MMC actually fits the definition of an internet troll, Maani...... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_troll

Mike:

“Maani, old man, Hillary voted to kill women and children in an immoral and unjustified war of preemption.”

Not quite.  Hillary voted to give BUSH the power to “kill women and children in an immoral and unjustified war of preemption” - OR TO REFRAIN FROM DOING SO, as her speech on the Senate floor clearly indicates.

As for “troll”: “a dwarf or giant of Scandinavian folktales.”

Since I am neither a dward nor a giant, and do not live in Scandinavia, I’m not sure the moniker is appropriate.

Peace.

Alrighty. Let’s say, even though you are wrong and perpetuating propaganda, Barack was or is a Muslim. So what? Are you not going to vote for someone based on faith? You’re prejudiced.

That’s irony.

Cry some more, lib.

Aergus, EVERYTHING i POSTED is true.  I guess you can’t see or hear.  To the person who said Obama doesn’t know his Kenyan half brothers and sister please NOTE:  I just saw an ad by his half Kenyan sister about how wonderful he is.  AMAZING !!!!
Pretty soon he’ll admit he was born a Muslim. Wait and see.

Yeah, and it took her six years to admit that much. She still didn’t apologize, and she still didn’t say it was wrong.

I am fatigued with your blindness when it comes to Obama the liar. 
To the OBAMA LOVER WHO LET 2 DOORS SLAM IN MY FACE IN DUNCANVILLE, TEXAS.  You are a complete ass h*le along with your leader the smart ass liar.

The very last debate in Ohio, Clinton said she would take her vote back if she could, but I know that doesn’t count where mmc,aegrus, outraged, cyrena are concerned because they live in oblivion where Obama and his LIES are concerned.

Obama already has the blacks and the stupids and you
mid city mike.

Outraged/Aegrus:

Sorry for the misappelation.  And I don’t think I was “rude and brash” (nor, of course, do I think I was wrong...LOL).

Peace.

MMC:

This is a typical canard from you.  you simply ignore the facts in favor of your own spin.

As noted, Hillary might well have had full intention to change the situation.  However, the realities did not permit her to: (i) she was the newest member of the board, (ii) she was the only woman on the board, (iii) Sam Walton did not like her or trust her, and (iv) the rest of the board was comprised of Walton loyalists.

If you think you could have done any better, you are sadly mistaken.

Peace.

Outraged, just remember the power of forgiveness. Maani is worthy of generosity once in a while too. Even when Maani is completely wrong, rude and brash we can forgive.

I don’t cast guilt to Hillary for anything other than not controlling her campaign or her supporters better. Concession is in order on many things, but Rezko is a red herring, non-issue, smear-tactic.

It is pretty sad the only things anti-Obama surrogates can muster against his campaign is bogus experience claims, falsely implying he supports Farrakhan, falsely implying he is a Muslim, misappropriating this association with Rezko and saying hope is a lie. None of these claims can be substantiated, yet each has been used to stir up support for Hillary Clinton. I don’t make up the issues, I just point out all of campaign is an illusion.

It’s solely Hilary’s fault her campaign has not embellished upon her many accomplishments and discussed thoroughly her good policy positions. Otherwise, Barack would have been out of the race a long time ago. Just because you refuse to refund your vote on a false candidate doesn’t mean my decision (and the decision of millions more) is false as well.

Here is a little idea where Hillary stands on America. She endorsed McCain over Obama. Maani, you had th nerve to question whether Hillary supporters are more likely to support McCain in relation to Obama supporters. Hillary Clinton has now supported via implication McCain over her own party. Seeing how any Republican is a huge danger to America, I think it is clear how twisted she is.

Maani:

Your quote: “Yet you have offered noting beyond her vote for the Iraq war resolution to support this claim.”

This shows it was more than just her vote, Maani.
Watch the video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYsoAeLEa3k

BTW, you directed the comment to Aegrus which I believe was meant for me, you know “the sore loser”.  LOL.

While I am outraged, I am not Outraged. };>

Aegrus:

Your attempt to change the subject will not work.  You did not ask me to prove that she apologized, you asked me to prove that she has made consistent claims of being “misled.” I provided ample proof of that.

So who is the “sore loser” here?

Nice try.

Peace.

Aegrus:

“Rezko is a red herring. We all know it is ridiculous to cast guilt-by-association...”

Except, of course, when you are doing the same re Hillary.

Your hypocrisy apparently knows no bounds…

Peace.

You GO!

I’m on your side, keep up the good work.

The fact is, if all politicians were to apologize for every vote they made we’d have nothing more than a tower of babel. (which is pretty close now) (lol)

hahaha. You really think this is stirring up support for Hillary? Your Kool-Aid must be much stronger than the Obamamaniac-Aide. Every statement you’ve made in this comment is a fallacy. Good job! Vote Obama 08!

BTW Maani, the FACTS are that the weapons inspectors from the IAEA were in Iraq, over and over and over again, THEY said “THERE WERE NO WMD’S!” Those are the facts Maani....IN SPADES.

You all have been duped by your liar named Obama. He is so good at it that you defend his lies.  The first one, he was born a Muslim, if you notice he never quite denies it, makes up smart ass remarks about it, second he claims he only did 5 billable hours of work for Rezko and other lie, Brezenski he hardly knows another BIG lie now he’s lying about the meeting with the Canadians re Nafta. Said it never happened and now we know IT DID !!
Keep drinking his cool-aid you fools.  To the Obamaite who let the door slam in my face twice, in Duncanville, texas, You sir are a piece of sh*t.

Maani....me the hypocrite… or you the sore loser of the war monger.

““I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time” (your Hillary quote 2007)

The video I posted, 2008:  “I think I made a reasoned judgement” and “unfortunately she was not the one to execute it”.  CLEARLY AND CONSISTENTLY, that’s a laugh.  The only thing she does clearly and consistently is ATTEMPT to reinvent herself.

Another portion of the same quote (2007) “that I regret the way the president misused the authority,” said Clinton. “He misled Congress and the country” DO YOU SEE......she regrets “THE WAY THE PRESIDENT” misused the authority!  That’s NOT an apology and it’s shirking her part.

“it was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that we had at the time” (2007 quote) Tell me...where did Clinton get those FACTS AND ASSURANCES THAT SHE HAD AT THE TIME.  That’s utter bullshit “a sincere vote”, my ass.  She voted flippantly, WITHOUT “facts and assurances”.  And she spewed the administration rhetoric at the time in front of the senate like a pervert drooling over a peep show.

She talks the talk, but can’t walk the walk.

Similar intelligence was available for Iran, but she voted to designate Iran’s Revolutionary Guard as a Terrorist Organization. The only difference is King George hasn’t had the incentive to attack them yet...yet....

Rezko is a red herring. We all know it is ridiculous to cast guilt-by-association, but Hillary is planning on playing against the fears of Ohians. Ohio is one of the most drastically affected by economic turmoil. They are in a state of desperation, and Clinton is trying to make them beg.

Misleading? Duping? Hillary knows all about it from both sides.

Facts are the bane of Hillary Clinton and her supporters.

How about eight years State senate with over 4000 votes? Passing ethics reform and sponsoring far more legislation than Hillary Clinton?

I never made any claim to “know the direction” of the call. It’s so easy to try and twist words to your advantage, but you lose every time. Just like Hillary Clinton.

MMC:

“And even if she were “misled” or “duped”, isn’t that qualifications for getting her out of office?”

Obama has admitted to being “misled” or making serious mistakes as well, both in office (e.g., the Schiavo vote: “As a constitutional law professor I knew better.") and in getting there (e.g., his association with Rezko: “...a boneheaded mistake").

So should he ALSO be disqualified?

Peace.

Outraged:

You are SUCH a hypocrite.  You asked me for proof of my claim and I gave it to you, in spades.  However, rather than accept that you were wrong, you simply ignore the proof and make your statement all over again.

“I’ve made up my mind; don’t confuse me with the facts” is your attitude.

You’re hopeless.

Peace.

She is sitting in the video NEXT to Obama claiming “ I think I made a reasoned judgement” and “unfortunately she was not the one to execute it”.  This was a recent debate.  She is NOT apologizing and frankly Maani, I don’t think she EVER intends to.  I’m sorry...but that’s just wrong.  Thousands are dead, tens of thousands are maimed....and that’s just considering Americans.  Probably over a million innocent Iraqi people are dead and how many Iraqis are maimed for life?  This doesn’t include any Brits or Aussies or anyone else.  Watch the video link again, tell me...explain it to me...because that’s NOT what I see.  I see a person who could care less about the dead “grunts”.

Clinton as well as others really need to “figure out” that “grunts” are HUMAN BEINGS..goddamn it...that we are ALL human beings.  Albeit some of us just make such a sham of that fact that they completely ignore humanity EVEN FOR HUMANITY SAKE.

Outraged:

“I have said clearly and consistently for quite some time that I regret the way the president misused the authority,” said Clinton. “He misled Congress and the country on what he was seeking and what he intended to do.” (Jan. 27, 2007)

“I take responsibility for my vote,” Senator Clinton replied. “And it was a sincere vote based on the facts and assurances that we had at the time. Obviously, I would not vote that way again if we knew then what we know now.” (Feb. 17, 2007)

“In 2005...Sen. Clinton...said if she’d been asked to authorize the Iraq war “based on what we know now,” she “never would have agreed.” Clinton said the Bush administration misled Congress with faulty intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction.” (Reported Sept. 21, 2007)

“While saying she took full responsibility for her error, Clinton repeatedly insisted that she had been misled by “false” intelligence on Iraq’s weapons of mass destruction presented by the Bush administration.  Citing “assurances they gave that they would first seek to resolve the issue of weapons of mass destruction peacefully through United Nations sponsored inspections,” Clinton lamented: “Their assurances turned out to be empty ones.” (Nov. 29, 2005).

I could cite more instances, but these already go back to 2005.

Peace.

Maani:

I agree, cite your proof.  I remember Clinton ALLLUDING to being misled, but I don’t recall her ever actually saying that.  Please, cite your proof.

Cyrena:

“But, it’s a moot point anyway, after 11 straight wins for Obama, eh?”

That’s exactly the kind of flip, dismissive statement I expect from you.  NO, it is NOT moot.  The truth and facts are NEVER “moot.” This just shows the lengths you will go to in willfully ignoring the truth in favor of blind loyalty to your candidate.  (And yes, I’m aware that you feel you can say the same thing about me...)

“Same thing with her ‘experience’ in the Senate. Yep, she has that experience, and it should be ‘counted’. So, what has she done with it? Well, she’s voted to authorize an illegal war, and she consistently voted to CONTINUE it, until maybe 6 or so months ago, when she finally accepted that the war is the biggest issue for Americans.”

Except for not voting for it (since he wasn’t even in the Senate yet), the same could be said for Obama, who ALSO consistently voted to continue it.  As I have noted, Obama may not have helped Bush drive the bus into the ditch, but by continually voting to fund the war, he damn well didn’t do anything to help get it out of the ditch either!

“So, she’s on the Armed Services Committee. Doesn’t that mean that she’s real OK with the so-called ‘surge’, which was in reality an escalation?”

Bad example.  Hillary was the one who essentially called Petraeus a “liar” to his face at the hearings on the surge, and voted “against” Petraeus.  Obama was a no-show for that vote.

“And, what about the most recent war action that we’re helping with? The warships en route (or already in place) right there in the Mediterranean waters that lap the coasts of Lebanon, and are in whispering distance of Syria? How does she feel about that? Has she said? She’s on the Committee.”

Has Obama said anything?  After all, he is on the Froeign Relations Committee… Don’t be such an obvious hypocrite.

“Then there’s her saber rattling against Iran. On that, she’s just picked up the current admin’s threats.”

Another bad example.  She was one of the first people to question Bush’s saber-rattling policy against Iran, calling for stronger diplomatic action.

“Hillary is still a warmonger...”

A charge that you, MMC, CY and a few others have made.  (Webster: “Warmonger: one who urges or attempts to stir up war.") Yet you have offered noting beyond her vote for the Iraq war resolution to support this claim.

Your sophistry may fool others, Cyrena, but it does not fool me.  I have proven you wrong so many times now that it is almost amusing - and each time I do you simply refuse to continue responding; i.e., you have never ONCE come back and admitted that you were wrong when I have proved it so.  Not once.

That just proves your pride and arrogance.  And others here have noted it as well.

Peace.  (Yes, even now...)

Outraged:

Actually, she has been claiming she was “misled” for quite some time (and her speech on the Senate floor before the vote proves that she felt that way), and in the last debate she did in fact admit that she was wrong, when she said it was the one thing she would take back if she could.

Peace.

You just through statistics out there Maani, without ever citing them.

But, it’s a moot point anyway, after 11 straight wins for Obama, eh?

Hillary did what she did in California because we are, traditionally a blue state, though I admit that we’re responsible for Regan. Nothing to be proud of, except to say that none of ‘us’ voted for him.

Still, there’s also a huge repug bloc in California, that holds a considerable amount of voice. That is where Hillary got her help in California. She got it from the conservative and formerly repug or conservative Independents.

That’s what you all are still missing. Overall, Americans (and that even includes some center- situated repugs,) are simply tired of everything connected to the repugs at this point. Given a choice between what the repugs have had to offer in this replacement, alot of them have ‘crossed over’ so to speak. For THEM, (and there are many) Hillary has been the next best choice. At least that has been the case in a state like California, which is traditionally a democratic state anyway.

So, Hillary is the ‘repuglican lite’ candidate. You should keep that in mind, every time you tote the ‘experience’ question. As was mentioned in the last debate, (and because it’s been on everybody’s mind), if Hillary is going to stand on her alleged ‘experience’ as her sole qualification for the office, then she needs to address ALL of that ‘experience’. Not all of it is ‘good’. So, one needs to be very careful of bringing attention to these things. She didn’t count on that.

Same thing with her ‘experience’ in the Senate. Yep, she has that experience, and it should be ‘counted’. So, what has she done with it? Well, she’s voted to authorize an illegal war, and she consistently voted to CONTINUE it, until maybe 6 or so months ago, when she finally accepted that the war is the biggest issue for Americans.

HOWEVER, based on Hillary’s ‘experience’ (and the ‘experience’ of the American public) it’s very easy to see her recent shift as being nothing more than an adaptation, (and a very late one) to the direction of the political winds. She sure took a long time to figure out that Americans hate this war. So, why would any skeptical voter assume (by her record and experience) that she had all of a sudden grown a conscience and some good judgment, in terms of leadership? IOW, why would anybody BELIEVE that she really does intend to do anything about this war?

So, she’s on the Armed Services Committee. Doesn’t that mean that she’s real OK with the so-called ‘surge’, which was in reality an escalation? Does she NOT have the ‘experience’ to have compared this to Viet Nam, so long ago? She SHOULD!

And, what about the most recent war action that we’re helping with? The warships en route (or already in place) right there in the Mediterranean waters that lap the coasts of Lebanon, and are in whispering distance of Syria? How does she feel about that? Has she said? She’s on the Committee. Then there’s her saber rattling against Iran. On that, she’s just picked up the current admin’s threats. Could it be that she’s just an extension of the bush agenda on war everlasting? That sure is what a lot of folks could read from her, especially if they do as she suggests, and look beneath and beyond what she’s SAYING –NOW- and check what she’s actually DONE, in her ‘experience’ and in the Senate.

Hillary is still a warmonger, and it’s what US citizens are mostly sick of. How simple is that? We’re sick of aggressive war, and interfering in the rest of the world, and Hillary is all for it.

A warship is still a warship, even with lipstick.

Aegrus:

“So, you’re suggesting that something could be free chocolate from Belgium to all Americans? 3 in the morning here is well into the mid-morning across the pond.”

How do you know which “direction” the call is coming from?  3am is also 3pm in China.  (Which has as much relevance as your comment...)

“Barack also enjoys better experience than Hillary Clinton.”

You keep making this same claim, but have NEVER provided any substantiation for it.  Not one iota.

Let’s go, buster; crap or get off the pot.

Peace.

Tara..

Thanks for this update. It’s good to have this additional information.

Clinton refuses to apologize, admit she was wrong or misled.......STILL.  That doesn’t make her decisive, it makes her belligerent or possibly arrogant, but decisive, tactical or discerning isn’t the message she sends with her long held obstinacy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EYsoAeLEa3k

I don’t think Clinton will win either state provided there’s a accurate count.  It seems to me she’s been drinking whatever Bill’s been slammin’.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRukw-dVtds

Maani, you can try to play this ad as non-offensive and presume it isn’t fear-mongering all you want. It’s a real, real far stretch even for a devout Clintonista. Something has happened? So, you’re suggesting that something could be free chocolate from Belgium to all Americans? 3 in the morning here is well into the mid-morning across the pond.

Get real! Everyone knows what the implications of the 3am ad are. Just like how everyone knows what the meaning behind the picture of Barack wearing traditional African attire mean, which, by the way, Clinton’s campaign has NOT denied disseminating. Nah, the Clinton camp just told us to get over it, and they said we should be ashamed.

Shame? Shame on you, Maani. Shame on everyone who pretends these ads and implications are anything but a way to make people who are fence-racial (or have bought into the bullshit claim about experience) get scared about voting for Barack Obama. Calling attention to his race and heritage, both of which are (and should always be)irrelevant to his credentials. Barack also enjoys better experience than Hillary Clinton.

BE REMINDED, MAANI, of what your ad actually says:

“It’s 3am and your children are safe and asleep. But there’ s a phone in the White House and it is ringing. something is happening in the world your vote will decide who answers that call. whether it is someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world. its 3am and your children are safe and asleep. Who do you want answering that phone?”

yeah, implies nothing about terrorism or crisis. Nothing dangerous could ever be related to the “military.” Spin some more, Maani. You’ll find yourself spitting up all sorts of sickness.

Stopping her? It’s about stopping Obama, who has been surging for over a month. She is not, and never has been, the underdog. Hillary has lost all credibility. She cannot get the popular vote, and has very skeptical abilities to win via delegates. She’s dressing as Nader this Halloween.

I’ll bury her all over again. Clinton was discounted from the nomination long ago. Mitt Romney is using is necromantic powers to resurrect her campaign, but it is bunk. She doesn’t have a clear message, and hasn’t run on her merits. Maani and every other Clintonite can look the other way to her fear mongering and genuinely bad campaigning, but America will not.

If Hillary has momentum for Barack to be “stopping her,” why are poll gaps narrowing in Obama’s favor? Spin makes you sick. The only people delusional on this campaign trail are those supporting Hillary Clinton. Any credentials she has over Obama are marginal, and she fails to excite America. A vote for Clilnton is a vote wasted.

Yeah right!

She’s in it still because her poll numbers right now are showing she can very well possibly win the popular vote and gain even delegates with Obama.

Why she she quit now?

Let’s wait until tomorrow when all the votes are in and see what happens.  If things don’t go her way, Im sure she’ll concede and keep the democratic party together and throw her support behind Barack.

The fact is, Obama is showing a strong inability at this time of even stopping her.

Don’t be so hasty to bury Hillary!

One more time:  Hillary’s strategy is to beat Obama on her experience and his lack of it.  Won’t work with McCain.  What will work with McCain - who I think could actually beat her.  Afterall, if you tout experience as the most important criterion for being President, you can hardly dis it when someone else has it and uses it as a strategy, and by the way more of it.

Maani - forget Obama.  What will Hillary’s qualifications be assuming she runs against McCain?

into dangerous territory if we assume that a president should answer a 3am call on the ‘red’ phone and make a decision without first consulting his coterie of experts and advisers.  (George might do so, and afterall he certainly is commander-in-chief and knows world leaders and has extensive experience in foreign affairs and knows the military, but no one, not even Maani is suggesting his returning to office.)

Of course the 3am ‘ad’ DOES suggest that he should make the decision solely on his own.  Do we suppose that’s what Hillary believed?

Waxman:

If memory serves, Cyrena does have some Native American blood running through her veins.  But she is apparently of heavily mixed race (again, if memory serves).

Perhaps the best word to describe her then would be “mutt.” LOL.  (Cyrena - I’m just kidding...)

Peace.

Felicity:

“Maani - the question is what will her QUALIFICATIONS be when and if she is opposing MCCAIN.”

And what will OBAMA’s “qualifications” be?

What I was pointing out is that Hillary has at least MARGINALLY more (and, as noted, I believe greater than that) qualifications than Obama.

As well, Obama has painted himself into a corner, as explained perfectly by Stanley Fish in the fourth paragraph of this blog entry:

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/03/02/why-mccain-wo uld-vote-for-obama/index.html?ref=opinion

Peace.

MAANI....YOU SHOULDN’T TALK ABOUT CYRENA THAT WAY!!!! IS IT BECAUSE SHE CLAIMS TO BE AN AMERICAN INDIAN, THEREFORE BETTER CONNECTED TO THIS COUNTRY ????

Maani - the question is what will her QUALIFICATIONS be when and if she is opposing MCCAIN.

Besides which (Rumsfeld) and Cheney and not a few others in the yet reigning administration have (or had) Hillary’s version of ‘experience’ going back to the Nixon Administration. Given the state of our nation today it would seem redundant to argue against the automatic viability of ‘experience’ in qualifying one to hold an office.

Aegrus:

Obama was on the FRC for a little over a year.  Big deal.

As for the 3am ad, at no point in that ad does it say, or even suggest, that the call is about a terror attack, or even something requiring “war experience.” The opening text is: “It’s 3 a.m. and your children are safe asleep. But there’s a phone in the White House and it’s ringing. Something’s happening in the world.”

“Something.” Could be ANYTHING.

Yes, it does go on to ask whether you want the person who answers to be “someone who already knows the world’s leaders, knows the military, someone tested and ready to lead in a dangerous world.” But none of that strikes me as “scare tactic”: it IS a dangerous world (and the U.S. is, of course, HUGELY complicit in making it that way), and, personally, I, and many others I know, DO want someone who “aleady knows the world’s leaders,” which Hillary does and Obama does not.

The Obamamaniacs can spin this ad any way they want.  The truth of the matter is that it is both accurate and powerful.

Peace.

Maani, Obama was on the foreign relations committee. Hillary being on the Armed Forces Committee speaks volumes about her belligerence. We’re all fatigued with her campaign. That 3am add will hurt the party largely by opening up a question about any candidate in November, and who is the only candidate with war experience right now? McCain. Penn and the Clintons are stupid as hell for running that message, which has failed numerous times in the past.

Hillary Clinton is not servicing a unified Democratic party. When she loses tomorrow, she better give serious thought to pulling out before she runs any more swiftboat ads either from her campaign or gets them 3rd party via 527s.

Felicity:

Even if all she has is four extra years in the Senate (on the Armed Services Committee) and even a little bit (though I believe it is more than that) of int’l relations experience during her years as First Lady - particularly including relationships she already has (some of them as much as a decade long) with many foreign leaders, relationships that Obama would first have to create if he becomes president - this STILL beats Obama’s experience in these regards hands-down.

Peace.

You would complain about voting for a woman in preference to that old goat? He reminds me of Ronald Reagan.......

Hillary’s touting her ‘qualifications?’ to be Commander-in-Chief, her extensive experience in ‘foreign affairs,’ and her 35 years of experience (in?) Extremely vague, but against Obama she can get away with it. 

Obviously, should she be the nominee, those won’t work on McCain - other than the ‘wife’ part, he beats her hands down.  So, other than the fact that McCain’s a Republican which automatically makes him ‘evil’ what will HER qualifications be.  I have no idea - anybody else?

“...one more bump in the road...”

The media’s travelling circus, uhh.

Cyrena:

“Hillary is a master at that, and California is a good example. She DID ‘win’ in California, but at the end of the day, (and even now, some votes continue to be ironed out and counted) the number is in delegates is extremely close to an even split. So, she did not ‘win’ California by any large margin. Still, it’s presented that not only by her campaign, but in the media as well, since she technically DID win in that state.”

And you call ME “audacious!”

The California totals are completely done.  Hillary won the popular vote 51% to 42%, and 203 delegates to Obama’s 167.  No “blow out,” perhaps, but a clear and decisive win.

Start doing your homework before you make ridiculous and insupportable statements that are so EASILY refuted by the facts.

Peace.

Well, I’ve had a feeling for the longest time this primary race would be over tomorrow. I still think it should be, or will be a clear indicator. Still, it seems as if Hillary wants to stay on the trail through the convention. Even if it is clear she has lost, she may not bow out.

Moreover, I agree 100% her campaign is hurting the Democratic party right now. Had she stayed on message, continued to be positive and run on her merits there would be no reason to beg her to leave. Right now, though, she’s Ralph Nader times one-hundred.

^ and how come there is no signature on this?  I always feel so ripped off when I realized I got sucked in.

I’m in agreement with the Truthdig crystal ball, and particularly here:

• “If she wins just one, Ohio most likely, expect a brief victory dance, an attempt to cast the night as a disappointment for Obama and then a quick jet to Pennsylvania, the next Alamo on the trail.”

But of course I have to add something…

Based on the most recent update, Hillary and Barck are virtually tied in Ohio, and Obama has picked up a slight lead in Texas. Not a huge lead, but a 4 point lead (43 – 47.) Ohio is supposedly a one point difference in favor of Hillary, but considered a dead-tie, because of the margin of error.

http://www.truthout.org/docs_2006/030208A.shtml

That noted, I’m inclined to think that even if she DOES win either of these states, it’s simply not going to be anywhere close to enough delegate wise, since that are proportionately split. BUT, I think she would use even a tie, as a ‘win’ of that state, and a ‘loss’ for Obama, just in the way the thing will be presented for public consumption.

Hillary is a master at that, and California is a good example. She DID ‘win’ in California, but at the end of the day, (and even now, some votes continue to be ironed out and counted) the number is in delegates is extremely close to an even split. So, she did not ‘win’ California by any large margin. Still, it’s presented that not only by her campaign, but in the media as well, since she technically DID win in that state.

I see her doing the same in either or both of these states, (Texas or Ohio) and then doing exactly what the Truthdig crystal ball says: jetting off to PA, for the next try. What I DON’T see her doing, is giving up, even though she has supposedly claimed that she would do that, if she didn’t win Texas and Ohio.

I just don’t think it’s possible for Hillary to accept that reality.

OTOH, if she does, Nader may get a substantial bloc of her old supporters. We’ve already heard from the likes of those who before now, have insisted that they would not even CAST A VOTE for president, (and these are supposedly democrats) if Barack Obama is the democratic nominee.

Now that he’s come out to wreck things up a bit, they will have an option in the main race, to in short, ‘vote against’ Obama. It’s really sad, but that’s what I see happening.

And, since Nader had originally claimed that he would run an independent campaign if it was HILLARY CLINTON that won the nomination, and since we see that isn’t likely, but Nader is still going ahead with his thing anyway, it makes me wonder about HIS ‘agenda’ as well.

Meantime, I have an idea. Can we just go ahead and vote, say in April? I don’t think I can take much more of this. Besides, we could cut a deal with the thugs in DC, and let them know that we’re gonna pick a new cast of characters in April, or no later than May, and that we’re gonna do the changeover in June. We’re not waiting until January of 2009, because we may not last that long anyway. The bush thugs will have an option…either get out in June, or prepare for an impeachment in that same month, to be followed by a Hague trial in November. 

We’ll still end up doing the Hague trial, but they would at least be saved the impeachment. And, that would conceivably give them time to escape and hide. That would only delay the inevitable, (for them) but it would sure save us a whole bunch of energy, blood and treasure, if we could get this over with six months early.