He said she said. She’s electable. But he has Hussein. He has to suck Israel’s ass. Israel has her in the bag.

It is a tale of two campaigns. One is for Israel and the other is not.

If Mz. Hillary [no last name please] is the Democratic candidate for Prez. look for McCain to get Ms. Rice as VP. The fork in the road then points to Mz. Hillary staying in the Senate.

Only the shadow knoes.

Actually Hank, Americans are really sick of it, and I’ve heard today, far more of the same complaints.

Problem is that I’ve also heard too many people say that the will not vote democrat if Hillary wins the nomination.

Now that worries me, because at this point, there’s no plan for whom they WOULD vote for, which means I guess, that they wouldn’t vote. Needless to say, that’s pretty scary.

On the other hand, it’s also Democrats who are saying this, because that’s how disgusted they are with her. And, these are democrats that have already voted in their primaries.

So, we’re gonna have to leave it up to those remaining, to make sure that she isn’t the democratic nomination. Otherwise, we’re screwed as much as we have been the past 8 years. It wouldn’t matter who one between McCain and Hillary. They’re the same.

Ya know what…I just thought of something, and I’m not even under the influence of anything. Wouldn’t it be wild if McCain chose Hillary as his running mate? I mean, their policies are so identical that it would be like having twins in the Executive branch.

Now of course would wait until Obama wins the democratic nomination, before he’d announce it. But, he’s crazy enough to do it…don’t you think? (besides, even I can’t begin to imagine the sorts of things she could threaten him with if he doesn’t).

Still, I think I’ll put that in the suggestion box for Hillary and McCain.

For a really bored conspiracy theorist, this might have been a good strategy.

Nope, take that back. This is more like a crack pipe strategy. What are they serving down there in that rabbit hole anyway?

I don’t think there was ever anything Hillary could have done to win this nomination. Obama knew that, and that’s why he chose to run.

Once Kerry lost an election he so clearly should have won, Obama saw what we all saw: that Iraq was, as he predicted, the biggest foreign policy blunder in U.S. history, and that anyone who voted to give Bush the authorization to invade had no way to argue against ending it.

Kerry could never get past, “I voted for the war, before I was against it.” That’s why Hillary took such a hard line defending her vote. She had no choice. It was only recently, when pressed by Tim Russert that she was willing to walk back to being willing to admit she’d like to have that vote back. But, there’s no way she can admit that her vote was “a mistake”. If she tries to do that, she’s either naieve (notice she’s been using that word a lot lately) or she lacked judgement.

Gullible or dumb is not an invitation to trust.

Everyone could see Edwards and Clinton as the top two contenders.  And Edwards would have strength both as a southerner and as a male. 

Ask yourself this:  who is the best strategist in the Democratic Party in recent decades?  Bill Clinton.  What would Bill do, what would he consider, knowing that Edwards was the likely competition?

Well, Bill is very close with Rahm Emanuel, a leader in the house, a man from Chicago with ties to Barack Obama.  A man who so far has not chosen sides. 

What if, for example, Bill whispered in Rahm’s ear that if Obama, a newcomer, young man, attractive [but black so not a real threat] decided to run.  And what if someone (like Bill Clinton secretly, and Rahm Emanuel and his friends and associates) got tons of money contributed to Obama early on—remarkable amounts of money when you think of it, for a newcomer.  Matched Hillary buck for buck, and we know that nobody has their hand tighter on the corporate coffers than the Clintons.

Obama gets out there, he gets some young people excited, draws away the left-style folks who might otherwise support Edwards, splits that vote.  Hillary gets 40%, Edwards and Obama split 50 - 25% each.  Edwards is frozen out of the money and eventually forced out of the race, Obama is left standing, then graciously recognizes he can’t really take on the Clinton machine, so he bows out.

It would have been a brilliant strategy, no?  What is the likelihood that a relatively unknown young new to national politics black man would get $100 million in donations just because he’s cute, if he didn’t have the behind-the-scenes backing of some major Democratic donors?  The types of people who would do exactly what Bill Clinton told them to do?

Oh well, the truth won’t come out until long after I’m dead.  Edwards got offed.  Bill and Hillary got a surprise.  And maybe Obama got the biggest surprise of all.

And, unfortunately for the Democratic party, this battle between Obama and Clinton is not good, no matter who you support. 

With the Republican’s primary over really long ago, once Romney caved, that provided the opportunity for Republicans to vote in Democratic primaries and influence the results. 

Bush is desperate to have a Republican follow him in office—and he should be, because I think he should be prosecuted for war crimes and incompetence, which only McCain can now save him from.  Corporate interests are also better served from the right—they have a dog in this fight, too.  They want a continuation of slave labor from Mexico and profits from health care and weak regulations. 

The emotion on the democratic side and the prospect of a winner by decision means that a lot of people are going to be upset, may not even vote—all which helps Bush of course. 

That red phone ad had nothing to do with Obama losing his lead.  The memo about Nafta struck at Obama’s credibility and integrity, which very well may have been given to the Clinton campaign with Republican help.

From this point, this contest turns sour.  Democrats need to get this thing together fast if they want to hold on to their voters and the integrity of their process before its tampered with even more.

Real Time by Bill Maher is also a racist and pro Israel program too.

By BARB BF, March 4: “Deep-dyed whites are crossing over….. White men have always been the most reactionary, racially-bonded voting group, the deepest well of anti-Black hostility in the country…. His white male wooing is made much easier by the fact that those who consider themselves his “sisters” and “brothers” demand nothing whatsoever from him…”

Well, there has been some cultural evolution in the past 40 years in some respects, BARB, but is what we are seeing really racial healing or more a function of the boys’ club innate mentality in regard to white males? Most males still do have issues about the opposite sex…...

First of all, its easy to confuse different generations and the time factor. Even if the same generation of white males from the 60’s are involved, it is not necessarily the same ones who were the racists in the past. Also, they have aged and their hormones are no longer influencing their thinking in the same ways.

But what you have overlooked is that these men are more averse to their (white) mothers than they are to black men. You only have to watch their faces in the audience when confronted with Hillary Clinton at some Democrats meeting to see how they are utterly in denial of a senior woman.

Whether that is a result of perceived personal family resentments or a failure to respect older people, white Americans obviously have it. Other ethnic groups mostly wouldn’t be seen dead being so disrespectful towards seniors. I suspect it is a WASP shortcoming, though.

In that, then, they are as accepting of African-Americans as wealthy whites are of middle/upper class blacks in preference to poorer whites as neighbors, etc. Thus, it is not essentially a race issue at all. But that won’t necessarily change things once the Republicans get started if Obama is selected as the Democrats nominee.

By the way, you didn’t say where you got your quote from, BARB. This topic only ran from the 3rd. The comment you quoted was 26th Feb?

PATRICKHENRY , CAN’T YOU TELL FOX IS RACIST ???? ever hear what they say about condie ??? or oprah, or Michelle ???

It seems that Carl Rove is contributing his spin to Hillarys campaign and there is a pronounced slant for Hillary on Fox News amongst their usual bevy of idiots.

Felicity:

“She has insulted Obama followers, naive cultists…”

I have heard far more insults of her from Obama supporters than vice versa.

“...she’s demoted the black icon, MLK, to a well-meaning but basically ineffectual leader…”

Poppycock.  She noted - correctly - that grassroots movements are futile if a president is unwilling to sign the legislation.  Johnson signed it, yes.  But NO ONE was FORCING him to do so, and no president is ever FORCED to do so, no matter the pressures.

“...she’s insulted the media (why am I always called on first…)...”

And correctly so.  Although there may be reason to be “negative” about Hillary, the media has been hopelessly complicit in promoting and even increasing that negativity.

“...she’s called for an end to the ‘rallys’ for Obama (rally goers beware)...”

That is not what she said.  She jokingly referred to the rallies as “rock concerts” and suggested they were overdone.

Peace.

or, how I learned to love the bomb?

E.J. - points well-taken and let’s face it, Hillary has run a really lousy campaign. She has insulted Obama followers, naive cultists; she’s demoted the black icon, MLK, to a well-meaning but basically ineffectual leader; she’s insulted the media (why am I always called on first…); she’s called for an end to the ‘rallys’ for Obama (rally goers beware).

In other words she’s been pumping out mud at break-neck speed apparently unaware that it’s landing on people who just might have voted for her.

the ruling class and their mouthpiece, the MSM did decree it.
At what point do we draw a line in the sand?

Look at Clintons tactics—she is willing to openly cheat in FLA and Michigan to benefit hereself and everyone stands idly by.
How can we possibly condemn the Right when Clinton not only destroys the Left—she enables and legitimatizes the tactics of the Right.

Here is the jist of it—the Clintons would rather sink the ship rather than see someone else take over as captain—and it doesn’t matter if the ship is docked and out of commission as long as they are still captain when the next launch comes around..
  Just to leave the dock without them would improve the odds of a bon voyage.

With all the sniping going on here, you all seem to be missing the obvious:

“So how did the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination come down to a choice between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton?”

BECAUSE THE MEDIA DECREED IT THAT WAY!  Period.

Sure, people voted, but they could only vote for the candidates that the media “decided” were worth voting for.  The MEDIA was responsible for systematically eliminating candidates.  The MEDIA kept Kucinich out of the debate in Nevada.  The MEDIA “sidelined” good candidates by ignoring issues and focusing on personalities.  The MEDIA al but totally controls the electoral process in America.

So snipe at each other all you want.  Support any candidate of your choice.  But don’t fool yourself into thinking that YOU (i.e., the American people) had ANYTHING to do with how “the contest for the Democratic presidential nomination” came down to Hillary and Obama.

Peace.

So, you bitch and moan, cyrena - and these ‘new voters’ (the under 30 group) are a shrinking demographic (except for Latinos). Yoo don’t know anything and yet you are somehow taken in by the glitz and glamour of the ‘newness’ of The Ring logo and think you have the right to be rude, uhh.

Not respecting white women yourself, you and a couple of others negatively criticize someone who works ahrder to help others than yourselves….. and the kids don’t want to be seen voting for their ‘mothers’!?!? So you’ll end up with another Republican fogey instead…..

It is amazing to me that Ms Hillary whines about the unfairness of the media, but would Obama still be in the running if he had lost 11 straight primaries? Her vicious mocking of Obama’s message of hope is passed off as comedy, her awkward gaffes, scolding admonishments, fear-mongering, deceptions, race-baiting, appeals to folks worst impulses and paranoia re Muslims, constant victimization, Right-wing enabling, scortched earth divisive tactics threatening to destroy Democratic party chances are ALL glossed over by the media. Why do I mention this? Because it is the Clinton machine campaign that has been going negative—but it is attributed to both campaigns across the board. Another example: NAFTA, previously listed as an accomplishment of Clinton “experience”—now, on the day of the Ohio primaries used as a means to, as Limbaugh referred to it, “bloody Obama”—although it has disappeared from the media that BOTH campaigns had contact with Canada—and despite denials all around and the suspicious leak of a timely memo by the Right-wing Harper government-also denying meddling to jeers in parliment, Clinton again is given cover. Last night pundits referred to Clinton’s “scary ad” saturating the air waves almost as much as the fabricated “Dean scream” as just another typical campaign ad, when she triangulates on Right-wing framework of “toughness” at a time of hughly unpopular war brought on by the result of such blundering maschismo—yet the media never connects the dots.

In an interview with ABC News last week, Clinton agreed that many women around the country feel sorry for her. “I think a lot of women project their own feelings in their lives on to me,” Clinton said. “Everywhere I go, people say, ‘Don’t give up, don’t give up, stay with this.’’’