The only thing inevitable about this thread is that most of the posters on it won't read the link, preferring to bash a good Dem candidate instead.

If they do, they will find a well thought out, well-supported analysis.

God forbid.

I would hope that if Hillary loses 2 of the 3 on March 4, that she would drop out. If she wins 2 or all of those three then she will take it all the way to the convention and try use backroom dealing to get the nomination - this is a method that could turn off dem voters. I still don't think Obama is inevitable or the frontrunner for that matter. Hillary is the incumbent and it is going to be tough to beat her.

Corky, honestly, do you think if Hillary doesn't win all three primaries on March 4 she should drop out for the sake of the party or should she take it all the way to the convention?

I don't believe most reasonable people (which, of course, excludes some of the MSM bunch) think there is any inevitability about Obama at this point. But there is absolutely a sense of momentum. Certainly perception is important in a close election. And currently Hillary is sliding perilously close to the perception that she can't/won't win.

There is still a long way to go, but the recent contests show marked movement of Clinton's base toward Obama. She will likely win either TX or OH popular vote, but it is not likely she will win significantly more delegates. Unless she does, Obama will probably maintain the edge, which will keep putting more pressure on the SD's to go with him.

No, silly cow, er, I mean, rabbit.

Dropping out before all the delegates vote, including the SD's, is merely an Obamite wet dream.

He knows what the rules are, and his new formulation that would have Kerry and Kennedy forced to vote for Clinton because that's how their state voted, doesn't seem quite fair.

You must be Evelyn Woods, btw, to have read that entire article so quickly.

- a sense of momentum
-recent contests show marked movement of Clinton's base toward Obama

I see you didn't read the article or look at the proofs to the opposite, either.

Nomentum. Especially 3 weeks from now.

You must be Evelyn Woods, btw, to have read that entire article so quickly.

I had read it this morning before you posted it.

Dropping out before all the delegates vote, including the SD's, is merely an Obamite wet dream.

If she doesn't win all three states by wide margins those SD's are going to flock to Obama in order to show unity. No amount of underhanded backroom dealing by Bubba will stop it. The SD's know that the dem voters will feel cheated if Obama has the most delegates and they don't back him. Look what happened to Mondale.

Nomentum. Especially 3 weeks from now.

You willing to hang your hat on that statement?

I am willing to think that these candidates will do exactly the same things to win the nomination under DNC rules, and that childish accusations of one of them being more inclined to "underhanded backroom dealing" than the other is gullible and naive.

He knows what the rules are, and his new formulation that would have Kerry and Kennedy forced to vote for Clinton because that's how their state voted, doesn't seem quite fair.

They Can Vote For Who Ever They Please Period !!

-Sarge

I haven't seen anyone from Obama's campaign sending Obama's daughters out to "lunch" with a superdelegate. Moreover, while I was watching CNN last night, the commentators (including my girl Donna and Paul "Where's the Beard" Begala) only mentioned the Clintons aggressive nature with the SD's, not one word as to the Obama camp doing the same.

(Any reference to media bias will be construed as "childish accusations" and/or "gullable and naive")

Of course, the thread is about Momentum or Nomentum, Obama's apparent gains in Clinton demographics in VA and MD being easily explained by the higher incomes there.

She continues to win her base of support, he his, which bodes well for her in upcoming big states.

Committed SD's, the ones you see in the Delegate count, are one's who are identified and checked by the media, delegates who promised to vote a certain way at the Convention. The question is on uncommitted delegates, as the committed ones would only change in extraordinary circumstances, late at the Convention.

Corky,

Are you going to vote Obama if he is the candidate in November?

"They Can Vote For Who Ever They Please Period !!"

Correctomundo, Sarge.

You agree with David Axlerod and disagree with Obama, who is spinning it that SD's must vote the way their state voted, whic is, of course, nonsense.

as the committed ones would only change in extraordinary circumstances

This contradict much of what I have been reading and heard from the talking heads.

Of course I am, Many.

I really don't like candidates that spend as much time as he does mischaracterizing their opponents positions or their own on something like Universal health care, or who play the race card the way his people did in So Carolina with those memos to the press, and I would prefer someone with at least a modicum of experience relevant to being CinC, but he would be far better than the GOP, even with McCain.

"I see you didn't read the article or look at the proofs to the opposite, either."

Yes Corky, I did read the article. And I took it for exactly what it is - one point of view. There are numerous other articles out there, some of which have been posted here that say something quite different.

Just because you post an article doesn't mean everyone has to buy in to the premise, right? That (I thought) was the purpose of having a discussion.

She's in trouble Corky, no matter how much you flail and spin. Its not yet fatal trouble and she may well still win it. But at least try to be somewhat honest and admit the house of cards is delicately balanced for her right now.

If you are unable to do that, I fear YOU are the one guilty of the koolaid addiction that you do so love to accuse others of.

FF for Tax

"Obama's apparent gains in Clinton demographics in VA and MD being easily explained by the higher incomes there."

But Obama won ALL income levels in MD, and won the lower income levels in VA.

Creating a Strawman about what I believe is not very progressive, SA.

They are both standing on a house of cards that could fall underneath either of them at any time.

Obama's biggest advantage? The same as it has been from the start, he is the MSM's candidate. But even they will find it difficult to gin up momentum that doesn't exist 3 weeks from now. Not they they won't try really, really hard.

They have Obama as inevitable all over the news now, regardless of the statistics that show he only still carries his same long-held but limited demographic.

They are both standing on a house of cards that could fall underneath either of them at any time.

I concur with this statement.

he is the MSM's candidate

see parens in my 11:46 post above.

SA

"A comparison of these rows gives reasons to think that the remaining contests will be as tight as the past ones. Note first of all that the median income of whites drops from here on out. This augurs well for Clinton, who seems to do better among "downscale" white voters - and it stands to reason that as the median income of all white residents in a state declines, so also does the median income of white Democratic voters (this is presumably why this factor was shown to be statistically significant yesterday)."

Again Corky, I remind you that he won across ALL income levels in MD, and won the lower income level in VA.

I wonder what kind of shady backroom deal Bubba will offer himself as a Super Delegate!

Obama won or tied most of Hillary's traditional bastions -

1. Voters 45-60 - won
2. Voters 65+ - tied
3. Moderates - won
4. Less affluent - won
5. No college degree - won
6. Health care is important - won
7. Traditional Democrats - won

Boy, I am all for self amusement Sarge but your an easy crowd.

Not that there is anything wrong with that.

Corky...

For Hillary to even LEAD in delegates by the end of the primaries, she needs to win 57% of the remaining delegates total. She will need to gain nearly 60% of the votes in Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania while keeping Obama under 45% everywhere else.

It isn't going to happen. Every demographic you touted yesterday went for Obama last night. Americans aren't just picking Obama by a couple points, they're choosing him by RECORD NUMBERS. Hillary fought the good fight, but its time to face facts. She's become Rudy Part II, and I don't mean Notre Dame Rudy, I mean NYC Rudy. Big states aren't enough and they never were. America wants a 50 state President not a 15 state President.

In any other year, at any other time, Hillary would have been a formidable force. This year at this time, America has discovered something even more formidable: the force of an energized electorate fueling a movement toward the future. It just is what it is. Obama is Tiger Woods. There will be no last round comebacks, only more crushing defeats because Obama isn't through yet and he knows this. He will fight and compete until he puts his hand on the bible come January 20, 2009.

And then the REALLY hard part begins.

childish accusations of one of them being more inclined to "underhanded backroom dealing" than the other is gullible and naive.

Posted by Corky


Doing what he does best, old Corky is trying to plug the holes. Doesn't wash.

Rove was just a kid on the debate team when Bubba was down in Texas getting his marching orders from one of the sleaziest bastards to ever assume the Presidency. Johnson took ward politics to the state level, sort of like Louisiana, and nothing short of winning mattered.

That's Clinton's Day One argument. She can win and she is ready. The old Goldwater Girl will beat those nasty Republicans who in reality came late to the game. Since the Civil War, or War of Northern Aggression, Republicans ruled the federal government until they got involved in war and bankrupted the country.

But the Dems always held the cities. They employed every tactic including a parade of indigents marched from precinct to precinct on election day, and of course Chicago is well known for its Lazarus Effect, or if you prefer the pop version - the Night of the Living Dead. All Democrats, naturally, and all voters.

The more populous states with large metro areas are dependent on the largess of the federal government. The machine has always been bureaucratic, and Clinton has laid out a menu - a virtual buffet with pork cooked to taste. They can't resist it. They're already planning the feast.

Obama doesn't offer a menu. His plan is more like a potluck banquet. Evangelicals should consider this approach because it offers a voice to their concerns. A communal approach that is designed to form a consensus for meeting the needs of America. But distributing the authority in this way makes the bureaucrats nervous. They like the chain of command and what sustains it is money.

Show Them the Money and they will follow.

The artifice is crumbling. The attacks on Obama's "present" votes, his self admitted drug use, the racial-gender crap, all originating from the Clinton Camp. The letter signed by two dozen women's rights activists in NH stating that Obama didn't support "Choice" when he followed and to some extent championed the position of NOW. NARAL wanted a confrontation - that's the charge that Edwards made, that Obama wasn't confrontational enough - yet both NOW and NARAL got the law they wanted and Obama helped make that happen.

In the process it gave moderate Republicans an opportunity to compromise, and kept the Dems from being castigated for being pro-Choice.

The Clintons always take an adversarial position and then backslide when no one is looking. Naturally there's profit in compromise and that's why the big donors maxed out with Clinton.

There's really nothing more libertarian than grassroots politics, yet it balances the equation with a true form of populism born of involvement. Every election I am appalled at the lack of participation in the eligible voters in this Nation. The pundits cite apathy, yet it is their medium that has created an audience from an electorate.

We've had top down government for so long it's as if we have forgotten how to care for ourselves. Obama says, Yes We Can! and the people love him for it. How can anyone doubt that America can right its ship and catch a wind?

Senatauh Clintooon (tm) sounds so nice, has that southern belle tone to it, I think it would be a shame to change her office. She'll soon be the Senior Senator from New York and that's not peanuts. She should concede for the good of the Party before she has to eat a plate of humble crow.

Not that I'd mind watching her eat it. What better entree for a shrew?

Thank You Tony !

You saw what happened to Rudy and it failed. Hillary could not even fill up where she was speaking last night,did you see the Dimmed Lights in the Empty areas?

Sorry Hillary Last Stand At The Alamo will have the same result.

-Sarge

"I just can't truck with the type of supporters he's attracting."

You would be better off supporting Ron Paul!

Sincerely,
David Duke

-Every demographic you touted yesterday went for Obama last night.

"Obama's best groups are heavily represented in both states - and the exit polls do not really dig deep enough into voter demography to offer a clear answer as to whether Clinton is hemorrhaging parts of her core constituency. For instance, the exit poll shows Obama winning white men in Virginia by 14% and Clinton winning white women by 9%. The white gender gap remains, but it favors Clinton less. In Maryland, the story is the same. White men break more heavily to Obama than they have in the past; white women break less heavily to Clinton. Is this simply a function of wealthy voters, male and female alike, going for Obama? Amazingly, 39% of Virginia Democrats and 41% of Maryland Democrats reported incomes of $100,000 or more - this plays to a major strength of Obama. If income is causing these changes in the gender gap, it is hard to see momentum as a factor."

Sorry, darlin', No 'Mo no more.

As you say, the statistics prove it, lol.

-What better entree for a shrew?

How's that Hillary Haters Boys Club thing going there Hill William?

Darla punk your lame ass yet?

-Hillary could not even fill up where she was speaking last night

An overflow crowd of 12,000. Slim Pickins indeed.

"I just can't truck with the type of supporters he's attracting."

So you would base your vote for President of the United States based on what an overzealous supporter not even affiliated with the candidate or the campaign does?

Wow. I mean, I think the Cuban flag/Che thing is stupid and kind of offensive, but its certainly not going to influence my vote. At least I sure hope I have a bit more substance than that.

"Obama's best groups are heavily represented in both states - and the exit polls do not really dig deep enough into voter demography to offer a clear answer..."

Well, according to the article you are clinging to for today. Yet numerous other sources seem to disagree with that assessment.

"So you would base your vote for President of the United States based on what an overzealous supporter not even affiliated with the candidate or the campaign does?"

If I have the option of voting for a candidate NOT supported by a communist revolutionary group, then yes, I will vote against the candidate supported by the communists.

Obama won't wear an American flag pin but does not condemn the display of the Cuban Flag w/Che in his Houston Office. For shame.

-Obama doesn't offer a menu. His plan is more like a potluck banquet

A potluck banquet where every one brings their favorite dish and pretends it is part of Obama's "plan".

Having been an exceptionally good "salesman" all my life, I have often been accused of being a great verbal communicator, but vague as hell on the details. Obama makes me look like an encyclopedia.

How's that Hillary Haters Boys Club thing going there Hill William?

Janet Napolitano, Kathleen Sebelius and Claire McCaskill - soon to join the group, Nancy Pelosi (if the story I article I read yesterday has any merit)

Shame on you Corky. Now if you aren't a Hillary supporter you are some kind of woman hater. Piss poor effort on your part.

justhobblingalong will apparently cite any excuse to justify his true leanings. Why not justsayit. No, better to rely on justanotherphonyexcuse to do what your going to do anyway.

So Cubans Americans operating an independent campaign office - maybe like those 527s (whatever) that McCain Feingold authorized - can not express their personal political leanings?

There's history doncha know of funding groups like this to support a candidate in order to castigate them for which they have no control over.

In politics you have to follow the money. Someone is paying the rent. I'm sure it's not Obama.

We've taken a one sided position with Cuba. The economic sanctions are questionable. Open trade would have enriched the nation, and more affluent people usually demand more liberty. Our policies haven't dislodged Castro, and may have strengthened his hold on the country.

Nonetheless we've accepted Cuban refugees, and apparently they're not all of the same political stripe. How surprising.

How American.

I have to admire his abilities, though. To say, straight-faced, that others have "their finger in the wind", while spending more money on pollsters than anyone else in the race is quite magnificent.

Kinda like condemning other candidates about "lobbyist money", while taking over $100 million bundled by corporations thru their employees so as to avoid low limits.

Very impressive.

"Obama won't wear an American flag pin but does not condemn the display of the Cuban Flag w/Che in his Houston Office. For shame.

Posted by cookfish"

It is NOT his Houston campaign office. It is an independent office set up by a volunteer. It is not sponsored by, affiliated with, or sanctioned by Obama or the campaign.

But then you knew that, didn't you?

Josh Earnest, an Obama spokesman, said, "Clearly the display of that symbol doesn't reflect Sen. Obama's views or his policy toward Cuba."

"So Cubans Americans operating an independent campaign office - maybe like those 527s (whatever) that McCain Feingold authorized - can not express their personal political leanings?"

Certainly they can! Can I express mine?

Of course the polls told Hillary to vote in favor of invading Iraq and sending our soldiers off to die. Rather than making an informed judgment she listened to the polls.

An overflow crowd of 12,000. Slim Pickins indeed.


Posted by Corky at 2008-02-13 01:03 PM | Reply |


So Those Were Empty Seats I Saw Sorry,
Look At The Video You'll See.

-Sarge

"Nonetheless we've accepted Cuban refugees, and apparently they're not all of the same political stripe. How surprising."

Interesting that Fox News would let its viewers know that not all Cuban Americans are rightwing, Castro hating, Che hating, Bush loving Republicans. That's not part of the official narrative. Must've been a slipup.

Maybe this is why she caved on doing the NBC debate - so much for sticking with your morals, eh, Hils.

Posted by taxman at 2008-02-13 01:17 PM | Reply


Damn !!

Wow That Damn Hillary

-Sarge

Obama makes me look like an encyclopedia.

Posted by Corky

The Funk & Wagnalls' no doubt, cloth bound and dusty, the Encarta CD used for cutting pizza.

Look out people! Corky's got buzzwords!

Nomentum! WOW.

Obamaide! Yikes!

Talk about smoke and mirrors. More idiotic pretending to be impartial while observing the Clinton's being forced into a "Rudy strategy" and having to win 60% of Texas AND Ohio to win is not a detriment in any way to her campaign. LOL. Crazy.

The problem with Hillary has been, is, and always will be her negatives. Comparing her to Obama without taking that into consideration (it tends to explain all the things Corky's BS can't or wont) is either intentionally dishonest or just plain stupid. Pretending the two candidates are on an even keel with voters is where you go wrong every time Corky. You just can't accept that people don't like her, where they are indifferent about Obama. Thus, the momentum NOT swinging towards the candidate with all the negatives. It doesn't take a genius, or anything close, to understand that much.

Here's something that needs to be said, and something the Clinton Camp should assess very clearly. They could reclaim their mantle if they put the Party's and nation's needs ahead of their own:

-It doesn't take a genius, or anything close, to understand that much.

Your good fortune delights us all.


-The Funk & Wagnalls' no doubt

That's Fuckin' Wagon Nails in Ozarkia.

Since there is Nomentum, neither candidate will have the required amount of delegates to win until the SD's vote for who they think can win in the fall, as is their responsibility.

Can I express mine? jestgettinalong


Of course. In a Republic every citizen has rights and even if you stand alone in your opinion that's your right.

I was pointing out your umbrage exposes a specious argument.

Those who favor communism or socialism in the country have always been single digit minorities. They've always embraced a Utopian Dream, yet we see the same thing in other political constituencies like the Conservatives - it's just a different picture.

These people have a right to representation. A Communist will not be welcomed at the Republican National Convention, but they will not be recognized as Communists at the Democratic National convention, if they can even gain a seat.

People are drawn to Obama because he engages them in a dialogue, looks for common ground. Maybe there is none, but at least formalities have been exchanged. This is a rare political style that is more than skill. It has spirit and Americans thrive on it.

FF for TR!

Lessee, yesterday Big O was behind by 25 or 30 and today he is ahead by the same amount.... so today Clinton should give up?


HAHAHHAHAHHAHA!!! Good one, Tony.

"Since there is Nomentum,"

Ahh, the "keep repeating it until is almost sounds kinda sorta true" strategy.

"In other words, it is hard to identify a momentum effect here. Clinton's losses in the contests are as explicable as any of her losses before or on Super Tuesday. Obama has systematically won states that play to his particular strengths since the Iowa caucus. So has Clinton. Her problem has been that she has not had any good states in the last week. "


Down 20 points 12 months ago
Down 10 points 6 months
Down 5 points 3 months
Wins State.

It is hard to identify momentum. Here, let's look at the graphs I've created. You see, you can't see momentum on my graphs.

Huh?

No, I don't want to look at your graphs. Look at mine. They're designed to support my conclusions.

Obama won the States that fit his strength.
Hillary won the States that fit her strenght.

Bull.

Obama won States he wasn't supposed to win months ago. He wasn't supposed to be a factor in the election. He wasn't supposed to be anywhere.

There is more than just momentum going on.

The end hasn't been decided. True, it isn't inevitable. Not yet.

But, one thing is certain.

Obama COULD win. Months ago, Hillary was inevitable. She's not anymore.

Good response, Corky. You addressed absolutely nothing and made a blind personal attack in its place. I'm sure people will be so impressed with your wit so as to forget you have absolutely nothing relevant to say. lol.

Talk about smoke and mirrors.

Talking about smoke and mirrors, did anyone see Lisa Caputo, former press secretary to Hillary Clinton, insisting last night on CNN that Hillary had won the MI and FL primaries? If the transcript or a clip becomes available, I'll post it. If that's the route HRC intends to take, she will lose much of her credibility and support within the Democratic party.

"Good response, Corky."

Seems to be pretty much his pattern lately...

... post an article and demand that everyone buy the premise and the conclusions without question, and discuss according to Corky's rules. If you do question or respond with a different opinion, or post contrary information, you get either no response, a dismissive attack, or are accused of setting up straw men.

"Having been an exceptionally good "salesman" all my life, I have often been accused of..."

putting too much lipstick on a pig no doubt. Corky likes his hogs gaudy with plenty of side meat and bacon. Soaks up the grease with his grits. Enough to turn your gut if you sit down and watch him snort it up.

He must have a franchise down on that sand spit he calls home. Probably adds a half ear of soggy corn on cob, a cup of koolaid, calls it a meal while he pockets a nice percentage for selling that fatty pork.

Maybe we should give him his due and award Corky the title Pork Meister.

He's truly a Hog Farmer at Heart.

I respond in kind. If Lil' Kevie, or anyone else, wants a nice answer, they should consider how they pose their questions instead of being obnoxious first then whining about the retort they get.

"I really don't like candidates that spend as much time as he does mischaracterizing their opponents positions"

No, you like the one who leaves that to her husband.

Gal,
I saw it and could not believe what she was saying and stated it with a Straight Face. "She Won" Wolf Clearly explained that Obama and Edwards were not on the Ballot; she confirmed again "She Won" What Arrogance !

-Sarge

Corky-

No one here believes you are even capable of a well thought out, objective, or articulate response. As others noted, it was par for the course. Don't fool yourself into believing anyone would ever whine or cry over you simply being yourself. You're a joke. Pure and simple.

"No one here believes you are even capable of a well thought out, objective, or articulate response."

Who in the hell appointed Kevin23 as spokesman for everyone here?

www.fantasticfiction.co.uk...A dvertisement by Porky

Keep pushing the sales Porky.

Who in the hell appointed Kevin23 as spokesman for everyone here?

Posted by Bill_OReilly

Yeah, we should all be allowed to bitch slap him independently.

Bill O-

I don't count you as a person.

Wisgod-

"we should all be allowed to bitch slap him independently"

Obviously, I'm shaking. But I'd still love to see you pull that rabbit out of the hat. Lets see it.

The last time you bitch slapped anyone, Wissy, your face hurt for a week. At least your face wasn't hurting others for a change.

Lil' Kevie posts "questions" framed in ad hominem and then whines when he gets hit back.

Pathetic, Lil' Princess.

While the formally semi-witty OZball is now down to, "Porky". My, how Mighty Mouth has fallen.

Corky, you wouldn't know an ad homimem from a mad lib.

Lets be real here.

Wisgod-

"we should all be allowed to bitch slap him independently"

Obviously, I'm shaking. But I'd still love to see you pull that rabbit out of the hat. Lets see it.

Posted by kevin23

I was talking about El Corko, El Dorko, El retard.

-a mad lib.

The pun-ishment for poor puns around here is having to read TR's file until your eyes bleed.

"Bill O-

I don't count you as a person."

More deep thoughts and witty comebacks from Kevin of Winston Strawn.

Some idiot blogger at the National Review surmises that for some convoluted reason it was Hil's fault someone was pardoned?

The only real sleaze is the slimy poster who posted this garbage Reichwing talking-point from a garbage Reichwing source.

Back in the ol' Rightwing Echo Chamber again, eh, Tony?

Good spot for ya.

Hey Corky -- coming off my failed prediction that Rudy would win the GOP nomination, how much would you pay me to predict that Obama is going to win the Dem nomination?

:-)

How about I give you Tony's integrity after posting that garbage?

Not enough? Well, I understand

How much if you just endorse Obama instead?

An on the spot report to concider

From CNN White House Correspondent Chris Black
September 5, 1999
Web posted at: 11:34 a.m. EDT (1534 GMT)
WASHINGTON (AllPolitics, Sept. 5) -- First lady Hillary Rodham Clinton opposes her husband's offer of clemency to a group of Puerto Rican nationalists saying they took too long to renounce violence ... .. President Clinton, responding to an appeal for clemency from a number of religious organizations, Puerto Rican politicians and former President Jimmy Carter, offered to commute the sentences of 11 prisoners. He also would reduce the remaining sentences of three others and cancel fines levied against two more. The commutation offer, made August 11, set conditions that included the renunciation of violence ... Each of the prisoners has served more than 19 years, longer than the amount of time usually served for the crimes they were convicted of committing, said White House officials. None of the prisoners was found guilty of murder, bombing or hurting a person.
Their crimes include armed robbery and illegal weapons possession. Most of the inmates did not have lawyers and refused to defend themselves in court because they did not recognize the authority of the US government ... .
Wolfson said Mrs. Clinton now would oppose the clemency offer even if the prisoners renounce violence ...
Mrs. Clinton also said that she had nothing to do with the original clemency offer. White House officials say the clemency petitions have been in the works for six years. Former White House Counsel Charles Ruff promised the three members of Congress who were leading the appeal for clemency that he would make a recommendation to the president before he left his job this summer ... He noted that 10 Nobel Peace Prize winners have joined the effort, as have Jimmy Carter, the cardinal of New York, and the archbishop of Puerto Rico ... . Rep. Luis Gutierrez..D-Illinois said that, had the prisoners defended themselves, they would likely have received concurrent instead of consecutive sentences, and would have been released by now.

Forgot to add
"How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason -- the only reason -- that the pardon was ever granted."
do not see the connection

How about I give you Tony's integrity after posting that garbage?

I agree that to say the Hillary/FALN pardon connection is " a single issue that would NUKE Hillary in the general election were she the nominee" is quite a hyperbolic flight. But just the fact that such stories can even get written points to Hillary's biggest problem -- her huge paper trail going back decades that lends itself so well to attacks from all angles.

Obama is like Chauncey Gardener, the blank slate that can just say "change" and "hope" over and over again -- and his listeners are going to hear exactly what they want to hear and drink his Kool-aid no questions asked.

How much if you just endorse Obama instead?

No endorsements from me Corky. There's only bad choices left -- and America will suffer whether it is Obama, Hillary or Mccain in the oval office.

It's hard work to go through the ALL BS written about each of the candidates, so you can make an informed choice at the voting booth. Nobody said democracy is easy.

How about I give you Tony's integrity after posting that garbage?

I'm tired of you taking personal shots because you can't stomach the message. If you can't, then stay out of the cesspool, don't blame people for pointing out the sleaze there!

Its not BS that Bill pardoned terrorists, its a simple inconvenient fact. That this action gave Hillary an advantage in her 2000 campaign might be debated, but the inferences are accurate.

To me, the above article giving Hillary cover reads precisely like a coordinated plan to cover the negative while trying to create distance from the positive side-effects.

Once again, Hillary tells us that she was instrumental in every decision during Bill's Administration except those things she didn't agree with and went poorly. Talk about having it both ways. The good things, she's all over them, but when Bill made questionable decisions, she wasn't in the room at the time.

They are consistent about one major thing: Neither of them are ever willing to take responsibility for poor decisions no matter how negative the repercussions are to this nation and its people. That isn't leadership, its the lack of integrity and personal weakness of character.

Bowa,


No endorsements from me Corky. There's only bad choices left -- and America will suffer whether it is Obama, Hillary or Mccain in the oval office.


I disagree.


Nevertheless, who do you personally feel is the least-worst of the 3 and why?

Corky Hillary is as done as Shoe Leather and Just as Tasteless. Stick a fork in Her She is DONEO

Larry Mohr

Tony,

I acknowledge that Obama has genuine appeal beyond sheer emotionalism - if it were just you, I'd shrug it off part and parecl of the psychosis that defines Pacers fans. Problem is - too many other rational DR liberals strongly endorse your boy.

That said, I hope you acknowledge that many who find him appealing do so purely for superficial reasons.

That said, I hope you acknowledge that many who find him appealing do so purely for superficial reasons.

There is nothing superficial about being the most powerful person on the planet! Do you really think so little of so many? Of course there's a minority that fit your example, but not a majority, that is where you just can't see the forest for the trees.

People don't choose whom they back for the presidency lightly. To think that we aren't choosing Obama based on his issues and vision insults the majority that are doing precisely that. Yes, he's charismatic and inspirational, but he's also obviously immensely intelligent, well-versed on all the issues and has shown better judgment than anyone else currently running for President.

This isn't American Idol, its the future of this nation. To imply that emotion overrides common sense and political reality is itself an immature view of a much more diverse process for those who've arrived in backing Obama.

This isn't American Idol, its the future of this nation. To imply that emotion overrides common sense and political reality is itself an immature view of a much more diverse process for those who've arrived in backing Obama.


Posted by tonyroma at 2008-02-14 09:12 AM |

Sure, sure, Tony.I'm sure you'd have written this in 2004, right, Tony?


There is nothing superficial about being the most powerful person on the planet! Do you really think so little of so many? Of course there's a minority that fit your example, but not a majority, that is where you just can't see the forest for the trees.

People don't choose whom they back for the presidency lightly. To think that we aren't choosing George Bush based on his issues and vision insults the majority that are doing precisely that. Yes, he's charismatic and inspirational, but he's also obviously immensely intelligent, well-versed on all the issues and has shown better judgment than anyone else currently running for President.

This isn't American Idol, its the future of this nation. To imply that emotion overrides common sense and political reality is itself an immature view of a much more diverse process for those who've arrived in backing George Bush.

-To me, the above article giving Hillary cover reads precisely like a coordinated plan to cover the negative while trying to create distance from the positive side-effects.

Of course, I am a complete paranoid who thinks that 911 was an inside job, so whenever I go off on a tangent of convolution to 'splain why I post such garbage, please pay no attention. - TR

If he were around today, Roosevelt might be speaking of the woman in the arena. Hillary Clinton has been in that arena for a generation. She is one of the few to have defeated the attack machine that is today's Republican Party and to have emerged stronger. She is deeply knowledgeable about governing; she made herself into a power in the Senate; she is respected by our military; and she never flinches. She has never been intimidated, not by any Republican - not even John McCain.

www.baltimoresun.com

How far back is Joe Blow going? You know the Republican attack machine. Which turned out to be 100% correct about her husband and his lies and infidelities.

Posted by mmike at 2008-02-13 06:27 PM
It's hard work to go through the ALL BS written about each of the candidates, so you can make an informed choice at the voting booth. Nobody said democracy is easy.

Tony
AS stated above I'm an equal opprotunity BS assigner. I read the posts on this site along time before I became a member. Many post are with/without links or comments as to where, when, and who. So I check the posters links, check my memory, and check some more. Your 2008-02-13 04:04 PM post had many open quotes in it also it was an op-ed piece written recently. I posted a news article written in real time for everyone to consider for some perspective. There was no comment by me just the article for everyone do what they want with the info.

You placed in bold letters the following, the inference to me is that you either agree and/or think it important enough for us to consider it. So I did some checking.

How does Hillary fit into all of this? Well, she is the reason -- the only reason -- that the pardon was ever granted. She had a senate race to win, after all, in a state with over 1 million Spanish-speaking voters. Characteristic of White House thinking at the time was an email sent by an adviser concluding that the pardons would be "fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)."

"Well, she is the reason -- the only reason" An opinion by the writer with no facts to back it up and wrong in my opinion false.

"fairly easy to accomplish and will have a positive impact among strategic communities in the U.S. (read, voters)."
The suggesting is that it was for HC Senate campaign, no this e-mail was sent concerning 3 members of congress that were in favor and were pushing for the pardon. This quote is wrong in my hood it's BS, bogus etc. HC was not the main reason for the pardon and no facts have been given to the contrary in my opinion.

Hey, Corky -- Good link.

Ther are those who compare Obama to Lincoln. Lincoln began his political career in 1832, at age 23, with an unsuccessful campaign for the Illinois General Assembly. He campaigned on reforms to help development of the interior of the state. Later, he was elected captain of an Illinois militia company during the Black Hawk War, and later wrote that he had not had "any such success in life which gave him so much satisfaction."

In 1834, he won election to the state legislature and served four successive terms in the Illinois House of Representatives and became a leader of the Illinois Whig party.

In 1846 he was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives from Illinois's 7th district, and was so publicly opposed to the popular Mexican American War that he decided not to run for reelection. In 1858, he unsuccessfully ran for U.S. Senate, but established his reputation as a staunch abolitionist and Federal rights advocate.

In contrast, Obama has no military experience and a less contested legislative career. But, how's that so differenc from Ms. Clinton.

The risk is that Obama could be a Potemkin candidate that brings others together with his silken rhetoric. Ms. Clinton oculd be a candidate that drives people away with her unstimulating rhetoric.

Obama has been compared to everyone from Lincoln to John to Bobby to Martin.

I just wonder if John McCain will use the, "I knew John Kennedy, Senator..." line on him in a debate, lol!

Your last lines remind me that the "Dream Team" would be a nice match. He could do all the talkng, and she could do all the work(horse).

To bad she won't take the veep position, she would do well there. Maybe she will settle for Senate Majority Leader if Obama gets the nod. That would be an awesome power team right there - John Edwards as AG, Hil as Sen. Maj., Jim Webb as VP.

"unstimulating rhetoric"

Oh it's stimulating all right.
I'm stimulated to vote for Obama in the Texas primary.