CLINTON WINS BIG ANOTHER UPSET FOR OBAMA AND MEDIA!
Barack Obama might have captured 3-more states on Super Tuesday, but Clinton leads the delegate count. Obama speech on super Tuesday appears to be addressing black voters only, guess Uncle teddy didn’t help? If you are still undecided today then here’s a thought: If you want REAL change and we all do, you have to have a change agent that knows the system and has the contacts to create that change. Democratic nominee will be attacked by the Republican Party and, more importantly slimy political world that surrounds the GOP. These ‘independent’ organizations have a sole purpose: to attack relentlessly, in the most vicious possible ways. Who is best equipped to handle the vicious, continuous attacks that the other side will launch? who could best stand up and fight? Hillary Clinton has, as she has said, taken this incoming fire for 15 years or more. She’s been unfairly attacked by mainstream media and men who fear a strong intelligent woman like Ted Kennedy. Shes been accused of everything thing the media and obama camp can think of and yet she’s still the leading candidate for the Democratic nomination. She’s proven after super Tuesday shes tougher than boot leather while having a human side. Those are assets that our candidate needs. Hillary Clinton has developed thick skin and the ability to remain calm in campaign combat. Yet, also knows how to listen to the American people. Qualifications? She’s a successful, liberal US Senator. won a Senate election that by fighting back and campaigning in the non-traditional places in NY. She went to conservative, Republican based northern rural areas and won them over with smart policies, substantive talk and the fact she simply listened! In that most unlikely of places, she won with 67% of the vote. 2006 she won re-election. We are convinced Hillary is strong where others, including Barack Obama, would be weak and inexperienced. She will fight the filth machine of the other side with vigor and calmness. She knows how to outmaneuver them. She’s a warrior. It’s a term seldom applied to women. Yet being a warrior is what she’s been from her Watergate committee staffing experience, through several terms as the First Lady of Arkansas, working on multiple corporate boards fighting for equal rights for minorities, middle class workers and women and during her years as First Lady of the US traveling the world. She learned first hand in those travels the foreign issues and realities. Hillary Clinton has made the personal contacts that are will be so valuable in the White House. She has consistently fought for the underdog and the American people. She was a warrior without anyone using the term.
Hillary Clinton knows how to form coalitions on Capitial Hill to get the job done! She has, that ‘bad’ word this election cycle, ‘experience’. JFK, perhaps one of the most inspirational speakers in his day, had 8 years US Senate experience and had taken a run at the Vice Presidency in 1956. He knew government from the inside. JFK was not an outsider condemning the system and all those in it as Obama camp would like you to believe. If you want change in government you first have to learn how to operate from the inside to get the laws and policies changed. We learned this time and time again from JFK to Bill Clinton.

While an aide to Sen. Barack Obama, who spoke at a town-hall meeting yesterday in Los Angeles, tried to explain away the altered policy changes, analysts excused him, noting the passage of time and less-liberal competition.Barack Obama, senatorial candidate 04, is very different from presidential candidate of 08.Videotapes of debates and speeches obtained by Washington Times shows Obama took positions during his Senate campaign on nearly a half-dozen issues ranging from the Cuba embargo to health care for illegal aliens that conflict with statements during his run for the White House. For example, in MSNBC's Oct. 30 presidential debate, Mr. Obama hesitantly raised his hand and joined with most of his Democratic rivals to declare he opposed decriminalizing marijuana But as a U.S. Senate candidate, Mr. Obama told ILL college students January he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use or possession. When confronted with the statements on the video, Obama's campaign offered two explanations said the candidate had "always" supported decriminalizing marijuana, suggesting that his 2004 statement was correct. Then after The Times posted copies of the video on its Web site, www.washingtontimes.com, yesterday, his campaign reversed course and declared he does not support eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana possession and use. What is
Senator Obama going to say to republicans when asked why he favors granting drivers' licenses to illegal immigrants as Obama has admitted twice in debates? About Obama's present position that undocumented workers will not be covered in his healthcare proposal, yet when he was running for the Senate he said that children of undocumented workers should get the same healthcare benefits that citizens get? when they begin to ask him about negotiating in unstructured summits with the leaders of Iran, North Korea and Cuba without preconditions? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain asks him why he said in 2004 that he did not know how he would have voted on the Iraq war authorization and that his view of the Iraq war was not different from President Bush's? What will Senator Obama say when Senator McCain compares Obama's votes to fully fund the Iraq War in the Senate to Obama's rhetorical opposition to that war? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain questions Obama's claim to be "the most qualified person in America to conduct the foreign policy of the United States"? What is Senator Obama going to say when Senator McCain says that Obama is not one of the most qualified members of the Senate Foreign Relations Committee to lead this country in today's dangerous world but instead one of the most absent? Senator Obama has not conducted a single policy hearing as chairman of the subcommittee on European Affairs of the Foreign Relations Committee?

Obama appeals to young voters who are used to seeing flash and not substance. Sorry, but for the majority of young voters, all they are seeing is the prettiness of this candidate and not what lies beneath. He is no JFK. Not now, anyway. Ever since he made it to the Senate he has been running for President. Take a look, people, at his voting record and see how many times he either voted present or did not vote. JFK had 8 years in the House before he became a senator in 1955 and was on many committees and sub-committees and proposed many pieces of legislation over the many years he was in Congress. Take at look at his record and compare it to Obama.
I am also am very distressed over the attitude of Obama supporters, which, by the way, comes right from the candidate and his wife, that if they don't win the nomination, they will not support the Democratic candidate. For goodness sake, people! Do we want to get the GOP out of the WH or not? Can you really support someone like McCain? I have actually heard people interviewed on the radio re this topic who have said that if Obama does not get the nomination, they will either not vote at all or vote for McCain rather than Hillary. Are you crazy?
The GOP always stays on point and in lockstep with their leaders. That is why even with a majority in Congress the Democrats have not been able to pass some of the legislation we would all like to see. Not one of them from the most moderate to the most conservative will break from the Party line. Whereas the Dems are like herding cats on every subject.
You better believe that if Obama wins the nomination by himself without the support of Clinton either as a running mate or some such, he is going to be clobbered by the GOP's slime machine. He thinks the Clinton's are bad? Just wait. He won an easy campaign in Illinois when he ran for Senate. And he won the state caucus's on Super Tuesday, but when it comes down to the nitty gritty he better have more to show than hope and flash.

The Clintons stopped it in California. In the Black part of L.A., the Clintons pulled their dirty tricks, Florida style and in Alameda County. Since Obama will not do dirty tricks(nice guys finish last) he will lose.

Given issues like the war and free trade that BOTH of the Clintons pushed on the American people how can she win in the long run? A lot of dems dislike the Clintons, which is why Clintonite Joe Liberman got kicked out of the party, and why people bolted from the Gore 2k campaign in favor of Nader. Admittedly not a lot of dems dislike Billary as much as I do, but Barack has a loyal base Billary dislikers on top of a genuine movement.
Obama is genuinely inspirational and has the potential to blow away the Republicans in a way that Hillary could only dream of. Hillary only wins in areas where voters are less informed and Barracks message hasn't gotten through yet, once they discover just how superior he is as a candidate he wins. Barrack has both time and money on his side after the near tie on super Tuesday, and it's clean money that keeps him indebted to the people and not the corporations. Obama was smart enough to oppose the war from the start (unlike some idiotic tools), and he's run a clean campaign while the Clinton's have shown what nasty say anything do any thing jack @$$es they really are when it comes right down to it.
Besides all that haven't we had enough of rule by nepotism after Bush? Isn't the fear of one family (or group of families as it stands now) retaining long term control of the executive branch part of why Americans chose the childless Washington as their first President?

Do we want a complete change or not? More of the same with the Clintons or more social justice, government by the people, and Obama.

Must we, with the "Obamamentum" type headlines? Can we stick with using real words? This is a presidential election, not a MySpace poll.

It amuses me to observe these people pathetically attempting to defend Clinton and her wonderful experience of pulling levers within an absolutely corrupt corporatist machine. How disheartening to see the message of people like Dodd, Edwards, and Kucinich put aside for what amounts to simply gender preference and fear of challenging the status quo. A case can be made for attacking any politician based on his/her record, however to suggest that Obama is somehow "dirtier" using this line of argument fails in contrast with Hillary's senate voting record.

A vote for Obama should not be mistaken as a vote against women. Hillary just happens to be a woman who possesses very bad qualities as a candidate.

Keep the impetus of Obamamentum going!

FDR and JFK both failed the first time they sought the Presidential nomination and both were visionaries. Obama is still young enough to seek it after Hillary gives it a try. Women have been marginalized enough - let the men step aside and give women a chance.

FDR and JFK both failed the first time they sought the Presidential nomination and both were visionaries. Obama is still young enough to seek it after Hillary gives it a try. Women have been marginalized enough - let the men step aside and give women a chance.

Who are any of us kidding? Hillary will defend what publicly looks good. Obama will do much of the same. I hope we can all agree on the fact that we must pick the lesser of two evils and that would be a dem over any GOP candidate.

On another subject, I really don't understand how so many of you people have problems with illegal immigrants. You cite security issues and so forth, but that really holds no validity. It's called research and you should learn how to go about it. Beyond that, people are angry because they 'steal' jobs. First of all, does your frustration stem from the fact the so many American companies move there operations overseas? That is not the fault of illegal immigrants, but the do become the logical target of anger and retaliation.
Secondly, I don't know if it matters, but many many illegals pay taxes and recieve absolutely nothing in return. You may say good, but they are doing more for you than you are doing for them. Anyway, do what you will with this, but it had to be said.

Where is your proof? Did you witness some kind of voter suppression or fraud? Were there mdeia reports of questionable activities in black neighborhoods? Do you really think that Obama, his staff, or the media would let anyone het by with what you are accusing Clinton of? Present facts, not fantasy.

I was very surprised by the poor showing of Obama in Massachusetts where he had a double endorsement of Kerry and Kennedy. I live in France and recently took an exam to get a promotion in France's public school system where I teach English. One of the subjects I had to prepare was the evolution of the American presidency. A lot is said on this side of the Atlantic about JFK talking a lot before he got elected but not delivering once in office. Perhaps comparisons with JFK and the various Kennedy endorsements lead people to think that Obama's wonderful rhetoric will be empty.

I think you need to check your numbers, Clinton fans. It is Obama, not Hillary, who leads in the number of delegates 838-834. This show ain't over fort a long time!

What? Leiberman was never a Clintonite. In fact, he stood up and condemed Clinton on the Senate floor durinng the big blow job investigation. Lieberman is out of touch with the Democratic Party...supporting Bush's failed policies and McCain's continuation of those policies. He has always been a closet Republican.
Gore won the election..he was a flawed candiate but he still won...the election was never about Clinton...had he used Clinton to campaign (with Clinton's 60-70% approal ratings at the end of his term, Gore might have overcome Bush's theft of the election.

The Clinton apologists are spinning in pathetic desperation. They have no clue why Obama is sticking his foot in the Queenmaking Machine they crafted. Could it be her fence-riding on every important issue? We want a break from Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton. Obama is that fresh choice.

As a Democratic voter since I became eligible to vote in 1969, I have seen a few elections and candidates, and missed voting in only one election.

Neither Obama nor Clinton is perfect, but either one is a significant improvement in every respect over G. W. Bush. Of this I am absolutely certain.

I voted reluctantly (and by a razor-thin internal margin) for Obama yesterday in CA, based on his apparently greater potential electability. But I remain ambivalent, torn.

I believe that Clinton would probably be a better (more qualified and experienced) president, despite the well-documented antipathy for her on both right and left.

Clinton has done herself no favors by staying too-buttoned-up/"controlled," and by not letting herself show us that she is comfortable in her own (female, Christian, liberal) skin. There are glimpses of greater personal authenticity once in a while, but one has to dig deeply to find the genuine evidence of her strong values and her lifelong actions for a more just society. (I have found more than enough "proof" for my own satisfaction, but it takes more effort than a voter should have to exert.) And I am not ready to dismiss her as unredeemable because of her experience and her inevitable, human mistakes. ("Let he who is without sin cast the first stone...")

I believe that being more self-revelatory and reaching deeper to show us-in public-her internal strengths (her faith-based courage and lifelong commitment to justice, for example) is the best way to show that she is truly "ready on day one."

But I despair that her personally conservative, controlled, and "private" persona, which is apparently based on the dominant social values current during her upbringing, may be her ultimate undoing in the face of the challenges and criticisms leveled at her (many of which seem unjustified or overblown) over the coming months.

Hillary is a joke-nothing against woman- and i am all for a woman as pres. just NOT hillary. come on people

In my opinion, Mr. Obama is more like G.W. than JFK.

G.W. snowed everyone with personality and flash with little to no substance and he was given a free pass by the media OR anyone opposed was destroyed.

JFK was a war veteran who had long worked in government, along with his brothers, before becoming president. But he too was elected on flash over substance.

But I find Mr. Obama far more dangerous. He is in my opinion a hate/race monger with the smooth tongue of a slick snake oil salesman.

And he has accomplished what no previous nominee has, made me an independent.

I will not vote for Mr. Obama. Thanks to him, I have found my voting conscience. If a Republican is elected then so be it. Our country has survived far worse than a possible McCain presidency.

I will not vote for McCain either. I will write in my choice.

I am confused by the whole premise of this article. No one thought Hillary would walk away the nominee going into last night. In fact the media has been pretty much wriing her off for weeks...with polls that were showing Obama leading everywhere, with continuous covegae of his his crowds...I think the pundits were disappointed that Hillary did not fail as they all predicted. The race is even, voters seem happy with both candidates so the media still twisted it to look like an Obama victory.
I would vote for either of them if they get the comination but I really think some of you should do a little investigating of Obama's record before you throw stones at Clinton. There has been very little reporting on who Obama was and what his record was in the Illinois Senate...did any of you read about Obama's biggest contribuors (utitlity company executives in Illinois) how he sold out to them in the Illinois Senate. Read the story in last Sunday's NYT about how he tried to regulate Illinois nuke power plants and ended up pulling a Bush by supporting voluntary regulations. Something that any Illinois resident will tell you, you can't be part of Illinois government unless you are dirty and Obama is no exception.

I find your argument foolish, no insult intended.

Anyone can pretend to be honest as Mr. Obama is doing.

But you are afraid of the person who is openly private about themselves, as if that were a crime.

I feel a great and awful kinship with Hillary Clinton right now. Unfortunately, I am in the job market after fifteen years as a college professor, having spent the last seven years at the top of that profession as a full professor, and after prior career experience with lots of documented accomplishments. But I'm not getting any offers. Who is? Young men with "promise" and few accomplishments have prevailed so far. This morning, NY Times noted that white men favored Barack over Hillary - the same category of decision makers that seems to prefer young men with "promise" and few accomplishments to another older woman (me) with many solid accomplishments and lots of experience. I, too, could walk in and be doing the job with expertise on day one. Another post states that, "A vote for Obama should not be mistaken as a vote against women." Maybe, at a deeper psychological level, it really is such a vote. As a resident of New York State, I have benefited greatly by having Hillary Clinton, with her great experience and accomplishments as my senator. I want those qualities in my president, as well as her vision and "promise."

Barack Obama is always saying Hillary Clinton will say anything to get elected yet he is the one who has and does say anything. His most recent "mud" is this statement from a news source on the internet:
"Sen. Barack Obama predicted Wednesday that Republicans will have a dump truck full of dirt to unload on Hillary Rodham Clinton if the former first lady wins the Democratic presidential nomination, and said he offers the party its best hope of winning the White House". This is the smear and fear tactic typical of the GOP and the willingness of Obama to say anything to get elected. But to the contrary Hillary's record is clean and her dedication to children and women for the past 35 years of all races, creeds and nations is evident in the programs she either started or co-founded or belonged to before and after becoming Bill Clinton's wife. She is the first politician in this country to push for universal health care on a visible national level but was denied this great achievement by a majority GOP congress. Anyone who is interested in Hillary Clinton's life need only go on line and type in Hillary Clinton; she has an impressive record of public service and excellent educational credentials.
The only bad things that have been said about her are the innuendo and smear tactics the GOP tried and that Obama is using now but in spite of these smear tactics her record is gleaming clean, a testament to her integrity and honesty
Obama has been belittling her career and her credentials from day one of this campaign and then turning around and saying she will say anything while he does indeed say anything no matter how demeaning or misleading to win. For him to make a statement that the GOP will have a dump load of dirt to throw at Hillary is a lie and demeaning and misleading. He should be ashamed of himself for using these dirty innuendo and typical GOP tactics in an attempt to overcome her delegate lead but these tactics don't seem to bother him.
But if the truth be told Obama will say anything to win. For 2 months he used demeaning and belittling innuendo to mischaracterize Hillary in the hopes of diminishing her stature as a Democratic Presidential nominee. And Hillary did not say anything to rebuff Obama until New Hampshire and she said very little after that until he began his attacks again during a South Carolina debate where he said, while you were a corporate lawyer for Wal-Mart I was etc".When he finished trying again to smear her with the corporate tag she responded, "and while I was representing the people you were an attorney for the biggest slum land lord in Chicago" and that is the truth. How can a man who says he is concerned about the poor and down trodden represent a man like Rezko? Ask your self and why has he had a relationship of over 15 years with Rezko?
Hillary did not point that out but she could have and more, she try's to be above board and fair unlike Obama who will and does say anything.
Barack Obama has said that Reagan made the right moves for our country when the truth is Reagan made the right moves only for the wealthy and powerful in this country. Reagan was a disaster for the poor and the lower economic classes of America. And, not much unlike the present administration, Obama has said he would use military might in the form of nuclear power, nuking Pakistan, to stop al-Quaeda.
When you put all the pieces we know about Obama together with his total lack of experience you don't get a pretty picture for President of the United States.
And as far as him being the Democratic Presidential nominee the GOP will indeed have a dump load of dirt and, unlike Hillary Clinton, will use it. Remember he admitted to using cocaine and other drugs. That will cost him about 1/3 of the voting populace. Then he was involved with a big time disreputable character, slum landlord Rezko, that will cost him another 25% of the voting public. And then his total lack of foreign affairs experience; once the "dirty tricks department" of the GOP get through "swift boating" him he wouldn't have a leg to stand on.
If you want a Democratic President who will indeed represent the majority of America and who will win in a land slide vote for Hillary!

Al

I for one, am really tired of a bunch of over-privileged white kids telling me to vote for Obama.

He has become a trend of the youth...and the youth are more inclined to vote for what they think is trendy rather than actually pay attention and figure it out for themselves.

Youth, are also, generally, fickle. Right now it's Obama, in a few months, they'll be on to something else. Perhaps something even trendier......

Feb 5th proved that ordinary citizens can come out in large numbers and take on the mighty Clinton machine. The machine that dupmed dirt on an upstart Senator from Illinois. We await with bated breadth for the delivery of sweet Justice.

My 80 year old dad went to the nearby school yesterday to vote in the democratic primary. On entering the school he slipped on a loose step, fell, bruised himself very badly and broke his elbow. In great pain and with a broken elbow he did not leave until he had voted for hope and change.

Congratulations to everyone who voted yesterday with their heart. Thanks to all those, like my 80 year old, who have brought the flame of hope thus far through the gauntlet of fear and deception.

Now it is all up to you in the states voting next! We pray and wish you the best as you join the battle against the machine.

Go fearless voter! We are counting on you to deliver justice.

I have to admit that all other things being equal I would vote for Barack.

First of all, I really do like his rhetoric of bringing people together. Some of my neighbors are republicans and personally I would rather have us work with our commonalities than continually being pulled apart by the divisive issues. The US is in a bit of a serious position and I think we will be in a much stronger place to deal with the war and recession if we are working with a uniter and not a divider.

Unfortunately the Clintons are very divisive figures who would find themselves at war from day one with about 40% of the country. Whether she deserves this hatred or not, it is there. She seems to anticipate it in her arguments about having already been swift-boated and unfortunately she seems to relish that sort of battle. Why would we choose to do this to our country?

Second, her vote about the war was a complete weasel move meant to keep her viable for this election cycle. Politicians will be politicians but shame on her for caring more about her access to power than the lives of both americans and iraqis.

DYNASTIES MEAN ENTRENCHED POWERS.
DYNASTIES ARE ANTI-DEMOCRATIC.
I find it hard to believe that more hasn't been made out of this. I have no idea why progressives would be so willing to overlook the further damage to our democratic traditions just so a woman can have her turn. By all means women should have their turn, but the party should be acting aggressively to cultivate female candidates, not dynasties.

Because I strongly believe that Presidential dynasties are fundamentally undemocratic and damaging to our country now and in the future, I can imagine no circumstances that I could vote for Hillary in the general elections.

I am very interested in hearing arguments against my last point. Why isn't a presidential dynasty a bad thing?

Adam

It might be worth pointing out that, before Iowa, both Edwards and Obama mercilessly attacked Hillary Clinton. When Obama surged, Hillary swung back. Viciously, yes, but this is politics after all - when you're not the front runner, you attack the candidate who is. Obama is clearly the most physically attractive candidate and obviously his youth and skin color make him the candidate du jour. He also has the luxury of not having been a senator when the Iraq invasion vote was taken (reason enough alone to not vote for Clinton in the primary). While Obama's vacillations on the issues are minor, they will be seized upon by the republicans. When you're a one term senator running for president, it is easier to offer the country "hope" when talking about what you plan to do in office rather than articulating how you will do it. However, George W. Bush, who couldn't articulate a plan if his life depended on it, proved once and for all that the U.S. electorate is always swayed by style and not substance, so articulating your platform is unnecessary. Essentially, Obama's current positions are almost identical to Clinton's, so people shouldn't get so worked up about who wins the democratic nomination. For real progressives, the obvious choice is and always has been Dennis Kucinich. The only candidate who has repeatedly put his political career on the line to speak the absolute truth and vote for the good of the average person on the street in this country. With that said, any democratic president will be better than a republican in office. More importantly, the congressional races need to be won by a large democratic majority. Unless the republican party is utterly crushed and made to be impotent in the upcoming election, real change will never happen in this country no matter who we have as president. If you plan on donating money, donate it to the democrats in congressional races around the country - Barack and Hillary both have enough.

I'm a 60 year old white male and Barrack Obama is my candidate. Need I say more?

Mon. Feb. 8, 2008: From Frank Lornitzo P.O. Box 246
Bradford, Vt. 5033 b

I sent this one out, not as a campaigner but as a lobbyist.
I think we should continue to lobby for change. One of the issues is the current privatization mania:

"Objection to Hillary's Health Plan:

While commending Hillary Clinton for coming forth with a health plan,
I am sending my broad objection to a broad base for the following reason:
I cannot see Government garnishing people' private income/property
for any reason other than delinquent taxes to the Government. As my original
objection for Social Security "private accounts" under Wall Street the
government has no right to force or coerce anyone to pay a private person or
corporation except under a civil judgement. Such garnishment or forcing one individual's life
or property onto another's.is actually a form of slavery,
Adding to this objecton is history, in which we
already have had the fiasco of the "plan D" Medicare
which has been a form of sem-privatization"

Sincerely

What's all the freak out about?
You have the same choice you had four years ago, a bowl of feces and a bowl of feces. All you have to do is decide which one stinks less than the other one.
Regardless who gets in, regardless of what party they are, NAFTA will keep on sucking America dry of jobs, health care will still suck and the common man will still lose. Remember, this campaign is about power and money and
principles, as usual, will fall by the wayside as soon as
who ever gets elected is sworn in. Sorry to be so negative but I have NEVER seen an American President that did anything for the common, working class American. Better to write in Elmer Fudd. At least HE couldn't be assassinated!

I am greatly disappointed in the Clintons and many of their supporters. They need to halt their distortions and outright lies, which we all know has been a characteristic of the republicans for the past few decades. Stooping too any level to win won't serve them, the Democractic party, or the Nation well. If this were a fair process ,i believe Barack would win by a somewhat close but solid margin. But i no longer trust the Clintons or the party bosses who clearly prefer Clinton.
Dennis Kucinich was my 1st choice, but with him gone i've taken another look at Obama and found him to be someone worth taking a chance with. The Clintons and their supporters need to speak honestly to the issues and leave race and gender out of it or come November if she is the nominee, they may find themselves standing ALONE!

If you vote for the "lesser of 2 evils" you are still voting for evil. I cannot and will not vote for Billary. I started out as a Kucinich supporter and feel that he always was the one TRUE Democrat in the race. When he dropped out, I supported Barak because he speaks with great impact and seems genuine. He's positive and uplifting. I will NEVER vote for Billary, even if it means McCain becomes president. She is a DLC Democrat. You may remember NAFTA, the Telecommunications Reform Act, GATT, and the WTO. These were all passed by the house and senate and signed into law by Bill Clinton (the better half of the Billary tag team). Billary is anti-consumer and pro-business just like the DLC wants Billary to be. Billary is a neo-con (or neo-liberal) and when Billary is not taking polls to decide how to feel about issues, Billary is voting with the neo-cons OR failing to make a stand on important issues like the Bankruptcy Reform bill. No, Billary did not vote for this pro-business/anti-consumer piece of crap legislation, BUT she also did not vote against it. See http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2008/01/21/596682.aspx

Billary will likely take us to war in Iran. She is tainted by the money from Rupert Murdoch. http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2006/05/09/politics/main1600694.shtml
Maybe Rupert is paying Billary back for the passage of the Telecommunications reform act which allows large media conglomerates like FOX (faux) Network to buy up all the newspaper, radio, and TV stations in a given market. Ever wonder why 95% of everything you see and hear comes from 5 corporations?! Thanks Billary for allowing media concentration. No wonder Murdoch loves you! Perhaps he is waiting for the next big legislative give away. Hillary, you suck! If the Democratic party runs you as their presidential candiddate, you will surely lose as the Republican base will show up in droves to vote for McCain, not because they love McCain, but because they hate you so much. And democrats like me will just sit out this vote, because you are just another right wing puppet with a D after your name.

It was interesting to note that in California, Senator Clinton took the Asian and Latino votes. Both of these groups have been anti-black for the longest period of time. As a California resident, it was apparent to me that Asians would not rent to blacks unless it was in a black area. Nor do they hire blacks. They treat them all like theives when in their stores.

A close personal Asian friend told me her husband refused to hire a black female although she was obviously the best candidate for the job. He was afraid of losing "white" business clients. She is not personally anti-black and indicated that she felt a bit ashamed about this.

Certain Asian businesses, mostly swap malls and small mom and pop operations serving the black community, made it a practice to cheat a large number of black patrons out of small amounts because it added up. Most didn't complain because the small amount could easily be passed off as an "error."

Latinos have often seen themselves as in competition with blacks for everything ranging from housing to jobs. A Latino I worked with called the black woman to whom he answered the "B" word whenever he could not be heard by blacks. He treated all blacks employed in lower levels as beneath him and other Latinos.

So one could surmise that she got the votes of the racists. Yes, almost without exception, Asians and Latinos are racist toward blacks. That is unfortunate because both Latinos and blacks are subject to racist treatments by whites who are racists, and Asians.

I think that Latinos are jockeying for power just as has every other ethnic group that has arrived on American soil. They, therefore, must have someone beneath them. Who but they black can they step on?

Old white women also supported Senator Clinton. As one stated above,she is still unemployed although she was a college professor. White women have often been discriminated against job wise, and perhaps sees this as an opportunity to support one of their own emerge on the other side of the glass ceiling.

My personal concern is that I do not wish to see a return of a Clinton to the White house. It will definitely be business as usual. I want a change. Presidential dynasties serve no good for the American people. It is just a step away from a dictatorship or something equally bad.

It is time we quit electing the lessor of two evils. Write in B. Hutchinson for president if you feel that you do not have a choice. B. Hutchinson simply means that we want the elected president to know we are tired of the American people not being the beneficiary of good government. However, if you really like the status quo, a vote for McCain or Clinton is right on. A vote for Obama will definitely be a vote for change.

I forgot to add that Mr. Obama is certainly going to feel the backlash of some racists whites, yes they still exist, as well as the certainty of some blacks voting for him solely because he is seen as black in spite of his having a white mother. And there are some blacks who will not vote for him because he is black. Fortunately, for the country, whites are showing the world that all whites are not racists and can choose a candidate they believe in without regard to skin color.

However, it must be kept in mind that blacks account for less than 13% of the population, not 13% of the voters, so they can not elect a president by themselves. About half of all black males have been disenfranchised by being incarcerated at a rate increasing exponentially beginning in the 70's and expedited during the Clinton Presidency. Blacks are not a formidable force in a national election. If Obama proceeds, it will be to the credit of whites.

WORD UP !!! UP WORD !!!
LET THE FACTS SPEAK FOR HILLARY'S EXPERIENCE IN OFFICE AND THEN DECIDE IF HER EXPERIENCE WOULD MAKE HER YOUR "PRESIDENTAL" CHOICE.

THE DEBATES HAVE LITTLE SUBSTANCE IN DETERMINING A CANIDATE'S POSITIONS AND AFTER HEARING HILLARY TOUTING HER EXPERIENCE AS THE REASON TO VOTE FOR HER, I WENT TO HER WEBSITE,THEN I REVIEWED HER VOTING RECORD AND RESEARCHED WHO HER ADVISORS ARE AND THEIR POLITICAL RECORDS/IDEOLOGIES.I THEN READ SEVERAL PRO/CONS ARTICLES ON THE INTERNET ABOUT WHICH "BILLS" SHE AUTHORED AND IF THEY PASSED.
THE FOLLOWING ARTICLE > WRITTEN BY A WOMAM REPORTER FROM NEW YORK BEST LAYS BARE THE "CLINTONIAN SAGA" Hillary Unfit to Be US President: The "Experience" Myth
Politics Joan Swirsky, Featured Writer
December 6, 2007
URL: http://www.newmediajournal.us/staff/swirsky/12062007.htm

In the first of my Hillary-Unfit-To-Be-President series, I first and foremost addressed the New York Senator’s clear and even frightening lack of qualifications to be the leader of our country’s Foreign Policy. Hillary wants to convince the electorate that she comes to her claim of superior preparedness for the highest office in the world by dint of her “experience.” So let’s forever dispense with this absurd and self-aggrandizing myth.

Hillary’s Arkansas “Experience”
Hillary’s first substantive “experience” in the political world was as First Lady of Arkansas, during which time she was a partner in the Rose Law Firm, acting as “rainmaker” to bring companies that dealt with the state into the firm.

According to an article in Counterpunch.org. (“The Seeds of Corruption: Hillary Clinton in Arkansas,” by Alexander Cockburn and Jeffrey St. Clair), Hillary flunked her first bar exam in Washington, D.C., and “her legal expertise hasn't been cited in any law journals so her expertise is pure speculation.” Moreover, “Bill Clinton controls access to all 2000 boxes [of Hillary’s records from Arkansas] and he won't release the documents until after the 2008 election.”

So much for Hillary’s legal prowess and the “transparency” she pretends to advocate for, which Maureen Dowd of the NY Times explains as her “Nixonian bent for secrecy.” And that is not to omit her current refusal to pressure Clinton Library officials to release the papers that are relevant to her years in the White House.

When then-Governor Clinton selected his wife to reform the state’s education system, Cockburn and St. Clair say, she put forth “an astoundingly regressive proposal since it imposed new costs on the poor in a very poor state…The plan went through, [but] Arkansas' educational ranking remained abysmal.”

But isn’t learning from one’s mistakes part of the process of evolving? For most people it is, but apparently Hillary is not a quick study.

Hillary’s White House “Experience”
During Hillary’s eight-year tenure in the White House, “the one-time Lady Macbeth of Little Rock,” as writer Wes Pruden calls her, spent most of her time dealing with the scandals that followed her from the Natural State, as well as others that she and/or her husband created at 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue. For instance:

_ The cattle futures scheme

_ Travelgate

_ Whitewater

_ Hillary’s billings as legal counsel to the Madison Guaranty Savings and Loan and the Castle Grande deal

_ The missing billing records

_ The cover-up of Vince Foster’s death

_ The illegal request by her protégé, Craig Livingstone, for 900 confidential FBI files on Republican opponents (many of whom – surprise! – were audited by the IRS)

_ A never-ending earthquake of bimbo eruptions

_ Drum roll here – Monica Lewinsky

Okay, we can credit Hillary for vast experience in quashing scandals and also give her an A+ for whatever the antonym of transparency is, but it’s laughable to count them as “experience” to be President of the United States!

Anymore than the “80, maybe 82 countries” she says she traveled to as a “representative of the United States.” Flying über-first-class on Air Force One, and being bowed and scraped to by people who ingratiated themselves to her in order to gain access to her husband, may have augmented her sense of self-importance, but “experience” to be president?

When Hillary, in her assumption of the co-presidency, occupied an office in the West Wing, she was put in charge of reforming our nation’s healthcare system. But just as she failed in education reform in Arkansas, her socialist vision and lack of transparency about healthcare doomed the plan to failure as well.

But isn’t learning from one’s mistakes part of the process of gaining experience? For most people it is, but apparently Hillary is the exception.

Hillary’s NY Senate “Experience”
As a New Yorker myself, I have followed Hillary’s seven years as senator from the Empire State. While she sits on many prestigious committees – thanks largely to her connection to one Bubba Clinton and his ongoing, strong-arming influence in Democrat politics – the only “experience” I’ve been able to track are her proposals, proclamations, and complaints.

No legislation of any note. No foreign or domestic policy coups. No jobs to the upstate areas, as she promised in her campaign. In short, no there there! In fact, if you stop any New Yorker, as I have quite a few, and say, “Quick question: What has Hillary accomplished as senator?”, even her supporters get that deer-in-the-headlight look and start rambling on about her “support” for children.

But the cold hard facts of her inexperience don’t stop Hillary from pillorying her fast-rising opponent, Sen. Barack Obama. In mid-November, she said of him: "We can't afford on-the-job training for our next president."

For the record, Obama was a state senator from Illinois for seven years before being elected to the U.S. Senate, which means that in terms of elective office, his “experience” is lengthier than Ms. Hillary’s.

Speaking about one of the most important subjects of the 2008 presidential race – the economy – columnist Tony Blankley challenges Hillary to back up her claim of superior experience.

Some of the documents stolen from the National Archives by Sandy Berger, Hillary's national security advisor…are believed to be documents written by others with presidential comments in the margin. Let's have Hillary release all the national economic management documents written by her economic advisors with her comments in the margins. Let's see the option memoranda with her decisions indicated or even her own memoranda addressed to the president on the topic. At the minimum, let's see the memoranda produced by economists from the first lady's staff on the topic.

Blankley continues: “Other than keeping an eye on Bill, let's find out at what else she actually has experience in.”

Hillary’s “Experience” in The Politics of Personal Destruction
In doing everything and anything to create a legacy for herself and her husband, Hillary has the equivalent of 20 Ph.D.s! But it’s not a pretty picture.

“The Clintons have engaged in brute behavior for decades, much of it a matter of record,” says writer and publisher Emmett Tyrrell, who includes both the Mr. and the Mrs. in his indictment, listing the following:

_ Abusing the presidential pardon power

_ Being caught taking money from the shadowy Norman Hsu this year and from other dubious Asian figures in the 1990s

_ Bullying the press, political opponents, prosecutors and the women who caught Bill's eye

_ Suppressing a recent GQ story about how their bullying continues to this day

_ Employing private investigators to harass and intimidate political opponents and the women the former president either had affairs with or abused

_ Using the White House, most notably the Lincoln Bedroom, to reward donors

Tyrrell also writes about Hillary's out-of-control temper and use of foul language, both of which have been widely documented. But that is not as frightening – and potentially damaging to our national security, should Hillary become president – as the ex-president’s earning “more than $43 million in speaker's fees since leaving the White House, including millions from the Red Chinese and the United Arab Emirates.”

What do Bill and Hillary Clinton owe them? And how would that play out in a Hillary White House?

But I digress. During the October 30 debate, in which Hillary’s henchmen and women “planted” questions from the audience, Ms. Experience was unable to answer the simplest question in the world: Do you or do you not believe that illegal aliens should be granted drivers’ licenses?

She not only waffled and hesitated and tripped over her own words, but in writer Amanda Carpenter’s words, she “dodged and weaved, parsed and stonewalled.” In short, she did everything but answer Yes or No!

“She must be the only New Yorker without an opinion on the plan,” commented Charles Hunt of the N.Y. Post.

Naturally, her debate opponents pounced.

In response, Hillary used one of only two weapons in her repertoire. She triangulated – giving her voting base of perpetual victims the poor-me, I’m-just-a-girl plaint; giving her feminist cronies the I-can-play-in-the-big-boys-club bravado, and giving that great swath of moderate voters the I’m-still-ahead-in-the-polls rationale.

But unlike her husband, who was essentially given a pass after lying to the entire country for nearly a year, Hillary received only increased criticism and plummeting poll numbers.

So she resorted to her other weapon, in which she (and her attack squad) engages in the vendetta tactics she refined in the ‘90s. First, she threatened to release a file of “scandalous information” about Sen. Obama and, according to some reports, spearheaded the recent Giuliani “Hamptons scandal.”

As Clinton expert Dick Morris has explained:

Their favored method of getting out negative material about their foes is to hire private investigators to dig up dirt, which they then release through feeds to friendly journalists…In the '92 presidential campaign, the Clintons openly disclosed their use of private detectives to dig up ammunition on women who had accused the presidential candidate of having affairs with them, disclosing that they paid detective Richard Palladino over $100,000 in campaign funds. But, of late, they avoid such embarrassing disclosures by hiding their detective bills in their legal expenses.

Hillary’s “Experience” With Difficult Guys
No, we won’t go into the husband thing.

After Obama overtook Hillary in the Iowa polls, she told a reporter, with faux glee, “Well, now the fun part starts,” and unleashed a frontal attack, accusing the Illinois senator – in true Clinton-projection mode – of having a "slush fund" and having "at least skirted, if not violated, the (Federal Election Commission) rules and used lobbyist and PAC money to do so."

Then, on November 30, there was the difficult, clearly deranged, guy in New Hampshire who took several hostages in Hillary’s campaign headquarters – with a bomb that turned out to be harmless flares – in order to speak directly to the NY senator (and, of course, to CNN) in order to say that he needed better healthcare benefits.

What remain of her still-fawning media acolytes said her response to this potentially dangerous situation proved her fitness to be president – as she sat hundreds of miles away from the unfolding drama, and made numerous phone calls and dozens of generically “concerned” statements. For instance, she said she experienced “just a horrible sense of bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger, everything at the same time."

Isn’t this just what we need in a Commander in Chief? Imagine when even more difficult guys launch nukes from Iran, if nuclear Pakistan is taken over by the bad guys in the Taliban, and if (God forbid) seven suitcase nukes explode simultaneously in our country, will we want a president whose response is “bewilderment, confusion, outrage, frustration, anger… everything at the same time”?

Getting back to the Obama difficult guy – it gets worse and even more bizarre. At an event last weekend in Boston, Sen. Obama said, for the second time, that he was "not running to fulfill some long held plans" to be elected President.

Pounce! Hillary’s “oppo-research” squad had found evidence that in kindergarten in Indonesia and, again, in the third grade (in Indonesia), Obama had written essays entitled: “I Want To Be a President.”

“Mrs. Clinton really is attacking Obama for something he wrote in kindergarten,” James Taranto of the Wall St. Journal exclaims. And, I might add, in third grade! Proof positive that this Yale Law School graduate is calling this Harvard Law School graduate a bald-faced liar for something he wrote when he was five and eight years old. You can’t make this stuff up!

“Clinton is going to attack her opponents for lacking honesty and integrity? Good luck with that,” Taranto adds.

Many in the leftwing media the Clintons have managed both to intimidate and control for the past 15 years have suddenly woken up and smelled the coffee! Instead of spinning her many gaffes and changing viewpoints sympathetically, they have done just the opposite, trumpeting Obama’s increasing lead, questioning her dependency on her husband, and calling said husband on what writer Paul Hollrah calls “the mother of all lies” he told to Iowans about being against the Iraq War “from the beginning.”

They’ve also begun to question Hillary’s positions on various issues and the truthfulness of the statistics she spews with seemingly no regard for their accuracy. Her honesty “is more than perception, says journalist, author, and TV commentator Star Parker. “Dishonesty defines Clinton's campaign.”

Among the issues Parker cites – and documents exhaustively – are healthcare and Hillary’s false claim of 47 million Americans being without health insurance; Social Security and Hillary’s false claim that when her husband left office, it was projected to be solvent until the year 2055; and the War in Iraq and Hillary’s false claim that her vote to authorize the war was based on her understanding that it would be preceded by additional diplomacy.

If these lies, lies, and damn lies prove experience, it is only the experience that comes with the know-how to manipulate the masses and the media.

But as Pruden says: “Money, which maybe can't buy you love, can't always buy an election, either. You still have to get more people to vote for you than anyone else can.”

Joan Swirsky, is a Featured Writer for The New Media Journal. A New York-based author and journalist, she was formerly a longtime health-and-science and feature writer for The New York Times Long Island section. She is the recipient of seven Long Island Press Awards...

Opinions expressed by contributing writers are expressly their own and may or may not represent the opinions of The New Media Journal, its editorial staff or its publisher. Reprint inquiries should be directed

Response to Lichen:

Hillary's "socialist medical care" ???
Wow! That pretty well eliminates your post from consideration.

Having said that, I am opposed to Hillary as well, although I think she would probably do fine as president, and far better than any Republican alternative. I would have been OK with any of the final three Democratic candidates. However, I cannot forgive the naked attempt by the Clintons to paint Obama as "the black candidate." As a white southerner, I am quite familiar with the tactic they have used. Our worst politicians down here have learned over the years how to say "nigger" without actually using the word. References to school discipline, welfare mothers, etc., used in the right context, are nicely coded ways to rile up the white folk. What Bill and Hillary did in the run up to the SC primary was just despicable. Yes, politics are rough and the Clintons have been the targets of a huge amount of outrageously unjust attacks (just re-read the post by "Lichen"), but straight out racist politics takes you out of consideration for office in my book. Well, if you do it, you lose my vote, even if you pick up a lot of others.

Note to all: forget about the "electability" issue.

ONE of the two of them will be elected in November, and which one that is will be determined by the DNC nomination. Democrats (finally!) will turn out to vote in far greater numbers than Republicans, many of whom say they'll stay home if McCain is their party's nominee (and he will be).

The Dem candidates' differences pale, beside the danger of letting ANY Republican win the presidency, and with this long primary season, the Dem base will fully know that, come the election. So just relax, watch the show, and make sure you keep pushing candidates IN BOTH PARTIES for progressive positions on issues.

Forget WHO is going to change America, and start focusing on HOW.

------

Kill your TV, and free your mind.

I think a lot of people are underestimating the JR Senator from NY.

The republican machine will be out in full force. They dont want to lose the White House. Hillary has faced that machine, as the First Lady, and in her bid to be the Senator from NY. The second time she took 67% of the vote. That tells me she won over republicans and independents.

Dont be so fast to write her off.

I don't care who wins, as long as they brace the issues head-on, and start with money, and work outward from there. I don't want someone to try to blow sunshine up my pants leg, I'd like to see reforms. Will it be sunshine stories, or will it be practical, fundamental reform?
I'll sit here, and hold my breath...

A "clean" campaign you say?? I am sick and tired of the media and Obama claiming he is running a "grassroots" campaign. They neglect to mention that one of his big campaign donors are Exelon. Exelon, the same company that Obama was supposed to pass a bill in Illinois to mandate them to notify the public if any pollutants were leaked. Yet, he basically covered it up that he changed the wording of the bill at the last minute (after working with Exelon)to state that companies would only have to consider notifying the public instead of mandating them to notify the public. Obama is not "Mr. Clean" as he wants to come off and I am sick of people portraying him as this. He hasn't been in the Senate long enough to make "real" change so how is he going to do this in the White House?? He has little to no experience to back himself up and the writer who stated that the young people are just used to wanting someone who is "pretty" not substance is absolutely correct. Wake up people before its too late and we have someone in the White House who will be drowning before he can unpack his bags.

I am shocked at how quickly the American people have been harnessed into chosing just between three politico candidates in a nation of 300 million. It seems insane to me, that based on this quick decision we would turn over the most powerful and heavily armed government on the modern earth to one of these three people who are trash talking each other for sound bites on nightly tv. Its sick actually and a sign of a nation growing ever more immature into a perma-jr. high mentality where popularity contests pick the next student council president and home coming queen. Except this time they get the nuclear football, a huge navy, air force, and army/marine corps, a bear of an economy, huge social and financial problems, the largest police force and prison system ever built, and the enmity of much of the world. Are we nuts? Who on earth sold us such a lame bill of goods, and why are we so quick to bite at the bait of being armchair insta-wonks. It so plays to the American narcissism run amuck its not even funny, but worse its irresponsible.