Political Punch

I am supporting Hillary Clinton all the way to the convention. She is the strongest candidate of either party. Hillary will be the best President. Vote your convictions! The only vote that is wasted is the vote that is not cast.

a lot of talk about Florida below there is an interesting delimma here the Dems accusations were that not all the votes were counted in 2000 (even thou they were) but know in 2008 they do not want all the votes counted they do not want Florida counted or MI, and as stated Gore could of asked for a full recount but did not want too in 2000 because he knew he lost!

So the Dem/Libs have proven that they do not want to count votes, that they use the race or genda card, that they are elitist and do not care about anything but power in 2008!! Facts are Facts!!

James Danley,

Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.

Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 10:37:43 AM
___________________

While I have not practiced before the US Supreme Court, I have handled a myriad of cases dealing with Constitutional issues, several of which are usually can be Googled, because they were cases of first impression. The cases were before the 2nd Appellate District, California Court of Appeals.

While the 3 rejections were basically along party lines, only two of the last 16 confirmations (Thomas & Alito) could be characterized as being basically along party lines.

Posted by: James Danley | May 18, 2008 12:37:15
__________________

By "along party lines, I meant, which I thought would normally be interpreted to mean that the party in control, i.e., over 60 seats in the senate, would usually control the final vote.

Rhbate, sorry another correction! You wrote: "Usually the final vote (for a Supreme Court nominee) is along party lines."

"Usually" is too strong a word. Here are the votes for the nominees from the Johnson Administration to the present:

Abe Fortas -- Confirmed by voice vote (Aug 11, 1965)
Thurgood Marshall -- Confirmed 69-11 (Aug 30, 1967)
Warren Burger -- Confirmed 74-3 (Jun 9, 1969)
Clement Haynsworth, Jr. -- Rejected 45-55 (Nov 21, 1969)
G. Harrold Caswell -- Rejected 45-51 (Apr 8, 1970)
Harry Blackmun -- Confirmed 94-0 (May 12, 1970)
Lewis Powell, Jr. -- Confirmed 89-1 (Dec 6, 1971)
William Rehnquist -- Confirmed 68-26 (Dec 10, 1971)
John Paul Stevens -- Confirmed 98-0 (Dec 17, 1975)
Sandra Day O'Connor -- Confirmed 99-0 (Sep 21, 1981)
Antonin Scalia -- Confirmed 98-0 (Sep 17 1986)
Robert Bork -- Rejected 42-58 (Oct 23, 1987)
Anthony Kennedy -- Confirmed 97-0 (Feb 3, 1988)
David Souter -- Confirmed 90-9 (Oct 2, 1990)
Clarence Thomas -- Confirmed 52-48 (Oct 13, 1991)
Ruth Bader Ginsburg -- Confirmed 96-3 (Aug 3, 1993)
Stephen Breyer -- Confirmed 87-9 (Jul 29, 1994)
John Roberts, Jr. -- Confirmed 78-22 (Sep 29, 2005)
Samuel Alito, Jr. -- Confirmed 58-42 (Jan 31, 2006)

While the 3 rejections were basically along party lines, only two of the last 16 confirmations (Thomas & Alito) could be characterized as being basically along party lines.

Will you please stop attempting to guide the nominations. Perhaps the question should be, could Obama force his way on the ticket?

James Danley,

Thank you for your clarifications in response to rhbate. You saved me time and effort.

Go Hillary 2008, if not then McCain

Some people will cast their vote for President of the United States based on a candidate's personality, charm and charisma (or against for lack thereof); some will likely cast their vote based on a candidate's perceived intellect; some will likely cast their vote based on party affiliation; some will likely cast their vote based on gender (either for or against); some will likely cast their vote based on race (either for or against); many will cast their vote based on a single issue or multiple issues. Every American citizen has the right to vote the way they want based on whatever criteria they choose -- even if by flipping a coin.

I am a fiscal and social conservative Republican. I will vote for Sen. McCain because he best represents my views. I, personally, would hate to see our country do away with our "ownership society" and replace Capitalism and the Free Market with wealth redistribution and additional entitlements. But I respect those who have differing views. Freedom of Speech and the right to express one's opinions is one of our greatest assets. God bless the United States of America.

Talk about bias. I happened to read a negative article about the Clintons in the New Republic and they had underneath their ad, a big one with BO image on top, and beneath a small ad "Bill legacy" by New York Times. I went to NY Times and found big articles about the Clintons.
Fortunately, in their comments column, all the Hillary supporters bring more than blind support, but facts to respond some false accusations. One'd better get informed so not to fall under the anti-Clinto propaganda.

Rhbate, you wrote: "The Court only decides the Constitutionality of laws, nothing more, nothing less."

Actually that is not the case. The first paragraph of Article III, Section 2 of the US Constitution states: "The judicial Power shall extend to all Cases, in Law and Equity, arising under this Constitution, the Laws of the United States, and Treaties made, or which shall be made, under their Authority;--to all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls;--to all Cases of admiralty and maritime Jurisdiction;--to Controversies to which the United States shall be a Party;--to Controversies between two or more States;-- between a State and Citizens of another State;--between Citizens of different States;--between Citizens of the same State claiming Lands under Grants of different States, and between a State, or the Citizens thereof, and foreign States, Citizens or Subjects."

Rhbate, you wrote: "...a supreme court composed of a majority of Democrats can do what it wants, just as the supreme court did when it "elected" Bush."

Actually it was the people of Florida who elected George W. Bush. You may not have heard, but several newspapers actually recounted the ballots and Bush still won the state of Florida in 2000. Now as for the actual decision, the US Supreme Court ruled that the Florida State Supreme Court errored when they allowed different methods of counting chads in different counties. The US Supreme Court also ruled that the full statewide recount could not be competed by the deadline that was imposed by Florida state law; that the Florida Supreme Court did not have the authority to change the law to extend the certification deadline.

Now then, it was Al Gore who tried to steal the election by cherry-picking a handful of overwhelmingly Democratic counties for recounting, instead of immediately asking for a statewide recount -- to which he was entitled.

Lisa:

There are a few pro-Hillary nuts out there attempting to convince you to vote for her. I am an California lawyer and I have attempted to lay out the facts for you. If you have any questions I will be more than glad to answer them for you, whether you are pro-Obama, pro-Hillary or pro-McCain.

The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to accept or reject the nomination.

Sorry, I left something out

If they agree on the nomination, the matter is then sent to the full Senate for approval or rejection. Usually the final vote is along party lines.

rhbate,

If you want a dependable, consistent pro-choice candidate, you need to support clinton, not Obama. Note my prior post.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 12:58:19 AM
________________

You're a dreamer. Hillary has as much chance of being elected as my dog. In fact, my dog's chances might be better.

"You also ignore the fact that Bork never got appointed." You only display your ignorance: no one is ever "appointed to the Supreme Court. The process is as follows: The president, whoever it is, nominates his choice, the matter is then sent to the senate judiciary committee. Usually there is a discussion and finally they decide whether to confirm the nomination or not.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 1:08:39 AM

rhbate and lisa,

You choose to demonize anyone who might be nominating a SC justice, except for Obama. Is Obama the only person you think capable of making the correct choice? That is just plain foolish. We have had so many fine justices appointed, none of whom have been nominated by Obama. Name a SC justice who is not compentent.

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 18, 2008 1:04:34 AM
_______________

I haven't demonized anyone; so don't make accusations out of thin air. And as far as Obama is concerned, the choice of who can be nominated to the supreme court is in the exclusive domain of the president, who ever that might be. Then what is required is the "advise and consent" of the senate.

rhbate and Lisa,

You also assume that abortion is the end all and be all of a voter's decision. It is not. People are concerned about the economy, gas prices, educational loans, two wars, foreclosure relief etc. Abortion is not a hot button issue that it once was and voters are not one trick ponies.

It's already borderline. It does not matter if the dems are in control in the house and senate, they will have to compromise with the pres just like they did with Bush. You are really fooling yourself if you think it won't happen.
----------

Nonsense. What is controlling is the make-up of the Senate Judiciary Committee. You can bet the Chair of that committee will be a Democratic. And if there are sufficient number of democrats on that committee they can practically do what they want, just as the Republicans have done in the past. Also, a supreme court composed of a majority of Democrats can do what it wants, just as the supreme court did when it "elected" Bush.

rhbate and lisa,

You choose to demonize anyone who might be nominating a SC justice, except for Obama. Is Obama the only person you think capable of making the correct choice? That is just plain foolish. We have had so many fine justices appointed, none of whom have been nominated by Obama. Name a SC justice who is not compentent.

rhbate,

If you want a dependable, consistent pro-choice candidate, you need to support clinton, not Obama. Note my prior post.

You are living in a dream world. Look at Obama's personal views on abortion. He is scary he is so "flexible."

You also ignore the fact that Bork never got appointed. He was eminently qualifed as to legal scholarship. Why did he not get appointed?? the Democratic senate, plain and simple.

No one is going to support Obama because of your scare tactics and further Obama is not even consistent in his approach to abortion. He does what is expedient and by his own admission in his own words is anti-abortion.

Support Clinton if you are pro-choice.

rhbate, I just don't understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don't just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.

Posted by: lisa | May 18, 2008 12:49:06 AM
__________________

Again, let me say that I agree with you completely. Someone posted you saying that it was implausible that a differently composed court would overturn Roe v. Wade. Total nonsense. Practically of the Southern states plus many others including Utah and Nevada.

Additionally, there are other problematic areas that would result in a significant set-back of liberal issues. So stick to your guns. If McCain was in a position to nominate judges to the supreme court you can bet they'll be imitations of Roberts, Scalia and Clarence Thomas.

"In the worst case scenario, and it is really implausible, Roe is overturned. That does not mean that abortion is constitutionally prohibited at all. All that means is that the state may then regulate if it so chooses."

Posted by: countallthevotes | May 17, 2008 11:19:39 PM
_________________

You are correct as far as you go, but there are quite a few states that would ban abortions if they had the opportunity. To name just a few, Utah, Alabama, Mississippi; in fact all of Southern states and quite a few others.

rhbate, I just don't understand how people can dismiss the Supreme Court so lightly. I don't just think of the next 4 years. I think of what will happen with a conservative Supreme Court. And it will happen with McCain.

Lisa:

Don't be fooled. I saw Obama's wife make a campaign speech and the subject of abortion rights came up. She said that, under no circumstances would her husband nominate any judge opposed to Roe v. Wade. She said that if she thought for one moment he would even think about overturning Roe v. Wade she would not be out campaigning on his behalf. Plus, she said (smiling) she would kick his butt if she thought it was the remotest possibility. I believe her.

countallthevotes I am not talking about Roe v Wade. I am talking about the Supreme Court in general. There are a lot of issues out there. I want more research on stem cells. And with a republican in the white house the court will turn conservative. It's already borderline. It does not matter if the dems are in control in the house and senate, they will have to compromise with the pres just like they did with Bush. You are really fooling yourself if you think it won't happen.

The Supreme Court is my biggest fear with a republican winning. I will vote for a dem no matter what.

Posted by: lisa | May 17, 2008 10:57:31 PM
________________

I think somehow we might have crossed our wires. The fact of the matter is that I am in complete agreement with you.

Lisa,

Do you know anything of the Supreme Court? Have you read any legal opinions? Did you know that about a third of those nominated have never been confirmed? Do you realize that we will have control of the Senate and that Bork will never happen?

Do you know Prof. Kmiec is on Obama's short list for the Supreme court and that he is definitely anti-abortion. Did you know that Prof. Kmiec recently endorsed Obama over McCain? Let me get you some statements of Obama and Kmiec:

For those unfamiliar wiht Prof. Kmiec, he is a noted legal scholar, and ardent Roman Catholic and definitely anti-abortion. He has the credentials and standing to become a serious nominee for the United States Supreme Court. Also, he is a member of the IL bar, and has written for the Chicago Tribune.
IN writing on Obama, Prof. Kmiec has quoted Obama's positon on abortion as:

As he [Obama] writes, “I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. I have to explain why abortion violates some principle that is accessible to people of all faiths, including those with no faith at all.”

Note, one COULD view Obama's personal position on abortion as influencing his "present" votes on a woman's right to choose while an IL state senator.

Prof. Kmiec also posits the following question/statement:
“[B]ut here’s the question: Does Obama’s thoughtful appreciation of faith mean that he would work toward the protection of life in all contexts even if that protection cannot be achieved in a single step? I am inclined to think so . . .”

Interesting endorsement, no matter how you read it.

countallthevotes, you have no idea what will happen with the Supreme Court. You seem to think that all will be fine. But you really don't know, none of us do. I'm not willing to take that chance. It is balanced right now for the most part but I think 2 will retire within the next term. It won't be balanced after that. So we will have them for life. You may be able to live with that but I can't.

JOdy Platt,

Hold your horses!! It ain't over by a long shot! Note, Kentucky and PR. Note, FL and MI. NOBAMA for me. it ain't over until the lady in the pants suit says it it.

Lisa,

We have been very fortunate with Supreme Court Justices nominated by Democratic and Republican presidents. Some deemed "conservative" often do surprise. Note, David Souter!! Even J. Scalia has heartened many a criminal defendant.

What we should be looking for is balance and outstanding legal scholarship. It is court, not a political party, you know.

Perhaps it would help if some of you understood the separation of powers clause in the United States Constitution and the limitations of the Executive vis a vis the Supreme Court. Then talk about Roe v. Wade. This is pathetic.

No president can set aside Roe v. Wade!! What planet are you from??

Roe v. Wade has been around a long time. There has been infinite opportunites to overturn it. It has not happened. The president can only nominate a person for the Supreme Court. The President cannot just appoint. Recall the Bork hearings. Recall what happened to Bork. The President nominates with the advice and consent of the senate. There are hearings. That is how it is done. President can only do this if there is a vacancy on the supreme court, as in when a SC justice dies or retires.

In the worst case scenario, and it is really implausible, Roe is overturned. That does not mean that abortion is constitutionally prohibited at all. All that means is that the state may then regulate if it so chooses.

Does anyone really think that, in this day and age, their state will prohibit abortions?? This is not the '60's. It will never happen.

Get a grip and stop trying to scare people into supporitng Obama. That is pathetic!!!

rhbate, it's not even about Roe v Wade. I keep asking this of Hillary supporters and I haven't received an answer yet. You can vote Obama out in 4 years but the Supreme Court justices are there until they retire. Even with a democratic congress they will eventually have to agree on a justice and look at who we got with Bush. And McCain said that he will appoint conservative judges. The Supreme Court is my biggest fear with a republican winning. I will vote for a dem no matter what.

DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS - TAKE NOTICE

-----------ROE v. WADE-----------

Two of the current justices of the United States Supreme Court will probably retire within the next four years. One is 75 and the other is 84. This will give the new president the ability to nominate two new justices. If McCain is elected you can be sure the new justices will be just like Roberts, Scalia and Thomas: willing to overturn ROE v. WADE. So think when you vote!!!

I am an avid Clinton supporter who has donated quite a bit to her campaign. I am quiet livid with the way the Democratic party leaders have acted but still realize that there is nothing worse then putting McCain in power. I wont let my ego or pride come before my country's interest. I will hold my nose and vote of BO in November.

She ran an ad in Oregon that's very nice. Of course she still runs as president. A blog commentator, said the problem is that in some people think the nomination is sealed and that they don't have to vote anymore.Spread words around that primaries are still held.

Hello!

The last time I looked, HILLARY was still running for President!

Even though the press has given her minimum "space" she IS making her candidacy known.

I would hope that she would never be the waterboy for B O because that would be a thankless spot for a brilliant woman.

Let him find someone else to clean up after all the boo boos BOBO will be making.

Meantime, she has my support and confidence!

Get to the real issues instead of your petty speculations about things that you don't know about. Get to think on your own and stop being robots repeating the arguments that take you nowhere. Can you BO supporters answer simple questions? Why your inspirational leader, advertises his own persona as if he is a godly creature? Why according to the DNC rules so many delegates are needed but none of them has reached the required number, and yet she has been asked to step down? Sure BO has the advantage but the race is so tight, so why not let all the voters have their say? Why the string of endorsements of Kerry and Mc Govern, Kennedy etc... supposedly help BO to attract voters to his side so he can seal the nomination didn't work out that way? Why you supporters repeat like robots the same words as your inspirational leader : fearmongering, divisive, words that he easily uses when he doesn't want to answer some questions. Why doesn't he want to debate anymore? Why you always project negative talk and speculations instead of doing real thinking and get to understand what is at stake in this election? Answer those questions and maybe you will get HC supporters to line up behind your messiah idol.

Spread the news:

The Hillary '08 or McCain '08 supporters have started;

Hillary should say screw you to Bill. He is the one who caused her the most harm - in previous years and in this election season.

I know a loto of people like the revenge vote idea of having Bill back in the Whitehouse.

I'd like to have the people in Silicon Valley who gave us the boom in the 1990s back. We have sold them all out to foreign interests through our bankrupt trade deals. Ask any kid if electrical engineering sounds like a good career.

I wish Hillary would say "Screw you" to Obama and all the jerks in Democratic Party that treated her like crap.

I know her political goals won't allow that. I won't be able to watch on the night she has to praise Obama at the convention.

But there is nothing even Hillary can say to change my opinion of Obama.

It's Hillary or McCain for me.

James Danley,

Obama has too many political debts to too many legal scholars. His nomination to the SC will be dictated by the "big boys" for sure, like Kennedy, Dodds, Richardson, Dascle, Dean, even Pelosi. Note, none of them are legal scholars and are any of them even lawyers?? Obama is a puppet; others pull the strings.

Countallthevotes, I agree that no one can promise an appointment to the United States Supreme Court. But you can promise to make someone your first nominee. As for enforcing such an agreement, technically you are correct. But there could be any number of nasty consequences for reneging on such a deal. Especially reneging on a deal involving the Clintons. As a senator, Sen. Clinton could block legislation and appointments. AND it would make a re-election run impossible for a President Obama.

No matter how one looks at it, Hillary is a lost cause at this point. I think our duty as citizens is to find good candidates and get behind them. Maybe the governor of Kansas is not the one for you, but I am sure if you look you will find ones that are qualified.

The old political machines - and yes the Clintons have a huge one - are putting forward candidates that will support all of their lobbyist/payoff pals. We need to get past that.

One line I heard the other day, "I do not want health insurance. I want health cares. Insurance companies keep me from getting care." No one is talking about - only insurance. We are also expecting science to save us - and we are not funding science and we have told all of the kids that we can get scientists from India or whereever - terrible thing to do to the kids.

A large part of the Obama vote is an anti-Hillary vote. If she was to get on the Obama ticket they would lose votes - not gain votes.

Look Hillary has less than 50% of the active Democratic votes - OK she does get a whopping revenge vote. 100% of the republican vote is anti-Hillary. Back of the envelope calculation is that 3/4h of America does not like her. I know that is difficult for a lot of Hillary supporters, but if one thinks about it, one can see the logic there.

Pelicano was just convicted for his diryt deed - mainly roughing up women for clients he represented in Hollywood. Remember that one of the Clinton bases is in Hollywood. Pelicano worked for the Clintons to handle their problems. It lloks like they are working to get Pelicano to role over on the Clintons - and expose how they systematically abused women. I do not thnk that will help the woman vote.

One can google Kathleen Sebelius. She has a business background and her husband is a federal magistrate judge. She is great - and a good candidate as opposed to some one who was manufactured for and by the media.

I love this "beware" crap. Do you think one could actually pay someone to read most of this sillyness.

Disambiguates,

You are funny!! It is precisely "the old boy groups" who are supporting Obama. That is obvious!! Kennedy, Daschle, Dodds, Richardson, Dean etc.

HRC is up against the "old boys group," don't you get it??

Read realpolitics.com. Obama still leads the popular vote even counting FL and MI. They are the source for these sorts of totals.

The point is that more people would have voted in both Michigan and Florida had the elections been "real". At this point it is pissing into the wind as it does not matter.

We have to move on to get some good people into the political arena. The old boy groups who currently have control have been keeping the good candidates out.

Hillary is smart enough to stay off the Obama ticket. He's sure to lose.

Beware of Obama's 400 "hired gun" bloggers.

Kathleen Sebelius is a very inspirational speaker. She is often called upon to provide opposition responses. She is so good that she is a Democrat in a red state. Take a look at her. She is the sort of candidate America needs - education, health care, economy. She has won the governor job twice.

By the way I am not affiliated with anyone. I would like to see some good candidates. A Teddy Roosevelt or FDR could not ge through the crap today because of the political machines at work.

I love this silly line about counting all of the votes. Look at realpolitics.com. If one counts all of the votes Obama is still ahead - even counting Michigan where 50 percent voted other to avoid voting for Clinton. Both Florida and Michigan turn outs were low as the voters knew it was not going to count. So I guess a count all of the votes movement only counts the votes that they like.

Hillary was a terrible candidate. She is a terrible speaker - yelling and ranting - and that silly stuff she does with her eyes and mouth. Never was qualified.

Disambiguates,

Who is Kathleen Sebelius? I listened carefully to her last speech and was not impressed at all. Do we know anything about her? Just curious. I know she is from a red state and probably has more political experience than Obama.

Update on Ted Kennedy:

He was transfered from the Cape Cod Hospital to Mass. General with symptoms of a stroke.

HoosierSue,

That is exactly what I learned last night. Obama hired 400 new paid bloggers to infiltrate these blogs. I did note new people and new ideas yesterday and today. These bloggers are not posting crazed ideas. Rather they are posting strategic tidbits.

I really do not like being manipulated. It won't work. NOBAMA, NO MATTER WHAT!!

Hillary as VP or even more ridiculous a Supreme court justice. She failed the Washington bar exam and has no real constitutional legal experience. Her candidacy was based on a revenge vote because of her husband's impeachment and a sympathy vote because he is a serail woman abuser. She hired Pellicano the detective who is now going to jail for other cases where he abused women to get them to desist. Nice group of folks these Clintons.

News Alert!

Breaking News Alert
The New York Times
Saturday, May 17, 2008 -- 12:01 PM ET
-----

Senator Edward M. Kennedy Is Hospitalized

Senator Edward M. Kennedy was rushed to a hospital on
Saturday morning in Cape Cod, where he was treated for a
serious - but unknown - illness. A senior Democratic
official, speaking on condition of anonymity out of respect
for the Kennedy family, said the senator was taken by
ambulance to the hospital after he became ill at the Kennedy
compound in Hyannisport, Mass.

Oh, and Obama can hire 400 x 1,000 paid bloggers to try and persuade me to vote for him. They won't negate the fact that we've been treated like scum by his supporters. Even his talking heads on cable have told us he can win without women and blue collar whites. Too late to kiss and make up now - besides the fact that nothing anyone says will make Obama fit to serve as POTUS.

geevill,

Rick, have you read the latest article in the London Times on Obamamania?? Fodder for discussion since it deals with media coverage.

Barack Obama: The Great Redeemer by Gerard Baker

Excerpt:

"The idolatry of Mr Obama is a shame, really. The Illinois senator is indeed, an unusually talented, inspiring and charismatic figure. His very ethnicity offers an exciting departure. But he is not a saint. He is a smart and eloquent man with a personal history that is startlingly shallow set against the scale of the office he seeks to hold. It is not only legitimate, but necessary, to scrutinise his past and infer what it might tell us about his beliefs, in the absence of the normal record of achievement expected in a presidential nominee.

If the past 40 years have taught us anything they have surely taught that premature canonisation is an almost certain guarantee of subsequent deep disappointment. "

I fully support Clinton and will never vote for an Obama/Clinton ticket. I know others who feel the same. We don't trust Obama and we don't think he's ready to be POTUS.

James Danley,

What a wonderful idea. HRC as a Supreme Court Justice might rally her supporters. In fact, that would be the only thing that might motivate me to support him. She is imminently qualifed. She has the academic credentials, having graduated from Yale Law School, when only 27 women were even admitted. She has legal scholarly work that has been highly acclaimed by her peers, that well precedes her tenure as First Lady. She has worked as an attorney on sophisticated issues, both public and private.

Hmmmmm!

Note also that Obama has been mentored, sponsored, groomed, supported, endorsed by Lawrence Tribe of Harvard Law School. He has always longed for a SC appointment. Though his age is against him, he has many other problems which would not bode well for an ultimate appointment.

There has also been talk that Obama might appoint Prof. Kmiec who is an arch conservative. Kmiec, to the amazement of people who know him, has endorsed Obama. Note, Kmiec is an ardent, traditional Roman Catholic who is anti-abortion. Kmiec himself has addressed the possibility of a SC appointment under Obama. He points to statements Obama has made that reveal that Obama has said that he is personally against abortion and that if he (Obama) were to oppose abortion legislatively he would have to do so on non-religious grounds.

Bottom line, no one can promise you the SC appointment. You need advice and consent of the Senate. Article II, Sect. 2. Further, there would be no way to enforse such an agreement by Obama and anyone else.

What it is? A sleazy underhanded campaign by those controlling Obama and his underlings against a clearly superior woman candidate. What is the problem in backing a woman to run as the DEM candidate? Why are these male dinosours so scared?. Because a woman would do a much better job that what's on offer (total inexperience) at this time.

Stay the race Senator Clinton and win?

Regular readers of this blog may recall that I have stated a number of times, over the past several months, that I felt that if Sen. Clinton were to win the nomination she would HAVE to select Sen. Obama as her running mate. But that if Sen. Obama wins the nomination he might select her, but that there is no way that she would accept being second -- she's been number two all her life. I still believe that! I also still believe that Gov. Bill Richardson is Sen. Obama's best selection for VP.

But, I now have a new theory. I emphasize a theory. Maybe Sen. Clinton really IS trying for leverage. But not to force Sen. Obama to select her for the VP slot. Instead, she may offer him her full support as long as he promises to select HER as his first nominee to the United States Supreme Court, should an opening occur.

fox news has reported that the Obama campaign has hired 400 new bloggers to sway hillary voters back to Obama. They were also told to cut down on the harsh critism of Hillary and her supporters. Thats all well and good, but I am not going to vote for Obama in Nov. no matter what these probloggers type.

To top it it was Ted Kennedy that really stuck out and shot down the Clinton VP idea along with a snide dig at her to boot. Nice Teddy. Real nice.

Shows who calls the shots on the Obama campaign really. Its better to have a popular junior senator whose moldable and in need of more support than someone who gets on with it and is a bit too independent maybe??

I'm really starting to hate the democrats. Also before Bo supporters go into overdrive, I know he voted against the war but in the previous post I'm talking about YOUR FANATICAL CAMPAIGNING NOT HIM.

I think Obama campaign has been incredibly divisive. I have listened to enthusiastic voters and at times their enthusiasm has crossed onto the verge of fanatical. Anyone who disagrees is not in the know.
Their attitude worries me and I can only liken it to the way everyone climbed behind the war and to speak out meant you were unpatriotic. People don't change.

There are issues such as race which rightly so are issues, but its a no win situation: against Obama = pro racism. He can't lose can he?

If he doesn't become president the bitterness will grow.

As for the democratic party. I hate the way Clinton has been used (and she has been) Obama fails the election= clintons fault. BS!!

The democratic party look like an old boys club. Ted Kennedy always despised the Clintons and wouldn't you coming from the original first family of the DP? But worse than that I can't help feel that Obama will be fine especially with all those elitist OLD white men behind him in the background.

My final point and the reason I really cannot stand this party any longer is that the party has made themselves divided. I think more than anything Clinton has done and they have leveled the dirt onto her; its your fault.

I think Hillary should not go for the VP there has been so many backhanders coming out of her party left right and center that I think what she should do is SOD the democratic party and form her own.

BO has been using the media machine to play the game of inevitable because from now on, it is all the way downhill no matter how hard he tries, he is still going to loss.

He is not a fighter. He has no stamina for a hard fought battle. He can't win. Therefore, he counts on the party leaders to use Maths rather than common sense.

Hillary will not settle for VP. She is on a mission that a VP will not fit in. Hillary is a big time player. Those have been belittling her would be disappointed.

BO can not make the difference even if he campaigns. He is counting on somebody to do his job. Very sly move.

The one who can tough out win the nomination. Hillary will last and win.
There is one life to live and only that much money that you can spend. The Clintons are on a mission to turn the country back to normal.

Edwards is the worst back-stabber. Hillary won the confidence of working class and the poor. BO stands for the affluent. He endorses BO in order to beat Hillary and inherit the support. His eyes blinks and rolls in his speech and he is not working for the poor anymore.

Hillary to the top or Independent.
Hillary can win in the Nov.

I have been a registered Democrat since 1983. I've never missed an election, large or small and never voted anything but a straight Democratic ticket, but if Barack Obama gets the nomination, my perfect record will come to an immediate end. I will not vote for this empty suit; this Republican in Democrat's clothing; this unqualified nobody with a portfolio of faked credentials courtesy of Emile Jones, near-endless cash bundled from a mountain of corporate interests and a mausoleum's-worth of skeletons dancing in his closet. I will not vote for a con artist who prattles on about "change" and "unity" all the while framing his opponent as a race-baiter and her supporters as racists; who not only condones, but engages in misogynistic displays and who actually thinks it's the height of wit to flip-off a presidential candidate on National TV. How very "presidential"! What's next for the GE? Mooning John McCain from the back seat of his limo? Let me make this clear: I never thought this day would come. I'VE been going to the polls come hell or high water. "I'VE been checking off that "D" on my ballot, even when I had to hold my nose to do it year-in, year-out. I'M YOUR BASE. And if I'VE had enough, YOU are in trouble. sweetie.

There are two levels of politics and in life. The low context and the high context.
The low context is about our daily life and how we cope with our own emotions and struggle for existence.
The high context is the ideas, the philosophy that shape the main guideline of our existence and life.
The Monica affair has to do with the low context level that is Bill's own problems. He said in the documentary that it happened because he had the opportunity and also because he was very angry at that time and very stressed by his job.
His conclusion : never let anger sit in your system, you end up doing things you wouldn't do otherwise.
Now Kennedy had many affairs in the White House, all the staff knew and didn't want to talk about it. His wife suffered in silence. By that she was able to deal with the high context level. She turned the White House into an elegant place, to express and embody the rich cultures of America.
Guess what, in history books that's all that remains. Like a big fresco or painting of humanity, the little details with be rounded up to the benefit of the main design.
No one will care about Bill affair, but his policy will be remained as something achieved during his terms as a president. Hillary conducted herself well during the scandal. What if the Republicans had done the same thing to Kennedy, I wonder how he and Jacky would have handled this.
Hillary was able to keep the high level context to save the White House. She was good.
About this election, precisely your BO is trying to carry the high context level by making believe he is a godly creature. "He will carry out great designs for America".
But some have investigated his background and discover his ties to his reverend Wright rather troublesome. He is all but projections of idealism. And that is wrong.
America has done good things and bad things. Like many of us and many countries themselves. If some americans want BO to be the redeemer, that's your right but this is an illusion.
According to my analysis, from a biological and psychological point of view, Hillary is the best choice. Why? America has had the position of superpower. In order to keep that position, it has got involved in world politics some times making wrong decisions because of lack of knowledge of the terrain (low context level).The Irak war may be an example. But trying to help build democracy there is not wrong. But the american people suffer from the war bill. So any president has to deal with this domestic concern.
Since globalization, economy has switched and we have gone from industrial capitalism to financial capitalism.Pressure is everywhere in every country except in rising economy like China or India. But their people have being living in misery so they still have far less than americans. America has to adapt itself to the new world map. It has been playing the politics of expansion, like an empire. Imagine you have been inhaling in all this time to expand your lungs and communicate with others through a dynamic way. It cannot last forever. It's now the time for relief and easing out. But you cannot just let all the air out in one shot, like expiring suddenly, you have to control your expiration. BO would be like expiring in one shot. Switching from expansion to just go around and deal with enemies as if they are harmless.No you have to control your change of regime.
Hillary, the way she had control during Bill's years and her capacity of having interests in other cultures make her a good profile. She fits more to the legacy of the american presidents. And if her supporters want to vote Mc Cain, it's because they don't trust at all BO. Mc Cain is a politician also but he has more to say than Bush. He is not all that liked by the republicans, because he is moderate. So is Hillary. That for her supporters to want to vote for Mc Cain in protest against the DNC can be explained.
Racism has been an issue in America. Things have improved. Go to Africa and you will agree with me.
But sexism has just come out of the dark room and now pointed at by Hillary supporters. Is this issue a low context or a high context level? Is a mid-context level I guess.Everyone has male and female qualities. Some people, like Hillary has a more complex combination of these qualities and the way she express them. People are not used to that kind of thinking.
Look at Merkel, the german Chancelier, she is very good for the country. Of course, a lot of sexist germans hate her. But she does a good job.
In the 21st century the gender issue has to be dealt with. Is America so behind that it resists progress?

I am waiting for the Pellicano connection with the Clintons to surface now that Pellicano has been convicted of racketeering and conspiracy in his PI role - roughing up women. The Clintons used him for keeping enemies at bay - Jennifer Flowers and others.

Hillary was a terrible candidate.

Paul -- you are contradicting yourself, and the record speaks for itself. You say that race and gender are not unimportant - but they magically have nothing to do with this election! Odd.

Paul said: "And the issues are not this color or that color, this collar or that collar, man or woman, or other divisive topic."