possibility that if you had been in the Senate you would have done the same?

2. As chairman of the Senate subcommittee on Foreign Relations you could have held oversight hearings, called witnesses and offered alternatives to Bush´s disastrous efforts against A Qeada in Afghanistan. Your subcommittee held none and provided no alternatives to Bush policy that you condemn, why?

3. In the Senate you have one of the poorest attendance records, and you often simply vote present on thorny issues, why?

4. Senate Legislation was proposed to require nuclear giant, Exelon to make public disclosure of its radiation leaks. You did not fully support that requirement. Exelon has been identified as your fourth biggest campaign contributor. Why did you oppose the tougher regulatory proposal for Exelon?

5. Chicago financier Tony Rezko has been accused of numerous financial illicit dealings. You have claimed that you did no political or personal favors for Rezko. Yet as an Illinois state legislator you wrote endorsement letters to government agencies on his behalf, as well as having conducted other documented financial transactions and dealings and with him. Why do you deny that you have no relationship with Rezko?

6. The head of your campaign finance chair is Penny Pritzker. Before taking over Obama´s campaign finances, she headed up the borderline shady and failed Superior Bank. It collapsed in 2002. The bank engaged in deceptive and faulty lending, questionable accounting practices, and charged hidden fees. It made thousands of dubious loans to mostly poor, strapped homeowners. A disproportionate number of them were minority. Why does she still have a principal financial role in your campaign?

7. You have taken money in past campaigns from straw donors. These are donors that have taken money from tainted and dubious sources and then contribute to your campaign under their names. You have talked much about financial openness in campaigns. Why did you take money from straw donors in the past? And do you take money from them now?

8. Following a speech by Hillary Clinton praising Lyndon Johnson for his role in helping pass the 1964 Civil Rights Act, an Obama campaign advisor privately released a four page memo urging hammering Clinton for denigrating Dr. King. Yet, you told reporters that neither you nor anyone in your campaign had made the accusation that Clinton denigrated King. Why did you say that when clearly it was the memo from your campaign advisor that triggered the media and public assault on Clinton regarding King?

9. You have not produced a single public document that would provide the public with greater insight and knowledge about legislation, initiatives proposed, your votes on key bills, and your attendance record during your terms in the Illinois legislature. Why?

10. You have repeatedly charged that Clinton violated a pledge not to put her name on the Michigan Democratic primary ballot. However, neither Clinton nor any other Democratic contender pledged to the DNC not to have their name on the ballot. Three other candidates had their name on the ballot in addition to Clinton. Why do continue to make this claim that the other candidates, but especially Clinton, violated a pledge not to have their name on the Michigan ballot?

Obama´s campaign is based on the firm pillar that he represents a new, open, fresh, and transparent politics. He is the candidate that is the antithesis of the political duplicity, double dealing, evasions, lies and corruption that marred other candidates. Obama can prove it by answering these questions; questions that raise serious doubt about his contention that he represents a radical break from the political past. If He won´t answer them then will his supporters answer them for him?

The same polls show McCain beating either Democratic candidate.

So the headline should read, "Clinton or Obama: Who Will Be Humiliated Less?"

HILLARY 'FLAGRANT, HYSTERICAL, REPETITIVE, PATHOLOGICAL LYING'...ICY, CONTRIVED, HYSTERICAL, SENTIMENTAL, BITTER, MANIPULATIVE, SELF-RIGHTEOUS'...
RASMUSSEN POLL: Clinton Lead Shrinking in PA; Clinton 47% Obama 42%...
Hitchens: Hillary 'flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying'...
Crouch: 'Icy, contrived, hysterical, sentimental, bitter, manipulative, self-righteous'...
http://www.albertpeia.com
http://www.albertpeia.com/currentopics2ndqtr10108.htm
http://www.albertpeia.com/wallstreetlunacy2ndqtr10108.htm

At the very least the Democrats can be proud of an Obama candidacy. Plus didn't Clinton already opt out of the race to become McCain's VP?

In 1980, 1984, and 1988 the party opted for legacy candidates -- and the end result was a failure at the polls. Even in defeat Obama will help Democrats build the party. This one should be a no-brainer. Obama also builds the party west of the Mississippi -- he presents a real growth opportunity for the party -- and can position himself in a real way as the Washington outsider against a career Washington politician.

During the general HRC will boost McCain's negatives upwards -- as well as having her own hit the 60 percent range. The Clintons wedge strategy is a loser for the Democratic party and a loser for America. It is past time to turn the page.

The American people don't even know who the real Obama is. He is so full of contradictions. The Pastor alone would ensure his defeat in November. Combine that with his inexperience, his long term relationships with Rezco and Ayers and it's a landslide for McCain.

The Dems need to go with someone that we already know and who has the experience and leadership ability to IMPLEMENT the solutions to our problems. We need leadership and action, not speeches.

April Fools-Bubble Burst Tonight...

It was like watching the news in a foreign country. What happened between the time Obama supporters and endorsers began shoving Hillary out of the race, and today, is anyone's guess, but there's just been a 360o turn around today, the media indicting itself, including CNN, for giving this race to Obama on a silver platter. Radio talk show hosts, admitted they found his story and his candidacy, newer and fresher.

According to Lou Dobbs, who interrupted Bill Schneider tonight saying, "Bill, you said Hillary can't win? You know what Obama can't win without Supers either." In response Bill screwed his lips into a half smirk.

Dobbs to Bill- The media has exercised a clear demonstration of favoritism for Obama against Clinton.

Dobbs to Bill- When it's all said and done, Supers will decide this race.

Dobbs to Bill- The Democratic party has crushed the votes among Democrats (FL/MI).

Even the polls didn't predict this media awakening, this sudden and massive redo by the media. So, what caused it, now?

Obama has been ushered into the public arena as the budding star of a major studio, the Democratic Party, He's been long on oratory in a time of short attention spans--so the swooning is over; Obama has reinvented his routine, taking on Hillary's pitch in Hillary's territory. Though he's spending three times more in PA, he will lose there.

What happened? In the last month there was a fervor of endorsements, a slow-walk on getting votes counted, the emergence of the Wright association at the wrong time, the much alluded to dysfunctionalism and failure of the party itself, this list keeps growing...

In an interview on CNN tonight Howard Dean back tracked the DNC's delegate and superdelegate position saying they will reflect wins, losses and their estimation of who would make the best President.

Now even Pelosi is saying the race should run its course, a switch from her stated position that the race should end sooner, than later.

Not count votes? Believe it or not that's still an unresolved issue when it comes to FL/MI and will remain so according to who wins, so says Dean.

Enter Rocky Balboa- The underdog- (Hillary Clinton) who just challenged Obama to a bowling match and at the same time accused him of not wanting to count votes.

Now, that's the BIG in this race.

And maybe, party leaders just learned something about voters who don't take kindly to having their votes taken away.

Will you find that fact in the polls? Some.

Obama's outward role is to appear that he wansts Hillary to keep running; but it's just an attempt to mitigate the public fall-out from Obama supporters pressuring Clinton to get out of the race.

The public perception is that on behalf of Obama, his supporters are trying to push her out, and aid the slow-walk to any solution to count the votes.

Obama doesn't' just want to disenfranchise FL/MI; the campaign wants Hillary out now so they can disenfranchise the voters of 10 more states.

"I know there are some in Washington, and some in the media, who want this race to be over," she remarked at a rally in Greensburg, Pennsylvania, last week. "Well I disagree. Everyone's voices should count."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/04/01/clinton.obama/index.html

This is the straw that is going to break the camel's back.

We don't.... under any circumstances.... NOT count VOTES.

It's the most powerful point of contention in the race so far; it's the breaking point in the campaign; it makes the Wright debacle and all its implications moot in comparison....

The reasons why Obama is winning the nomination against Clinton and why he will win the general election against McCain are the following...

With McCain, we have with McCain someone who lives for wars and who is missing the heros of WW-II (see the reference to Churchill in one of McCain's publicity). We also have someone who didn't object to the idea of starting a war under false pretenses.

With Hillary Clinton, we have someone who is associated to too many scandals with her husband before, during and after the White House:

- Most number of convictions and guilty pleas by friends and associates
- Most number of cabinet officials to come under criminal investigation
- Most number of witnesses to flee country or refuse to testify
- Most number of witnesses to die suddenly
- First first lady to come under criminal investigation
- Largest criminal plea agreement in an illegal campaign contribution case
- First president to establish a legal defense fund.
- First president to be held in contempt of court
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions
- Greatest amount of illegal campaign contributions from abroad
- First president disbarred from the US Supreme Court and a state court

Before Bill left office, he gave favors in exchange of money... For example, shortly after beeing pardonned by President Clinton, fugitive financier Marc Rich had his ex-wife giving $400 000 to the Clintons library foundation: Source:
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,98756,00.html

The Clinton foundation received recently a $31.3 million donation after Bill expressed enthusiastic support for the Kazakh leader's, undercuting both American foreign policy and sharp criticism of Kazakhstan's poor human rights: Source: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/31/us/politics/31donor.html

The reasons why Obama is winning against Clinton and why he will win against McCain are that voters are sick of people starting wars for false pretenses and they are sick of corrupted politicians (I include the Clintons and some of their pundits who have been allies in their past scandals).

To MarSF:

Your rebuke to "SVreader" is right on.

I can't figure out who "SVreader" might be. Either an unhinged nut, suffering from obsessive compulsions and paranoia, or a crazed Hillaryite, or a right-wing plant.

In any case, it's people like that who make me worry about what might be in store for the country. And the same thing goes for others, "rat_the" and "kingofzouk" and so on, too tiresome to list.

Get a life, people!

Who is really better candidate clearly depends upon who can win 270 out of 538 electoral votes needed in the general election. Let do the math. Since FL & MI are not counted (although Clinton won both states with 44 electoral votes), revised electoral votes needed-to-win in this example would be 247 out of 494 electoral votes in the general election.

Obama won (will win also included) the following states with 241 electoral votes:

Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, District of Columbia, Georgia, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oregon, South Carolina, South Dakota, Utah, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, Wyoming.

Clinton won (will win also included) the following states with 253 electoral votes:

Arizona, Arkansas, California, Kentucky, Massachusetts, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Ohio, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Texas, West Virginia.

Indiana is still toss-up but gave to Obama in this tally.

As you can see, Senator Hillary Clinton will definitely be a better candidate to defeat Senator John McCain in the general election.

If nominee is other than Senator Clinton, there is no need to wonder why once again democrats have lost 7 out 10 elections in last 40 years. Democrats are guilty of picking wrong horse for the general election race every four years.

Do they want to pick Obama and join LOSER'S CLUB with Humphrey (1968), McGovern (1972), Carter (1980), Mondale (1984), Dukakis (1988), Gore (2000) Kerry (2004) and Obama (2008)?

Do they want to pick Clinton and join EXCLUSIVE WINNERS CLUB members with Carter (1976), Clinton (1992, 1996) and Clinton (2008, 2012)?

Democrats have a clear choice. Just do not bet on a wrong horse race and deeply regret another four more years.

PS: YesWeCanForFree is also winner of "The Fix Prediction Winner". Still predicting California will move from "Liley Democratic" to "Toss-Up" column if Obama is the nominee.

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/thefix/2008/03/primary_predictions_redux.html

Obama supporters are in denial.

They just don't "get it"

The fact that Obama allied himself with someone who spouts anti-white, anti-semitic, and anti-American rhetoric is a "deal breaker"

Its the number #1 topic of water cooler conversation around the country.

Most "Typical White People" had no idea that stuff like this has been going on.

People are really, really, angry about it.

Obama's supporters try to spin it into being about a single sermon.

Its not.

Its about a 20 year relationship.

Its about Obama choosing Wright to be his "Spritual Advisor"

It's about Obama's lies.

Its about Obama talking out of both sides of his mouth.

Obama presented himself as a paragon of virtue and someone on a higher ethical plane than other candidates.

He's repeatedly shown through his actions that he isn't.

He's like a human chameleon.

He turns into a completely different person depending on what group of people he's with.

He's lied to us and fooled us over and over.

America doesn't trust him anymore.

He's toast.

He deserves to be.

The real Barry Obama is a really bad guy.

Obviously the one who wins the primaries can best beat McCain. The one who can't even get a majority in his or her own party has no chance in November. Hillary is of course much easier to beat since she carries so much baggage with years of countless scandals (plus Bill!). Obama would be much harder to beat. McCain who always liked Obama as a senate colleague, would never attack him personally.

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

mark --

Your right about Obama taking credit for bills he never wrote as the WP pointed out in their article.

You're wrong about Hillary.

She's going to defeat McCain.

Clintons always win Presidential elections.

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

marSF --

Just like Obama, you have no ideas of your own, you just steal them from others and switch the names.

Sourced from GovTrack.US:

Barack Obama has sponsored 129 bills since Jan 4, 2005, of which 120 haven't made it out of committee and 1 was successfully enacted. Obama has co-sponsored 559 bills during the same time period.

Hillary Clinton has sponsored 356 bills since Jan 22, 2001, of which 308 haven't made it out of committee and 2 were successfully enacted. Clinton has co-sponsored 1739 bills during the same time period.

John McCain has sponsored 403 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 263 haven't made it out of committee and 12 were successfully enacted. McCain has co-sponsored 879 bills during the same time period.

--- 3 other senior Senators for comparison:

Richard Lugar has sponsored 261 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 158 haven't made it out of committee and 17 were successfully enacted. Lugar has co-sponsored 955 bills during the same time period.

Christopher Dodd has sponsored 336 bills since Jan 7, 1997, of which 268 haven't made it out of committee and 9 were successfully enacted. Dodd has co-sponsored 1874 bills during the same time period.

Joseph Biden has sponsored 229 bills since Jan 21, 1997, of which 132 haven't made it out of committee and 6 were successfully enacted. Biden has co-sponsored 1162 bills during the same time period.
------------------------------
My take: BHO and HEC have been asked to cosponsor a lot as junior Senators, and can be proud of that.

Lugar is the single outstanding legislator in the Senate. McCain is up there.
Admittedly, one would have to look at quality of bills and substance.

Lugar, Biden, Dodd, and McCain have passed a lot of serious substantive legislation.

The Ds are running second stringers, but highly regarded ones.

Dear SVREADER, you really, really need to get a life.

I made a few improvements on your earlier screed:

Clinton supporters are only fooling themselves if they think that bloviating about voting for McCain over Obama really gives them the upper hand in their arguments. Any Democrat that is that short-sighted and vindictive should leave the party anyway.

Clinton supporters have parroted every right-wing talking point and shouted "sexism" at every possible chance as a way to present their candidate as a victim of "bullies".

The Clinton's have done everything in their power to trash the reputation of the only two-term Democratic President since FDR by running a campaign of lies, distortion and smear against a Democratic opponent.

If Clinton is the candidate, McCain's the President.

Barack Obama is far more qualified to lead America than Clinton is and would be an infinitely better President.

Hillary Clinton is toast: be it the summer or November 2008.

I agree that if Hillary were to win she would have to destroy the Democratic Party. In the unlikely event she were to win the nomination, she be toast. Rest assured that someone: e.g. McCain's campaign, the Republican National Committee, or a 527 group, would incorporate her lies about Bosnia into an attack ad, then its bye bye Hillary, and say hello to President McCain.

HILLARY'S POOR JUDGMENT leaves AMERICANS FOOTING THE BILL:

.

THE WAR IN IRAQ IS HAVING SERIOUS NEGATIVE EFFECTS ON OUR ECONOMY and those who voted for the war (i.e. hillary) should be to blame, in part, for the state of the US economy.

Look how the WAR IN IRAQ is affecting the US economy...

$3,000,000,000... 3 billion dollars PER WEEK!

That is the amount America is paying for the Iraq War PER WEEK, money that should have been used here, at home.

Add to this:

Interest. We are financing the war with borrowed money (e.g. treasuries) that carries interest; so in actuality, the war is costing the United States MORE THAN 3 billion dollars PER WEEK.

Higher oil and energy prices. Instability in Iraq is adding roughly 30 dollars per barrel as a premium.

High oil prices mean high utility bills. Due to high oil prices, demand shifts to other sources of energy - gas, coal, etc. - and greater demand will raise the equilibrium price of all sources of energy -- Can you say high energy bills?

Higher oil prices (a raw material used in the production of many goods, fertilizers, gasoline, diesel, plastics, etc.) mean higher prices of goods and services -- Can you say INFLATION?

Higher oil prices mean a higher trade deficit because most of our oil comes from foreign sources. A higher trade deficit means more money is leaving the country than is coming into the country -- Can you say Goodbye to your hard-earned money!

Our dollar is weak and getting weaker. Since we have a trade deficit and is growing in large part to the rising cost of imported oil, the value of goods and services we import exceeds the value of goods we export. You know that foreign car you're thinking of buying or the computer you're using, or that trip abroad you've been thinking of taking....well, guess what? It is going to cost more, Ceteris Peribus, because the dollar is weak and getting weaker.

Lastly, how do you think the world views our country since the argument was made for war? The evidence was weak and circumstantial, yet we rushed into war with Iraq thanks to hillary's authorization.

I think this pretty much answers the question.

From Newsweek --

A misleading e-mail has been making the rounds, alleging that Clinton has fewer legislative accomplishments than Obama, and that they are less substantive. We've had questions about it from a number of readers, and blogs have jumped into the fray. So what's the real story on the Senate careers of the Democratic presidential candidates?

We find that the e-mail is false in almost every particular:

It sets up a face-off between apples and, well, broccoli, comparing only the Clinton-sponsored bills that became law with all bills sponsored or cosponsored by Obama, whether they were signed into law or not.

It includes legislation Obama sponsored in the Illinois state Senate, a very different legislative body.

It tells us that Obama has sponsored more legislation than Clinton, when in fact he has sponsored less.

It implies that Obama has passed more bills into law than Clinton, when the opposite is true.
Contrary to the e-mail's assertions, Clinton's and Obama's contributions are not qualitatively different, and quantitatively, Clinton has the edge.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

I beg to differ: Obama will trample McCain especially on the war. How can an experienced man not know better on the war??? Given McCain's experience, all the more he should know we should NOT maintain our American citizens under the conditions of this illegit war. For what??? And then he admitted to knowing what about the economy??? Obama will be very interesting against McCain.

May the people show their increasing patriotism and participate with The Team to bring our people home. Let us not contribute to condemning our fellow Americans, while at the same time focus on our economy.

Obama or Hillary will do well against McCain.

My preference is Obama vs. McCain.

Want to see how St Obama "won" his first election?

http://news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me

Think he's a "new kind of politician?"

Here's how he's actually run his campaign.

http://www.attacktimeline.com/

He's even worse than Bush.

Did you know he worked to block Bush's impeachment?

http://www.beyondchron.org/articles/The_Obama_Craze_Count_Me_Out_5413.html

Judging by the virulent hatred--that's not too strong a word--on exhibit on blogs like this, I am seriously worried that one contingency that has a good chance of coming to pass before Election Day is Barack Obama's assassination. I hope that the Secret Service is doing everything posssible to protect him. But in press-the-flesh campaigns like this, mere candidates always have to be considered at greater risk than incumbents.

There are simply too many white-supremacist dead-enders out there, and too many who seriously think that Obama is a crypto-Muslim (and hence secret agent of al-Qaeda), and too many just-plain-unhinged nutcases (who always seem drawn to targeting "controversial" personalities)! Some such probably troll these blogs.

God help this country!

And I'm old enough to remember the Sixties, when Jack and Malcolm and Martin and Bobby all got cut down. Reading through the above comments, all that comes back...

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

I must agree with some of the posters here. I do appreciate some statements made from both Obama and Hillary supporters. Some have a very interesting take on the subject.

I agree that McCain is going down in November regardless. I am for Obama or Hillary, whomever gets the Democratic nomination. I am anxious to see Obama/McCain as my preference. However, if it ends up being Hillary, I'll sit back to see if she gives him heck the way my preferred candidate has taken from her (honestly speaking but joking at the same time). I would anxiously watch to see how McCain handles himself, knowing he has some temper issues.

I have to say though, I do believe Obama will school McCain (a person with war experience) on the fact that this war is illegit for one and the price our American citizens has paid for it (for two), and then to follow up with some correlation on our economy (for three) and the list can go on and on. I definitely am looking forward to that. If Hillary gets the nomination, I will indeed get settled with popcorn.

We need to bring our troops home and find other issues to help solve with The Trillions of dollars. It's time to get out of the brainwash with the war, and stop letting idiot presidents act out fantasies with war during their service. This is not a game.

Obama/Hillary '08

McCain would eat Obama for breakfast.

Hillary would eat McCain's lunch.

Its better to eat than be eaten.

If Hillary's the candidate, McCain has to convince voters he'd be better than the combination of Hillary and Bill Clinton, who turned a Republican deficit into a Democratic Surplus.

The only Democrats the Republicans are afraid of are the Clintons.

That's why conservatives have worked so hard to derail Hillary.

That's why Democrats need to nominate her if they want to win.

Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless you.

Posted by: drindl | April 1, 2008 04:22 PM

I think the derangement is progressing. now she is talking to herself. Or is that hillary-cackle I hear?

Well, Duh, Chris! Obviously the Republican operatives are going to say Clinton's the stronger candidate-- they're spinning-- shocker!!
Everyone knows Obama is the stronger candidate and if the press corps would step up to the plate and stop coddling McCain, the electorate would see he has nothing to offer but more of the same
stuckness. Can McCain's gaffes/flip flops/unpreparedness please get noticed???

Republicans fear Hillary because if she's the nominee, the election becomes a referendum on Bill Clinton vs. George Bush and Republicans know they lose that one by a landslide.

If Obama's the candidiate, Republicans can waltz right back into the whitehouse.

Obama looks like an inexperienced kid compared to McCain.

There's even a great bumper sticker slogan --

"Who would you rather vote for, the 'coke head' or the war hero?"

Clinton's the far stronger candidate.

The Reps would be wise to want to go up against Obama v. Hillary. True, Hillary's numbers in some key states are horrible and nearly really bad.

still.

The truth is that Neither Obama nor Hillary are strong candidates in the fall - no one wants to hear that however it is the truth.

Has everyone seen the email from Obama supporers that claims he's done more in the senate than Hillar?

According to newsweek, the email is a bunch of BS.

Here's another example of how Obama's supporters lie to puff up their lying candidate.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/129976

Hillary's passed twice the amount of legislation, and we know from the wasington post article that most of what Obama's been given credit for was stuff he was never even involved in.

Obama takes credit for stuff he never did, and never did the stuff he should have done.

He had a lot of good people fooled.

I hope this finally wakes them up.

FYI: The ACLU is a bunch/group of lawyers that work to protect our "Rights" according to the Constitution of The USA. Lawyers are pretty well degraded/denigrated by most of the "Right Wingers" until they get into trouble. Most lawyers are good people, as are most folks in every walk of life. There was something very interesting about the last day of voter Registration in Pa. Take a look, and see what You'll think.

Chris Cillizza has written a very revealing column which can all be well summed in his last paragraph - a perception of Obama versus an experience with Clinton. For me, the problem with perception is where it comes from - the media. Two years ago no one even heard of Obama on the national scene, then virtually overnight he was everywhere. Now days he rolls a gutter ball and it's front page news. That kind of positive media attention has had its affect. With Hillary, on the other hand, if she so much as double-parks the Republicans appoint a special prosecutor. She is probably the most investigated person in the history of politics - and she's never been found guilty yet. It has become a bit old I'll admit. But, my guess is that the Republicans fear her a lot more than they admit...

"That's laughable. McCain will look like an old, clumsy joker (remember Dubya?) next to Obama."

Obama does not debate well. He looks stiff and clumsy. He gives great speeches when the crowd is stacked, much like GWB. McCain will make him look weak and unpatriotic.

Duck...

In coming sniper fire.......

It's tough here in Bosnia......

Swift boating was never this easy

The pros don't seem to know. Even if they are not telling us the truth to fool us they still come down on opposite sides.

As an HRC supporter the Gallup Poll does not look good for HRC. Seems like the 'reality' is Obama is the stronger candidate even though I don't know how anyone can tell at this point. Save the cultist who know all.

I think, but don't know, that Obama still has votes to lose in the Polls because he makes a good first impression. HRC will not go down and if she runs a well can go up a little.

I also think when people get into the voting both Mac and Obama will make them a little worried - they don't like HRC but no one fears her judgment aka she is safe on many issues. I don't know this and being cool or a 'white male' may decide all.

Rules Agreed can't be changed for the interest of one candidate. Then once this decision is firmly stated, The Democratic Party should reduce the number of Delegates needed for the nominated candidate to pass the final line, we may have a candidate sooner than later and we can get down to the November Election Race.

Posted by: jaybs1 | April 1, 2008 05:39 AM

Got to love these Obama supporters. First they say rules agreed to cannot be changed to benefit one candidate. Then in the next sentence they say change another rule that clearly will benefit their guy.

Politics of "change" eh? Or politics as usual?

Mark -- thanks for your input.

I hope the kid wins.

Even though, based on my reading, he seems like a fanatic who was just looking for trouble. (I generally don't support this kind of behavior.)

Mike, I just looked at the Wisconsin ACLU website and I do not see any indication that this kid's case is on their horizon. Perhaps I gave them too much credit.

The way the case is described online, I like the kid's chances of prevailing.

Unfortunately, from the kid's perspective in this case, the current Supremes are not big on upholding 1st A rights for kids in school. Scalia, who usually agrees with Ginsburg on 1stA [she tends to think it broadly protects the individual], is a bear when it comes to minors.

So I think the kid's best bet is the Federal District Court. Hope the lawyer has chosen a sympathetic forum.

I support Obama, but here are my thoughts.

1. Hillary is going to win in PA, but unless something gives, it is going to be by too small an amount to make a difference (5 to 8 points).
2. Hillary should not get out until the convention because you just don't know what will happen. I do think that unless we find out that Obama's preacher handed out guns to everyone in his church, nothing will happen and Obama will eke out the nomination.
3. Obama is the stronger candidate THIS WEEK. Last week it was Hillary. In July it could be Ralph Nader
4. McCain is going to be formidable against either of them.
5. For everyone who emails 'If Obama wins the nomination, I am going to vote for McCain, and my friends are going to also', there is an email that says 'If Clinton wins the nomination, I am going to vote for McCain, and my friends are going to also'

The truth is, at this point, we just don't know. We can only conjecture!

Another deep and meaningful statement from the General.

jac13 I will answer all of your questions but I am certain you won't like my answers.

"Here is a question I haven't been able to get and answer to: exactly how does the alleged poor judgment exhibited by Obama for not quitting his church apply to the job of president? Name me a hypothetical presidential decision that it's relevant to. Whether to invade a country and depose a regime that are not a threat to us? Whether to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant? Whom to appoint to the Supreme Court? Whether to dispatch relief aid and the National Guard to a region hit by a natural disaster? Whether to incarcerate suspected terrorists for years on end with no charges and no counsel?

In case you don't get my point, IMO this "judgment" baloney is a smokescreen for guilt by association, plain and simple.

I attended Catholic schools all my life, and attended Catholic church for 25 years, even served Mass for 5 years, while, I learned somewhere along the way, priests were sexually abusing children and other parishioners. Should my not leaving the church when I learned of this be an impediment to my seeking political office?"

1. Senator Obama has said from day one support me over HC because of my superior judgment. I thought that was a bogus argument the first time I heard it b/c that judgment was made when he was an Illinois Senator, not someone brave like Dennis Kusinich who bravely stood up to his party in the well of Congress. Sen Obama then opposed every vote when he got to the US Senate including Sen Kerry's bill to end the war; his fellow Senator Durbin actually took a stand that now political and presidential candidate Obama refused to take knowing it wouldn't be prudent in a general election;

2. Senator Obama has stood his ground which is great and stood with rev Wright. Note Rev Wright himself warned Sen Obama a year ago to distance himselg b/c even Rev Wright knew his language was inflamatory. And Sen Obama's. judgment? stand by Rev Wright. Why? He returned from vacation and immediately returned to an African Amer. church and once again stood by Rev Wright? Good Judgment?

And what you won't like is my comparison to W's stubborn streak. Sen Obama knew he was in a bind but fearful of upsetting his most ardent supporters he continues to stand by Rev Wright but cutely says he opposes his words.Brave of him don't you think? Most Americans would have left 20 years ago not still stubbornly standing by Rev Wright.

How does it apply to being President. Isn't the Judgment or lack thereof that W used in katrina even when he was advised how wrong that judgment was, something every Dem deplores about W? I guess you are saying that Sen obama compartmentalizing his bad judgment to only elevate Rev Wright to be his spiritual advisor but not to select a Brownie? Would you approve of Rev Wright giving spiritual advise to a potential president. I would choose Ted Strickland or Jim Wallace as the kind of spiritual advisor I would hope our next president would turn to.

As to your situation with the catholic church, that is your business by I would hope that if your priest preached such venom from your church you would leave that church; I certainly would. If your priest was molesting children I would presume that if you found that out you would confront that priest and ask him to leave your church, which would show good judgment and character. If you knew of such criminal behavior and stood by silently I would say no you would not be a candidate I would support.

Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless you.

I for one, a democrat, will vote for McCain if Obama is nominated. I am sure there are others like me who will do the same.

Reporter: We want to find out who the R's would rather run against. Who, oh who, should I ask? Maybe I'll ask a liberal. No, I'll ask a conservative.

Republican: We would rather run against X.

Liberal: That's a conspiracy! Karl Rove won't hijack this election. The R's are just floating propaganda - don't believe them. There is a vast right-wing conspiracy against hope and change. This is bias reporting! How dare you ask a conservative what he thinks, Chris. This isn't "hard-hitting" news. We all know Republicans are stupid. Except when they fool us and steal elections. But they're stupid, I promise. Just keep your eye on Karl Rove - he's the least-stupid of the stupid R's. Don't let them trick us.

Posted by: USMC_Mike | April 1, 2008 01:25 PM

How is asking Republican consultants a good way to find out who would be stronger against McCain? Can one really expect them not to be disingenuous? This is like Karl Rove's column in Newsweek advising the Dems on how to run their convention. Or maybe the joke's on me. April Fool's?

Posted by: s.j.pinto | April 1, 2008 04:08 PM

Ha Ha Ha... predictable mindless libs.

How is asking Republican consultants a good way to find out who would be stronger against McCain? Can one really expect them not to be disingenuous? This is like Karl Rove's column in Newsweek advising the Dems on how to run their convention. Or maybe the joke's on me. April Fool's?

leichtman -

This Rev. Wright thing is a good example of the kind of shallow thinking and facile, unquestioned arguments that pass for political discourse these days.

Here is a question I haven't been able to get and answer to: exactly how does the alleged poor judgment exhibited by Obama for not quitting his church apply to the job of president? Name me a hypothetical presidential decision that it's relevant to. Whether to invade a country and depose a regime that are not a threat to us? Whether to break the law and wiretap US citizens without a warrant? Whom to appoint to the Supreme Court? Whether to dispatch relief aid and the National Guard to a region hit by a natural disaster? Whether to incarcerate suspected terrorists for years on end with no charges and no counsel?

In case you don't get my point, IMO this "judgment" baloney is a smokescreen for guilt by association, plain and simple.

I attended Catholic schools all my life, and attended Catholic church for 25 years, even served Mass for 5 years, while, I learned somewhere along the way, priests were sexually abusing children and other parishioners. Should my not leaving the church when I learned of this be an impediment to my seeking political office?

Many public officials have sat in church over the years and heard sermons preaching intolerance and hatred in many forms: racism, antisemitism, homophobia, etc., etc., etc. They were never thrown out of office for that reason.

Oppose Obama because you think he's too inexperienced, liberal, glid, insincere, whatever. But stop using this church thing as an excuse.

"It quite obvious the republicans want to run against Hillary Clinton. Republicans dope head hacks are begging their constituents to change their party registration to vote for Clinton." onefreeman

actually CNN reported yesterday that a majority of the Pa (1/4 million) who had changed their registration to vote in their primary were Obama supporters.

another example of Obama supporters wanting it both ways.

Jonothan,

The best shot honestly would go to the one who could a) win the popular vote and b) win the electoral vote- ridiculous rules make the caucuses ridiculous representations of nothing and open primaries attract voters with no loyalty to a candidate, party or political philosophy- so these are not a good judge of who can beat McCain

If you must use these skewed results you should probably figure out a way to get true representation of Michigan and Florida, since they vote in November and are important.

I have not figured out a way that Barak can win the electoral vote- and don't start claiming southern or caucus states where he won the primary/caucuses- those were Democratic voters, and in the case of caucuses, very few of them (9100 people voted in Wyoming- more people than that get on/off my subway stop in 6 hours. He has trouble with the wrong voters- working class and Latin- McCain polls well with both (trust me- I'm a lifelong Dem- I don't want McCain)

Leon

It quite obvious the republicans want to run against Hillary Clinton. Republicans dope head hacks are begging their constituents to change their party registration to vote for Clinton.

It won't work. It's only going to give Barack a campaign slogan after the primaries.

Republicans are the worse kind of people I have ever seen. Just think, I voted republican before. Never again as long as I live.

"you only listen to ppl you agree with?

I often disagree w/ my pastor, but i don't leave the church where i've found community because of that...

he wasn't there during that particular sermon. and kids are in sunday school during sermons."

sgoe: then your pastor said Damn America, and made antisemetic slurs? I doubt that.

I would walk out of my synagogue if my rabbi made such outrageous statements from the pulpit as I believe 90% of Americans would. I would then call his office and confront him man to man, and if he did not make an immediate public apology I would confront the President of my synagogue publicly call from his firing.

You can apologize from those incidendiary remarks, which even Pastor Wright told Senator to distance himself from and he sat quiely by and did nothing for 20 years.

I guess that HC and Obama supporters are different when it comes to such incidences. In fact my synagogue acted inappropriately towards a former rabbi, they were called to task for it and retracted.

and his pastor IS ALLOWED TO GET ANGRY. That's America's freedom of speech rule...do you dispute that right?

I do not agree w/ everything my pastor says and thinks. but i still love my church. it is boring to only listen to things you agree with.

I totally respect my religion but I am not wed to any particular synagogue(which I happen to be very pleased with), I am wed to my religion. Again I would not tolerate or elevate a Pastor Wright to be my spiritual mentor and neither would HC and certainly would not expose children to such language. Great spriritual message to children? Damn America.

J_thinks --

Obama will lose whether Clinton campaigns for him or not.

Unlike Obama supporters, Clinton supporters aren't robots.

We don't follow "marching orders"

It won't matter who campaigns for him.

If there's anything the Democrats are *really* good at, it's losing an election they should win.

This is probably the only thing USMC MIKE posted that I totally agree with.

HRC stated - she will support the DEM nominee regardless. So svreader - with HRC campaigning for him, do you still think he will lose against McC?

Just wondering, because in my opinion, regardless of what is said about HRC she is a DEM first and her goal is a DEM in the WH. If she is big enough to state this fact, her supporters should be able to come to grips with it as well.

My oft repeated line is I will support HRC or Obama - the alternatives is not an option for where we are from a global perspective.

"Your "win at any cost" approach will cost Democats the election."

This just might be true. If there's anything the Democrats are *really* good at, it's losing an election they should win.

ken --

Here's a "rule" you can take to the bank.

If Obama gets the nomination, McCain will be the President.

If Obama get the nomination without Florida and Michigan having their vote, McCain will win by a landslide.

The damage you guys have caused to the Democratic Party is enormous.

Your "win at any cost" approach will cost Democats the election.

We won't ever forgive you for that.

Does anyone in the Clinton campaign care that there is a set of rules that the game is to be played by? Florida & Michigan are not to count. All candidates signed off on that one, but now Hillary wants the delegates seated.

There is one very basic rule that she needs to acknowledge. The candidate who wins the most delegates in the nominee, not the candidate who has won the most BIG states or the popular vote or who could wins the most electoral votes.

Obama has not had the "experience" of operating under enemy fire that Clinton claims and McCain actually sustained, giving over five years of his youthful life to imprisonment in Vietnam some time ago. But Americans are smart enough to honor his service and his sacrifice and move on, and poll data show this recognition.

Moreover, we are smart enough to recognize that our next President must be far more than a leader in initiating and waging ruinous war.

"ABSOLUTELY. AND THEY ARE IN PAKISTAN."

Well General, why didn't you say something before?

Alert the Pentagon!

leichtman
you only listen to ppl you agree with?

I often disagree w/ my pastor, but i don't leave the church where i've found commu