Clinton wins Ohio primary.
By on Mar 4th, 2008 at 10:56 pm
Clinton wins Ohio primary.
CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News are reporting that Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-NY) has won the Ohio Democratic primary. Clinton also won the Rhode Island primary, and Sen. Barack Obama (D-IL) won Vermont.
UPDATE: The cable networks are now projecting that Clinton will also win the Texas primary.
View Most Popular
Advertisement
What We're About
What We're Fighting For
What We're Fighting Against
Featured
Subscribe to the Progress Report
Topic CloudView topics sorted by popularity
Afghanistan
Bachmann
Beck
Boehner
Bush
Business
Cheney
Civil Rights
Congress
Corporate Ethics
Dobbs
Economy
Education
Election
Energy
Environment
Ethics
Fox News
Gingrich
Glenn Beck
Global Warming
Health Care
Immigration
International Relations
Justice
LGBT
Lieberman
Limbaugh
Media
Military
O'Reilly
Obama
Palin
Pelosi
Politics
Race
Radical Right
Religion
Steele
Stimulus
Tea Parties
Tea Party
Terrorism
Veterans
Women's Rights
Visit Our Affiliated Sites
Reports
In-depth studies on select topics
Got a hot tip?
Have a hot news tip? We'd love to hear from you. Use the form below to send us the latest.
ArchivesBlog Roll
Congrats Mrs Clinton ; if you also are victorious in Texas , you should proceed.
If not , you should gracefully exit.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pmGreat, maybe now she won’t feel so threatened she has to resort to smear tactics.
The next time I hear the ‘experience’ card played by her camp, I’m going to ask about her ‘experience’ as a board of directors at Wal Mart.
How was that for you, Hillary, driving tens of thousands of Mom and Pop stores out of business all across America??
March 4th, 2008 at 10:58 pmQ: Why doesn’t lake Eerie spill into lake Ontario?
A: Because Ohio sucks.
March 4th, 2008 at 10:59 pmWow, that is the first time a Republican ever won the Democratic Primary in a state.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:03 pmHow much more proof do the Clintonites need that Hil is a Repub? She even said as much yesterday, by her statement:
March 4th, 2008 at 11:06 pm“I would bring years of experience to the Whitehouse.
Senator McCain would bring years of experience to the Whitehouse.
Barack made a speech in 2002.”
And the Fear TV ad with the kids sleeping and the call in the middle of the night BS. And the whining in the debate and the victimization.
She is a friggin Republican.
I really hope a Clinton victory in Ohio and Texas doesn’t lead to her believing she can change the rules in Florida and Michigan. I fear she may now ask that those votes be counted which, in turn, will allow her to take the nomination by virtue of a higher delegate count.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:08 pmI fear she may now ask that those votes be counted which, in turn, will allow her to take the nomination by virtue of a higher delegate count.
Yet she knew those votes were not valid BEFORE those elections.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:10 pmGet ready for the second best Republican President ever.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:19 pmTime for both D’s to get together in private, flip a coin for who’s going on top, then come out together with all guns blazing against McMaverick until no one can remember what a Republican’t was.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:20 pmHmm, she just said she looked forward to a spirited debate with John McCain. Sounds like we’re going to have quite the menage-a-trois during the presidential election process.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:26 pmA Wet Dream for AIPAC if the election is Clinton vs McCain, and more wars ahead.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:34 pmMcMaverick doesn’t stand a chance, no matter who’s nominated, or how long the primary goes on.
It’s a good thing that there are 2 really good D’s.
What’s shockingly bad is the crooked freak parade operated by the R’s. They couldn’t come up with one good candidate, and effectively abdicated the process. They can’t raise any money because their bag men are in court or in jail, and they’re a disgraceful laughingstock.
Do Matthews, Russert, et al want us to watch them on tv while biting our nails the next 8 months? Well, duh, of course they do. Would we watch if they came on tonight and said “these Republicans are toast for the next 12-16 years”? Hell no, but that’s the truth of the matter. D’s will hit the polls 4-1 over R’s in November, and that’s the end of it.
Keep in mind Hillary, last month, raised 3 times the money McMaverick did, and Obama more than that. Follow the money, and you will find the results. Not only will they fail in fundraising, they will fail in turnout, to a degree that cheating won’t offset. Shit, R’s have to cheat and spend 5 times more money than D’s just to win by a hair.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:44 pmJust watching Obama speak now. If this guy isn’t the next American president or at least the democratic nominee there will be a riot in most American cities.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:45 pmI agree Roberto, and I’d also gladly have 4 years of Clinton/Obama followed by 4 or 8 more of Obama/fill_in_the_blank.
anything but R’s
anything at all, but no more R’s.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:50 pm“Do Matthews, Russert, et al want us to watch them on tv while biting our nails the next 8 months?”
Comment by tombaker — March 4, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Jeez, tom, I don’t know if I can stand watching them on tv for the next 8 days. The two of them are making me crazy, and I’m tired of shouting at the tv.
March 4th, 2008 at 11:56 pmMcCain Locks up the Republican nomination. Will meet with Bush tomorrow to receive his endorsement.
Translation: Democrats Win!
Get your free Pocket BARACK-itizer here.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:00 am“Do Matthews, Russert, et al want us to watch them on tv while biting our nails the next 8 months?â€
Comment by tombaker — March 4, 2008 @ 11:44 pm
Jeez, tom, I don’t know if I can stand watching them on tv for the next 8 days. The two of them are making me crazy, and I’m tired of shouting at the tv.
Comment by Jane E. Schneider — March 4, 2008 @ 11:56 pm
Did any of you catch Brian Williams ?
The stupid bastood claimed McInsane’s political career , especially its inception , was/is “truly amazing” ; a “remarkable story” seeing as how much McInsane had to “struggle” ……..
HUH ????
With a wealthy , brand new father-in-law who launched the lying , adulterous asses career ?
That’s a “struggle” ?
I bet everyone wishes they had to “struggle” like that……….
March 5th, 2008 at 12:01 amGood news for Hillary. Obama has to deal with his long time friend Rekzo who is on trial for fraud and other criminal acts. Obama said he just hired Rekzo to a deal to buy a house. Now we hear that Obama didn’t really tell the hold truth. Rekzo and Obama have been friends for over 14 years and Obama even worked for him. I guess the voters who believed Obama was the only honest candidate and were sold on his great speeches might soon find out he was working them all the time. It was a good plan as it worked with Bush twice. One can only wonder what else is Obama hiding. But John Kerry and Ted Kennedy will do what they do best and spin/blame/lie to make sure their puppet gets in office. At lease the World Leaders will know if the candidates are Obama vs McCain the Middle East wins. Obama will let John Kerry do the work of President since he doesn’t know or have a plan. McCain will bomb Iran and the Middle East will call in all the loans Bush/Cheney took out. Yes Osama Bin Laden was correct when he said no one would ever have to attack the US again we would destroy ourselves. But we will have a President who no nothing but gives a great speech. Republicans have to worry if old man McCain can make it to Jan. 20, 2009 or the VP will have to step in.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:18 amI’m a longtime liberal Democrat who’d be delighted with either a black or a woman for president — provided that the person was otherwise desirable. I am not, however, a knee-jerk liberal. I expect a presidential candidate to be well-qualified for the demands of the role. Were I a conservative instead of a liberal, I still would not have voted for George Bush because — well, because he’s ignorant and incompetent. I’ve spent a lifetime trying to sort out substance from surface and could not support a candidate based on superficials like style, personality, or rhetoric. Experience is not a “card” being played by the Clinton camp — it is a substantial requirement for effective leadership.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:22 amFrankly, I’m disgusted that approximately half of Democrats want to put forward a candidate as manifestly unqualified for the presidency as Obama, who bases his candidancy on ridiculous appeals to emotion, and whose main asset is skill as a speech-maker. Obama has exhibited precious little leadership capacity as a Senator. He epitomizes glitz over substance. There is no possibility that I could vote for Obama in November should he win the nomination. I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president; this could be the first time, unless an appearling third-party candidate emerges.
No, experience is not a card being played; it is a glaring inadequacy in Obama’s resume in relationship to the presidency of the United States. If this is the candidate that the Democrats choose to put forward, they’ll deserve a trouning.
Thank goodness that Hillary’s campaign appears to remain viable, with a substantial win in Ohio and, as of this writing, a slowly widening lead in Texas. You folks are welcome to your Obama “movement.” I’ve been around too long to get caught up in that kind of hollow emotionality.
Comment by metalluk — March 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
What on either Hillary’s and/or McInsane’s resume’ is there that proves anything ?
BTW
Your talk of “experience” is foolish and ridiculously errant ; there is simply no job in the world that prepares you for the presidency.
Claiming anything does , especially what you laughably have , is patently false and incredibly naive…….
March 5th, 2008 at 12:30 amI’ve been around too long to get caught up in that kind of hollow emotionality.
Comment by metalluk
Then go ahead and practice rolling over in your grave.
There’s a new generation in town, and they’re sick and tired of business as usual. We want to disrupt the status quo. Sorry you happen to be in the way.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:30 amNo, experience is not a card being played; it is a glaring inadequacy in
Thank goodness nobody felt this way about the Dumbya, eh?
The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and frankly, this pudding tastes like grade A sh*t.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:33 amI prefer Obama’s experience as a community organizer over both Senators from AZ/NY.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:34 amHe comes up from the hard streets to make his mark. That experience will be worth more than any time spent in the Senate, prison, or White House as first spouse.
If Hillary gets the nomination it will only verify that this system is history.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:37 amI wish I had ‘experience’ rearranging White House furniture on MY resume.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:37 amCongratulations to Senator Hillary Clinton on a great victory today.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:40 amRemember the Texas delegates are apportioned on both election (50/48 Clinton at the moment, 66% precincts) and caucuses (Obama 56/44 5% precincts).
March 5th, 2008 at 12:41 amClinton can win the election and lose the delegate race.
Which counts more?
BTW, “Universal” health care will not happen in this corrupt country. Look at Social Security. My grandparents are taking out MUCH MORE than they ever paid into the system. Our government couldn’t “balance the books” any better than my 2 year old labrador.
So, anyone voting for Hillary for this reason is being totally duped.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:44 amI prefer Obama’s experience as a community organizer over both Senators from AZ/NY. He comes up from the hard streets to make his mark.
Comment by RUCerious — March 5, 2008 @ 12:34 am
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I thought Obama grew up in Hawaii. Lots of sand and surf in Hawaii but I’m not so sure abut the hard streets.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:44 amWhich counts more?
Comment by RUCerious
Election counts for 2/3, caucus for 1/3.
Read this earlier today, looking for linky…
March 5th, 2008 at 12:48 amThanks DNFP ~ So if they split 2/3rds at 52/48 for Clinton, and 1/3rd at 56/44 Obama, wouldn’t Obama have a few more?
March 5th, 2008 at 12:50 amWhere’s Zooey, the math major when you really need her?
Anyhoo, it sounds like a wash, and Clinton picks up about 18 – 20 delegate difference from Ohio. Obama still ahead by 100+, unless you are using Rove’s math.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:52 amElection counts for 2/3, caucus for 1/3.
Read this earlier today, looking for linky…
Comment by DieNowForPeace — March 5, 2008 @ 12:48 am
I don’t believe it’s that simple. From what I read previously, the actual apportionment of delegates is based on previous voting records and is actually weighted in favor of the big urban areas rather than the more Latino districts, because they haven’t voted heavily in the past. In several articles it was reported that Clinton could win a majority of votes and still not get a majority of the delegates. Whatever happens, she’s not gaining any actual advantage from Texas, other than bragging rights.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:52 am…which means, if the primary vote is split 50/50, then 2/3 delegates should be divided accordingly. The final 1/3 of delegates is decided in the caucus.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:54 amI found this from Australia
Sydney Morning Herald
Unlike most primaries, no delegates are awarded in proportion to the overall state vote. This makes it even more likely a candidate could win the popular vote, but lose when it comes to the delegate count – the measure which is now absolutely critical to success.
Delegates are allocated across 23 Senate districts, based on the vote the former presidential candidate John Kerry received in 2004 in each senate area.
This means the most liberal areas – Austin and two other areas with large black populations – are more delegate-rich. That is a potential problem for Hillary Clinton, who is relying on the Latino vote to counter Barack Obama’s strength among blacks.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:55 amComment by RUCerious — March 5, 2008 @ 12:50 am
As we say here in Texas, “yup.”
March 5th, 2008 at 12:55 amLooking at the county results, the more populous counties went mostly for Obama, all the rural counties went for Clinton.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:56 amLoving county had twelve voters, 8/4 Clinton.
Okay, I’ve got one sick kid, and a full day tomorrow…
Good luck to us, one and all!!!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:57 amNow HERE’S some newsworthy shit!
March 5th, 2008 at 12:58 amG’nite DNFP! The link was to Vermont towns approve Bush-Cheney ‘indictment’
March 5th, 2008 at 12:59 amComment by RUCerious — March 5, 2008 @ 12:59 am
Wow, good on them, thanks.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:01 amHere’s some useful info:
Office of the Secretary of State 2008 Democratic Party Primary Election Night Returns
http://enr.sos.state.tx.us/enr/mar04_136_state.htm
March 5th, 2008 at 1:05 amWhere’s Zooey, the math major when you really need her?
Comment by RUCerious — March 5, 2008 @ 12:52 am
I’m a math major?
Shoot me now…
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 amComment by gummitch — March 5, 2008 @ 12:52 am
Actually, we were able to nominate delegates (from within the room) to the local convention at tonight’s caucus.
The Democratic primary system here is way beyond FUBAR.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:10 amSorry to divert, but C&L has a Jeff Healy clip that truly shines:
http://www.crooksandliars.com/
March 5th, 2008 at 1:16 am.
Open thread?
Brattleboro, Vermont, Votes to Indict Bush and Cheney
By David Swanson
Brattleboro, Vt., voted today in support of a measure calling on the town’s police force to arrest and indict Bush and Cheney. The vote was 2012-1795.
Marlboro, Vt., passed a similar measure at its town meeting today at which the vote to indict Bush and Cheney was 43-25-3. That’s 43 in favor and 3 abstaining. Thus Marlboro beat Brattleboro to it by a few hours. In Brattleboro, the indictment question was on the primary ballots for both parties.
Here’s a kit for other towns to use: http://afterdowningstreet.org/indictkit
Your president and vice one are virtually WANTED MEN in two American cities. West Hollywood, Ca. and Kennebunkport, Me. are soon to follow.
Only in America can I become the President and/or Vice One AND be a criminal who is supported by a Congress of Co-Opters.
.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:16 amComment by metalluk — March 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
Well, as we have seen, as Kristol advised, the politics of fear.
Are you saying fear is not an emotion?
March 5th, 2008 at 1:31 amShoot me now…
Comment by
Okay, give me the mathematical coordinates, Azimuth, Range, Arc, Projectile Size, Powder Load =P
March 5th, 2008 at 1:33 amShoot me now…
Comment by
Okay, give me the mathematical coordinates, Azimuth, Range, Arc, Projectile Size, Powder Load =P
Comment by Xisithrus — March 5, 2008 @ 1:33 am
Powder/Dust “load” = McInsane orgasm …………..
March 5th, 2008 at 1:44 amDust “load†= McInsane orgasm …-=MCM=-
I dont wanna even think about that.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:49 amYou folks are welcome to your Obama “movement.†I’ve been around too long to get caught up in that kind of hollow emotionality.
Comment by metalluk — March 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
Experience in politics is merely debt. the more experience, the more favors owed and deals made. You’re merely a racist fearmonger without a moral code.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:02 amI am totally sick of the attacks Senator Clinton has suffered from her own party.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:07 amI, of CA, voted for her, I am thrilled she won Texas (primary) and Ohio and I have high hopes that she will be our next president.
Obama is an inspiring speaker, but I am put off by the near religious zeal of his followers, and totally turned off by the MSM treating Hill’s points as dirty politics but Obama’s as “pure”. Gawd!
#48
March 5th, 2008 at 2:09 amI wish there were a minus rec.
Sexist is ok, any excuse for calling issues racist is ok.
Puke.
#48
I wish there were a minus rec.
Sexist is ok, any excuse for calling issues racist is ok.
Puke.
Comment by nellre — March 5, 2008 @ 2:09 am
I prefer that you had a bit of intelligence ……….
You want to peruse Obama’s campaign ?
When did Obama claim that he and McInsane were better equipped to be Commander in Chief ? Never ?
Oh , BUT HILLARY DID…………
What type of “party member” does that to the other prospective presidential candidate from THE SAME POLITICAL PARTY ?
Hillary gives a shit only about herself 1st and 2nd , believes she’s entitled to the Dem nomination for whatever crazy reason ; and the hell with everyone and everything else……………….
And here Hillary was claiming that Obama was praising Ronnie Retard just a couple of months ago ; right or wrong , Ronnie Retard is the GOP’s most recent revered figure.
John McInsane isn’t worth a stinky fart……….
March 5th, 2008 at 2:18 amWhat on either Hillary’s and/or McInsane’s resume’ is there that proves anything ?
BTW
Your talk of “experience†is foolish and ridiculously errant ; there is simply no job in the world that prepares you for the presidency.
Claiming anything does , especially what you laughably have , is patently false and incredibly naive…….
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 12:30 am
Actually Hillary’s beating on Health Care, and facing the onslaught of Mellon Scaife, a special prosecutor, 8 years in the white house being bubba’s confident and two runs for the senate is in fact quite an impressive preparation. Denying it, while supporting an inexperienced freshman senator is what’s naive. It’s your choice and right to be naive, but in this case it’s your issue, not the issue of others.
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 2:17 am
As opposed to supporting an outright hypocrite and stubborn jackass who cannot admit that she and her vote in favor of military action against Iraq was WRONG and simply her own fault and part of her inability to see the entire picture…………?
Or voting in favor of Kyl-Liberman………And not even bother showing up to vote for telecom immunity ?
I want someone who gets it right the 1st time ; Hillary is nowhere near that………………….End of story. Time for you to check a mirror for naivete.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:22 amWhat I find particularly galling is the way the Obama campaign, in the past week or so, took out ads with LGBT papers in Ohio and Texas, followed by many LGBT leaders then endorsing Obama, without ANY of them questioning Obama’s “little goof” over the Donnie McClurkin issue last year.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:58 amObama has NOT apologized for that to my satisfaction. In fact, it only PROVED that he’s every bit as calculating and manipulative as he and his supporters bash Hillary for being. Obama’s initial reason for bringing that anti-gay bigot on board was to REACH OUT TO CONSERVATIVE BLACK CHRISTIANS. THAT was it. Were there no other African-American Christian leaders that the Obama campaign could have approached? Could his campaign NOT vet the man fully before associating with him? And we’re supposed to accept Obama as “qualified” for the “tough decisions” of the Presidency?
I’m also appalled at the sheer level of hypocrisy from the Obama camp when it comes to describing Hillary as being “ambitious”, yet which Senator actually served a full term before making a run for the White House and which Senator has made a run for the White House less than four years after being elected to the Senate? I would suggest that Obama is the more “ambitious” politician.
Why is Obama, who didn’t support Ned Lamont until TWO weeks before the Connecticut GENERAL election in November of 2006, getting the moniker of “more progressive candidate”? Obama SUPPORTED Joe Lieberman from as early as MARCH 2006, and didn’t switch his support for the PROGRESSIVE DEMOCRAT, Ned Lamont, until October of 2006. (One should also ask why Obama didn’t seek out a different “mentor” when he entered the Senate and then it becomes rather clear why Obama was so late in supporting Lamont. What is particularly ironic is that Lamont actually came out and endorsed Obama this past January–before Super Tuesday–despite Obama’s verrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrry late endorsement of the DEMOCRATIC Senatorial candidate. One should also ask why Hillary’s position on the Lieberman-Lamont primary battle was so roundly criticized but Obama’s was barely touched upon. Clinton did offer support to Lieberman before the primary but, more than a MONTH before the primary, she also announced that she would support the DEMOCRATIC candidate in the general election.)
“Mr Progressive” also failed to come to the defense of fellow Illinois Senator Dick Durbin following Durbin’s (in)famous Gitmo comparison. Obama actually described Durbin’s comments as “mistakes”.
Now, IF Obama does become the Democratic nominee, I will mark my ballot to vote for the Democratic candidate, even if I do have to proverbially hold my nose while doing so. I know that not every candidate is perfect, but I’m really getting tired of Obama’s supporters acting as though Barack’s s*** don’t stink. As we all know, talk is very cheap and that actions speak louder than words, but so far, all we really have from Obama is a lot of “feel-good” talk but very little details. Although, if the McClurkin incident is any indicator, Obama’s actions will throw a whole lot of us under the bus in service to his own ambitions.
I wish there were a minus rec.
Sexist is ok, any excuse for calling issues racist is ok.
Puke.
Comment by nellre — March 5, 2008 @ 2:09 am
Your simplemindedness is charming.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:00 amROTFL!!! Sorry, but YOU sound like the STUBBORN JACKASS. The reality is she felt she was authorizing reasonable authority that wouldn’t be abused.
By giving it to whom ? Chimpy ????
ROFLMAO !!!!! You sound (and probably are) just as stupid a jackass as Hillary is if you don’t know any better than that.
I knew what type of moron the Chimpster was in ‘98 ; and I’m not a US Senator or a former 1st lady………
March 5th, 2008 at 3:05 amNo one gets it right the first time on every issue, just look at Obama – he doesn’t. “No one is ever Pro-Abortionâ€-Barack Obama
Cut down on the Hopium, and pull back the extremist rhetoric, you’re sounding like a Huckabee supporter.
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:01 am
Yeah , there’s certainly nothing “extreme” when you proclaim yourself , a former 1st lady and self-proclaimed front-runner for the Dem presidential nomination , as the only one of 2 current presidential hopefuls/potentials that qualify to be CIC ; and the other one is from the OPPOSITION PARTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO DOES THAT ?
Remember the whining everyone did when Obama foolishly started prattling on about Ronnie Retard , the hero of the GOP , and that outrage Hillary showed that Obama would praise the enemy/opposition party ?
Nothing like hypocritical behavior and you backing it , eh ?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:13 amComment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:08 am
I see you’re making shit up by claiming I ‘idolize” Obama ; that is so far from the truth , you really need to stop posting now.
Republicans do hate facts , but your posts about me are equally devoid of them………………
March 5th, 2008 at 3:14 amYeah, I agree, it would be nice to have someone that GETS IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME – Obama is NOT that person!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:12 am
And Hillary is ?
By praising Johnny McInsane ?
Good call there…………….
March 5th, 2008 at 3:15 amYeah , there’s certainly nothing “extreme†when you proclaim yourself , a former 1st lady and self-proclaimed front-runner for the Dem presidential nomination , as the only one of 2 current presidential hopefuls/potentials that qualify to be CIC ; and the other one is from the OPPOSITION PARTY !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
WHO DOES THAT ?Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:13 am
ROTFL!! Well considering that’s not what happen, as saying someone doesn’t have experience doesn’t mean they’re unqualified, it means they’re less qualified.
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:19 am
————————————————————–
ROFLMAO ……………WRONG ; THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
Hillary laughably claimed only herself and McInsane “had a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House ; and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002″………..
It’s Obama’s fault that Hillary and McInsane are both old and foolish ?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:25 amAs opposed to supporting an outright hypocrite and stubborn jackass who cannot admit that she and her vote in favor of military action against Iraq was WRONG and simply her own fault and part of her inability to see the entire picture…………?
Or voting in favor of Kyl-Liberman………And not even bother showing up to vote for telecom immunity ?
I want someone who gets it right the 1st time ; Hillary is nowhere near that………………….End of story. Time for you to check a mirror for naivete.
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 2:22 am
Sorry, buddy, but Obama isn’t as perfect as you seem to think.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:26 amHow many votes has Obama cast to bring home the troops or cut off Bush’s funding the war? How many of these votes differed from Hillary’s?
As for Kyl-Lieberman, do some homework, dude. Obama voted NOT PRESENT just as did John McCain. (How does that factor into the “Obama is better than McCain” when, on what is apparently a key factor to you, their record is IDENTICAL?) Incidentally the measure passed 76-22. Looks to me like Obama couldn’t be bothered to make a stand on the matter. If he’d voted “yea”, he would’ve been just another supporter; if he’d voted “nay”, he would’ve at least had his “conscience” to fall back on. But he couldn’t be bothered to vote.
And on the telecom immunity matter, Hillary voted “Not Present” to the AMENDMENT while Obama voted Nay on it. However, on the original bill itself, Obama voted “Not Present” JUST AS HILLARY DID. Why couldn’t Obama bother with voting on the MAIN bill if he was able to vote on a mere amendment?
So, how exactly do Obama’s positions show that he “gets it right the first time”?
And Hillary is ?
By praising Johnny McInsane ?
Good call there…………….
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:15 am
Hey it was you that said you REQUIRED a candidate to GET IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME, I pointed out that you’re f**ked because they’ve both gotten things wrong. It was your p**sy boy that backed down from a fight with McCain and praised him instead of confronting him. Or did that FACT also escape you?
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:22 am
Oh , and claiming that the opposition party’s senile old candidate “brings experience to the White House” like she does , isw criticizing him and really hitting him where it hurts , right schmuck ?
ROFLMAO ……………
March 5th, 2008 at 3:27 amROFLMAO ……………WRONG ; THAT IS EXACTLY WHAT HAPPENED.
Hillary laughably claimed only herself and McInsane “had a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House ; and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002″………..
It’s Obama’s fault that Hillary and McInsane are both old and foolish ?
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:25 am
Well, they are both more experienced – what’s your beef? That this is a factual statement people shouldn’t say? ROTFL!! Obama has also praised McCain – don’t be such an ignorant dork!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:27 am
He didn’t bad-mouth a fellow Dem party member and the person he’s competing with for the Dem presidential nomination when he did it , you colossal ignoramus…………….
BTW
What exactly are they both “more experienced” with/at ?
There is no other job on the planet that equals being President of the US , and not a one of the 3 of them have been ; so your claim is foolish and asinine and complete bullshit………..
March 5th, 2008 at 3:29 amHillary laughably claimed only herself and McInsane “had a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House ; and Obama has a speech he gave in 2002″………..
It’s Obama’s fault that Hillary and McInsane are both old and foolish ?
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:25 am
Which is nearly identically material to:
This week, this week, we found out that the presumptive nominee of the Republican party will be Senator John McCain [scattered boos in the audience.] Now, I believe John McCain is a good man and a genuine American hero. And we honor his half-century of service to this nation. – Obama
Except of course Obama never pointed out the experience of Clinton, he only praised McCain…
What oh what will you do with your posturing now?
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:30 am
“I have a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House ; I know John McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House”
“Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002″……..
Notice a tiny difference there ?
What oh what will you stupidly claim now ?
Ignorance ?
Go for that ; it will believable coming from you ……..
March 5th, 2008 at 3:33 amHe didn’t bad-mouth a fellow Dem party member and the person he’s competing with for the Dem presidential nomination when he did it , you colossal ignoramus……………. Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:29 am
So his bad mouthing of hillary is only WRONG if he does it without simultaneously praising McCain with the same words Hillary used? And I’M the IGNORANT ONE? ROTFL!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:34 am
Praise for someone is now to be viewed as criticism of another you do not even mention ?
ROFLMAO ……….SINCE WHEN ?
If I praise Randy Moss for being a great wide receiver , does that mean I’m criticizing Terrel Owens at the same time ?
ROFLMAO ……….What a moron
Could you be a bigger boob ?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:37 am“I have a lifetime of experience to bring to the White House ; I know John McCain has a lifetime of experience to bring to the White Houseâ€
“Barack Obama has a speech he gave in 2002″……..
Notice a tiny difference there ?
What oh what will you stupidly claim now ?
Ignorance ?
Go for that ; it will believable coming from you ……..
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:33 am
Yeah, a semi-colon, you however fail to recognize how LITTLE of a difference it is. Moron
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:35 am
Nice to see you refute what really matters ; PUNCTUATION ………
ROFLMAO…………….MORON
March 5th, 2008 at 3:40 amIf you’re naive enough to believe that her partnership with Bill, which including her running the entire US healthcare initiative of the early 90s, her experience on the Senate Committees, and her efforts in the white house with Bill don’t make her more prepared than either of the other to candidate, then you are foolish, asinine and full of bullshit hopium.
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 3:34 am
You are simply hopeless.
Being someones spouse doesn’t give you an “inside track” into something that nothing on earth can prepare you for , you ignorant turd.
Plus , her first crack at health care was an unmitigated DISASTER ; her Iraq war vote , and subsequent refusal to acknowledge her error in the way she voted , shows she hasn’t learned a damn thing.
Her “experience” is worth spit in a cup………..
March 5th, 2008 at 3:44 amAs opposed to supporting an outright hypocrite and stubborn jackass who cannot admit that she and her vote in favor of military action against Iraq was WRONG and simply her own fault and part of her inability to see the entire picture…………?
Or voting in favor of Kyl-Liberman………And not even bother showing up to vote for telecom immunity ?
I want someone who gets it right the 1st time ; Hillary is nowhere near that………………….End of story. Time for you to check a mirror for naivete.
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 2:22 am
Sorry, buddy, but Obama isn’t as perfect as you seem to think.
How many votes has Obama cast to bring home the troops or cut off Bush’s funding the war? How many of these votes differed from Hillary’s?
As for Kyl-Lieberman, do some homework, dude. Obama voted NOT PRESENT just as did John McCain. (How does that factor into the “Obama is better than McCain†when, on what is apparently a key factor to you, their record is IDENTICAL?) Incidentally the measure passed 76-22. Looks to me like Obama couldn’t be bothered to make a stand on the matter. If he’d voted “yeaâ€, he would’ve been just another supporter; if he’d voted “nayâ€, he would’ve at least had his “conscience†to fall back on. But he couldn’t be bothered to vote.
And on the telecom immunity matter, Hillary voted “Not Present†to the AMENDMENT while Obama voted Nay on it. However, on the original bill itself, Obama voted “Not Present†JUST AS HILLARY DID. Why couldn’t Obama bother with voting on the MAIN bill if he was able to vote on a mere amendment?
So, how exactly do Obama’s positions show that he “gets it right the first time�
Comment by JosephW — March 5, 2008 @ 3:26 am
Please point out to everyone where I claim Obama is “perfect” ………
Obama got Iraq correct ; Hillary didn’t and it is the worst foreign policy blunder in US history.
That says enough.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:03 amBTW Joe and RHF
I truly admire and like Hillary ; just not to become president.
I find it highly admirable how she has kept fighting , and her victories tonight were nothing short of remarkable.
However , I fear there is no way she will be able to win a general election , as the irrational hatred of the Clintons by the GOP and their imbecilic backers will bring them out in a general election in droves.
And even considering a highly improbable Hillary win in the general ; do you actually believe Ms Clinton will be able to get anything done or passed by any GOP politicians remaining in the House or Senate ?
March 5th, 2008 at 4:12 amNice to see you refute what really matters ; PUNCTUATION ………
ROFLMAO…………….MORON
Comment by MCMetal — March 5, 2008 @ 3:40 am
Well considering your posts, you can use all the help you can get with punctuation and literacy! See, because after that punctuation, you’ll find that while Obama was heaping praise for the REPUBLICAN OPPOSITION he gave none to the DEMOCRAT that might face her – thereby producing the same effect as you WHINED about from Hillary. That’s called LITERACY and READING COMPREHENSION, you learn that with PUNCTUATION in GRADE SCHOOL. Please revisit the concepts!
For instance you don’t seem to mind that Obama compares the electability of McCain favorably to Hillary, or the scandal quotient of McCain to Hillary, yet you mind when it’s pointed out that Obama is in fact less experienced as a politician. That’s called a double standard.
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 4:11 am
What kind of illogical , nonsensical crap are you claiming ?
ROFLMAO
Obama praises McInsane , doesn’t mention Hillary at all , and that’s unacceptable to you ; yet Hillary speaks of herself and McInsane in the same breath and compares their “experience” as being equivalent to each others . And Obama is an after-thought , with a snide remark on his only “experience” being a speech in 2002 and that’s all well and good as far as you’re concerned.
And you’re trying to claim I have a reading and comprehension problem ?
Hooked On Phonics works wonders , but it obviously didn’t do jack shit for you , clown.
BTW
I’ve read some of your posts ; they read like being forced to listen to a Chimpy press conference.
Fractured , unimpressive and downright painful…………
March 5th, 2008 at 4:21 amMcMetal forgets how much Bill got done in Congress, with it being Republican controlled, and even more hatred for him than Hillary! Stop being a Rove puppet McMetal and support the candidate with the best platform, and that’s Hillary!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 4:19 am
Stop trying to claim that Hillary is Bill ; she isn’t.
Their genitals aren’t alike to begin with………….
Hillary doesn’t have a platform ; she says what is poltically expedient and nothing else.
Remember her flip-flopping on issuing drivers licenses to illegal immigrants during one of the 1st debates ?
Get a clue , you narrow-minded zombie………
March 5th, 2008 at 4:23 amROTFL! Sorry, but I pick my politicians based on their stances, and if you think they won’t hate HUSSEIN by November, you’re smoking too much Hopium!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 4:15 am
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
NO , you don’t ; Hillary tries to play both sides ALL THE TIME.
Stop making idiotic and untrue claims ; you’re looking like one of the mindless , lying trolls that infest this place………….
March 5th, 2008 at 4:26 amAh, you poor TARD, you can’t even READ that I wasn’t DISAPPROVING, but pointing out that both had done the SAME THING, and while you INCONSISTENTLY BASHED Hillary’s comments as TOTALLY UNACCEPTABLE, you ignored Obama had DONE THE SAME!
ROTFL, you really have been s**king obama off too much – moron!
Comment by republicans hate facts — March 5, 2008 @ 4:24 am
ROFLMAO
They haven’t done the “same thing” , and we , and everyone else here that isn’t a Hillary butt-buddy , knows it , oh ye of little brains and zero honesty.
Obama praised McInsane and never even mentioned Hillary ; Hillary put herself and McInsane in THE SAME CATEGORY and made a derogatory remark about Obama.
How and where is that the “same” ?
Your vacuous head ?
March 5th, 2008 at 4:29 am“I’m a longtime liberal Democrat who’d be delighted with either a black or a woman for president… I have never voted for a Republican candidate for president; this could be the first time, unless an appearling third-party candidate emerges.”
Comment by metalluk — March 5, 2008 @ 12:22 am
What-the-phuck-ever. People like you make me sick.
March 5th, 2008 at 6:06 amI’m voting Democratic, no matter who is chosen at the Democratic Convention.
I have my ‘druthers as to who I’d like it to be, but no matter who it is, I’ll be voting for them.
Why, you might asK? Because “Pres. McCain” would finish destroying the Constitution (like Pres. Bush has been successfully doing), wreck the economy (like Pres. Bush has been successfully doing), and kill more soldiers for a war based on lies (like Pres. Bush has been successfully doing).
March 5th, 2008 at 6:53 amWow. I wake up to the news this morning. Then come on this site to see you guys fight. It’s going to be a good day.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:40 am#95 – “Then come on this site to see you guys fight.” Comment by VA Voter — March 5, 2008 @ 7:40 am
Well, now that you’re here, we can stop fighting with each other and fight with you. Yup, it’s gonna be a good day! ;-)
March 5th, 2008 at 7:44 amFrankly, I think this thread is exactly what want the Republicans to be: a fight between the two strongest Democrat candidates, and his followers, to weak them. I see people who agrees in almost everything else fighting here. It’s not pretty. Debate is good, but simply ripping through the throat of other candidates of the same party is somewhat suicide. Is anyone of these two candidates perfect? No. But both have their virtues (and yes, faults). The objective of this process must be clear: beat the Republican candidate. If not, an almost at hand victory for the Democrat party may become a resounding defeat, and what is worse, a third (and fourth?) far rightist term.
Debate, yes. Fight, no.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:52 amWow. I wake up to the news this morning. Then come on this site to see you guys fight. It’s going to be a good day.
Comment by VA Voter — March 5, 2008 @ 7:40 am
Wow, the guy of the party that only can win if all the other candidates lose.
Hey, if that doesn’t work, you can always resort to Diebold.
March 5th, 2008 at 7:56 amDynasty, here we come!!
March 5th, 2008 at 8:19 amBush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush?-Clinton?
Poppy-Bill-Junior-Hillary-Jeb?-Chelsea?
She is the new Lieberman..She will do anything to win..even if the Democratic party is left in wrecks. She gained nothing of signicficance in way of delegates.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:20 amShe had a nice speech,and the music went on last night…but no delegates to count. If she wins 60% of remaining [Which is impossible for her to do] she will stil come short at the Convenetion…
Republicans wants her to contininue bleeding Obama,so they can put their McCain in the White House..sitting laughing at Democrats all the way to the White House..
She is now the new Huckabee of the Democrtaic party.
Her argument that she won big states makes no sense..because N York and California always voted for Democratic candidate anyway..Plus Obama was not that far in these states…
She will wreck tha pary…Clinton cares for Clinton…just like Joe Lieberman cares for Lieberman…They arwe friends also.
#97 – “Debate, yes. Fight, no.” Comment by Evil Spaniard — March 5, 2008 @ 7:52 am
Good point, ES. In-fighting will surely snatch victory from the jaws of inevitability, just as surely as the Supreme Court chose the loosing candidate in 2000.
I do find it amusing that the Sen. Obama supporters immediately label criticizer of him “racist”, and Sen. Clinton supporters immediately label criticizers of her “sexistâ€. Neither side will rationally debate the problems with their candidate without resorting to “You just hate him/her because you’re racist/sexist!â€
I repeat my original sentiment: I will gladly stand up and vote for the winner of the Democratic Nomination in November so that the US can begin to recover from the continued failures of the Republican mismanagement.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:23 amHey, I’ve got news… Racism is alive and well – on both sides!
I heard a very disturbing exit poll result that 1 of 5 (20%) voters in OH said race was a very important factor in their decision, of those people 80% voted for Clinton and 20% for Obama.
We are never going to get past race until we have a frank discussion about all types of racism.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:24 amWow. I wake up to the news this morning. Then come on this site to see you guys fight. It’s going to be a good day.
Comment by VA Voter — March 5, 2008 @ 7:40 am
Sig Heil, fascists! Let’s all march in lockstep.
I will note that Limbaugh insisted that all of the dittohead morons vote for Hillary. And they did. 2 facts: either dem candidate is 1000 times more qualified to lead the USA out of the shitpile it’s in than McStain, and Dem voters outnumber repukes by 2 to1, currently.
If you are concerned about the GOP using “Hussein” as a battering ram, take it away from them. If we use it every time we talk about Barack Hussein Obama, they will have nothing. And the Hillary-hating cuts both ways. The more the repigs use misogyny, the more the real patriots will come out to defend her. Either one can do a great job; either one can bury the old white lobbyist-screwing pig McStain.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:25 amI heard a very disturbing exit poll result that 1 of 5 (20%) voters in OH said race was a very important factor in their decision, of those people 80% voted for Clinton and 20% for Obama.
We are never going to get past race until we have a frank discussion about all types of racism.
Comment by jpoke42 — March 5, 2008 @ 8:24 am
You heard bullshit is what you heard.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:26 amShe will wreck tha pary…Clinton cares for Clinton…just like Joe Lieberman cares for Lieberman…They arwe friends also.
Comment by tarazan — March 5, 2008 @ 8:20 am
You sound like Republicans and the fake terrorists.
Do y8ou hide under the bed when lightning appears?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:27 amIf Hillary gets the nod, I see a very qualified Indy coming out immediately thereafter because Hillary is simply “not electableâ€.
Comment by satirev — March 5, 2008 @ 7:12 am
such crap. That’s what we all said about Bush. Guess who’s president.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:28 amRemember all the posters that said “If (Sen.) Clinton loses Texas and Ohio, I hope she bows out gracefully.”
Will these same posters still call for her to bow out, or will they support her continued campaign?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:29 amDynasty, here we come!!
Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton-Bush?-Clinton?
Poppy-Bill-Junior-Hillary-Jeb?-Chelsea?
Comment by Alejandro — March 5, 2008 @ 8:19 am
And which dynasty is better for the country? Which one allowed successful terrorist attacks at home vs. which one stopped them? Which one created supluses vs. which one looted the treasury? Which one attempted universal healthcare? Which one worked on equal rights for all citizens? Which one sends married National Gaurdsmen to be killed for oil profits? Which one is trashing your Constitutional rights? Answer those questions honestly, and you might see that your fears are strangely unbalanced.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:32 am#106 – Comment by Lefty Patriot — March 5, 2008 @ 8:28 am
It’s also what a whole bunch of people said when she was running for Congress. They were wrong then, they’re just as wrong now.
Both Sen. Clinton and Sen. Obama could win and be a very good President. Much better than Sen. McCain would be, IMO.
I just hope (and pray) that the anti-Clinton and anti-Obama crowd will vote for the winner, even if it’s not their candidate who wins the nomination. If they don’t, we will get Pres. McCain and four more years of continued failures.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:32 amThe good news is that Hillary will beat the snot out of McCain in the election.
(Remember: Anyone but another old white man……..)
March 5th, 2008 at 8:33 amEither way, the Dem party is likely to splinter, and there’ll be no clear leader decided until the National Convention.
Meanwhile, the Repubs spend their time focusing on the bickering Dems instead of their shortcomings.
Could lead to McCain WH if we’re not careful.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:33 am#111 – “Either way, the Dem party is likely to splinter…” Comment by DieNowForPeace — March 5, 2008 @ 8:33 am
It’ll only happen if we do it to ourselves. If we refuse to stop bickering and fighting among ourselves, we deserve to lose in november.
I still haven’t heard many posters here say “I will vote for the winner of the Democratic Convention, even if it’s not the one I would wish”. It’s these people who will bring defeat for the Democratic party.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:42 amIt’s this simple:
If Clinton is the nominee, McCain wins.
If Obama is the nominee, Obama wins.
A vote for Clinton in the primary is a vote for McCain in the general.
Also, Clinton will inspire many more Republicans to come vote against her (while holding their nose and voting for McCain) which will hurt the other Dems running for other offices.
That is why the Republicans voted Clinton in Ohio and Texas.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:43 amWhat happened to the war issue?…All this talk about NAFTA is important…but the most important issue now is the war…
If Hillary or McCain win,then there will be many wars to come…
March 5th, 2008 at 8:45 amHillary just as war monger as McCain..
Her record speaks for itself…She allied herself with war party, Neocons, AIPAC….She will serve her handlers beautifully.
If 70% of Americans do not want more wars…then how come the war mongers making headlines…something is wrong here..
Now we get to see how this occurred – all of the disenfranchised voters in Texas? What about Ohio, the state of the last election disaster? Were Diebold machines used there? even the opti scan machines can easily be hacked.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:49 amThat is why the Republicans voted Clinton in Ohio and Texas.
Comment by RantingTommy — March 5, 2
that is what Republicans want spineless, fearful dems to think.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am#113 – “It’s this simple:
If Clinton is the nominee, McCain wins.
If Obama is the nominee, Obama wins.” Comment by RantingTommy — March 5, 2008 @ 8:43 am
So, you would vote for Sen. McCain if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination?
March 5th, 2008 at 8:50 am113 & 114 I fear you’re right. I dolike Hillary’s health care plans though better than Barack’s.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:51 am117 – even on a bad hair day Hillary’s heads and shoulders above McMonger.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:51 amI will still vote for Clinton if the laws of mathmatics are suspended and she somehow wins the nomination.
I really don’t have a problem with her being president.
The problem I have is that she will cause McCain to win simply by having the last name Clinton.
The knuckledragging right wingers have been trained to hate all things Clinton, irrationally, yes, but the fact remains: she is the best GOP GOTV weapon they have.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:55 am#119 – Comment by osiris — March 5, 2008 @ 8:51 am
I agree! ANY Democrat is better than Sen. McCain!
I’ve chatted with some Republicans at work, and 8 out of 10 say they’ll vote for Sen. Obama over Sen. McCain. 8 out of 10 say they’ll just not vote if it’s Sen. Clinton over Sen. McCain.
Again, I wish that more Democrat’s would vote for the winner of the nomination rather than continue to splinter the party.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:56 am#120 – “The problem I have is that she will cause McCain to win simply by having the last name Clinton.” Comment by RantingTommy — March 5, 2008 @ 8:55 am
I disagree. Well, maybe the ones who refust to think for themselves will vote for who they are told to vote for.
I do believe that many Republicans remember how easily Sen. McCain folded when then-Gov. Bush bashed him in 2000, talked about his “black child”, and repeated “he’s too old.” Sen. McCain can only win if Democrats refuse to support the Democratic Candidate.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:58 amDemSoldier – the cursory poll I took this morning supports yours. what’s more those who are independent also are so anti clinton that they will not vote. All of this spells big trouble for the Dem. party if Hillary gets the nod.
March 5th, 2008 at 8:58 amDem – and the locksteppers will vote for McMonger regardless. it’s the others – dems and independents alike – who dislike the clintons so muchbecause they epitomize the status quo in washington and we know we cannot tolerate the old guard any longer. Obama is the hope for our future.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:00 amThis may be how clinton came up ahead in texas and ohio. the locksteppers doing the dirty work with nothing to do with hillary per se. the locksteppers know that their candidate is a weakling and easily pummelled during debate but they’re banking on the clinton curse to overcome all of that should she be the candidate. in this respect it’s imperative for the GOP to have Hillary running against McMonger.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:02 am#125 – Comment by osiris — March 5, 2008 @ 9:02 am
I can see where you’re coming from, but I also know that the delegate count is now down to the super-delegates. They’re going to be the ones who decide the nomination.
I think they should vote for the winner in their districts. It’s the only fair way of voting.
If only Sen. McCain had a pair of balls, then maybe he’d've been the one voted into office in 2000, and this would be a done-deal on getting a Democrat in office.
Would you vote for Sen. Clinton is she won the nomination?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:06 amENTER RALPH NADER. Ralph Nader’s timing could not have been more perfect. He foresaw the corruption that is still inherent in the democrat party. The democratic establishment is going to learn the hard way that you can’t contrive a nomination or an elelction. So more Power to Ralph.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:06 amAgain, I wish that more Democrat’s would vote for the winner of the nomination rather than continue to splinter the party.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — March 5, 2008 @ 8:56 am
I’m not terribly worried about the Democratic party splintering. Yet. Hillary has gone quite negative in her desperation to take the nomination away from Obama (getting a bit Rovian in some cases), and the media are having a field day blowing the bellows on the fire of strife.
Yet the only conflict I’m sensing comes from the press. And from a few people at blogsites like this one. In just talking to the Democrats I know, the general feeling is “I prefer (Clinton/Obama — pick one), but they’re both good candidates and I will gladly vote for either in November.”
It may be a fight right to the finish line for the Democratic nomination, but I predict the Dems will unite for the general. All we have to do is to remember they are both good candidates and not allow media hype to taint them in our minds.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:08 am#127 – “So more Power to Ralph.” Comment by jimijazz — March 5, 2008 @ 9:06 am
And welcome Pres. McCain! Ralph Nader knows that he has no chance to win the Presidency. In fact, Nader gladly took money from Republicans to support his campaign. Nader is the reason we have a Republican President and both he and his supporters know it.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:09 amDamn it. Can’t she just give up already? She’s just going to run a smear campaign and give McCain more fuel on Obama once she finally exits.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:12 am#128 – ‘It may be a fight right to the finish line for the Democratic nomination, but I predict the Dems will unite for the general.” Comment by missmolly — March 5, 2008 @ 9:08 am
I hope (and pray) you are correct, Ms. Molly! I’d really hate to see a Pres. McCain continue to the degredations and failed policies of the Bush Administration! Our Constitution would be in very poor shape if a Pres. McCain continues to crap upon it as Pres. Bush has since he was selected in 2000.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:14 amENTER RALPH NADER. Ralph Nader’s timing could not have been more perfect. He foresaw the corruption that is still inherent in the democrat party. The democratic establishment is going to learn the hard way that you can’t contrive a nomination or an elelction. So more Power to Ralph.
All Nader is going to do is take votes from Democrats. He’s not going to win, he’s not going to come anywhere close to winning. He’s just trying to make some stupid point. I don’t even know what his point is. Is it to be a jackass? Because that point has been well made.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:15 am#130 – “Damn it. Can’t she just give up already?” Comment by Repunklicans — March 5, 2008 @ 9:12 am
The Clinton’s are fighters! They don’t punk-out like Sen. McCain did in 2000. If Sen. McCain had the balls that Sen. Clinton has, he’d have pushed back against then-Gov. Bush and put up a fight. Sen. McCain refused to fight in 2000, and folded.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:16 am#134 – “HILLARY, BRING BACK THE FURNITURE!” Comment by BERT CONVY — March 5, 2008 @ 9:22 am
Pres. Bush, Bring back the Surplus you squandered!
Pres. Bush, bring back the Constitution you crapped upon!
Pres. Bush, stop lying to the US about the war for oil!
March 5th, 2008 at 9:24 amHillary is a loser and needs to give up so that Obama can run a sound campaign against McCain.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:26 am#136 – Comment by Repunklicans — March 5, 2008 @ 9:26 am
The Clinton’s are fighters! They don’t punk-out like Sen. McCain did in 2000. If Sen. McCain had the balls that Sen. Clinton has, he’d have pushed back against then-Gov. Bush and put up a fight. Sen. McCain refused to fight in 2000, and folded.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:29 amSadly Hillary has no credibility to engage in the #1 issue with american voters – the Iraq war – since she enabled it. The iraq war is the genesis of everything that’s tanking in this country. In one way or another, it all points back to the error in judgment of occupying a sovereign nation based on lies and cherry-picked intel.
If Hillary is the candidate, this issue will be off the table. She may speak against the war right now but her voting record will hang her. She also erred in judgment with her affirmative vote for war with Iran. Two major errors which means she has no record from which to debate this war.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:31 amdem – McMonger is such a stiff that without the teleprompter he can’t construct his own thoughts. He’s playing up the torture he purportedly endured by walking around like he can’t turn his head, move his arms, etc. What about his cancer diagnosis? Does this man have 4 years left?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:32 amDemocrat Soldier… you’re like a broken record man.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:34 amDemocrat Soldier… you’re like a broken record man.
Comment by Repunklicans — March 5, 2008 @ 9:34 am
Too bad for you he’s right, and you’re wrong.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:47 amdemocrats, liberals, they all live in the same country. They should all get along
March 5th, 2008 at 9:47 am#140 – “Democrat Soldier… you’re like a broken record man.” Comment by Repunklicans — March 5, 2008 @ 9:34 am
And you are like a man who sticks his fingers in his ears and refuses to listen to the questions. “La, la, la! I can’t hear you! La, la, la!”
Will you vote for the winner of the Democratic Nomination, or will you usher in Pres. McCain?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:47 amHillary sent young soldiers to this war..coming back in coffins.She did not raise one question about this war…She later lied about the war that she was ignorant about what she voted war.She later said she did not even read the Intelligence report..
March 5th, 2008 at 9:50 amShe was working as a puppit for AIPAC when she gave her vote in 2002,and she is till is…
Now she is telling us about her wonderful economic plans her magic under Solutions..but what is her answer to spending 10 billion dollars a week on this war that she was happy to vote for ?
As long as she plays as a puppit fior the war mongering party..nothing will be different between her and McCain.In fact the same groups of Necocons and the war cabal love both of them…
Conservative Republican’t lemmings continue to drink the kool-aide and refuse to put their brains in use. They get the talking points which they regurgitate, and don’t engage their brains.
It’s like Pres. Bush said “Is our children learning?” Apparantly his aren’t, or they’d realize that the Repubcan’t party is run by corporations, for the rich getting richer and the middle class getting screwed!
If Republican’ts actually cared, they’d call for Pres. Bush to take responsibility for his actions. they haven’t, and he won’t.
March 5th, 2008 at 9:54 am#145 – Comment by tarazan — March 5, 2008 @ 9:50 am
So, you’re going to work for Sen. McCain to win if Sen. Clinton wins the nomination?
March 5th, 2008 at 9:56 amThis may have been said already, but I don’t have time to read all 150 prior posts. I’m so f’ing sick of Hillary and her “experience” platform. If that’s the measure of being qualified for the presidency, shouldn’t the Dems just concede the race for McSenile???
March 5th, 2008 at 10:02 am#145 Democrat soldier,
March 5th, 2008 at 10:05 amNo, I will not…because Obama is still on top.
McCain can only win if Democrats refuse to support the Democratic Candidate.
Comment by Democrat Soldier — March 5, 2008 @ 8:58 am
Ain’t that the truth.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:11 amI don’t agree with everything Hillary says or does, but she is better than any Repuke
I guess the people saying they won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the primaries haven’t had enough of Bush and anctually want a 3rd Bush term ( McCain )
#149 – “No, I will not…because Obama is still on top.” Comment by tarazan — March 5, 2008 @ 10:05 am
Tarzan, consider this hypothetical situation:
Sen. Clinton wins the Democratic Nomination.
The race is between Sen. Clinton and Sen. McCain.
For whom will you vote if these are the only two viable alternatives?
March 5th, 2008 at 10:25 am#150 – “I guess the people saying they won’t vote for Hillary if she wins the primaries haven’t had enough of Bush and anctually want a 3rd Bush term ( McCain )” Comment by Wayne — March 5, 2008 @ 10:11 am
I can’t dispute that!
It would be nice if everyone who voted for Sen. Obama or Sen. Clinton would simply vote for the winner of the Democratic Convention. If this would happen, there would be a Democratic President in 2009!
It’s the “spoiler” vote (I won’t vote for Sen. Clinton is Sen. Obama doesn’t win!) that will determine if we have any hope in 2009, or if the current direction that Pres. Bush started continues with Sen. McCain in destroying America and everything on which our country was founded.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:29 amAnything Clinton says is seen in the most negative light, and attributed to the most heinous motives.
The bias among progressives against Senator Clinton is down right embarrassing… so GOP like.
She is smart, dedicated, hard working and her closest adviser oversaw the best of times we’ve seen in this country in many decades.
Obama mania is also embarrassing. He’s just a human being.
March 5th, 2008 at 10:45 amHis promises go over the top in my opinion. He can’t possibly deliver.
Frankly, the vitrol thrown at both candidates is really turning me off of the entire voting process. Folks? This is what you’re doing.
You Obama Supporters are busy trying to destroy Clinton. You Clinton Supporters are busy trying to destroy Obama. And you all scream about how you won’t vote for [insert name of candidate that is not your candidate] in the General Election. What you’re really saying is ‘I don’t care if McCain gets the White House in 2009!’
The nation is gripped in a recession that may well turn into a depression. The ship is taking water faster than we can bail it out, and you’re all screaming about who missed the ice berg we struck. Basically, to continue borrowing from the analogy, you’re all arguing about how the chairs will be arranged on the deck of the sinking Titanic.
Clinton’s the one who unarguably unleashed the negative campaigning. She is gonna argue that her negative campaign won her those 3 states yesterday, so you’ll get more of the same and then some. She’s turning me off of her! Yes, I would prefer Obama, but before the ‘politics of personal destruction’ started, I would have voted for Clinton. I am an independent, one of the 30% that you need to take the whitehouse in ‘09. Are you really wanting to scare me away from one of your potential candidates?
In the ideal world, both candidates would come up with an arrangement that the winner will take the looser as VP, and both emphasize what they can do while still saying the other candidate is qualified for the position. BOTH bring plusses and minuses to the election…but right now, Clinton’s emphasizing BOTH of their minuses, and leaving herself (and Obama) as damaged goods when I can finally vote for them.
*sigh*
March 5th, 2008 at 10:55 amI’ll still vote for whomever the Dems nominate. Clinton or Obama are light years better than McCain.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:02 amI’m with you on that, RUCerious, but not all independents are sold on the idea that McCain is worse than HRC or Obama.
The catfight only adds to that worry.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:05 amObama has 88 delegates more than Clinton wow gee whiz.
The current popular vote tally between them is within the margin of error of our election system (which is about 3%)
Clinton has won all the “big” states. This is something we need to defeat McCain.
And we have yet to see what’s going tohappen the votes of the poor folks in FL and MI.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:06 amYes, Hillary proved her mettle……and her message is that …It’s the economy, Stupid!
March 5th, 2008 at 11:15 amI give Obama credit for opposing the war in Iraq from the beginning, as did I. I organized a panel discussion on the issue and wrote repeatedly in opposition to the issue on our campus. One instance of good judgment, however, does not constitute an adequate level of experience for the presidency. I fault Clinton and other Democratic leaders who helped give Bush the authority to initiate the war. Now, however, I agree with both Clinton and Obama that we can’t simply pull our troops out abruptly. Having initiated a foolish war, we now have both a moral and pragmatic obligation to see the situation through to the best conclusion possible – hopefully a semi-stable Iraq when we ultimately leave.
I very much question, however, the “good judgment†of a man who smokes cigarettes, a man addicted to Tobacco. How much commitment does such a man have to health care, not caring enough about his own health to refrain from slowly killing himself? How much commitment will he have to standing up to the tobacco industry and reigning in their advertising and promotional activities (primarily aimed at children) that contribute to the deaths of 460,000 Americans each year. Twenty percent of all American deaths each year are tobacco-related. By contrast, 3000 American deaths in Iraq over three years, however tragic those might be, is a drop in the bucket. The tobacco problem should be at the top of the political agenda in America. The tobacco problem also contributes significantly to the difficulty of establishing universal health care, by increasing health-care costs.
What sort of man bases a campaign on his personality and on vague appeals to “hope†and “change?†These are the tactics of mainly two kinds of people in our society: hucksters (charlatans, used-car salesmen, confidence men) and evangelists. It is not the kind of leadership that encourages the electorate to engage in intelligent understanding of issues or to develop rational solutions to problems. Leadership based on charisma and rhetoric is a dangerous sort of leadership.
March 5th, 2008 at 11:32 amExperience of Hillary’s kind does not impress me. She is too much like her husband’s bad traits, in that she has run a more negative campaign, she has a shoddy organization, and she is too willing to say whatever the next poll indicates will benefit her. She will compromise on anything, including the Constitution to gain power or stay in power. That said, she is still better than McCain for America’s future.
I look for character, judgement, intelligence and clear thinking in the candidate, and Obama shows me that, even if its mostly in his speeches. He may be a politician, but he is a less connected one, less ingratiated to lobbyists, big oil, old politics. He can think on his feet, and the fictional 3:00 call will not find him unnerved. I believe that he will honor the Constitution though it may not benefit him personally. I think he offers a new perspective, and, yes, hope. Differences in programs, such as between his and HRC’s health care plan are immaterial; neither will get their plan through Congress without changes anyway. I believe that only Barack will stand up to the Republican phalanx in Congress to restore the Constitutional rights of citizens. He has worked closer to real problems than Hillary, in Chicago. He is not out of touch. He says things that we, the politically weary are ready to hear and need to hear, because hope is slipping away. I will not score points here for fact-based support of Obama, but after a lifetime of judging people successfully most of the time, I am going with intelligence and hope over more of the same.
@#153 Of course Bill presided over good times economically, but he also displayed a moral compass far off from true north. You should not forget that he spent half his time in office campaigning for himself. I can forgive him his marital trespasses, but lying under oath to Congress is more suggestive of his personality, and his continuing questionable business relationships with dictators in the ex-Russians -stans leaves one questioning why a man of his stature is still so money oriented.
As for Obama’s or Hillary’s or McCain’s promises, none of them will deliver in full. That’s politics. On balance, my gut tells me to go with judgement and character…..
March 5th, 2008 at 11:40 am#151 Democrat Slodier:
March 5th, 2008 at 11:40 amMe and many people I know in my state will stay home if Hillary wins.
I am not going to vote for her just because she is a Democrat when she is planning on waging more wars.
Is that what are you going to do? , Just vote for her because she is Democrat?
I vote for principles and not parties.
Unless she answers the war issue question ,which she ran away from, then my vote remains the same.
But she will not win the nomination…
What are going to do to make her win the nomination?..the delegate count and math. is against her.
Unless she plans on dividing the party..and when she does, then my vote and your vote will mean nothing, because McCain will just sails with ease,and win it all. because of Clinton’s dreams.
My Grandfather was a democrat, my father was a democrat…..I am a democrat. One of the first things I learned in life was that what they teach you in civics class about ignoring the party and vote for the best man is bull.
If I don’t like the democrats then I will work to change them. I will not vote or enable a republican out of spite…..ever
Any democrat will do more for American citizens by accident than any republican will do for them on purpose.
The description of a split in the Democratic Party right now is imaginary and by design…..of the right…..don’t fall for it. You guys are a lot more upset about it than the average American.
those who say Hillary is a war monger……..I never fear and have no reason to believe that Hillary would ever have invaded and occupied Iraq….sorry…don’t believe it would have happened.
As far as her health care attempt in the 90’s which many of you choose to call a failure…….I blame most of you for turning your back on her. She tried….you cannot call that a failure….she is still trying.
Mr Obama is an elegant and intelligent young man…..So was JFK. I have every faith that either of these amazing people can lead our country to a better existence than any republican…….ever.
There is a reason why the republicans were the minority party for 50 years…..you are seeing that reason now…..the American people are having to admit that now because it is actually touching their individual lives……its the economy…again….
Have faith Democrats, the future is bright……we are going to be finally given the opportunity to correct some of the the damage done by 30 years of republican influence
March 5th, 2008 at 11:54 amFred says: “My Grandfather was a democrat, my father was a democrat…..I am a democrat. “
Wow! Incapable of standing on your own two feet! Unable to think for yourself? Looks like you haven’t learned the pivotal lessons of history, which is why you are doomed to repeat your patrons’ errors again, and again…
March 5th, 2008 at 12:00 pmMe and many people I know in my state will stay home if Hillary wins.
I am not going to vote for her just because she is a Democrat when she is planning on waging more wars.
Comment by tarazan
This just tells me that you are not really a Democrat. You may vote or not as you choose but you should at least be honest with us if not with yourself…….you only suspect that Hillary is a “War Monger”.
You actually have very little to base such a broad statement on. Did Bill Clinton invade and occupy other countries? No Did George Bush? Yes. A vote in the senate to support someone who turned out to be a lier…….does not make a person a war monger.
Voting for Obama by the way…….just try to keep it real please. The things you guys say sounds like Rush Limballs.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:01 pm162 Thanks JT….I know you are a republican so I will take that as a complement….fact is I learned a long time ago not to care what you think.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:07 pmFred comes from a long line of smart people, and JT (who supports a long line of failures) thinks that’s a bad on Fred??
wonders never cease.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:14 pmFred, you put your position and your beliefs very well in post 161. Makes me laugh at JT’s post after reading yours.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:17 pm#163 Fred,
[ you only suspect that Hillary is a "War Monger".]
March 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pm——————————————————————
No , it is not a matter of suspecting; her record speaks for itself…, go look it up.
165, 166 Thanks Gents but you shouldn’t encourage me. I’m a fairly illiterate retired construction worker/vet. It took me a while to come up with that little bit of insight but it’s from the heart……I don’t think JT can reltate to that….
March 5th, 2008 at 12:38 pmAll you whom incorrectly presumed I am a Repub. because I don’t follow lockstep in with a particular party are wrong, again. In fact, I am independent because I chose the best candidate based on the issues and the leadership that person can bring to the White House.
People, such as Fred, who vote for a particular party regardless of the issues of the day don’t deserve a vote because they don’t think about the consequences of their actions. Rather, they follow in lockstep with those in power, even if it heads over a cliff.
Shame on you for neglecting your civic duty to vote using you mind rather than the affiliations of your father, and his father before him.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pmFred,
Obama is more of a war monger than Hillary.
Obama said, “If Pakistan doesn’t hit Al Qaeda, U.S. must”.
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/obama/chi-obama2aug02,0,5330469.story?coll=chi-newsbreaking-hed
March 5th, 2008 at 12:51 pm@Fred: Good comments, I support them, for one, and I think most of us are with you. Being from a long line of Democrats tells me you come from a long line of progressive thinkers, liberal (small L) probably, and what therefore was JT comment worth? Little (large L).
Myself, I come from a long line of Republicans, my Grandfather being a Republican from a small plains state. I registered as a Democrat this year, because I needed to be true in label to my own line of thinking, which is more progressive, and I believe more true to Democratic principles. At least I believe that until I see how the House Democrats vote on FISA and telecom immunity. If they bend, then being communist might put us all in better stead with the powers that be. There is increasing evidence that the surveillance started just after the 2001 inauguration, which would make spying on Americans the intent of BushCo. Otherwise, would they not have discovered the 9/11 conspiracy? Immunity for telecoms is only the Republican attempt to cover up their felonious gutting of our civil rights. This is not off topic, thank you.
March 5th, 2008 at 12:57 pm#169 JT’
Thank you for expressing the same feelings I have about voting.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:06 pmPeople should vote for the best and should not carry a cabal mentality going to vote; they should be free to give their vote to whoever is best for the country.
I am independent
Comment by JT
I have found that this means you are usually a republican or someone who just doesn’t know what the hell to think…..by the way…bold doesn’t make what you say any more of a fact.
lockstep is usually a givaway that you are a republican too.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:10 pmJT, I won’t condemn Fred for his views. I won’t condemn you for yours. Fred’s post was thought out and it appears he views the beliefs of the Democrats are where his heart is. Core beliefs of each party is very important. Too bad neither party follows them.
I too am independant and search for the best (better) candidate. Saying one doesn’t deserve to vote is a bit strong and goes against the principles this country was founded by. I would, instead argue that an uninformed vote can be more harmful to this country.
While you may not agree with Fred, to say he’s uninormed and blindly following the democrats tells me you didn’t look into what he wrote.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:12 pmThank you for expressing the same feelings I have about voting.
People should vote for the best and should not carry a cabal mentality going to vote; they should be free to give their vote to whoever is best for the country.
Comment by tarazan
I’m not trying to convince you. You need to think for yourself. You need to be realistic and objective at the same time……Calling Hillary a war monger and putting her in the same basket as george bush who actually did invade and occupy a forign country is not objectivity, it is hysteria.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:18 pmWhile you may not agree with Fred, to say he’s uninormed and blindly following the democrats tells me you didn’t look into what he wrote.
Comment by hellinabucket
JT is one of the regular trolls here hellina…..that’s one reason I talk down to him. He will not read or try to see our points about anything…he just wants to make his and be taken seriously.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:22 pmIndependent = Republican who’s badly embarrassed about it.
nut up, JT.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pm(Dixie – I’m pretty sure he was talking about you)
March 5th, 2008 at 1:33 pmI very much question, however, the “good judgment†of a man who smokes cigarettes, a man addicted to Tobacco. How much commitment does such a man have to health care, not caring enough about his own health to refrain from slowly killing himself? How much commitment will he have to standing up to the tobacco industry and reigning in their advertising and promotional activities (primarily aimed at children) that contribute to the deaths of 460,000 Americans each year. Twenty percent of all American deaths each year are tobacco-related. By contrast, 3000 American deaths in Iraq over three years, however tragic those might be, is a drop in the bucket. The tobacco problem should be at the top of the political agenda in America. The tobacco problem also contributes significantly to the difficulty of establishing universal health care, by increasing health-care costs.
Comment by metalluk — March 5, 2008 @ 11:32 am
I find it difficult to believe that anyone would base their voting decision on the healthiness of a candidate’s personal habits. If that was the case, Clinton the Big Mac lover would never have been elected in 1992 over H.W. Bush the health nut. But since whether or not a candidate smokes is important to you, I’d just like to point out a couple of things:
1) Obama WAS a smoker — he quit at the beginning of 2007 as a promise to his wife, who insisted he quit as a condition of entering the presidential race. So far, he appears to have honored that promise, despite bounties offered on any picture showing his smoking. No word on whether or not he still chews Nicorette gum, however.
2) Just because a man smokes doesn’t mean he is going to give the tobacco industry a free pass. Many smokers hate their addiction and resent the tobacco companies for it
3) I disagree that tobacco should be “at the top of the political agenda” — not when there are issues such as Iraq, the economy, global warming, and presidential abuse of power on the radar. Each to his own, I guess.
4) Your scary statistics of “deaths of 460,000 Americans each year” and “twenty percent of all American deaths” fail to recognize that ALL Americans will die of something eventually. While tobacco use admittedly shortens lives, it doesn’t prevent immortality.
5) Tobacco related health problems don’t make as much of a dent in health care costs as you would think. As I mentioned in the previous point, everybody will eventually die of something even though smokers will generally die before non-smokers, on average. One study (I apologize that I don’t have the link for it) indicated that the average smoking American had about three major hospital stays in their lifetime, while non-smokers had a little over 5. Why? Because smokers died sooner, while non-smokers hung around and got more illnesses associated with the elderly. Compare the costs of somebody dying of lung cancer to somebody decaying slowly from Alzheimer’s.
I agree with you that smoking is a bad thing, and should be discouraged. But there’s way too much else at stake in this election for me to be concerned about a candidate’s smoking habits.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:34 pmComment by Southern Man
I thought you were trying to be a human being instead of lowering yourself to this level SM…..what happened.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:37 pm@Fred, #175 Lets quit trying to parse out Hillary’s vote for the war. She gave the go ahead to a completely foreseeable action by Bush. And that is why I don’t trust her to do the right thing, but that she will do the politically expedient of the moment. A lot like her “senior advisor”, as I remember the 1990s. Overall, I rate Clinton I as a good president, but he had his faults, and being the most Republican Democratic president of recent history is one of them. I expect more of the same from Clinton II. Still in all, better than McSame.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:40 pmI expect more of the same from Clinton II. Still in all, better than McSame.
Comment by HighPlainsJoker
How can anyone deny that simple truth? Thats’s all I’m saying.
March 5th, 2008 at 1:45 pmHopefully superdelegates will realize that a big chunk of Hill’s so-called win last night in Texas is due to Repugs crossing over a la Rush Limpbrain.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:11 pm#186 – Comment by twocents — March 5, 2008 @ 2:11 pm
Hopefully, superdelegates will vote the same way as the district from which they come. This is the only valid way to vote, unless they want to impose their will on the American people, a la SCOTUS 2000.
ANY Democratic Candidate is better than a possible Pres. McCain!
March 5th, 2008 at 2:42 pmFred,
You spoke very eloquently and I too agree with most of what you said. I would much rather see Obama win because I think that he has the best shot at bringing the country together and ending the extreme partisanship that is tearing us apart. In fact, I think that is part of the problem, the Dems have never been nearly as partisan as the repugs which is why they keep caving. If they would just stand on principle they would’ve been able to block a lot the damaging Bush agenda.
The problem is the dems don’t speak with one voice which is also what makes the Democratic Party better than the repugs. The dems just have more and better ideas. But those ideas get drowned out because they are talking about too many of them at a time. The repugs speak with one voice on one bad idea at a time and drown out the dems.
That is the reason that I would rather see Obama heading the party. I think Hillary would keep that partisan bickering well fed only because the radical right hates her so much and the dems can be so damned ambivalent.
I will fully support whoever gets the dem nomination simply because it’s the anti repug vote and a vote for any 3rd party candidate is a vote for the repugs.
That’s why I said early this morning that people who would consider voting for anyone other than the dem candidate makes me sick.
In my estimation, Obama would just be a more clear repudiation of all things Bush. Hillary, not so much. But I’ll take either of them over Grumps Insane.
Rest assured, I’ll be doing my best for Obama here in PA while it’s still undecided. If Hillary ultimately becomes the nominee, I am not sure that I will be able to work up the same amount of enthusiasm to go knock on doors for her though. Sure, I’ll vote for her but… And that’s, I think, the problem. She just doesn’t inspire because she just seems like more of the same old politics that is crushing this nation.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:48 pm“Change your thought and you’ll change the world”.
“We are what we think”.
Of a truth, as long as the unenlightened masses continue to elect someone who embraces smear and fear as a tool to get votes no matter the political party, we will absolutely deserve everything that will be upon us. So much for the concept of change.
March 5th, 2008 at 2:54 pmha – didja really think i cared one way or the other Dixie??
TRRW – I’m agreein with you too, with a note to the effect that I think HRC would take it to the R’s in DC in a way that would do us all proud, and I want that to happen. Obama talks kind of patty-cakey about the R’s sometimes, and I don’t like that, though I do like him.
What I want for Christmas is the GOP to be razed to the ground and sown with salt, such that it remains without influence for 100 years.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:23 pm‘What I want for Christmas is the GOP to be razed to the ground and sown with salt, such that it remains without influence for 100 years.”
Comment by tombaker — March 5, 2008 @ 3:23 pm
Only 100? I’d be happy to see them go the way of the dinosaurs that they think roamed the earth just 5000 years ago right beside man.
Or to quote one of them, “reduced in stature to a size small enough to squash under the heel like the bugs they are!”
March 5th, 2008 at 3:44 pmObama has enjoyed tactical advantages by limiting his speeches mainly to generalities and cliches, as Fred noted in his post. It’s almost scary that people will vote for someone because he makes them feel good or talks about lofty ideals without providing a single detail!
He certainly he has benefited from a friendly press corps. Once Obama starts being treated as a normal politician, as happened for the first time with the press corps just a few days ago, it’s hard to say what will become of the Obama craze. At some point, will young women start to feel silly about fainting at Obama rallies? Will “go for broke” Dems finally realize that their love-fest is all for naught?
If I were a Democratic superdelegate, I would be glad of the opportunity to sit back for a few weeks and see how Obama reacts to adversity, and how much air has been let out of his balloon.
He gives good speeches though…
March 5th, 2008 at 3:49 pmWhat I want for Christmas is the GOP to be razed to the ground and sown with salt, such that it remains without influence for 100 years.â€
Comment by tombaker
I like the sown with salt metaphor……farmers and gardeners will know what this means.
March 5th, 2008 at 3:50 pmIt’s almost scary that people will vote for someone because he makes them feel good or talks about lofty ideals without providing a single detail!He gives good speeches though…
Comment by JT
You mean like the speeches that Winston Churchill or FDR used to give…..they were not full of details but you could easily decide to trust them…….
March 5th, 2008 at 3:55 pmIt’s almost scary that people will vote for someone because he makes them feel good or talks about lofty ideals without providing a single detail!He gives good speeches though…
Comment by JT
You mean like the speeches that JFK gave where he said a rising tide floats all boats. That kind of not too detailed?
March 5th, 2008 at 3:58 pmlike all the sapsuckers that voted for the Cheerleader Prince!!???
you make better fun of yourself than I could ever hope to, JT.
March 5th, 2008 at 4:30 pmHillary is NOT a republican, and she is NOT going to resign, even gracefully. It’s a complete idiocy to compare Hillary to a Repug.
GO HILLARY CLINTON! DON’T GIVE UP!
March 5th, 2008 at 4:55 pmSome false arguments being put forward to defend Obama.
1. he will unite the country-
what a BS! Who want’s to unite the two parties? For what? To speak ONE voice like Russia? Maybe we should eliminate democratic elections and always agree. Hmm…
I do NOT want to be united with repugs.
Realistically, there is NO chance ever for this country to be united.
Anachronism and wishful thinking to say the least.
2. Clinton campaign is said to be fearmongering.
What? First of all, to fear something there has to be an object of fear put forward. Do you fear something when you watch the ad??
I don’t. You watch way too many sci-fi and tv garbage in general.
3. Clinton is said to be more of the same.
Are you repeating all media slogans out there in your brain until you believe it??
How is a Universal Healthcare more of the same?
How is withdrawal from Iraq more of the same?
How is green energy policies more of the same?
How is Immigration Reform more of the same?
Are you brain dead?
Come on, throw me a real bone, boneheads.
March 5th, 2008 at 5:06 pmGiggles,
I didn’t mean unite the parties, I meant the PARTY. as in the Democratic party.
I meant that speaking with one voice the dems might get more done than by chasing too many agendas at once.
Oh, never mind…
March 5th, 2008 at 6:23 pmFred, read this:
So, are you casting your vote for the best candidate, or are you casting your vote because that’s what your daddy did, and what his daddy before him did?… Stand on your own two feet and cast your vote wisely!!
March 6th, 2008 at 1:59 pmThose who believe that Obama will ultimately win the support of Democrats currently supporting Clinton have a surprise in store, in my opinion. These are not all “party regulars” as some like to believe. Many are older, moderate Democrats who comprise a fertile field for mining crossover votes. McCain has already indicated his intention to go after these votes and he will succeed. Democratic Party officials and labor leaders will certainly back Obama, out of party loyalty and discipline, but many older, nominally Democratic voters will vote for McCain.
In Rhode Island, on March 4th, Obama took a trouncing mainly because older voters turned out in droves, 70% or so supporting Clinton, while Obama’s corps of reputed youthful enthusiasts was too busy to vote in meaningful numbers. Rhode Island may be insignificant in the realm of delegate mathematics, but it is one of the two most predominantly Democratic states in the country. Those older voters didn’t trudge down to the poles primarily out of love for Hillary Clinton but rather out of contempt for inexperience. If Obama is the Democratic nominee (I place the odds of his being so at about 85-90%), the elderly, before they get around to rolling over in their graves, will turn out for McCain for the same reason that they turned out for Hillary. It’s just a matter of time before “Democrats for McCain” organizations spring up in various states, if Obama wins the nomination.
The states Obama has won, so far, are predominantly Republic states, in recent elections. He beat Hillary in those states, but he won’t beat McCain. By contrast, Obama is not strong in the Democratic states or the crucial swing states. McCain will be in play in some states that were previously easy wins for the Democratic candidate as well as in the swing states. If you examine the geographical distributions in Ohio and Texas from the recent primaries, you’ll see that Obama really only won the counties with large cities, where the black vote (he routinely takes it by 90%) created his margin. Obama has vulnerability among blue-collar workers and the elderly, which are the dominant groups in such swing states as Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Florida.
March 6th, 2008 at 8:47 pmComment by missmolly:
“One study (I apologize that I don’t have the link for it) indicated that the average smoking American had about three major hospital stays in their lifetime, while non-smokers had a little over 5.”
The number of hospital stays hardly captures the issue, since a stay can be short or long. Tobacco related ailments such as lung cancer tend to cause slow deaths and expensive treatment in comparison to sudden heart attacks or strokes that kill many of those who live to an advanced age.
Obama claimed in a newspaper interview to be a “moderate” smoker, but his appearance suggests otherwise. He exhibits all of the classic signs of a heavy smoker, including tightly stretched skin on his face along with fleshy jowls around his cheeks. He has the thin build not of a man who exercises regularly but of a heavy smoker. He looks older than his age, which is typical of smokers.
Obama has stated that he has quit smoking frequently, but relapses frequently due to inadequate resolve. As any drug abuse expert will tell you, quitting frequently just plain isn’t quitting at all. A man without resolve is a poor candidate for the presidency. A cigarette smoker is also a damn poor role model for the nation’s children.
March 6th, 2008 at 11:38 pm