Hillary vs Obama

[W8EFA]

The more I see of Obama the more I realize that he is a nice guy that has no experience and no plan and is really a bunch of hot air at this point.

Wake up Democrats! I am losing all faith in the American people’s judgment. We elected Bush when anyone with a brain knew he was incompetent and we have paid the price for it.

When Obama doesn't want to debate Hillary and discuss issues what does that tell you people? Wake up.

I don't care if Hillary is a b**** (female dog), I don’t care if you think she is un- attractive (we are not marrying her), or If you have problems with her because she is a woman (you have the problems). She is much smarter, far more experienced, and much more respected with a thousand times more clout than Obama.

I knew Hillary was for real when she went to the Senate. If she wasn't competent the Republicans would have ripped her apart. Do a little research and you will find she is very much respected and can work with the Republicans.

The first thing Obama will do is start pulling troops out. The Republicans will get PO'ed and completely shun him. Obama will want to get things done with his Naive idea that the Republican will just sit down with him and talk. Absolutely nothing will get done as he has no alliances or network.

All Obama has done is talk!!!! Wake up.

Actually I think Hillary will still win by winning Ohio and Texas and maybe picking up delegates in Michigan and Florida and being tied in the delegates with the super delegates then voting for her as the best choice. But it shouldn't be this close with Americans once again voting style and rhetoric over substance.

[N2RJ]

W8EFA - you don't live in New York.

I base my decision NOT to vote for Hillary based on my dissatisfaction with her as a NY senator (I lived in NY for 6 years).

I don't buy her bragging about "experience." Bill Clinton has the experience, not her.

Besides, I don't want to hear that cackle for the next 4 years.

[KB9YCO]

I don't know, seems to me that she is as much talk as any of the rest of them. When asked follow up questions she never seems to have the details. A good case in point is the whole health care thing. When asked what will happen if people are unable to pay under her "plan" (which has been vague at best) whether or not they would then have their pay docked and so on she doesn't give an answer. There are other examples as well, I'm not going to list them all here, but I don't think she's any better than Obama or any of the rest with her empty promises and "plans" that lack details.
I think the primary difference is that people are tired of experience, which is interpreted as dynasties, (if she wins it will be Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., Mrs. Clinton) and would rather have a president with a fresh perspective that is at least striving towards a goal as opposed to just talking about it.
I'm not proclaiming to be for one or the other, quite frankly I find this election to be as bad as the last two in terms of choices, but I don't think that Clinton is so much better than Obama when it comes to rhetoric.

[K3XR]

They are both hardcore LIBS, with strong Socialists, we believe in bloated government, not people, ideas. The difference, the likeable factor, he has it, she does not.

[KB9YCO]

They are both hardcore LIBS, with strong Socialists, we believe in bloated government, not people, ideas. The difference, the likeable factor, he has it, she does not.

Wow, the linkmaster speaks! And I have to agree, at least with the likability factor, too many people just HATE the Clintons, right or wrong. I don't think they're socialists, and they definitely are NOT liberals, liberals would not be for more government intervention into our lives. Obama is a little closer to liberal than Clinton but neither truly fit that often thrown around and misused label.

liberal:
favorable to progress or reform, as in political or religious affairs.
favorable to or in accord with concepts of maximum individual freedom possible, esp. as guaranteed by law and secured by governmental protection of civil liberties.
favoring or permitting freedom of action, esp. with respect to matters of personal belief or expression
free from prejudice or bigotry; tolerant
open-minded or tolerant, esp. free of or not bound by traditional or conventional ideas, values, etc.

[W3MIV]

Actually I think Hillary will still win by winning Ohio and Texas and maybe picking up delegates in Michigan and Florida and being tied in the delegates with the super delegates then voting for her as the best choice. But it shouldn't be this close with Americans once again voting style and rhetoric over substance.

The American electorate is showing itself to be a lot smarter than you are, Willy Boy. And your formula for winning is just what I would expect of you. Your political experience as a two-bit ward-heeler with a pocketful of walking-around money and an ability to buttonhole a few vagrants is telling. Violating the Party's own rules by now validating delegates in FL and MI is a formula for disaster, not to mention another clear example of the ethics that animate the whole of the Klinton Kampaign Kamp. Using "super-delegate" votes in clear contravention of the will of the electorate will likely elect McCain. Nominating Billary surely would elect him.

[W8EFA]

W8EFA - you don't live in New York.

I base my decision NOT to vote for Hillary based on my dissatisfaction with her as a NY senator (I lived in NY for 6 years).

I don't buy her bragging about "experience." Bill Clinton has the experience, not her.

Besides, I don't want to hear that cackle for the next 4 years.

Perhaps you should think about why you feel that way since she has an extremely high approval rating among her constituency and an especially high approval rating among republicans. You are a definite minority as the rest of NY thinks she has done a great job.

Clinton has enjoyed high approval ratings for her job as senator within New York, reaching an all-time high of 72 to 74 percent approving (including half of Republicans) over 23 to 24 percent disapproving in December 2006, before her presidential campaign became active by August 2007, after a half year of campaigning, it was still 64 percent over 34 percent.

"Sen. Clinton's presidential campaign starts out with great job-approval numbers in New York," Carroll said. "Almost half of Republican voters approve."

http://www.quinnipiac.edu/x1318.xml?ReleaseID=1000


I think your comment about her cackle proves my point. Yes, lets not pick the best candidate because you don't like the way she laughs. Maybe you don't like her personality. WHO CARES! We are not picking the prom queen.

She has tons of experience starting as being on the Watergate investigation 30 years ago and has been among the worlds movers and shakers for the last 3 decades.

[W3MIV]

She has ...been among the worlds movers and shakers for the last 3 decades.

She was particularly effective at trying to move the furniture out of the White House, wasn't she?

:D

[W8EFA]

I don't know, seems to me that she is as much talk as any of the rest of them. When asked follow up questions she never seems to have the details. A good case in point is the whole health care thing. When asked what will happen if people are unable to pay under her "plan" (which has been vague at best) whether or not they would then have their pay docked and so on she doesn't give an answer. There are other examples as well, I'm not going to list them all here, but I don't think she's any better than Obama or any of the rest with her empty promises and "plans" that lack details.
I think the primary difference is that people are tired of experience, which is interpreted as dynasties, (if she wins it will be Bush, Clinton, Bush Jr., Mrs. Clinton) and would rather have a president with a fresh perspective that is at least striving towards a goal as opposed to just talking about it.
I'm not proclaiming to be for one or the other, quite frankly I find this election to be as bad as the last two in terms of choices, but I don't think that Clinton is so much better than Obama when it comes to rhetoric.

Please watch the next debate then. That is why they have them so you can really tell who know the issues and has a plan. Obama is a great speaker but he has done poorly in the debates. When all the candidates were on stage he was like a shrinking violet. Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and really Biden were all much better. He looked overmatched and overwhelmed at times. He does a little better one-on-one just by the nature of it, but every issue discussed Hillary shows a much deeper experience on every issue.

[W3MIV]

Please watch the next debate then. That is why they have them so you can really tell who know the issues and has a plan. Obama is a great speaker but he has done poorly in the debates. When all the candidates were on stage he was like a shrinking violet. Clinton, Edwards, Richardson, and really Biden were all much better. He looked overmatched and overwhelmed at times. He does a little better one-on-one just by the nature of it, but every issue discussed Hillary shows a much deeper experience on every issue.

Baloney. "Please tell us all, Ms Klinton, in thirty seconds or less, how you will manage to force through the new version of the same failed health-care scam you couldn't force through in 1993..."

Debates are a scam and display nothing much beyond the questioners facility for stage management without substance. Sure that would favor the candidate with the least substance: Ms Klinton.

Here is the measure of the reality of this campaign in a nutshell:


CHICAGO — A cluster of cramped cubicles, tucked away in a rear corner of Senator Barack Obama (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/o/barack_obama/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s campaign headquarters here, serves as the heart of a fund-raising machine that has reshaped the calculus of the 2008 election.

Mr. Obama’s finance director, Julianna Smoot, who has helped him raise more than $150 million so far, does not even have her own office. A Ping-Pong table is the gathering spot for Friday lunches for her team.

The setting, which has the feel of an Internet start-up, is emblematic of how Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has been able to raise so much money. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/organizations/f/federal_election_commission/index.html?inline=nyt-org) that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations. That dwarfed the $13.5 million in January that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/c/hillary_rodham_clinton/index.html?inline=nyt-per) of New York is expected to report Wednesday and the $12 million Senator John McCain (http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/m/john_mccain/index.html?inline=nyt-per)’s campaign said he brought in for the month.

Where's that money coming from? Unlike the Klinton Kampaign, most of it is coming from small contributions.

The details of Mr. Obama’s January fund-raising illustrate just how much his campaign has been able to chart a new path for the presidential race. He brought in $28 million online, with 90 percent of those transactions coming from people who donated $100 or less, and 40 percent from donors who gave $25 or less, suggesting that these contributors could be tapped for more. (Donors are limited to giving $2,300 per candidate during the primary season.) More than 200,000 of the campaign’s nearly 300,000 donors in January were first-time givers to Mr. Obama.

Obama is doing as well as he is doing because people are voting, not for the same old liars we have all come to know and deprecate, but for something entirely fresh and new. Something far more exciting that a shrew on a mission.

America HAS awakened, Willy Boy. They have awakened at long last to just what a scam and sham Billary represents. And they are walking away from Billary faster and faster as the race moves forward.

For more, see the NYT: http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/20/us/politics/20obama.html?_r=2&ex=1361250000&en=25a3a6b51cbb331f&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

[W8EFA]

She was particularly effective at trying to move the furniture out of the White House, wasn't she?

:D


Yes being the Karl Rove operative that you are, you would try a non issue swift boat attack.

Do you have anything real to attack Hillary with?

It really doesn't deserve a response but the reality is it's a non issue. A few staffers took the W's off the telephones and moved some fax machines so they wouldn't work. WOW! big deal. The same thing went on when he took over from daddy Bush. Daddy Bush's staffers pulled the same pranks...look it up,

Look up the facts Alberta and you will see Bill Clinton was offended and demanded an investigation and offered to pay for anything his staffers did. Bush dropped it immediately. Just more BS from the right. Anything to distract from the real issues.

The Clintons are extremely intelligent, Work Hard, and know how to get things done. That is what is important.

[W3MIV]

The Clintons are extremely intelligent, Work Hard, and know how to get things done. That is what is important.

There I will agree with you, Willy Boy. They certainly did know how to get things done. And when one of their helpmates got caught, Ol' Bubba was right there with pardon in hand.

;)

[W8EFA]

FROM MIV - Debates are a scam and display nothing much beyond the questioners facility for stage management without substance. Sure that would favor the candidate with the least substance: Ms Klinton.

Here is the measure of the reality of this campaign in a nutshell:


Quote:
CHICAGO — A cluster of cramped cubicles, tucked away in a rear corner of Senator Barack Obama’s campaign headquarters here, serves as the heart of a fund-raising machine that has reshaped the calculus of the 2008 election.

Mr. Obama’s finance director, Julianna Smoot, who has helped him raise more than $150 million so far, does not even have her own office. A Ping-Pong table is the gathering spot for Friday lunches for her team.

The setting, which has the feel of an Internet start-up, is emblematic of how Mr. Obama, of Illinois, has been able to raise so much money. On Wednesday, the Obama campaign will report to the Federal Election Commission that it collected $36 million in January — $4 million more than campaign officials had previously estimated — an unprecedented feat for a single month in American politics that was powered overwhelmingly by small online donations. That dwarfed the $13.5 million in January that Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton of New York is expected to report Wednesday and the $12 million Senator John McCain’s campaign said he brought in for the month.


Just like other posters have mentioned you are the man without a brain MIV.
You just pick whoever the frontrunner is! You pick Obama because he is getting the most contibutions? Incredible.

The Debates are nothing?? That is just incredibly stupid. Debates are and always have been the most important factor in deciding who is the best candidate.

MIV then goes on to state the most important factor is who is bringing in the most money.
:confused:

[W8EFA]

There I will agree with you, Willy Boy. They certainly did know how to get things done. And when one of their helpmates got caught, Ol' Bubba was right there with pardon in hand.

;)

More swift boating?

Want to argue the fact that the Clinton Presidency was one of the more successful despite the hindrance of Republican attacks from day one? Want to argue he left with a 67% Approval rating? Want to argue that the 90's were a time of peace and prosperity? Do you have anything intelligent to say?

[W3MIV]

Just like other posters have mentioned you are the man without a brain MIV.
You just pick whoever the frontrunner is! You pick Ovbama because he is getting the most contibutions? Incredible.

The Debates are nothing?? That is just incredibly stupid. Debates are and alwaydshave been the most important factor in deciding who is the best candidate.

MIV then goes on to state the most important factor is who is bringing in the most money.
:confused:

You are even duller than I thought. The entire point of the cited article was to show that Obama is accelerating toward victory, and that fundraising from myriad small "investors" in his campaign contrasts with the fewer and bigger donors who continue to fund Billary. Though that point was probably obvious to everyone else you read the post, it seems to have flown over your head. So much for your political acumen.

Bringing in the most money IS the most important thing of all, because it is clear and compelling proof of who is gaining more and more popularity and who is losing it swiftly. This is an election, Willy Boy, and the two Democrat candidates are vying to be chosen, so popularity, whether or not you care to admit it, is the single, fundamental goal of each campaign. You reall ARE quite dull.

As to my support for Obama, I have stated all along that I support his freshness, and I am willing to endure his lack of experience in many areas in light of his sheer intelligence, his energy and drive, and his obvious commitment to move away from the same old ways of doing the same old things -- which is the entirety of Billary's appeal to ward-heelers of the Party's goose-stepping, Kool-Aid drinking set which you so ebulliently represent in your continued efforts to sell this bill-of-goods named Shrillary.

And, yes, the debates show little or nothing. A few sentences of a response to an insipid question is a meaningless way of examining a candidate's ability to deal with anything -- other, perhaps, than the show-business aspect. There Shrillary wins hands down -- tears and all.

[W3MIV]

Hillary Clinton has been calling Barack Obama a plagiarist (http://www.slate.com/id/2184070/). Now she can call him a thief. Obama won the Wisconsin primary by stealing support from blue-collar workers, previously a key Clinton bloc.

If Clinton was to survive the string of February losses, it was going to be by holding on to what her chief strategist, Mark Penn, has called her "durable coalition." White women, Latinos, and older voters would be unmoved by Obama's flash. No group was more crucial to the Penn argument than blue-collar voters. Clinton aides argued that not only were they bedrock Democratic voters for Clinton, but they had an aversion to Obama. "How can the Democratic nominee win without working people?" asked a top Clinton adviser recently.

The simple fact is that Obama is cutting more and more and more deeply into the very constituencies that Klinton needs in order to win.

http://www.slate.com/id/2184689/

It is clearer and clearer:


In Wisconsin, according to exit polls, Obama placed ahead of Clinton among those who make less than $50,000 a year and those with less than a college education. He has now won working-class white men in Wisconsin, Missouri, New Hampshire, California, Maryland, and Virginia. Obama also ate into Clinton's usual margin with white women voters (http://slate.com/blogs/blogs/xxfactor/archive/2008/02/19/the-great-white-divide.aspx). (Even if exit polls are tweaked in the coming hours and Clinton winds up with a narrow edge among these groups, Obama will still have won sizable support in areas where Clinton was supposed to be strongest.) And his double-digit victory came without the help of a sizable number of black votes, which Clinton allies had previously cited as a caveat to his victories in other states.

All that Shrillary will have left to cling to is the hope that her "super-delegates" will overbalance the continued bleeding of her base. And, as virtually everyone from Howard Dean down has admitted, that will be a train wreck for the Democrats.

This little incident is telling, if you are awake enough to read the signs:


The competition for the next phase of the campaign started as soon as the results were in. Clinton, speaking in Youngstown, Ohio, launched a string of attacks against Obama that didn't seem to stir the audience. It is often the custom for the winner to wait for the loser to finish speaking, but watching Clinton's attacks on television, the Obama camp sent its man out a little early. The cable channels switched to his speech and dropped Clinton, as Obama's people knew they would. "I guess cable just likes winners," said a top Obama aide, coyly.

Stick a fork in her.

[kt6k]

When 'W' was 'elected" in 2000, remember how everyone said he was just a "talking-figurehead", but surrounded by 'experienced' people, experienced people like Cheney, Rumsfeld, Rice, Libby, and Rove just to name a few.

Kind of gives 'experience' a bad name, doesn't it?

However I believe your question probably was about Mr. Obama vs. Mrs. Clinton. I believe all their titles are the same, "Senator".

The only differences between them are what they stand for--what they will direct their administration to accomplish. McCain promises us four more years of Bush embarrassing America in front of the rest of the world (religion), Bush economics -- favoring big business profits over middle class jobs, indefinite Iraq War, spying on our private communications, and the doing away with Social Security and Medicare for our children and the elderly.

Mrs. Clinton promises us four more years of Bill Clinton, which was a pretty good deal come to think of it. I like her promise of Universal Healthcare, but I don't like that she supports Conservative-Run Big Business HealthCare Insurance Companies...who got us in this mess in the first place. But I really don't like her connections with the big business lobbying crowd, who don't have our best interests at heart--only their corporate own. She's going to be under a lot of pressure even if she doesn't think so.

Mr. Obama has promised to change all of the few things listed above for Mr. McCain and Mrs. Clinton, except getting rid of the HMOs in his Universal HealthCare plan. We’ll you can't get everything you want. My mama used to tell me that.

My experience makes me believe that I probably should support Senator Obama. He seems to be experienced enough to know what the other two are doing wrong for this country.

[W8EFA]

And, yes, the debates show little or nothing. A few sentences of a response to an insipid question is a meaningless way of examining a candidate's ability to deal with anything -- other, perhaps, than the show-business aspect.

That is one of the stupidest comments ever put in writing.

Presidential debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to voters in a framework of discussing the most controversial issues of the time that they will have to deal with.

[n7wr]

Time for Billary to bow out...but doubt if she will. Standby for the most brutal tactics the American political stage has ever seen. The woman can't believe what's happening to her destiny. It's all about winning for her and she will stop at nothing to de-rail the Obama train. The dems are self-destructing not that the other party has much to offer either.

[W3MIV]

That is one of the stupidest comments ever put in writing.

Presidential debates, as a permanent part of every general election, provide the best possible information to voters in a framework of discussing the most controversial issues of the time that they will have to deal with.

Sure they do, Willy Boy, sure they do. Keep telling yourself that as you watch Shrillary continue to shrink. She merely wants debates to keep her from the stage and live appearances, where she bombs and Obama shines.

This is a political campaign, Willy Boy, not some ward meeting of the local political club. Obama knows how to win. And win he will.

[AE6IP]

Herbert Hoover was the man who entered the Whitehouse with the greatest level of experience. He failed miserably. Franklin Roosevelt was thought to be a 'lightweight' with little real experience before becoming one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States.

Mrs Clinton has no more executive experience that Mr Obama, and their relative legislative experience speaks more highly of Mr Obama, who has demonstrated an ability to achieve consensus and pass legislation, while Mrs Clinton has demonstrated a tendancy to burn bridges and fail to pass legislation.

The presidency is, more than anything else, a "bully pulpit", and Mr Obama is clearly more effective at using such a pulpit than Mrs Clinton.

Mr Obama's message is positive, and speaks of healing at a time when this country needs healing and consensus more than it needs anything else.

It is time for a positive voice in America.

[K3XR]

Let the games begin, Union thug attacks Barry. From PMSNBC

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/

[N9MOQ]

The more I see of Obama the more I realize that he is a nice guy that has no experience and no plan and is really a bunch of hot air at this point.

I have noticed something very interesting in this election. Whenever I have personally seen or heard that someone dislikes a candidate, they let the name calling and insults about them fly, without preceeding them by a complimentary statement.

To every candidate except one. Obama.

I hear it on radio, see it on TV, and read it here. If anyone dares to say anything negative about Obama, it usually is always preceeded, as it was in this example, with a comment that first compliments him, before stating why he would not be a good choice, and even then, the negatives don't seem to be as harsh as with the other candidates.

It's as if people feel that if they don't first put in that "disclaimer" they are afraid of something that might result.

I wonder what that might be?

[K3XR]

Very interesting Barry.

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=25087

[AE6IP]

I have noticed something very interesting in this election. When someone dislikes a candidate, they let the name calling and insults about them fly.

To every candidate except one. Obama.


Really? You haven't been paying close attention then. Mr Obama is subject to the same level of name calling as any other candidate, along with the same level of malicious gossip. And no, I haven't seen the right-wing hate tracts pointed at him say anything polite first.

[N3RQ]

I knew Hillary was for real when she went to the Senate. If she wasn't competent the Republicans would have ripped her apart. Do a little research and you will find she is very much respected and can work with the Republicans.


New York was a cherry-picked setup to run for president. If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that Hillary will not run for another term in the senate if she loses this race.

[kc2orw]

New York was a cherry-picked setup to run for president. If I were a betting man, I would lay odds that Hillary will not run for another term in the senate if she loses this race.
I am willing to bet that there is something to what you say...

[N3RQ]

The Clintons are extremely intelligent, Work Hard, and know how to get things done. That is what is important.

The Clintons are a prime example of what is wrong with America.

[W3MIV]

Joe Palermo puts it well: IT'S OVER.


The meaningless negative attacks on Barack Obama that Howard Wolfson and Mark Penn unleashed in Wisconsin in full Rovian fashion backfired. After dredging up stupid accusations about "plagiarism" the Clinton campaign seems brain dead. The old Saul Alinsky notion that "organized people" will always defeat "organized money" is playing out in the form of Obama's grassroots ground campaign. In Wisconsin, the Hillary camp bet on the idea that "organized attacks" can defeat "organized people" and ended up losing by 17 points.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/joseph-a-palermo/its-over_b_87500.html

Kool-Aid sippers take note.


Obama has closed the gap in Texas according to the recent polls and he has two more weeks to mobilize his forces. And in Texas the proportionate delegate count strongly favors African-American voters. In Ohio, Obama is also closing the gap and these two states were supposedly Hillary's "firewall." If Obama wins one of these states or is razor close in Ohio then there's no political reason for the Clinton campaign to continue for another month awaiting the Pennsylvania primary. During that period the commentariat will be asking the question: When is Hillary going to get out? And why throw money away in Pennsylvania when Obama has the nomination all but wrapped up?

I said somewhere above, "stick a fork in her." The time is now to take the issues to John McCain and consign Shrillary to the dustbin of history -- along with the more hysterical (and amusing) of her supporters.

Oh, and take Bill with her. But leave the silver. :p

[kg6amw]

Herbert Hoover was the man who entered the Whitehouse with the greatest level of experience. He failed miserably. Franklin Roosevelt was thought to be a 'lightweight' with little real experience before becoming one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States.

Mrs Clinton has no more executive experience that Mr Obama, and their relative legislative experience speaks more highly of Mr Obama, who has demonstrated an ability to achieve consensus and pass legislation, while Mrs Clinton has demonstrated a tendancy to burn bridges and fail to pass legislation.

The presidency is, more than anything else, a "bully pulpit", and Mr Obama is clearly more effective at using such a pulpit than Mrs Clinton.

Mr Obama's message is positive, and speaks of healing at a time when this country needs healing and consensus more than it needs anything else.

It is time for a positive voice in America.

There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. Unfortunately if and when he elected, reality will set in and many will be heart broken.

[W3MIV]

There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. Unfortunately if and when he elected, reality will set in and many will be heart broken.

I'll send you a satin pillow to cry on.

[W8EFA]

Obama reminds me of another outsider, nice guy, good intentions, a promise of change, and rather naive...... Jimmy Carter.

[kc2orw]

There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. Unfortunately if and when he elected, reality will set in and many will be heart broken.
No faith required it boils down to not giving a third term to the Bush/NeoCons now represented by John McCain. How simple can it get, it is entirely too easy to understand and that, I suspect, is what makes it so hard for some to understand.

[AE6IP]

There is tremendous faith in his ability to just wave a love-wand and get things done. Unfortunately if and when he elected, reality will set in and many will be heart broken.

I've not met anyone with such faith. All of the Obama supporters I know have realistic expectations that the most he will accomplish in a first term is first steps towards the healing that this country so desperately needs.

[WA3KYY]

One of the political commentators on MSNBC (IIRC) was comparing the efficency of organization and running of their respective compaigns by Clinton and Obama. The Obama campaign in the opinion of the commentator was far better organized and managed and therefor more successful than the Clinton campaign. Since this was the biggest organization or enterprise run by either to date, he felt it was a telling example and probable predictor of success at running the country as President.

[k9kxq]

I'm undecided as to who I want to vote for in the primary (Obama or Clinton) one thing that I'm certain of I will vote for a Democrat...

I can understand Bill's(w8efa) passion for the Clinton's and I can understand Albert's passion for Obama, one thing I've listen to from most is the fact that they will not vote republican.

Seems the right cannot forget the BJ that Bill Clinton received, they hate him and Hillary, you folks have to get past that, if you want to bitch and hate you need to turn it towards the party that has done the most damage in the history of this country, the Bush administration..

kxq

[W3MIV]

Seems the right cannot forget the BJ that Bill Clinton received, they hate him and Hillary, you folks have to get past that...

The distaste for Ms Clinton is far deeper, I think, than a mere distaste for Bill and really has little to do directly with his indiscretions and infidelities. To one extent, however, it does: The Clintons remain married, I am convinced, more because of Hillary's raw and driving ambition than because of any devotion the couple may now share. I cannot imagine any wife enduring the humiliations and utter disrespect that Bill showed time and again, both in Arkansas and in the White House.

I am of the view that this "raw-meat" character within Ms Clinton is what drives her, and I believe that there are many, many people who are coming to realize that she will likely do ANYTHING to achieve her goals. In lots of ways, she is Nixon in drag. We don't need to go there.

Obama, on the other hand, may offer a break to the sullen partisanship that now locks government into a slow, twisting dance of the Congress around Bush, neither one paying as much attention to the real needs of the nation as they are to each other's mutual hatred. I believe that Obama can reach across the aisle to get either side to sit down and work with the other. I don't believe Clinton can do that nearly as well, though I suspect McCain may be capable of real bipartisanship -- if he were to be elected, which is against the odds if he has to run against Obama. Most polls show him defeating Clinton, if narrowly, while they show him losing to Obama. If you are a died-in-the-wool Democrat (but not a Kool-Aid Kid), this should be of substantial influence on your decision.

Plus, today the Teamsters have decided to endorse Obama, not Clinton.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/teamsters-union-plans-to-_n_87602.html

That should be a big plus to those of you who value unionist recommendations.


The 1.4 million-member Teamsters union will endorse Sen. Barack Obama's presidential candidacy today, Democrats briefed on the decision said.
A Teamsters official confirmed the endorsement.

[ks4du]

My uneducated political observations:

I've always liked John Mcain. He seems level-headed but all of a sudden is spewing a bunch of party-line stuff that I don't think he really stands for. Gotta question that.

I like Obama. He seems sincere but nothing much else to go on.

Hillary creeps me out.

Huckabee is a more dangerous nut-case than G.W. Bush.

[W8EFA]

I'm undecided as to who I want to vote for in the primary (Obama or Clinton) one thing that I'm certain of I will vote for a Democrat...

I can understand Bill's(w8efa) passion for the Clinton's and I can understand Albert's passion for Obama, one thing I've listen to from most is the fact that they will not vote republican.

Seems the right cannot forget the BJ that Bill Clinton received, they hate him and Hillary, you folks have to get past that, if you want to bitch and hate you need to turn it towards the party that has done the most damage in the history of this country, the Bush administration..

kxq

I will agree with that.

I like Clinton because I know what I will get. Her strength is her absolute mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy that none of the other candidates can match. She speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, and Darfur. She goes into detail about any issue raised. I would recommend everyone (except MIV) to watch a debate before you vote, IMO the best differentiator between the candidates

Obama has a lot of promise but no experience or track record to back it up. I am not going to “hire” someone with no real qualifications to the most influential job in the world. I am used to the business world. You look at their qualifications, education, track record, etc for the position. You don’t hire someone on hope and promise and hope for the best! You wouldn’t be in business very long!

Sooner or later you have to see if hope is substantiated. When Bush first came on the scene with his passionate conservatism talk I had hope for him to. I thought he would be like Clinton a Centrist, just from the other side. I actually registered as a Republican so I could vote for him in the Primaries! It wasn’t but a few months after the primaries I saw he was just all talk and came to my senses and saw him for what he was. Lazy, not to smart, unqualified, hardheaded and surrounded by Criminals like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, Rove, Libby, telling him what to do.

[AE6IP]

I like Clinton because I know what I will get. Her strength is her absolute mastery of the details of domestic and foreign policy that none of the other candidates can match. She speaks fluently about what to do in Pakistan, Iraq, and Darfur. She goes into detail about any issue raised. I would recommend everyone (except MIV) to watch a debate before you vote, IMO the best differentiator between the candidates

Believe it or not, the most important feature of a president is not ability to debate. It's something they rarely do.

Obama has a lot of promise but no experience or track record to back it up.

He has a longer track record of actual service than Mrs Clinton.

I am not going to “hire” someone with no real qualifications to the most influential job in the world.

Given the current field, you have no choice. None of the three current contenders have any executive service.

I am used to the business world. You look at their qualifications, education, track record, etc for the position. You don’t hire someone on hope and promise and hope for the best! You wouldn’t be in business very long!

Mrs Clinton's track record consists of being the junior senator from New York. Mr Obamas track record consists of a similar current position preceded by state legislative experience. Mrs Clinton has failed to build coalitions, obtain consensus, or have any of her legislation passed. Mr Obama has accomplished these things. I have no idea what you're actually basing you choice on, but it does not appear to be track record.

Sooner or later you have to see if hope is substantiated. When Bush first came on the scene with his passionate conservatism talk I had hope for him to. I thought he would be like Clinton a Centrist, just from the other side. I actually registered as a Republican so I could vote for him in the Primaries! It wasn’t but a few months after the primaries I saw he was just all talk and came to my senses and saw him for what he was. Lazy, not to smart, unqualified, hardheaded and surrounded by Criminals like Rumsfeld, Cheney, Kristol, Rove, Libby, telling him what to do.

Had you read any of the late Molly Ivins' reportage on Bush when he was governor of Texas, none of what he did as president would have surprised you.

Mr Obama has a better track record in the skills that matter in the presidency than Mrs Clinton. As mentioned here, his campaign is better organized and on message. He has shown an ability to achieve compromise among warring parties on divisive issues and get reasonable legislation passed. He is clearly the better speaker and would more effectively use the president's bully pulpit.

[nz3m]

Obama's followers remind me of a little story. Here is part of it...

"Into the street the Piper stept,
Smiling first a little smile,
As if he knew what magic slept
In his quiet pipe the while;
Then, like a musical adept,
To blow the pipe his lips he wrinkled,
And green and blue his sharp eyes twinkled,
Like a candle-flame where salt is sprinkled;
And ere three shrill notes the pipe uttered,
You heard as if an army muttered;
And the muttering grew to a grumbling;
And the grumbling grew to a mighty rumbling;
And out of the houses the rats came tumbling.
Great rats, small rats, lean rats, brawny rats,
Brown rats, black rats, grey rats, tawny rats,
Grave old plodders, gay young friskers,
Fathers, mothers, uncles, cousins,
Cocking tails and pricking whiskers,
Families by tens and dozens,
Brothers, sisters, husbands, wives --
Followed the Piper for their lives.
From street to street he piped advancing,
And step for step they followed dancing,
Until they came to the river Weser
Wherein all plunged and perished!"

:p
Dave

[kc2orw]

Too much Medium Wave and Fox News I suspect :D

[K3XR]

I would NOT count the Clinton Crime Family out, just yet.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=NjA5OTJmZDZhM2ViMGNmNjE2MTVlMzkyNTE3NTU5Njg=

[k3roj]

I always thought radio amateurs had some inteligence to be able to pass the exams. Hillary is our only choice as President but unfortunately our voting system needs serious repair. We must look out for our own people even if it means voting for McCain if this Obamba character gets gets voted in by druggies and school drop outs.

[kc2orw]

I always thought radio amateurs had some inteligence to be able to pass the exams. Hillary is our only choice as President but unfortunately our voting system needs serious repair. We must look out for our own people even if it means voting for McCain if this Obamba character gets gets voted in by druggies and school drop outs.
Yup easy to see why the Democrats are gonna kick butt this year. Time to take care of some old unfinished business that has been left incomplete for too long.

[KB9YCO]

They [the Clinton's] certainly did know how to get things done. And when one of their helpmates got caught, Ol' Bubba was right there with pardon in hand.

Yeah, the does sounds familiar... doling out pardons when your buddies get caught in the act. Scooter Libby anyone? (Modern two-party politics at their finest, or lowest, or scummiest... big surprise, the political sharks protect their own while they eat the little fish and ignore the rest; the law be damned, I like him so he's innocent!)

[K3XR]

Nothing new from the Clinton Crime Family, some old corrupt operation.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120364037189484545.html

[N3RQ]

I always thought radio amateurs had some inteligence to be able to pass the exams. Hillary is our only choice as President but unfortunately our voting system needs serious repair. We must look out for our own people even if it means voting for McCain if this Obamba character gets gets voted in by druggies and school drop outs.

Obama is carrying the educated and well-to-do white vote by a large margin.

[WB2WIK]

Obama is carrying the educated and well-to-do white vote by a large margin.

::How could we know that? The vote is confidential, we don't know the demographic of any voting group.

Clinton took California by a good margin (more delegates than anywhere) and you can't get much more "well to do" than that...highest average income in the country, led by Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Orange County and San Diego metro regions which make up the bulk of the population.

[W3MIV]

::How could we know that? The vote is confidential, we don't know the demographic of any voting group.

Clinton took California by a good margin (more delegates than anywhere) and you can't get much more "well to do" than that...highest average income in the country, led by Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Orange County and San Diego metro regions which make up the bulk of the population.

Most of the demographics are being determined by exit polling.

[AE6IP]

::How could we know that? The vote is confidential, we don't know the demographic of any voting group.

Clinton took California by a good margin (more delegates than anywhere) and you can't get much more "well to do" than that...highest average income in the country, led by Los Angeles, San Francisco, San Jose, Orange County and San Diego metro regions which make up the bulk of the population.

CNN's exit poll (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#CADEM) is typical of the sort of statistics that are gathered by the campaigns and the news agencies during the primaries.

Mrs Clinton campaigned hard in California, where a lot of people still thought highly of her husband. It's one of the few states she has done well in, and here in Northern California, she did not do so well.

[N3RQ]

Maryland's exit poll results (http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/epolls/#MDDEM)

[W8EFA]

Hillarys back is against the wall, it has to be frustrating losing momemntum to someone with no experience an few accomplishments however she refuses to go negative, and for that I applaud her.

The Democrats have staged a very upbeat campaign with none of the mudslinging of the Republicans.

Here is a good video clip from the debate.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/tonight

[W3MIV]

The Democrats have staged a very upbeat campaign with none of the mudslinging of the Republicans.

The only "mudslinging" that I have heard among "Republicans" is the offal being spewed out by the Radio Reactionaries against McCain, whom they consider too moderate. That is not attributable to the "Republicans," but to private commentators. Significantly, that deprecation now, thanks largely to the stupidity of Keller, Sulzberger et al at the NYT, has been turned around into a phalanx of support by way of their hatred of the NYT (an icon for the Right similar to how Bush supplies a target for the hatred of the Left).

I have heard no less mudslinging against Obama on many other outlets, especially so on some internet "news" organs like Huffington, to which I subscribe.

All in all, I think this has been one of the more "positive" campaigns of the past twenty years.

[KC2KFC]

Hillarys back is against the wall, it has to be frustrating losing momemntum to someone with no experience an few accomplishments however she refuses to go negative, and for that I applaud her.

The Democrats have staged a very upbeat campaign with none of the mudslinging of the Republicans.

Here is a good video clip from the debate.

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/tonight

Do you ever think for yourself or do you let Hillary do all of your thinking for you?

[K0RGR]

My problem with Sen. Clinton is that she has too much negative baggage. If she is elected, Richard Mellon Scaife will simply open his multi-billion dollar war chest and flood the airwaves with the same old whispers he used against Bill Clinton. In six months, half the country will think she's a murderer, just like KWW. The result will be another wasted presidency, with zero accomplishments, and maybe another impeachment attempt.

True, that would still be much better than what we've had the last 7 years.

Obama inspires an excitement we haven't had in many decades. He's not as accomplished as John Kennedy, but he wasn't born to wealth and power, either. Occasionally, you have to reach for the brass ring. Sometimes, you miss, like with Jimmy Carter, who failed to lead the government in spite of his deep administrative experience.

For me, the point of demarcation was when in an early Democratic debate, Obama declared that as president, he would meet with our enemies. He was immediately attacked by Mrs. Clinton and the other candidates, and John McCain, as being 'naive' and obviously lacking experience. I think what America needs is exactly what he's calling for - a dialog with these enemies, as opposed to our current policy of stonewalling those who don't do what we demand of them. Good God, peace might break out, and we can't let that happen!

[W3MIV]

For me, the point of demarcation was when in an early Democratic debate, Obama declared that as president, he would meet with our enemies. He was immediately attacked by Mrs. Clinton and the other candidates, and John McCain, as being 'naive' and obviously lacking experience. I think what America needs is exactly what he's calling for - a dialog with these enemies, as opposed to our current policy of stonewalling those who don't do what we demand of them. Good God, peace might break out, and we can't let that happen!

While I certainly agree that we should seek to engage our adversaries in fruitful discussions that could move all of us beyond rancorous misunderstanding, there is nonetheless a worry that naivety could produce more trouble than it might solve. Such was a large measure of Carter's policy problems. Simply embracing enemies, holding hands and singing Kumbaja is as much a formula for disaster as is an excess of acrimony. Putin is to be trusted as much as any other jackal or frequenter of the world's dungheaps.

[nx6d]

While I certainly agree that we should seek to engage our adversaries in fruitful discussions that could move all of us beyond rancorous misunderstanding, there is nonetheless a worry that naivety could produce more trouble than it might solve. Such was a large measure of Carter's policy problems. Simply embracing enemies, holding hands and singing Kumbaja is as much a formula for disaster as is an excess of acrimony. Putin is to be trusted as much as any other jackal or frequenter of the world's dungheaps.

Agreed as to Putin. The flip side is we can't raise the importance of every tinpot dictator to the level of Hitler or Stalin because they spout anti-American rhetoric that is usually for domestic consumption.

An example is Venezuela. Most people in this country didn't give Venezuela a second thought until this administration started the demonization drumbeat against Hugo Chavez. Why do this?

The answer lies in the same folder with Iraq. It's all about oil and US economic issues overseas, not "democracy" or "terrorism". If we were so concerned about both of those issues we should be sanctioning or invading Saudi Arabia.

I think if Obama surrounds himself with the right people (Bill Richardson comes to mind) we won't have the problems that were associated with the Carter administration. Numero Uno, we'll finally get away from this juvenile labeling of everyone as a "socialist" because they don't agree with our foreign policy initiatives. That kind of junk satisifies the yahoo crowd in this country but is a far cry from reality. Number two, I think an incoming Obama (or Clinton) administration would have a better fix on who are enemies really are, like Putin. You won't an Obama or Clinton administration being lead around by PNAC like W the puppy dog was.

Dave NX6D
Modoc County, CA

[W8EFA]

The only "mudslinging" that I have heard among "Republicans" is the offal being spewed out by the Radio Reactionaries against McCain, whom they consider too moderate. That is not attributable to the "Republicans," but to private commentators. Significantly, that deprecation now, thanks largely to the stupidity of Keller, Sulzberger et al at the NYT, has been turned around into a phalanx of support by way of their hatred of the NYT (an icon for the Right similar to how Bush supplies a target for the hatred of the Left).

I have heard no less mudslinging against Obama on many other outlets, especially so on some internet "news" organs like Huffington, to which I subscribe.

All in all, I think this has been one of the more "positive" campaigns of the past twenty years.

No Mudslinging amongst the Republicans? Hello?? McCAin vs Romney? Guliani?

Well since you don't watch the debates I guess you didn't see the mudslinging. (Apparently you don't read the news either)
The Republicans were a lot more contentious than the Democrats. There is a wide disparity in issues and approaches among the Republicans and there is a palpable dislike between Romney and McCain. Hillary and Obama are 90% the same on the issues and they genuinely like each other

[W3MIV]

No Mudslinging amongst the Republicans? Hello?? McCAin vs Romney? Guliani?

Well since you don't watch the debates I guess you didn't see the mudslinging. (Apparently you don't read the news either)
The Republicans were a lot more contentious than the Democrats. There is a wide disparity in issues and approaches among the Republicans and there is a palpable dislike between Romney and McCain. Hillary and Obama are 90% the same on the issues and they genuinely like each other


I guess from the above, Bill's playing the race card in South Carolina was not mudslinging by your definition. That sorry episode, of course, does not fit into your agenda, so passes notice.

I have seen no instance in which any one of the candidates, now active or withdrawn, has "laid a glove" on any other that was out of line. Or even, for that matter, "tough." We have yet to see any appearances by a "Willy Horton," or videos of Obama looking embarrassed and helmeted in a tank or of Hillary welding pipe and breaking a nail. Such entertainments are yet to come; one holds fire until the whites of the eyes of nominees become visible.

I do not watch debates; they are a waste of time since no one can make clear and reasoned statements of policy in response to the often less-than-evocative questions of television entertainers and promoters.

I much prefer to read position papers, and even they are more often puff pieces lacking in either detail or merit than they are anything dependably predictive of future policies or behavior once the chair has been occupied.

[W8EFA]

Do you ever think for yourself or do you let Hillary do all of your thinking for you?


What kind of statement is that? I post a clip of the candidate I am now supporting and I am not thinking for myself?

I think it is you who fails to think. I would bet you are one of those ones who hate the Clintons... yet when asked specifically for something Hillary has done wrong, stand speechless like a dumb mute.

I do think for myself, my first choice was Edwards and my second was Biden. If Obama wins I will probably support him though to be honest if McCain wasn't such a war Hawk and had different views on Iraq and Iran I would consider him. Obama has so much potential and could be a great President, (I think). But i can't get pasthe has no accomplishments to speak of which really worries me. His best assett is he ia a great orator, not number one on my list in importance nut unfortunately is for America.

I come from the business world and to me voting is like hiring someone. I took a 2 week intense management course on hiring the right employee and you don't hire someone for a job without experience and a proven track record.

And for those of you who think the Neos will attack Clinton and not Obama, I have a bridge to sell you. Both Hillary and Obama will start pulling troops and will be under attack. The difference is Hillary has the respect and has actually worked with Republicans to get things done not just talked about it.

[KW4MW]

I'm coming in late on this thread but let me put in my 2 cents worth.

I gather that the gist of 8EFA's argument is that Hillary is better qualified because she has more experience. I suppose that beyond her senatorial experience one could count her being in the background during Bill's office days as the guv and the prez as experience - or at least exposure to the ways of the politicians.

However there is the other side of the experience coin and that is Hillary is more entrenched as a political hack - she probably has a lot more markers out than Obama and believe me, she'll be expected to pay up if she is elected to office.

Haven't we had enough of the same old same old? 20 years of Bush and Clinton should be enough for anyone. Between those two families they account for almost 10% of this nations presidencies.

It's time to move on - whether you're a Bush fan or a Clinton fan you have to recognize the fact that both regimes have polarized this country - we need to get rid of all the old hacks and put some fresh blood into our political system.

[W3MIV]

It's time to move on - whether you're a Bush fan or a Clinton fan you have to recognize the fact that both regimes have polarized this country - we need to get rid of all the old hacks and put some fresh blood into our political system.

Glad to hear that you are planning to come out for Obama.

[K3XR]

I guess you could calll it piling on, oh well...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child

[kc2orw]

I guess you could calll it piling on, oh well...

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-versus-the-allegedly-raped-child

No but I might call sweetness & light the Enquirer and you a supermarket shopper :D

[W4CBJ]

OBAMARAMA: We need change !
Inflation: Hey, buddy, can you spare ten bucks for a cup of coffee ?
CHANGE: "Hey. white boy,when you gonna get a job ?"
W.B. " Bama's gonna get me one in South Carolina...pickin' cotton."

[K3XR]

"Super Gays" to bail out Mrs. Bill??
http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=ZjA4NTk1NTk4Yjg2MDdmNDU5Nzg5Y2MzNWU3ZDViOGQ=

[K3XR]

Let the games begin....

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/hillary-fan-stabs-obama-supporting-in-law

[K3XR]

"To all the girls I've know before........"

http://www.lvrj.com/columnists/normclarke/breaking_news/15949272.html?normBN=true

[K3XR]

"Smartest woman"

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/26/smartest-woman-in-the-world-yeah-um-ill-get-back-to-you-about-those-tax-returns/?print=1

[K3XR]

Georgie Porgie feeling sorry for nurse Ratchet.

http://newsbusters.org/node/19528/print

[K3XR]

Could you super size my delegates??

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/27/why-superdelegates-are-smarter-than-democratic-voters/?print=1

[K3XR]

You don't inspire Hill.

http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.aspx?GUID=FA08D2F6-6A02-4DB4-A649-A1F79933F7DD

[K3XR]

Give this man an intern....

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/01/video-aging-roguish-womanizer-not-named-bill-clinton-stumps-for-hillary/?print=1

[NL7W]

Give this man an intern....

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/01/video-aging-roguish-womanizer-not-named-bill-clinton-stumps-for-hillary/?print=1

Give him two or three... He needs them.

[ad4mg]

Give him two or three... He needs them.

hotair.com? Anyone dipping into this wealth of partisan sewage need a cerebral enema.

[K3XR]

Is the LIB media turning on Barry??
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/02/has-the-media-begun-to-turn-on-barack-obama/?print=1

[k9kxq]

OBAMARAMA: We need change !
Inflation: Hey, buddy, can you spare ten bucks for a cup of coffee ?
CHANGE: "Hey. white boy,when you gonna get a job ?"
W.B. " Bama's gonna get me one in South Carolina...pickin' cotton."

Pitiful, just plain pitiful...

kxq

[k9kxq]

Is the LIB media turning on Barry??
http://hotair.com/archives/2008/03/02/has-the-media-begun-to-turn-on-barack-obama/?print=1

See if you had universal health care you could get the meds you need...

kxq

[ad4mg]

See if you had universal health care you could get the meds you need...

kxq

Baaaaaa! 3 pointer!

+1

[NR7J]

I heard someone saying:

"If you were an intelligent democrat, You would be a REPUBLICAN"



In reply to some of the comments.

1)" Barack HUSSEIN Obama " is very liberal.

2) McCain is the best choice for our home land security.

3) Hillary nor Barack have any balls.

Go with the winning team, vote for McCain.

[n0ov]

The more I see of Obama the more I realize that he is a nice guy that has no experience and no plan and is really a bunch of hot air at this point.

Wake up Democrats! I am losing all faith in the American people’s judgment. We elected Bush when anyone with a brain knew he was incompetent and we have paid the price for it.

When Obama doesn't want to debate Hillary and discuss issues what does that tell you people? Wake up.

I don't care if Hillary is a b**** (female dog), I don’t care if you think she is un- attractive (we are not marrying her), or If you have problems with her because she is a woman (you have the problems). She is much smarter, far more experienced, and much more respected with a thousand times more clout than Obama.

I knew Hillary was for real when she went to the Senate. If she wasn't competent the Republicans would have ripped her apart. Do a little research and you will find she is very much respected and can work with the Republicans.

The first thing Obama will do is start pulling troops out. The Republicans will get PO'ed and completely shun him. Obama will want to get things done with his Naive idea that the Republican will just sit down with him and talk. Absolutely nothing will get done as he has no alliances or network.

All Obama has done is talk!!!! Wake up.

Actually I think Hillary will still win by winning Ohio and Texas and maybe picking up delegates in Michigan and Florida and being tied in the delegates with the super delegates then voting for her as the best choice. But it shouldn't be this close with Americans once again voting style and rhetoric over substance.

It is not Hillary's personality or the fact that she is a woman that bothers me, it is her voting record. Take a look at it --- she is so far left it is not funny. She represents the exact type of person we do not or at least should not want in the White House. I dislike Bush but would rather see 4 more years of W than seeing Hillary in there.

And news flash, there is another person running also........ so there are other options.

[ad4mg]

I heard someone saying:

"If you were an intelligent democrat, You would be a REPUBLICAN"



In reply to some of the comments.

1)" Barack HUSSEIN Obama " is very liberal.

2) McCain is the best choice for our home land security.

3) Hillary nor Barack have any balls.

Go with the winning team, vote for McCain.

You offer nothing of substance. I am seriously trying to decide who to vote for, pretty much between McCain and Obama. It's not going to be an easy choice, because I do agree that some of Obama's policies might be costly in the tax department, but McCain is in the "war camp".

But I gotta tell you, the more uber right-wing rhetoric, totally void of fact, that I see (your post a perfect example), the more I lean towards Obama, who I think will win the Democratic nod.

Spewing New American Century Conservative / New World Order Conservative / Neoconservative babble like you are doing is the best campaign strategy the Democrats can hope for. You literally drive votes away from your candidate.

If you want to share your support for your candidate in the hopes of swaying other voters, then tell me why McCain is "the man".

If you want to spew war mongering, PNAC inspired neoconservative sewage, you came to the right place.

I suspect your motive is totally in alignment with the latter.

Thanks for playing, Comrade.

[W3MIV]

I am seriously trying to decide who to vote for, pretty much between McCain and Obama. It's not going to be an easy choice, because I do agree that some of Obama's policies might be costly in the tax department, but McCain is in the "war camp".

I favor Obama, and will vote for him; I don't think Clinton will make the cut, and I could not vote for her were she to do so. Time to be rid of the Clintons. That said, I could easily live with McCain, and I share some concerns about Obama.

The reality of Iraq is such that Obama may end up following policies that are different from his stated position in this campaign. Careful tuning to his message reveals that he has stated that pulling out is a "goal" that he intends to pursue. That is political code for an unforeclosed option to "stay the course" should he come to believe that is a better option. To my mind, this is a sign of the man's intelligence, and not a augury of dishonesty.

An interesting column in today's WashPost by Robin Wright paints a very different picture of the entire Middle East than that which we have grown accustomed to seeing day in, day out.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/29/AR2008022903243.html

Does Ms Wright's view have any merit in terms of long-term chances of successful change? Who knows. What is clear, however, is that things are not always as they are being promoted, and for every jaundiced eye there is a sanguine one.


In 2006, three years after the Iraq (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iraq?tid=informline) invasion, I got so tired of the divisive debate in Washington about the future of the Middle East (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Middle+East?tid=informline) that I went back to the region I've covered since 1973 and listened instead to the people who live there. After traveling for the better part of a year from Rabat to Tehran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Tehran?tid=informline), I came away surprisingly buoyed.

Oh sure, the Middle East is more volatile than it was at the beginning of the Bush administration: The Arab-Israeli peace process isn't going anywhere. Iraq remains mired in ethnic tensions, religious rivalries and Islamic extremism -- and still has only limited electricity. Iran (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Iran?tid=informline) is angrily defiant toward the United Nations (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/United+Nations?tid=informline) over its nuclear program. Lebanon (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Lebanon?tid=informline) teeters again.

Yet in the early 21st century, a budding culture of change is creatively challenging the status quo -- and the extremists. New public voices, daring publications and noisy protests across two dozen countries are giving shape to a vigorous, if disjointed, search for alternatives to the autocratic regimes and imperious monarchies that have proved they're out of sync with their people. Dissident judges in Cairo (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Cairo?tid=informline), rebel clerics in Tehran, satellite television station owners in Dubai (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Dubai?tid=informline), the first female parliamentary candidates in Kuwait (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Kuwait?tid=informline), young techies in Jeddah (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Jiddah?tid=informline), intrepid journalists in Beirut (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Beirut?tid=informline), and bold businessmen in Damascus (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Damascus?tid=informline) are carving out new space for political action.

It's a hard slog for them all. Obstinate governments are ruthlessly repressing them; extremists are targeting them. Together, those forces cut short the Arab Spring three years ago, when millions of Iraqis voted in free elections, Lebanese protesters ended Syria (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Syria?tid=informline)'s 29-year occupation and democracy movements such as Egypt (http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/related/topic/Egypt?tid=informline)'s "Enough" challenged autocrats across the region. The Bush administration's bungling and backtracking on democracy hasn't helped much, either.

But societies have not gone back to square one. The issue in the Middle East is no longer whether to seek political change. It's how to make it happen.

"In the Arab world, the status quo is not sustainable," reflected Marwan Muasher, a former Jordanian foreign minister. "What worked 40 years ago -- when the state could decide things and expect people to follow -- does not work now. Unless the state is responsive and aware, it is in for major trouble."

That, I found, is only one of many lessons of the new Middle East.

It is a long article, and it is worth the read. However much we may wish for any other reality, OIL is fundamental to the economy, not just of the US, but of the entire world.

Setting aside all of the divisive political rhetoric and pushing the petty personality issues off the stage, a truly dispassionate appraisal may be that McCain's stated decision NOT to simply pull out is a correct one. To Obama's credit, he has not closed any doors on that option (though neither is he willing to come to open terms with a healthy discussion, either).

Food for thought.

[ad4mg]

Ms Wright's observations should certainly be considered valid ... she represents a different sort of "boots on the ground" perspective. Unfortunately, whatever change takes place will occur long after our terms here have expired, Albert. Supporting such change would represent a wise investment in the future globally, but I fear greed will rule, especially given a finite supply of oil, and the despots will take every advantage. "Seeding" democracy would certainly prove more productive than the PNAC doctrine of military domination ... building democracy with bombs, which is a policy doomed to failure. It will take a leader far wiser than bush, who, with his cowboy "diplomacy" struggles through foreign policy matters like the drunken frat boy he is stumbling home after a night on the town. He is both foolish and reckless, and incredibly stubborn. The first order of business for our new president will be to start cleaning up the mess these fools leave behind.

I'll give the article a good read in the morning, as I enjoy my AM coffee.

If I had to "pull the lever" today, I'm almost sure I would probably vote for McCain, but with great reservation. I worry that he will escalate the war in order to "win" and make the victory a part of his legacy. Mr. Obama is just a little too far to the left for me to get comfortable with him. Now, with that having been said, please see to it that the right-wingers here who are sure that I'm an uber left-wing liberal receive the proper medical attention after falling to the floor in shock!

It's still a ways until November, so there's ample time to ponder the decision carefully. I hope the country does this, as we can ill afford to put into office another incompetent boob like the one we have there now.

Thanks for the link!

73 - Luke

[K3XR]

Those DEMS, what will they say next??

http://newsbusters.org/node/19614/print

[AA5JG]

More swift boating?

Want to argue the fact that the Clinton Presidency was one of the more successful despite the hindrance of Republican attacks from day one? Want to argue he left with a 67% Approval rating? Want to argue that the 90's were a time of peace and prosperity? Do you have anything intelligent to say?

Peace? We invaded Yugoslavia (who posed no threat to us), repeated attacked Iraq, sent troops to Bosnia, and bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. Sounds like peace to me.

[AA5JG]

[QUOTE=AE6IP;1140941]Herbert Hoover was the man who entered the Whitehouse with the greatest level of experience. He failed miserably. Franklin Roosevelt was thought to be a 'lightweight' with little real experience before becoming one of the greatest presidents in the history of the United States.

Great?? He put American citizens in concentration camps and attacked a country that didn't threaten us?

[W8EFA]

Peace? We invaded Yugoslavia (who posed no threat to us), repeated attacked Iraq, sent troops to Bosnia, and bombed Sudan and Afghanistan. Sounds like peace to me.

A comparison of a 4 day bombing of Iraq from carriers, and NATO involvement in Bosnia with no troops lost in either conflict to Iraq with a 5 year deployment of 160,000 troops and a cost of at least 700 BILLION is downright hilarious.

[W3MIV]

Great?? He put American citizens in concentration camps and attacked a country that didn't threaten us?

And which country would that be?

[ad4mg]

And which country would that be?

Albert, please be patient awaiting an answer. It going to take him a little while to rewrite history to suit his agenda. :)

[W3MIV]

Albert, please be patient awaiting an answer. It going to take him a little while to rewrite history to suit his agenda. :)

I don't mind folks being ignorant, Luke. Ignorance is simply cured through education. But when they revel in it, I wax a bit testy.

[K3XR]

Rush...."Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have."

http://www.newsmax.com/insidecover/limbaugh_hillary_push/2008/03/03/77428.html

[W3MIV]

Hillary versus Obama continues. I was not surprised at her victory in Ohio, but I was surprised that she also took Texas. I predicted that she would lost TX very narrowly. I was wr-wr-wr-wrrrroooonnnnnng. God, how I hate to use that word! :rolleyes:

Now the game runs out through summer. Harold Ickes will be threatening, whining, wheedling, enticing, cajouling, promising, hinting, dealing and oooooozing through the superdelegates, and, of course, Bill will be using his cigar in the back rooms as well.

All in all, it was an astonishing performance by Ms Clinton, and it clearly demonstrates that Obama, popular as he is, is no shoe-in.

[K3XR]

Barry, don't ask me..

http://sweetness-light.com/archive/shocker-the-press-asks-obama-questions/print/

[KC2KFC]

I think we can all agree this has been one of the most fascinating democrat party primaries in a long time. I wonder how the party will deal with such a divide come the general election.

[N9XR]

I think we can all agree this has been one of the most fascinating democrat party primaries in a long time. I wonder how the party will deal with such a divide come the general election.

Interesting indeed.

What do you see as the dividing issues at play here?

[KC2KFC]

Interesting indeed.

What do you see as the dividing issues at play here?

I can't put my finger on any one issue except the fact that the voters have split the pledged delegates just about right down the middle. Quite frankly, I don't understand why because I think if you take a very hard look at the candidates and where they stand on the issues they are very much in sync with each other. So it makes me wonder if this is just a vote for personalities?

I think there is a lot of passion from supporters from each campaign. Can the passion from the losing candidate's supporters be transferred to the winning candidate come the general election?

What say you?

[N9MOQ]

I think we can all agree this has been one of the most fascinating democrat party primaries in a long time. I wonder how the party will deal with such a divide come the general election.

Then I guess I will be the one oddball that doesn't agree.

Everything seems to be going just as planned.

No surprises yet.

[kc2orw]

I think there is a lot of passion from supporters from each campaign. Can the passion from the losing candidate's supporters be transferred to the winning candidate come the general election?

What say you?
I imagine it will be easier than some may think at least if they are taking the pundits too seriously. The pundits love to have something to talk about even if they have to hypothesize.
The hint is already out Clinton/Obama, will that actually be what happens... who knows there is still plenty of time to sort that one out.

[N3RQ]

I can't put my finger on any one issue except the fact that the voters have split the pledged delegates just about right down the middle. Quite frankly, I don't understand why because I think if you take a very hard look at the candidates and where they stand on the issues they are very much in sync with each other. So it makes me wonder if this is just a vote for personalities?

I think there is a lot of passion from supporters from each campaign. Can the passion from the losing candidate's supporters be transferred to the winning candidate come the general election?

What say you?

There is a generational divide at play in this election. The battle is basically between those who formed their ideas about society in desegregated America (or the early days of desegregation) and those who grew up in a world full of interracial neighborhoods and couples. An important neutralizing factor in this primary is education. Education tends to force older people to think outside of the box with respect to race.

[W3MIV]

Originally Posted by KC2KFC http://forums.qrz.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.qrz.com/showthread.php?p=1154988#post1154988)

Can the passion from the losing candidate's supporters be transferred to the winning candidate come the general election?

Although I cannot substantiate my opinion, I believe that many Obama supporters will NOT support Clinton if she ends up the nominee. Aside from a surprising number of cross-overs who apparently bought into the Limbaugh appeal to vote for Clinton in an effort to wound Obama, many of the eager young who have overcome political lethargy only as a result of Obama's Svengali-like appeal will not likely transfer that loyalty over to Clinton. Not least important, too, is that Clinton has very much higher "negatives" overall than Obama.

I think Obama could defeat McCain -- if he can retain the energy and excitement through the long hiatus now opening until the next primary in the end of April. I don't think Clinton can as easily defeat McCain.

[N9XR]

I can't put my finger on any one issue except the fact that the voters have split the pledged delegates just about right down the middle. Quite frankly, I don't understand why because I think if you take a very hard look at the candidates and where they stand on the issues they are very much in sync with each other. So it makes me wonder if this is just a vote for personalities?

I think there is a lot of passion from supporters from each campaign. Can the passion from the losing candidate's supporters be transferred to the winning candidate come the general election?

What say you?

I don't see a whole lot of difference on the issues. The issue I see is the "I have a better grasp on the same issue than you do". They pretty much want to accomplish the same things and the only difference between their tenure as prez would be whether we see the tasks performed.

This should not create a divide, only a disappointment that a certain group of primary voters will not get their candidate doing the job.

[K3XR]

Let Barry be Barry.

http://article.nationalreview.com/print/?q=Njg1MDZkNTZmYTQ3ZGQ3ZWQ4MmMzOWNmYjVjODAxMzQ=

[K3XR]

Live, from New York, it's..........

http://newsbusters.org/node/19764/print

[WB2WIK]

Great story in today's L.A. Times about who is more qualified to deal with foreign entities.

Pointed out that Hillary has traveled to 80 countries in an official capacity, campaigned for women's rights from Eastern Europe, to Africa to China and is well respected by those foreign leaders for her efforts, as well as helping to negotiate settlements in Serbia, Palestine and elsewhere. Many quotes from foreign leaders were included in the article -- not pro or con Hillary for Prez, just acknowledging the fact that she was there, she met with them, and they were very impressed by her efforts, most of which were "without Bill."

WB2WIK/6
"The U.N. has been as effective against war as foghorns have been against fog." -John Bolton

[AE6IP]

so appoint her us ambassador to the un.

[K3XR]

Class warfare from the LEFT.


http://online.wsj.com/public/article_print/SB120511125873823431.html