Is the press going to follow up on Hillary's bizarre answer on tax returns -- that she can't release them because she's just too darn busy to get around to it? Let's be clear, these are not papers that need to be "prepared." They were prepared long ago, and filed with the government. All that has to happen is copy them and send them out. If Hillary is too busy, could we get some volunteers to make themselves available to do the photocopying? How about we all call Hillary's office and offer to come in and do the photocopying, so that she doesn't have to take time from her busy schedule.

My English is, how you say, not good. But I say I poop on the House of Clinton.

All of my poop on their heads.

Jerry,
Calm down and stop getting all lathered up on the Michelle Obama comment that she intimated was regretfull. Of course she is proud of her country and she said so thereafter. She explained what she meant and you need to move on. Haven't you ever said something that did not quite come out the way you perhaps intended? Move on. Hillary cannot galvanize the country the way Obama can and he looked oh so presidential tonight. The MSNBC poll showed that Obama won the debate easily.

IT IS AN URBAN LEGEND THA OBAMA HAS BEEN INCONSISENT ON PUBLIC FINANCING.

His position has ALWAYS been to condition acceptance of public financing on an aqreement with the other side to prevent cheating:

September 2007. Obama answers to a questionnaire sent to the various political campaigns in September 2007 by the Midwest Democracy Network, which is attempting to push finance reform, stating:

“In February 2007, I proposed a novel way to preserve the strength of the public financing system in the 2008 election. My plan requires both major party candidates to agree on a fundraising truce, return excess money from donors, and stay within the public financing system for the general election. My proposal followed announcements by some presidential candidates that they would forgo public financing so they could raise unlimited funds in the general election. The Federal Election Commission ruled the proposal legal, and Senator John McCain (R-AZ) has already pledged to accept this fundraising pledge. If I am the Democratic nominee, I will aggressively pursue an agreement with the Republican nominee to preserve a publicly financed general election.”

February 20, 2008. Obama reiterated exactly this position in a letter to USA Today in responses to charges that he was flip flopping:

“In 2007, shortly after I became a candidate for president, I asked the Federal Election Commission to clear any regulatory obstacles to a publicly funded general election in 2008 with real spending limits. The commission did that. But this cannot happen without the agreement of the parties' eventual nominees. As I have said, I will aggressively pursue such an agreement if I am my party's nominee.

I do not expect that a workable, effective agreement will be reached overnight. The campaign-finance laws are complex, and filled with loopholes that can render meaningless any agreement that is not solidly constructed.

As USA TODAY has critically observed, outside groups have come to spend tens of millions of dollars "independently," while the candidates they favor with these ads "wink and nod" at this activity. There is an even greater risk of this runaway, sham independent spending now that the Supreme Court has wrongly opened the door to more of it in a recent decision.

I propose a meaningful agreement in good faith that results in real spending limits. The candidates will have to commit to discouraging cheating by their supporters; to refusing fundraising help to outside groups; and to limiting their own parties to legal forms of involvement. And the agreement may have to address the amounts that Senator McCain, the presumptive nominee of his party, will spend for the general election while the Democratic primary contest continues.

In l996, an agreement on spending limits was reached by Sen. John Kerry and Gov. William Weld in their Massachusetts Senate contest. They agreed to limits on overall and personal spending and on a mechanism to account for outside spending. The agreement did not accomplish all these candidates hoped, but they believe that it made a substantial difference in controlling outside groups as well as their own spending.

We can have such an agreement this year, and it could hold up. I am committed to seeking such an agreement if that commitment is matched by Senator McCain. When the time comes, we will talk and our commitment will be tested.

I will pass that test, and I hope that the Republican nominee passes his.”

[deleted]

Jerry,

Cutting and pasting an article by a conservative commentator about a candidates wife is not really a comment on a debate by the candidates.

--

Senator Clinton had a bad night. She need a home run. She may not have struck out completely but she did not hit any out of the park. Her mismanaged campaigned that wasted her supporters fund at every turn ahs come to an end.

And I hope they get the 527's like Moveon.org and Move America Forward to butt out and cut the crap too. I won't hold my breath.

If there was any defining moment in the debate, I think it would be Hillary getting caught in a lie over her position on NAFTA. First, she did indeed support NAFTA, I can clearly remember this as I was taking a class in international marketing at the time and it was a hot topic. Second, this points out the flaw in the basic campaign rationale; namely, she's ready to go from Day 1. On NAFTA and Iraq, she made what have turned out to be political blunders and although it doesn't sink her "experience" argument entirely, it is taking on a lot of water. Third, getting caught in a lie about supporting NAFTA in Ohio on national TV can't be a good career move if you want to win the nomination.

-Wexler

ok, NOW can Edwards, Richardson, Kucinich, Gore, et al. come together and endorse Obama?'

Do they REALLY have to wait until NEXT Wednesday?

Let's all hope the next few states make the nominee a done deal.

We have lots of work ahead. The general will not be a skate.

"IT IS AN URBAN LEGEND THAT OBAMA HAS BEEN INCONSISENT ON PUBLIC FINANCING."

While that may be so, it is a LIE to say you didn't want pac money and didn't take any. Unfortunately, no one called him on it. He campaign has taken millions of dollars from at least two pacs, some of which was used to buy the gay-hating preacher and singers in South Carolina.

In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost. In every state where Obama "surged" Hillary ended up winning: CA, MA, NJ, NV, AZ, NM. No doubt it will be close, but with Hillary hanging on to slim leads in TX and OH, history shows that she is very likely to win both states. With a big win expected in RI, how do you withdraw after winning 3 of the 4 states on March 4th?

Your English is good enough.

Scott. If i recall right, she was ahead in wisconsin, until obama's "surge" put him ahead before he eventually won.

"a big win expected in RI" - kind of an oxy-moron

and check your polls, he's pulled ahead in texas. Zing!

--

shouldivoteforhillary.com

In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost.
Scott, are you an idiot? First, she was winning EVERY SINGLE state, except maybe Illinois at the beginning. Secondly, Iowa? Conneticut? Wisconsin? Missouri? There are others, you are delusional. I am not saying she won't get maybe OH, but to say EVERY STATE he surged in she has won is categorically false.

"In no state so far has Hillary been ahead in the polls and then lost. In every state where Obama "surged" Hillary ended up winning: CA, MA, NJ, NV, AZ, NM. No doubt it will be close, but with Hillary hanging on to slim leads in TX and OH, history shows that she is very likely to win both states. With a big win expected in RI, how do you withdraw after winning 3 of the 4 states on March 4th?"

Are youout of your mind? Wasn't she ahead in all 50 states in December? How about Iowa? Wasn't she ahead? How about Wisconsin in second week of February? How about Missouri? Wasn't she ahead there all the time? How about Maine? They don't count right?

Scott, good observation about Obama's surging (although he did get one more delegate than she in NV). But please consider this: Polling from TX 2/23-25: Obama 49, Hillary 45; another poll 2/25: Obama 47, Hillary 46. I say Obama takes Texas and Hillary may squeak out a win in Ohio. But remember what Bill said: if she doesn't win both, she's done.

If Democrats have any doubt about who is the best nominee for our party they should read this article posted on Politico this morning. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0208/8711.html
I'm sure you've read that Obama has picked up 35 superdelagates in the last week or so and Clinton has lost 3. There's a reason why. It's called self preservation. I'm usually not a betting person, but now I'd bet every penny to my name ($131.00) that Bill Richardson and John Edwards will endorse Obama. Richardson will endorse this week while Edwards might wait until after March 4th. Any takers?

Dont get me wrong, I am for Obama all the way, but I think what Scott is saying is if Hillary is ahead RIGHT BEFORE the election (a few days before maybe) then a last minute surge like in CA, NJ, and MA falls short. However, we still have a week to go -- and thats an eternity in politics. Obama has already started to surge. Its time for Hillary to make a graceful exit -- if she has it in her.

Did anyone notice one thing in last night's debate? When asked about the job loss in New York and her promise to increase jobs HRC replied that its not her fault, its the Gore's fault because he didn't win the white house in 2000. So all the promises that she is delivering right now she needs a 60-40 senate and the majority in the house to implement? What happened to working across the isles and bringing people together? I can see who the all talk and no action candidate is here. I can see who is delusional.. who is in the dream land... I am surprised that very few commentators picked that up last night...

Obama the fraud continues his assault to infiltrate the system with his liberal agenda.

Can we trust this man with his hand next to "the button"?

Rezko has ties to Middle Eastern banks and was born in Syria. He had his bail revoked because he got caught sending money to Lebanon. Obama has known this man for fourteen years and even had his wife do a favor for him.

Obama goes to a church that supports Farrakahn. Obama has done his best to lie his way through this but the fact remains. He has been a member of this church since the eighties and has even referred to the man in question as "Minister Farrakahn." You can't reject a guy that you secretly have respect for.

Obama also has ties to Bill Ayers from The Weathermen. He has accepted money from this man, and he is on friendly terms with this man to this date. Watch the documentary "The Weather Underground" This is who Obama associates with.

The media hasn't given this guy a fair run, and the GOP smiles. McCain may win this one in a landslide.

LC,
Your assessment that the media hasn't given Obama a "fair run" is one I've seen repeatedly over the last couple weeks. I vehemently disagree.

Every day, MSM outlets create stories for Clinton...remember, even perceived "bad" publicity is good publicity. She gets more direct interviews, more FACE time on TV (we see more television footage of her "in action," compared to still shots of Obama) and overall she is treated to MORE air time.

That only makes sense, given the nature of corporate media, and Clinton's status as a corporate darling.

As for your talk about Obama's supposed "friends," you must not know much about the Clintons...

And why not refer to him as "Minister Farrakahn?" I have to put my mouth around "President Bush" all the time. And, by the way, you're probably not aware of this, but Farrakhan's "endorsement" was hypocritical in nature. The Nation of Islam hates biracial people as much as they hate anyone - I know this from experience (I'm biracial, and have had numerous unpleasant encounters with those folks).

So he goes to a church whose minister has said nice things about Farrakhan in the past...how well do you know your Priest/preacher? Would you be willing to take responsibility for all of his mistakes?

On your insinuation that Obama has "ties" to the Weathermen: Knowing someone...accepting donations from them, doesn't exactly constitute a "tie," and furthermore, this is 2008, not 1968. I don't think the Weather Underground is too significant these days...

Grow up, huh? You say McCain will win in a landslide? What if he has to compete with the type of mudslinging that you've exemplified...Obama's supposed associations with questionable characters hardly compares to McCains status as a member of the Keating Five!

I am interested in seeing her tax returns also. When she loaned her campaign the 5 million dollars I did not think about where the money came from, however, I do think that the American people have a right to see that information. If the money is primarily from special interest or worse overseas I would have to say that is not in the spirit of the rules that prohibit foreign money in campaigns. Lastly, I would add that while going over her tax return and trying to determine where the money came from it seems that it sort of unrealistic goal. I am sure that a lot of money was made from a lot of different sources.

The enlightenment I received was the wholesale sanctioning of a gang bang by the MSNBC "moderators," while Sen. Obama looked on, waiting for the next opportunity to say "I agree." Sen. Obama's glaring deficiencies in foreign affairs were never more evident than in last night's "debate." Sen. Clinton showed grace under unfair fire by Russert/Williams and gave intelligent answers to complex questions, particularly with regard to the situation in Russia (no matter that she could not be perfect on the Russian heir apparent's name). Sen. Obama's follow up to her answer was very weak. I cannot imagine a foreign ally or enemy who is not salivating at the thought of getting the upper hand over a weak Pres. Obama. Sen. Obama couldn't even be straightforward about Minister Farrakhan. You know the Nation of Islam has always had superb organization with door to door ground troops. They have survived every criticism of racism/anti-semitism because they have great presence in the black community to this day. Can't blame Sen. Obama for not wanting to benefit from their ground troops, even if they were campaigning for him without his "formal" approval. He tried to have it both ways last night and came out looking silly as he attempted to turn the issue into a "semantics only" issue. But It's all about getting bodies out on election night to cast votes. Always was. Turnout, I believe it's called. And Nation of Islam is very effective and their endorsement is quite valuable, whether it's publicly acknowledged or operating behind the scenes.

More on the race card in this campaign, including stuff about Bill Moyers. Go to:

http://www.tnr.com/politics/story.html?id=aa0cd21b-0ff2-4329-88a1-69c6c268b304

People... STOP copy and pasting articles in the comment threads. Not cool. Not cool at all.

Mandelay,
I think most of us are sick of the race card...why obsess over it?

And as far as the "foot soldiers" you refer to are concerned...I don't think you know what you're talking about. It's one thing to sell newspapers to like-minded idiots, it's another to canvass for a political candidate, and I guarantee you there will be little if any of that on the part of the bow-ties.

You're probably not aware of the fact that the Nation of Islam reputedly despises biracial people - which makes Farrakhan's endorsement confusing (hypocritical).

You're apparently also unaware of their true standing in the black community. Sure, there are people who subscribe to that garbage, but most of us view the Nation of Islam as an embarassment. We don't share their anti-semitic or afro-centric views, and we're also pretty sure they killed Malcolm X. Their endorsement is NOT valuable. It's quite the opposite, actually.

So when did you become so warped that you now hate a woman "of color"? Mrs. Obama merely meant that she was proud that most Americans viewed her husband as an American Citizen running for nomination, and not as a "Black" person running for nomination, got it?

Wow. The people at Mother Jones think Obama won the debate, anyone who says otherwise is wrong, and can't understand why one would want to categorically reject outright anti-semitism, as opposed to merely denouncing it. What a shock. Really.

(PS-FYI Mother Jones... to denounce is to suggest that an individual is not right, to reject is to assert that said individual is plainly wrong)

Oh, and TKD: Hillary's tax returns are not a matter of photocopying, and your putting together a team would do nothing. As a former president, Bill Clinton's tax returns (which are filed as joint returns with Hillary's so essentially both Bill and Hillary's tax returns) are inherently property of his library, a subsidiary of the national archives. Their release has to be reviewed and released by the executive branch (aka Bush). That was the whole Cheney controversy of last summer. Might wanna check up on stuff like that before you post, buddy.

The twentieth debate between Clinton and Obama defined, once and for all, the meaning of superfluous. If Clinton asks for another, I hope the networks tell her to get lost. Does she really want to take all the new-found zest out of election and make it so boring nobody will want to have anything to do with it anymore? Nothing was said yesterday that hadn't already been said ad nauseam. This additional debate was a last straw that just didn't float.

"motivate" "excite" "galvanize" ... Are voters so anemic, so unenthusiastic about their country that they need a "quick fix", a "high" from a candidate?
I'm an American citizen living in France and -- after watching the Ohio debate between Clinton and Obama -- I watched a small film of the man the French voted in as president in May 2007 (53+ %)On a visit to a national agricultural fair, President Sarkozy's popularity has dropped so low that he was rebuffed by a disgruntled citizen who said he didn't want to be touched by the president for fear of being soiled (or "defiled" depending on how you translate it. Sarkozy's reply could be translated "Beat it, [deleted]!"
How could the voters have made such a mistake in May. They ignored his record and voted him in on his rhetoric, and now, 8 months later, this is what they've got.
The "loser" in France's presidential elections was also in the news. Ségolène Royale continues -- like Hillary -- to work away at public service. She was visiting Bordeaux to support the campaign of another member of her party. And she could also be quoted: "[the country] needs serious people who will get down to work and obtain results."
France is going to have one long wait before they can replace the man they voted in. Just like America has had a long wait up until now. It would be a shame to sell this election for a song, even though -- I admit --Will I Am 's clip is so nice to listen to.
So --- look at that debate again. The journalists were far more demanding this time. Things did come out on Obama. He's chairing a subcommittee and never has a meeting. He's received funding from a muslim extremest, he would send the troops back into Iraq after we pull out if Al Quaeda sets up shop. There's lots of stuff in that debate, but it's not underlined, it's not showcased, it's not set to music.
Unglaze you minds so that the States can get its house back in order. Don't vote for the rhetoric, vote for the record.

To Jerry Chui:
Are you kidding me? You're posting Malkin as a journalist. For crying out loud, Michelle Obama simply misspoke. "Prouder than I've ever been" might likely have been the written thought on the matter. Malkin is a tool of Bill O'Reilly. Seriously, got anyone of note who cares, seriously cares, that Michelle Obama had a slip of the tongue. Bet you have more than one a day without the pressure of an everywhere press.

David:

I noticed that you refer to Obama's website to blast Hillary on NAFTA. Once again, you are not being fair because you don't refer to Clinton's website.

This is from Hillary's website:

"Last night former Clinton adviser, David Gergen, confirmed that Hillary ‘was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA’:

GERGEN: "I was actually there in the Clinton White House during the NAFTA fight and I must tell you Hillary Clinton was extremely unenthusiastic about NAFTA. And I think that’s putting it mildly. I’m not sure she objected to all the provisions of it but she just didn’t see why her husband and that White House had to go and do that fight. She was very unhappy about it and wanted to move on to health care. So I do think there’s some justification for her camp saying, you know, she’s never been a great backer for NAFTA." [David Gergen, Anderson Cooper 360, 2/25/08]
Sen. Obama has sent mailers misrepresenting Hillary's position as pro NAFTA. The Cleveland Plain Dealer and Politico have called these mailers “erroneous” and "bogus.”"

It's a joke when the news media shows polls with Obama way behind then catching up by great leaps and bounds. Most, if not all, of these polls were taken WHEN THERE WERE STILL 6 CANDIDATES running. What a joke. If that isn't media bias, I'm not sure what is. Obama's "surge" is by and large the result of others dropping out. I.E., look at Mike Huckabee's "surge". She's being screwed over by male chauvanist media, yuppies, and rich college kids. Oh, that's who I want picking my president. This is just great. Makes me sick.

Looks like Obama supporters have to resort to copying (and pasting) just like their hero. Any original thoughts are just too much for them.

Hillary seems to be trying to spend the majority of each debate discussing health Care. Even when she is breaking the rules to do so. What, she doesn't realize how boring she has become?

She wants to keep her Tax Return SECRET until after the Primary. (Shades of her failed Health Care plan)

Now, there can be no reason for keeping it secret other than the fact that revealing it would get her in trouble in the race for the Presidency.

Of course she wouldn't have worried about the scandal coming out during the General Election. (When it would have been too late)Look how many scandals the Clintons have skated through to date.....

I'm neutral here, but Corn's analysis is glaringly half-facile. Obama's perf was indeed Teflon, way cautious, as before, as befitting a front-runner. But Corn strangely misses the flailing, tragic, self-pitying pathos visible in Hillary's perf, such as in her strange (for a debate) complaint that the press treats her unfairly. The press does treat her unfairly, but you don't raise that to the voting public. Self-victimology is not leadership. She played it too safe to tilt the dynamic, as she needed to do, but her few attempts at hitting Obama were remarkably inconsistent, flailing, and backfired, i.e. in the Farakhan (sp) exchange. Did Corn miss that Hillary only fell further behind last night?

Give the comment a little context: are you PROUD of the Vietnam War? are you proud of the CONTRA War? are you proud of the many US "stooge" dictators we prop up around the world: Pinochet; the Shah; Somozas; Saddam when it was convenient; Marcos; Noriega; Sukarno; Pol Pot?; the LIST goes on and on! Alan Dulles once said it cynically accurate: "They may be bastards, but they are OUR bastards." Are you PROUD that the US is 38th in the world on HEALTH and longevity issues? This is merely an expression that recognizes the fact that our priorities have been mixed-up for decades.

She was clearly uncomfortable, she shifted in her seat and stumbled over her words when it came to her releasing her tax papers. When she said she was "too busy", I thought WOW, how worst could she make herself out to be, in the eyes of the voters. This woman is suppose to be smart, or so I'm told, I have not seen it surface yet. Whoever is giving her these lines should be FIRED!

The boxing metaphor is apt. When Obama made his "denounce and renounce" concession, I was put in mind of the young Cassius Clay, dodging a punch and dancing away.

If Clinton is too busy now how does she expect to run the White House and America?

Clinton is done for, thank goodness, and yes I hope Obama does win, he has more respect and gives more respect than Hilary Clinton could ever imagine existed.

Too busy? Somehow I can't see Bill and Hillary hunched over their PC last April trying to get Tax-Cut(r) to work. I'm pretty sure they have "people" to do that sort of thing for them. Retrieving their returns, if they really want to make them available, is just a phone call away.

For someone who's supposed to be smart, that was a pretty stoopid dodge. (and yes, I do know how to spell stupid)

"Whoever is giving her these lines should be FIRED!"

Well, about nine years ago he was almost impeached. Does that count?

What is it with all the bitter women who support Hillary?

I'm sorry, but apparently the apples don't fall far from the candidate, looking at the comments here.

Yes, I've read that Obama's ahead in the polls, but I don't give it much thought.

I am, however, excited that we have these two great choices, and this competition beats anything I've seen in the past three Democratic primaries.

Be a little more positive and a little less nasty -- everyone.

Hillary was 'booed' . . . again! This is the second debate in a row where she took a cheap shot and was actually booed by the audience. It was harder to hear during this debate but it happened. Obviously she did not figure out that it's not a good thing to get booed the first time it happened. What's that say about her character.

Did anyone else notice that Barack was quite gracious to Hillary when asked why he thought he would be a better President? He said that Hillary would make a fine and capable President but that he was more likely to bring people together to actually accomplish things. When Hillary had the same chance to return the compliment, no dice. Just like she 'agreed with everything Obama said' when asked in the last debate about him being a possible VP or her being his VP. He said she would be on anyones short list and she simply agreed she would be without saying anything nice about him.

When you denounce something, you actually speak against it. When you simply reject something, you do not necessarily speak out against it. Denouncing implies, and it could be argued that it requires automatic, rejection while you can simply reject something without renouncing it. Personally I think that denouncing is stronger than rejecting but to move the debate along, Barack graciously conceded the point and said he denounced and rejected Farrakan(sp?).

Barack was, as always, gracious and more Presidential than Hillary ever has been and, I suspect, is even capable of being.

We have seen her record; that's why she's going to lose.

Wexler's comment is dead on .Hillary was exposed and not for the first time if your paying attention .Rusette quoted her 1996 and 2004 nafta supporting comments verbatim.She had no answer . I can't believe her supporters can't see how disingenuous she is. Her and Bill have been playing "Rove " ball from day one .The party should get behind Obama now! Continued devision plays into the Republicans hands . jh

Reply To:
WWWexler: You claim Clinton lied about NAFTA, I don't know. I thought she was for 'Free' Trade, but then again so is Obama! He wants to enforce 'clauses' (enviro. & labor), in the past, last night he didn't answer at all!

Hajji: You, nor anyone else has the RIGHT to tell someone else who, and when they MUST endorse! Particularly, Edwards who earned his delegates! and was the only true Progressive/Populist candidate!

Scott & Danny: Hillary won in a landslide in Massachusettes, where BOTH Senators, and the Governor (Obama's good bud) Duval who's campaign in Mass. was almost identical to Obama's! A lot of high hopes, and rhetoric! 16 months later, the People of Mass. spoke clearly, about how happy they are with Duvals results!

***Country Before Party***
***Go Green (PARTY)****
***www.votesmart.org***

Sorry about the double post, it gave me an error page the first time, and hadn't posted when I went back!

Reply To Dave: I don't have a 'dog' in this race. I wouldn't vote before I'd vote for any of the three of them!
That said, I've read these posts twice, and if anyone is, making 'Nasty' posts and comments that are uncalled for, it is certainly Obama supporters! The same ones who were rude enough to boo, during the debate! In bad taste, no up-Bring is my guess!

Looks like you're another bad apple.

I agree about the moderator gang/bang. It appeared to me as a 3 against 1 debate. I believe Clinton came through as someone that can handle pressure.

2 points:
In previous debates, Obama said, "Words are very important." I agree and I wish Sen. Clinton or either of the moderators(?) had recalled his use of it when she was holding her ground of the difference between "denounce" and "reject."

2) What is so wrong in admitting that the vote to go to war, when Bush and Karl Rove were crucifying anyone that questioned going to war as unpatriotic and basically traitors based on "what they knew." "What they knew" turned out to be fabrications, so many Congressmen in office at the time were equally duped. Sen. Clinton changed her mind on further support for the war after some of the evidence, or lack thereof, finally was made public.

It is easy for Sen. Obama to play Monday quarterback after the facts are in.

I Repeat: Reply to Dave;

I don't have a 'Dog' in the race! I DO NOT support Hillary or Obama (definately not McCain). The two Dem's are Corporatists/Centrists, and McAncient, just Wacko!!

But you have the nerve to call me, 'a bitter women', and a 'bad apple'!! Typical Obama supporter, you have NOTHING GOOD to say about him, so all, all of you do, is go around belittling and putting everyone else down!!

"Hope For Change, (because I had a) Movement (in my diaper!)

**Country Before Party**www.votesmart.org**

**Planet Before Country**

I am a sucker for a good speech, but I hope all of Obama's supporters understand that he is issuing a call to action that has to go beyond the voting booth. We can't attend the pep rally, get excited, go vote, and then go back to our idle pursuits. Keeping democracy democratic takes a great deal of work, time, and sacrifice. We should not expect any candidate to do it all FOR us. Hopefully Obama has enough charisma (and the substance to back it up) to bring in the votes he needs from Congress. Will we all be there then to help take our government back?

Andie, thanks for simultaneously making and proving my point, as well as demonstrating your generous use of labels to signal loud and clear the simple-mindedness of your thinking.

I don't need a web site to pick my candidate, nor do I feel the need to advertise it as a source of free propaganda.

FYI, I was going to vote for Edwards before he dropped from the race. Since he did, I picked Obama, because I have yet to seem him change stances like Hillary has repeatedly since her first run for the Senate.

Is Obama better? I have no idea, as I'm not as omniscient as you appear to be. I'm willing to give him a chance. That's the beauty of the system.

At the same time, if he loses to Hillary or McCain, I'm not going to spit on the other candidates or their voters, or blame polls, etc, because I didn't get my way.

To A. K. above,

You wrote: "When asked about the job loss in New York and her promise to increase jobs HRC replied that its not her fault, its the Gore's fault because he didn't win the white house in 2000."

I would like to add that neither Hillary or Bill did anything to support Al Gore in his campaign for the presidency in 2000.

To Stu,

You are right! From Viet Nam to Iraq, to all the US "stooge dictators we prop up around the world" - our foreign policy has been one bloody blunder after another. All done in the name of corporate greed and control. It's tragic.

Mr. Bush says he wants to establish democracy in the middle east. Unfortunately, he doesn't read books, or he would know John Foster Dulles and his brother Allan Dulles were responsible (as Secretary of State and the first Director of the newly-formed CIA) for destroying the first democracy in the middle east. Where was it? IRAN! When was it? The early 1950's. Who was the leader? Democratically elected Mohammed Mossadegh. What were the consequences? After the Iranian people threw out the Shaw (whom we installed) they took hostages from the US Embassy. Then we had the Ayatollah to deal with. Any wonder why Iran doesn't trust us?

Perhaps when Obama and McCain debate the invasion of Iraq people will begin to see that our foreign policy, if not changed dramatically, will become our downfall. If you don't believe that, I would direct your attention to the reasons why the Roman Empire fell.

it looked to me that Hilary lost this debate,from all that I have read her campaign as turned into a mess on the ground.

we were watching different debates last night; Obama, who does well in speech environments -- with soaring, yet empty rhetoric (let's all whistle a happy tune & Washington DC will follow him right off the cliff b/c he is such a great guy with such happy, happy, happy ideas), goes flat in debates; he spent the entire debate looking at HC with complete & utter loathing -- yet she is the one criticized in the HC hating press the next morning for 'glaring' at him; neither candidate looked with amity at the other candidate but only HC is slammed for her "glares" at him -- his sneer was impossible to miss -- except by the HC hating media; his sneer and his wife's classless sneer about 'having to think about whether she would support HC or not' emphasizing the media's teflon approach to BO and wife; what about assessing issues: HC's health plan is clearly the more equitable, workable plan with a long-range view for universal coverage; his plan is ridiculous -- only covering children? HC has already worked on coverage for children for years with her accomplishments in Congress for health coverage for low-income children -- she is far more knowledgeable on the subject than BO -- a fact she readily agrees comes from her failed attempt in 1993 for universal health coverage -- initial failure doesn't doom a long-range project: even FDR failed repeatedly in the 30s to convince our isolationist Congress that our future depended on defending England -- being slammed in the 30s with the Neutrality Acts -- wily man that he was FDR devised the Lend-Lease program to get around the Neutrality Acts of the 30s; HC acknowledges value from the 1993 failure -- how to work something that contentious through Congress (whistling happy tunes isn't going to get us there); also in obamaland BO sees no problem being 'soft' on the Farrakhan endorsement; he repeatedly refused to renounce "Minister Farrakan" -- that guy is a minister? why was BO using such a respectful title for Farrakan? repeating it over & over?? -- an endorsement from a racist, inflammatory nut-case and BO refuses to immediately reject, renounce that racist's endorsement? HC was right to interject that in a similar situation she made her rejection of such an endorsement immediately, clearly & unequivocally. BO on the other hand weaseled around Farrakhan's endorsement -- finally conceding 'all right whatever' he wld renounce, reject 'whatever'; again the media lets weasal out of it instead focusing on whether HC supposedly glared at BO --; supposedly he is the one with soaring rhetoric [whistle a happy tune rhetoric] but suddenly the meaning of words has no importance so he sees no reason to be unequivocally agst Farrakhan's endorsement? again the media focuses on issues of where HC puts her arms rather than BO weasal's approach to questions; BO weasals about public about public campaign funding -- maybe he will accept it, maybe he won't, maybe it will depend on whether the Republican candidate and he can work out a "deal"; weasals around his acceptance of pac money -- in obamaworld it is okay for him to do it but pac funds for HC and McCain are sullied funds; BO has the greatest teflon exterior since reagan. Is the country going to vote AGAIN for a great guy to have a beer [in this case, a glass of white wine] with, instead of the more qualified, focused candidate? the sexist media scoff at her references to 35 years of service on children's & other issues as tho there was no value at all for those years of work -- why aren't women's groups complaining about this sexist slant? most volunteer work in this country is done by women; the sexist media only value PAID work? only value work done for "real" political groups? reminds me of the East Coast establishment's dismissal of Judge Sirica's political constituency being from "labor halls" -- as though political constituencies at private golf clubs are somehow "pure" and labor halls are so plebian and crass; same with media commentary discounting HC's years of paid & unpaid volunteer work for children's groups, for women's groups; BO also weasals around his former client's payment of @ $600,00 for a small parcel next to BO's $1.6 M chicago home, in effect giving his family a private park next to their home, isn't a problem -- a ppty with access to it solely through BO's ppty by a client for whom BO only did FIVE HOURS OF BILLABLE work; a ppty on which the buyer has no plans to build [with no access to the ppty except through BO/s ppty it is impossible to do anything with it anyway] so the BO happy family home has its own private park next to its ppty for which they didn't have to pay a penny? Even if they don't use it it is a great ppty buffer and of tremendous value to the home to have that buffer next to it. What else was BO doing for this guy to get such solicitous treatment from a supposedly minor client relationship?

I'm calling bull pippy on J. G. Graham's post above. According to the Miriam Webster Dictionary I quickly checked, denounce means " 1: to pronounce especially publicly to be blameworthy or evil

You could have actually switched the two words in question in your post with exactly the same meaning i.e. Obama denounced Farrakhan, but Clinton "merely" rejected him.

Oh, Obama showed real candor by admitting he made a "true" error by not opposing Congress's interference in the Terri Schiavo case.
You think!!
That just goes to show any and all that Obama's conceptual and ethical ability to discern the difference between a moral dilemma and a political dilemma is terribly limited!
Just about anyone with half a brain knows Congress has no right to interfere in the life of one individual's medical prognosis and disposition. Further more the disposition of Terri's medical treatment has nothing to do, in any manner shape fashion or form with the activity of the Congress of the United States.
Should he have opposed the involvement of Congress! Duh!
Just imagine how he might respond to a moral and political dilemma where a small country in Americas starts loading up on missiles for their own "defense". Will he invoke the Monroe Doctrine? Will he send troops in a bay of pigs scenario? You don't know and neither does he. But I do!
It won't be pretty. Obama will receive advise from the military and he will more than likely take it because he has no experience in foreign affairs. The military, any military, is self serving in these matters and they view diplomacy, in most cases, a waste of time. They are fighters, that's what they do. And if Obama does not take the military's advise then what?
And when it comes to domestic affairs Hillary Clinton has been serving the average American for a lot longer than Obama and doing a better job at it. I'll give you this he is a great orator, but that's it. When all points are measured and weighed there really is only one person who will do a great job as President and that is Hillary Clinton.
Most of us know we have to have a Democrat to win the White House but Obama will be mince meat for the dirty tricks department of the GOP and he will more than likely lose and I will be stuck with 4 more years of the maniacs in the White House!
Wake up!

The TABLOID media (there are no true news stations anymore) are absolutely shameful and ridiculous! She inst whining, she is telling the truth something new to corrupt racist Obama and the media, she is doing WHAT HER SUPPORTERS ARE INSISTING SHE DO, STAND UP! Especially like she did to that bone head Tim Russet. They attack EVERYTHING she does! If she laughs, or tears up because she is HUMAN and touched by a supporters story, if she allows attacks, she weak, if she fights back, she a bitch????? God forbid someone tells the truth about the bogus weak inexperienced racist black politician, or the fact his speeches are stolen words, that he has no solutions or experience with foreign affairs. Something that puts this country at great risk! WAKE UP PEOPLE, WE GAVE OUR COUNTRY TO ONE POLITICAN WHO DIDN’T KNOW ANYTHING AND WE ARE DOING IT AGAIN!!! Does Oprah pay for or own all the media? Is she paying off CNN/MSNBC, the idiot Tucker Carlson or ANY black idiot on CNN? I’m ashamed of the media and how we are electing the President at this most important time in history…when we all are working for China, Thank CNN/MSNBC/FOX and Obamanantion… Black community claim that they want to live in a society where discrimination doesn't exist, but they don't practice what they preach, Especially MR.LEWIS! When Obama continually pulls 90%+ of the black vote, it's obvious that most blacks are voting for a candidate because of skin color.
Women can move beyond the struggle for equal status and for material goods to the challenges and opportunities of citizenship. Quality of goals and the achievement of goals which will mean a better life for all. For me, it was the beginning of seeing how politics can bring tangible results. I always hope that the very best of our people will go into politics, and I am sure that some of our best are women. So, I say: "Don't hold back. Don't be shy. Step forward in every way you can to plan boldly, to speak clearly, to offer the leadership which the world needs. Let us today earnestly resolve to build the true foundation for Eleanor Roosevelt's memory--to pluck out prejudice from our lives, to remove fear and hate where it exists, and to create a world unafraid to work out its destiny in peace. Eleanor Roosevelt has already made her own splendid and incomparable contribution to that foundation. Let us go and do likewise, within the measure of our faith and the limits of our ability. Let Eleanor Roosevelt teach us all how to turn the arts of compassion into the victories of democracy. Eleanor Roosevelt taught us that sometimes silence is the greatest sin. Mrs. Lyndon Baines (Ladybird) Johnson
Former First Lady, United States of America

ALL WOMEN IN AMERCIA NEED TO SEE WHERE THEY RATE IN THIS COUNTRY! WE ARE ALLOWING THE MEDIA TO TAKE UP BACK 60 YEARS. THINK ABOUT YOUR DAUGHTER, MOTHER, AUNT OR SISTER. THE GREAT ELEANOR ROOSEVELT, LADY BYRD JOHNSON, JACKIE KENNEDY ARE TURNING OVER IN THEIR GRAVES AT THE WAY THIS COUNTRY IS ATTACKING A GREAT LADY TO PUBLIC SERVICE AND FORMER TWO TERM FIRST LADY WHO SAT SIDE BY SIDE ONE OF THE GREATEST PRESIDENTS FOR THE MINORITES AND MIDDLE CLASS IN HISTORY.

Having read carefully all that has been shared here,I must still admit to having concern over the media manipulated "obama surge". I believe the conservatives feel safe in beating obama, and if we're not careful, we'll be stuck with a mini-Bush for another term or two. It is time for change, and Hillary exhibits the strength and leadership necessary. Obama has yet to create an impressive record, and while he speaks well, the truth is that "obama, we hardly know ye". As a feminist, I can honestly say that Michelle is a loose cannon, and is very unpredictable, and has engaged in public put-downs of her husband. I voted (out of US) for Edwards, but now that he's out, I'm looking to HIllary as the one who can handle the complexities of the mess we have inherited, and can clean it up. Has she made mistakes - YES. Sadly we live in an age when admitting this is called weakness, but make no mistake as voters, she's tough as they come, and seasoned. Let's get real on who can be elected in America post - Bush. I hope all who are on the fence think about how you will feel if Obama gets in and (just like the Nader optimists) your vote helps McCain win. Yikes - aren't we ready to be done with the dinosaur age? Hope so. Thanks for your thoughtfulness and respect. Let's get on the same team and do what's right for America, and not be enticed by something that may not be good for us in the long run. We must have the wisdom of Solomon at this pivotal time.

"Yikes - aren't we ready to be done with the dinosaur age?"

Yes, we are done, and that's why we're voting for Obama. Hillary is part of the problem.

FYI, if Hillary does win, I'm really looking forward to that first tearful news conference when things get tough, but I know it won't happen, because it was an act anyway.

Wise "move"!
Pass the Exlax for ALL dynasties!

Everyone seemed to miss the point of the Farrakan. I know I'm not stupid so again, the media and columnist are just afraid to rattle the Messiah camp.

Obama actually said, "I denounce COMMENTS made by Farrakhan."

Not that he denounced Farrakhan.

And again at the end Obama said "Denounce or Reject" whatever you would like me to use."

He did not say he Denounced or Rejected Farrahkan.

He is sly, I'll give him that. I wouldn't trust one thing he says.

Gee, "In PA", I'm sure you're right, but then I haven't been as paranoid since I got off my pills, started walking outside, and quit reading The Enquirer.

If she is ready at Day One, shouldn't she be ready for Question One?

As a Canadian this is the first time I have taken active interest in the U.S. Presidential race since Bobby Kennedy's run in 68. I must say that a straw poll I have conducted among friends and family has overwhelmingly supported Obama. The reason being that he seems to be a breath of fresh air on your political scene and comes across as genuinely concerned about the direction the U.S. has taken over the past decade.

Why is more expected of Hillary than Obama? Obama doesn't say anything and the media makes it seem like he did. I'd rather have Hillary because I know what I'm getting. I don't want a pig in a poke. Where are Obama's tax returns and where is the acountability to that Iraqi businessman to loaned his campaign in Illinois millions.

PA:
I think Obama initially stated that he denounced the anti-Semitic comments of L. Farrakhan. When questioned again he briefly said that he denounced Farrakhan. Hillary then one-up'd him and said that she had "rejected" support from groups that she felt were objectionable (for similar reasons). Farrakhan having endorsed Obama led to the next exchange wherein Obama said:
1. He thought that 'denouncing' was stronger then "rejecting"
2. But OK, he "rejected" support from Farrakhan. He closed the subject by saying that people can not really choose who endorses them.
If you don't trust Obama then you don't trust Obama. However, he is the only one of the candidates who I trust and I think my feeling is shared by many Americans, which helps explain his sudden rise. Our public may not be as well educated as we would hope but often, Americans can be credited for good intuition.

Hillary looked conflicted all night:
On the one hand she was a beaten and demoralized politician and her emotional grief and pain was obvious. On the other hand--she bagan to look at Obama in a sycophantic manner, almost like a smitten school-girl.

It takes a special person to be the first Black or first Woman US President. Not because I say so, because that is generally the reality. Ms. Clinton does not (IMHO) qualify. She is a political tag-along and very good at repeating 'study-grouped' sound-bites. Obama does qualify. He is exceptional. And that young trolls, is why he is winning. It is also why she stood a much lower chance of winning the general election. She only makes sense to people who are being emulated in the 'study-group'. The independants like McCain and dislike her. They generally decide the election.

Hillary's first 3AM call will say Please come pick up your husband!

Hillary's first 3AM call will be please come pickup your husband!

I thought they both presented well in the debate. One the MSNBC poll of one of the Republican debates, Ron Paul won the debate from people who voted, yet he didn't even get to say much and the commentators would have ranked him last among the large group. Point is, these votes by website and text messaging don't really mean much.

Same for lots of these polls coming out. They said Obama would win California, but Hillary easily took California.

Regarding income tax - This is very personal information. Hillary is not required to release it unless she is chosen as the nominee. She will probably wait until she decides to continue after next week. I would too. Also, she did remind us that their joint (Bill and Hillary)income tax has to be cleared for release by the Bush white house.

I support Hillary for President. Of the 4 people still in the race, she would make the best president.

People have commented about Hillary mentioning that the interviewers always seem to call on her first. People have reviewed the previous debates and confirmed this fact.

I understand why this is an issue. She is OK with going 1st, but this is not the preferred position. Obama gets more time to think about the answer, listen to what she says, fill in his blanks, and come back with rebuttals and disagreements to what she says, even copy some of it. He didn't know who the new president of Russia is, but Hillary who was asked first did, so he didn't have to admit this.

She is right to complain. The person answering 2nd has the advantage.

George Bush, when he would follow the well versed Kerry in debates, frequently would shorten his reply to agreeing with Kerry. Does anyone wonder if he even understood the issue well enough to present a well thought out response? It was so obvious that I would laugh as he did this over and over.

Are people aware that quite a few respected military generals are supporting Hillary Clinton? These folks aren't into politics, they are looking for the best Commander in Chief among the candidates.

Senator Clinton has an understanding of the world, the issues of different countries as it relates to the US and our security and soverignty, as well as issues in the US. We are in very touchy times. I don't think any of the other candidates offer anything comparable.

People need to really evaluate why they have chosen the person they are currently supporting. Is it emotional, racial, like military heroes, whatever it is. Think about the mess the next president will inherit. When Hillary says she will be ready day one (not needing much on the job training) - she will. She knows the score and what is involved.

I don't think any of our other options still in the game come close to what she offers.

About the comment made above that Obama stands a better chance in the general election. This is not entirely accurate. Polls today show that he would lose to McCain in a match up. He would have several percentage points more that Sen Clinton, but not many, and am guessing, considering margin of error, there may not even be a different. This is been way too trumphed up.

The Reps have been trying to defeat Senator Clinton for the last 8 years in anticipation of her running. Probably not much new will come up. Reps haven't even started on Senator Obama and don't think the little things brought up in this internal competion will even begin to foretell what is ahead.

I think Senator Clinton has as good a chance of winning general electiona as Sen Obama, probably much better odds by the time elections occur.

Debates start with a coin toss, the coin has no bias.

Obama also has many military generals supporting him (if that is non-partisan and non-political)

HRC cannot win the general if she cannot win the primary.

Lost 11 in a row, about to find out if winning one or two will have any effect.

May the best candidate win, eh?

who the hell is barac obamma, oh! yeah, hes the guy that made that speach at the 2004 dem. convention, and if you have a nose ring, or a stud in your tongue , and your parents are making you go to school, than you should vote for obamma , because you are now officialy a TROLL.

American Intuition got us GWB; the kind of guy you'd like to have a beer with, consequently I'd have to say, just from that horrible intuitive moment in American history that American intuition really sucks!
As far as the outcome, in the Democratic primaries goes, Obama is barely getting more of the popular vote but remember that the republicans are switching to vote for him. They will not vote for him in the Presidential election. Don't you have to ask yourself why the GOP is doing this? You don't need intuition to figure that out; the GOP want him because they know they can beat him!
Now American intuition has got me 8 years of a moronic, God conversing, corporate sycophant and his evil side-kick Dr. Dick and you want me to believe that Americans will go the Quigi board again and make the right decision!
Stop, look and research, there really is only one choice.
Don't you remember the swift boaters and the lying Bush Administration, calling terror alerts in 2004 to shake the intuitive American populace up so much they "felt" they had no choice but to vote for the idiot from Crawford.
The Euro was worth about 85 cents when GWB took office, now its worth about %1.60. the economy was booming, even Ohio was doing pretty good before GWB took office but from 2000 to 2005 over 2 million manufacturing jobs, a good portion from the mid west were shipped overseas. Bosnia was settled quickly and fairly and America's international stature was as high as it has ever been.
Bill Clinton used his bully pulpit to force the GOP Congress to do most of what he wanted and maybe there was a trade off with Nafta but Clinton did not foster the wholesale shipment of American manufacturing over seas. Most of that was done by Bush's corporate thugs starting in 2000. (read this weeks issue of Business week)
There is no doubt that some jobs did move overseas during the Clinton years but only a fraction of what was allowed during the Bush years. Now lets look at the media's approach to the Democratic primaries. It is evident that the media is pro-Obama and anti-Clinton. The media is not liberal anymore it is owned by people like Murdoch and his ilk, right wing icons; and they favor Obama?!
We have a right wing, conservative media trying to select a Democratic nominee. Why? Shouldn't we know the answer to why the right wing want Obama?
How about the cost of oil, here is a commodity that is essential to the free world's economic and military health and the Bush corporate thugs provide no oversight even as the cost of energy drags this county's economy into the sewer. Under Clinton that was not allowed to happen, there was oversight provided by the Clinton administration. And for anyone to say that Hillary's experience in her 35 years of public service dealing with the problems and concerns of children and Americans in general and her years in the White House mean nothing is spouting right wing bilge water and if a Democratic nominee uses these tactics he lacks true character and integrity. Realistically any fair minded person would admit that a person of the drive and intelligence of Hillary Clinton had to learn a great deal about the Presidency as first lady!
And we all know that politics is a dirty business and Hillary does raise issues that are important, like answering the call as President where as Obama has been trying to discredit her yeas of public service constantly.
If Hillary Clinton used the same tactics as Obama she world be hammering away at Rezko the way he continually tries to ridicule her years in the White House. She would point out his lack of output on his own committee and his relationships with the nuclear energy industry "constantly" as he does in his denunciations of her record and more. But she does not because she has limits set by her integrity.
The point is that all these issues about our economy, our military's activity and our stature in the world will need to be addressed immediately and correctly. There is no time for deceitful word games now, America is in trouble here and across the globe. There is one person who can do the job as President right now and do it right for everyone. Hillary.

Al:
Remember that in 2000, people were still annoyed about the Clinton unpleasantness and specifically, about being lied to. (Had Lewinski not kept her DNA soiled dress, Bill Clinton would still be denying he ever touched her.)
People accuse Bush-W of lying but he is 'Mother Theresa' (on that level) compared with Bill Clinton.
Bush-W told us EXACTLY how he intended to screw us and that is exactly what happened. Clinton told us he was a leftie and then dismissed all his liberal campaign people weeks before taking office. He did nothing for the environment, did nothing to control Wall Street, nothing on gas mileage, nothing on renewable energy. His motto was:
"Salaries, not salamanders"
{quoted by Sec. Dan Glickman}
Except the proverbial salamanders turned out to be dangerous chemicals such as rBGH and the resulting cancers. It meant a free ride for river-polluters like the Tysons, who initially conspired with Hillary (remember the commodities scandal--where she make like $250,000 in 60 days?). So people were willing to elect a mentally retarded president, as long as he was too simple to lie effectively to them.
Lets talk Kerry in 2004? This guy was like the bad Herman Munster and he neither needs or deserves more commentary then that.
Obama may be a liar. But if he is, he is the best liar since Leonardo DiCaprio playing the phony jet pilot. Maybe better. I happen to believe him. So do most Democrats.
I liked Al Gore but he was stiffer then Nancy Reagan. Besides, it was a bad idea to select Joe Lieberman as VP. Not only did Clinton not campaign for Gore, neither did Lieberman. And imagine what would have been said about Israel (and Jews) had Lieberman been VP on Sept. 11? We still hear the name "Wolfowitz" even though he has been out of the Defense department for like 3.5 years.
So, in the end, we got what we deserved in Bush-W. If we can get beyond the skin color, odd names and internet rumors, we might get a President who does not owe his existence to a few dozen Wall Street power-brokers. Obama has well over 1-million separate donors. That (for your reference) is more then all other past and present candidates (both “D” and “R” combined.) That is his resume.

In further reflection:
There are only two logical alternatives:
1) Hillary, who knew little of commodities and started with a small bankroll, was either a super-genius and parlayed her handy-cash into $1/4-million in 8 weeks--and then stopped cold-turkey ('Tyson' pun intended) and never played that market again, or,
2) She was being handed those profits through improper day-trading manipulation and committed a felony and lied all the way to the bank (and back).
If she (the beginner) legitimately earned such a huge profit in such a short time and willingly stopped earning, then, she's a moron.
Take your pick. I'm not certain which is a worse qualification for the office of Commander-and-Chief.

JG Graham -- I think you have confused two news stories. One is that the Clintons are blocking release of their tax returns, which they have personal control over, and could release at any moment, if they wished to. The other is that they are blocking release of official papers from Hillary's stay in the White House, in order to prevent people from being able to use factual information to judge her claims of experience. Their post-presidential tax returns are not intrinsically the property of his presidential library.

I think that many comments on the HillaryClinton.com blog are written by Hillary's staffers and I am certain that negative comments, however constructive, are being removed from the blog. I cannot believe for one second that the idea that they are now pushing of Hillary going Independent encounters no resistance. Everybody understands that should Hillary go Independent it would hand victory to McCain. That would be a betrayal of our country, a disaster. All it tells me is that Hillary’s campaign is engaging in blackmail, hoping to get a VP nomination. Should that happen, I am also afraid that some of those “Democrats” would then hope, together with Mike Huckabee, that someone would “point a gun” at Obama. In other words, the message of Change and Consolidation of America that Obama came to represent has reduced the old style politicians of both parties to impotent, murderous rage, put them within an inch of betraying our hopes and ideals. But people of America will see right through that. People can certainly see for themselves that Hillary's so called "blog" is phony. This is how she "respects" us and our intelligence. Hillary has but a few days to come to her senses and save what remains of her good name.