I am African-American female and I agree that Clintons were caught off guard with the reaction of media and African-Americans during the South Carolina incident. Nothing Bill Clinton said was Racist. He is guility of believing that African-Americans would be loyal to him and Hillary because of his support for the Black community and issues. Although the media will try to blame "racist comments" the lack of support for Hillary in the Black community, this is not true. Since it is obvious that most of my relatives, friends, church, pastor are supporting Obama because he is Black, I think it is unfair to get upset when other people choose not to vote for Obama (for whatever reason). I did not vote for him and do not plan to vote for him in the General election. Of course, my husband and I have had some heated discussions with relatives and friends because they cannot believe we are supporting those "Racist Clintons". Of couse, this time last year, they did not even know who Obama is and still cannot tell you one thing he has accomplished or done for the Black community.

snopes.com: Black Panthers and Hillary Clinton ••••

...Politics --> Clintons --> Black Panthers Black Panthers Claim: Hillary Clinton helped free two Black Panthers accused of torturing and murdering...
...Back in 1969 a group of Black Panthers decided that a Black man named Alex Rackley needed to die. Rackley was a fellow Panther suspected of disloyalty....
...When they got tired of torturing Rackley Black Panther member Warren Kimbro took Mr. Rackley's outside and put a bullet in his head. Rackley's body was...
Sun, 04 May 2008 11:15:18 GMT http://www.snopes.com/politics/clintons/panthers.asp
Peter Paul vs.Hillary Clinton Election Fraud Case stuffed in a ... - Apr 25 Hillary Clinton Election Fraud Case stuffed in a California Court. by politisite | April 24, 2008 at 12:50 pm | 2624 views | 11 comments ...
www.nowpublic.com/world/peter-paul-vs-hillary-clinton-election-fraud-case-stuffed-california-court - 86k - Cached - Similar pages - Note this
Clinton Won't Be Deposed in Fraud Case before November -- 04/29/2008 April 29, 2008 (CNSNews.com) - A fundraising controversy involving Hillary Clinton's 2000 Senate run that has moved through California's courts for about ...
www.cnsnews.com/ViewNation.asp?Page=/Nation/archive/200804/NAT20080429a.html - 22k -

Dear American Voters,

Hon. Senator McCain and Obama besides each having many attributes and characteristics. The critical differences in my professional, political, and personal opinion are as under:

1. Presidential "Temperament and Integrity".
2. Little Washington "insider Versus outsider" connectedness.
3. Vision and mission for our future rather than past.

In my professional opinion one senator has it and the other does not. We need one for our Greatgrand Nation to address our all these challenges with a fresh, clean and new slate.

God Bless America. its diverse people, and our Greatgrand Nation.

Yours truly,

COL. [retd] A.M.Khajawall
Forensic psychiatrist, Las Vegas NV

"To Scrivner: You are "on point." Obama is taking an enormous risk by going for the top office now."

Yup, the boy should have learned his place and gone to the back of the bus!

Seriously, the idea that it was Clinton's "turn" because of experience is the weakest argument of all. If experience is what mattered most, Joe Biden and Bill Richardson would be the ones duking it out now, waiting to see the eventual winner-Dick Cheney- in November. The presidency is about a heck of a lot more than experience. Some of our best have been the most experienced (FDR) some have been the least experienced (Lincoln). Some of our most experienced have been among our worst (Buchanan, Nixon), and some of our least experienced have been among worst (Bush II). Experience alone is meaningless, because no experience really prepares you for the task of leading this nation. It's also about character, organizational management skills, and inspiration. Obama may be short on experience compared to others, but he more than makes up for it in the latter three categories. That is why he knocked off the inevitable candidacy of Hillary Clinton, that is why he is the apparent nominee of the Democratic Party, and that is why he will win in November.

To Scrivner: You are "on point." Obama is taking an enormous risk by going for the top office now. He would have been assured the top spot with some more experience, assuming he has more than excellent oratorical skills. Perhaps he feared he could not excel in the Senate, and this was his best chance. As to a previous writer's comment that the internet "informs" more people, it does not mean they get the truth, any more than they get truth from pundits. These are all opinions. Even Wikipedia, which my students often cite, is not a vetted "encyclopaedia" like the old "Britannica." I am afraid that so-called information on the internet is simply conversation, in most cases. Opinions are expressed, and that is healthy. It is much more difficult to derive statements from such opinions which "approach truth," a la American philosopher C.S. Peirce, without additional research. Most opinions are like babies" They arrive, are coddled, and believed to be innocent and therefore incapable of deceit. Obama benefits from this "baby factor." He is young, inexperienced, and counts on his mantra of "change" to lessen our criticism. Babies are allowed to make mistakes, avoid stark criticism, and be loved. While people love him, his growth may be stunted by going to pre-school to soon. He could be another Churchill, or Clinton. Both won and then lost elections. Strategically, I would have advised him to finish political "grammar school" and become a great president, not just an opportunist. His resume is essentially that: A person who runs for office continually, without maturing in any of his positions. He is like young, high-rated, red wine. You might buy it early, but it is at its best when it reaches maturity.

He could have mentioned any of the eight districts in Illinois that are still held by Republicans. (For that matter, the 14th which switched in an off election was heavily influenced by an Obama endorsement.) I've heard the Democratic candidate in the 13th say that his district (5% black, less than half the national average) was strongly supportive of Obama.

ApserGirl's comments go to the heart of what's wrong with our political system today, namely if someone repeats a lie often enough, it somehow becomes true. This is why most of the civilized world has come to terms with the concept of global warming (and I mean just accepting the idea, btw, not doing anything about it) while in the United States the EXISTENCE of global warming is still being debated.

Or evolution.

And here we have AsperGirl, spouting similar nonsense. for example, she writes: "Obama's not man enough to do something like that (attacking Hillary) for himself. His game is to have one of his media tools or his surrogates or his campaign memos spread his poison and harass Clinton."

This sentiment on the part of AsperGirl is either naive or ignorant because that is the way politics is played, and has been played as long as there have been politics, I suspect.

In other words, he's being criticized for being a good politician who's astute enough to leave the political attacks to others, which is not to say that AsperGirl's point was even valid, only that she expresses no understanding of politics.

What AsperGirl (and a few other posters as well) seem intent upon doing is 'poisoning the well,' so to speak.

Hillary Clinton will more than likely lose the Democratic nomination for President for reasons that have nothing to do with Barack Obama. Mr. Obama did not make her run a sloppy campaign; nor did Mr. Obama make her seem to entertain the absurd belief that she is somehow ordained by God to be the Democratic nominee.

She lost (or will lose, at any rate), so now the question is why is it that people like AttaGirl will instead of trying to break down the nominee, unite behind him.

Read AsperGirls' posts carefully. Notice that virtually none of them (I assume this based upon those that I have read. I give her some credit for intellectual honesty, though I suspect that my feeling is in this case misplaced) actually deal with the issues at hand that threaten our nation, and instead deal with hyperbole and (Republican) attack points (or what will be Republican attack points, which we have Hillary to thank for).

What AsperGirl just can't stomach is that Hillary will not win the nomination, so why not sabotage the chances of the man best suited to bring some relief from the continuing nightmare that is the Bush Presidency.

And which will be continued, to varying degrees, with a McCain one.

If and when Obama gets the nomination there is nothing that the Clinton's can say that will make me vote for him. I will not vote for McCain, but I will also not vote for Obama. Worse then that I must say that after being a die hard Democrat for my entire life, I will be changing to Independent this year. After the way the democratic party and it's insiders have treated the Clinton's this primary season, I no longer have the stomach for their self important BS. For all those Obababots that have drank the Kool-aid and think their man can do no wrong, I have news for you, he is no better then any other politician in Washington. He has as many lobbyist in his campaign crew as Clinton yet he is never called on it. He makes comments that degrade Clinton and yet his supporters claim he has not. Does no one remember the Annie Oakley comment? That was made because she had said she had gone duck hunting with an uncle as a kid. He has still not explained his home purchase deal to my satisfaction. Like I am supposed to believe that there was no improper deal cut with a man already accused of wrong doing when he bought his new house? but the Clinton's are accused of breaking the law on a deal they LOST money on. Just because he gets his surrogates to make the comments does not mean it is not his responsibility. Hell, anything said against Obama is placed on Clinton's lap even if it is done by someone not in her campaign crew. Sounds like a double standard to me.

The straw that broke the camels back for me was when the Obama campaign worked to keep Florida and Michigan from having a new vote so that they could seat their delegates. I guess if my vote is not worth counting in January then you don't need it in November. I guess we will all have to learn to accept that McCain will be the next President of the USA. How sad.

"The reason Obama hasn't seen this is because Obama hasn't EVEN BEEN COMING TO WORK SINCE BEING ELECTED - OBAMA HAS BEEN COLLECTING A PAYCHECK BUT GOING ON BOOK TOURS AND RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT."

Actually, it's McCain who has been decidedly AWOL the past two years- while Republicans like to tout Obama as the most liberal senator based on the NJ survey, McCain wasn't even present for enough votes to qualify for a rating.

"Through last week (mid-May), McCain had missed a nice, round 60.0 percent of Senate votes so far in the 110th Congress. After Sen. Tim Johnson (D-S.D.), who was absent for several months following a brain hemorrhage, comes Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.), who lay well behind McCain with 41.8 percent of votes missed. Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), a former presidential candidate, was fourth, followed by Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who had missed 31.7 percent."

And that was before he missed the vote on the new GI Bill, toeing the Bush party line there as well. Don't let the facts CONTINUE to get in your way...

http://blog.washingtonpost.com/capitol-briefing/2008/05/mccain_leads_in_missed_votes.html

KOZ is Lakisha!

The problem with the last desperate gasps of the anti-Obama crowd here is that they are so obviously extreme that they are no longer arguments that can persuade. They only echo the sentiments of their own devotees. They are talking to themselves.

For example: when the point is made that Obama has not called for Clinton to leave the campaign, they say he's not man enough. When he accepts her explanation for the RFK gaffe, he's being condescending. If he makes a simple gaffe himself, confusing two Nazi concentration camps, it's proof he's a nefarious liar or illiterate.

People who are not flaming partisans or racists can see that Obama is not the devil. They may be unsure whether they want to support him, but they can see that these posts are absurd and malevolent exaggerations that don't merit serious consideration.

So when these posters consistently assert the most malignant view of him they can conjure, all they do is disqualify themselves from the real ongoing discussion on his candidacy. They effectively declare themselves irrelevant. The more they post, the more extreme this effect.

Yes, I understand your incredibly simply argument that makes no sense, condescending Connie. kreuz_missile is exactly right when he/she writes, "Equal protection IS race and religion, genius. There is no equal protection clause for states. And one last time, that is inding on the states hosting individual primaries, not on the parties delegate selection process nationwide. The parties do not have any obligation to honor a primary that violates their rules and that they stated before the fact they would not honor.

That's the same argument that I just made. Seems as if it's not me that's unable to understand and to process such a basic argument, | (who I'm certain is 37th&OStreet). If not, there are two people for whom we should feel "sad" (See 37th&OStreet's 8:32am posting).

Posted by: |

| wrote:

The comment stated that you must agree that under YOUR logic a national party would have the right to make a rule which excludes people named Brian.

Do you understand?

Our position is that that national parties' "right to exclude" has Constitutional limitations such as religion, race and Equal Protection.

"Our position is that that national parties' "right to exclude" has Constitutional limitations such as religion, race and Equal Protection."

Equal protection IS race and religion, genius. There is no equal protection clause for states. And one last time, that is inding on the states hosting individual primaries, not on the parties delegate selection process nationwide. The parties do not have any obligation to honor a primary that violates their rules and that they stated before the fact they would not honor. Should we count the votes of school children who raise their hands in classroom preference votes, or are we disenfranchising them, too?

Why do talk news show so called pundits over analyze why whites men in general and white women in particular who make less than $50,000 a year and live in certain geographical areas of the country will not vote for
Obama? To me it is simple, they are racist and large pockets of racism can still be found in this country. They are now calling it the culture divide. The problem is, there is a part of that culture that says "I wouldn't vote for a Black person even if he or she was the only one running".

The question always come up, what is wrong with Obama? I think the question should be what is wrong with our country? If you were Hillary Clinton, would you be bragging about receiving the majority of the white racist votes in PA, W.Va., and Ky. There is a big difference in voting out our pride for Hillary like some women are doing than it is of voting for her out of hate of Obama because he is Black

Hillary Clinton, in this election has done more to further divide this country along racial line than anyone I know. First Bill played the Black race card in SC. And then with the help of Chris Matthews of MSNBC Hardball, Hillary and the Governor of Pa started playing the "hard working white men" (code words for white racist) card by saying that this "cultured group" would not vote for Obama in the general election. If there were some big differences between Hillary and Obama on issues I could understand why this group in states known for their racist culture are not voting for Obama. She connects to this group not because she is a racist but because this group culture teaches them to resent and fear African American. Have you forgotten the "white flight period" of our history on race? As one old Black woman once told me that a "poor racist white man would rather borrow the money to pay another white person way from Ca to NY than to tell a Black man the way".

Moreover, the late talk news shows and writers like Kathleen Parker have assisted Hillary in playing the race cards by continuing to report that it must be something wrong with Obama if he can't win the so called poor whites, white catholic women and white men making under $50,000 a year votes. It not what wrong with Obama, it what wrong with the culture that allow this type of racial divide to exist in the greatest country in the world. Some even played the white supremacy card against Obama; some are playing the guilt by association card, angry Geraldine and Hillary of late have been playing the sexist card. Last Friday Hillary played "if I stay in the race long enough he might be killed before the process is over card". Only the Lord knows what card she will pull out of the deck next.

Brian

The comment stated that you must agree that under YOUR logic a national party would have the right to make a rule which excludes people named Brian.

Do you understand?

Our position is that that national parties' "right to exclude" has Constitutional limitations such as religion, race and Equal Protection.

you mentioned that this was repeated, however you still don't seem to get it.

You misstated our position in your posting and then you went on to not address the actual issue at hand.

.

Daniel K

Yea that idea is out there, but Van Hollen didnt say that- perhaps because he does not believe it is true.

I agree that people are saying that - however many have doubts that come the fall election things will turn out that way.

I think the democrats in Washington have decided to purposely lose the election.

Sorry if that bothers you.

.

So Brian

The question is clear: what is the extent of the parties' right to make rules in the primaries??

The contention here is that the parties "right to exclude" in the primaries do not extend to Constitutional Protections such as Equal Protection.

If you don't get it, you don't it simply admit it.

Your position would have as it's logical conclusion that a party could exclude from the primary all people named Brian.

The rest of your post makes little sense.

The contention is that the national party should not have made the rule in the first place -

four states were chosen above the others to vote in January.

How does that pass the Constitutional muster of Equal Protection ???

I hope you are not a Congressional staffer or someone who works at a national party because it would be sad.

.

Obama has NO RIGHT TO SAY that McCain is going to continue Bush's policies.

PERHAPS if Obama actually did his job instead of going on a book tour:

Obama would have seen McCain opposing Bush in the Senate on issue after issue.

The reason Obama hasn't seen this is because Obama hasn't EVEN BEEN COMING TO WORK SINCE BEING ELECTED - OBAMA HAS BEEN COLLECTING A PAYCHECK BUT GOING ON BOOK TOURS AND RUNNING FOR PRESIDENT.

Instead, Obama was MIA selling books instead of WATCHING MCCAIN WORK ACROSS THE AISLE.

Seriously - Obama wasn't doing his job so he wasn't even IN THE SENATE TO BE ABLE TO WATCH MCCAIN SHOW HIM HOW ITS DONE.

Obama, if he wasn't so arrogant and uppity, could have ACTUALLY LEARNED SOMETHING FROM MCCAIN.

NOW we have the curious sight of Obama the inexperience person who knows very little about Washington attempting to find something wrong with the MAVERICK.

The truth is Obama has nothing on McCain so Obama HAS TO MAKE UP SOME SET OF LIES.

Of course, then Obama has to focus-group his lies to see which ones work the best.

Obama sickens anyone who truly wants to see this country run correctly.

Obama take your race-baiting and your lies and your false charges of "offensive remarks" and go back to Chicago.

Charge made.

Charge sticks.

Obama at the top of the tick also benefits candidates down ticket in the Pacific NW where he has a lot of support, and despite the small African-American community. A candidate like Darcy Burner (WA-08) is much more likely to benefit from the potential of Independents swinging her way along with their Obama votes. Clinton would do little here than bring out the many anti-Hillary voters.

Actually, I don't agree... and don't call me Shirley.

Every election has a set of rules. The rules must be followed. If you show up to a precinct in which you're not registered, in most states, you can't vote there. Does that mean that the whole process is anti-democratic because if I walk to Georgia and try to vote, I can't?

If you were to make a law to say something as ridiculous as people named Brian can't vote in a federal election, first of all, you'd be breaking the law. Brava. Second of all, primaries are party functions, not federal functions. They serve to choose a nominee. The party has the ability to set the terms of that choice and they've done so for hundreds of years. The timing of primaries is one of those choices.

Aside from the power that the parties have to set their own functions, all candidates agreed to these rules. If they felt the rules were unfair, they should have voiced opposition BEFORE the elections in the states. Clinton didn't. She proclaimed that Michigan and Florida were meaningless, wouldn't count, etc. but changed her mind when it was politically expedient. She seemingly had no problem with the "disenfranchisement" about which you are screaming before it didn't hurt her. Maybe you can direct some of that anger at here then, hmm?

I'm going to go play some golf tomorrow. If I'm losing after the 17th hole, I think I'll just say that the person with the highest score wins.

37th&OStreet said:

The Voters did not violate anything.What a disgrace to democracy - OK I will make a rule that people named Brian can not vote in the primaries - any state that violates that rule will lose all its delegates.

The party could penalize any candidate who sends any campaign mail to anyone named Brian - or there will be a penalty.

Surely, under your logic, a private entity like a national party could pass the Constitutional muster of such a rule - surely you must agree.

Ooh, a personal threat. Just like a Clinton supporter- denounce a tactic only to use it in the same sentence.

When you post something on here (several, several times, might I add) with your caps lock on, you lose all of your moral credibility so, move on, friend. You don't want none of this.

37th&OStreet writes:

If you disagree with a post, please state your opinion politely and seek to avoid personal confrontations.

That is, unless the person gets in your face.

If that happens, slam them so hard, they will wish they are back on the street on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.

Asper girl's real name is Cindy McCain. She's just stirrin' things up to help us win in the fall. You go girl!

pfondiller

Have a little respect for other posters.

I suspect that you are a part of the Obama campaign, which is a cause for concern.

.

AsperGirl in her 10:57 posting has some very good points

I do not appreciate attempts by certain posters to harass or mock other posters.

If you disagree with a post, please state your opinion politely and seek to avoid personal confrontations.

That is, unless the person gets in your face.

If that happens, slam them so hard, they will wish they are back on the street on Michigan Avenue in Chicago.

.

AsperGirl is 100% correct in her posting at 1102

Please leave the girl alone

She has a right to post her opinion, your attempts to harass people who do not agree with you are repulsive to democracy.

.

asper girl,

You don't know what you are talking about.

Nothing that you have posted is based in fact.

While Clinton was certainly a formidable candidate, The Majority in the Democratic nomination process has gone to Obama and that means he has won---get it?

"It makes NO sense to give Obama a free ride when more than half of the Dems DO NOT support him and will object to any premature coronation."

More than half the Dems don't support Obama and about 30 percent refuse to vote for him if he's nominated. Most of Obama's delegates come from caucus state wins, some of which he woudln't have won if the Rev. Wright material had gotten out sooner

"Certainly there seems to be an organized band of posters intent on swaying Clinton supporters to vote for Obama rather than McCain. They are using the argument that Obama's policies are close to Clinton's and McCain's are not as close."

That is ridiculous. The only reason why Obama and Clinton appear to have close positions and policies is that Obama copied Clinton's as if he were a Xerox machine, making only minor changes. Then, his campaign's basic argument was that since "there's no air between the candidates" the party should pick the one with the better personality who could raise more money and bring more young people in.

But in reality Obama is a callow idiot. He's apparently not as good a memorizer and regurgitator as he is a speechifier, because he couldn't win a single debate against Clinton over the course of a year and eventually just quit debating her. Obama's so painfully incompetent he can't even deliver 3 speeches without bumbling out with some strange gaffe about America or American history (like, there are 57 states -- he knows because he visited them).

Clinton supporters have a harder time supporting Obama than Obama supporters have supporting Clinton because Clinton supporters are about concrete thinking and issues and experience. Obama's personality-based campaign is more vague and feel-good. It's not so hard for Obama supporters to slip to the next candidate in line to fill their ideals if their candidate becomes unviable. But the same is not true with Obama. Because Clinton supporters are looking for experience and qualifications, whether or not Clinton is in the race, Obama just doesn't have enough. Voting for McCain makes sense. Voting for Obama doesn't. And blue collar voters do more of their thinking for themselves and don't suck down the talking-head babble of newspapers and journalists as gullibly as white collar people do.

There are no compelling arguments for a Clinton supporter to vote for Obama, unless that argument is that all Democrats have to vote for any idiot with a "D" on his resume instead of an "R", no matter how much of a useless idiot he is. I.e. blind partisanship. That's not a good enough reason.

"I challenge you to pull up one example of Barack Obama calling for Hillary Clinton to get out of this race!"

Obama's not man enough to do something like that for himself. His game is to have one of his media tools or his surrogates or his campaign memos spread his poison and harass Clinton.

Get a clue. He's been running his campaign like that for months.

Tetris

I believe the state of Michigan just might go for McCain over this - and no one would blame them.

.

Senator Clinton has been "disrespected" by some in the media and Barack Obama's candidacy. Unlike when she first was a candidate for the Senate, when she was shown "respect," by other aspiring Democrats, who had actually represented New Yorkers, who bowed out to let her be the uncontested candidate, just because she was Bill's wife.

The Clintons and their most loyal supporters thought the presidential nomination process would be a repeat of what had happened eight years earlier. They expected the media to coronate Senator Clinton as the presumptive Democratic nominee before any votes were cast. Senator Clinton decreed no Democratic rival was to mention the I-word, the impeachment of her husband. The other candidates heed her command and essentially so did the media. The potential issue of only the second president to be impeached and probably the only president to be barred from practicing law for a period of time, for the next in line co-president became a non-issue.

None of the Democratic candidates were expected to be serious contenders for the nomination. Then an upstart Senator from Illinois "disrespected" the Clintons by being a serious contender for the nomination. Some persons in the media occasionally began to write somewhat critical articles, how dare they, about Bill or Hillary. Such disrespect.

Oh Come On Truth Seeker!

Enough of this nonsense!

The way Obama has run his campaign is in no way comparable to the way Bush ran his.

I challenge you to pull up one example of Barack Obama calling for Hillary Clinton to get out of this race!

Truth is not just a matter of convenience.

Obama, Plouffe, Axelrod and the rest of the Obama campaign staff have said consistently that she has the right to stay until the end even though everybody knows who has won this nomination.

Just stop with the BS will you!?!

There have been so many parallels between Obama's and George W.'s campaigns.

One big one that jumps out at me is the change and unity mantra that both candidates adopted ,mainly I think, because they had nothing else to offer both being relative newcomers with no great legislative or governance histories. They have in common the "blank canvas" which voters could use to imprint their desires and wishes.

And secondly, both are using the "fracture" argument, Obama, the Dems would fracture and George W., the country would fracture, if the contest isn't stopped BEFORE ALL THE VOTES ARE COUNTED.

It would seem that people do not learn from history. We Democrats should have learned from 2000 what a disaster it is to bend to this kind of "doomsday" pressure. Obviously, for the Dems, counting all the votes in 2000 would have lead to a Gore Presidency.

I say let's continue all the way to Denver if necessary. Count ALL the votes including ALL the votes and delegates in Michigan and Florida. And force Obama and Hillary to make their cases of electability at the convention.

It makes NO sense to give Obama a free ride when more than half of the Dems DO NOT support him and will object to any premature coronation.

to asper girl, the other Clinton followers, and Republicans making these ridiculous arguments:

Politic has changed with the utilization of the internet and invention of youtube. As you Clintonites are finding out now and McCain's and his minions will discover in the fall, you can no longer just say anything that you want and get away with it.

People search for and find the truth themselves. Manufacturing BS like you and your candidate have been doing since you were stunned in Iowa simply won't work.

You just wind up making yourselves look ignorant.

Obama has done nothing to elicit the accusations and personal attacks that you spew forth. He has carried himself with the utmost class and treated Hillary with respect.

This race has been over for months.

Please just stop.

Why is it always what Hillary has to give? Why not a little talk about what Obama should give Hillary and her followers to effect reconciliation in the party? If Obama get the nod, let him lead. He's the Kumbaya candidate; let's see if he can bring Democrats together (never mind Democrats AND Republicans.)

>>"The "Obama effect" has been one of racism, sexism, media bias and dirty politics."

Even though the pro-Obama media likes to ridicule Clinton for complaining about media coverage, as of today, Obama is now at odd with Lou Dobbs of CNN, the entire FoxNews network, George Stephanopolous and ABC News moderators and just about any other media outlet that has failed to be his mouthpiece.

Of course, it is those media outlets who are his mouthpieces that enforce the bullying against those media outlets who are not. E.g. the Washington Post's attack articles against ABC News debate moderators, stating threats and describing their questioning Obama about Rev. Wright, as "despicable."

By now, half the media is in the tank for Obama and serves as his mindless, groupie propaganda machine (including the Washington Post) while the other half is routinely criticized by Obama and the pro-Obama media outlets for daring to question or vet him.

Van Hollen looks useless. He's on a ton of caucuses, most of which are incomprehensibly stupid (Bangladesh caucus, Bike Caucus) and his Issues Press Releases are broadly lame ("Van Hollen Announces Official Recognition of Silver Spring as Weed and Seed Site").

If you want to send him a fax telling him he has no place ordering the Clintons what to do and threatening Clinton to pay Obama more than lip service, his contact information is below.

The Washington Post is digging up Clinton-harassing material from any useless chump in the Congress who is not more gainfully employed. Citizens of Montgomery County, Maryland should get rid of this cocky little man, a Clinton-threatening ass when he's up for re-election.

Chris Van Hollen contact info:

Please send faxes and letters to:

Capitol Hill Office
1707 Longworth H.O.B.
Washington, D.C. 20515
Phone: (202) 225-5341
Facsimile: (202) 225-0375

Rockville Office
51 Monroe St., Suite 507
Rockville, MD 20850
Phone: (301) 424-3501
Facsimile: (301) 424-5992

Hyattsville Office
6475 New Hampshire Ave.
Suite C-201
Hyattsville, Maryland 20783
Phone: (301) 891-6982
Facsimile: (301) 891-6985

"Very curious how Constitutional principles have been subverted by Washington insiders."

This is such an ignorant statement. In reality, party selection used to be much less democratic. Gradually, it has become more and more "voter powered." Remember, anyone can run for president. You could run, if you were 35. Would it be undemocratic for you just to "throw your hat in?" Of course not. The fact that political parties go to such great lengths to include voters to elect a nominee is a testament to the strength of our democracy. There is absolutely nothing unconstitutional about the democratic party punishing Florida and Michigan for going against the rules. If you prefer, vote for McCain or a 3rd party.

Sal is correct Seriously folks

What are you thinking???

"Asked to cite specific districts where Obama's presence would help his candidates, Van Hollen mentioned Illinois's 10th district, where Dan Seals, an African American candidate, is pursuing a rematch against Rep. Mark Kirk (R) in the affluent northern Chicago suburbs. Van Hollen also ticked off a series of seats with substantial black populations, including North Carolina's 8th, Ohio's 1st and Virginia's 2nd."

Sounds like the Democrats are looking at Obama as a black-vote generating machine. I.e. racist politics.

Some of these arguments in support of Clinton are not only childish and unenlightened, they're completely delusional.

Certainly there seems to be an organized band of posters intent on swaying Clinton supporters to vote for Obama rather than McCain. They are using the argument that Obama's policies are close to Clinton's and McCain's are not as close.

This may be the case. But Obama hasn't shown us that he can do anything other than talk policy. His campaign has been full of contradictions. His foreign policiy experience is zero and there is nothing in his candidacy or his history to give credence to the hope that he might be able to halt this recession.

Rather, his campaign has polarized the races and the Dem party.

Anyone who is elected president this year will be moderated by a Dem House and Senate. If I'm going to hang my hat on faith in the Democrats, it will be based on that rather than on Obama as the figurehead for the party.

I do believe that without the Clinton's support and backing he has no chance at all of winning -- and little chance with it. I also suspect that after the way they have been treated by his campaign, they will have too much self-respect to help him win anything.

The "Obama effect" has been one of racism, sexism, media bias and dirty politics.

CLINTON VOTERS ARE OUTRAGED

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN VOTERS ARE OUTRAGED

We have seen our candidate get trashed by the media. We have seen blacks vote like racists and Obama camp falsely accuse Clintons of racism and assassination. The Clintons, who have always fought for civil rights for all types of people. We have seen Obama attempt to disenfranchise two states of voters. We have seen the first ever female Presidential candidate get gender bashing by the male media pundits. We have seen the DNC leaders attempt to push the Clintons out. We have seen the hatred and ugliness of the Obama voters. We have seen Obama's racist church.

SORRY BUT THERE IS NOTHING CLINTON COULD DO TO GET CLINTON VOTERS TO VOTE FOR OBAMA!
*
*
*
NOBAMA EVER

Obama is attempting to steal this election by holding Michigan and Florida off the books - and by racebaiting the Superdelegates with racial motivations to support Obama.

Come on people - are you all adults or are you just fooling yourselves???

The truth of this race has been stark - Obama is guilty of the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC ACTS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.

Obama's soviet-style tactics to PREVENT elections were very much like the Soviet Union's efforts to delay elections in Eastern Europe until he could secure his position.

The Superdelegates are now being told to have a race-based motivation to go with Obama - hardly the stuff of "vote for the best candidate."

Wellllllllll

Clearly, Van Hollen has HIS OWN HYPOCRISY TO CONTAIN - so he isn't too worried about Obama and how Obama will keep his numbers up to be credible.

Van Hollen is focused in on about 30 Congressional districts - less than 7% of the country - Obama is focused in on about 10 states.

That is how we hold national elections in this country unless anyone cares to know what they are talking about.

Brianrf

I know that you have asserted "pay the consequences" for violating the rules of the DNC - however I would like to advance that the Voters did not violate anything.

Unless you can say that MILLIONS OF DEMOCRATS SOUGHT TO DEFY THE DNC and vote anyway.

Surely, all those voters should be barred from voting in November as well - according to your logic.

Instead, MILLIONS OF VOTERS wanted to participate in a process which the DNC decided was their private little affair.

What a disgrace to democracy - OK I will make a rule that people named Brian can not vote in the primaries - any state that violates that rule will lose all its delegates.

The party could penalize any candidate who sends any campaign mail to anyone named Brian - or there will be a penalty.

Surely, under your logic, a private entity like a national party could pass the Constitutional muster of such a rule - surely you must agree.

.

Chris:

I stand by my earlier barb that Van Hollen should concentrate on His Own Hypocrisy and hope that too many democrats do not realize that although the Congressional democrats were handed the majority - they have failed to stop the funding for the war.

What is wrong with them??

Apparently that is what the Congressional democrats were elected to do - except when they took some more overnight polls, they found out that perhaps they should have cold feet.

NOW which is it?

I see a gap between the words of the Congressional democrats and their actions. Van Hollen should worry about that same gap as it applies to Obama - however the gap of his own caucus is probably worse.

.

Chris:

I stand by my earlier barb that Van Hollen should concentrate on His Own Hypocrisy and hope that too many democrats do not realize that although the Congressional democrats were handed the majority - they have failed to stop the funding for the war.

What is wrong with them??

Apparently that is what the Congressional democrats were elected to do - except when they took some more overnight polls, they found out that perhaps they should have cold feet.

NOW which is it?

I see a gap between the words of the Congressional democrats and their actions. Van Hollen should worry about that same gap as it applies to Obama - however the gap of his own caucus is probably worse.

.

Brianrf

The fact that the Obama campaign acted to prevent the re-votes in Michigan and Florida is a violation of DNC rules - the Obama campaign acted to prevent those two states from complying with the rules.

There must be a penalty assessed against the Obama campaign for playing politics with democracy.

The Voters are the ones who did not break the rules - apparently you are comfortable leaving the Voters out of the process which is an integral part of electing the President.

If the DNC was so intent on a different date, it should have paid for its own re-votes and made sure they happened.

At this point, we are left with only one vote and the Voters of those two states have to count someway.

.

To the poster at May 27, 2008 6:00 PM

Curious Constitutional Argument you have there

The national parties are essentially private entities which are free to:

1) Dictate to the States when and how to hold their elections

2) Remember other state offices are usually on the primary ballots - so the expenditure of funds for primaries usually is for an entire list of offices

3) The national parties, as private entities, can somehow intimidate Presidential candidates from exercising free speech rights to certain states which comply with the rules of the private entity.

4) This is why pledges are required.

5) The officials of states which were selected by the national party to go first somehow contributed to this intimidation by stating that if the Presidential candidates did not go along with the plans, there would be some penalty or retaliation in the states that were selected.

Curious how democracy is to be run now.

Very curious how Constitutional principles have been subverted by Washington insiders.

.

Well said Gandalf the Grey.

Hillary and her supporters need to get their heads on straight---they should be attacking McCain not Obama.

The Clintons are holding the entire party hostage and it's time for this nonsense to stop.

To the poster at 600

a face lie is usually bold, not bald.

Brianrf

The mark of a person who is not that smart is to start off by telling people how smart they are.

I challenge your reasoning on several levels.

First, Michigan already established a position on the primary calendar ahead of SuperTuesday.

I challenge the right of a national party to attempt to have authority over the state primaries.

I also challenge the right of a national party to choose Nevada and South Carolina over Michigan and Florida.

This reasoning has been outlined on this board over the past few weeks. I can email it to you, or I will even offer to go over it with you over the phone.

.

With due respect for all this frothing, gnashing of teeth and other nonsense - about some miraculous recovery by a candidate who cannot possibly pull out a win in this primary - and the dire predictions of a certain defeat of the Democrat in November if we do not nominate one of the most distrusted candidates ever to run for national office -- there are a few other things that we need to be thinking about - including:

A continuing war in Iraq that has cost our nation more than 4,080 young kids killed and moreover, nearly 30,000 grievously wounded. While we are witnessing a Republican candidate who claims all is going well in Iraq: we just have to stay the course - occupy the country like it was Korea - "Muslims will have to deal with it;"

That same continuing war in Iraq that is costing our treasury about 10-12 BILLION dollars each and every month with many other hidden costs - including the incalculable loss of our respect and honor in the world community;

An attenuated effort in Afghanistan - curtailed by the drain on our armed forces and treasury of an ill-conceived and hopelessly mismanaged effort in Iraq. AlQaeda is in the mountains between Pakistan and Afghanistan - Osama bin Muhammad bin 'Awad bin Laden is there...remember him?

A housing mortgage collapse that is driving down the value of all of our homes - for most of us our home is our greatest investment and we are losing money everyday;

And a credit market collapse that dwarfs the mortgage industry problems, and is threatening the very foundation of our capitalist society - here and among our allies. Warren Buffet said yesterday the recession will last a long time.

Gasoline prices at the pump predicted to rise past $4.50 per gallon by the end of May - with our trucking industry on the verge of a national strike due to diesel fuel predicted to surpass $5.50 per gallon by mid-summer. Wonder what that will do to our economy?

Additionally, we see tens of thousands of workers losing their jobs every month while new jobs are not coming on line and the nation teetering on the edge of a very serious recession which will bring industry closures and hundreds of thousands of layoffs. 80,000 jobs lost in March and THREE AIRLINES declaring bankruptcy in one week.

And, you claim that McCain is going to win in November???

The Republicans are responsible for the mess this country is in. Yet, they are the ones on these discussion boards who want to talk about everything else. Let's face it - their leadership is terrified by the thought of Barack Obama becoming our President. Absolutely in a total panic! Silly Republicans! They are toast in November. They are holding the Bush legacy in their arms and it is ticking they do not like it.

November 2008 is going to be an electoral disaster for the Republican Party - thanks in the most part to the guidance of Dick Cheney, the ineptitude of Don Rumsfield, and the blind stubbornness of their "boss" - the Dunce of D.C.

Furthermore, take a moment and look around. Examine the total voter turnout in the 40 primary and caucus states who have cast ballots thus far. -- Notice anything?

I've noticed an overwhelming number of new voters and "recovered" voters rising from their "couches" and making the trek to the polls to cast a vote.

They are voting Democratic by more than a 2 to 1 majority.

Why?

"It's no mystery," said Rep. Thomas M. Davis III (R-Va.). "You have a very unhappy electorate, which is no surprise, with oil at $108 a barrel, stocks down a few thousand points, a war in Iraq with no end in sight and a president who is still very, very unpopular. He's just killed the Republican brand."

Well, the diehard "Bushies" chorus - "...just you wait for John McCain."

Well, "my friends" - the old Republican warrior has once again accepted the challenge to serve his country -- and he will throw himself on the "live grenade" of the George W. Bush legacy. And, as the vetting starts, he will be forced to explain some of the "dinosaur" skeletons hidden in his Arizona closet. Ask an Arizonan - any Arizonan.

So - to all the angry Bush apologists, desperate Hillary devotees and fatalistic McCain admirers watching this disaster slowly unfold before your eyes - you are now experiencing what we felt when the neo-cons duped the dope into invading Iraq.

We are going to have a Democrat in the White House and huge majorities of Democrats in both houses of the Congress. Huge majorities!

To those of you having a hard time keeping up - you had better take a deep breath and try to figure how you are going to survive the next 4 years -- because in your hearts, you KNOW this -- you are going to do it with Barack Obama in the Oval Office.

Hey 37th & O:

Fellow Hoyas know the address... but thankfully some of us are smarter than you are.

You want someone to blame? Blame the state parties for disenfranchising the voters of their states by breaking very concrete, published, widespread rules. They chose to ignore them. Now they pay the consequences.

I understand that being a hardcore Clinton supporter (as you obviously seem to be), it's a difficult pill to swallow when your candidate doesn't win the nomination. I get it... but look at Clinton's remarks last fall where she said that Michigan and Florida don't count. They broke the rules. Their delegates won't be seated. All of a sudden, she needs the numbers to work in her favor and she's done a 180 on her position. Not uncommon.

If you're looking for someone to blame about the Clinton sinking ship, blame the Clintons; if you're looking for someone to blame about Michigan and Florida, blame local officials for their inability (or refusal) to understand the clear rules. If you're looking for someone to yell at, try the mirror. I'm guessing that's the only person that would care to listen.

37th&OStreet - I know it's a waste of time, but your bald face lie demands an answer. ALL of the Presidential candidates but Kucinich signed a statement that they would have their names removed from the primary ballots in Florida and Michigan; all swore they would NOT establish campaign organizations and would not campaign in those states. In the aftermath of Iowa, Cltinon broke her promise and managed to get her name added back on the Michigan ballot (nand NOTE THAT...she had requested it be removed and ADDED IT BACK). She established formal campaign organizations in both states, raised money. In Florida, as was reported in the Miami Herald, her campaiogn organization was in charge of the election, one that was rife with fraud....! Not the regular Democratic Party, not state officials, not anyone else. In Michigan, in addition, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. No other candidate broke their word and established a campaign organization, raised money, or campaigned.No one but Hillary Cltinon. And, now, you would call these two FRAUDULENT elections sme sort of Democratic exercise? Give us all a big break. These weren't elections. They were beauty pagents, run by and for the Cltinon cmapaign. They were meaningless exercises and were only spun into an issue by the dirtest most corrupt collection of fool in this nations history.

Obama is attempting to steal this election by holding Michigan and Florida off the books - and by racebaiting the Superdelegates with racial motivations to support Obama.

Come on people - are you all adults or are you just fooling yourselves???

The truth of this race has been stark - Obama is guilty of the MOST UNDEMOCRATIC ACTS IN MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA.

Obama's soviet-style tactics to PREVENT elections were very much like the Soviet Union's efforts to delay elections in Eastern Europe until he could secure his position.

The Superdelegates are now being told to have a race-based motivation to go with Obama - hardly the stuff of "vote for the best candidate."

Wellllllllll

Clearly, Van Hollen has HIS OWN HYPOCRICY TO CONTAIN - so he isn't too worried about Obama and how Obama will keep his numbers up to be credible.

Van Hollen is focused in on about 30 Congressional districts - less than 7% of the country - Obama is focused in on about 10 states.

That is how we hold national elections in this country unless anyone cares to know what they are talking about.

.

DDAWD

I will accept everything you said in your 526 posting

I would just like to jar you with this point: Obama won because he out-lied the Clintons.

He really caught them offguard by proclaiming to be the post-racial candidate and then pulling South Carolina on them.

Falsely charging Bill Clinton with "offensive remarks."

That is a lie - Obama basically proved that he could say a bigger lie than the Clintons.

That is how Obama won, if he did - the margin is so close - that is how Obama pulled up even with the Clintons - then he stole the race by preventing the re-votes in Florida and Michigan.

OK everyone has their own version of history - however I am thinking pretty clearly on this one.

.

The Party leaders need to show some courage before the Clintons incite even more hate and rage. Bill and Hill are openly revolting against the DNC rules and the delegates by insisting that Hillary was mistreated, etc. They are now running for 2012, and will do anything to destroy Obama 2008 campaign. Including what Hillary spoke of, the real nuclear option, which will clear her path to the White House once and for all.

Aspergirl: Who are these "centrist winners" that you speak of?

How do you explain Obama's supporters from Red States like South Dakota, Kansas, Missouri, Colorado, Nebraska, North Dakota, Wyoming, Montana, Iowa?

Obama is not some reactionary ideologue. If he was he would not have the massive support from Independents that he does. This country has been on a super hard-right track for way too long and your bizarre claim that Obama is just another wacky "Leftie"just rings hollow, especially when you look at the alternatives.

And if you want to see the Right Wing mobilized, just put Clinton on the ticket.

Oh and everyone is waiting for your examples of Obama's "sexist" behavior.

nadeem...
Hope vs more-of-the-same?
I'll have the hope, the change, the man with the best plan to lead us into the 21st Century...Barack Obama

Here's what you do...
place your curser at the url space
type in barackobama.com
enter
look at the top of the Obama page for the tab marked "ISSUES"
and R-E-A-D
it's called research, my dear...

With Obama at the head of the ballot, there is a very real possibility that a formerly "untouchable" Senate seat, Libby Dole's, will fall to her Democratic challenger this year, Kay Hagan. Hagan is "within striking distance" -- like 4 points -- in recent polls. I do not think Hillary would have nearly the coat tails that Obama is going to have in North Carolina.

"DDAWG what does this mean???"

Just that I don't have to make the decision as to when to stop supporting Clinton and start supporting Obama since I never really backed her in the first place. I don't think I would still be campaigning for Obama at this point if the situations were reversed, but I can respect you for doing so. That's all I was saying.

PS. When I say I didn't support Clinton, I wasn't really against her at the start. It was such a razor thin edge that made me support Obama. Basically, I felt that Obama would not face the resistance to getting things done as President that Clinton might simply because of her last name. I was excited about both. South Carolina soured me to her some more, but I wouldn't have hated her.

It's just this whole scorched earth campaign since March. The whole guilt by association thing just REALLY got at me. I don't blame her for Wright, but I do blame her for Ayers. And she just went off on the bitter comments which I found the most tasteless.

In short, I really have hated how she has tried to create all these divisions. Black vs white, educated vs noneducated, men vs women. I realize that this is part of politics, but Obama is showing that Clinton's way might not be the only way to victory. He's certainly prevailed in the primary.

To me, that's a far bigger story than this whole stupid gender/race thing.

AsperGirl - Having read your posts on various forums over the past few months, I think the terms "mag dog" and "venomous snake" are more descriptive. Your bragging about how much money your investments made when someone posted about loosing their job was simply disguesting. We know you are some sort of speculator. Don't be too proud of that, however, as in this campaign speculators and invesators are going to have the same sort of regard as pedophiles.

You are more like the Swift Boaters of the Kerry era than anything else. One thing, though, there will not be a one sided Swift Boating this time around! There is enough dirt being collected on Republican families, wives and former spouses, even Republican media pundits (like that swine on FOX comparing his buying a pet monkey to adopting a black child) that the Republican Party will be sufficated under a mountain of filth.

My advice? Don't go there. Talk about the issues, tell the truth, and play nice. There WILL BE CONSEQUENCES if you think you can conduct one of your tired old attack campaigns. The information about McCain's divorce and Cindy is a simple warning shot for Swift Boat attacks against Michelle Obama.

Barack Obama is getting called out again for his knowledge of history, including his own family's, after declaring to veterans on Memorial Day that his uncle helped liberate the Auschwitz death camp at the end of World War II.

Two problems with the tale: Auschwitz was liberated by the Soviet Army, and Obama's American mother was an only child.

Barack Obama's dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation.

His frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief.

Meanwhile, the Real Clear Politics poll average continues Obama's national spread over Clinton by double digits (currently 10.7 points), while Obama's spread exceeds Clinton's spread over McCain (currently by 1 point more than hers).

"Barack Obama's dubious claim is inconsistent with world history and demands an explanation. It was Soviet troops that liberated Auschwitz, so unless his uncle was serving in the Red Army, there's no way Obama's statement yesterday can be true. Obama's frequent exaggerations and outright distortions raise questions about his judgment and his readiness to lead as commander in chief," said RNC Press Secretary Alex Conant.

Folks,

It's worth noting that there are people who will not vote for a woman. There are also people that will not vote for an African American. But there are plenty of people that will vote for either. The party is split amongst many voting blocs. To simplify the recent voting by two voting blocs alone demeans the voters that weighed the issues and not color or gender.

kreuz_missile

I want you to understand what hypocrites the Congressional democrats are - they want to pander to the anti-war voters in the country, but their actions do not match their words.

Obama is the same way, with his talk of post-racial candidacy, and then he runs a race baiting and lying campaign in South Carolina.

Bill Clinton and Gerry Ferraro become targets of false charges of "offensie remarks" - not like they have spent decades working to help the Black Community - that means nothing if Obama can get a few extra votes by smearing two white people.

kreuz_missile I hope you understand that the democratic party is a bunch of jokers - your efforts to defend these dirty people may be genuine - however they are misplaced.

.

Do you think they will let Barry Hussein's grandmother into the country for the inauguration?

Asper girl wrote: Frankly, I think it's beneath appalling that anyone thinks that Clinton has an obligation to support Obama's candidacy after the degrading, sexist and disrespectful treatment she's received. Certainly after the personally malicious tone of the Obama camp, on top of all the anti-woman prejudice, it's almost mind-bending to imagine how Clinton is supposed to be supportive of him. Because of all the sexism and tone of personal hatred against Clinton on the part of the Obama campaign hypocritically behind the scenes, I think that Clinton can't support him without embarrassing herself.
Could you give me some examples of sexism from the Obama campaign? preferably from the candidate himself please.

kreuz_missile

That comment was in the context of the previous sentence - which CLEARLY STATED THAT THERE ARE A NUMBER OF SUPERDELEGATES WHO ARE SUPPORTING OBAMA WITH THE FULL UNDERSTANDING THAT OBAMA WILL LOSE THIS YEAR.

I supported that reasoning as well.

The Congressional Democrats have followed such a nuanced line since before the 2006 election, that they are essentially trapped in their own contradictions now.

CLEARLY, Pelosi and Van Hollen and the other Congressional democrats could end the war by refusing to fund the war from now on, so any attempt to gain votes based on an anti-war stance has to be evaluated based on their own actions.

.

I think Michelle Obama acts very common and she is ghetto to the core.

"Does anyone know what Barry Hussein's definition if hope is?"

I don't know, but someone said they saw a sign with Obama and the word "HOPE" deleted and replaced with "HATE".

I'd love to get a copy of that one and post it.

Probably comes from the same dictionary where "racist" means "anyone who doesn't vote for me."

>>Trakker wrote: "Conservatives like AsperGirl and the National Review are living in a dream world, certain that their dreams are reality and their opponents are "radicals" and "socialists," the fringes of American society."

Oh, so you will label me a conservative because I don't think a lot of Kerry, Ted Kennedy et al, who are in the hard core of support for Obama? If you look at the people who support Obama, they aren't the centrists and they're not the winners. Even Carter is virtually irrelevant, a loser who goes to the Middle East to talk to Hamas and only gets ridiculed with no one interested in his initiative.

From Howard Dean to John Kerry, the avid Obama supporters and enablers are those in the Democratic Party who are both left wing and losers. Sorry if you think that noting that makes one a neo-con.

You Obama supporters who claim to be so transcendent are very free with labels. Weren't you supposed to call me a "Republican troll"?

DDAWG what does this mean???

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

"Out of loyalty and respect for the candidate I've given a lot of time and money to. That's the only reason. The day she's out, that's the day I'm 100% behind Obama. Good?"

I was just curious, that's all. I wouldn't make the same decision, but I don't think yours is wrong.

Of course, its easy for me to say I wouldn't do the same thing since I'm not in that position.

Posted by: DDAWD | May 27, 2008 4:38 PM

"Does anyone know what Barry Hussein's definition if hope is?"

He wrote two books about it, go read them.

"The choice to pick Obama is diliberate"

It was, by the voters. Why did Obama not surpass Hillary in Superdelegates until after he built up an insurmountable pledged delegate lead? Throws more than a little monkey wrench into your theory...

Aspergirl: When you start referencing National Review articles to make your case it is pretty sad. Also sad is your dismissing accomplished Democrats as "elistist Ivy League old-guard leftie has-beens". You are employing Nixonian Rovespeak