Maani,

On this..

Sorry if I’m putting an even more severe “upset” on you.  When Jerry told me this, I was livid.  I was already a 9-11 “truther,” so it didn’t surprise me that much.  It simply made me sick.

Nope, you didn’t upset me, since I’d actually heard all of these same details long ago, including the fact that that long ass document was just ‘whipped right out’ so quickly after 9/11. (like from the actually “day of” the attacks, to the passage of the act, was just under a month. NOTHING in the legislation has EVER been approved so rapidly. Well, except for the FDA approval of Viagra.

But, I didn’t remember the specific details. For instance, I thought the original plan that had been sitting on the shelf, ran close to 1,000 pages. I do know that John Yoo was a major editor of the thing, and he continues to preach the ideology of unitary executive and full powers under what is the standard ‘state of exception’. It’s standard and age-old fascism leading to totalitarianism ideology. It’s ALWAYS about the power of the state, and ‘national security’ is always the excuse, whether it’s from alleged ‘external threats’ or ‘internal insurrection’. All tyrannical movements have used it, in one form or another.

I’ve heard John Yoo speak several times in favor of this fascism, since he’s a firm believer, and he’s landed a cushy professorship at UC Berkeley. I have some friends who have taken up various phd programs there recently, and they all joked, saying stuff like, Oh gee, I wanna take a class from John Yoo. I’d prefer to just slap him. Same with Dershowitz and his determination to legalize torture.

Anyway, thanks for refreshing the specifics.

Louise:

Well, we’re both correct.  The “sweep” they talk about is that, based on proportioning of delegates, Obama won more delegates in every county.  I was referring to the popular vote.

I apologize if I misunderstood your initial post.

Peace.

Aegrus:

Thanks for clarification.
I usually pick up on sarcasm and satire.
Sorry it went right over my head.
I think I need to get a good nights sleep.

I was just having a bit of fun at the expense of the Hillary supporters. It’s almost like they don’t even have a campaign anymore.

Believe me, we are in solemn agreement about super delegates. I think it’s going to be a non-issue, but I also think the provisional legislation allowing Bush to declare marshal law and usurp full power is not likely. Both should still be on the minds of people, though.

My previous post was a response to Maani, and was not intended to be representative of any race or gender. [I don’t have that problem] Just some disputed facts.

I still hold out hope for those uncommitted superdelegates who have said they will base their decision on the final result of total popular votes.

By the way, there are quite a few “superdelegates” out there, [elected Senators and Representatives] who would like to do away with the party’s superdelegate system. And have said so. Believe it or not, we do have elected officials who “tend to trust the grass roots.”

And guess what! They come in all sizes, shapes, genders and colors!

Facts? Don’t bother providing facts. Obama won Washington because of guilty white yuppies. Didn’t you know? Washington state doesn’t matter.

Every state Barack Obama wins is an inconsequential victory. He’s not Hillary, and we all know it is Hillary’s turn to be president!!! Hill will stuff those ballot boxes full of post cards to Obama saying, “Wish you were here!” and displaying a picture of Hilland Bill adorned in summer hats and pinwheels on the White House lawn.

All is under control. The establishment has chosen, and everything is under control. Go shopping or something instead of trying to understand the political process because your vote is not of any concern to Hillary Rodham Clinton.

Barack Obama swept every Washington county

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2004177136_webcount11m.html

Monday, February 11, 2008
By Bob Young - Seattle Times staff reporter

It turns out Barack Obama did win every county in Washington state’s Democratic caucuses on Saturday.

The state Democratic Party had initially reported that Hillary Rodham Clinton won just a single county, Douglas County, in Eastern Washington by a 53-32 count of delegates.

But now party leaders say someone misreported the results. The correct tally in Douglas County, according to state party Executive Director Jaxon Ravens, is 65 delegates for Obama and 37 for Clinton, completing the Obama’s sweep of all 39 Washington counties.

“We had a lot of results coming in Saturday night and the person who took down the (Douglas County) results just transposed the numbers. We apologize that the information was misreported on the night of the caucus but we’ve corrected the error and it’s not going to affect the allocation of delegates,” Ravens said.

Louise:

While I basically agree with you, your comment that “I was reading last night, in Washington State Obama made a clean sweep. Took every single county” is simply untrue, or he would have had 100% of the vote.  Obama had 68% to Hillary’s 31%.  So although he certainly did win big, it wasnnot “every single county.”

Peace.

Cyrena:

You’re welcome.  And thanks for your measured response, and not taking my flip comments seriously.

As an aside, what actually happened with the Patriot Act is even uglier than you report.  And I got my information on this first-hand from Jerry Nadler (my House rep), with whom I have been friends for over 25 years.

The Patriot Act was indeed given to Congress late on a Thursday, with the expectation that there would be a vote on Monday.  But the administration only printed about 300 copies; i.e., only enough for half of the members of Congress.  So they were expected to SHARE!  Can you imagine? A bill that was 167 pages (I actually have a copy), expected not only to be read within 72 hours by the person receiving it, but also given to a second person to read within that same 72 hours!

However, that was not the end of it.  When Congress convened for the vote, the version of the Act that was requested to be voted on hand CHANGED over the weekend!!  That’s right - the administration changed up to 30% or more of the text of the bill before it was voted on, giving Congress little or no time to see what the changes were!!!!!

And the administration knew it could get away with this, because it knew that the members of Congress would be too afraid of looking “soft” on terror so soon after 9/11 by voting against it.

By the way, one also has to realize that a 167-page bill is not written overnight, or even in a short period.  Which means that the Patriot Act had been “sitting on a shelf,” already written, for quite some time before being given to HALF of the members of Congress to read WITHIN 72 HOURS - and then altered prior to the vote!!!!

Sorry if I’m putting an even more severe “upset” on you.  When Jerry told me this, I was livid.  I was already a 9-11 “truther,” so it didn’t surprise me that much.  It simply made me sick.

Peace.

Obviously Cyrena, you don’t read much, or, you are very narrow-minded and see only what you want to see and not what the rest of us in general see.

Hillary is always on the main page, her front-runner status dosen’t necessarily mean that thats her status as the candidate as much as it’s her status on tv and in the various newspapers.

What do you mean by saying “most is being heaped on most candidates”?  How many stories have you read, or has been reported on any of the other candidates since this thing started?  A mere mention to most, opposed to the Hillary/Obama show.  Mostly positive on the latter.

Yes there are many Hillary haters, and woman haters in general out there. And that side of the journalism is how Hillary is portrayed.  Read between the lines. And this is my point.

Objectivity?  I most certainly have!  When I see an article thats objective and fairly critical against any candidate even her, I’m fine with that, but unfortunately this isn’t always the case.

I know how to read between the lines, maybe you should do the same.

Maani:

“Re: Superdelegates won’t go against the voters
Tony et al: Actually, I don’t believe that is entirely true.”
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

I agree with you Maani. The superdelegates will hold to whatever commitments they have already made. And all to often those commitments are made for the wrong reasons.

I was reading last night, in Washington State Obama made a clean sweep. Took every single county. Yet when contacted by the press, six of the superdelegates who had already committed to Clinton said they would still vote for Clinton.

[I haven’t had time to check yet, but it will be interesting to see if the same holds true in the other States where Obama was the clear winner of the popular vote.]

Anyway, I have a real problem with that.

First: superdelegates should not commit until the primaries and caucuses are over. The fact that so many already have, indicates their reasons for committing may have more to do with perceived political clout than the actual votes of the people.

Second: the fact that they are steadfastly sticking to a commitment made before the vote indicates the whole concept of superdelegates is totally meaningless.

Third: if this stands, it further indicates the whole notion that the Democrat Party is democratic, turns out to be so much bunk and hooey!

Justification given by some that superdelegates base their decision on who they perceive to be the most electable is disingenuous at best. Foolhardy at the very least. We should not be placed in the position where the selection of the candidate comes down to looking like a crap shoot. I know for a fact a lot of republicans have registered as democrats so they could vote for Obama. And contrary to what so many “experts” say, their reason for doing so is they want to see Obama elected!

They see Obama as reaching across the divide.

These same people will vote for the republican candidate, whoever that may be, before they’ll vote for another Clinton. It’s not even because they don’t like Clinton. It’s because they are fed up with Bush. Fed up with the dynasty thing and do not want to see a cycle of Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton. The perception that Bush has behaved in a manner that indicates he believes in his “entitlement” has sickened them too. Clinton on the ticket will be seen as more “entitlement” leadership.

Of course I don’t know every republican voting, but I know enough across the country to feel this is pretty accurate. Most of the republicans I know feel the same way I do about the war. And, most of them are getting hurt by Bush fiscal irresponsibility.

And except for those who love war, and haven’t got a clue why their paycheck doesn’t buy as much, and/or really believe everything will be all right if we just make America the Christian Nation, I believe most republicans want real change. They don’t see that happening by recycling two families in and out of the White House. And maybe that’s not actually what’s happening. But to a lot of folks, that’s what it looks like.

Thanks Maani. I actually was asking for your comment, and yep, I’m perfectly willing to extend the same consideration for her absence in the vote, as I’ve suggested in the past, not only about Obama’s NV’s due to absence, but even about other yes or no votes, when we’ve not seen the actually language of the stuff they were voting on.

In real politik, we know that most of the legistation is rarely if ever constructed in a either/or way. Unfortunately, we the people rarely have the benefit of hearing all of the consequences of most of the legislation that is rountinely passed though the “Halls of Congress” or the smoke filled back rooms. Ideally, all members should EXPLAIN their reasons (at least when they DO vote)and maybe some of that does make it into the Congressional Record. I honestly don’t know. But, the media doesn’t do much of a job on explaining why ANY given representative of Congress votes the way that they do.

And, as I was reminded again today, (for the umpteeth time) 9/11 has changed EVERYTHING!! Think about the Patriot Act. It was given to Congress late on a Thursday I believe, (I’d have to double check) and they all voted on it, (at least the House did) the following Monday or Tuesday. Now in all honesty, how many of them actually had time to read the entire thing? I’d say less than a dozen. And, how many didn’t even read it at all? And yet, they voted nearly unamimously on it’s approval.

So, I’d honestly PREFER this type of a response from a congressperson or Senator, that Hillary gave on this, even if it was a political dodge. (no way to know). But, at least she SAID she hadn’t read the thing, and that’s far more acceptable to me, than somebody voting blindly, or voting knowingly, and then trying to clean it up later. Unfortunately, Hillary HAS done that as well. The most famous that comes to mind at the moment, was her first vote to authorize the illegal invasion/attack on Iraq. She said she ‘thought’ she was voting to continue inspections. Now, that just wasn’t smart. Because, it means that she was either incredibly stupid, about what is clearly a most important decision/vote. Or, she was just lying, and knew perfectly well what she was voting to authorize, and should have known that it was an illegal action, amounting to an aggressive war, in violation of International and domestic law. Either way, that doesn’t look good. Better to just be absent.

Anyway, thanks for the response. You’re right…MOST is speculative. And, I have no problems with that, as long as anybody who is ‘speculating’ puts it forth as ‘speculation’ rather than fact.

In all sincerity, that’s my primary beef with you or anyone else. In fact, these forums are GOING to involve ‘opinions’ and speculation, and hopefully, there will be a good amount of valuable (and factual) information shared in the process. It becomes a problem when people fail to differentite between their opinions, (or what they’ve ‘heard’) and actual FACT. (which generally requires some measure of documentation).

In my business, opinions are arguments are the rule, and always encouraged..in some cases, demanded. But, they ALSO require some backup. In short, ya gotta make your argument. So, if someone can convincingly argue that white is actually black, or that up is actually down, and that wrong is actually right, then hey…it will be acknowledged as such. But, it requires more than just, ‘because I said so’, or because “I like it” or “I don’t like it”.

Now, I discovered something quite shocking, (but not really I guess) earlier today. One of my academic advisors/colleagues had -as his student in earlier years- Richard Perle!!! I was shocked to learn that!

I said “My God, you should have FLUNKED him!!”

He responded that at least no one could accuse him of ‘indoctrination’. (a favorite accusation against liberal professors). Or, at least not the CORRECT indoctrination.

Tony et al:

Actually, I don’t believe that is entirely true.

Right now, even if Obama won every remaining state, he would not have enough pledged delegates to obtain the nomination outright.  Indeed, because of the proportionate share rule, even if he DID win every state, and would thus be ahead in pledged delegates, he and Hillary would still be fairly close.

As well, his momentum could be slowed (however slightly) if Hillary wins two or three of the remaining states by reasonably good margins, particularly if she wins Texas, Ohio and/or Pennsylvania, in which case SHE would be ahead by a small margin.  (This is NOT counting ANY superdelegates.)

Here is how it is likely to play out.

If Obama wins all or the overwhelming majority of the remaining states - and does so by large margins - the superdelegates will probably go with the momentum and give it to him.  However, if Hillary wins even two of three of Texas, Ohio and Pennsyvlania - especially if she wins by large margins - the superdelegates will probably give her the nod.

If the race is still hopelessly deadlocked by the time of the convention - i.e., they are in a basically statistical tie for pledged delegates, or close to it - my guess is that the superdelegates will back the candidate they believe has the best chance of beating McCain.  And don’t assume that this decision will be determined by the polls (which are notoriously inconsistent); they may still feel that Hillary has a better chance of beating McCain than Obama does, for whatever reasons those might be.

Obviously, all of this is speculation.  But it would seem to follow from all that has transpired thus far.

Peace.

Cyrena:

“Maani, do YOU know why she didn’t vote?”

Uhh…are you actually asking ME about something? Are you - Cyrena - actually asking me to offer my comment here?  Are you okay?

LOL.

Actually, I do not know why she was not present for the vote.  But to be fair, just as you have said in the past that the reasons for some of OBAMA’s “NV” votes may have been legitimate (i.e., that he simply could not get there for some good reason), I am hoping you will extend the same benefit of doubt here.

That said, the only thing Hillary has actually said ABOUT the bill was as follows:

“I am troubled by the concerns that have been raised by the recent legislation reported out of the Intelligence Committee. I haven’t seen it so I can’t express an opinion about it. But I don’t trust the Bush Administration with our civil rights and liberties. So I’m going to study it very hard. As matters stand now, I could not support it and I would support a filibuster absent additional information coming forward that would convince me differently.”

Thus, her only actual comment on the bill was that she did not trust Bush, and that she would not support it.  Beyond that, all else is speculation.

Peace.

Very well said.  Thank you for such a rational & reasoned perspective.

cyrena, you are a HUGE HYPOCRIT.

Here’s a thought, Cyrena you and Louise just exchange
emails and I won’t have to read all your drivel.

According to Chris Matthews, current thinking is that the superdelegates will follow the pledged delegates. Obama is looking more electable every minute. However much they want to win, I don’t think the Clintons would dare split the party.

I’m doing it…I’m doing it. I’m counting on Howard to come through on this. I think he can be counted on, because the consequences are too overwhelmingly horrific.

I agree with Louise though, that it would be a complete waste of time to deal with Pelosi or even Reid. DEFINITELY Pelosi, who I suspect could have a hand in the cheating anyway. She’s hardcore advocate for a Hillary presidency.

So, I’m dispatching the stuff to Howard now.

Meantime, on a different note…You guys may have noted that the Senate APPROVED immunity for the telecomm corps on the spying today.

Among the frontrunning candidates for Prez, (that are in the Senate), Obama voted NO - NO immunity for the telecomms. McCain flopped to YES…it’s OK to immunize them. Hillary was MIA. She didn’t vote. (Maybe she wasn’t feeling well?) Not enough water..too much tea? Forgot to wash her hands and caught a cold?

Maani, do YOU know why she didn’t vote?

“Obama, NOT McCain or Clinton vote for Electronic privacy.”

http://www.news.com/8301-13578_3-9870389-38.html?tag=head

Louise, on this…

•  Former President Clinton, is a superdelegate!

Well Shit!! Please say it isn’t so!!

I know you wouldn’t say it otherwise. Man oh man…

You’re right. It has to be fixed immediately. Hillary is pulling a standard repug trick…change the rules (that she originally agreed to) when things aren’t going as planned. (which is probably why SHE isn’t worried…superdelegates to the rescue..including hubby).

Ya know this is really the shits. I’ve been wracked up about it since the whole superdelegates conversation started…déjà vu of December 2000, when the SC performed this role, to nullify the voice of the people, when we elected Al Gore.

There’s no way that the citizens of the US are going to allow that to happen again, without serious consequences. The timing would say instant nationwide riot, that Obama couldn’t stop, and would only give the repugs a reason to drop us into some emergency order.

This CANNOT HAPPEN!! If Hillary were to win this nomination fairly, millions would grumble, but continue on with the process. But one can legitimately wonder if such a thing even exists any longer, in an American political and legal structure where cheating is the rule, rather than the exception. And we even have the audacity to call other nations’ governments ‘corrupt’. 

So Hillary’s already got her backup cheating mechanisms in order, and yes…they have to be stopped, because the body politic is a different animal these days.

There are two choices here, and I think one has already been ruled out (as too expensive). They can follow the rules that were originally set, upon which they all agreed. That would mean that the citizens of Michigan and Florida, won’t get to have a say in selecting the presidential nominee. (at least for the Democratic party).
That’s bad. But, the party leaders agreed on that, and so far, all of the candidates, (except for Hillary) have honored those agreements. Hillary did not, as she was the ONLY democratic candidate on the ballot in Michigan, and ‘write-ins’ were not accepted. She also showed up in Florida during their election, and held 2 “private” fundraisers. (I don’t know what Florida’s ballot looked like). I’ve heard false accusations that Obama campaigned in Florida, and he DID NOT. There were TV campaign ads for him, produced by the Democratic Party, and AIRED at the non-discretion of 2 major media outlets..CBS and I THINK ABC. Obama’s campaign did NOT authorize the airing of those ads in Florida.

Moving along…that’s the first choice..Florida and Michigan delegates simply will not be seated or otherwise recognized, because despite how unfair that is to those states’ democrats, those are the rules that were agreed on, going in.

The second option, the one that is being claimed as ‘too expensive’ would be to run primary elections for the democratic candidates in both of those states. That will nullify whatever pretenses they’ve already undertaken, (Hillary the only one on the ballot in Michigan, and whatever they did in Florida) and have a brand new and legitimate primary election. If they don’t want to incur the expense of that, (another political excuse, since Californians had no worries with financing a recall of our former Governor to put Schwartzie in) then it’s back to the rules they agreed on.

This changing the rules when one is behind is standard GWB, as far back as his Yale days, and the board Game, Global Domination. He’s been doing it ever since. We’re not having it from him or ‘them’, or Hillary.

Well, I just re-read your entire post, and realize that I’ve just repeated what you’ve already said.

Don’t just type your fingertips off here in the blogosphere, send email to Howard Dean and let him know just how you feel.

Zzzzzz…..  Zzzzz…... Zzzzzz…..

Oh, i’m sorry did you say something?

Heres a thought:

Perhaps the Israeli government wouldn’t be the tail wagging this dog if corporate America didn’t have such a huge investment in that tiny piece of real estate. Maybe corporate America is the dog wagging the tail wagging this dog. If corporate Americas holdings and investments were in Palestine instead of Israel, no doubt we’d be seeing different headlines.

In other words, lets give the oligarchs credit where credit’s due. Like everything else, take the greed and corruption and money out of the mix and people tend to work out their problems.

The big mystery is how do we do that?

Might be a good idea, once we have a viable plan in place! But like the dad who got mad and quit his job before he found another one, we could all end up on a street corner looking for a hand-out!

I would love to see a viable third party. Maybe we could call it the Really Democratic Party. But we need to do it FIRST! Otherwise we’ll just be one more little tiny inconsequential whiny voice like all the other “third” parties!

Howard Dean doesn’t want this to come down to super delegates, and he better ensure this election does not go that route. The democrats will destroy everything America stands for and leave their party in ruins.

.... but you know… maybe (in the wake of neo-conservatism destroying itself) we should embrace the destruction of these two parties? Democrat, Republican… who cares? Let all the establishments burn.

Don’t cry for Hill dear America,
Her anx is just pretension ...

Former President Clinton, is a superdelegate!

Washington Post reports: “Clinton, former president Bill Clinton ... and their allies have been working aggressively for months to court the superdelegates, drawing on old loyalties [in other words, calling in their markers] to open a huge advantage for the senator from New York in total delegates amassed.”

Add to that Hillary’s blatant demand that Florida and Michigan delegates be seated, and you’ve got the classic example of a politician [and hubby] who really DON’T respect the will of the people!

Maybe Bill and Hill have found there’s more than one way to “fix” an election, and feel OK about it! Certainly this would have to be a conflict of interest. Is there a lawsuit in there somewhere?

Here’s the way I look at it. If Hillary is demanding a suspension of the rules SHE AGREED to, and demanding those Florida and Michigan delegates be seated, we need to DEMAND the rules creating superdelegates be suspended!

Either-or. She should not be allowed to have it both ways! And since I believe in the voice of the people, Florida and Michigan should cancel out the previous results and be allowed to have a new caucus!

Delegate votes should be limited to those delegates chosen by WE THE PEOPLE! Period.

Then if Hillary wins the votes of the delegates selected by the people, their can be no cloud over the outcome.

One other thing to remember. Of the 796 super delegate slots, 76 of them have yet to be picked.

If it turns out Clinton wins, solely based on the superdelegates and pressure from the first Clinton, can you emagine what a field day the repubs will have with that?

Aside from that, can you emagine the mass exodus from the democrat party?

This mess needs to be fixed right now!

A good start would be to let Howard Dean know how we feel. I always figured there had to be a reason why we wanted him to become chairman of the DNC. This is as good a one as I’ve seen!

Good question to begin with might be;

“Howard, how could the Democratic Party be so, well, undemocratic?”

Course we could inundate our dem reps and our dem senators and those dem leaders, Pelosi and Reid, with the same question. But given the way things have been going, especially with Pelosi and Reid,  that may be a waste of time. But I guess anything’s worth a try, right?

And let your dems at home, who could be picked as a superdelegate know how you feel!

How can the Democratic Party be so undemocratic?

One other thought. If Obama supporters end up feeling their votes were never counted, we may end up with a President Huckabee or McCain!

Do we really want to go there?

I don’t know why others might be worried about the caps lock function, but i figure that anyone who can’t make a point without shouting can’t really make a point at all.

Excuse me, i must go look for a life…i must have left it around here somewhere.

Most of them Hillary haters to be sure!  Ya think?

NO! I DON’T think they are or have to be ‘Hillary Haters”. Why does someone have to be a Hillary Hater to examine her policies, and question her credentials?

It’s an election, and this stuff is what happens. It SHOULD have happened 8 years ago, so that more of the country would know the dangers inherent in allowing the country to be hijacked by the Gangsters-in-Chief.

Had there been more critical/objective examination of George Bush back then, the same the is being heaped on MOST of the candidates now, (not JUST Hillary) then we might not be so jacked up.

So grow some objectivity Sue. Or, just grow up period.

Aegrus, “If anyone here took your posts seriously”
You and cyrena are always speaking for others.  Are you to insecure to speak for yourself????
And yes if Obama is elected mark my words we will be in deeper trouble then we are now.

your the freaken jerk for worring about it.

lib, it needs to be said right now how ALL televised “news” is yellow journalism. Nothing displayed on the mainstream media has any merit, and is all biased. It is solely the fault of the audience for watching and thus giving validity to their shabby work and echo-chamber “We’re wrong FIRST” hyperbole newcast.

Don’t come to internet sites to exact your revenge on mainstream media bs. We’re trying to be part of the solution here. You’re not helping progress at all.

WHY ARE YOU PEOPLE SO WORRIED ABOUT THE CAP LOCK.  GET A LIFE AND THAT MIGHT NOT BOTHER YOU SO MUCH.

Even tho you have closed your eyes to what has happened to Hillary on nearly every tv station esp.
msnbc, Russert, Mathews,scarborough, they are VERY biased.  If they were as biased towards Obama as they are HIllary you would be screaming at the top of you lungs, but since you are an Obama boy you deny its happening.

What about this statement is non-partisan? What about this statement is an issue? Maybe you should lead by example?

All candidates get negative press. This is politics. All day today and yesterday, I’ve listened to Clintonite after Clintonite whining about some idiot’s remark on MSNBC regarding the use of Chelsea Clinton in Hillary’s campaign as “pimping.” Semantics dilemma!!

Do you or anyone else supporting Hillary understand how dumb this makes Hillary’s campaign sound to the rest of America? Arguing over word usage regarding a political campaign becomes not only a personal attack against Chelsea (how???), but a negative smear on Hillary Clinton. This gets to the core of Hillary Supporters.

Anything said about Hillary Clinton’s campaign is a negative attack. Every political loss, every criticism (regardless of validity) causes a huge whine-fest from the Hillary Camp. There is this moral outrage when someone criticizes a woman, where everyone needs to jump to her defense. That’s just the way to show misogynists Hillary is a strong female leader.

Don’t come with white flags and olive branches after driving a campaign into the ground by neglecting facts and refusing to be objective about your candidate. It’s just a façade to stifle true debate.

I recognize Obama’s shortcomings. Never will I say he is the perfect candidate. Perfect candidates don’t exist. He is the person I like best for candidacy. Do like I do, and focus on Hillary’s positives instead of complaining. There is a lot to choose from, just look up the facts.

The media sure is having a hay day every day since this election started.

It’s been Hillary, Hillary, Hillary all the negative way!

I wish they would make as much noise about other candidates, but that wouldn’t sell newspapers, or ratings wouldn’t be going through the roof if they did that now would they?

Leave Hillary and her campaign alone. I’m getting sick of listening to all the various versions from different networks and news channels.

I’ve found to not take any of them seriously.
Credible?, yeah right.

If Hillary does lose this thing, I’ll blame it not only on her unfortunate timing for running against a candidate that some could say almost for certain was born to be president and the meddeling media.  Most of them Hillary haters to be sure!  Ya think?

I’ll bet her campaign isn’t near the huge melt-down they’re making it out to be.

I won’t be too surprised to find out next what toilet paper she uses. Yes, that’ll be next you see because as I see it they (media) are that desperate for ratings and things are getting that ridiculous.

Can’t we just all get along?

Let’s move on people, in a non-partisan way!

If anyone here took your posts seriously, America would be done for.

Waxman, why’d ya turn the caps lock off for the parenthetical statement?

And why is it that any time Clinton loses it is somehow unfair or undemocratic?  Sounds like excuses to me, and nothing but.  I thought this whole thing would be wrapped up on Super Tuesday…

cyrena, I knew that would yank your chain.  o-o-o-h
your going to report me ? Smear, insult, slander ??
You are way off base.  I will match my intelligence to yours any day. You claim to know everything but I
repeat the rich, white men, and blacks.  Look it up like I did since you are so intelligent.  For your info there are a LOT of rich people in Nebraska. Louisiana. haven’t looked it up.  You always infer you are speaking for other people, that is pretty persumptious of you. I do agree Texas repugs are arrogant, butt kissing bushies.

CYRENA, THERE YOU GO AGAIN…OBAMA DOES WELL IN A CACUS BECAUSE THE PEOPLE WANT TO BE POLITICALLY CORRECT BY NOT BEING A BIGOT AND SHOW A COLOR BIAS SINCE THEY ALL KNOW HOW YOU VOTE.. THAT WITH THE HIP HOP MUSIC, THROW THE PANTIES ON STAGE REMINDS ONE OF JAMES JONES (take your pick which one)

I’m glad Hillary has supporters like lib because it makes our campaign look so awesome.

This is such a smear/insult/slander that it’s really close to being a ‘reportable to the administration’ comment.

But I won’t. I think the majority of readers can see through this to what it is..just the racist from texas, since we’ve heard from her before.

Still, for the record, blacks are NOT ‘voting blindly’ because Obama is black. Middle class white women voting for hillary may be doing so because she is middle-aged and white.

Common sense will dictate to anyone that HAS any, that Obama is not winning as result of a 13% black population in this country, only half of whom vote. (if even that many).

The black VOTING population in Washington, Marine, Nebraska, Kansas, Louisiana, I could go on, is minimal. Consequently, it is NOT the black voters who are putting Obama on the top, because there aren’t enough black voters to do that.

The other very clear point is that it is not wealthy voters (white men) that are putting him there either. White maybe, but let’s get real…how much wealth is in any of these states, in the hands of any group of voters? WEALTH is at the top, NOT in Nebraska, Louisiana, or any other large population of white male voters.

So lib in Tx..the ron paul advocate, is doing another swift boat tactic, which serves only serves to piss off intelligent people, who may have considered going in the other direction. Now they’ll support Obama just because of these insults.

Texas repugs (White or black) are sooo stupid.

There is a male chauvinist vote as there is a racist vote, although these will mostly be Republican votes anyway. All other things being equal, I would like to see a woman president too. Women are a majority of the electorate and are rapidly outstripping men in education and therefore soon in political power as well. I am sure we will have a woman president before long. Soon we may even be talking about female chauvinism and have special programs to help boys catch up. But I am supporting Obama on the merits, not because he is a man. Clinton is a centrist, DLC Democrat and a hawk on foreign policy. I see Obama as something special, a man with unique political skills and leadership abilities. I understand that his resume is short compared with Clinton’s, but he thinks outside the box. He has a way of framing issues that brings people together to solve problems.

I pledge to support whoever wins the Democratic nomination. I hope you will do the same.

If you elect Obama, I believe the USA is done for.
Obama voters are a cult.  Blacks are voting blindly because he is black and a president that does not make.  The rich can manipulate him and white men won’t vote for a women no matter how qualified she is.

Hah! Yes, people, the race has heated up considerably. Texas, Ohio and Pennsylvania will, as I’ve stated, decide the rest of the campaign. I really feel Barack will come into these states with a commanding presence. Whether or not voter suppression, party manipulation and swiftboat tactics will be used has yet to be determined. I’m still confident in the logic of democratic voters picking the candidate who is on his way to the presidency.