Hillary will do what she must to win this nomination. And if she doesn’t win, her vengeance will be felt by many.
She will certainly dance with the DEVIL if thats required.
Obama has tried so hard to run a clean campaign and to show respect for Hil at every turn, and Ms. Hillary always comes back at Obama with a stomach punch.
Do we really want a brawler like Hillary in the whitehouse? Who drinks her whiskey straight?

One “Washington insider” attacks another - this is an old trick, right? Then there is the royal “we”......

“You have to be ready for anything…” - carry a spare pair of undies and whatever….... But TWO wars?

Strange that people are still supposedly frightened by a gentle bearded man with a soft face, though….... Maybe he IS a good friend to have around .....especially during an election, ha ha?!?!

But who do you think has “what it takes”? Hillary has just strapped one on to be ready, just in case…... (women can do these things!) Sexism? Ha ha, ha ha!!!

Holy Shit! Are biofuels a solution??? 100’s of millions of people are already unable to buy food…... Oh, let’s just “wipe Iran off the map”!!! Talk about bipolar…....

And strange that almost every country in the Middle East has just signed up to buy nuclear reactors from France…... Iran shouldn’t have bought from Russia, eh, uhh!?!?

Still, there’s always the possibility of “redemption”.... or a “death-bed conversion” ....just like Eye-Rak! Sorry, BO, takes a woman…....

Her cackle is an old tactic, an effort to make a “too close for comfort” question sound like a ridiculous notion. Like saying: “I don’t take this seriously, neither should you.”

If KO had said, and I wish he had, “Did I say something funny?” I bet it would’ve shut her down.

Outraged..in a word..YES. She looks like she’s gone stark-raving mad with the superficial cackles. (maybe it’s not so superficial..she sounds just like any other well-established WITCH!).

Meantime, she goes from insisting at the beginning that Iran is in pursuit of nuclear weapons, despite ALL documented evidence to the contrary, and the fact that she refuses to talk to them to KNOW that they have no desire for nuclear weapons, to the end where she just ‘brings all chasms together’.

What a load of crap. She (like her supporters)don’t even have a good grasp on geography.

She actually claims that Iran could bully the neighboring nation states by being ‘the only one in the region with nukes”. Is she flippin’ CRAZY? Does she need us to do a geography for dummies with her? Does she know where Iran sits in relation to India, Pakistan, China, Russia, and Israel…ALL of whom are nuclear weapons states?

Does she have even a CLUE of the standard wisdom of the Middle Eastern nation states that has dictated for decades, that any of them WITHOUT nuclear weapons could automatically be expected to land on the US/Israel list of targets? How much more cynical does it get, for her to accuse Iran of bullying, when in fact that’s always been the state of the US mentality, which she plans to continue with her threats to bomb them.

Does she think we and the rest of the world are so stupid that we don’t know that Iraq was attacked because they DIDN’T have such ‘deterrence’ to protect themselves from the US or Israel? Does she think we’re so stupid that we didn’t know Iran was next on the list for the same reason? She’s gonna ‘deter’ the rest of the world, and just who exactly is gonna ‘deter’ US?

And what’s up with her criticism of McCain’s support of the Dick Bush war on Iraq, when SHE WAS EQUALLY SUPPORTIVE of the SAME, until JUST A YEAR AGO. She’s a lying, denying, hypocritical and cynical war-mongering witch, determined to ‘protect American interests’ in the Middle East, even when it results to the same old tactics that we’ve seen a million times before…designating an ‘objective enemy’ (this time Iran) when they aren’t really an ‘enemy’, just so that when she whacks ‘em later on, everybody will assume that it’s legitimate. It’s the oldest flippin’ trick in the book, used by dictators and fascists everywhere.

“Protect American interests my ass”. That reads to ‘protect the interests of the corporate elite and the transnationals to who they belong. She probably has a permanent suite reserved right next to Lynne and Dick Cheney in Trump Tower in Dubai. That way they can share the responsibility of all of those 3:00am phone calls. Whose turn is it to answer the phone this time? You get it Dick, it’s probably the King of Saudi calling from his own suite, and he likes you better.

Is there anything more weird than what passes for politics in America? I saw Olbermann’s interview of Clinton, pretty much all of which was bizarre. Obviously, Clinton is desperate, which is what comes of assuming a little too much: that she’s entitled to the presidency. She just keeps on smiling while her ship lists ever more to starboard. Aside from statements regarding Scaife’s latest craziness, she’s threatened to destroy (nuke?) Iran should it attack Israel, which is fairly hard to imagine Iran actually doing. As usual, she trotted out the “national security” thing during the interview. Like all remaining candidates residing in the reality reserved for those with the most, she can’t grasp the fact that security for the rest of us begins with domestic economy, which has gone to hell in a hand-basket. I can’t speak for all, but the only threat to security I personally experience on a daily basis is how much longer I can afford staples requisite to life.

As for external threats to their “national security,” 9/11 was the result of policies implemented in the interest of “national security” for the elite; it’s their wealth and power that’s most important to them, however much they try to dress up concern for their self-interest as something in the interest of all the people. Thus, pursuit of insane (to persons whose sole interest isn’t increasing profit margins) foreign policy, absurdly and ironically labeled “realism.”

It’s become impossible by now to see why anyone would vote for Clinton, even though there can hardly be any doubt that the brute fact she’s female already renders her unelectable in the general election. Maybe she would get past McCain, as he’s even more bizarre. Still, he doesn’t seem too bizarre for the average right-of-center American voter. Media adores the guy for some half-baked reason. Literally, if because he gives good barbecue?

I couldn’t figure out why Olbermann even bothered to interview Clinton. I learned nothing new, and he’s been leading off almost every night by blasting her over whatever her latest thing—often her latest TV ad. He then consults Richard Wolffe and/or Dana Milbank and Howard Fineman as to what she might have meant by “that.” Olbermann long ago climbed aboard the Obama bandwagon and has been running down Clinton at every opportunity.

Still, Clinton agreed to the interview, not least since she IS in a unique position to understand the power of big media. She likely would be winning the nomination had media not abandoned her awhile back, maybe despite the fact she’s of the “wrong” gender. And had she not gone off the deep in trying to appeal to those to the right of right of center.

Olbermann has been in denial re sexism, evidently unable to wrap his brain around the fact that a man of whatever color is more acceptable to voters as a whole than even a white female. He did ask Hillary about it during his interview of her. She did her best to dodge the question, but in the end couldn’t help but indicate (sort of) that she believes the fact she’s female is a problem.

As usual—for a very long time by now—not candidates and not big media can cop to anything resembling truth, and so we get debates and interviews that are more akin to religious sermons in combination with pep rallies, both kinds of events occasions on which to indulge in ideological nonsense, if not in blatant propagandizing. Throw in a hefty dose of internecine bickering to spice things up. (Then big media blasts ABC for doing what the rest have been doing for months and months.)

What we’re not about to get is anything resembling truth, much less change. Obama tends to talk a lot about the latter. He did, if I recall rightly, say something not long ago about how actually bringing about change would be difficult. No kidding! America’s private/public bureaucracy is far more entrenched than the old Soviet Union’s purely state-capitalist one ever contemplated becoming.

Isn’t it annoying the way Clinton does that superficial guffaw-type cackle anytime anyone questions her about her suspect associations and scheming. (As if it’s all just “good-hearted” fun…!?)  She looks like she’s gone stark-raving mad when she does that…..doesn’t she…?

Every time I want to look at Clinton objectively, she says something so off-base and hypocritical I have trouble expressing forgiveness. The idea she hasn’t practically endorsed McCain when she discussed the experience of the three and decided to criticize Obama for saying they would all be better than Bush infuriates me. Why does Clinton want to make it so hard for me to like her candidacy? Why!?!?

Really, this is just the worst kind of campaigning, I have to wonder who the hell she is marketing herself to! Making the bogus claim she is bridging gaps with people like Scaife concerns me. She is such a suspicious and shady candidate who can’t double-talk enough. With a mouth that talented… well, I won’t go there.

As the entitled one she dost seem on meds or has she always been like this?

Umm, a great portion of the high price of oil/gas is due to the tumbling US dollar.  She, of course, does not mention that.

Biofuels (as they stand) are a crock and a scam that benefit mostly agribusiness; moreover, we cannot grow enough corn to seriously dent our petroleum usage.  Even more than that, it takes oil to grow corn (currently), so that just shifts the costs around.

How lovely, she’s looking back fondly on the Cold War.  Probably because the American people were so much easier to manipulate through fear when them bad Russians were out to get us. 

She’s gone completely off the deep end.  Stage IV Lady Macbeth disease.