Vermont
Obama: 60%
Clinton: 38%

Texas
Clinton: 51%
Obama: 47%

Ohio
Clinton: 55%
Obama: 43%

Rhode Island
Clinton: 58%
Obama: 40%

CNN, NBC project Clinton wins Texas.

As of 12:55 AM ET 03/04/2008

not by huge margins, thankfully, so hopefully BHO can hang on to his delegate lead. hillary! she's a reptile.

lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_139

OHB wins 11 in a row. then HRC wins three and suddenly she's God Gift to Freedom.  ::)

at least maybe this means she'll ease off on the smearjobs.

***

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh off a campaign saving comeback, hinted Wednesday at the possibility of sharing the Democratic presidential ticket with Barack Obama — with her at the top. Obama played down his losses, stressing that he still holds the lead in number of delegates.

lol.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080305/ap_on_el_pr/campaign_rdp_139

OHB wins 11 in a row. then HRC wins three and suddenly she's God Gift to Freedom.  ::)

at least maybe this means she'll ease off on the smearjobs.

***

WASHINGTON - Hillary Rodham Clinton, fresh off a campaign saving comeback, hinted Wednesday at the possibility of sharing the Democratic presidential ticket with Barack Obama — with her at the top. Obama played down his losses, stressing that he still holds the lead in number of delegates.






Ugh, yeah, I caught that on the news this morning. She's acting like she's already the nominee. And because she had a few wins, her PMS went away and now she's playing all nicey-nice. ::) I remarked to Rice this morning on how well Obama presents himself, even after losing two key states.

Ugh, yeah, I caught that on the news this morning. She's acting like she's already the nominee. And because she had a few wins, her PMS went away and now she's playing all nicey-nice. ::) I remarked to Rice this morning on how well Obama presents himself, even after losing two key states.
that was their strategy anyway, clinton was focusing on the key states, obama was focusing on all 50, so really this turnout isnt a surprise. and obama is still ahead.

i tell ya, though, i'm just getting more and more desperate NOT to have a ms. clinton administration.  :( that's just gonna be gross.

Obama didn't lose by 25 in either states, so it's not the end of the world :D

that was their strategy anyway, clinton was focusing on the key states, obama was focusing on all 50, so really this turnout isnt a surprise. and obama is still ahead.

i tell ya, though, i'm just getting more and more desperate NOT to have a ms. clinton administration.  :( that's just gonna be gross.


It won't be gross. It might be scary, though. :P

this was fun. from the op-ed in the washington post today.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/04/AR2008030402331.html

basically it boils down to, "osama wants obama."  ::)

and because the office is slow i wrote an email to the editor. (like they ever read those things.)

***

This has got to be the silliest bit of tomfoolery i've read on the Post op-ed in quite a while, due in equal parts to:

(1) the apparent assertion that normal, educated people are supposed to take anything printed in the New York Post seriously, and

(2) the argument that the troops in Iraq -- who, with the presumed exception of those pitching puppies off cliffs, are now giving money disproportionately to "cut-and-run" democrats just like the rest of us -- will be "humiliate" after Obama withdraws them just as they find themselves "on the verge of success." Given that they've been "on the verge of success" since Bush first waved the checkered flag of "mission accomplished" half a decade ago, one imagines the troops can be "on the verge of success" just as easily in the USA, on the shores of bermuda or on the dark side of the Moon as in Iraq, since this alleged "success" plainly has more to do with some celestial fantasy than the facts on the ground anywhere on Earth.

You conclude that "there is something worse than being unpopular in the world," speaking of America's image, "and that is being a pleading, panting joke." The distinction between these two categories isn't entirely clear to me but if one is to be drawn, the drooling neo-con foreign policy of the past seven years intuitively has more the feel of the latter. If, by withdrawing troops from Iraq and meeting with historical personas non grata as Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, President Obama (it just rolls off the tongue, doesn't it?) provokes the ire of such exotic political marginalia as right-wing extremist Cuban ex-pats, anti-Islamic Zionist militants in Israel and war criminals like Henry Kissinger -- well, let's just say that prospect seems to provoke more anxiety in you than it does in us more middle-of-the-road types.

But take heart: if Obama has expressed a willingness to talk to isolated leaders like Raul Castro (against whom i notice your verdict is already in, even though he's not been in power a month), maybe he'll also be willing to talk to irrational extremists on the other side as well. The political pornographers at the New York Post, for instance, or perhaps even -- though I wouldn't personally recommend it -- certain religious fundamentalists at the Council on Foreign Relations.

What this says to me is that negative ads work in Ohio & Texas.  :(  I think she is probably going to get nastier from here on out. It really gets me how people of Ohio are so concerned about NAFTA (and rightly so) but yet they embrace Hillary when it was her husband who pushed it through. yeah, the irony of that wasn't lost on me. i guess your typical dem voter doesn't listen to as much alex jones and david icke as i do. :D

Also, I really can't understand how some Dems can be so blind to the fact that Hillary IS Republican-Lite.  they're probably listening to what she says rather than what she does. she talks a good liberal game, she just doesnt vote that way so much.


Cat

yeah, the irony of that wasn't lost on me. i guess your typical dem voter doesn't listen to as much alex jones and david icke as i do. :D
they're probably listening to what she says rather than what she does. she talks a good liberal game, she just doesnt vote that way so much.





Exactly! I think they are thinking about the fact that things were better under the Clinton Administration but they don't realize that things were better under the HOOVER Administration than it is under the present one.



Cat

Exactly! I think they are thinking about the fact that things were better under the Clinton Administration but they don't realize that things were better under the HOOVER Administration than it is under the present one.



Cat
yeah, i've really amped up the hillaryhate in the past couple days but i will still readily acknowledge a hillary president would be heads and shoulders, and waist, knees and feet above the bush adminstration. hell, i'd take mccain over bush readily. (huckabee and romney actually ran the possibility of being as bad as dubya, though, those guys struck me as NUTZ.)

yeah, i've really amped up the hillaryhate in the past couple days but i will still readily acknowledge a hillary president would be heads and shoulders, and waist, knees and feet above the bush adminstration. hell, i'd take mccain over bush readily. (huckabee and romney actually ran the possibility of being as bad as dubya, though, those guys struck me as NUTZ.)



There was a time when I considered voting for McCain but not any more. In the last few years, he has shown his true colors to me. But yeah, I would prefer him to Dubya-hell, I would prefer Mickey Mouse to Dubya.



Cat 

Vermont
Obama: 60%
Clinton: 38%

Texas
Clinton: 51%
Obama: 47%

Ohio
Clinton: 55%
Obama: 43%

Rhode Island
Clinton: 58%
Obama: 40%

CNN, NBC project Clinton wins Texas.

As of 12:55 AM ET 03/04/2008


If she wins...I'm moving to Niagra, Ontario!

If she wins...I'm moving to Niagra, Ontario!
after hil implements her north american union plan and we all have to trade in our currency for ameros and get chips in our arms fleeing to canada may not help. :P

sorry, i have a bad habit of trading in discredited rumors. we're being sprayed!

She didn't win by much.  Her little victory dance is a bit premature.  There's still PA.  Remind me to lock Governor Ed Rendell in a closet during that primary, it's probably the only way Obama has a fair chance.

Clinton may not win Texas outright after all.  With 40% in, the Texas caucus is going to Obama 56-44.  Wowsers!

Clinton may not win Texas outright after all.  With 40% in, the Texas caucus is going to Obama 56-44.  Wowsers!


It ain't over till it's over!!!  Go Obama Go!!! :) :)

Also, I really can't understand how some Dems can be so blind to the fact that Hillary IS Republican-Lite.  The fact that many of the far-right will vote her over McCain should tell them something.


Actually, there is a core of the far-right that is endorsing Hillary.  And leading this is Rush Limbaugh.

In states which have an open primary system, he is encouraging voters to vote for Hillary.  Mostly, this is because she is considered to be the "easier" nominee to defeat in the general election.

And this is nothing new.  Democrats in California for over a decade normally voted for the weakest Republican in the primaries for Governor.  This helped ensure that the candidate that ran was so wishy-washy that there was no real contest.  This is also frequently done in California for other offices, like Congressman and Lieutenant Governor.

Actually, there is a core of the far-right that is endorsing Hillary.  And leading this is Rush Limbaugh.

In states which have an open primary system, he is encouraging voters to vote for Hillary.  Mostly, this is because she is considered to be the "easier" nominee to defeat in the general election.

And this is nothing new.  Democrats in California for over a decade normally voted for the weakest Republican in the primaries for Governor.  This helped ensure that the candidate that ran was so wishy-washy that there was no real contest.  This is also frequently done in California for other offices, like Congressman and Lieutenant Governor.


The far-right is also a bit afraid of Obama.  He does have bipartisan appeal.  Hillary would be easier to beat in a general election.  What's even worse would be a double whammy.  An Obama/Richardson ticket.

BTW, missed you Mushroom!!! :)

The far-right is also a bit afraid of Obama.  He does have bipartisan appeal.  Hillary would be easier to beat in a general election.  What's even worse would be a double whammy.  An Obama/Richardson ticket.

BTW, missed you Mushroom!!! :)


I would not say scared as in "he would take away votes", as much as "OMG, what would happen if this fool wins?"

Personally, I look at the 2 frontrunners, and wonder if this sort of thing has been happing since the beginning.  Obama does not seem to have as much bipartaisan appeal as many people like to believe.  I look around where I work, and even the diehard Democrats are rooting for McCain.

A lot of people have been useing this war as a political football, trying to make comparisons to Vietnam.  But there are several huge differences.  In Vietnam, you had a military that was largely draftees, who did not want to fight and did not want to be in the military in the first place.

This time, you have a 100% all-volunteer military, and everybody in now has joined since 2001.  The vast majority have joined since 2003.  I know many people that have been to Afganistan-Iraq 2 or more times, and several that will come back from one deployment, spend the minimum 6 months home before requesting transfer to another unit that is getting ready to return.

Most of us are frightened of a return to 1993.  Military budgets slashed to the bone, bases and units closed and disbanded left and right.  People with 15+ years being denied reenlistment because of troop cuts.  Motor pools full of broken equipment because there is no money in the budget to fix it.  No new equipment made because there is no money for either R&D, or procurement if something was invented.

Personally, I think that if Obama did get the Presidency, he would be another 1 term president like Jimmy Carter.  President Carter had a lot of charisma and popularity, but that did not last long once people saw that he had problems handling different crisis that came up.

And personally, I do not trust either one of them.  Both of them had pledged that they would not run for President in 2008, yet both of them are doing exactly that.

http://hotair.com/archives/2008/02/25/obama-2004-nah-i-cant-run-for-president-in-2008/

And I have not been around much simply because I have been so busy.  I recently finished 3 weeks in the field, and at the end of the month am going to be going to Yuma Arizona for a 6 week exercise.  This is all in preperation for my future deployment to Quatar next year.

Texas Repubs who followed Limbaugh's advice (and you gotta be du-uu-uu-uumb to do that) and voted for Hillary are now bellyaching because they got a Democrat ballot (duh!) and thus could not vote for down-ticket Republican candidates.  Some of them are describing themselves as--get this--"disenfranchised"!

http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/cry(1).gif

I know this forum during this election is a bit of an Obama love-in, but it's important to remember that at this point, no matter who wins, you have to think about keeping the party together. I think the best thing is to come to a consensus and say that whoever LOSES takes the running-mate position. That way if Obama loses, disgruntled supporters will still vote Dem and vice versa.

And I should also add, as a long-time poster here, I really am surprised at the way some of you talk about Clinton. I realise she isn't your first choice, but she's not the devil for god's sake. 

I know this forum during this election is a bit of an Obama love-in, but it's important to remember that at this point, no matter who wins, you have to think about keeping the party together. I think the best thing is to come to a consensus and say that whoever LOSES takes the running-mate position. That way if Obama loses, disgruntled supporters will still vote Dem and vice versa.

And I should also add, as a long-time poster here, I really am surprised at the way some of you talk about Clinton. She's not the devil, for god's sake. 
actually, i think it's an interest in keeping the party together that's causing the lashing out at clinton. because she doesn't seem to be interested in doing it, and that makes me mad.

I know this forum during this election is a bit of an Obama love-in, but it's important to remember that at this point, no matter who wins, you have to think about keeping the party together. I think the best thing is to come to a consensus and say that whoever LOSES takes the running-mate position. That way if Obama loses, disgruntled supporters will still vote Dem and vice versa.

And I should also add, as a long-time poster here, I really am surprised at the way some of you talk about Clinton. I realise she isn't your first choice, but she's not the devil for god's sake. 

I agree, she's not the devil for god's sake, she's the devil for the devil's sake!
http://www.inthe00s.com/smile/03/diablotin.gif

Ever seen a drunk man trying to have sex with a utility pole?  President McCain.

Yes, I will hold my nose and vote Hillary without hesitation!

actually, i think it's an interest in keeping the party together that's causing the lashing out at clinton. because she doesn't seem to be interested in doing it, and that makes me mad.


I do not think she has crossed the line. She has done what is necessary, and what any rational person would expect her to, and that is to force people to think critically about how Obama's speaks. I don't know about you, but I've learned to take most grandiose promises made by politicians with a grain of salt. When I listen to Hillary's plans for my priority concerns for actual Americans, I hear sense being spoken. When I listen to Obama, I find that I really have to listen to him so that I can sift through all the la-di-da stuff and find what he's really trying to propose.

That said, I am not against many of the things he proposes, and he and Hillary are really not all that different when it comes to their positions, especially on domestic policy. Briefly put, I like them both.

Obama supporters need not take Hillary's criticism of their first choice as personal. It's not. She poses hard-hitting questions about his ability to bring about the change he gives so much lip service to. That's what they don't like about Hill, I suspect.

It's a valid criticism to say that one shouldn't use someone else's speech hooks and pass them off as your own, even if you have the permission, you can at least give credit where it is due. It's not her fault for pointing it out. It's his fault for not mentioning it first and assuming it.

It's a valid criticism to point out that Obama has told NAFTA critics one thing, but told the Canadian Consulate the exact opposite. To whom is he being honest? Because he's lying to one of them. And NAFTA is an important issue for many people, including many Canadians, and also people with strong family ties to Mexico. Again, not her fault for pointing it out... his fault for lying.

A lot of what people don't like about Hillary in this campaign is actually what they should not like about Obama. Don't hate the player, hate the game (to put it simply).

I do not think she has crossed the line. She has done what is necessary, and what any rational person would expect her to, and that is to force people to think critically about how Obama's speaks. I don't know about you, but I've learned to take most grandiose promises made by politicians with a grain of salt. When I listen to Hillary's plans for my priority concerns for actual Americans, I hear sense being spoken. When I listen to Obama, I find that I really have to listen to him so that I can sift through all the la-di-da stuff and find what he's really trying to propose.

That said, I am not against many of the things he proposes, and he and Hillary are really not all that different when it comes to their positions, especially on domestic policy. Briefly put, I like them both.

Obama supporters need not take Hillary's criticism of their first choice as personal. It's not. She poses hard-hitting questions about his ability to bring about the change he gives so much lip service to. That's what they don't like about Hill, I suspect.

It's a valid criticism to say that one shouldn't use someone else's speech hooks and pass them off as your own, even if you have the permission, you can at least give credit where it is due. It's not her fault for pointing it out. It's his fault for not mentioning it first and assuming it.

It's a valid criticism to point out that Obama has told NAFTA critics one thing, but told the Canadian Consulate the exact opposite. To whom is he being honest? Because he's lying to one of them. And NAFTA is an important issue for many people, including many Canadians, and also people with strong family ties to Mexico. Again, not her fault for pointing it out... his fault for lying.

A lot of what people don't like about Hillary in this campaign is actually what they should not like about Obama. Don't hate the player, hate the game (to put it simply).

well, if that's the case, then what are some of the criticisms that obama has leveled against hillary that will cause her to have to work harder during the general election if SHE wins? because if they're both breaking negative then there should be examples of his taking the low road too to match what she's done, in terms of arming the republican opposition to make his job harder in the general election. i'm not aware of what they are so i need some of them pointed out to me, the undercutting things obama has said to clinton, because from where i'm sitting he seems to be taking the high road, except when he's provoked -- like when she did the fearmongering 3 am ad and he responded, rightly, that she voted in favor of the iraq war.

i mean, from where i'm sitting it looks like she wants personal power more than she wants to see the party succeed. i'm seeing now that it's basically a statistical impossibility for her to win enough delegates to get the nomination without playing games with the superdelegates. but it's pretty obvious she's gonna drag this thing out to the bitter end, in the meantime depleting obama's budget for the general election and continuing to give the opposition ammunition to use against her. and she's doing it in order to pursue a remote long shot at this point.

i dunno, i just dont think she has a chance and i think she'd be doing the party a favor by letting it go. can you argue that she has the right to keep running, and keep dividing and undermining the party? sure. i personally would rather she didn't but she certainly has the prerogative.

I didn't mention anything about Obama taking low blows at Hillary. I'm saying that a lot of these so-called examples of Hillary going below the belt are nothing more than her pointing out real faults that people need to question Obama about.

I didn't mention anything about Obama taking low blows at Hillary. I'm saying that a lot of these so-called examples of Hillary going below the belt are nothing more that her pointing out real faults that people need to question Obama about.


yeah, and mccain's gonna thank her for doing it, too.

i'm not really that worried about it, he seems to handle the accusations pretty well. i think it reflects more poorly on her than on him. from what i've seen of his speeches there seem to be a fair amount of specifics in them, but yes, they're interspersed with some fancy oratory -- of course, FDR, eisenhower, kennedy, even nixon seemed to be a lot bigger on fancy turns of phrase than the cats who give speeches nowadays. a lot of people would probably dismiss eisenhower's bombers-to-schools speech as a bunch of liberal claptrap. and "ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country?" and "the only thing we have to fear is fear itself?" to a modern ear those phrases seem sorta circular and meaningless. "we pledge to do these things not because they are easy but because they are hard?" where's the policy specifics in that? nevertheless i think that's why people like obama so much and why a lot of these accusations about his speeches not having policy substance dont really resonate with his supporters -- because he's going back to a style of oratory that comes across as grand and genuine and people miss it. they're sick of pale uninspired least-common-denominator appeals about tax cuts and lockboxes. if you want to learn about his positions in depth you can go to his website, but a lot of hillary's going on about his speeches lacking substance i think comes from the fact that she takes the same committee-written approach to speechgiving that pols have been doing since bush sr. and i think people in the US are thoroughly over that. folks want some vision and we're gonna have to make some major changes in the next decade or two if we're gonna survive so we're gonna need some vision.

Well I think he's using this idea of a 'high road' to avoid answering questions that I personally need answers to before I know where he really stands on issues like NAFTA. I'm a dual national, and I live in Canada where NAFTA is a very important issue. I'm not necessarily in favour of everything NAFTA is about, but not totally against. So I need to know where he stands. So do a lot of other electors, whether they have connections to Canada or Mexico or not.

Thus far I don't hear him explaining himself.

Let's face it. If his name is on the ticket, I'll be voting for him. But I would like to know the truth.

Well I think he's using this idea of a 'high road' to avoid answering questions that I personally need answers to before I know where he really stands on issues like NAFTA. I'm a dual national, and I live in Canada where NAFTA is a very important issue. I'm not necessarily in favour of everything NAFTA is about, but not totally against. So I need to know where he stands. So do a lot of other electors, whether they have connections to Canada or Mexico or not.

Thus far I don't hear him explaining himself.

Let's face it. If his name is on the ticket, I'll be voting for him. But I would like to know the truth.
tell you the truth i hadn't even heard of this apparent contradiction about nafta until the ohio vote, which was yesterday. maybe it'll shake out in the coming days.

tell you the truth i hadn't even heard of this apparent contradiction about nafta until the ohio vote, which was yesterday. maybe it'll shake out in the coming days.


It's huge news here in Canada. Apparently, a key person in the Obama campaign reassured a Canadian consular official that Obama had no intention of pulling the US out of NAFTA under any circumstances. The meeting was in confidence, but someone leaked it. A lot of people accuse the Prime Minister's office of purposely leaking the info to harm Obama's campaign. Our current PM is a right-winger, so it's in his interest to have a Republican in office in the U.S. If he is responsible, it means he assumes that Obama will win the nomination, and he's planting seeds of distrust now as McCain has sinched the GOP nom.

Actually, there is a core of the far-right that is endorsing Hillary.  And leading this is Rush Limbaugh.

In states which have an open primary system, he is encouraging voters to vote for Hillary.  Mostly, this is because she is considered to be the "easier" nominee to defeat in the general election.

And this is nothing new.  Democrats in California for over a decade normally voted for the weakest Republican in the primaries for Governor.  This helped ensure that the candidate that ran was so wishy-washy that there was no real contest.  This is also frequently done in California for other offices, like Congressman and Lieutenant Governor.


What you said. 

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y112/pilcrow/Rockem2.jpg

Well, just wait. I like Obama just fine, but once it's time to get down to brass tacks, forget all the hopeful mumbo jumbo and actually provide policy proposals to counter McCain's, I hope he's up to it. I know Hillary can hold her own against the Republicans, and if they think she'd be easy to beat, they're mistaken.

What the heck is with all this Hillary hating, do any of you know what's she's accomplised since being elected the junior congresswoman for NY....If Everyone is upset that she voted with President Bush for the war, I found this article
Perspectives Columns
Published: Sunday, February 18, 2007
Don’t hold Iraq war vote against candidates
In New Hampshire, Clinton, considered the frontrunner, particularly has found herself on the defensive. Only her closest challenger, the charismatic Sen. Barrack Obama of Illinois, has dodged the interrogation, actually using his “from the beginning” opposition to the Iraq invasion as a leading issue, especially in Iowa.

Well, as the candidate said to his stuttering opponent, that’s easy enough for him to say since he was never faced with the dilemma. Obama wasn’t in the Senate when the vote was taken and never had to make the difficult decision his opponents did.

As a member of the Illinois legislature, he may have spoken out against the invasion, but saying he would have voted against it had he actually been there doesn’t count.
By the time he was running for the U.S. Senate, being an opponent to the war was where most candidates wanted to be as the polls reflected a growing dissatisfaction with the Iraq situation.

The young senator also has been criticized for saying American lives have been “wasted,” the use of a word for which he apologized, obviously realizing its implication. Using the vote on the resolution to gauge one’s current position on the war is, therefore, clearly more than a bit unfair.

The honest way to answer such accusations is to point out that intelligence presented to the Senate by the Bush Administration at the time might have been proved dead wrong later, but only a fool would have ignored it at the time.

In Clinton’s case, her husband’s administration was given some of the same intelligence and believed it, too. Where one stands now is what matters

well, where she stands now is she voted to authorize bush to invade iran, and she begged off on voting against FISA immunity by making sure she was out of town, whereas obama voted against both, as i recall. personally i'd rather elect a democrat who's got what it takes to stand up to the right -- i dont know if you noticed but the right doesn't negotiate and they dont compromise. they're like their stereotype of the people in the middle east -- they only respect people who stand up to them. hillary has a reliable history of caving in to the right. sad but true. i think if she's elected she'll either be defeated by the right wing, or she'll basically become one of them.

The young senator also has been criticized for saying American lives have been “wasted,” the use of a word for which he apologized, obviously realizing its implication. Using the vote on the resolution to gauge one’s current position on the war is, therefore, clearly more than a bit unfair.

unfortunately, they HAVE been wasted. i can understand why obama would want to apologize for saying that because it's an assertion that obviously causes a great deal of pain for the people who lost loved ones there, but it makes it no less true. beware of believing things because they feel good, or disbelieving things because they're bad. their goodness or badness has no bearing on their degree of truth or falseness. sooner we admit we're throwing away blood and treasure there, the sooner we can stop doing it.

The honest way to answer such accusations is to point out that intelligence presented to the Senate by the Bush Administration at the time might have been proved dead wrong later, but only a fool would have ignored it at the time.honestly, i dont think ANYONE really ever believed iraq was a threat. look at the big picture -- we're talking about a country that had been ravaged by war since 1980, had been choked by sanctions since 1991 and bombed regularly by the US and nato all through the clinton administration. anyone paying attention knew iraq had no viable military, no economic infrastructure, a massive brain drain, and no industrial base to build a rifle range, let alone a network of clandestine nuclear research facilities. naw, what happened was a craven feeding frenzy, it was always popular among politicians to claim iraq was a "threat" and no one but a very few courageous politicians dared to be the first to admit the obvious: there was no way iraq was going to hurt the US. but everyone claimed otherwise because they were afraid to lose votes, or they simply trusted in what the people around them were saying without pausing to really consider the situation.

gawd.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080306/pl_nm/usa_politics_dc_126

::)

bear in mind obama didn't even go negative yet. he just said he was gonna start giving as he was getting without even saying anything specific, and the clinton gang shoots back saying he's like "ken starr." wtf? where the hell did THAT come from?

seriously i cant see why yall like her. the more she does this the more it makes my skin crawl.

well, where she stands now is she voted to authorize bush to invade iran, and she begged off on voting against FISA immunity by making sure she was out of town, whereas obama voted against both, as i recall. personally i'd rather elect a democrat who's got what it takes to stand up to the right -- i dont know if you noticed but the right doesn't negotiate and they dont compromise. they're like their stereotype of the people in the middle east -- they only respect people who stand up to them. hillary has a reliable history of caving in to the right. sad but true. i think if she's elected she'll either be defeated by the right wing, or she'll basically become one of them.

I think she has more balls than most people are willing to admit to.

I think she has more balls than most people are willing to admit to.
it's a shame her voting record doesn't reflect that.

it's a shame her voting record doesn't reflect that.

Another article I found

Is Hillary Clinton a "Corporate Democrat"? - Part 1

by eriposte
UPDATE: Also see Part 2 and Part 3.

SUMMARY

This post examines the allegation that Sen. Hillary Clinton☼ is a "Corporate Democrat" - namely, a person who is beholden to "Corporate America" and who is more likely to support "corporate interests" as President than the interests of average or middle-class Americans.

I find that the existing evidence, based on her Senatorial voting records compiled by Progressive Punch, Americans for Democratic Action, AFL-CIO and SEIU, does not really support this allegation. Indeed, the evidence suggests that Sen. Clinton's voting patterns are substantially and surprisingly progressive (ranging typically from 90-100%), including on corporate or labor issues. There are certainly serious issues where Sen. Clinton has unfortunately taken anti-progressive positions (e.g., her vote for a version of the Bankruptcy Bill in 2001), but the data reviewed here suggests that overall, she is far more progressive than corporatist. In the absence of additional or new data, I have to conclude that the label "Corporate Democrat", as applied to her, is inappropriate and extraordinarily misleading. In other words, while it is true that she has strong links to corporate America and corporatist interests, there is little or no evidence that she systematically votes in lock-step with those interests or even significantly in line with their positions.

^i'm certainly willing to stipulate to that, if true, that's good news. and i have no reason to think it's not. some of her high-profile votes, like the ones i cited about iran and iraq, cause me concern but i dont doubt she's voted left of center on many issues. as a NY democrat i'd hope she would.

here's the arch-conservative national review on obama, which makes me swell with pride..

***

Barack Obama is causing quite a big stir.

The mainstream media is enthralled with him. His recent trip yesterday to New Hampshire brought out large crowds. He’s forcing Hillary to accelerate her presidential campaign schedule.

And of course, his new book, is selling very well.

Behind the Obama story is a very liberal left voting record. Here are some key votes and positions from Obama:

· Voted against extending the Bush tax cuts on capital gains and dividends.

· Voted against permanently repealing the Death Tax. (Called the cuts a "Paris Hilton" tax break for "billionaire heirs and heiresses") · Voted against CAFTA.

· Voted YES on raising the minimum wage to $7.25 rather than $6.25.

· Opposed the lifting of $0.54 per gallon tariff on cheaper Brazillian ethanol. Said, "ethanol imports are neither necessary nor a practical response to current gasoline prices."

· Voted against the bankruptcy abuse bill.

· Opposes privatizing Social Security

· Voted against drilling in ANWR.

· Voted against confirmation of Sam Alito AND John Roberts as chief justice.

· Voted against extending the PATRIOT Act's wiretap provision.

· Opposed any bans on partial birth abortions.

Is this the liberal left direction Dems really want to go in 2008?

Sure, they took Congress this year by sounding like Republicans on the campaign trail. But Obama would be a rather big u-turn from that centrist strategy.

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=M2Y5YTJjNDM4N2VhZDY1NDAxMjE0OGFlNzUzYWY3Yzk=

I'm not even arguing that Obama is not a good candidate. He is. The point is that an Obama love-in doesn't have to be a Hillary hatefest. People are just so pissed off that she dare stand in the way of the Obama machine. So people call her a bitch and everything and make tasteless jokes about her marriage etc... But neither Hillary nor most Hillary supporters are guilty of making personal attacks against Obama. Every single example people have yet given of a so-called 'attack' on Obama have been, as far as I'm concerned, legitimate criticisms of Obama's own weaknesses as a candidate.

Why aren't Obama supporters demanding more from their chosen candidate? Why aren't they demanding substance. This Obama figure has become all things to all people; a blank-slate DIY candidate upon whom people have superimposed their personal ideal - meanwhile he has given them no reason not to do so because he has given so little specific details on what he actually plans to do as president and how he plans to bring those projects to fruition (that is a weakness, and it will be a major hurdle for him to overcome when it's time to fight the Repugs in the real election). Why is he not giving those details? Because no one is asking him to (except the Hillary people, but hey - she's just a power-hungry ©unt, right, what does she have offer?).

I genuinely admire Obama, and I think it would be awesome to finally have a black president. But if he doesn't boss up here pretty soon and start coughing up details, then you can't blame Hillary for pointing out that weakness, and you can't blame people for listening to her. Obama's weaknesses are not Hillary's problem, they're Obama's problem and he has to fix them.

not by huge margins, thankfully, so hopefully BHO can hang on to his delegate lead. hillary! she's a reptile.


BHO?  Maybe B-HO like J-LO? ???

;D

BHO?  Maybe B-HO like J-LO? ???

;D
somebody should call his campaign HQ!!!!