Political Punch

8 years of being the fisrt lady should be deducted from Hillary bragging experience, anyone that hasnt run as a president does not have the presidential experience, what really matter here is the right judgment to lead during the time of crisis.For the past 7 years, we have seen the impact of Bush negative judgment. This attribute is one the basic qualities of a good leader and not just travelling over the world as a first lady. For Mccain people, i wish you good luck, if Mccain emerge as the winner, i will move to Canada or Europe, because the worst is looming.

For those that want Hillary for President, please take a minute and read what the World think about Barak Obama leadership:
Why we want Obama to be US President
The global community is increasingly interdependent and the next US President will make decisions that that affect us all. Whether you live in Baghdad, Buenos Aires or Bangkok, this matters.

Although Americans have done many positive things around the world, the US government - once the champion of anti-colonialism and self-determination - has often appeard to be an arrogant bully, waging war and pursuing its own interests at the expense of others. President Bush has taken this to extremes, but the general policy was little better under his predecessors, for example Bill Clinton imposed economic sanctions on Iraq for all eight years of his presidency, against the wishes of the vast majority of UN countries, killing 100,000s of children.

However, Senator Obama looks different, he sounds different and millions of non-Americans believe he will act differently. We cannot vote in the 2008 US elections, but if we could we’d back Obama. We may not agree with all his current policies, and we understand that he will face difficult choices and compromises when he is in office. However we trust he will do his best because he has demonstrated strong principles and a willingness to listen and engage constructively, even with countries that have been seen as America's enemies.

We want an America that lives up to the principles it preaches, listens rather than lectures, conserves rather than consumes, makes peace rather than war and uses its influence positively in the world.

We're not saying Obama is perfect but he is the first Presidential candidate in a long time who seems genuinely willing to listen to the world and take courageous action to work towards a just, peaceful, and sustainable planet - which will be good for Americans and the rest of us. With that kind of President in the White House, Americans will be able to hold their heads up high when they visit our countries and won't need to pretend they are Canadians!

Help us to build a global movement to show American that there are millions of people around the globe that back Obama, and encourage America to engage with international opinion.

This site collects together some of the evidence of the international support for Obama and provides resources to help global citizens assess him for themselves. You can share your views and contribute to this campaign through our Facebook group (you can view this even if your not signed on to FB), or by emailing us.

To all truely devoted Democrats, and displaced Republicans. This primary campaign was a rough contest from the beginning placing two minority candidates against one another. A Woman versus a Black. In my and many other American's judgment this was a big mistake by the Democratic party which is trying to gain back the Executive Branch of the government to at this point to attempt to save America as we have known it most of our lives. The comments I have read tonight, from a so called cross section of educated of voters, seems to forget just how bad things have become with Bush in the Whitehouse. Not to mention that the monkey see monkey do retoric of Republican candidate McCain who openly states that he will stay in Iraq or other countries for as long as it takes to beat down the terrorists. He at best it pounding his chest as Tarzan, because the United States cannot withstand another 8 years of this type of carnege on both the military personell as the extended damage to the economy. The Clinton bashers forget all too soon that Bill Clinton left the country with the first surplus in the budget in over fifty years, by leaving the books in the black to the sum of over 40 billion dollars. Which by the way was pissed away by Bush inside five months.
They say that behind every great man is a great woman. Is has been exemplified
by the way Hillary handled her and Bill's problems. There again the problems of a mans private life should be just that private. Obama is the truly unknown candidate. He has excellent verbal skills that can get the croud fired up, but so do carnival barkers or reverand Jesse Jackson, heaven forbid!!!
But what is happening to the democratic party is disintegration!! The party is divided down the middle, and on neither side Obama nor Clinton do I see a win for the Democratic party. McCain is a sure win with either as a sole candidate. The pair Clinton and Obama is truly a "winning combination" thatshould have bee examined and discussed with both candidates within the first three or four weeks of primary elections. By now it may be too late as both are now polarized from one another. I could not only support this "Dream Team", but would campaign for as well. The party has to get them on the sidelines and analize abilities, or toss a coin, to decide who will be president first, and both be able to live by it, or we the people of the United States are doomed to the next administration being Republican again. I believe that many of the posters on this blog tonight, this may be the first time or maby the second time that you have voted. You have never seen the effects of a divided party before. Well it usually ends up badly, for the party, by losing the contest to the candidate of the opposing party. Neither democratic candidate can survive with this devastating division of the Democratic party. As exemplified by statmrnts by several bloggers tonight, they will vote for McCain if their Democratic candidate loses the primary. The exit polls discussed earlier showing this sentiment exactly, and I truthfully believe that the vast magority of Democrats believe in this "Dream Team" concept as well. I will not sling mud at either candidate, but individually neither stand a chance alone. The big fear again is allowing McCain into the Presidential seat!!!

You must be out of your MIND if you think that not counting millions of voters is fair game.

Who the HELL gave anyone the authority to disenfranchise millions of people? You can not simply say you are just not going to count peoples votes because you are unhappy with the date the states these folks live in decide to hold a primary! THAT IS ABSURD! it is also UNCONSTITUTIONAL!

I would SUE the HELL out of the DNC if they did not count my vote.

I say lets take this one to the U.S.Supreme Court. NO JUDGE would even consider such blasphemy to the constitution.

Anyone who agrees with this just because they want their candidate to "win" which is really not a win because you didnt count everybody, needs to know NOW that you are putting our rights on the LINE for someone who with his attitude about this shouldnt even be considered.

For Barack to even SUGGEST this would be okay is absolutely SCARY!

I dont give a DAMN what they agreed to! THat was not something that was really within their power to begin with! DO YOU ALL SEE THE PROBLEM HERE? Cause if you dont, you better start looking!

Allowing this to happen would allow them the right to take away ANYONES VOTE FOR ANY REASON!

LAWYER UP MICHIGAN AND FLORIDA and tell them that voting by mail B.S. they are trying to pull aint going to work! Its SUSPECT.

Pelosi is right on! How can Hillary support Obama after basing her entire campaign strategy against his ability to lead the country? And for Obama to run Hillary as VP? Certainly Pelosi isn't thinking this, but the notion of Hillary's self-serving strategy "at all cost" to ensure her Presidency is seriously daunting. (insert theme for Dead Presidents)

PEOPLE ARE LOOKING AT PRIMARIES. GENERAL ELECTIONS ARE VERY DIFFERENT FROM PRIMARIES. PEOPLE GET FIRED UP OVER THIER CHOICE OF DEMS AND REPS TO RUN IT THE GENERAL ELECTION. ONCE THE GENERAL ELECTION BEGINS AND THE MUD FILES AND POLICIES AND VOTING HISTORIES ARE EXAMINED ON BOTH SIDES - THE VOTES CHANGE. WE CAN NOT BASE OUR PROJECTION ON HOW THE GENERAL ELECTION WILL PLAY OUT.

JUST REMEMBER IN STATES LIKE UTAH WHERE THE TURNOUT OF VOTERS WAS ONLY A VERY SMALL PERCENT OF REGISTERED VOTERS. HISTORY TELLS US THAT A HIGHER PERCENTAGE OF REGISTERED VOTERS TURN OUT FOR A GENERAL ELECTION THEN THEY DO FOR PRIMARIES.

By the way do a little research, the caucuses have hardly brought out any voters compared to the primaries. Caucuses disenfranchise shift workers, the elderly and disabled. The numbers in primaries are never the same as the general elections.

The red states will still be red states....Kansas will remain that way. The small numbers that attended caucuses in KS are not the same as the numbers that turn out in the GE.

Every time I have voted here in KS in a presidential GE the lines are enormously long not so with the caucuses. I have literally had to wait more than an hour almost 2 hours.

Funny you should mention Kansas. Greg Orman who was challenging Senator Pat Roberts for his seat said on February 18, 2008, that he was withdrawing his candidacy for Democratic contender because he could not give his whole heart to it.

There was one Democrat who challenged Rep Todd Tiahrt (R-KS) a few years ago. Carlos Nolla. I volunteered in his campaign as a "veterans issues" advisor. He made some dumb remarks to the Vietnamese voting block in Wichita, KS and lost all the veterans votes mine included.

Unfortunately there just are not any real serious Democratic contenders in Kansas...I doubt there will be any time soon!

Hillary's Record in Northern Ireland:

Statement from John Hume former MP MEP, founder of the SDLP and an architect of the Good Friday Agreement. He is the only person to win the Nobel Prize for Peace, the Ghandi Peace Award and the Martin Luther King Peace Prize.

“I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as First Lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland.

She visited Northern Ireland, met with very many people and gave very decisive support to the peace process. There is no doubt that the people of Northern Ireland think very positively of Hillary Clinton’s support for our peace process, due to her visits to Northern Ireland and her meetings with so many people. In private she made countless calls and contacts, speaking to leaders and opinion makers on all sides, urging them to keep moving forward.

Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active and positive approach to Northern Ireland and speak with the people of Northern Ireland who have the highest regard for her and are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process.”

When Mondale ran as a Democrat against Bush Sr., he was 20 points ahead in national polls leading up the election for months.

He lost badly.

What does that mean?

Things can change.

Hillary as little miss hyperbole,

Of Ferraro's comment, Hillary Clinton told her audience: "I certainly do repudiate it and I regret deeply that it was said. Obviously she doesn't speak for the campaign, she doesn't speak for any of my positions, and she has resigned from being a member of my very large finance committee."

Very large as in larger than that of Barack Obama? I don't think so. sort of goes along with:
"I was named for Sir Edmond Hillary."
"Chelsea was right by the Twin towers on 9/11."
"I won Michigan and Florida."
"I was responsible for Peace in Northern Ireland."
and the list goes on and on and on.....

Truth, You said, "Don't you think youself is silly enough to compare the votes between Dems and Reps primaries???

Majority of Reps has not gone out to vote yet in their primary!!!"

Oh, I see. So in other words, you are saying that only the Democrats that voted in the Primary get to vote in the election??????????????????

Funny thing is, in 73 years, I have never voted in a Primary, and have missed only 2 Elections in that time frame. I am going to vote in this Primary, because I remember only too well the disaster of the last Clinton Presidency, and what it cost this Country, and the Democratic party.

Nancy Pelosi is responsible for the dem party maintaining its majority in congress

Of course she has to back Obama as he is the better chance for the party at the top of the ticket

It is difficult to understand how Sen Clinton could think she would be the leader of the democratic party with her actions and words as she tries to steal the nomination through super delegates as even her campaign admits she will not win more states, pledged delegates or popular votes

what else can this be called

If the liberal wing of the Democratic party continue to scorn and diss Hillary as they appear to bhe doing, I will never vote for any Democrat again.

We were all brought up to believe that the best qualified person be hired for a job. It seems the liberal wing is conspiring against the Clintons. This is a real shame. I suspect there will be a backlash by women around the country if the media and the liberal wing continue this uncautionable manuvre to defeat Hillary.

It has been an unfair election. HRC had to run against the liberal wing of his party, the media, and Obama.

It is outrageous.

If the liberal wing of the Democratic party continue to scorn and diss Hillary as they appear to bhe doing, I will never vote for any Democrat again.

We were all brought up to believe that the best qualified person be hired for a job. It seems the liberal wing is conspiring against the Clintons. This is a real shame. I suspect there will be a backlash by women around the country if the media and the liberal wing continue this uncautionable manuvre to defeat Hillary.

It has been an unfair election. HRC had to run against the liberal wing of his party, the media, and Obama.

It is outrageous.

Looks like Obama just beats him period. A vote is a vote, is a vote. Who cares what color the voter is, or how old the voter is or what party the voter belongs to?

--------------- Obama ----- Mccain
Virginia ----- 623,141 --- 244,135
Colorado ------ 79,344 ---- 10,621
Minnesota ---- 141,527 ---- 13,822
Wisconsin ---- 645,554 --- 224,226
Michigan -------Dems haven't voted.
Missouri ----- 405,284 --- 194,304
Iowa - Caucus No vote totals available.

Here are a few more.
Texas ------ 1,358,785 -- 709,431
Ohio ---------- 979,025 -- 636,256
California -- 1,737,807 -- 994,262
Kansas --------- 27,172 ---- 4,587

In fact, in 31 States Obama has won a much larger popular vote than McCain.

Don't you think youself is silly enough to compare the votes between Dems and Reps primaries???

Majority of Reps has not gone out to vote yet in their primary!!!

Thanks Will!

Truth said, "Can some one explain how Obama can beat McCain on those states: Black votes?? Independent votes?? Younger votes??

Looks like Obama just beats him period. A vote is a vote, is a vote. Who cares what color the voter is, or how old the voter is or what party the voter belongs to?

--------------- Obama ----- Mccain
Virginia ----- 623,141 --- 244,135
Colorado ------ 79,344 ---- 10,621
Minnesota ---- 141,527 ---- 13,822
Wisconsin ---- 645,554 --- 224,226
Michigan -------Dems haven't voted.
Missouri ----- 405,284 --- 194,304
Iowa - Caucus No vote totals available.

Here are a few more.
Texas ------ 1,358,785 -- 709,431
Ohio ---------- 979,025 -- 636,256
California -- 1,737,807 -- 994,262
Kansas --------- 27,172 ---- 4,587

In fact, in 31 States Obama has won a much larger popular vote than McCain.

I would like to quote a genius that posted on this board...

"When we talk about the division along racial lines, this isn't something exclusive to blacks...or whites. We all, naturally, align ourselves with people who are similar to ourselves. Evangelicals choose the Huckabee's of the world, Utah's Mormons rallied to support Romney. Hispanics love and support Bill Richardson in staggering numbers. Black people, overall, have adored the Clintons (particularly Bill) and they courted this relationship extensively during his campaigning. Blacks supported him overwhelmingly as well.

We are inclined to support people who we feel are somewhat connected to ourselves, our thoughts, our beliefs. I do feel that Blacks have rallied to Barack...but so has affluential whites. To say that race is the only reason that he's doing well is offensive. Blacks make up an overall 12% or so of the voting public. If Barack had 95% of the black vote and 0% of the non-black vote, he wouldn't still be here."

bravo What.Say.Me... for being intelligent enough to make this observation. you must have been taught in a foreign education system.

One thing for sure: I would elect the person who runs the campaign well. "You are faithful in little things, so will you be my steward." Obama far exceeds in expectation running a superior campaign in comparison to the so-called experience candidate Hillary. 35 years of experience is no good folks. It teaches you nothing if you have a stubborn and secretive nature. Hillary will continue to be a loser.

geevill: If Greg Craig and Susan Rice (not Suzanne) are incompetent, why did Bill Clinton have both of them in his adminstration? Because he was too "inexperienced" to chose good advisors? Rice served for several years in the Clinton administration - her last position was as United States Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs (4 years).

I had mentioned in an earlier post a great column yesterday's Oakland Tribune written by Pelosi's first campaign manager from 1987. I couldn't find it on the Trib's site, but you can find it on the author's site, his name is Clint Reilly.

The story is relevant to Pelosi's stance on the presidential race because it really shows her commitment to the party over any one individual. Worth a look.

Obama would love to keep the Ferraro comments going it stops people from looking at his past and his many non existant policies.It sells american short,we've come along way both woman and blacks.But still we have a presidential front runner who wants to meet with Raul Castro and south Koreas leader so hay playing the race card and keeping it going is a great way ta keep people from remembering his policies

Ryan...

BRAVO! CLAP, CLAP, CLAP! BRAVO! STANDING OVATION.....

"Can some one explain how Obama can beat McCain on those states: Black votes?? Independent votes?? Younger votes??"

Yes Truth, all of those. Plus changing demos in VA and CO. Both states will have Dem governors and senate delegations after this election. All the other states have been swing states in the last several elections and the Democratic Party has a lot of wind at its back. That's how they took Hastert's seat. VA and CO aren't going to vote for Clinton, though, because of her history. She got crushed by BHO in all of them, but especially in VA and CO. BHO will also out-raise McCain 3-1.

I wouldn't be surprised if BHO put some of the southern and plains states into play either. Especially if he takes Sibelius as veep. I expect him to take Kaine though, to really lock down VA.

The HISTORY of Naftagate.

'NAFTAgate' began with a remark from Harper's chief of staff on Feb. 26, 2006.

"He said someone from Hillary Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt. . . That someone called us and told us not to worry."

"Quite a few people heard it, and Obama was never mentioned" said one source in the room.

Ironically, *the day before the story hit American TV,* Brodie, told reporters questioning him on trade that "someone from (Hillary) Clinton's campaign is telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.

The content of Mr. Brodie's remarks was passed on to CTV's Washington bureau and their White House correspondent set out the next day to pursue the story on Ms. Clinton's apparent hypocrisy on the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Although CTV correspondent Tom Clark mentioned Ms. Clinton in passing, the focus of his story was on assurances from the Obama camp. (WOW! Just like the parlor game, 'Gossip'.)

As Matt Wallace writes in the Daily Kos, "this scandal was manufactured out of whole cloth. Goolsbee said something consistent with Obama's official position -- that he wanted protections added, but it wasn't going to be a fundamental change or revocation of NAFTA. This was morphed somewhat going into the memo, and now the embassy admits they ""may have misrepresented the Obama advisor."" (Should have omitted the 'may have') Even after the memo misrepresented Obama, the Harper government took it a step further and then leaked a completely fantastic version of the story to the press on March 3rd, (ONE DAY BEFORE the Ohio Primary), in order to maximize the bloodletting."

The Harper government has now apologized for any interference in an American political campaign, but the damage is done, and except for Keith Olbermann, the mainstream media continues to accept Clinton's framing.

They also accept the idiotic notion that Hellary won Ohio because of the Red phone ad. For crying out loud, there was NON-STOP, AD NAUSEUM, coverage of that 'LEAK' all day Monday the 3rd, from every single TV outlet. Even the usually fair Chris Matthews, and Tim Russert, got into the act, but did add the disclaimer, (in only ONE segment), that Harper's Government had an interest in seeing Hillary elected.

In fact, the media had bought the original CTV story of Feb 28th, hook line and sinker and passed it on to a gullible American public with their 'opinion' that it was true, and the US Media had been blaring that version all weekend long.

So much for the 'late deciders' being convinced by the 'red phone'.

I don't know about all of this "endorsement" talk. I think it's a little speculative even though it may well happen. I think that people who have known Pelosi over the years know that she's a "party first" type of Democratic leader and she doesn't want to see someone's blind ambition tear it apart. For Pelosi, it's always bigger than any one person, including herself.

There was a great column in the Oakland Tribune yesterday written by Pelosi's first campaign manager from 1987. It's candid and interesting, and it shows how her performance in that campaign foreshadowed her rise to Speaker. Worth a look. I found it online too at the columnist's site

Ryan,

you forgot to mention Obama is also surrounded by incompentent advisers. Greg Craig, Power, Suzanne Rice,

the way Hillary Clinton run her campaign is like my nephew's room in a new house, dirty, messy, clothes all over, oh yea, smelly too.

I find it very frustrating that the media has not only determined, but pushed Barack Obama’s success.

Unfortunately, most Americans would rather attend a sermon or a rock concert than do a bit of research. This is why we have such a terrible global IQ.

Any time that I read about Barack Obama, I am reminded of Heart of Darkness. Conrad noted that buzz worthy character Kurtz was just a voice.

Barack Obama is just a voice as well, one of those charismatic sorts with more glitz than substance, more words than answers.

Smug smile. Glib answers. Hollow or non existent policies. Bush III.

To this independent voter, if Obama is the Democratic candidate, that means a McCain vote in November.

As a young Ivy League educated African American woman (prime fodder for Barack Obama--sorry Mr. Obama, I have a brain and I use it), I will analyze, and deconstruct, and that means I will not vote for you if you are the Democratic candidate in November.

I will either not vote, or cast my vote for John McCain like so many of my educated sisters.

Why is she a fool. Obama is a stronger candidate in those "red" states. It has proven itself every time. Perhaps Ohio and Florida don't have to be the swing states in 2008. Plus, we seem to forget that the republican party is damaged by the war in Iraq. And as it comes out little by little we will all finally see how the current administration and the republican commerades tricked the American people into a war that we were never meant to win. Our soldiers have been brave and it is time to take them home. That should be at the top of our next presidents list and I trust the man who saw through the BS to begin with

Jay,

I don't think it's irreversible. But, Ms. Pelosi's comments certainly were not helpful. Obama's going to get some pretty negative press as the Rezko story unfolds. We'll see how he holds up. I suspect not well. I think we will see many a skeleton fall from the closet. Then Hillary's offer might not look so bad.

Jay,
The Democrats have been getting back many Reagan Democrats starting with 1992. This will be lost if they nominate the leftwing peacenik candidate Barack Obama over the moderate candidate Clinton. Another McGovern/Dukakis disaster.

I am one of those voters who will go with McCain if the far left prevails.

I truly believe the democratic party is irreversibly shattered for this election. With the Florida and Michigan debacle, the 50/50 split with Obama and Clinton. The party is weakened beyond repair. All the Repubs have to do is get a young , strong vice-president on McCains ticket and swiftboat Obama ( which will be easy) and they will win this election in a landslide.

Joris/Siroj

I don't think your exactly the image Obama is trying to project. It's your style of mean spirited comments that make people run from your candidate.

Now, let's get back to Ms. Pelosi and why the Dems have gotten themselves into this mess.

Jeff -

In fact, all your posts are excellent!

Can some one explain how Obama can beat McCain on those states: Black votes?? Independent votes?? Younger votes??

Virginia
Colorado
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Missouri
Iowa

Jeff -
Interesting information about Hillary's earmarks going to people for their support. Our tax dollars at work.

Jay,
Such a naive lil grasshoppa.....
I know, you're worse off than you were 8 years ago and you want to keep it that way. For starters, you need to Go Decaf on Rush grasshoppa. May I suggest some NPR and a little Lawrence Welk to calm your nerves? Afraid of everything, you say?

Tell Daddy what's on your mind.

I am an optimist, but also a realist. Obama will raise our taxes by trillions of dollars to implement his spending programs. There is no free ride when you have a socialist agenda. Someone is going to have to pay the bill, and that someone is the middle class workers of this country. Mr. Obama's tax and spend programs are not new and about the future at all. They will leave this country more broken and farther in debt than ever. If Obama is elected, God help us all.

Obama will win at least the following swing states in the general:

Virginia
Colorado
Minnesota
Wisconsin
Michigan
Missouri
Iowa

As a coincidence, he won all of those states in primaries or caucuses. That equals an easy general election win for him. Clinton is a lot less likely to win Virginia and Colorado, so will have to win Ohio and Florida. That is going to be a lot harder for her to do.

When we talk about the division along racial lines, this isn't something exclusive to blacks...or whites. We all, naturally, align ourselves with people who are similar to ourselves. Evangelicals choose the Huckabee's of the world, Utah's Mormons rallied to support Romney. Hispanics love and support Bill Richardson in staggering numbers. Black people, overall, have adored the Clintons (particularly Bill) and they courted this relationship extensively during his campaigning. Blacks supported him overwhelmingly as well.

We are inclined to support people who we feel are somewhat connected to ourselves, our thoughts, our beliefs. I do feel that Blacks have rallied to Barack...but so has affluential whites. To say that race is the only reason that he's doing well is offensive. Blacks make up an overall 12% or so of the voting public. If Barack had 95% of the black vote and 0% of the non-black vote, he wouldn't still be here.

Joris...Pumpkin, please calm down. Let's talk about what a bonehead Ms. Pelosi is, shall we?

I agree with Joris. President McCain is a huge optimist. Meanwhile, after the general, Obama will slither back to Chicago, and hopefully learn SOMETHING in the next 4 years back in the Senate.

SADSTATEOFAFFAIRS
Your name fits well.

pes·si·mist–noun 1. a person who habitually sees or anticipates the worst or is disposed to be gloomy.

That's ok. Things will soon be better in January an optimist at the helm.

OBAMA 08

SADSTATEOFAFFAIRS
You're not the only one on this blog Sadster. Additionally, if you can't take a response to your hilariously pessimistic entries, I suggest you go to the Disney site and just look at the illustrations.

BTW....If your vote is based on how someone else supports another candidate, then you're more gullible than I thought. C'mon, you're capable of critically thinking out a situation and applying the best information available to determine an answer, correct? Maybe not?

Truth,

Agreed!

Joris......insulting one's intelligence and slinging insults is exactly why so many do not support your candidate. He simply brings out the worst in people. Really, don't take it personally....

Each candidate try all their best to convince American he or she is the best to lead the country....

As I mentioned, politics is a dirty Art and Science... People can and will lie but... don'tget caught, otherwise, it is called "political correct"...

The democratic party is on a deep left swing right now. That is why they do not like the Clintons because they are Hawks. The Clintons should leave the democratic party and let them pass out flowers and peace signs. Pelosi and Claire Mcaskil are traitors. They do not believe that a woman can lead. They are peace activists and will only wake up when al-qaeda strikes our shores on their watch!

I just want to quote Rodney King and say "Why can't we just get along?" While I realize this is a heated debate, I think the most important thing is that we take the White House away from George Bush and the Republicans. Let's face it, both of our very awesome candidates have some real problems!! While Barack is ahead, he has yet to win a majority of democratic, large, stronghold states, with the exception of Illinois (his homestate). And we all know that the Clintons have alienated Blacks and many highly educated liberals. Both dedicated democratic voters. Now, I'm not suggesting the "dream ticket", but I think we need to do some quick thinking so that we can figure out who can win the election in the fall!! We need Barack's black voters and "latte drinking" dems, as well as Hillary's middle class, blue collar, rural voters!! I want to stop the fighting and take this thing in the general election!!! Let's come together people. Remember, these two candidates are virtually in a statistical dead heat, even if Barack wins. The party is split down the middle!!

For both fans, you should list the strategy or strength how your dems candidate can beat McCain in Nov...

1. Ohama: strength and weakness
2. Hillary: strength and weakness
3. McCain: strength and weakness

People need to carefully study the contrast and advantage/dis-advantage from each candidate and give you a rational conclusion... Emotion sometimes will blind your rationality..

Yup. Al Gore was the WINNER too!

SADSTATEOFAFFAIRS<
You're such a pessimist. At the end of the campaign window, Barack Obama will have the most delegates and the most in vote count. A first grader could see that if shown on a piece of paper

Ultimately, he will be selected by the DNC as the presidential nominee. Meaning???

THE WINNER.
Any ambiguity with clear wording?

Deirdre

2025. That's the number of delegates needed to WIN the nomination. If no candidate reaches THAT number, than there is NO winner. Simple....really.

Up to the supers to decide who is best fit to lead.

I wish the Clinton supporters would take a look at the popular vote counts again and see that she can't catch up there either.

If we include the Florida result, a big Hillary win, Obama still leads the popular vote: + 407.390

He even leads when we add the Michigan votes for Hillary. A recount wouldn't help her at all (and may hurt her even more in the delegate count, for the recent Michigan poll showed a tie).

I wish some clear reasoning would start doing its work among Clinton supporters. She is losing this race, if you like it or not. Difficult to accept, no doubt, after all the invested energy and emotions, but time has come to fix our attention to the greater cause: the Democratic agenda for the USA in the eight years to come. Both Hillary and Barack agree that that is where this election year is all about.

The individuals who say they'll vote for McCain if Hillary is out apparently never understood nor valued her political struggles and proposals in the first place. They don't even deserve to be Clinton supporters or Democrats for that matter.

Again, every one in this world knows the politics is dirty but people can live with it as long as it is legally clean... If some one forgets it, he/she must be too naive in politics...

American politics is called democracy - balance of powers... power from left side, right side, and in the middle, concervative and liberal...

Some people vote for war, some people are against war...Some ones are anti-abortion but some ones insist women's right...

All the issues are up to who will get the majority of voice of people.... It is democracy...

Let all the voices out and let people decide....

Lou-

Actually after the Democratic leadership performs an intervention and gets Hillary's crack pipe away from her, I think Hillary supporters and a majority of the country will realize that Obama is a better candidate and would be a better President than McCain because the country does not want to stay in Iraq for 100 years and continue the disastrous policies of the Bush/Cheney Administration.

It is a real good fight between fans from two candidates: fight for who will be the worse or worst candidate in American history....It only benefits your ultimate rival - Rep... They are just sitting down and watching how silly your Dems are...

Please stay on issues, draw the constrasts between yourself and Reps and show your strongest strength and let American people judge who is the best....

No one is clean in American politics....

Rezkobama - It is already too late. Senator Clinton can not catch up. It's simple math and I believe it was a Clinton satffer who said "it's about the delegates", so this nonsense about big states and popular vote are more smoke screens to try to change the outcome. Everyone need to play by the rules or let the revolt begin.

Hillary spent all of her legal career in Little Rock working for an all-white coporate law firm representing big business and corporations. To this day, it has no non-white lawyers. Her supposed 35 years of public service just is not true. While she took a job out of law school with the Childrens Legal defense Fund, she stayed less than a year to sell out and become a corporate lawyer and a woman who spent most of her time fighting for the interests of Walmart.

Hillary has the experience on day one?

Please explain how someone who is ready "on day one" didn't plan for the election to go past 2/5?

Read the Washington Post's story on the chaos in Hillary's campaign, and explain to me how a person who can't get her campaign to agree on anything is ready for day one.

Please explain how a candidate who didn't know she was broke until she was broke is ready on day one?

Please explain how a candidate who didn't know the rules of the Texas Primary/Caucus until one week before the contest is ready on day one.

Please explain how a candidate who thinks it is an acceptable strategy to poach her opponents pledged delegates is ready for day one.

If they way she has run her campaign is any indication of how she would govern if she were elected, looks like more "Your doing a great job Brownie" incompetence to me.

Hillary Clinton is anything but ready.

During Bill Clinton's testimony where he lied under oath resulting in his impeachment, he uttered the famous line, "Well, it depends on what the meaning of the word "is" is.

LA TIMES - To fuel her rise, Clinton has relied on the controversial funding device known as "earmarking." The earmarks enabled her to win favor with important constituents, many of whom provided financial support for her campaigns. . . Since taking office in 2001, Clinton has delivered $500 million worth of earmarks that have specifically benefited 59 corporations. About 64% of those corporations provided funds to her campaigns through donations made by employees, executives, board members or lobbyists, a review by the Los Angeles Times shows.

irma,

you might want to study the details of the Mississippi results again.

Yesterday, in the Mississippi primary, 24% of Hillary Clinton's support came from Republicans. Unlike the Republican support generated by Barack Obama, according to exit polling data, Clinton's Republican support appears to be part of the explicit plan promoted by radio talk show host Rush Limbaugh to wreak havoc upon the Democratic Party by voting for Hillary, for it involves Republicans who voted for Clinton but said they like McCain and don't like Clinton; they would never vote for her in the GE.

Interesting, don't you think?

HRC'S 1994 HEALTH CARE PLAN, according to one account, included fines of up to $5,000 for refusing to join the government-mandated health plan, $5,000 for failing to pay premiums on time, 15 years to doctors who received "anything of value" in exchange for helping patients short-circuit the bureaucracy, $10,000 a day for faulty physician paperwork, $50,000 for unauthorized patient treatment, and $100,000 a day for drug companies that messed up federal filings.

In Feb 2008 on ABC's "This Week," Hillary Clinton said regarding forcing people to buy her government health plan, "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages."

IN AUGUST 2000, Hillary Clinton held a huge Hollywood fundraiser for her Senate campaign. It was very successful. The only problem was that, by a long shot, she didn't report all the money contributed: $800K by the US government's ultimate count in a settlement and $2 million according to the key contributor and convicted con Peter Paul. This is, in election law, the moral equivalent of not reporting a similar amount on your income tax. It is a form of fraud. Hillary Clinton's defense is that she didn't know about it

In February 2007, Sen. Clinton was out front in condemning DP World, a Dubai government-owned company seeking to take over key operations at American ports. But, at the same time, Bill was advising the the emir of Dubai, Sheik Mohammed Bin Rashid Al Maktoum, to hire his former press secretary, Joe Lockhart, to get the deal approved. Back then, Lockhart denied working for the emir. And when Bill's role became public, Hillary claimed that she had no idea that he had any involvement in the DP World issue. Now, it turns out that the emir's Dubai International Capital Corp. hired Lockhart's company, Glover Park Group, in April 2007 to help with another U.S. deal - a takeover of two defense firms. The relationship between the Clintons and the emir has long been too close to avoid scrutiny.

Something is driving up Bill and Hillary's net worth pretty dramatically. In 2003, Sen. Clinton disclosed assets of at least $352,000 but less than $3.8 million. By 2005, she was declaring assets in the $10 million to $50 million range.

Where is this money coming from?

Why have the Clintons not released their tax returns since he left office?

Pelosi is a jealous woman. She wants to keep the limelight on herself so Hillary doesn't still her thunder when Hillary is our Commander in Chief...lol !!! She is supporting Obama and I would prefer she just say so instead of implying she is neutral.

Jeff, there are more DEMOCRATS supporting Hillary. We're supposed to give up our rights to a DEMOCRATIC nominee because REPUBLICANS have helped Obama's numbers in our open primaries? Please. You can't bully out the bigger half of the party Obama wants to represent.

I know Pelosi's daughter is openly an Obama supporter. I think Pelosi is as well. Especially since she sounds defensive about the McCain having more experience comment. Why didn't she sound defensive when Obama said Hillary was only First Lady? Or when he stated Hillary was politics as usual while he had a Kennedy and Kerry and Axelrod in his camp? Why doesn't Obama prove the lack of experience comment wrong; Just as Hillary put forth all of her experience everytime it's questioned?

Even though the New York Giants scored more points than the New England Patriots in the recent Super Bowl, we should designate the Patriots as the winner.

Does that sound absurd?

That's exactly what the Clintons and their supporters are proposing with respect to the Democratic nomination.

The Clintons and their spporters claim that the race is essentially tied even though they are behind in pledged delegates and there is no plausible scenario where they can catchup without pilfering Obama delegates.

The Clintons and their supporters claim that the states that they have won are worth more than the states that Obama has won.

The Clintons and their supporters believe that the rules don't apply to the Clintons, and that they deserve special treatment. If they can't win by the rules then they have no ethics, morals, character, or integrity from preventing them from breaking the rules to win.

The Clintons and their suporters are attempting to make the case that she is somehow more deserving of the nomination even though she has received less votes, won less delegates, and won fewer states.

If the New England Patriots and their supporters tried to make the case the Super Bowl was essentially a tie even though the score was 17-14; the Patriots touchdowns for some reason should be worth more; the rules did not apply to them so they should get more points even though they did not earn them; and the Patriots are more deserving of the Super Bowl, there would be a public outcry and everyone would think that argument is completely ridiculous