Obama The sham

Pretending to be mr nice guy to gain a vote.

He lies, turns, twist things, misleads,flip-flops, evades, eludes.

Such an empty shirt

I LOVE democrats like Irma. You should join us. First we'll keep the white house for 12 straight years, then we'll win back Congress, and then we'll appoint conservative justices to the Supreme Court and finally make this country the way it should be.

This is comedy. A few months ago it was "history in the making" and "the first woman" and the "first black man." In November, you guys will come up short, just like you always do.

Thanks!

Steve, I believe if you had made 80 trips to foreign countries, and in this particular case had been told what the dangers were, that "sniper fire had been reported in the mountains around the airport", you also would have been advised of precautions to take. She said she mispoke about one detail, but, if you read her book written years earlier, you would get the full story. She did visit Bosnia when dangers were still possible. She did not mean that sniper fire was over her head at the airport. There was no attempt on her part to be untruthful. I am certain that in other trips, such details would be the case. You are too eager to latch onto a story, and it is not one. If you are looking for truthfulness out of someone, look at your candidate: Rezko, Wright, using someone else's speech as his own, NAFTA, constant double talk to get himself out of trouble. He is either completely ignorant or lying about not knowing the hate speeches of Wright. Even his family history regarding his Selma speech is a lie. He escaped from his copying pf Patrick's speech, because the media never played both tapes fully and side by side. Jake Tapper did on his blog, and it was available on the internet. If the masses watching cable news networks had seen it fully, he would have really looked disengenuous. As it happened, the networks protected him. He is not what others want us to believe. He is a double talker--consistently! Yes, I certainly do trust Hillary! No, I certainly don't trust Obama!

Georgia, you're biased. Clinton has as many negatives as Obama does. You just choose to focus on his more because you would prefer Senator Clinton. That's perfectly fine, but your obvious bias weakens your argument considerably.

The bottom line is she tells whoppers, and he tells whoppers. She has clowns supporting her, and he has clowns supporting him. She's been involved with scandal. He's been involved with scandal. And, all that aside, one of them will still win the nomination.

One of them will actually try to get our kids out of Iraq instead of staying there (and possibly going into Iran).

So what's more important to you...who embellishes their record on the campaign trail more, or who is actually going to work to undo the damage that the Republicans have done to this country?

I respect your opinion, georgia, but at the end of the day, we're all democrats. And as Senator Clinton AND Senator Obama have repeatedly said (and this is not an embellishment), either of them is better than a third term for Bush.

REPUBLICAN DOMINATION: You have no business pointing fingers at Democrats. You have your own worries. Despite McCain being the nominee, there are plenty of words from Romney, Limbaugh, and your conservative right wing to play back in the general election. That, however, is usually the Karl Rove/Newt Gingrich way. John McCain is a respected moderate in many ways, and more trusted than the nutty people in his party. John Kerry and Al Gore could give you the scoop. In the meantime, Democrats are noted for getting to the truth and the importance of things that matter.

If you think your party is the true American party, tell us some of your "good" stories about Nixon and Watergate, Bush and Cheney skewing intelligence data to get us into an unnecessary war in Iraq, Republicans screwing the voters in 2000, and the list is too long, we need a book.

You try to improve your party, and we'll try to improve ours. You have a lot more work to do, I fear.

Well that's odd, WestCoastMessenger. Because every credible national poll in the country actually shows Obama running stronger now than he was before Reverend Wrong's comments were aired.

So clearly it hasn't done as much damage to him as some of you apparently hoped it would.

Meanwhile, by the way...Clinton's poll numbers are steadily declining.

So it's Senator Obama's fault, the media's fault, and who else?

Can't blame the right wing establishment, because they actually got voters to the polls to vote FOR Hillary.

So, it is just possible...maybe just a bit...that Clinton is losing because of...CLINTON?

The Clintons are intent on 'losing at any cost'. lol

This Clinton 'diva' is intent on mashing up the Democrats' house, just as they did with the White House with Monica Lewinski, and the smashing lost of 2000 that enabled the 7 year Bush-whacking of American lives and economy.

Why take a fight all the way to the Convention if the nomination can be settled before the nomination?

The Super delegates will no doubt come to their senses in a few weeks and RUN FROM WILD HILARY! lol

Bill Clinton has robbed Hilary of all her dignity; and so she doesn't mind taking down the whole Democratic Party with her.

Hilary Clinton is in effect blaming the Democrats and others; because she chose to look the other way while her husband humiliated her time and again with the 'other women'. For shame!

The long campaign was INTERESTING FOR AMRICA, GOOD FOR THE GOP, VERY BAD FOR THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY,VERY BAD FOR THE CLINTONS BY DISQUALIFYING THEMSELVES FOR ANY FUTURE POLICAL POSITION AND BAD
FOR YOURSELF, BY buy disqualifying themselves for any future political position and BAD FOR OBAMA, because the Intra-Party attacks have opened the door for the GOP and provoke in November the loss of many fanatic supporters of HILLARY.

Georgia: Our problems are worse? Are you kidding me? Do you see all of the venom being thrown back and forth on this blog alone by you so called "civil" democrats?

You guys don't stand a chance. You can't even disagree without trashing each other. At least Republicans know how to stick together. Look how soon after the primaries all of the other Republican candidates endorsed McCain. Even Governor Huckabee never had a bad thing to say about him.

On your side, every time you turn around somebody is saying Hillary should drop out, or Obama is only here because he's black.

Get a clue and sign up with the party that's going to run the table in November.

THE REPUBLICAN PARTY

Sarah,
I guess you haven't been around long enough to understand the Bradley effect.

As I recall, the polls going into New Hampshire had Obama ahead by double digits, and the reverse occurred.

Please stand by as you see Obama's Texas caucus claims evaporate, as being reported by the Houston Chronicle last night, where he lost 7 points from his own original supporters so far.

Also stand by for Pennsylvania, and the ttsunami that results there after.

In the meantime, start looking for recipes for crow. I'm sure you'll figure out a way to make it quite tasty with your own spin.

And don't give me this stuff about "our candidate will be stronger after a long campaign." When McCain first won the nomination, he was behind both of your candidates in the polls. Now he holds a steady lead on both of them. Your party is flawed because if you can't get what you want, you pout and go home. So there will be a party split and that means...

WE WIN.

Sarah,
By the way, in correction of your poll claim, the most current poll numbers by NBC/Wall Street Journal have Obama and Clinton exactly even. Gallup has a 1 point difference, within margin of error.

So please explain how the polls are running away for Obama after the Jeremiah Wright story, and also while you are at it, explain why Obama has not been able to close the deal?

WestCoastMessenger, enlighten me...what is the Bradley effect?

And what election results are you looking at that showed Obama losing by double digits in New Hampshire? The way I remember it, Clinton cried and sympathetic women came out to vote for her. I'm pretty sure she barely won. It was a narrow victory. But to you it was a victory nonetheless.

So will you concede that Obama winning by a narrow margin right now is still..Obama winning?

Such a double standard with some people.

Russell, I have to take issue with the statement that Al Gore said he invented the internet. He talked of his support and leadership, and someone skewed his words to say that he invented it. We do have to trust people and their "words", all of their words.

WestCoastMessenger - Again pointing out your double standard, "close the deal?" Wasn't Senator Clinton supposed to be the "inevitable" candidate just a few months ago? Now it's Obama that can't "close the deal?"

Please tell me why Senator Clinton can't close the deal. Or narrow the gap for that matter. Also explain to me why she continues to lose superdelegates and Senator Obama continues to win them. And explain to me why Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell is so desperate (and clearly sees the writing on the wall) that he is trying to float the idea of the eventual Democratic nominee pledging to pick the loser as his/her VP candidate?

I may not have been around very long as you put it, but I certainly don't remember any of Clinton's surrogates floating such an idea back when she was "inevitable."

dl: Come on man did you read his book "Dreams From My Father"? He explicitly tells a story when he was 9yrs old that he saw a picture of a black boy who was difigured by using chemicals to lighten his skin. Life magizine is on record as saying that no such story ever ran,so did Ebony! The Chicago Tribune look at this story exhaustively even went to Indonesia and they were unable to verify it! So now you are say this is what he was baseing his awakening on! Well if that makes you feel better then go right ahead! What about the Selma Lie,the lie about the Kennedy's and his father that was in the Washington Post today, I could go on but you get my point! The story about the little black boy was not true and if this is his story now how does it differ from Hillary? He rememered wrong and so did she! Question Moot!

And since you want to talk poll numbers, let's talk about the latest USA TODAY poll that shows Obama with a statistically "significant" lead over Clinton. Yeah, they say "significant," not me.

So you see, WestCoastMessenger, you can spin polls any way you want. But if I were you, I'd be a little worried if one of my candidate's biggest mouth pieces (Governor Ed Rendell) was on national TV trying to force the democratic winner (probably Obama) to pick the democratic...non-winner.

Seems to me like a little bit of desperation.

Sarah,
I have never anointed Clinton as an inevitable candidate. Your problem may be that you are sucked in easily by media-speak.

Clinton will win the popular vote nationally, and close the deal. Meanwhile, Dean and Pelosi, all the while sucking down lattes will ensure that the working class Democrats in states like Florida and Michigan will be excluded.

Check out politics page on ABC News. You'll see that Clinton and Obama are within 100K on the popular vote. That difference will reverse by a fivefold factor after Pennsylvania, at which time the Obama Zombie Nation will start screaming "She stold the election!".

"Iron my shirt?" No, I'm pretty sure it had to do with Senator Clinton bursting into tears.

If Senator Obama had gotten emotional, you would probably say that he wasn't strong enough to be commander in chief.

Again...double standard.

Georgia: Well I not sure that he said it either Georgia but because of the media it became a truth,that is it became a political truth,not an intellectual truth. So it stuck and it followed him througout the campaigh. I think he also made a comment that the movie Love Story was based on him an Tipper! That too was exploited by Bush to insinuate that he could not tell the truth.