Political Punch

Obama's ad campaign is fueled by millions of donations from the American people.

Clinton is fueled by free pandering from the Saturday Night Live TV show.

Obama wins 11 primaries in a row, the media reports these facts, and that is called media bias.

So what will we call these SNL skits?

Well, it looks official. Apparently Clinton backers have concluded they can no longer win this election on the issues, so are resorting to slander, innuendo, and half truths. Right out of the Republican playbook.

So sad, they have lost all credibility.

To Ying:
You made the exact comment that has Americans in the position that they are in right now, when you use the word "ROYAL" to describe McCain. If you know anything about American History, then you would know that the Revolutionary War was fought to declare dependency for the Royal Empire of England. The Democracy was formed to give Power to the People. (Which has been on a steady decline) Another fact of History is World War I, and the Great Depression. The people of this country loss HOPE and FEAR reigned. The old statements of if you believe that thing are bad, more than likely it will get worse.
It is amazing that the one thing that is consistent is the perception of "Credibility", for instance Hillary in her last debate stated, "I've always been against NAFTA, and she lied. Obama on the other hand has stood strong on all issues that he has supported, but you and others still question his Credibility, I truly hope that this is not a result of bias and unconscious racism. The last thing America needs is another LIAR in the White House. We need the truth; America is strong enough to handle the TRUTH.
OBAMA for PRESIDENT.

Janet from NH post: "stock_craft...that's fine. I guess you wouldn't have voted for Abraham Lincoln either. He had 8 years experience as an Illinois senator and was a first term congressman when he was elected president."
Actually, I don't know what I should do because I was not born at Abraham Lincoln century. In similarly, I wonder what should Mr. Obama do and say when U.S invaded Iraq in early of year 2003 if he was US Senator at that time and had the same faulty information as Senator Hillary Clinton had.

Ring,Ring,Ring it's 3 am and the red phone is ringing in the White house and has been ringing now for over 12 months,it's the American troops in Afganistan trying to find the chairman of the senate commitee in charge of the combined European forces defending against the spread of Al Qaida and the Taliban in Afganistan.Seems to me the great and oh so awsome Obama has grown deaf to the ringing of this phone.HIS RED PHONE MOMENT MISSED BECAUSE HE WAS JUST TO BUSY...

To Edward Strange:
I am from China, and I know perfectly well how foreigners loved America and liked Americans back in 1990s when Clinton was in the office. I also remember how U.S. Economy was booming when Clinton was the president. I wish Americans might not miss the opportunity to have another good time. America stands for Freedom and Democracy, and we do not want to see it gets into another difficult time.

Obama is too much like American Idol kind of politician. Meanwhile, Obama is too much like Chairman Mao half century ago in China, charming, inspiring, and promised for a better change. However, the outcome turned out to be very scary and devastating.

You guys could learn this part of Chinese History for yourself to see if I was lying. Being a bilingual, I also read some bad rumors about Obama that makes me uncomfortable about him being our president. Americans may need some time to learn more about Obama’s secret soul before they allow him to lead America’s future.

On the other hand, I think it will be a good thing if Clinton and Obama could run together as president/vice president, so Obama will be tested for a few years before he leads. Otherwise, John McCain would be a much better choice since McCain is much more experienced, reliable, and royal to this country.

How is Hillary going to fix the Country? She can't even fix her campaign.

Clinton has really been pushing the gender thing lately, and it is apparently succeeding. People, particularly women, seem to see her campaign as a personal one, a way to rectify every bad thing that has ever happened to any woman anywhere. Well, I am a woman, I have paid attention to the campaign, and I can tell you that I find Hillary Clinton to be the worst possible role-model for women. From the way she messed up her health reform efforts in the 90s to the way she let her husband run wild in the south in January, with a mismanaged campaign in between, she has been the poster child for women run amok. You can't tell what face she is going to present from one day to the next (or from one minute to the next, in some cases). Her combativeness on the last debate, when she refused to move on to the next topic, is undoubtedly viewed by her supporters as a woman making a stand; I found it harsh, strident, rude, and another example of Clinton having to have it her way.
She touts her experience: come on, people, she doesn't have that much to begin with. She was a wife of a president and the one thing she was given the task to do she blew. She is a senator but has introduced almost no successful, meaningful legistlation. She never read the NIE and yet voted to allow the president to take this country to war. Experience? I simply don't see it.
And now this new ad: what is her vast experience gives her more credibility to answer that blasted phone--which, by the way, she allows to ring several hundred times before she answers: the world could be blow to smithereens before she bothers to pick up. Worse that that, since she knows she has lost the male vote, she is shamelessly trying to trade on the worst fears of women: the bogey man is coming to take them away if you don't elect me.
Sorry, if I vote for Obama it is not because he is the perfect candidate, it will be because almost anyone has to be better than Hillary Clinton.

To Lauren:
The experience that Hillary will bring is another 4 years of conflict and division on the HILL. The Republicans would love to have Hillary as the nominee, (sure win for John McCain). White Men will not vote for her, and I am willing to bet that they will come out in wheel chairs and emergency beds to vote against her in the General Election. It appears that what you want is someone that is going to led you like a sheep, instead of someone like Obama that will put "We the people" back in charge of this country. The candidates are our Public Servants, not our dictators. If you want to live under a dictatorship go to China, Cuba or many other countries. AMERICA NEEDS OBAMA NOW.

Barack is the easier sell, but he is not truly the most qualified candidate. And he is not truly what our country needs right now. After two terms of and inexperienced President, the last thing we need is another one at this time.

But many in the media have played Barack up, and Hillary down.

Too many play Barack positive and Hillary negative, for superficial reasons.

The same reasons why they played Bush more positively than Gore and Kerry. Likeability, charm.

But we need proven competence.

Could you imagine how hard they would have been on Hillary if she had used someone else's speech word, for word, cadence for cadence?

They would still be talking about it.

Although the fact that we are obsessed with all things superficial at precious risk to all things truly substantial, the media, like most of our pop-culture,
prefer the superficiality of style to the depth and comprehension of substance, and therefore, elevate style, and devalue substance.

Hillary's experience and accomplishments all become part of the past, while Barack's inexperience is a blank projection screen for the future. Hope? Change? Unity? It's all there - you play it out. The truth is, reality will be a lot more complicated, and full of mistakes.

I'm hiring our next President, and I want the most knowledgeable, qualified applicant. Someone who has made mistakes and learned from there. Someone who was highly involved in one of the most successful Presidential Administrations we have ever had.

And that person is Hillary. And if she were black and male, and the other candidate was an inexperienced eloquent young white woman, I would still want the most qualified candidate.

She is the one who would run our country most efficiently and effectively at this time - she is the one who would do the most to help our economy.

I like and want her health care and economic plans. They are the best plans.

Barack has the whole future ahead of him. I am glad he is in national politics, but he is truly not qualified at this time.

I don't want a president who's going to be trying to 'pull this off' as he said in his 60 Minutes interview.

The best course for our country would be to have Hillary be our next President, and Barack after that - after she fixes everything.

Then he can experiment.

The house deal was much worse.

The realtor told Obamas the house they wanted was on package deal, you took the lot with the house or no sale, they had to be sold at the same time.

Magically appeared Rezko and his wife to save the day!

Then Rezko was so nice and sold them the portion of the lot they wanted. hmmm

Now that is a kick back, a bribe or payment on something.

----------

Mr Obama has used the perfect sales pitch. Tell them they are surpessed, they are hungry, poor and struggling, that they deserve better....

Tell them "we" can change all that,
Government need changed, this need changed.

Then sale them hope.......

Always bringing religion and beliefs in

Tell them you are going to feed the hungry, give to the poor, raise the min wage, give them jobs, everything you tell them you want.

Then add your escape clause... it won't be easy, it will be hard, it will take time. We may stumble etc

Then turn around and say, "I" will take your voice to Washington........

Building on the facade .... stronger and stronger
-----------

Catchy slogans, elegant speeches, intense spreading of your Doctrine to reach all. Telling them & playing on peoples needs and religion and fears. Incorporating them into the big fix, winning them over to win them and get them to do what you want.

That is the Identical way Hitler gained power and control the people.

Since when has reporting facts become media bias?
Barak Obama has won eleven contest's in a row, some by blowouts. I think it's fair to say The events surrounding BO have been favorable.
So when the media reports these favorable "facts", they are
not showing bias, they are reporting facts, a novel idea.
If the media was biased againt Clinton they would be clamoring for her to get out of the race. Instead, some in the media has been willing to play right along with this game, echoing that the media has shown favortism.

Now HC is using this idea of media bias as the anchor of her sympathy strategy
to rally the womans vote.
She kicked of this strategy when the SNL skit enabled her to claim media bias to a national audience.
Next came the "3AM phone call" add followed by the "Its hard" interview on Nightline.

It is obvious to anyone who is not biased that Barak Obama
has run the better campaign, and it's not even close. However the sympathy strategy may give Hillary Clinton the boost she needs to go on. The question is, if Hillary Clinton does becomes president, and when she does get that
call at 3am, how will she use the sympathy card to get her out of that one.

Hillary hang in there. Your gonna do it girl! WIth this Rezko trial coming up there's gonna be alot of deals being made.

ALot of people do not want to go to jail for a long time...so believe me there's gonna be alot of pointing of fingers at alot of persons connected with Rezko.

Obama is nothing but a liar. Read the article on this site" Obama Silent on Cesspool" of Illinois Allies". Read the bloggers comments, you will see how disgusted people are getting of mr. Obama's lies and antics.

In one of his debates he said he wasn't that close with Rezko, just a house dealing.

Well Mr. Rezko and Mr. Obama have been friends for 12 years, and now the Government is looking into his dealings here and abroad. And the question that is still unanswered is....who got Mr. Rezko his visa to come here?

So you are condemning Obama by association? How very American of you. Haven't you heard of innocent until proven guilty? We don't even know the extent--if any--of Rezko's crimes and yet you are already trying to allege that Obama was somehow complicent? And you see nothing wrong in this? No wonder you see nothing wrong in voting for Clinton.

Kitty: Haven't you read the articles about the government revoking Mr. Rezko's bail because of his shady ties to Syria and possibly Iraq.

How would you feel if his ties to these countries became known that there was some militant connections with him and al queda, and Mr. Obama got in the mess of all of the shady dealings of Rezko.

He should of distant himself from Rezko when he had a chance to.

Georgia,

You sure couldn't prove any of this by examining the way she has run her campaign. And if she can't run a decent campaign and manage her money properly and develop and implement a successful drive to the top strategic approach, why do you want me to believe that all of a sudden she has the ability to run the country?

My, my, alison, the primaries are not finished, yet, and we still have a few quarters to go. Did someone not tell you the rules of the game? You want your opponent to throw in the towel, because you do not want to sit on pins and needles thinking your candidate may lose.

We live in the most dangerous times, and the American people need to think long and hard about who has the strongest intelligence and the strongest understanding of the solutions we need to fix the problems. With the three candidates, Obama is the weakest and most inexperienced on all the issues. There are many Republicans who do not fall into the starry-eyed, hynotized youth vote.

Hopefully, the voters of Ohio, Texas, Rhode Island and Vermont will believe, as I do, that Hillary Rodham Clinton is the strongest, most knowledgeable, most experienced, most hard-working, and the most prepared to be President.

Hi,

I am a highly educated person who will support Senator Clinton. Senator Clinton has been bullied by the press and the democrats big wigs for whom before this election I had a great respect. The ad by Senator Clinton is not a fear ad as being said. It is the true fact. Truth always hurts. In the same way former President's remarks were misinterpreted prior to the South Carolina primary. One must also not forget that President Clinton is the only President (that I know of) who opened his office in Harlem. If anyone tells me there is no racial divide I am not the one buying it. Just look at who is switching votes as superdelegate. You don't have to be a genius in mathematcis to understand that one cannot garner 85 to 90 % of vote of a single group and say it does not have a racial divide. Mrs. Obama is now advocating younger generation not to take a career as corporate lawyer and hedge fund manager. I am not sure what to make of it. I am always for the persons who have been bullied by the large segement of the society. If I were to ask, I would advise Senator Clinton to go all the way to the convention even if it means breaking up the democratic party. Maybe it is time to have three parties competing in an election. Senator Obama copied the major portions of the ad from Senator Clinton and came up with his own ad. This is no different than him saying in the debate "I agree with Senator Clinton" when Senator Clinton had always been the first to answer tough questions. Mr. Brian Williams of NBC did not give Senator Clinton enough time. In contrast, Senator Obama added in his response, information which had no relation to the question being asked. And he went on and on and on. Senator Obama with his comfortable wins in the primaries could not find few hours to attend Black State of the Union in New Orleans. I watched it. Senator Clinton was already loosing African-American votes. Her appearnace at the conference would not have had any impact on how African-Americans would vote. Yet she did attend the conference and answered tough questions from a known group who has shown hostility towards her and towards former President Clinton during the primary season. The press has labeled Senator Clinton as a polarizing figure. The press does this without providing any concrete examples. Senator Clinton is not the person who divides the people. It is the people who wrongly interprete anything uttered by Senator Clinton or President Clinton to satisfy political correctness which has taken deep roots in current political and social structure within the United States.
In summary, Senator Clinton is the best qualified person to lead the United States at this time. I hope she goes to Pennsylvania primary even if she looses Texas and Ohio and make her voice heard in Denver. She should not be intimidated by Democratic big wigs and should not be afraid to run as an independent candidate in the upcoming election. After all she has backing of her supporters all the way.

Thank for allowing me to express my thoughts.

Just in from the campaign trail: Hillary has invited the fine folks of Texas (apparently all women) to pick up their brooms and turn on their vacuums to help her clean up the the White House. Talk about gender pandering, anyone?

Sorry to jump in between the Kitty / SteveM love-in, but there is no proof that Obama would have followed suit in voting to authorize the war. We will never know for sure. All we do know is that he took an unpopular, dangerous stand and Hillary took the popular, safe one.
As far as his votes in the Senate, once the war had commenced and we had boots on the ground, it is pretty hard to vote against supporting the men and women in uniform. He stated his opposition before the war--something I believe was courageous--and then never faltered in supporter the military even though he was against the invasion.
I see nothing wrong with that approach. It was the right thing to do.
Now, back to the Steve and Kitty show.

SteveM,
Right back out you, good buddy. What PROOF do you have that Obama was involved in any of the innuendo you allude to? He knew Rezko; how does knowing someone translate into Obama being a courier to a foreign country for nefarious means? Talk about fantasy.
But, please, chapter and verse of your proof. You have leveled some extremely serious charges here, and before you go any further, I would very much like know your sources. I'm sure all of us, including the Federal government, would like to know those sources, because what you have just accused Barack Obama of is treason.
But if, as I assume, you are simply fanning the flames of fear and hatred, it will not work.
In the words of your great leader: shame on you.

con't to prior post--

to have a transformative shift toward a progressive agenda.
---
The entire health care debate and so much else means nothing is there is not a working majority in congress to gets laws passed

This is not longer about Sen Clinton - this is about the needed change in the White House -- who can win and who can lead

Sen Clinton's decision that this would be all over Feb 5th - and the subsequent lack of effort on 11 now lost primary/cacususes was a "strategic blunder"

All the Clinton's can do now is hurt the democratic party -- and while this has not bothered them in the past -- the people need to rise up and say - step aside

If we don't stop flame throwing from Sen Clinton - we very well could be looking at President McCain --

Sen Obama has energized an entire populus who will come out and vote in a general election as they have in the huge primary turn outs -- we need that energy as a democratic party in November

And this is why the nominating contest in effect is over -- because as the pledged delegates can not be overtaken the only way for the Clintons to get the nomination at the convention will be through some machinations (as they try this very moment to hamper the aucus part of the Texas primary -- which by the way Bill Clinton won in 192 and 1996 under the very same prima-caucus system - so it was fair and legal then!)

If the democrat party alienates/turns away all the excitement and new voters who are now behind Sen Obama -- this will turn the party into unheavel

One can only assume that a cadre of sr Democrats (Gore, Biden, maybe Edwards, Richradson) will sit the Clintons down on Wednesday and explain reality --

Democrats: do we want to win the White House? Forget all the venom and baloney and the trolls -- what is the ultimate goal here --

If the Clinton campaign is about winning the battles - the Obama campaign is about winning the war

reading the comments on this blog provides the exact reason why March 4th needs to put an end to the Democratic contest and we need to coalesce around Sen Obama Wednesday

Sen Clinton cannot mathematically win the nomination --regardless of the outcome of Tuesday's primary.

If the Clinton's cared about winning the Presidency more than power for themself - they would not have this last gasp of a scorched earth campaign trying everything they can to demonize Sen Obama

While the democrat fight goes on, the Republicans can get behind one person. We need this to be a one on one fight for the White House starting Wednesday.

Even the most ardent Clinton supporters have to see the facts:
(1) Sen Obama has a 150 pledged delegate lead. Sen Clinton cannot overtake this.
(2) The Superdelegates see what has happened and in the last two weeks Sen Obama is +33 and Sen Clinton -6 in Superdelegates
(3) During the Bill Clinton Presidency, the democrats lost congress in 1994,96,98 and the parting shot in 2000.
(4) this is about getting a majority of democrats, independents and yes some republicans and

The question hanging over Obama's head at this Rezko trial that is starting next week, which the blogger "Obama----Yeah!!!! so eloquently stated......who got Rezko his visa to come here to this country. This man Rezko had great influence and money in getting Obama started in his political careet. What favors did Obama do for this shady character and is OBAMA the unmaned person in this trial whom got him(Rezko) here in this country and what favors again, did Rezko do for Obama. We do know that Obama got Rezko's son a job at his law firm; and we do know there are some real shady dealings with Obama's house and land purchse per Rezko.

Also, Michelle Obama's name will come up in this trial also.

AGAIN, SENATOR OBAMA WOULD OF VOTED THE SAME WAY AS HILLARY CLINTON AND THE OTHER SENATORS IF HE WAS SENATOR AT THAT TIME. AND THE REASON IS, BECAUSE HE VOTED THE SAME WAY AS EVERYBODY ELSE ON HOW TO SUPPORT THE WAR AND THE DELIGATON OF TROOPS AND ARMOUR TO IRAQ. ONLY DIFFERENCE IS HILLARY WAS IN THE FOREFRONT IN GETTING ARMOUR AND EQUIPMENT TO THE TROOPS.

Kitty: If you had proof next week that Obama did lie to the people of Illinois and the country that he he didnot have shady dealings with Rezko that involved him going to Iraq the one time while he was senator, and meeting secretly with people of quesiton(mainly Al QUida), would you denounce Obama, if you truly had real proof of this. The reason I ask, is because Rezko has been linked to Syria and Iraq with shady dealings with possibly Al Quida!!!!

I think you have to put it in context: here the US was, all falling in line behind Pres Bush who was enjoying ENORMOUS favorable ratings at the time. Senator Clinton read the polls and voted not as conscience would dictate but as trend lines defined the problem.
ANYONE who spoke out against the Pres during this period was insulted and demeaned; his followers questioned the patriotism and demonized those who spoke out against anything the President proposed.
It was a hard time for dissenters, and most of them stood by silently.
Not so Barack Obama. He spoke out and spoke out forcefully.
And I don't care if he was 'just' a state senator. He was still one of the few who had the courage and the conviction to go up against the President and call him on the President's game plan.
Sorry for those who hate him, but I salute his patriotic service in caring enough about this country to sound the alarm and his courage to stand in the face nay-sayers.
Hillary capitulated and sat still. Barack fought back and stood tall.
Yes, there is a difference.

The issue of would he or wouldn't he doesn't seem germaine: Hillary didn't even bother to read the NIE before she voted.
She was influenced by popular sentiment and voted in a way that she thought would protect her political future.
That's not leadership.

Obama was not in the U.S. Senate when the vote for the war was taken. He did not see or have the same information that the Senators did. Most senators did not think that George Bush would actually go to war, but would only use the authority as a last resort. Obama would possible have voted the same way if he had been a senator.

Intersting that all you independents aren't really independent at all. You are't open-minded, which is what independence is all about. You have already made up your mind. Being an independe is just another silly label.
And Lou Dobbs, the agitator of all this nonsensical independent nonsense, has shown time and time again that he is not independent, either, though he likes to say he is. Whenever given a chance, he derides Obama and praises Clinton. He is a negative influence in the world, always willing to point out the flaws of everyone else's thoughts but offering nothing but fear and hatred as an antidote. Glad to know you are a member of independent team. It does show.

Thanks for your concern, but I am hardly brainwashed. That has become, of course, a rallying cry of those who don't want to see the good in Obama: anyone who does is, of course, empty-minded or bedazzled or hoodwinked or caught in the throws of celebrity.
I can assure you I am none of those.
In fact, I have moved to Obama because of Hillary. Her campaign tactics demonstrate a woman who is incapable of successfully managing a marketing campaign.
Hillary has become a poster child for the emotionally unstable.
She has descended into smear tactics and dirty campaigning.
She let loose Bill Clinton as an attack dog and never stopped him, until the voters turned against her.
She sends out mailers that frankly lie and distort her opponents platform and then gets on TV with an outraged persona shouting 'Shame on you' when he sends out mailers that she doesn't like.
Despite all of you who tout her legislative record, it is insignificant.
And her 35 years of experience was truly a mixed bag of small successes and huge failures.
It's not so much that I am FOR Obama as i am AGAINST Hillary. And there has not been a single post in this list today that has been persuasive as to why I should change my mind. If anything, as 'representatives' of her case, you have reinforced the distaste I feel for her candidancy and her persona.

PEE VEE -LONG ISLAND: YOU COULD NOT OF SAID IT BETTER.

A VERY GOOD CHRISTIAN NEIGHBOR OF MINE ( I AM CATHOLIC) SAID THAT HE THINKS GOD HAS ABANDONED THIS COUNTRY.

IN A SENSE THAT IS POSSIBLY TRUE. GOD HAS PUT UP WITH US LONG ENOUGH. WE DID NOT LISTEN. NOW HE HAS SAID...IT'S ALL YOURS.

LET'S US FAIL ON OUR OWN. WE HAVE TAKEN GOD OUT OF EVERYTHING. CANDIDATES CAN CALL THEMSELVES CHRISTIANS, BUT ARE THEY REALLY? WOULD A CHRISTIAN PERSON ENDORSE GAY MARRIAGE? WOULD A CHRISTIAN ENDORSE A BILL TO BE PASSED TO KILL LATE-TERM ABORTED BABIES THAT ARE BORN ALIVE AND THEN TO BE KILLED AND LEFT ON UTILITY SHELVES IN HOSPITALS TO DIE.

WOULD A CHRISTIAN SAY IT'S OKAY TO KILL A LIVE HUMAN BEING (GOD'S CREATION) TO BE KILLED IN THE WOMB.

WOULD GOD WANT US TO CONTINUE ABUSING HIM AND SLANDERING HIM IN THE WAYS THAT WE HAVE COME TO PICK OUR CANDIDATES TO RUN OUR COUNTRY.

WHAT CHOICE DO WE HAVE. THE ONLY CHOICE IS WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT...YET THEY CALL THEMSLEVES CHILDREN OF GOD. I ASK YOU....WOULD JESUS VOTE OF BARACK OBAMA OR HILLARY CLINTON?

AGAIN, I AM AN INDEPENDENT AND IT IS VERY HARD TO MAKE A CHOICE. THAT IS WHY SO MANY PEOPLE ARE NOT EVEN VOTING THIS YEAR. IF THEY HAVE ANY CHRISTIAN VALUES, IT WILL BE FOR MCCAIN.....BUT THEN AGAIN, HILLARY IS BY FAR A BETTER CHOICE THAN OBAMA.

Kitty: I feel sorry for you. You are obviously brainwashed by the media and the people whom have molded this person into whom they wanted.

There are alot of players in this creation( and yes I mean creation), because that is excatly what Mr. Obama is.

This is a con job and Mr. Obama is the biggest con artist of all times.

It sad to say, but when our country is entangled in his web of lies and deceit, I pray that we all can pull oourselves up and give him the punishment he deserves. The trial of Rezko is starting on Monday, and maybe his punishment will be coming sooner than later. That is why I pray that Hillary does not bow out of this campaign, no matter how far behind he is, because I agree with the blogger: OBAMA----YEAH!!!!, there is a unnamed person in this indictment =whom got Rezko his visa to come to this country and it may be Obama.

If this is true and all other issues involved with a person of interest whom gave drugs to someone named Levine in this case, is going to hit the fan soon.

KITTY: I'll be real honest with you, I'm an independent voter. But I do not, and I mean "DO NOT" want Obama to win the election because this man and his associates are scary

Kitty: I feel sorry for you. You are obviously brainwashed by the media and the people whom have molded this person into whom they wanted.

There are alot of players in this creation( and yes I mean creation), because that is excatly what Mr. Obama is.

This is a con job and Mr. Obama is the biggest con artist of all times.

It sad to say, but when our country is entangled in his web of lies and deceit, I pray that we all can pull oourselves up and give him the punishment he deserves. The trial of Rezko is starting on Monday, and maybe his punishment will be coming sooner than later. That is why I pray that Hillary does not bow out of this campaign, no matter how far behind he is, because I agree with the blogger: OBAMA----YEAH!!!!, there is a unnamed person in this indictment =whom got Rezko his visa to come to this country and it may be Obama.

If this is true and all other issues involved with a person of interest whom gave drugs to someone named Levine in this case, is going to hit the fan soon.

KITTY: I'll be real honest with you, I'm an independent voter. But I do not, and I mean "DO NOT" want Obama to win the election because this man and his associates are scary

You know at first I was dead against Obama because he is labeled the most liberal Senator. Finally, it dawned on me why he has such a big following. Our citizens are turning more and more to the extreme left. The extreme left liberals which migrated into the Democratic Party is the reason we have so many critical issues facing our country today. It is these same liberals that want abortion rights, same sex marriage, gays in the military, against the draft, retreat from fights our military is engaged in rather than support and have faith in them, lenient sentences to child molestors, being politically correct, taking God out of public places, no Christmas displays and a host of other social and morality issues. The list goes on and on. It is these same far left liberals that will eventually destroy the American way of life. If Obama goes as far as to win the White House it will definitey show what direction our country will go....I fear for my children to be forced to live in a future of a weak, demoralized society that these extreme liberals are bringing upon us. There will always be problems for Americans, but having a super liberal run this country is not the answer. The divide between the two major parties will never go away because there is so much difference between extreme left and right wing ideology. If Obama gets in the first thing I am going to do is get on my knees and pray to God to save America, because God will be the only one that will be able to.

Well, initially we simply do not care if you are convinced or not, Kira. Your extreme bias towards Barak Hussein Obama is quite obvious. Whoever comes out of the Democratic campaign circus as the winner is actually of little consequence.

One thing that never ceases to amaze me is that Obama supporters can claim such understanding of the legislative process and yet downplay the importance of co-sponsorship of important legislation. Simply put, a single legislator or small group of legislators have little, if any, chance at getting their bills passed into law by themselves.

But, then, maybe a lack of ability to do any substantive work explains why Senator Obama as head of the Senate Oversight Subcommittee on Afghanistan failed to hold even one hearing since the Senator became the chair of the committee.

Oh, that's right! Senator Obama DID give a reason for failing his responsiblity to our troops in Afghanistan...he kicked off his campaign in 2007 and was simply too busy. Is that a good excuse? No, but it is the Obama's excuse.

As an independent voter, a group the Obama campaign claims to be carrying, I have not decided who I will vote for yet. But, I do know this: I WILL move in direct opposition to the Axelrod style campaign of "bite and whine." And, I also know that I WILL NOT vote for likes of Barak Hussein Obama for any position.

stock_craft...that's fine. I guess you wouldn't have voted for Abraham Lincoln either. He had 8 years experience as an Illinois senator and was a first term congressman when he was elected president.

Former White House Press Secretary (For President Clinton) speaks out about the real character of the former First Lady in a PBS Interview. Search: PBS Clinton Years and read it for yourself. There are numerous Clinton Staffers who give their account of the woman who would be President.
Q: Were people afraid of her? Were people afraid to speak out against her?
A: Yeah. And I think because not only would she sort of humiliate you in front of your colleagues or whoever happened to be around. It wasn't like she did it every day. I found that she wasn't the most direct person. Although that was very direct, that to me was the exception rather than the rule. Hillary tended to kind of campaign against people behind their back, and that was certainly my experience. She was not happy with me, but she never confronted me. She never had a conversation with me about it. She would go call Leon in and yell at him and then he'd have to call me in and say, "Mrs. Clinton is really upset about X. You said Y, and she disagrees with that, and you know, she wants you to fix it," or whatever. As opposed to her picking up the phone and calling me. Sometimes it's appropriate, I think, to go through the chief of staff because it's the chain of command. Maybe she's talking to him about six things and one of them is me. But there were times when I thought she should have dealt with me directly and she didn't.
...I didn't respect that. If you have a problem with me or anybody else, it doesn't mean she shouldn't try achieve whatever outcome she wanted to achieve. But I think there is a certain grace and I just think it's a bit better politics and personnel management to be direct

Janet from NH,
I am not a kid or a teen. It’s very difficult to convince me that a Senator who has only about 2-3 years in the US Senate can do the job of an US President. I will vote for his second term if he get elected and have done an excellent job as a President. His voting records and his little public work can’t justify him to qualify as an US President at this moment. In fact, his political career might end once Hillary is out.

Now Obama is guilty because someone lives close to him?
Yes, you have convinced me: Clinton supporters are small-minded folks distort truth and facts, spread innuendos, and attempt to influence the electorate by spreading fears and rumors.
You are the face of Clinton, and sadly, it is not an attractive one. Thank you for pushing me more firmly away from the ugly.

Kitty: I am right! Hyde Park where Obama resides is the southern half of the Kenwood Neighborhood where Farrahkan resides,]. They are neighbors. Also, I was correct in my analogy of the Nation of Islam in being influential in getting Obama's career off the ground, and the Nation of Islam, underthe direction of Louis Farrahkan, in having a HUGE stronghold in the Kenwood and Hyde Park neighborhoods.

Again, Mr. Farrahkan and the Nation of Islam had lots to do with Mr. Obam's campaign to the senate seat and now to the presidency.

If I were Obama I would stop ditsing Mr. Farrahkan...It ain't nice, Mr. Obama!!!!!

You Clinton folks really have swallowed the punch, haven't you?

The reason Hillary's attempt at health care reform failed wasn't because of the Republicans; it was because Hillary mismanaged it from the beginning. It wasn't health care reform she was after, it was HILLARY's health care reform, and she wouldn't compromise and she would negotiate. She tried to strong-arm HER program through, in the process alienating as many democrats as she did republicans. She showed herself constitutionally unable to compromise, even for the good of the program and a successful outcome that would have benefitted many. Why? Because it had to be her way or no way.

In addition, she dealt in the darkness, without letting anyone peak inside what she was doing.

All you folks who think she walks on water need to buy some water wings, because if she becomes president we will all end up drowning in ego and arrogance.

stock_craft...you need to do some research. Barack Obama has accomplished more than Hillary has in the Senate even though he has been a Senator for less time. He has co-sponsored bills with several conservative Republican Senators that have actually passed and become law. His track record is better and longer than hers, just go to the library of Congress website and check for yourself. Hillary spent most of her time in the Senate getting earmarks for New York and that's why she is one of the top "earmark earning" Senators almost $400 million worth). And of course, she won't disclose what her earmarks are. Obama co-sponsored a bill on Transparency so the American people can see what their Senators are actually doing. Hillary won't disclose her tax returns...that's definitely a red flag. I could go on and on. Obama has an impressive and substantive track record. Don't believe everything Hillary says.

It would make a difference if they were substantive and not just co-sponsorship or other mishmash.
In point of fact, I have looked at the legistlative record of Hillary Clinton and HAVE NOT been impressed. I would be more than happen to have you point me to specific legislation that she is singularly responsible for--but I have a hard time believing that if she were such an outstanding, action-driven senator that the news isn't being spread far and wide. Sorry but you have to be a bit more convincing then telling me I have to dig up the facts myself, because I have tried and have come up empty.
But you are probably correct in that even if you came up with a sheet of accomplishments I would probably continue to lean toward Obama because I find the way Hillary has conducted her campaign to be so off-putting that I can't imagine her being effective in the WH. This campaign has been from the beginning a coronation of the lady, but once the crown began to slip she went dirty, she went negative, she went Syble, she went from one emotional jag to another, she has lied, distorted, and vilified. She has not conducted herself well, and when I consider who I want in the WH at 3 in the morning, I want to know that whoever it is has displayed an even keel, measured, mature approach to the campaign. That is not Hillary, who goes from terrifying anger to crying fits in her unending effort to maniuplate the electorate.

Let me ask you this question Kitty..are you being paid by the Obama camp to invade the blogger sites...because you are very evaisve in your anwers to my question....again I ask you, would it be okay for Mr. Duke to run a campaign for Mrs. Clinton to become the senator of Illinois. Mr. Farrahkan did not just endorse Mr. Obama, he helped run his campaign and get him into the Illinois senate seat. This is not just fabricated reports...it is s known fact.

ALso, Mr. Farrahkan has a huge stronghold with his Nation Of Islam Organization in the Hyde Park neighborhood of where Mr. Obama resides. I am not sure, but I will look it up, but I also think Mr. Farrahkan lives in the same neighborhood as Obama.

I will get back to you on that point, after I do some research..unlike you whom does not of it on your own about your candidate.

I will keep you abreast Kitty, of your candidate, that's the least I can do for you.

Oh! and by the way, there's a statue of him at our Art Institute here in Illinois of him being portrayed as "Jesus". What doesn't this hyprocritical Mr. Obama ask the Institute to take it down, since it ridicules our Lord. And he calls himself a "Christian"...Again he is the greatest performer of all times. and he will be showing up at show near you soon.

Janet from NH,
I respect your decision but also I don’t understand why the other 10 millions people follow a blank resume, or empty suit candidate so blindly too.
We follow Hillary Clinton because she was the first leader of US Universal Healthcare back to 1992-1993 although it failed because of GOP controlling Congress. In fact, I didn’t vote for Bill Clinton first term but I have to respect the prosperous the Clinton family and his administration had brought to this country from the year of 1992 to 2000.

stevem...that's a totally false story. Hopefully people will not be naive enough to believe the lies the Hillary supporters are sending around. Her supporters in TX are telling Latinos that her healthcare is free when in reality it will cost them the same as Obama's plan would. These distortions are the worst kind of negative campaigning. Shame on you, Hillary and her supporters!

Kira:

If you really want to view the accomplishments of Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, you need to go over to some of the blogs on "Political Radar."

While I can't remember the exact blog site, one blogger compiled about 100 or so accomplishments that Hillary Clinton has compiled as a Senator from New York.

Copying and posting them here would be fairly easy, but you are the one asking for the information. So, you do the work. Actually, I guess the work has been done for you.

Will the impressive list make any difference to you? Probably not, but now you can see for yourself. Hopefully, you DO really want the information.

So, what are you waiting for?

I did answer your rather ridiculous and obsessive question: it isn't the words that counts, it is the deeds. You can't make someone guilty by association because someone else said words that you do not like. You have to look at Obama's actions--if you are a true believer in the Clinton mantra, that is. Where is there ANY evidence that Obama acted like an acolyte of Farakhan? That the action of the church minister imposed any obligation on Obama?
You can't but that doesn't stop you from the insinuations. You have no evidence for any nefarious activity, so you have to push and pull to try to generate some sort of scandal where there is none, then make wildly inappropriate leaps to fairy land to try to support logic that doesn't exist.

For those Hillary supporters who will not vote for Obama, that's fine. Just remember that Hillary Clinton is looking out for Hillary Clinton. She is dishonest, unethical and a disgrace to all woman. She has fought the dirtiest of fights and has divided the Democratic party. She is responsible for the negative campaigning (and I'm from NH so I've been following the campaign for over a year). She will say and do anything to get elected. I don't understand why people follow her so blindly.

It is true. He did vote present on most of those bills. He is the worst senator of any state.

He made a family wait three hours for a meeting that they had scheduled with him to get him to pass a bill, that would allow people to have an anti-abortion license plate for their cars. This family lost 6 children in a car accident here in Illinois by a truck driver whom got his license under the table..

After three hours of this family waiting for Mr. Obama, the family left. He then showed up and denied their request.

Gee, this time he didn't vote present, he actually did show up and vote "NO".

Nice, guy, someone we really want to lead this country...and he cares of the PEOPLE! What a joke!!!

Apparently, voting present in the state house was not the big deal everyone is making it out to be (and, in fact, on some issues it was an acceptable strategic move), but even if you grant that there was another way to go, his legislative history is pretty impressive and, I think, far outweighs a handful of present votes.
But the Clintons don't want you to put these two things on the scale to find out which why weighs the most.
And you miss the point: compare Obama's activist legislative history against Clinton's pretty dismal record in the senate.
That's the point: in spite of what Clinton wants you to believe about her 35 years of experience (which began the day she left law school, goodness knows!) she has accomplished so much. But the facts simply don't bear that out--something the Clinton supporters just can't acknowledge. So it is so much easier to point to a handful of present votes than try to bring out all the successes their candidate has had-because they don't exist!

Kitty: Your just like the media you are avoiding the real issues about obama. Again, I am asking you...how would you feel if the church that Hillary belong to gave a life-time achievement award to Mr. Duke of the Klu Klux Klan! How would you feel if the Klu Klux Klan endorsed Hillary's campaign... and how would you feel if the Klu Klux Klan helped Hillary get where she is today.

How would you feel and how would the media deal with this. And your telling me and the whole world that this country runs on un-biased reporting. As Mr. Bill Clinton would say "GIVE ME A BREAK..THIS IS ALL A FARIY TALE".

MR. OBAMA IS THE GREATEST PERFORMER OF ALL TIMES, AND LOTS OF PEOPLE HAVE MOLDED HIM INTO WHAT HE IS TODAY.

MR. OBAMA, THE GREAT PERFORMER, WILL BE COMING TO A THEATRE SOON IN YOUR TOWN. GET YOUR TICKETS NOW FOR THE FUNNIEST SHOW ON EARTH!!!!!!!

I know Hillary says she is a Methodist. Big deal. So am I. But knowing an affiliation isn't the same as digging into the inner workings of the specific church or the denomination of the candidate. This is an unfair playing field, because we don't have the same information about Clinton's religious connections as we do Obama's, so we can't compare.
But to answer your question, I wouldn't care -- unlike you -- if someone whos politics endorsed my church. My faith is much bigger than an endorsement by someone I don't agree with.
The difference, which is what you are poorly attempting to get to, is actions. Let's say David Dukes endorsed my church. The ONLY problem would come if I was required to starting hunting down a group of people and terrorizing them because David Dukes endorsed my church. That's what you Clintonistas just never get, which is surprising because your supreme leader repeats endlessly that it isn't the words that matters, its the action.

So, to put it in a different way: if Hillary Clinton (double-speak again, of course) tells you not to pay attention to words but to deeds, why are you focused so exclusively on words?

Kira,
I heard different story. He always vote as “present” or skip to vote 160 times, a play it safe game during the time he was Illinois state senator. Correct me if I were wrong. Thanks.

Jake, it doesn't matter. That was not Hillary Clinton that said that. The only people that seem to have a problem separating the two are you, Rush Limbaugh, and the Obama cult, when it is to their advantage.

Stevem post: "It will be a happy day when Mr. Obama and his KOOl-AID supporters get all the way...almost to the very end of being the nominated democratic candidate...and all hell breaks out about his shaddy connections and possible indictment of him himself with this Rezko dealings...and HIllary is nominated as the democratic candidate.

I see it happening real soon!!!!"

The GOP and the media will get him once Hillary Clinton is out believe it or not.

At least I know Obama goes to church; all we have is Clinton saying that she believes matters of faith should be kept quiet. Does she belong to a church? Does she attend a church? Do we know what her church does or how it donates? If anything, Obama's openness in not repudiating his faith simply because it would be the convenient thing to do says a lot about his character. Much more than Hillary's 'I have faith. Trust me.'

Obama has consistently repudiate Farrahkan. It is only the Clintons and supporters who can't let it go.

And then there was that incident in Texas in which one of Clinton's supporters went on about how it was too bad Obama was black because Hispanics won't support a black--and Clinton defended this woman by saying it was her right to state her opinion and she had no control over those comments. Only later, after it was pointed out her double-standard, did she denounce and repudiate. That is the double-standard of your candidate: sling the mud to see if it will stick, but denounce and repudiate anything through at her.

And please, stop the SCREAMING.

It will be a happy day when Mr. Obama and his KOOl-AID supporters get all the way...almost to the very end of being the nominated democratic candidate...and all hell breaks out about his shaddy connections and possible indictment of him himself with this Rezko dealings...and HIllary is nominated as the democratic candidate.

I see it happening real soon!!!!

I can’t find any wrong or interest about a blank resume from a new grad. Should I hire him to lead the critical project?