An Embarrassing Loss for Clinton: Where Have All the Blue-Collar Dems Gone?

Go Obama Go

There is no way of slowing the 'MO' for this dude

I think HRC should do all she can, when that is not enough she has to make a decision.

I don't think she has the character to do what is best for the party nor the country. It might be the end of her political career.

Seems to me Americans are tired of the old school. That more than anything bodes well for the eventual nominee.

Well,I"ll try not to sound too bitter in regards to politics and this election,although,it"s hard after 7 years of Bush.If we have another rigged election here i.e. the supreme court deciding who our president will be,I vow to leave this country.We,as citizens,should never forget Paul Wellstone.Do not let his death be in vain.We need a new path.Peace.

For all those out there saying HRC is fading I would like them to look at the actual delegate and superdelegate counts--there are only 74 delegates separating the two. This is still a statistical dead heat, not matter how much the talking heads would like HRC to "gracefully step down". There are still several states to go and there is still the decision to be made regarding Michigan and Florida. Obama is not the chosen one YET. I think the Democrats made a big mistake by front loading the primaries. It would have given the party much more time to really assess the candidates and would have helped Edwards, Richardson, etc. I am sorry, but at this point, I really don't see much difference between the candidates based on issues. Obama is as much of an insider in Washington as is Clinton. By the way, he early on supported LIeberman in his campaign in Connecticut and also chose Lieberman as his senate mentor. Must really gall him to see Lieberman kissing up to McCain. The GOP is gonna really swift boat Obama and I am not so sure he has the guts to stand up to them. Clinton has really been fairly easy on him. How can you attack an opponent who is black? Every time anything is said it is parsed to see if it's racist. On the other hand, no one seems to care if others use sexist language to attack her. Come on, what's sauce for the goose, is sauce for the gander.
I still support Hillary. She has the experience that I am afraid that Obama doesn't. In the early debates, he was the "uh, huh" guy--basically coming in on the tail end of a policy issue that either Edwards or one of the other candidates put out.Yeah, he's a great speaker. Obama-mania, I am afraid, is just another fad.

That is a vary good point. I remember all those heated debates on national TV when Mrs. Clinton really gave it it those Republicans. And remember the time she won a huge political battle by stepping above the fray and speaking directly to the American people in the manner that the President needs to in order to drive policy? That was great. I can't wait to see the American people rally around her. New things are scary and I like Hillary because I've seen her on TV for like 20 years. That means she can do the job.

Pray tell, what experience in managing government has Mrs. Clinton had? Being the wife of the President? She got the experience by osmosis? Nah.
The people have rejected Mrs. Clinton, they are saying NO! to her. They are saying YES to Mr. Obama. I dare any "superdelegate" say no to him.

BTW, for Mrs. Clinton to "win", she will have to blowout Mr. Obama in the remaining states by more than 40 points in each states. Proportionallity of allocation of delegates, kills her chances.

"there is still the decision to be made regarding Michigan and Florida"

The democratic parties in Florida and Michigan made their decision last year when they decided to break the National party rules with full knowledge of the consequences.

The only way to fairly give votes to these states would be another Primary or more realistically a caucus. You can not simply "count the votes" in one state where Hillary was the only one on the ballot and another one where they agreed not to campaign in and she carried on name recognition. Oh and she just happened to be in Florida on election day for a fund raiser to spark that name recognition advantage.

The answer to Michigan and Florida is quite simple. Make the delegations from those states superdelegates. They allready have 800 of them.. adding 150 more is going to do what harm? By making them free agents its now up to the campeigns to court them and since they will both have equal access it'll be fair.

rachele,

how has hillary been easy on obama? she attacked him with rezko, his kindergarten writings, his voting present 3% of the time in IL, and now plagiarism. if she's being easy on him, then he must be going easy on her too. he's hit her on her tax returns and her vote for the iraq war, but he's laid off her weak senate record, her husband's foundation's shady donors, her shady donors, whitewater, vince foster, and all other slime that the republicans have been dredging up for years. and if she becomes the nominee, there's no way the republicans could use all that in the general election to make john kerry's swiftboating look like a pleasure cruise, right?

oh, and how can you attack an opponent who's black? well, you can remind everyone he's black as often as possible, peg him as the 'black' candidate a la jesse jackson, and imply he sold drugs as a teen. i think these may have been tried. anyone know how well they worked?

Obamacan?

How about McCainocrat?

I am not voting for a foreign policy novice who sounds totally naive for president. Obama needs to "change" his tune and start explaining what it is he would actually do, or he's lost this Dem.

The polls might not bear this out right now, but I think Obama - McCain is likely to be a huge embarrassment for the Dems. The other side are nominating the best and the most qualified person in their party. Why would we nominate a ROOKIE to run against him?

What experience are you talking about with regard to HRC? Obama actually has more public office experience than she does. Hillary's much touted 35 years of experience is a bunch of talk. The fact is that she is polarizing and cannot inspire a flea. She represents the politics of the past and Obama of the future. The people have spoken time and again-they want change. Hillary is Done!

Clinton is finished on February 5.

John F. Kennedy was a rookie also and so was Lincoln. Youth does not equate to stupid. Some of the so-called experienced politicians that knew better have taken this country in the wrong direction. Obama voted against the war Hillary voted for it. Gee, I guess Hillary's experience did not serve so well. Experience doesn't mean that you will do better of make better decisions necessarily. It is a slogan that has been used to hold people back time and again. Get over it!

I think Sen. Clinton needs to read the writing on the wall and leave with some modicum of grace, and not go down in flames.

Robert,

What you need to realize, is that attacks on Hillary and the Clintons in general are not an effective way to attempt to get Hillary supporters to back Obama in a general election.

McCain is starting to look pretty good from a foreign policy perspective. And he is practically a moderate or Dem on other issues - from energy, to campaign finance, to abortion, etc.

And what does Obama really want to change that is so important? You know, in general, I think things would be fine if we had a *competent* leader - which I think John McCain is. Obama is a great big unknown who can deliver a good speech. Just like George W. Bush was.

>>"Hillary is done!"
>>Hilary's experience is a bunch of talk

To me, this type of comment is simple disrespect of one of the great figures and families of the Democratic party over the past 20 years, (not to mention an ongoing potential ally to Obama no matter which way this thing goes). Why would you say her experience is "just a bunch of talk"? To voters like me who value experience, you can look at the exit polls from WI - 95% voted for Clinton. And we represented 25% of the Democratic voters. So, we are an important segment, and your argument that Obama is more experienced is just plain silly to almost all of us. What, was he in the model UN in high school as well? (sorry, I'm allowed one snarky comment)

If Obama supporters want to be nasty like you have, and not realize that Hillary is also a very strong candidate (who probably has the greatest shot of stopping John McCain in November, if nominated), and not acknowledge her experience, then like I said before - "you've lost this Dem". Lifelong Dem, I might add.

Far from a "politics of change" and "post-partisan unity" that they claim, Obama supporters are so nasty and overzealous they can't even achieve "intra-party unity"!

-Mike

Onomar, I love your post.

Rachel your point is well taken, but 3 more super delegates today jumped from Hillary to Obama, the writing may be on the wall

>>Obama voted against the war Hillary voted for it. Gee, I guess Hillary's experience did not serve so well.

Obama never voted against the war. He was not in the Senate at the time.

Hillary voted to allow the US to go to war in the event that the inspections did not work and war was the last course possible. She did not know any better than the 90% of Americans at the time who supported this vote with what gross negligence the Bush administration would pursue and wage this war. Hindsight is always 20-20 though, isn't it?

>>John F. Kennedy was a rookie also and so was Lincoln

Kennedy served in the House for 6 years and the Senate for 8 BEFORE his presidency. Obama has served at the national level for *3* years, count 'em - 1,2,3. Kennedy also lost the nomination in 1956 because he was NOT ready.

Lincoln had been elected to serve in Congress 14 years before 1860, when he was elected president. He also had a very distinguihsed career and served as Republican party "kingmaker" in Illinois before elected president.

Lincoln needed 12 years of seasoning in between his national service and when he returned as President.

Novices? I think not.

Hey, I'm not saying Obama is not a good candidate. But he is a novice, and nominating him is more risky - both for the potential upside, and potential downside, than nominating a well-known quantity like Clinton.

Which is why I would probably vote for McCain now - and Obama in 2016 or so.

As a member of the USW and someone that works in aerospace, my head and heart (and some of my hard earned cash money!) were in full support of John Edwards. This was primarily because he had changed his stripes and become someone that extolled a true populist message. With Edwards on the sidelines, Obama is the believably better candidate to carry that message forward.

We Dems are faced/left with 2 candidates now; 1 seems to be taking the pragmatic route in believing and saying things need to be changed to make them work again - Hilary. The other is taking the altruistic route in believing and saying things need to change to make them right again - Barack. Isn’t it about time the party and its members got back to being and doing things altruistically?

McCain can beat Obama? I guess we can't put ALL our belief in polls, but Obama has always polled ahead of McCain for the general. This morning, after his 2/19 victories, he increased his lead. HRC, who is to TX & OH as Guliani is (was) to FL, has ALWAYS been behind McCain.

The Clinton campaign would love that! Won't happen. As others have said, the decision on these states has already been made. What harm could it do, you ask? If it overturned the will of the voters in states that followed the rules I think the answer to that is evident.

What Mrs. Clinton and her campaign have not yet realized is that the majority of the electorate and her party do not want her to be our next president.

Next campaign for Obama:

"It's the Cintonistas, Stupid"

People are tired of gridlock in our government, caused by the extreme right or left of both parties. Few people want a repeat of the Clinton's in the white house.

Bush,Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

Change is anyone with a different name.

Lincoln had been elected to serve in Congress 14 years before 1860

?????

A one term congressman?

Lincoln was elected to a term in the U.S. House of Representatives in 1846. As a freshman House member, he was not a particularly powerful or influential figure. However, he spoke out against the Mexican-American War, which he attributed to President Polk's desire for "military glory" and challenged the President's claims regarding the Texas boundary and offered Spot Resolutions, demanding to know on what "spot" on US soil that blood was first spilt.[10]

Lincoln later damaged his political reputation with a speech in which he declared, "God of Heaven has forgotten to defend the weak and innocent, and permitted the strong band of murderers and demons from hell to kill men, women, and children, and lay waste and pillage the land of the just." Two weeks later, President Polk sent a peace treaty to Congress. While no one in Washington paid any attention to Lincoln, the Democrats orchestrated angry outbursts from across his district, where the war was popular and many had volunteered.

Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.

>>McCain can beat Obama? I guess we can't put ALL our belief in polls, but Obama has always polled ahead of McCain for the general

First of all, the national polls are all within the margins of error - so they are basically a dead heat. Which is same as Hillary fairs against McCain - to me this is meaningless.

Secondly, the DEM nominee will not need to win a popular national vote. They need to win all-or-nothing races in battlegrounds like Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania, which I believe by November will be much easier John McCain or Hillary territory than Obama territory (and have been showing as such in the polls as well).

Regardless, November is a long way off. Democrats should be basing their decision on their *intuition* for who is the stronger candidate, not the polls. To me - the choice is clear - Hillary.

Obama is an empty suit.

mike,

hillary voted to allow the US to go to war if inspections failed. she then voted against the levin amendment to require more diplomacy before going to war and would require a 2nd vote before using force. and she spoke on the floor of the senate about iraq's giving aid and comfort to al qaeda. so yes, she voted for the war.

and john mccain has been antiabortion his entire political career, and believes that nuclear energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. he is not a dem on these and other issues.

>>People are tired of gridlock in our government, caused by the extreme right or left of both parties. Few people want a repeat of the Clinton's in the white house.

>>Bush,Clinton, Bush, Clinton?

>>Change is anyone with a different name.

What *LOW* expectations you have. Well, then Obama is your man! All talk and empty promises!

Versus a reputable Democrat who was in part responsible for the greatest decade in the past 50 years.

>>As for Lincoln: Warned by his law partner, William Herndon, that the damage was mounting and irreparable, Lincoln decided not to run for reelection.

So, Lincoln made mistakes as a junior representative denouncing a war? And later was so unpopular that he could not win? Sounds like Obama to me, a junior Senator with *NO* foreign policy credentials who is leading us into a dangerous foreign policy of acquiescence.

Only when Lincoln understood how and what it meant to wage war did he come back as President. I would suggest Obama do the same. Americans do not want negotiations with Ahmadenijad. Period.

-Mike

>>mike,

>>hillary voted to allow the US to go to war if inspections failed. she then voted against the levin amendment to require more diplomacy before going to war and would require a 2nd vote before using force. and she spoke on the floor of the senate about iraq's giving aid and comfort to al qaeda. so yes, she voted for the war.

Homer, Obama has also supported the war ever since being in the Senate. He has not once voted against Iraq funding. Hillary gave the President the authority to wage war. Obama did not vote on the issue. To me, Hillary was misled just as badly as 90% of the people who initially supported the President. But if you look at her husband's foreign policy, you would see how she would wage her own foreign policy - tactical strikes in Iraq, successes in the Balkans without any (?) casualties, etc. No mad rush to war. The fact that she trusted the commander in chief to execute his responsibilities effectively and in the same way that she would have done is not a flaw to me.

>>and john mccain has been antiabortion his entire political career, and believes that nuclear energy is a clean alternative to fossil fuels. he is not a dem on these and other issues.

From what I have heard, Obama is also pro nuclear energy.

Listen - Obama can win folks! But he needs a stronger foreign policy to negate McCain's advantage! Yes, we can talk to Cuba, maybe. But we still have enemies - Iran, North Korea - let's not have a completely naive foreign policy.

So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama actually favors a rational, strong foreign policy.

-Mike

"For all those out there saying HRC is fading I would like them to look at the actual delegate and superdelegate counts--there are only 74 delegates separating the two."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html

This is the most accurate breakdown of delegates I have found, and Obama is currently leading by over 160 pledged delegates, with 56 pledged delegates still unnacounted for (and 52 of them are in states Obama won). When you factor in the superdelegates that have already chosen sides, his lead will still be over 100.

Mike,
I am not being nasty regarding Hillary. Sorry you got that perception. Actually she is the one that has been nasty and belittling of Obama's experience and knowledge. She is going to get even more toxic now that she is losing continuously. She failed to reform health care etc. and to my knowledge has not done much other than have the name Clinton attached to her. You value experience and so do most including me. Experience does not equate to good decision making all the time as you blindly seem to think. We need a fresh approach and sorry but HRC was in the white house for eight years getting indoctrinated in the illicit politics of Slick Willie. To be an effective president you have to be able to bring people together. Obama is that person. Hillary is not. I am an independent and believe that McCain is the better overall candidate. I am turned off by Hillary's disparaging of Obama on a daily basis. Honestly, I have not seen Obama do much of it compared to her. She bombs away because her message is tired. She is now saying the she is solution oriented. Hillary has changed her message. The impression is that she will do anything to be elected. Also, before you go crowning the Clintons as some great American family don't forget that Bill embarrassed America more than any other president ever. Remember Monica? The Clintons play dirty and are old school politicians. Open your eyes. Obama is the fresh approach we need. Ten states in a row agree with me.

Let us not forget folks that the president of the USA does not act alone on most world issues. Congress actually runs things and presidents benefit from experts and advisers. We get too carried away with experience. Yes, it matters! However, there has never been a president that had experience being president prior to being elected. They all learn on the job and are limited in what they can do independent of congress and public opinion.

Robert,

>>Also, before you go crowning the Clintons as some great American family don't forget that Bill embarrassed America more than any other president ever. Remember Monica?

That's all you have, isn't it? The Monica Lewinsky scandal is about as important to my impression of Bill Clinton as whatever JFK did with Marilyn Monroe - which is absolutely trivial. The only people who care about that are right-wing nutcases.

>>Experience does not equate to good decision making all the time as you blindly seem to think.

Right, "blindly". All evidence I have seen is that Hillary is smarter than Obama. She does have a distinct disadvantage and may have poorly managed her campaign up till now - I will grant you that.

>>The Clintons play dirty and are old school politicians.

Obama is playing dirty now too. What happened to public financing for his presidential campaign? "Just words", I guess.

Again, it is the type of nastiness espoused by the "no-nothings" that are backing Obama that will lead me to back:
1) Clinton
2) Bloomberg or Nader
3) McCain
4) Obama

-Mike

Silly me, of course I meant "know nothings".

Mike,

I have to take exception to your last post, which largely makes no sense whatsoever.

First, although I will agree that right-wing conservatives tends to make far too much of the Bill Clinton sex scandels, lets not forget President Clinton looked his country in the eye and told repeated lies. That speaks to his character has a husband, as a father, and as a national leader. The fact that Hilliary Clinton chose to defend Bill's immoral behavior despite knowing full well that he has sleep with numerous women speaks to her character as well. I'm not judging whether Hillary should have left Bill or whatever, but to turn a blind eye to such disrepectful behavior is not impressive.

Second, what evidence do you have that Hillary is "smarter" than Obama? Obama was top of his class at Harvard Law, president of Harvard Law Review, and a constitutional law professor. He is much more well spoken and he has run a nearly flawless campaign. Are you aware that Hillary failed the D.C. bar exam? Are you aware how easy it is to pass state bar exams with minimal effort? I don't know who is "smarter" but it certainly isn't clear cut.

Third, with regard to Obama's stanch on public financing, do you realize that Obama hasn't decided what he is going to do, and that he is instead focusing his efforts on this primary election? The fact that Hillary and her supporters are attacking Obama for a position he "might" take in the future speaks to the desperate nature of her campaign.

Next time you are going to make a post attacking someone try thinking first and writing second.

Hillary forgets that it is OUR hard work that is needed to make change happen not hers. Many of us who are working as volunteers for Obama have never been involved in politics before. After he is elected, we will continue to work through the nitty gritty and exhausting steps of making change happen (phone calls, letters, shlepping block to block and house to house to talk to neighbors in the cold and hot weather). Why? Because Barack is a leader. You cannot learn how to be a leader by sitting on Senate committees. Most of us have never seen democracy in action in our lifetimes because it is rare and hard to achieve. As my dear father always says, "American Participatory Democracy is the most radical political system ever put into practice and the jury is still out on whether we can live up to the challenge of making it a success." I encourage everyone to get on board now and stay on board after we have won the election to fight for substantial improvements in the lives of all those regular folks you know with no health care and no pension and no savings and no chance to go to college like you did. Obama is listening - send your ideas on how to make it work and get involved. You will never regret trying to make America better.

Joe,

>>First, although I will agree that right-wing conservatives tends to make far too much of the Bill Clinton sex scandels, lets not forget President Clinton looked his country in the eye and told repeated lies

Let's not forget that the matter was always pursued by right-wingers, and that Clinton's personal life should have never been the subject of national debate, especially over such trivial matters.

>>Second, what evidence do you have that Hillary is "smarter" than Obama?

The fact that she beat him in the one debate that they had one on one.

>>Third, with regard to Obama's stanch on public financing, do you realize that Obama hasn't decided what he is going to do, and that he is instead focusing his efforts on this primary election?

Obama is already getting hammered on this issue by McCain. If you, like most, think that Obama is truly about "change" and can escape the "dirty politics" that only the Clintons have to play, think again. Obama is going to get educated real quick. He is not above the fray.

The Clintons are not above the fray either. But they already realize that, and to me there is much less downside to nominating them.

I am convinced that Hillary would have a far more effective foreign policy and is the most qualified candidate for the job. It is just a job, after all. All of the attacks I have heard, like yours and Roberts, are based on completely irrelevant details like Bill Clinton's affairs, and that Obama is more "likeable". Well, George W. Bush was more likeable too, and look what a mess that got us into.

>>Next time you are going to make a post attacking someone try thinking first and writing second

Same to you, bud. And BTW, I am not attacking anyone here - I am just defending Hillary and pointing out that there is a lot of hot air behind Obama, and he may be weaker (and also far stronger) going up against McCain. I really don't think that's a controversial statement. I just personally would rather not take that risk, and go with a known quantity that I trust, and that I am convinced would do her country proud.

-Mike

Jewishmom,

Hope you are happy when Obama starts negotiating with Iran and Syria and selling out Israel and other allies!

-Mike

The Clintons need to look at saving what is left of their legacy and make sure whether they win or lose this thing they fight it clean from here on out. They have already destroyed their relationship with the African American community and are in serious danger of doing the same with a large number of Democrats if they go dirtier! I understand wanting to fight it out to the end, but not the need to destroy the party if it gives them a chance to some how steal the nomination. Hillary still has a chance to come out of this with a good reputation and a chance to remain a leader in Democratic politics for decades to come, but if they continue to rely on negatives to win this race she is endangering her future as well as what is left of the Clinton legacy. In addition those politicians that support the Clintons better remeber that they will face the voters too, voters that do not want change and hope, not more of the political machine politics.

Mike,

I just went back and read more of your drivel.

For example, you state, "So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama actually favors a rational, strong foreign policy."

You can start here:

http://www.barackobama.com/issues/foreignpolicy/

First, Barack Obama has one of the, if not THE, strongest group of foreign policy advisors in recent memory. A little reading goes a long way. Second, the recent unilateral strike in Pakistan that took out an Al Qaeda leader was EXACTLY the kind of approach Obama called for in an early debate. That approach was critized by Bush, Hillary, and many others as being "naive." Yet, now the Bush administration is touting that action as a major success in the war on terror.

Also, your assertion that Obama has not been against the war in Iraq since being in the Senate is intellecutally dishonest. Barack Obama has always been against the war in Iraq. That said, he would not vote against funding our troops once they are already there. He himself has stated that those funding votes were very difficult decisions because he does not support the war but he doesn't believe in having troops in battle without proper funding.

Please stop posting arguments that mamke no sense and are intellectually dishonest. You aren't fooling anybody.

Mike,

You wrote, "Hope you are happy when Obama starts negotiating with Iran and Syria and selling out Israel and other allies!"

Please stop with this nonsense. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post the more obvious it becomes.

You also wrote, "The fact that she beat him in the one debate that they had one on one." You must be kidding right? I would argue that Clinton performed better than Obama in every debate EXCEPT that debate, and I've watched them all. Obama clearly "won" the one on one debate with Clinton, whatever it means to "win" such a subjective contest.

I could go on cutting up your baseless arguments, but I have better things to do. I encourage you to do a little reading and form thoughtful opinions.

By the way, I am a strong supporter of Hillary as well so I do encourage you to vote for her, but please do it for intellectually honest reasons.

Bill Clinton did more than just lie to the American people--he lied under oath. Even Martha Stewart, who did hard time, didn't lie under oath.

And that's what makes it not the same as JFK and Marilyn Monroe. It wasn't about sex--it was about honesty. Clinton was disbarred as a result of his actions. I think a lot of people have made a lot of excuses for him since then.

Better they start "excusing" what he did for Marc Rich, or Hillary's brothers' friends, or the Puerto Rican terrorists behind bars when Hillary was running for the Senate. It's not like he was dishonest only once!

He's going ballistic now because he wants back in the White House. I'd be more likely to vote for Hillary if she got a divorce! I think she's extremely intelligent, but her common sense lacks a lot. She couldn't control Bill the first time around and she won't be able to if there were to be a next time. He's stage a coup d'etat if he could like some banana republic dictator!

A lot of people don't want another 4 or 8 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton, regardless of who her opponent is. She has some of the highest negatives of any serious candidate.

Mike,

You wrote, "All of the attacks I have heard, like yours and Roberts, are based on completely irrelevant details like Bill Clinton's affairs, and that Obama is more "likeable". Well, George W. Bush was more likeable too, and look what a mess that got us into."

Again, I support Hillary Clinton. At no point was I purporting to write a basis for why Barack is a better candidate. If I wanted to, I could run circles around you clearly demonstrating why Obama is the better candidate. But I don't believe that so I don't see the point. I was simply pointing out the baselessness of your repeated assertions.

Mike:

Want more examples of why the Clinton years don't bring back fond memories for some of us? Try:

-The Marc Rich pardon - absolutely odious ad corrupt. Made me ashamed to be a Demo.
- Fund-raising scandals, exemplified by the sale of the Lincoln bedroom
- Botching health care: You've seen stories about her stand-downs with Bill Bradley and Jim Cooper, two highly respected figures? She threatened to demonize them if they opposed her structure for health care reform. It was so bad, Bradley would never speak to her again.
- A GOP Congress after 2 years of his presidency: while Rostenkowski et al. bear a lot of responsibility, by then he and she had already so impaired their credibility that they were useless in the 1994 election.
- The travel office farce - pulling it apart so she could award it to her friends when the people running it had done a good job historically.
- The abortive attempt to nail Bin Laden, after years of neglecting critical intell concerning his activities.
- The DMCA: a gift to his fat cat supporters in Hollywood and the entertainment field.

I've imputed his actions to HRC. She claims 35 years of experience - a topic for a whole separate thread - and we must assume that she has her fingerprints all Clinton I. If you want to disregard that, then throw away the experience argument, because then she's on the same track as Barack.

So, we're now faced with the prospect of a rerun, where HRC's response to a critique is to say 'I've learned from my mistakes'. With that vague assurance we're supposed to let these two back into the White House. Let your imagination roam for a moment and picture the mischief that the ADD ex-President will be up to once he gets near the seat of power, and consider the difficulty she's had in restraining him up to now.

These were not the golden years for true Demos. While I supported a migration away from reflexive New Deal government centric philosophy to new modalities, what the two of them gave us is 8 rudderless years of courting business interests while shifting with the prevailing political winds and soliciting financial support. That may be your ideal of a political legacy, but it's not mine.

Joe,

>>Please stop with this nonsense. You really have no idea what you are talking about and the more you post the more obvious it becomes.

No - the reality is that nobody has any idea what *Obama* is talking about when he says he will negotiate with dictators.

>>Obama clearly "won" the one on one debate with Clinton, whatever it means to "win" such a subjective contest.

I watched the same debate. Clinton seems more knowledgeable on the policies. Her health care plan brings us closer to true universal coverage. Everything I have read from every source is that she is very intellectual and, if anything, more of a policy expert than Obama.

If you support Hillary so much, your arguments certainly don't indicate it. You see her defenders as spewing "mindless drivel". That is just the sort of idiocy that is driving people like me away from Obama. His supporters are venomous, cult-like worshippers!

If you win, show some respect. Or else I am pretty sure this is going to end up as a divided party, and a McCain victory.

Also, instead of defending Obama's foreign policy, hey, maybe it does need to be stronger to compete with McCain. This is not "drivel" - this is a real suggestion that I think will save any DEM from certain attack by the right.

Learn from the Clintons - co-opt the strength of your opponents. Do not let them use it to their advantage. Then, once a DEM is elected, maybe they can float some trial balloons with North Korea or Iran. But in the general election, that is going to hurt him, not help.

-Mike

Mike, Obama has the resolve, intelligence and diplomatic ability to prevail against the powerful political forces that will fight to continue the American occupation of Iraq, promote the invasion of Iran, and, yes, promote the creation of a Hamasastan in the heart of Israel. Based on my extensive overseas and Washington experience, diplomatic talent is not learned but is a gift. I believe that Barack has this gift. In short – I trust him. With all due respect, I do not trust John McCain. He is good at controlling himself in public but we do not need someone with a volcanic temper running the US military and diplomatic efforts right now. Not to mention that his main advisors in Israel are James Baker and Brent Scowcroft (the smartest men he knows). I do not think that the "Bomb, bomb, bomb ,..., Iran" policy is good for Israel. Now is the time to engage with Iran from a stance of no compromise on Israel’s security, insistence on more transparency in the Iranian nuclear program, and some carrots.

The Clintons are trying to run a 1990s type of campaign in 2008. Goes to show how they just don't get it. McCain and his gold old boys will try the same thing and will ride off into the sunset in the end. Americans are a funny lot. They are smarter than they are given credit for and when awakened will cast off those who attempt to deceive them. We have had enough of the Bush/ Clinton crowd and want to move foreward not backward. McCain will show that he too is tied to the past and has nothing to offer but the same old tired anti/ fear tactic. He has already set out on this path by pandering to the extremes of his own party. He is showing he will turn away from his own stated values in order to gain power.This will be his downfall.

Mike,

You said, "Do you want somebody that will negotiate face to face with the likes of Ahmadenijad and Chavez, or not?"

Of courese I do, and you should too. Are you aware that the government of Iran formally proposed negotiations with the U.S. government following our invasion of Iraq. The Iranian government was willing to put EVERY major issues on the table, including nuclear energy. The U.S. government rejected their outright overture for a peaceful resolution to this conflict.
http://altahrir.blogspot.com/2006/05/iran-offered-to-make-peace-with-israel.html

Obama's point is simply that he isn't too subborn or arrogant to negotiate with people that have different views than the U.S. That is how you resolve conflict peacefully without invading coutries.

So you can focus on whether it is the actual President or diplomats or whether there are certain preconditions, but please don't ignore the actual point of Obama's position. His point is that we can no longer afford to give our enemies the middle fingure and instead with must show the confidence and world leadership that it takes to have difficult negotiations with countries we don't agree with.

Kipp said of H. Clinton:

"I can't wait to see the American people rally around her."

In what alternate universe do you see this happening? Hillary Clinton is as polarizing as they come. A sizeable chunk of Americans already dislike her (to put it in polite terms) and it's not just Republicans.

If she somehow manages to clinch the nomination by having the Michigan and Florida delegations seated (can you imagine the sh*tstorm that will erupt if that actually happens?), she will create a new wave of antipathy WITHIN HER OWN PARTY.

Yes, there will be rallying if that happens -- but it will be around Mr. McCain, not Ms. Clinton.

Joe,

>>So you can focus on whether it is the actual President or diplomats or whether there are certain preconditions, but please don't ignore the actual point of Obama's position

Look - by and large I agree with you on this. However, my point is that these "minor details" are going to become a central point in McCain's attacks on Obama. So far, Obama has said no preconditions, and face to face meetings with him and Chavez or others. I do not see why he should be going that far at this point.

I do not see how taking a somewhat more moderate or "conservative" stance for the general election will hurt him politically. I do see a problem with continuing to defend face to face presidential meetings without preconditions.

>>His point is that we can no longer afford to give our enemies the middle fingure and instead with must show the confidence and world leadership that it takes to have difficult negotiations with countries we don't agree with.

As I have said before, if you look at Bill Clinton's foreign policy, I think you see largely the same thing, which is what Hillary would bring to the table. But to me, Hillary is actually smarter about this, because she is co-opting the Republican position for the general election. And differing with them only on Iraq, which is where the Democrats stand to gain.

>> If I wanted to, I could run circles around you clearly demonstrating why Obama is the better candidate.

No, you couldn't. You are just being a jerk like other Obama supporters.

Look, I've read Barack Obama's books. I've watched the debates. I've watched the speeches. I was with the 10% that opposed the Iraq war from day 1, but I place 100% of the blame for that war on George W. Bush, not Congress or the American people.

What brought Clinton down (so far)? Hubris. Lack of organization.

What stands to bring down Obama? Hubris, and weaker foreign policy than McCain.

If you don't agree, fine. Welcome to another 8 years of Republican rule!

-Mike

Robert Ruiz-

JFK was no rookie. Her served for 14 years in the Congress prior to his election. Although Lincoln only served one term in Congress, he was actively involved in fighting pro-slavery legislation. He managed to get the nomination of his party, because the Republican Party was a new political party back in the 1850's. He also ran against three others in the general election, getting all the support of the anti-slavery northern states. My point is Obama is no Lincoln or JFK.

He's a muslem he has an agenda! He won't sulute the American flag nor pledge allegiance to it and he's going to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces. The American people have lost their minds.

Hillery really cares about you and me. She loves her husband so much that she trashed all those hussies that attached poor Bill. That takes real commitment to her marriage. What an example the Clintons have been for us to follow. They blame poor old Hillary for everything. She is such a victim. PLease everyone leave her along. She is the only one that can lead our country. She is also the only one that can make Bill behave. Go Hillary. Just looook at all her vast experience.

If Hillary beats Obama by trumpeting her experience, does she get trashed by the--by her own standard--far more experienced McCain. Democrats looking for a winner cannot support such a loser argument.

I don't know what people are thinking. How can we elect someone with only a couple of years of political experience and expect him to take on the Washington elite? He may sound good, but I'd rather have Clinton. She's smart, savvy, a POLITICIAN and will be driven like no other candidate to be super successful in her office. After all, her legacy will be that of the first female president - she won't let it be a disaster like Bush's.

>And he is practically a moderate or Dem on other issues - from energy, to campaign finance, to abortion, etc.

NARAL rates McCain's lifetime record on choice issues 96% pro-life.

>Hillary is actually smarter about this, because she is co-opting the Republican position for the general election

Given that she has done that her entire career on just about every issue, perhaps you understand why a lot of us don't quite trust her Democratic bona fides.

These ten policy changes can save America.

The future Administration must make an about-face on many current policies.

1. Big energy can no longer be allowed to dominate federal policy. The oil industry must be brought under control again before it is too late. America must commit to no longer waging wars for big oil that are bankrupting our nation for our grandchildren. As Allan Greenspan admitted, the wars in the Middle East have been about oil. Military occupation, foreign policy blunders and the current wars in the Middle East have lead TO more Islamic terrorism, not the other way around as so many members of the current congress and senate, Democratic as well as Republican, keep parroting. This is a dangerous lie that the American people recognize and it makes the politicians look like fools. Heavy pressure must be brought to bear on the big coal industry. The only "Clean" coal is the coal left underground. A moratorium must be enacted effective immediately on any increased fossil fuel use. Annual reduction targets must be put in place. The new administration must come to recognize the looming danger of Peak Oil. True American Power lies in energy independence, not a continued fifty-year global war for the last of the oil and continued dependancy on dangerous dictatorships unpopular to the local populace. While the current wars served to enrich the US defence industries, they are a dismal failure in terms of long-term US strategy.

2. The future administration has no choice but to push an agenda to reduce greenhouse emissions in line with the Kyoto protocol. Tax credits and subsidies must be created for reducing co2 emissions. This is the most pressing issue today, an issue of survival that cannot be put on the back-burner any longer, no matter what the lobbyists think or do.

3. Technology has long existed to make American cars more efficient. The new Administration must have the confidence to end the age of the Detroit behemoths. Electric cars must be made commercially available once more. Nothing stops terrorism like an electric car. Luxury and carbon taxes for SUVs and other oversize vehicles must be instituted.

4. Tax credits and subsidies must be created for renewable energy such as solar, wind, tidal and micro-hydroelectric. Law should be enacted forcing new homes to install at least one of these technologies, as has been instituted in Japan. Waste heat, solar hot water and methane capture must also be subsidized. Research must be funded for agricultural methods that reduce CO2 and methane emissions. The administration must establish an impartial commission to review and approve biofuel projects. All new projects must reduce greenhouse gas emissions, have net positive energy output, have minimal environmental impact, and not inflate food prices.

5. Corporate welfare must end. Decades of tax cuts for the rich and a liberalizing of markets have led to the current economic crisis and driven the middle class to extinction. "Trickle Down" has not occurred and the average family is barely making it with two incomes now when one income was sufficient just one generation ago. It is common now for families and individuals to carry a dangerous and barely serviceable debt load. All the while, profits and power is being concentrated in ever-larger corporations. The new administration must have the confidence to reign in these corporations and guarantee a more equitable distribution of wealth, because we have reached a point where inaction threatens the nation economically and strategically.

6. The future Administration must move to regulate toxic chemicals in the marketplace. Clear labelling must be enacted for products that are carcinogenic, toxic, genetically modified and products that may effect the normal development of children. Common household environmental toxins are the cause of the rise in cancer rates, fertility problems and adult diseases now affecting children. Chemicals now affect most of the land and every drip of sea water, and plastics have begun to choke the oceans. Inaction will lead to ecological collapse.

7. Billions have to be spent to alleviate poverty and suffering in the third world to truly prove America is the benevolent nation it has long claimed to be. This money must not be handouts to large corporations, this money must be for truly progressive, proven micro-credit aid. In no nations is this more pressing than in Afghanistan and Iraq. In order to succeed here, the hearts-and-minds can be swung to America's favour with an outpouring of generosity. Make it patriotic to donate money and material to Iraq and Afghanistan. Create an agency to collect second-hand goods destined for these war zones. Make it patriotic to buy Iraqi and Afghan goods at inflated prices. It worked in Europe after WWII.

8. The national debt must be addressed. The debt has become a major strategic liability. We must begin to repay the debt, and this will be possible if military overspending and tax cuts for the rich are reversed. Most Americans cannot even fathom the size of the debt, and how fast it is growing. Reaganomics and "trickle down" theories are a proven dismal failure, no matter what sad dreams the neo-conservatives still cling to. But we the people remember.

9. The medical system in America is a national travesty and disgrace. From grand theft by insurance companies, pharmaceutical industry lies to hospitals wilfully bankrupting the sick, the current medical system is an incredibly wasteful and corrupt drain to the economy. A single-payer medical system must be instituted, even if it means using old school strike-breakers to bust up protests by overpaid plastic surgeons and pharmaceutical executives.

10. Americans must be made aware of the real grievances the Islamists have against America. This will allow true debate on how to overcome and defeat Islamic terrorism rather than perpetuate it for generations. Continuing to misconstrue their grievances will only continue global terrorism. The Islamists object to foreign military in their holy land of Saudi Arabia, our support of corrupt and brutal dictatorships in Islamic nations and the continued support of what Jimmy Carter declared an "Apartheid Regime" in Israel. For America win the war on terror it must reverse it's current policies that is only deepening and widening Islamic terror.

These ten steps will make America a truly great nation again.

Rachel. Where did you get this info? "By the way, he early on supported LIeberman in his campaign in Connecticut and also chose Lieberman as his senate mentor." You've gotta be kidding. I voted for Obama in the Mass. primary and I'm glad I did. Yes. I do not believe you.

>>Given that she has done that her entire career on just about every issue, perhaps you understand why a lot of us don't quite trust her Democratic bona fides.

If you don't understand why she would do that, then you don't understand politics.

If you think Obama is going to lead the Congress to some utopian world where everyone votes exactly as they think all the time, God bless you! But I see that as a false promise. Even Obama did not do that, with his "present" votes in Illinois.

Both Obama and Clinton have very liberal voting records in the Senate.

To me, Clinton is pitching more liberal policies on health care and the economy in this primary election. As a liberal democrat, I support those positions. Obama's policies are weaker for liberals on domestic issues, and weaker for the nation on foreign policy. Other than the "likeability" factor, and the fact that the Clintons are not running a great campaign, I do not see how you could vote for Obama over Clinton on the issues.

-Mike

We can make the BHO vs HRC argument from not until the end of time. The race for the Democratic nomination is over folks. If you don't beleive me then you should go and plunk down some money on a gaming site and you'll get about 10-1 odds today on Hillary. Just from a pure handicapping perspective, she can't garner more pledged delegates or the popular vote without winning each state at an average margin of 17.8 percentage points. That simply is not going to happen. Look, I'm not promoting one candidate over the other, I just think its time that democrats and social liberals like myself stop with this viscious banter, and focus on the pending battle of Obama vs McCain. That's all I have.

Mike,
You said: So far, I have seen no evidence that Obama actually favors a rational, strong foreign policy.

I suggest you do a little research. He's responsible for one of the toughest national security acts of our time!
http://obama.senate.gov/press/060317-obama_lugar_int/

joe,

Well said. Let's move on everyone.

AG

After Billary is forced to quit the race - is there anyway we can get her to quit as NY's junior senator - she has been a senator in name only - in other words, she has done nothing, nada, zippo for NY except use it as a springboard for the presidency.

AG,

>>http://obama.senate.gov/press/060317-obama_lugar_int/

That is an energy bill. Just FYI. I know energy policy is related to national security, but come on, let's get real. John McCain supports higher fuel standards and all that as well. But it's still going to take 50 years for us to not rely on imported oil - and for us to have no interest in the Middle East, Venezuela, Russia, etc. This is reality, folks.

-Mike

It's Over, and that is pretty much a fact.
Why is it a fact? Just do the math:

Obama is up 150 pledged delegates.
That means Clinton has to get 150 MORE delegates than he does in the coming contests JUST TO TIE HIM.
Is it possible? Yes. Is it likely? No.

Take the March 4 contests. There are about 400 delegates available between the four states of Texas, Ohio, Vermont and Rhode Island. Let's say she wins them all. Let's also say she wins enough votes in those contests to TIE Obama. What would the numbers have to be?

275 delegates for Clinton, vs. 125 for Obama, giving her +150.

That's a split of 68% to 32%, or a 36 point margin!!!!

It ain't gonna happen. The only time Clinton came even close to that in all the contests so far was in her husband's home state of Arkansas, where she took in 70%. After that, her next biggest victory was the state where she is senator, New York, where she couldn't even crack 60% (she won 57%).
Obama’s margins of victory since Super Tuesday:

Louisiana: +21
Nebraska: +36
Washington: +37
Maine: +19
Virgin Islands: +82
DC: +51
Maryland: +23
Virginia: +29
Hawaii: +52
Wisconsin: +17

Sorry, Clinton supporters, but the writing is on the wall. Whether you want to read it or not is up to you.

"He's a muslem he has an agenda! He won't sulute the American flag nor pledge allegiance to it and he's going to be Commander in Chief of the Armed Forces.'

Boy, keep drinking that Kool-Aid!! All of this racist, bigotry, garbage about Obama has already been debunked and is simply not even close to the truth!!

Obama is a patriotic American who loves his country just as much as you and I. He has also handled himself with grace and dignity throughout this campaign and the American people have responded.. He has energized the American people and he WILL be the next President of the United States!

What a breath of fresh air he will be after 16 years of Clinton/Bush divisive politics and government.

Ron

Mike,

So go vote McCain and call it a day. You seem convinced on your own points and no one here is agreeing with you, so . . .go and good luck.

AG

I am a Democrat. I am also the mother of 2 soldiers and a veteran myself. No way I'm voting for Obama for Commander-In-Chief. McCain is starting to look better and better. And again the Democrats commit political suicide.

Thanks A.G. And if you are the same A.G. (Abe Goodman) who posted the 10 point policy doctrine, then I will return the favor with another "well said".

>>We can make the BHO vs HRC argument from not until the end of time. The race for the Democratic nomination is over folks.

No, it is not over. Hillary can still do what she said she would do, which is win TX, OH, and PA.

Do you really think Obama will be nominated on the basis of wins in Illinois, and... what other significant states has he won? None.

Now, Hillary is by no means the favorite at this point. But I would suggest - for the next 2 weeks - we have this time to evaluate *who is the stronger candidate*. I would suggest we use that time to actually really focus on Barack Obama vs. Hillary on the issues, and make sure we pick the right one.

For the reasons I've laid out, I think it is Hillary. Michelle and Barack Obama have already demonstrated they are not cut out for competition at this level. Hillary and Bill are.

If it comes down to Hillary winning TX, PA, and OH, and the superdelegates don't nominate her, I think we are going to have a broken party.

Also, our nominating process is seriously screwed up. Wake up DNC - this entire process is far from democratic! I say - one day, one national primary. Or a 1 month period of 4 regional primaries. But either way - the current system stinks!

-Mike

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2006/04/02/164/90446 is where I originally read about Lieberman and Obama. You can google Lieberman + Obama and see several other articles.
By the way, HRC has had 8 years of experience visiting with heads of state, going to many countries around the world to meet with various leaders of different organizations. She also was able to win big in upstate NY which has always been a strong Republican area. I also think that we are forgetting that the 8 years under her husband were a LOT different than the 8 years under Bush. Our economy was good, we were respected around the world, we were not committed to a war without end, we worked with the UN, there were compromises made with Congress....during that time HRC had the opportunity to have a front row seat. She has also been active with the Children's Defense Fund and various other national organizations. She was First Lady in Arkansas for how many years?
And yes, there was a lot of wasted time in Congress during Bill Clinton's administration. Let's see, Whitewater? Nothing there, but lots of money wasted. Her making a "killing" in the stock market? Nothing there either. Bill had an affair with Monica? And yet he ended his Presidency with one of the highest ratings of any American president recently. Up in the 70%-80% bracket, I believe? And that doesn't count? It doesn't count that unemployment was down, that the income of African-Americans rose along with other minorities? That women's income rose?
What part of this is so bad? Yes, the right wing went after him and they will go after Obama, also. Remember Ford in Tennessee? Please, so far things have gone pretty smooth for Mr. Obama.

Janine,

Because you would rather leave your 2 children in the hands of yet another guy that will continue to wage war on countries that will benefit the Republican wealthy. Good thinking.

AG

Mike & Joe love each other. Get a room you two

Take a look at how many Republicans have voted for Obama in the states where they are allowed to. They believe he is beatable and Hillary is not. They would love to push the delegates over to his side and knock Clinton out of the race. What more can be thrown at Hillary that she already hasn't seen? Obabma has no idea what he is in store for if he is the candidate running against McCain. He is a great guy, he just needs more experience.

You(and your campaign) are known by the company(AND ADVISORS) you keep...

David Axelrod...a “Democratic political consultant.”.

Axelrod, of course, is much more than just a “Democratic political consultant.” He helped State Senator Barack Obama win his U.S. Senate seat in 2004 and currently serves as strategist and media advisor to Obama’s presidential campaign.. And colleague of DSA agent and former convict Robert Creamer...

Washington Post Harold Myerson ….Endorser and VICE CHAIRMAN of the Democratic SOCIALISTS of America(DSA) 4th Estate luminary…

And Senior Foreign Policy Advisor LONG TIME INTELLECTUAL HEAVYWEIGHT AND COMMITTED ONE WORLDER(creator and first Exe Director of the Rockefeller OneWorld Empire TRILATERAL COMMISSION) and Council on Foreign Relations Leader Zbigniew Brzezinski....famous for the/HIS IDEAS betrayals of Samoza and the Shah...and look what the people of THOSE countries have had to undure since then…....

Change...to withdraw SOME of the troops! in Iraq and then be REDEPLOYED ALL OVER THE WORLD!!(Darfur!?!!) to promote Obama "peace"...just like the gun-enforced "peace" of W and McCain and the Harridan...

The UNCONSTITUTIONAL interventions foreign policy will continue..with "changed" and "eloquent" and "dynamic" CHANGE and CHANGE and CHANGE and HOPE and HOPE and HOPE..

and more and more BODYBAGS.... and TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS SPENT OR TO BE ALLOCATED for the GLOBALISM of OBAMA...

thanks

90% of you younger voters havent a clue as to the way clinton brought us out of the mess regan and bush 1 left us in in. learn!!! a expereanced person can do it , a 1 term senator ,with no expereance cant , whos starting to sound like ML. King, any one noticeing this.

The person who said 'On economic's Obama is Right of Hillary' was Liberal Economist, and Washington Post columnist, Paul Krugman!

The Nation magazine, had an article 'Subprime Obama' by Fraaser, Feb. 11th; which was also VERY CRITICAL!

This article sounds like an Obama propaganda piece. Shame on you, David Corn!!

actually, assuming the rules are the same in Mich and Fla as they are in Penn, they would all be pro-Hillary delegates because that's who they were on the ballot for. However, they could all be seated and forced to vote proportionally according to the rest of the national delegates -- and the superdelegates could pledge to agree to be enforcers. that way the delegates could be seated, but their votes still wouldn't count. the mere fact that Hillary would even try to cheat says all you need to know about her.

Hey Mike,

You are delusional if you think Hillary still has a chance to win the nomination (barring a plane crash or something along those lines). The fact is that Mich/FL are not coming back into play, and the superdelegates are not going to nominate the candidate who lost the popular vote and is short on pledged delegates. Deal with it!!

This is coming from someone who is not completely pro-Obama as I would support either candidate vs. McCain. I just think it is time for people like you (HRC supporters) to read the writing on the wall and start focusing your angst at the real enemy here.

Reply to Chris Beiber: You missed a couple, Obama has 3 chief economic adviser's that are real 'winners'!
1. Goolsbee, U. of Chicago, critic of movie 'SICKO'
2. Cutler, Harvard, High healthcare costs good for Wall Street (Obama supporters)
3. Liebman, Harvard, For Privatising Social Security, (again a big boost for Wall St, doners)

When you google Liebman, and read thru a long report, you'll get to the part about cutting Social Security benefits by 45%!!

Why is it that none of the pundits are recognizing Republicans who are voting in the Democratic primaries and caucuses? They are very open about their actions, and they unabashedly state that they vote for Obama to ruin Clinton's chances of winning the Dem nomination.

And why did the author of this article claim that a loss in Wisconsin was "embarassing" for Clinton ? Obama was ahead in the polls, Clinton was not expecting to win. Also, the author focuses on blue collar voters, but Wisconsin isn't one of the big industrial blue collar states.

Last one, I Promise! I was just re-reading some of the longer ones. For all the rest of you, who feel like I do, That the Democratic Party has 'LEFT' (by going right) You behind! Check out the Green Party Web Site! 85 candidates running, a Convention in July, and with some help, we can get Edwards on the Green Party Ticket!
60% of ALL registered voters are Independant! That makes US the Majority!!

So who is going to be our next president? Honest anwers please.

It will be Obama over McCain in a tight race. The last time we sent a tall, honest, skinny lawyer from Illinois to the White House, he ended up on the penny (and $5 bill).

Nasty, nasty Mike. I am a right wing nutcase now!!! Wow! Let's have convenient amnesia about your great president Clinton and Monica. It is fact. Remember he lied under oath also and was nearly impeached. Lets forget about that also. Hillary is smarter? Based on what? Nice try. You sound like those trying to hold Obama back. I am not voting for him nor do I want him to be president Mike. I am just making some observations. I would rather have him up against McCain because I believe McCain will beat him. Hillary simply does not inspire me nor does she appear to have anything substantial to add to present day politics. She wants to bleed the taxpayer with universal health care, make a committment to pull troops out of Iraq two months after being elected without knowing what the landscape will be and increase government etc. That does not inspire me at all nor is it anything new or a SOLUTION to anything. More of the same. You can have her to defend.

M Cohen,
You are absolutely right. Obama is no Kennedy or Lincoln.

Um. Just to set the record straight. Kennedy was a war hero and had been in congress for 14 years before running for POTUS. Hardly a rookie.

Didn't he also get shot in the threater and left the country divided?

Obama Weaker on Defense/ Safety?
against Hillary? Against McCain?
Let Obama get a few more endorsement from guys like Gen> Wesley Clark and he has it made.

The problem I have with Hillary is that she's taken a lot of money from corporate lobbyists.

I think it's important to stop the corporate stranglehold on our government, and it doesn't appear to me that yet another Clinton Administration is going to accomplish that.

McCain I could never support. Starting with his opposition to the Bush tax cuts (twice) and now his support for them. Also, I don't like the idea of 100 years in Iraq.

It's important that we not beat each other to death over Clinton Vs. Obama. I know we all strongly support our favorite, but we mustn't let our passion divide us. When one of the candidates gets the nomination, we all need to get behind that candidate - whoever it is. If it turns out to be Hillary, I will support her.

All of you Hillary supporters are missing the point. She has done some good work for the little people, but TOO MANY PEOPLE HATE HER. And if you think Dems will vote for McCain over Hillary, I have one word: IRAQ. A lot of people forget that 3/4 of this country don't agree with the war and think we shouldn't have even gone there in the first place. McCain's stance on the war and 100-years occupation is a HUGE issue for voters - #2 below only the economy.

Plus, a lot of us think that frankly, he is too old. I think this is a very valid point that will come up in the general election - experience vs. youth. The American people are sick of seeing the same old white-haired turkey-necked good ol' boys running our country. They have been raping and pillaging our laws and tax money for years, and they are out of touch with the people they are supposed to be leading.

Obama doesn't have much experience nationally, but he has more legislative experience than Hillary - being first lady lets you do so much, but she was not in Congress. She has been a senator for how long? Obama may be younger, but at least he has been in the Illinois state legislature for years, and he has done some amazing work here in Illinois (getting more poor kids health insurance, passing ethics reforms which include Illinois becoming the very first state to require all homicide interrogations and confessions to be videotaped, etc.). All this after working as a community organizer and civil rights attorney (you know, the ones who make NO money and work to help the rest of us keep the few freedoms we have left).

Obama is a nice breath of fresh air and I am extremely proud that he is my Senator. I am very excited that the rest of the country is catching up! Obama 08!

Joe,

>>I just think it is time for people like you (HRC supporters) to read the writing on the wall and start focusing your angst at the real enemy here.

I think it is time for you to let the process work itself out. This will be over when Obama or Hillary concedes or when 2025 delegates are reached. That's why they hold the elections.

Or perhaps they should just not hold elections? And not do things like play the Super Bowl? Just give the trophy to the Patriots! Nope - that's why they play the game - even when there is a favorite against an underdog.

FL and MI should not be seated as it stands now, BUT they should vote again if necessary and if doing so would potentially alter the outcome of the race.

And superdelegates should be able to do whatever the heck they want. Yes, they are not likely to overrule the will of the people - but if it is 51-49, do you really think that 400 delegates are going to side with one candidate over the other? Do they vote with the majority, the majority in their state, district, or what? And what about caucus states, where you do not have a popular vote? Super delegates are going to factor the will of the people in, but I would not expect them to all unite around one candidate.

Like I said, screwy process, but I didn't write the rules.

Play on! Hillary 08! I will be voting for her in TX shortly!

-Mike

Dudes,

It's simple.

She voted for the war.

He didn't.

Vote for him.

For those of you who think Obama is clean about who he gets money from Obama gets just as many corporate donations as Hillary. I'm trying to find the site I looked at that showed who the corporate donators were for both HRC or BO and believe it or not, they pretty much overlapped. It also showed individual numbers for donors of less than $100, all the way up to 2300 dollars and the demographic breakdown. Look, both of these candidates are qualified. But I think that I really don't want to put my life into the hands of the under 40 generation that supports Obama. I really would like to have someone with more experience in the day to day work in the government, not someone who gives a great speech but has pretty much been me tooing any kind of progressive program. Too bad Gore and Edwards don't get together and run as independents.

As great as Obama is I just do not think that he will receive all the super delegates. And if they are split dramatically down the middle between HRC and BO McCain will be entering the white house in november. So the real problem is not who is winning these primaries but what superdelegates each candidate will receive. HRC might have a more "go get 'em" attitude if elected for the democratic candidacy then BO and that is what worries me....

To those who keep accusing Michelle Obama of being "unpatriotic" let me quote Samuel Johnson (1775) "Patriotism is the last refuge of a scoundrel".
And I am glad to vote for Obama !

You dont need a weather man to predict the direction the wind is blowing. Obama is highly admired. All the Clintons of this world know this fact and they are scarred. You and me know it also. All roads now lead to barackobama.com. The whole world wants to know who is this guy who will not let the Clintons have their sleep. So they keep coming. And this has made the website to become the most visited official presidential campaign website of any aspirant ever since the invention of the internet. If there is any doubting Clinton finding this claim difficult to believe, try to use Google's Page Rank, sitting on your browser, to check it out by yourself. This is a world record worth documenting.

Cheers, we can!

Babala from Kentucky

Character Check: So all the slime that the GOP threw at the Clintons and no convictions or evidence of wrong doing! And yet many of you choose to believe it! You need to ask your self why. All the garbage the GOP has fabricated about Iraq you finally don't believe so why do you still believe the garbage about Hillary? It is just as untrue as like the lies about the WMDs of Iraq! And the 35 years