Frank--South Hampton

As we talk about LOSERS----It seems awful funny to me that HRC "went along to get along" when she was on Wal-Mart's (notoriously anti-union) board of directors. Now she is trying to court those same union votes in her bid for the Presidenct. I'd like to point out to you that there are more blue collar workers in the US that there are people in HRC's socio-demographic. How can you take the word of someone who flip-flops their position on things when it best suits them, or when it is "what is popular" at the time.

ladrema,
obama also stole this line, he is asking us to vote for his pal Patrick I guess since he uses all his good lines
this one is word for word...who are obamamaniacs voting for Patrick or Obama!? (from ABC)

Patrick in June 2006, at the Massachusetts Democratic party convention: "I am not asking anybody to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

Obama one year later, as quoted in USA Today: "I am not asking anyone to take a chance on me. I am asking you to take a chance on your own aspirations."

ANYONE ELSE BUT NOT HUSSEIN OBAMA'O8!

Michelle Obama today said that “for the first time in my adult lifetime, I am really proud of my country. And not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change. I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction.”

Michelle Obama — from the middle-class South Shore neighborhood of Chicago, Princeton 85, Harvard Law 88, associate at Sidley and Austin, and eventually a high-ranking official at the University of Chicago — WAS NOT proud of her country until her Hussein Jr started winning elections.

FOLKS think about it. Vote Hillary vote Mccain NOT THIS PHONEY.

Jason - " It takes a village" and "living History by Hillary Clinton" - and yes she aides in writing her speeches. If you don't like her that is fine but don't spew out misinformation..

Jim Rod: I respect your opinion and apologize for coming off a little brash.

I guess we can take them at their word -- for today...

Please DO NOT vote for Hillary Clinton:-- Hillary supported NAFTA in the 1990's. NAFTA is responsible for the USA losing hundreds of thousands of high paying jobs to companies over seas.-- Hillary voted for the war in Iraq without even reading the Intelligence Report. She said she trusted George W. Bush. Hillary lacks proper judgement. The war is costing us trillions of dollars.-- Hillary said at a debate on national TV that she is happy to take money from lobbyists. Hillary receives more money from lobbyists than just about any other US Senator. She is in their pockets. -- Hillary can never make up her mind. She changes positions based on public opinion and she is stubborn. She does not like to compomise or bend. That will mean trouble with congress on her part and stagnation for America.-- Hillary is running on her husband's record and name. Her "experience" has not been completed revealed. She refuses to turn over her first lady records to the public.-- Hillary has a loose cannon husband. If she can not keep her marriage under control, how is she going to run the country?-- Hillary wants to force health care coverage on the poor and middle class. She plans to garnish wages as punishment for not joining her health care plan.Barack Obama is ahead in pledged delagates. Hillary had a chance to catch up, but lost the opportunity. Hillary can not win the nomination now and is refusing to tell her supporters that. She is not a forth coming and honest person. Plus, where are her tax returns?Barack Obama is the BEST candidate for president

fack Check there is no apologizing needed here to me. We are both here for the same reason I think. Looking for more information and finding what everyone is thinking and making our comments and then lets go vote!!

Shawn: You posted the below comment. If this is true, then why is Jesse Jackson part of Obamas campaign team? He is one of obama's advisors. Please explain.

Suri, I am an African American, please know that Jesse Jackson is so irrelevant. Obama would not ask Jesse for anything and with good reason.

Posted by: Shawn | Feb 19, 2008 2:26:02 PM

EXTREMELY Dissapointed in Michele Obama! Not Until Her adult Life Was She Proud! This wasn't a comment off the Cuff! This was a written text that was well thought out...
Could you Imagine if a Clinton used these words! We'd send him or Her to Hell and Back the Send them back Again... I think we are seeing the TRUE Feelings of the Obama's coming Forth... And it's all about ego!

Laudrema -

Thanks for your thoughts. I believe both candidates have skeltons in their closets - but in my own opinion and gut feeling I believe HRC is a very hard working individual with alot of ambition and you need to have that to run for the highest position in the country and the same can be said about Obama. He just sounds like a televanglist and can't bring my self to vote for him.

I believe HRC want to be Prez for her own ego (as well as Obama) but I think she is sincere in wanting to do a good job. Go Hillary! I earn a substantial living and understand the daily grinds of making ends meet. I don't think you have to be poor to understand that and I think HRC understands that as John Edwards did or does. Best of luck to you and to the country.

Jedi Mom--

Does it really matter if Obama quoted a statement or 2, 3, 4, 5 or even 10? What does it bear upon? What does it prove or reflect? How many other political leaders, attorneys etc..don't quote other great minds..."hence the quote great minds think alike" It is a distraction intended to deflect the fact that HRC is becoming increasingly irrelevant, and she has no better weapons to do battle with than to raise such a ridiculous point.

I'd prefer to hear how she is going to make the good ole' US of A better for me, not a nitpicking tattletale.

NAFTA was initially pursued by corporate interest in the United States and Canada supportive of free trade, led by Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and the Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari. The three countries signed NAFTA in December 1992, subject to ratification by the legislatures of the three countries. There was considerable opposition in all three countries. In the United States, NAFTA was able to secure passage after Bill Clinton made its passage a major legislative priority in 1993. Since the agreement had been signed by Bush under his fast-track prerogative, Clinton did not alter the original agreement, but complemented it with the aforementioned NAAEC and NAALC. After intense political debate and the negotiation of these side agreements, the U.S. House passed NAFTA on November 17, 1993, by 234-200 vote (132 Republicans and 102 Democrats voting in favor; 156 Democrats, 43 Republicans, and 1 independent against),[7] and the U.S. Senate passed it on the last day of its 1993 session, Saturday, November 20, 1993, by 61-38 vote (34 Republicans and 27 Democrats voting in favor; 28 Democrats and 10 Republicans against, with 1 Democrat opponent not voting).[8]

The benefits of NAFTA have been quantified by several economists, whose findings have been reported in publications such as the World Bank's Lessons from NAFTA for Latin America and the Caribbean,[9] NAFTA's Impact on North America,[10] and NAFTA Revisited by the Institute for International Economics.[11] Some argue that NAFTA has been positive for Mexico, which has seen its poverty rates fall and real income rise, even after accounting for the 1994–1995 economic crisis [2]. Others argue that NAFTA has been beneficial to business owners and elites in all 3 countries, but has had negative impacts on farmers in Mexico who saw food prices fall based on cheap imports from highly subsidized US Agribusiness, and negative impacts on US workers in manufacturing and assembly industries who lost jobs. Critics also argue that NAFTA has contributed to the rising levels of inequality in both the USA and Mexico. The majority of neoliberal economists believe that NAFTA has not been enough (or worked fast enough) to produce an economic convergence[12] (which is hardly surprising given the initial economic disparity between Mexico and the United States/Canada), nor to substantially reduce poverty rates. Some have suggested that in order to fully benefit from the agreement, Mexico must invest more in education and promote innovation in infrastructure and agriculture. Others believe that the agreement is fatally flawed, and should be repealed[citation needed] or replaced by a new agreement that fully harmonizes labor and environmental standards.

It is funny that you said that you didn't know if you were voting for Obama or Patrick because Obama doesn't know if he is running against Hillary or Bill Clinton. It seems that it is ok for the Clintons to go 2 vs. 1, but if Obama borrows a couple lines of a speech from someone it isn't fair. Clintons = Hypocrites

Same old Clintons... same old slime tactics.

Is anyone really surprised by all this?

Say no to fear:

"EXTREMELY Dissapointed in Michele Obama!"

If people just wacth pathologic clinton haters and Obama pimps at CNN and MSNBC understandably they can be carried away by the Obamamania.

The more facts you know about the Obamas and their ideology the more shocking it will be.

Hussein Jr and Michelle belong to EXTREME LEFT WING and subscribe to uber liberal communist and African separatist theories and do not represent the bulk of the American population in the middle.

The so called support of the independents for Hussein Obama has been evaporated by Michelle! Good job Michelle.

Right now, Obama can be good movie actor, he thinks and acts like one or a good VP. He may be good president after 8 years. We need a person with experience as we cannot afford to make mistakes

Obama has no vision. He has other peoples visions like JFK, RFK, MLK, Roosevelt, Lincoln, Clinton (both Bill and Hillary) and now Patrick. He is an embarrassment. He doesn't have two ideas to rub together that are his own.

Michelle Obama's remark was simply off-the-cuff and ill-considered. How many times have any one of us said something like "That was the best..."- whatever. We didn't necessarily mean exactly that. Of course, the uncharitable among us will put the worse spin on it. Clearly, Mrs. Obama was just saying that she is extremely proud of her country. That comment will not cause her husband to lose any votes. The people who are making a big deal of it, just like Senator Obama's "words", were never going to vote for him anyway. So quit with the "Oh, I was going to vote for him, but these words have made my change my mind." Rubbish! The thing to focus on is the intent of the candidates. Like one who decided to poach pledged delegates of her opponent, but was forced to retract after an outcry. Note the other thing, as much as there is to take Senator Clinton to task on, Senator Obama stays on the high road. He certainly does respond to her petty criticisms, but he concentrates on his message, not what she just said or did.