Political Punch

Hillary Clinton has set the democratic party back 20 years... she is the most arrogant and devious presidential candidate ever. What is see is NOT what you get... buyer beware!!!!!

This makes no sense - you all are griping over michigan and florida. What part of "they didn't follow the rules" do you not understand? If you parked at 350pm in a no parking from 7-4pm zone, you would get a ticket. Are you going to argue that because you had a "legitamite reason" to park there you shouldn't get the ticket? Come on - use common sense. Rules are rules just like laws are laws. Those states knew that before they had people vote.
So when is it fair to break the rules?

Guess what? The Republicans ran a clean campaign! Squeaky clean!!!! No mudslinging Politics!!!!.
Says Who? The newspapers. The media. The blogs.The scandal; sheets and gossip columns etc etc etc.
Guess who went whistling all the way to the bank?
Guess who is going all the way to the White House?
Your guess is as good as mine.
America will make the right choice.The right person will be in the White House because the 2008 electorate will make sure of that.Errol Smythe

Hillary Clinton has every right to let the voters decide and since she won every state with more "ELECTORAL VOTES" than Obama. The Obama win states have less "electoral votes" or they are sure Republican states anyway.
The rules of the DNC which has say the "super delegates" should decide should rule in this case. Michigan and Florida also go to Senator Clinton yet due to total bungling by the Democratic Party they are trying to make them not count.
What angers me is that Obama has no accomplishments to show for his short career except his latest evil by calling white people like his grandmother a "typical white person".
This racist remark by Barrack Obama is the shot heard around the world saying all white people are racist.
Then he insults our intelligence saying that in over 20 years he never knew or heard his close friend and mentor Rev. Wright make these racist statements(which he also prints in his bulletin and sells the sermons on cd in his church).

And he says we should vote on his judgment. The only judgment he shows is obvious bad and racist judgment like his pastor.

Sen. Clinton doesn't clearly remember one day that happened 11 years ago? WOW!! (And this is after menopause during and/or in between, ladies).

Obama can sit in a church (which he said earlier this year he didn't consider to be "controversial) for 20 years and not remember any of Rev. Wright's sermons that were hateful or devisive or other than God and love and hope, blah, blah, blah. But yet he remembered to give them tidy sums of money every year.

You Obama supporters and Clinton-haters
(not always one and the same) need to
go back to your Sunday school days, if any of you ever had any.

Glad I'm an Independent.

Saying Hillary is using Tonya Harding-like tactics is insulting to Tonya Harding, who only wanted to destroy one opponent to fulfill her ambition. By comparison, in order to fulfill her ambition, Hillary is willing to destroy the whole party, deliver the 2008 election to McCain, ruin the chances of hundreds of downstream Democrats, and force millions of Americans to live for another 4 (probably 8) years with a Bush-lite administration, tanking economy, no health care, and more US troops committed in Iraq indefinitely. But hey, so long as she gets another bite at the cherry in 2012, who cares?

The media has driven this election. The person voted in will be the media's choice and followed by those who do not look further than race, gender and what the media has to say. Hillary wants to make a difference and she is smart. Obama has hung out with some shady people and it makes me wonder what is in it for all the politicians who want to force Hillary out and want Obama to win. His choice of friendships is poor judgement and I wonder who he will align with if he were to become president...and when we question him he will say it is was a "boneheaded" mistake!..but continue the friendship. Hillary certainly is not honest, but Obama is worse because he proclaims to be honest and hangs out with anti American people. the media accuse Clinton of bringing up race, but no one seems to recognize that maybe it was Obama that started the race issue in SC with his speeches geared towards black people, after gearing it towards whites in Iowa. If he truly is a uniter he would speak one language to all. I will say Obama is shrewed in a subtle way...but change and hope are very general words...change will happen no matter who is president, and hope requires recognizing the beauty of America, even with the challenges...and Obama tends to focus on what is wrong with America...or is that the media!?

Win or lose, Barak Obama is creating and unknowingly preparing himself for a job of far more importance than that of President of the USA!

Clintons think it's fine to destroy people. They think that's the fun part of politics. They aren't what I thought they were back in the 90's. I actually felt sorry for these people back then but to see their all or nothing selfish strategy, just makes me sick to my stomach.

Oh, and don't forget that she lies about her experience. Bosnia, N. Ireland, etc. So many reasons not to vote for Hillary.

AL GORE
AL GORE
AL GORE
AL GORE

We need you!!!

The US will just not be right until you are president!

The ghosts of our forefathers will punish us until that happens!

Hillary Clinton does not care about her country only herself. Rightnow her plan is 2012. She knows that she can't win against Obama but figures if she bloodies him enough he will not be the incumbent in 2012, McCain will be and then she can run against him. She will let this country suffer 4 more years of this hell just for her selfish desires.

David Pippin -
I hope you are not refering to John Mc Cain as someone who does not lift his arms to salute or pledge of allegiance.

You may notice that he doesn't raise his arms over his head like almost all other politicians. This is because he cannot raise his arms like everyone else as a result of the wounds he incurred in the North Vietnamese prison camp. He, like Bob dole before him, never complains about his limitations even though they were incurred as a patriot.

However, equating patriotism with a hand over one's heart is simply foolish. Wouldn't you guess that terrorists who are in this country would be scrupulous about ceremonial behavior just to throw us off track?

We demonstrate our patriotism by entering a debate such as the one on this blog, voting, paying taxes, attending PTA meetings, teaching, preaching, volunteering to help others, working hard, even making truthful criticisms of America when we get off track, and serving America with whatever gifts we have been given.

If someone can convince you of his or her patriotism by wearing a flag pin or saluting the flag, you are going to be taken advantage of not only politically but in life!

Hillary is self-serving to the point of narcissism. She is fairly far behind and she is not polling well, rather than rally behind the leader for the good of the party AND the American people, she is doing everything in her power to destroy him. Bill Clinton was hailed as the “First black president” and was supportive of the African American community in his words and deeds. But should that be called into question, how much of that was truly sincere and how much was just to get their vote?

Right now, for the first time in history a great man who happens to be a black man has a chance to be President. Against great odds, he has won the most delegates and the most popular votes in a fair contest, experts agree the odds against Hillary catching him fairly at this point are poor at best.

Hillary is using every dirty political tactic, her campaign has pulled the race card, they have tried to portray Barack as a Muslim, insinuated that he is unelectable, inexperienced, that his supporters need to get real, with the sole objective being to cause him such catastrophic political damage so that she can win the nomination by default. I would never vote for a candidate who has lied so often, and so easily to try and get my vote. Who has stooped so low as to try and use Barack's kindergarten papers against him, and now even after Barack so eloquently addressed the Reverend Wright issue in that historic speech, is using gutter politics to try and bring it up again to take the attention off of her lies about her experience. Talk about living in a glass house and throwing rocks… She says she would not have choosen Reverend Wright, but Barack might not choose to stay with and support a spouse whom cheated on him repeatedly, she is hardly in a position to claim moral high ground.

She has lied about Sniper fire, called Barack a liar in Ohio for his now obviously accurate mailer on her involvement in passing NAFTA, she even lied about something so petty as to why she was named Hillary. In Texas she is a Texan, in New York a New Yorker, In Ohio an out of work union worker…. Hillary has mocked the intelligence of the American people so often and so blatantly, well I think she will be surprised to learn we are not that stupid, and that Barack is not the candidate who is unelectable.

Obama left the country when an important decision had to be made about Michigan voters. Should Michigan voters be allowed to revote? He whined because his name was not on the ballet. Florida votes should count because his name WAS on the ballot.

Now we all were shocked and suffered a loss because in 2000 GW was handed the Presidency by the Republican appointed Supreme Court.

Now we all wake up and scream outrage over Obama's Illinois Attorneys refusing Michigan voters the right to have their votes count in a revote. Illinois Attorneys do not have the privilege of selecting our candidate. They will not be allowed to steal this election.

Where is the fairness of the rights of the voters, we expect Democratic National Committee to correct this immediately.

Shameful that the news media would enable the cowardly rant of an anonymous party official...why not concentrate on the many issues our country faces..yesterday President Bill Clinton gave a wonderful speech in my state and it got about ten seconds on the news....Seems all the networks want to do is indulge themselves in a buffet of 'gotcha' politics, the game of it all -their twisted version of it, and sensational, smarmy, snarky pieces like this one....

Getcentered, first of all the Republicans lost control of Congress more because they did increase the size of the federal government along with the skillful attacks by the Democrats and the mainstream media on the "culture of corruption," rather than the Battle of Iraq. The mainstream media refused to cover many Democratic misdeeds, but spent weeks hammering Republicans when their misdeeds would come to light.

The most glaring example is the case of Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA). She actually resigned from her subcomittee chairmanship when her conflict of interest hit the Internet. She was the ranking member of the Military Construction Appropriations subcomittee for six years before becoming the chairperson when the Democrats took control of the Senate. Her husband was awarded billions of dollars for military construction projects approved by Sen. Feinstein. All of this was known by the media during her re-election campaign and they sat on the story. In fact, the Bay Area news media, as far as I know, has still not reported on her resignation from the subcommittee.

And then there are Sen. Harry Reid's (D-NV) land deals and the earmark that provided money for building a bridge over the Colorado River that would greatly increase the value of the 160 acres of land he owns.

Now as for the Battle of Iraq, it was al Qaeda that called Iraq as THEIR main battleground in their jihad against Western Civilization.

Now then, President Bush did NOT mislead us into war against Iraq. Even the Democrats believed that Saddam Hussein had WMDs. They even said so -- in 1998 -- when Congress gave President Clinton authorization for regime change. Saddam Hussein is the one who mislead his neighbors and the rest of the world into believing he had WMDs. We invaded Iraq because Saddam Hussein refused to comply with the conditions of the 1991 cease fire. After 12 years of failing to comply, the UN Security Council passed Resolution 1441, "a final opportunity to compy with its disarmament obligations." Unfortunately, Saddam Hussein remained steadfast in his refusal to comply. When it became obvious that the UN Security Council was not going to follow through on its ultimatum, President Bush offered his own final ultimatum. Because France, Germany and Russia had convinced Saddam Hussein that the United States would not invade, he ignored President Bush's ultimatum. Unlike the UN Security Council, President Bush followed through on his threat.

Contrary to the MoveON.org and George Soro's talking points, al Qaeda WAS IN Iraq before we invaded Iraq. They had a training camp in northern Iraq. And the Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of the United States Armed Forces, that was passed in October 2002, states: "Whereas members of al Qaida, an organization bearing responsibility for attacks on the United States, its citizens, and interests, including the attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, are known to be in Iraq;"

Finally, the Democrats want to increase the size of the federal government even more. They want to raise everyone's taxes. Allowing the Bush tax cuts to expire will result in one of, if not the greatest, tax increase in American history. But they won't stop there. They will also raise the tax rate for anyone making more than $97,500 in order to pay for the government's takeover of the health care system. The fact that Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama talk about making everyone obtain medical insurance is a real sham! They actually want to eliminate private medical insurance and replace it with either Medicare or a Medicare-like bureaucracy. In one of the recent debates, Sen. Clinton actually said that those individuals who are satisfied with their medical insurance can keep their plan, "FOR NOW!"

The 2008 General Election will come down to the issues. Do we want to raise the white flag and hand a military victory to al Qaeda? Do we want the federal government to take over the health care system -- and tell us what we can or cannot eat and drink, and what products we can or cannot purchase based on the premise of preventative health care? Do we want wealth redistribution? Or even, as Sen. Clinton implied, do we want to replace an ownership society with one of "shared responsibility for shared prosperity," and a "we're all in it together society?"

I can't believe people are discussing whether the Florida and Michigan delegates should count, the role of superdelegates, and how Clinton can win the nomination. The question really is why she wants it, because she surely cannot win in November. The superdelegates who are entrusted with choosing a nominee who can unify the party and win the election in November cannot possibly choose her, when according to her they have complete latitude. They are NOT stuck with her just because Obama is worse than her, if she succeeds in convincing them he is not electable. I think the Clinton supporters need to realize there has been a significant anti-Clinton vote in the primaries. A great many Democrats were only looking for a viable alternative, so we were not made the laughingstocks of the world for our two-family "democracy." Being an innocent American I never saw what was so objectionable about the Clinton return to the White House. But then I read an editorial in a British newspaper essentially ridiculing the idea. I think we have to recover from what Bush did to us in public opinion abroad. We need to be sensitive to how foolish we look when we supposedly promote democracy and then have the spectacle of Hillary clawing her way to the nomination, based on her last name, even though she can't convince the majority of voters that she's the nominee they want. I don't have to be anti-Hillary to not want to see this happen. As an American I don't want our image sullied once more abroad. Maybe if she'd divorced Bill, she would've been a more viable President. Sometimes history is not on one's side. Maybe if Gore had been elected in 2000, her bid for the Presidency would not have been freighted with so much baggage, after 8 years of another Bush. But then maybe Gore could have won had not Bill Clinton tarnished the party's image. She's stuck with him and the choices she now has because of the way prior events worked out. Doesn't she know hard-core Democrats have been whispering among themselves about the unsavory prospect of her candidacy for years, just hoping someone else could come to the fore? I think the superdelegates have to put the Party's interests before everything else. Because she has run such a divisive campaign just hanging on by her fingernails, she has alienated a large portion of the Democratic base. If she is rewarded for this type of campaign, then I think a lot of people will want to get out of what has then clearly become her party, not ours. It will be time for a third party, and not one led by Nader. But there is still one way out : turning to a candidate she hasn't yet shredded because he dared to get in her way. I would go with Edwards, who knew enough to get out of the fight. He's actually quite a decent fellow, and although he doesn't have her delegates, she's already shown us that the pledged delegates and superdelegates are free to vote for whoever they please, whoever they think is best for the Party. Where does she get the silly idea that just because it can't be Obama we are left with her and are going down to defeat in November with her? No, the superdelegates and delegates must give us a candidate that has the maximum chance of winning in November. Edwards has always said he was the one. And the voters have verified that. Blacks won't vote for Hillary, and old white women won't vote for Obama. Face it, the voters are both racist and sexist and neither Hillary nor Obama can win in November, especially after Hillary's "fun" in the sandbox. I'm not happy that's the way it is in America, but since it is I don't see the point of Hillary becoming the nominee just because Edwards didn't see his way to the nomination in the same scorched-earth approach she has employed. After all, it's only about electability, not the votes, so his absence from the campaign trail has preserved his electability. He showed immense wisdom in getting out of her way, because she'd have shredded him by now too. Hillary didn't just wake up one morning and find Obama a disaster for the country. She would have found Edwards similarly completely inadequate when compared to the advantages she clearly offers but which have mysteriously not been very apparent to over half of the voters. Her campaign is right: Superdelegates have the inalienable right to reject her or Obama as the nominee. Unfortunately for her, when your way of getting ahead is shredding the other candidate it comes with a lot of collateral damage she was either too blind to see or didn't matter to her.
She has offended so many (Thank you James Fallows for saying something many have been too intimidated to say : the Clinton campaign is "disgusting") What part of that does she not understand or does she think the reactions of others to her "gutter" style are immaterial?
I think that whatever she thinks she is accomplishing isn't going to happen unless the superdelegates are bought and sold. Really, in the case of a Pyrrhic battle such as the one she has waged ever since she woke up from her almost criminal month-long February nap to find herself so far behind that her only option was to go nuclear, is to give the nomination to someone who isn't implicated. I don't necessarily want a President to be the kind of person who will put themselves through the version of politics the Clinton's favor. Why should that be any part of the criteria? Let the superdelegates reward someone who was truly wise, who saw what was about to happen, and got off the stage, while reminding us he was really the only one electable of the three. He was right, and Obama was naive, or maybe he hadn't studied Clinton as well as Edwards. Well, maybe Edwards does not deserve the nomination, since he has not put himself through the worst. So, why not Gore? He did so much for the Party, and the election was lost because Florida can't do an election anyone can trust.
If anyone deserves a free ride in this election cycle it is him. Honestly, I think he is so decent he just wouldn't put himself through what Obama's been dealing with. Obama's young , and I don't think he really knew what he was signing up for. Gore took a pass, because he knows more. But that's the sort of person we really need now. What is Hillary going to do after she wins the election in November? Take a 10 month nap? Because we are going to need a president who is at least awake on Day 1. She is already complaining of exhaustion and sleep deprivation, and is making more and more gaffes. (No, I don't think every mistake she makes is devilishly intentional) But, this is a real issue. Even if she gets the nomination and wins what good will she be after a campaign that was like being in a war zone for a year? She's going to need about a year off, similar to the vacation in office George W. Bush took until Bin Laden caught up with him.
Clinton's interpretation of the path to the nomination delivers a candidate physically and emotionally worn down, and not at all ready for the demands of office. How many melt-downs of her have we already seen? If you are going to turn the campaign into an ordeal it would help if you have some sort of stamina. Maybe if you can't do it for even 3 months without gaffes due to overload, your route to the Presidency should be reconsidered. This is going to be a bruising battle that will leave the voters exhausted too. If she thinks she can keep partisan fury whipped up first against Obama for 8 months and then train her sights on McCain, I'm afraid the rest of us will
be worn out. We'll just look at the polls, figure the Convention sold us down the River keeping Clinton happy, take a nap and wake up the next day to find McCain won. We've got 7 more months, and already too many of us are worn down. Texas/Ohio was the political voltage of the general election. And she is going to do this again in Pennsylvania?! She may be buzzed by her hope of becoming President, but the rest of us are tuning out. This isn't even about Obama, it's about voter fatigue. When it takes this much effort to try to turn a situation around, you are making a mistake if you think that voters will pay attention that long. I think we've all heard everything, the debates have been trivialized because there have been too many,etc. So everyone will know what a crazed racist I am (I am white) I thought exactly the same thing that Reverend Wright did after 9/11. I thought that desperate Palestinians had no way to get the attention of Amercia, with George W. Bush' immoral policy of pretending nothing was going on out in the world that could possibly concern us. Why did we have to wait 8 long years to get some attention to this desperate situation? When people are powerless they turn to asymmetric warfare. How can that be wrong? Don't people realize that's the way we fought the Revolutionary War, and how we won our freedom? Anyway, I was wrong. Osama had a whole different agenda, but I think I was far from alone in wondering if some sort of God-given punishment might be being meted out to us. That's entirely natural given our religious traditions. Most of us, if we are stricken with disease that is in no way our fault will still at some time harbor doubt as to our role in bringing this upon ourselves. How is it any different to search one's soul when one's country is attacked? The first thing we want is a reason, and maybe we aren't going to take George W. Bush' answer that "they" just hate us before thinking a bit on our own. That doesn't mean they were "right" in what they did, but it isn't wrong for us to use the occasion for a moral inventory.

It's like they say in the Star Wars movies: If you embrace the Dark Side, it will destroy you. Hillary's going down like the Emperor trying to take everyone else out too. All of the anger on the Left has been focused inward and on each other between these two factions, and it is blowing them apart.

McCain, wisely, is just standing back and letting the Democrats implode.

What does it say about an individual who is running for the highest office in this great land of America whenever faced with Pledging Allegiance to the Flag, they NEVER place their right hand over their heart, and definitely do not(or cannot) salute? As a matter of fact, unsaid individual always seems resolute, almost removed from what is taking place for the moment.

note that Tonya Harding didn't win the gold medal, either. if Hillary had any true friends, they'd tell her to drop out now, before she disgraces herself even further.