Poor choice of words, but the aide's sentiment was right. Do we really want all this drama back in the White House?

Okay...who can read the last line and not say to themselves, "Ok, she's disgusting and makes me sad."

Everything wrong with our political system...she has become everything she hated and everything that attacked her.

Just sad. How does America break the machine.

Starr wasted billions operating as a pit bull on behalf of the Republicans in their unwarranted attack on the Clintons, finding nothing, then moving on. Starr owes this country an apology for robbing the treasury of millions in wasted expenditures. Samantha Power, a smart lady, had a stupid moment.

Stupid moments leads to lives being lost. This is a campaign for President and it matters. Why does it matter a person not running made this gaffe? Because Obama depends on advisors by his own admission and she was a senior advisor. Remember, most campaign staff get jobs in the administration.

What I think is the most important aspect is the lack of handling of the situation in an executive manner and followup on his own statement to fire anyone who does this childish stuff.

She made the statement on Monday. He did not fire her even after denouncing her statement. She did resign under pressure from Senior Democrats who are not part of the campaigns four days later? - Very indicative of his weak executive abilities.

Failing to fire her for this, his lawyer for the other stuff, his eco advisor for the lying, and all staff associated with that are all pretty clear indications his executive abilities are poor.

Clinton has had more stuff thrown at her over the years than anyone should have to endure. It still continues today... and in a tough campaign like this one, she certainly passes muster with a strong image but always an intelligent fact-backed response. Maturity and conviction are key factors and Obama just doesnt have it.

DCVVoter have you seen the stories of Hillarys staff... that campaign seems managed well for the American people...oh that's right she ran out of money!!!

As this recession takes a hold I am really looking ofrward to how she manages her people.

ugh

DCVoter U R kidding right...

"Why does it matter a person not running made this gaffe? Because Obama depends on advisors by his own admission and she was a senior advisor. Remember, most campaign staff get jobs in the administration."

have you seen the stories of Hillarys staff... that campaign seems managed well for the American people...oh that's right she ran out of money!!!

As this recession takes a hold I am really looking forward to how she manages her people.

ugh

I don't think that Powers made a stupid comment, I think she made and accurate comment.
To be clear regarding Iraq. Clinton has not committed to withsrawing troops, only that she would consult with the generals on the ground that were appointed by bush and follow their reccomendations. Some commander in chief.

The double standard in her mind is clear. She will stand behind defamatory comments by her staff and demand that Obama fire his if they make defamatory comments regarding her. This is a continuation of the Bush, Do as I say and not as I do philosophy.

Okay, so I understand from the BBC interview that Obama does not plan to removed American troops from Iraq as he stated on many occasions. That was just a best case scenario? What is going on in the Obama camp? Anyone?

dl - two big differences: she does not rely on her advisors to make decisions as he admits he does and she fires them without hesitation when they are out of line - a true executive

BKMC, okay Hillary is crying like a baby. Wow. But I noticed you didn't seem to comment on Obama's confusing Iraq policy he made on numerous occasions for removing American troops. That was just a scenario? Who knew?

Clinton has always been clear on her plan to withdraw from Iraq responsibly. That means we dont leave our allies in harms way and we dont endanger the troops as we get out. She is absolutely right that the Joint Chiefs need to draw up the plan... they are the experts when it comes to troop safety. It is stupid for anyone to think they are psychic and can predict what the situation on the ground will be on Jan 20, 2009. Over the course of time he has moved into agreement with her because he knows she is right. Trying to assert any difference by telling other countries that things wont happen as he spouts off in his campaign is the wrong message to send to the world. This is about judgement - he keeps proving his is flawed and hers is sound.

DCVoter ...so is she the one that made them run through 140 million and run out of money...on a campaign?!

That sounds like a true executive who isn't very good at her job.

My point is I don't think you want to use how she manages her campaign compared to how Barack organized a "movement" and out raised "The Clintons" and the Republicans...for the past year.

She may have seen how someone runs the White House but her campaign is not a beacon for how to manage the country.

Stick to her time as a first lady and as Senator.

Dl will there ever come a time when you get the will to question Obama's moves lately? Perhaps you can somehow explain this latest Obama Iraq policy. This new scenario? You seem to question Hillary on a daily basis yet you never commented in this new Obama policy? I questioned Hillary's terrible ground game back in Iowa and her campaign teams poor money management. I'm not blind to Hillary problems but you seem completely brainwashed and unable to ask a single question of Obama. Why?

My question is why she shuffed off Keane...it is well reported that she asked him to be an advisor (He turned her down) and she consulted with him on this subject...

(This isn't spin...I am trying to cut through the spin.)

but then acts as if this guy doesn't really know her views.

so Obama was caught lying again? well, I guess every politician does lie even though someone would believe his "honesty" and "transparency".

Chief Executives dont handle the money. Subordinates are responsible for that. Sometimes they have to be fired or things have to be restructured to respond to things outside of the executives control.

Candidates dont handle the money. She restructured her campaign because they spent a lot of the money. What caused that? An unpredictable voting schedule with record turnouts caused by the changes made by the DNC and the dissatisfaction with the Republican party.

Obama has the support of the money side of the Dems - liberals. Without that, his handlers would have done no better. She has proven she can rescue her campaign and handle things swiftly - a true executive prepared to deal with dynamic unpredictable conditions.

You dont have a leg to stand on with that argument. LOL

Well that is two huge screw ups by two of his top foreign policy advisors in one week. So under Obama's reign, will it be the US's policy when dealing with hostile countries to first start with name calling. How will this work if the conflicting county has their own foreign policy of "sticks and stones....." Do we just jump to the bombing phase next? Guess we could rely on the intelligence of his other top foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice, she said last night on MSNBC that neither Hillary or Obama were ready for the 3 a.m. call. To see this, go to fox news, under Hannity and Colmes, under their video "Novak and Davis on Ken Starr quote" - you can see her right there saying it. I've said it before, we can elect the candidates but we can't elect their advisors! Anyone else out there scared?

Furthermore, Dl, I don't mind questioning the Clinton camp because she's a big girl and can take the tough going. I question when needed because it only makes our camp stronger. Now, what about Obama's brand new Iraq policy?

of course his plan won't work, just don't know why so many people will just take slogan "change you can believe in".

I do not care what you all say, I think Powers is cute.

there is a big difference in telling the Joint chiefs to draw up a a plan to have us redeploy our troops out of Iraq in a particular timeframe, with the necessary security needs for remaining civilian and diplomatic assets (As Obama has been clear on) and Saying that you will follow what the Generals say. they do not make the decisions, they follow the CIC's lead.

Russell, lol. That was funny.

dogsoldier

I have said I want to know about rezko...definitely (but again compared to the lists of Hillary's stuff I am hard pressed to vote for Hillary instead of Obama on ethics issues)

I like what happened and how he handled it. His plan is to get them out in 14 months.

...but this Iraq issue... all of the candidates have plans...and all of those plans are best case scenarios...

Universal healthcare...
Revising education...
Green Energy
etc...

they are the goals. Like when hillary says my goal is Universal healthcare - flat. I have many people around me in the healthcare field and a couple of friends who got slammed by the Massachusetts system (starvingartist/waiters who are in a worse situation now than they were before... although that is being resolved)who say...Hillary has a plan... and she sets it at the best case scenario, where she thinks she should set it.
(Barack's is where his is because he thinks we have set the goal before and failed a number of times to go anywhere with it...so he set it focused on the issue that financial conservatives may be more apt to go with)

He is going into this with the goals set. That is what he plans to do... his advisors can say that is the best case scenario...that is the goal. His advisor obviously thinks it's a challenging goal...he did not say that...and like Lincoln his advisors should have different opinions, knowing that they all have the same goal.

Another problem I can already see with a Clinton administration is like Rumsfeld ...everyone is afraid of giving her a different opinion so they start yelling at each other.

I really think Obama is trying to be honest. As much as so many of you want to twist that...

Who cares about anyone's physical attributes in a Presidential campaign?

Louis - restating Clinton's plan as Obama's and McCain's plan as Clinton's doesnt make it true... but then you are learning from Obama so I will blame the teacher.

DCVoter

with your idea of how a true executive president was ...

"that people underneath need to deal with the money stuff"

That is the George Bush administration...remember...pass the buck down...well the buck stops at the CEO...read Jack Welch's book.

this is just another way Obama stands up better to McCain than Hillary. Both McCain and Hillary ran out of money. Barack didn't no matter whether you think someoneelse is responsible or not...it is a very strong argument in the middle of recession election.

The media has stayed clear of Obama for fear that it may antagonize the black population. Until now, even Hillary has played softy with him. However, if Obama becomes the Democratic presidential nominee, he will face an onslaught from Republicans and their allies that will be very different in tone and intensity. Republicans have openly supported Obama in Texas and other states so that they can eliminate Hillary. However, we all know that they will vote for McCain in the November general elections.

Dl, Clinton actually set up her campaign team for the express purpose of having differing opinions. Penn don't like Ikes and so on and it was her hope that out of strong disagreements issues would get its proper airing. I'm sure you already read about them going at it in her camp, so your idea is completely wrong. Now, about the new Iraq policy. What gives.

What's next from the Obama campaign? Why don't they just call the people of PA. ignorant groundhog lovers. This kind of behavior shows how immature this campaign is and how childern should not be entrusted with our security. When the call comes they will protect us by calling the enemy names?

Not if we are in a recession they won't...and if you think that Hillary doesn't energize their base more than any of their own candidates...you are not talking to too many republicans.

In his book "Dreams of My Father", Obama has written extensively about his drug and alcohol use. He called himself as a "Junkie Pothead" who was always out to screw around. "That's where I'd been headed: the final fatal role of the young would be black man," Obama wrote. This was not a single incident or an adolescent indiscretion, rather when Obama was an adult in his twenties and thirties. Mostly he smoked marijuana and drank alcohol, but also used cocaine when he could afford it. Drug use continued through adulthood even when Obama became a state senator in Illinois.

For this reason, Hussein Obama is not qualified to be a President. As a private citizen, he would be disqualified to even obtain a security clearance!

Go Hillary!

Although he has been mum about it, Obama has had long-standing financial relationship with Excelon Corporation, one of the biggest polluters in Illinois. Over the past ten years, Obama has received hundreds of thousands of $$$ in campaign contributions. According to FoxNews, "Senator Obama has some questions to answer about his dealings with one of his largest contributors, Exelon, a big nuclear power company." Apparently he cut some deals behind closed doors to protect them from full disclosure in the nuclear industry."

Mike_FL what's the scoop down Florida way? Do folks want their delegates seated? Do they want a do over as some suggest? What's the mood down there toward the Obama camp?

no ...Hillarys people don't like each other and have different viewpoints on their own worth and jobs...and they all are rumored to agree Mrs. C. at the threat of well "Hill" herself... ...that is different than differing viewpoints on policy.

and I do not think their differing attitudes were on purpose... Screaming epithets at each other in an office is not what I was talking about ...

and Barack's policy has not changed...an advisor used the words "best-case scenario" because that is what she saw... Baracks plan is the in her opinion as an advisor "the best case scenario" and the goal...and now people are going to try and twist that...
That is old politics...and maybe they can change a little if Mr. Smith...er...Obama gets in.

Yeah Libya... that's a good model. It's Khadafi ...crazy person remember haha.

I think if he wasn't the head of Libya he would be telling me my dog speaks chinese as I passed him on my way out of the Pizza place ...

J. Dowd, this is only the seventh time this this has been posted. I'll ask you then, please provide court transcripts of said story so we can view the actual words. Now, why don't you comment on Obama's NEW Iraq policy?

russell - I cant find it now but I remember seeing something already stupid out of Obama's camp... it referred to the voting constituencies in PA... implying the blue collar workers there are not educated and will likely provide support for Clinton as a result... the article was about the Obama camp trying to lower expectations for PA and focus on other states he will do better in... the bottom line is... his camp has been insulting the intelligence of the voters for some time by inferring all the educated people support him... this is absolutely not true... and college degrees are not a measure of intelligence... we have people in power now that prove that ROFL

Once again, Hillary Clinton and the Clinton campaign deliberately twist, distort, misrepresent, and mischaracterize the facts for their own political ends. What Prof. Power said was that President Obama would not blindly implement a plan that he proposed one, two, or three years before he took office. Obama is committed to withdrawal, but will not be as stubborn as President Bush. It is Bush's inability to adjust to facts on the ground that greatly exacerbated the problems we currently face. President Obama will of course take into account current circumstances in implementing a troop withdrawal strategy. As he has stated repeatedly, we will be as careful getting out as we were careless getting in.

I hope against the odds that Hillary Clinton, the Clinton campaign, and Clinton supporters will stop the lies and distortions and will start running a positive campaign.

The Clintons are disingenuous people and plotted this strategy before they left the white house, from moving to new York to her run now. They just didnt anticipate a Barack Obama.

Why didnt she go back home to Arkansa and run for the senate there?

God help anyone who get in there way.

Plus I think she realizes that she really cant get the nomination based on the numbers and wants to destroy Baracks chances against McCaine so that she will be there to run in four years.

She will do and say anything to get what she wants and if it means destroying the democratic party so be it.

The voters need to put an end to this in the remaining states and vote for Obama overwhelmingly.

Hey, Gene L, we, Clinton supporters, did not let slip Obama's new Iraq policy. We did not know he had this policy until Powers let it slip out on the BBC network. It was Obama's OWN policy adviser who caused this Iraq policy mess, not us. And Powers announced this to a foreign press BEFORE Americans even suspected. Perhaps you aught to get your facts straight.

I voted for Bill Clinton, I voted for Al Gore, I voted for John Kerry. I hope to vote for Barack Obama.

But after this campaign, I will not vote for Hillary Clinton.

dl writes:
" . . . Just sad. How does America break the machine."
-----
A great big park-in on Election Day, maybe (if there actually IS an election)?

Gene your vote is your own. That's your right. Nevertheless, you failed to deal with the Iraq facts as I wrote. You blamed us for this mess and you did not acknowledge we had no part in this. But did you expect us not to comment on Obama's new Iraq policy?

There is no new policy, "Dogsoldier." Obama has repeatedly stated that although his plan is to withdraw combat troops in 16 months, that he reserves the right as commander in chief to respond to events as they are. And that is the point of Prof. Power's remarks as well, if you take the time to read and understand them as they were intended, rather than simply looking for ways to score cheap political points.

You are making my point for me, continuing to twist and distort the facts.

ONCE AGAIN OBAMA AND HIS PEOPLE DO SOMETHING STUPID!!!!!! THAT IS EXACTLY WHY COME GENERAL ELECTION I WILL NOT VOTE FOR HIM IF HE IS THE NOMINEE!!!!!!! IF YOU WANT A DEM BACK IN THE WHITE HOUSE I SUGGEST YOU ALL VOTE FOR HILLARY BECAUSE I AM A REPUBLICAN AND WILL ACTUALLY VOTE FOR HER IN THE GENERAL ELECTION(AND NO I AM NOT LYING BECAUSE I DID VOTE FOR HER FOR RE-ELECTION TO THE SENATE BECAUSE I WAS NOT OLD ENOUGH THE FIRST TIME TO VOTE FOR HER)!!!!!! IF OBAMA IS THE NOMINEE THOUGH YOU ALL CAN SAY HELLO TO PRESIDENT JOHN MCCAIN BECAUSE THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT YOU ALL ARE GOING TO GET AND DESERVE IF YOU ALL HAVE OBAMA AS YOUR NOMINEE!!!!!!!

To Hillary haters: Hillary constantly proved that she would come back even when she was down...That is the true attribute the president needs...

Obama constantly was defeated in most blue states... the base of Dems rejected him....He must win Penn, otherwise he will be finished, either take veep or out... No one likes to drag any more since his wins perfectly fit the model and people knows what he can achieve...

Again, Obama has to win PENN....

Obama and his lies strikes again. The man is not to be trusted. But we can hope. ROFL!

Sorry Hillary, wrong choice of words. Sincerity? This is coming from the phoniest person ever to walk the face of the earth.

Right, Don, Hillary is tough, mean, and downright nasty in a scrap. She wears pantsuits made of asbestos and can take the returning heat. She scraps like a junk yard dog over a bone. Knock her down and she gets right back up and comes at you again. Wow! That's my girl! Look out world, we got us a real leader that even middle east nations can admire. Yeah. You go girl!

I feel kinda bad for Powers because it is evident to me that she along with other campaign staff have to make up Obama's policies as they go because he doesnt have any and doesnt want to be 'given anything until he needs it right then because he will lose it'. It is clear to me that her outburst was one of emotional frustration because they lost momentum and it is up to the staff to regain it. I think her position on foreign policy are clear but not the same as Obama has been saying. Oops! My gut feeling is that he probably told staffers to just make it happen and they wont necessarily implement anything as planned because in politics you can do that. He didnt even have the guts to fire her anymore than he did the others. At least she had the guts to resign and apologize publicly. Great lady... unfortunate circumstances. Not everyone can take the heat of the campaign and not everyone is suited for politics as she obviously is not. I for one wish her well and hope she continues her work towards world peace and the elimination of genocide. She would be an asset to the Clinton administration.

Without the media FORCE FEEDING Obama the messiah down our throats, how does he recover to his lofty status?

The guy has made way too many policy mistakes. Voters fully understand the genie is out of the bottle now. He is no GURU. Hes just a politician with a HYPE speech.

The only difference is he ran for president before he was ready. The ONLY way he recovers to his lofty rhetoric now is if the MEDIA FORCES IT DOWN OUR THROATS.

Dan you are correct. Hillary is one tough, mean woman who can scrap like a junk yard dog over a bone. Knock her down and she just gets right back up and comes at you all over again. Look out world here comes one heck of a leader! That's my girl!

After reading through these message strings, I feel compelled to make a few comments of my own regarding the various topics.

1. Obama seems to be taking heat because he admits he listens to advisers. Is that supposed to be perceived as a flaw? ANYONE in an executive position -- president, governor, general, CEO, Pope -- will consult with his or her circle of advisers before making any substantive decisions. Even monarchs are known to move only after receiving the advice of their advisers. I'm sorry, but anyone who actually believes that Clinton is unilaterally making all these command decisions, all on her own, is frankly living in a fairy tale.

2. On the issue of advisers -- whether Keane was a hired "adviser" is irrelevant. He is obviously close enough inside the "circle" to contact to offer advice, and Clinton herself admits that she has worked with him in the past and respects his opinion. It seems like she learned something from her husband about fragile nature of semantics. But remember, a rose by any other name…

3. And still on the advisers issue -- Clinton's camp has spread so many untruths and misrepresentations about Obama's past that it's getting hard to keep track of -- but whom has she fired?

4. Clinton states that she has a timetable to withdraw the troops out of Iraq, and then in the next breath says in order to do this she will rely on plans drawn up by the military bigwigs. This completely negates her alleged withdrawal plan. What if the Joint Chiefs and Generals decide that withdrawal is not an option for another 18 months? Because she has said up front that she will rely on their recommendations, she will be able to remain safely UNACCOUNTABLE if the troops remaining in Iraq.

5. PLEASE stop the whole "experience" argument. Obama was elected to the US Senate in 2005, Clinton in 2000 -- 5 years, not 20, not 15, not even 10. Before that -- 1997-2004 --he served in the Illinois state legislature. And Clinton? Being First Lady does NOT count as government experience no matter how one spins it -- she did not makes the laws, enforce the laws, negotiate treaties, or curb world crises. To say that being married to a president makes her fit for to lead the country is like saying being married to a judge makes one qualified to sit on the Supreme Court.

Note: if number of years of experience is all -- or mostly -- what matters, then we should all be voting for McCain, who has more experience then either Democrat -- as Senator Clinton so clearly and frequently point out. On that matter -- perhaps she should just come out and say that if she doesn't win the nomination, we should all vote Republican

6. Finally -- when will Clinton supporters recognize that any "nastiness" that now characterizes this contest is due completely to Senator Clinton herself? Both candidates started out sticking to the issues, and unfortunately -- and for better or for worse -- that didn't work for Senator Clinton. She panicked because she was UNPREPARED for the wave of support for Obama (so much for the "readiness" argument). So what to do next? Just start slinging the mud. Most of the kitchen sink she threw out was untrue or "non-issues" -- the most glaring example being the whole NAFTA issue, which the Canadians THEMSELVES assured the US was not true (doesn't anyone find it interesting that despite this Clinton STILL refers to it as one of Obama's inconsistencies?). And what about the plagiarizing business? Untrue. Obama's past drug use? A non-issue -- and who cares? At least he didn't give some insane rhetoric about "not inhaling." But the old adage of "throw enough mud and eventually something will stick" is something she apparently abides by, as small cracks are beginning to show in Obama's armor -- as they would in anyone's at some point. But I would really like to see how Clinton would hold up under a microscopic scrutiny of her past -- that is, without resorting to her usual whining about how she's being victimized, the press is unfair, the rules are unfair, etc.

Obviously I'm an Obama man -- but I started out as a Hillary guy. What changed me, aside from her resorting to so-called "Rovian" tactics -- is that I really feel that she is not sincere about wanting to help the people of this country, but rather she just wants to be PRESIDENT. I also feel that she is a real "politico," part of the traditional DC power structure, and susceptible to old political games and influences. I'm not an idiot -- I'm not under any delusion that Obama is 100% altruistic or immune from such pressures. But he makes his supporters feel like he is -- which in turn inspires hope and confidence that a real and true breath of fresh air can be ours in Washington if he becomes President.

As a Obama supporter, Happy Robot, your name seems quite appropriate for the Obama cause.

The difference between a competent executive who listens to advisors and an incompetent one is: the competent executive has enough experience and knowledge to know when he/she is being bamboozled by subordinates. He is just not ready, too immature, too arrogant, too condescending, too overconfident, and does not have a good command of the issues. There are many many aspects to being President than giving motivational speeches. That is only a small part. You manage processes, but you lead people. Senator Clinton gives great speeches with such confidence and genuine concern for the needs of the voters. She is inspirational on a level that Obama cannot compete with because he does not have a basis for his confidence. He needs time to gain experience to back up his claims. Giving him the benefit of doubt, I think he has a shot in the coming years at being a competent executive... if he vets ok on these serious implications of impropriety with Rezko and any related aspects.

Glad you're on our side MattOhio.

One thing I think many voters may not realize is - the primaries are not popularity contests to see who can be the nicest and most liked. The purpose of the primaries is to test the candidates, with the media and the public vetting them with great scrutiny.

The voters need to see who can compete, who can handle the pressure, who is the fighter, who has convictions, who shares our values, who has the best command of the issues, who is best prepared to take office, and who can beat the other party in the general election. This is not a test for voters... it is a test for the candidates.

Their job is to prove they are the top gun and that requires spirited debates, campaign attacks, calculated defense, and a strong resume. They are the "athletes"... the campaign volunteers are the "cheerleaders" and the support system... the voters are the fans who cast the votes with the loudest applause as to who wins the pregame to go on to the final endgame. This is a competition not a "let's play nice at the playground in Mr. Roger's neighborhood."

Maybe Hillary would Declare a
Time Out regarding the withdrawal of
our troops from Iraq!
Just like she said she would declare
a Time out regarding future trade
agreements! I guess if one of her
advisors makes a mistake Hillary will
make him or her sit in the corner or
go to bed without Supper!

go obama go ..............
i vote for u obama..................

To DogSoldier -- Touche. But then again, with a name like yours I'm not surprised you're for Clinton (now let's see, which candidate voted to go to war...)

To DCVoter -- I guess it's a question of style, but I find Clinton's speeches about as inspirational as a plate of steamed celery. And I agree the election is not about who's the friendliest -- but there's a difference between being tough and being nasty. There can be no denying, no matter who you support, that Clinton has dragged this race into the gutter. And against her own party! Instead of digging up all this mostly untrue dirt on Obama, why not go attack McCain with the same kind of venom -- instead of COMPLIMENTING the man, her REAL opponent?! Because SHE WANTS THAT NOMINATION -- no mater what it does to the Democratic party, no matter what it means to the integrity of politics (what little there is). In short, Obama's refusal to "take the gloves off" does not mean he's a wimp, or not ready to lead. Rather, it shows he's trying to rise above the garbage that passes for political debate in this day and age. THAT'S what real change is. With Clinton, and her smear tactics, it will be business as usual.

Final note -- go to any poll and you'll see who is more likely to beat Grandpa Mac in the general election.

...what I'm curious about:
Hillary responds to Obama in regards to her tax returns and why she has not put them forward "I've been very busy lately...I've hardly had time to sleep"
That statement is concerning...hardly had time to sleep?? (and the "three o'clock phone call" bit??) America-this woman is running for president-who should realize-missing sleep may be part of the job,but then again,she sounded like she was complaining about loss of sleep in ties with what she is doing-running for president.
At my age-Truman was president when I was born...this is the most historic election years we've ever seen! Yes,years...these folks have been stomping since the last inauguration.
We ALL ought to be scared! If HC gets the next four years we'll be listening to her bar room guffaw,that loud laugh...if he gets it we all will be looking at a youth with no experience,and McCain?? Well...with him it will all just be the same-all the same. God-we are in trouble!!

Why is your candidate worth voting for? We have to pull this together to align behind a candidate. If all we can say is bad things about the other candidate then your candidate isn’t worth voting for. Do the research, understand your candidate and explain why you are voting for them or why I should. Get the facts “if that is possible” give examples! Give links. This negative stuff just angers and does nothing to choose a good President based on informed decision. Keep it POSITIVE . Ignorance is attracted by the negative.

Aha! There are those of us who question Hillary's sincerity on any policy issue ever. Her sliding scale ethics leaves us chagrined and her intellectual dishonesty makes us very angry. She will not get my vote ever. You do not reward this type of behavior...no matter the excuse...particularly the excuse that this is how politics is played. That's why so many of us prefer Barack Obama to Hillary Clinton!

Look..Obama plays politics that are just as ruthless as anyone's who wants to win. Just because someone says they are above such politics over and over, doesn't mean that's true. Now we have evidence that there are a lot of things he says that aren't true.

Louis; I find it very CURIOUS that you think it is okay to refer to a candidate as creature/not human. Equating O to Ken Starr in tactics is acceptable. I guess "He's pulling a Ken Starr" sounds less offensive.

Obama is not ready to be president just yet. He is running on the ability to move people by his speeches. He needs to have policy experience. Once he understands policies, he will make a good president. In the meantime, he should not burn his bridges. If he does, he will just be another wannabe like John Kerry, Howard Dean, Ted Kennedy, Tom Daschle. Americans will lose interest and he will be another one who just tried.