This is no April Fool's Day joke folks. Apparenty Hillary is going down. With her money troubles and here slipping poll numbers, there is not need for the party to pressure her to quit. Forcing Hillary to quit is bad idea for at least two reasons:

1. She might demand the VP slot, causing McCain to win a landslide in November.

2. Her supporters will be unhappy that she was forced out and it will help McCain.

Let the baby have her bottle! I don't think she has a chance of a backroom brokered nomination at this point but she'll try.

"For Clinton, that five-point edge is down from a ten-point lead a week ago, a thirteen-point lead in mid-March and a fifteen-point advantage in early March."

Zounds!

Mem, on your reasons:

I don't think the first is valid. She can demand all she wants, doesn't mean they'll give her that slot.

As for the second, yes, very possible.

It looks like the people of PA are tiring of her, just like the rest of the country is tiring of her.

Lil'Brit: fun-knee!

All aboard!!!!!

Obama Express will be leaving the station soon.....will Hillary be aboard?????

"Obama Express will be leaving the station soon....."

Yes, but is it environmentally friendly or does it leave a huge carbon foot print?

"Obama Express will be leaving the station soon..... will Hillary be aboard?????"

No, she'll probably have herself tied to the tracks like Sweet Polly so she can cry about how mean "they" are being to her again.

Hillary sold her soul to the Oligarchy, as has McCain. Its not clear that Obama is really different, though his roots suggest he might be.

The last time gas prices went through the roof Carter socked the oil companies with a "Windfall Profits Tax" and put the money in the Treasury. Its time again, but not on BushCo's agenda.

Consider this. In 2005 Senator Clinton visited New Delhi, India, ("far, far from our shores"), where she met wealthy business leaders, venture capitalists eager for U.S. investment. A few years prior to her visit, Enron gained a foothold in India's economy. Enron uprooted local communities, fleeced the public coffers, then pulled out of India with the profits of unregulated greed.

In a speech promoting globalization and free trade, here is what Senator Clinton said in New Delhi: "There is no way you can legislate against reality. Outsourcing will continue....We are not against all outsourcing, we are not in favor of putting up fences."

The India Review, a publication of the embassy of India, commented April 1, 2005: "Senator Clinton allayed apprehension in India that there would be a ban on outsourcing."

Siddharth Srivastava reported in Asia Times, March 1st, 2005: "Hillary Clinton made it apparent where she stood on outsourcing during her India visit...Hillary has been at the forefront in defending free trade and outsourcing. She faced considerable flak for defending Indian software giant Tata Consultancy Services (TCS) for opening a center in Buffalo, New York." (TCS provided hundreds of special visas for foreign employees to work in New York for substandard, non-union wages.) She praised Clinton's "strict adherence to the principles of free trade and outsourcing that affect India directly."

Outsourcing is inherent to global free trade, the attempt of corporate goliaths to move resources, jobs, money, capital in search of profits anywhere in the world without accountability.

If a video clip of Clinton's outsourcing remarks in India were played on TV before the upcoming primaries in Indiana, North Carolina, and Pennsylvania, she would lose the elections, despite current polls. Not only because working-class voters oppose outsourcing, but because the duplicity of Clinton would become obvious.

exerpted from Counterpunch

Divisions, divisions...

Tensions clearly remain in the contest. If Obama is nominated, just 56% of Clinton supporters say they are likely to vote for him against John McCain. Forty percent (40%) of Clinton voters in Pennsylvania say they are not likely to vote for Obama.

On the other hand, if Clinton is nominated, just 67% of Obama supporters say they are likely to vote for her against McCain. Twenty-nine percent (29%) are not.

A separate survey found that both Democrats are in a competitive race with John McCain for Pennsylvania's Electoral College votes. Nationally, McCain currently leads both Democrats in the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Tracking Poll. Looking at the Electoral College, the race is essentially a Toss-Up.

Nah, it's not unbelievable...it's just what we do. There's something to be said for blindly (or otherwise) following someones lead when it comes to presidential elections.

Apparenty Hillary is going down.



Aaaah, aaaahhhh, aaahhhh promise ya' all, heh heh, that ain't the case.

Sincerely (and I know fo' sure),

President Bill Clinton

I never thought I would hear the amount of hate for a Dem leader as I have for Hillary. You would think she is the devil if you listened to the Obama backers. I don't find it that odd that Hillary's lead is shrinking - the legion of bloggers have done nothing but spew hate about her for the last 4 months, some even attacking Chelsea. It is kinda sad when the guy that is supposed to 'unite the country' will be the one to tear apart the Democratic party. When all is said and done, Obama and his foolish agents will be revealed as a hate machine and McCain will win by 20%+ in the general. If Hillary spent 1/2 as much money as Obama did on negative campaigning, he would be out of the running already. I guess she is just leaving that up to Rove and his stupid ass Fox News whiteboard.

Well Jacque Strap if Hellary wouldn't be so damned disgusting plus about as useful as a dingleberry on a Gnats ass I wouldn't despise Her so. She brought it all on Herself with Her nasty self.

Larry Mohr

Well, Jacque, let's see you argue with that brilliant bit of logic!

(snicker, sigh!)

It's funny to hear Clinton supporters complain about negativity, when it is the Clinton campaign that just went through a 'throw shit on the wall and see what sticks' bit of nonsense.
But people point out that Hillary lied about Bosnia and all the other things she's lied and repeated to lie and boo hoo poor Hillary.

What's even funnier is hearing the boys trying to push the girl off the racetrack....


Trying to Shove Hillary Aside
By Marie Cocco

WASHINGTON -- Have you noticed something similar about those Barack Obama campaign surrogates and the media soothsayers who have started a drum-beat to force Hillary Clinton out of the Democratic presidential contest? Hint: They tend to share a certain anatomical attribute.

I guess the boys are just being boys again. They've failed to dispatch Clinton in the race thus far -- remember, they were predicting the fall of the "house of Clinton" in New Hampshire. Then Kennedy magic was supposed to transform Obama into the anointed nominee on Super Tuesday, but star-power appearances in California by the women of Camelot failed to help Obama there, and not even Ted Kennedy could deliver his home state of Massachusetts. Clinton won decisively in the Bay State and took all the big states on Super Tuesday, except Obama's home state of Illinois and in Missouri, where he edged her by a single percentage point.

Clinton then was supposed to bow out after March 4 if she did not win the crucial states of Texas and Ohio. But darn! She messed up their game plan again by winning both of those states -- and Rhode Island, too.

Those looking ahead now see no way, based on current polling and the way the demographics of Pennsylvania break down, that Obama will win that next mega-state on April 22. Those looking even further ahead see only more uncertainty -- a series of contests lasting until June in which some states seem to naturally favor Clinton (Kentucky, West Virginia) while others seem to favor Obama (North Carolina, Oregon).

Since we're talking boy-talk here, we might as well get right into their rhetorical comfort zone: Obama now is ahead by a field goal in the third quarter. But the fourth quarter has yet to be played and who knows what the score will be at the end of regulation? So here's their plan, hatched in the locker room: Push Clinton off the field now so that Obama can take his early victory lap.

con't.

Obama denies that he is personally behind this strategy. But let's face it. The pronouncements by Sens. Patrick Leahy, D-Vt., and Chris Dodd, D-Conn., both big-name Obama supporters and superdelegates, that Clinton needs to limp away with her head held low looked terribly orchestrated.

Leahy was particularly odious when, after declaring Clinton had "no way" to win the nomination, he offered her a very warm seat. It happens to be one she already holds and it is, of course, comfortably below the glass ceiling. "Frankly, I feel that she would have a tremendous career in the Senate," Leahy declared.

If it weren't so galling, it would be amusing to watch the Democratic men shuffling nervously in their television studio chairs, trying to conceal the audacity of their arrogance. For they have something in common besides their anatomy: It's Hillary Clinton. For nearly two decades, she's raised more money for more Democrats than anyone except, perhaps, Bill Clinton. She's certainly done more obligatory "Women-for-(Your Candidate's Name Here)" events than, say, the Obama girl on YouTube.

Now Clinton's methodical, dogged history of work for the Democratic Party is treated just like the methodical, dogged histories of so many women in the workplace: Having come this far she must not go too far. She must step aside to take the smaller office, with the lesser title and the lower pay to make room for the younger guy with the thinner resume. And please, would she just go quietly like a good girl?

Maybe it is true that Clinton has no realistic way to win the nomination. But Obama hasn't won it either -- and contrary to the myth his campaign has spun, Obama can't win without superdelegates to put him over the top.

Somehow the Obama campaign has come to believe that insulting Clinton is the same as beating her. It isn't. And insulting her supporters -- especially women and, in particular, working-class women, who have clung to her candidacy all these months -- isn't much of a general-election victory strategy. Women were 54 percent of the electorate in the presidential election of 2004. Without their support, Al Gore would not have won the popular vote in 2000 and John Kerry wouldn't have come so close in 2004. Women voters put Democrats in control of Congress in 2006.

So, the Obama campaign can continue trying to get its allies in the media and various party pooh-bahs to push Clinton aside early. Or Obama can welcome the fight -- and win it like a man.

What's even funnier is hearing the boys trying to push the girl off the racetrack....


Trying to Shove Hillary Aside
By Marie Cocco

blah blah blah

Posted by Seaton_Begg at 2008-04-01 05:35 PM

That isn't it at all. It is nearly impossible for her to win.

She is behind in the popular vote, delegate count and she is behind in all the polls too. Mathematically, her chances of winning are astoundingly small.

The longer she stays in the race, the more money Obama has to spend. Money that could be spent in trying to beat McCain. Thankfully Obama has begun in the critical work needed to beat McCain, but Hillary wants to stay in the spotlight all the same.

That is it in a nutshell.

But again, we are seeing in the numbers that the real democrats (not republicans voting as democrats to make the race go on longer) are not supporter her in her lost cause as much. This victim mentality bullshit will probably push her down further, so please continue with it.

"her chances of winning are astoundingly small."

No, Obama has a 3 point lead in the 4th quarter.


After the next 10 votes, plus the two in MI and Fl, she will have taken the popular vote lead. Obama will be sitting there with his hands full of delegates, worthless unless they reach the Magic Number.

Then the SD's will fulfil their responsibility to elect the candidate best suited to beat John McCain in an Electoral College contest.

Which will, of course, be the candidate who won the popular vote, carried the big battleground states, and retained the Dem base of blue-collar voters.

Rasmussen are one of the most biased and noncredible pollsters around.

They make FOX polls actually look fair and balanced.

How sad is that?

That sed, they are correct here in terms of seeing a general trend. Hillary is still ahead by double digits in the aggregates and nobody has Obama actually winning PA. Hillary's campaign is carefully crafted to sway the least informed, most gullible, John and Janey Lunchpail set and that's PA to a tee.

It might actually turn out to be her second state she win by more than 60% (the other one was Arkansas).

Hill winning PA will prolly be touted as her big "comeback" but it will still be too little, too late.

Be Well.

"That isn't it at all. It is nearly impossible for her to win.

She is behind in the popular vote, delegate count and she is behind in all the polls too. Mathematically, her chances of winning are astoundingly small."

She has been outspent 4:1 and the media did not even dig into Obama until after he was annointed as the nominee. The entire media and very vocal bloggers are ripping Hill and praising Obama and yet he still can't win big states this far into the election. If Obamites had not started to attack Hillary and the media had not pronounced her dead 3 month ago, she would probably be leading in delegates, states and popular vote. Further, the 'she can't win crowd' are counting on Obama to be able to suppress the vote in Michigan and Florida - quite democratic of him. Obama has support from 50% of Dem, which make up about 40% of the US population - that vocal 20% ignores his faults just like the ignorant 20% ignore the faults of Bush.

After the next 10 votes, plus the two in MI and Fl, she will have taken the popular vote lead

Sure Corky ...and then Winged Unicorns will fly out of her butt and the skies will open up and gumdrops will fall from the sky.

Be Well.

"Hillary's campaign is carefully crafted to sway the least informed, most gullible, John and Janey Lunchpail set and that's PA to a tee."

Umm, the more people know about Obama, the less they like him. Just look at his positives decreasing and his negatives increasing. McCain polls just as high as Obama in 'ability to unite the country'. Sorry to break it to you, but the only ones backing Obama at this point are blacks (no surprise, they supported turds like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson just because they were black too) and educated white men that have too much hubris to admit that made a mistake in backing an unknown quantity that has shady land deals and racists tendencies.

"Sure Corky ...and then Winged Unicorns will fly out of her butt and the skies will open up and gumdrops will fall from the sky."

You should probably look at the math before you make stupid statements like that. If anything even remotely negative surfaces on Obama in the next month, Hill will easily take the popular vote.

Hillary is doing nothing now but deliberately trying to weaken Obama so he loses to McCain. THEN, figuring a then 75 year old McCain won't run for a second term in 2012, Hillary naturally believes if she can maintain her public profile for 3 plus years, she'll be handed the Dem nomination for 2012.

I'd never vote for her.

"All his political enemies have on him is Rezko and Wright."

All that they have come out with thus far is Rezko and Wright - even you should be able to recognize the difference. If these are the only real instances, Rove will simply make one up and have a 527 run with it. Obama is already on the downswing - he will be lucky to still win Illinois vs. McCain when it is all said and done.

Obama vs McSame

McSame loses popular vote by 4%

Americans won't be so forgetful about the mess the GOP got us in when they got everything they'd been seeking since '94. They got control of the federal government and created one mess after another.

People will quietly ask themselves the same question Reagan posed in 1980:

"Are you better off now than you were 8 years ago?"

So few are, Obama should win easily.

No, Obama has a 3 point lead in the 4th quarter.

After the next 10 votes, plus the two in MI and Fl, she will have taken the popular vote lead. Obama will be sitting there with his hands full of delegates, worthless unless they reach the Magic Number.

She has been outspent 4:1 and the media did not even dig into Obama until after he was annointed as the nominee. The entire media and very vocal bloggers are ripping Hill and praising Obama and yet he still can't win big states this far into the election. If Obamites had not started to attack Hillary and the media had not pronounced her dead 3 month ago, she would probably be leading in delegates, states and popular vote.

Posted by Seaton_Begg at 2008-04-01 06:00 PM

She has a 10 percent chance of winning as of right now. It's funny, but you must have a crystal ball to state she will have the popular vote, considering that she is polling more and more unfavorably.

You claim the media hasn't gone 'after' Obama, but has gone after Clinton. Go ahead, play the victim card again. The 'media' went after Obama pretty good with the preacher soundbites taken out of context pretty nicely, and they gave Hillary nearly a pass on her blatant and repeated lies about Bosnia.

Whatever dude. We can tell you are a Clinton fan, that's fine more power to you. But stop with the delusional nonesense. How much do you want to wager Hillary isn't the nominee? I'd put 1000 bucks that she isn't, because those are safe odds (10:1)

Btw, Hill is running in the red and Obama isn't. If he is outspending her 4:1 and she's the one who is broke, there must be some problems.

That must be the media's fault eh? Media like CNN that still hasn't updated their site to show she lost Texas?

Further, the 'she can't win crowd' are counting on Obama to be able to suppress the vote in Michigan and Florida - quite democratic of him. Obama has support from 50% of Dem, which make up about 40% of the US population - that vocal 20% ignores his faults just like the ignorant 20% ignore the faults of Bush.

Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2008-04-01 07:08 PM

Not that anyone takes you very seriously, but then you come out with stuff like this and it's laughable.

Hillary wants MI to count as is, even though people 'knew' the vote wasn't going to count. Yes that's fair, well at least to Hillary it is. And Texas doesn't count anymore, not according to Hillary right?

Obama is polling better, has more votes and more delegates and you want to say 20% support him. That shit really is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?

"Michigan won't count"

Hillary R. Clinton - January 2008, Nashua, New Hampshire

She might demand the VP slot

So she can assume the presidency if something happens to Obama? I don't think he's that stupid.

BREAKING NEWS


TX declared "unimportant" Pennsylvania's importance is teetering.

Stay Tuned to the Hillary Report for more details.

PLEASE INVESTIGATE THIS HILLARY LYING STORY

This is worse than the Jerimach Wright story.
Well, this is interesting. It seems Hillary Clinton was fired from her Watergate work because she was a liar. If this is true, it really says a lot about the state of our media that this hasn't seen the light of say until now. Watergate-Era Judiciary Chief of Staff: Hillary Clinton Fired For Lies, Unethical Behavior By Dan Calabrese As Hillary Clinton came under increasing scrutiny for her story about facing sniper fire in Bosnia, one question that arose was whether she has engaged in a pattern of lying. The now-retired general counsel and chief of staff of the House Judiciary Committee, who supervised Hillary when she worked on the Watergate investigation, says Hillary's history of lies and unethical behavior goes back farther and goes much deeper than anyone realizes. Jerry Zeifman, a lifelong Democrat, supervised the work of 27-year-old Hillary Rodham on the committee. Hillary got a job working on the investigation at the behest of her former law professor, Burke Marshall, who was also Sen. Ted Kennedy's chief counsel in the Chappaquiddick affair. When the investigation was over, Zeifman fired Hillary from the committee staff and refused to give her a letter of recommendation one of only three people who earned that dubious distinction in Zeifman's 17-year career. Why? "Because she was a liar," Zeifman said in an interview last week. "She was an unethical, dishonest lawyer. She conspired to violate the Constitution, the rules of the House, the rules of the committee and the rules of confidentiality."

"Obama is polling better, has more votes and more delegates and you want to say 20% support him. That shit really is laughable. What color is the sky in your world?"

Are you math challenged dumbass? Obama has 50% of the Dem party and the Dem party makes up about 40% of the total voters. Therefor 50% * 40% = 20% of voters support him - buy a fucking clue. If we wanted to get techical, only about 60% of Americans voter so his true support is about 50% * 40% * 60% = 12% of total eligible supporters are for Obama. You think you are in the majority somehow but math is not your friend - nor reality apparently. But depsite this 12% support (which would be less than Bush is currently polling), he is going to unite the country. That truly does require the willful suspension of reality. I have a feeling that you are going to shit yourself when you see what Rove will dig up on Obama.

Jacque doens't seem to be able to separate primary voters from general eleetion voters. By his logic, McCain has a TEENY fraction of the voters, yet here he is as the nominee.

Noneof this shit matters outside of the individual states until the nominations have been wrapped up.

Oh, and as far as Rove goes ... I'm sure that if he can't "dig up" stuff on Obama, that fat lying pig will just make it up as he goes along.

"But depsite this 12% support (which would be less than Bush is currently polling)..."

And in the same post he calls someone else "math-challenged".

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort.

Posted by Danforth at 2008-04-02 08:11 AM

Exactly, is this what it takes to be a Hillary supporter? lol

S'OK Jacque,

The Starchy One also believes that Rev Wrong is Hil's illegitimate baby and that Obamoo doesn't take money from special interests.

Delusional Tater.

Gosh, Seaton...

A poster for less than a week, yet you already seem to know the ropes and the personalities. That, um, "begg"s the question:

Have you ever posted on the Drudge Retort before, and if so, under what name(s)?

"Jacque doens't seem to be able to separate primary voters from general eleetion voters. By his logic, McCain has a TEENY fraction of the voters, yet here he is as the nominee."

Um, no. McCain has the support of the Rep party which is about 35% of the country currently. Once the nomination process concludes, McCain will pick up 20%+ of Hillary voters and at a minimum split the Indy's. After a few months of campaigning, he will be sporting a 20 point lead and win in a landslide. Which is exactly what the polls are showing as the race has narrowed even before the Republicans have chimed in. SNL alone shaved off 10 points from Obama's national numbers and they didn't even attack Obama but focused on the media.

Further, I am not a Hillary supporter - I am just someone that can see pol's for the scumbags that they are, every single one of them. The funny thing is how the brainwashed (brain dead) Obama supporters can ignore reality and trumpet Obama as something that he isn't. Just like McCain, Obama is a dirty politician. He did dirty land deals, he wife took advantage of his office to get a promotion, he aligns with racist rhetotic, he has a past that includes drug use/drug dealing and that is just the few things that we know about. HE IS DIRTY - HE IS NOT THE MESSIAH. It is only that core 20% of idiots that believes he walks on water and defends eveything he does regardless of how stupid and hypocritical they sound when they do it. You are going to be in for a painful 4 years unless you wake up and start supporting a candidate that is actually electable.

"Have you ever posted on the Drudge Retort before, and if so, under what name(s)?"

Stop Begg'in this poster to admit that his Seaton the Drudge Retort was formerly occupied by Hillary apologist extraordinaire, the one and only Corky Lou Who.

If Clinton loses in PA or North Carolina, that will be it. I think Obama month go would have agreed that he thought he had no chance in PA. Still 5% is a lot. Clinton still has a good shot. The problem is she is running out of money

Quinnipiac shows her lead under 10 pts now also. But as fluid as the polls have been, I'm reluctant to think they mean much at this point. I do think she will likely win, but probably not the high double digits she needs to stay viable.

"And in the same post he calls someone else "math-challenged".

Ya gotta love the self-retorting retort."

Danforth - I showed my math and there is nothing wrong with it. Sorry, but you also are an idiot if all you do is attack someone without any facts. Please tell me where my math calculation is wrong or shut the hell up. People like you are the ones that 100% validate my choice to leave the Dem party. People that actually care about the country have gone Indy, I am not going to defend idiots like yourself, Pelosi, Reid, or Obama - you carry the water of these idiots. The fact that you can't see how you are exactly the same as Bushlover2 is funny....

"Please tell me where my math calculation is wrong or shut the hell up "

Easy. Your conclusion assumes it's a zero-sum game, that a vote for Hillary is automatically non-support for Obama. Bush's "approval" is predicated on a 100% base, not a 40% base. But I don't expect you to fully comprehend all that.

"People that actually care about the country have gone Indy"

I've been a registered independent since I was 18.

"you carry the water of these idiots."

Well, that makes you a liar. I'm on record as calling Reid and Pelosi jagoffs, and lamenting that, with 300 million people, it's sad this is the best we can do.

But I understand you can't possibly have been wrong without it being MY fault. Riiiiiiiiiight.

"Your conclusion assumes it's a zero-sum game, that a vote for Hillary is automatically non-support for Obama."

Just look at the votes - as of right now - a vote for Hillary is non-support for Obama. At the end of the day (assuming it does not get nastier), maybe 60-80% of those Hillary supporters will move over to Obama but right now, the 'uniter' has a whopping 20% support. So, my point - once again for the mouth breathing morons out there - is that the guy running on his ability unite the country currently has the backing of 20% of the voters...and this is before Republicans start attacking him. Do you honestly believe his positives will go up from here? If so, you are a moron. I would bet that McCain will start to improve on his positives as Republicans will rally behind 'anybody but the black muslim that will sleep with our white women'. As of right now, unless it comes out that McCain dines daily on aborted fetuses with his gay lover, he will win by 20%+.

Lastly, to call yourself an Independent is laughable. You are a water carrying Dem loser that is backing a losing candidate. Tell me, how many Republicans have you voted for in the last 8 years - how many Dems? You are a joke.

Take it from a first time poster: Obama is a bad bad man!

-orkyCay

"Just look at the votes - as of right now - a vote for Hillary is non-support for Obama. "

Yes, but that's a different set of parameters. Comparing Obama VOTERS, with Bush SUPPORTERS is a bogus comparison, whether you're smart enough to know that or not.

"'anybody but the black muslim that will sleep with our white women'."

Any doubt I had has just been removed.

"As of right now, unless it comes out that McCain dines daily on aborted fetuses with his gay lover, he will win by 20%+"

Like I said....

Hey, but if you're so sure, wanna make it interesting?

You think you are in the majority somehow but math is not your friend - nor reality apparently. But depsite this 12% support (which would be less than Bush is currently polling), he is going to unite the country.

Posted by Jacque_Strap at 2008-04-02 02:56 AM

Well if you insist on using that twisted logic, Hillary has even less support, so your point is?

Wow Jacque, so much anger for no good reason. What if we had analyzed McCain's "support" under your supposedly superior formula a few months before he became nominee? Never underestimate the will of the average voter to be on the winning side of things. And since McCain has decided to ally himself with the most unpopular administration in memory, he'll be fodder for any democratic candidate in September and October. Once the dems have a nominee, the independents will decide the election. The idea that John McCain and his shoestring budget will excite anyone outside of a military base, especially during a recession, is either stupidity or wishful thinking at this point.

Just look at the party registration numbers alone from this election to see where the buzz is. I'm not buying the Rush Limbough theory of mass manipulation, either. People don't want four more years of counter-productive "regulation", corporate welfare/individual responsibility, open borders, and a foreign policy of creating and then bribing our enemies into submission. They don't want a president who can't even decide whether torture is good or bad despite having first hand experience. The list goes on and on. McCain is a sitting duck, and it just isn't quite duck season yet.

"'anybody but the black muslim that will sleep with our white women'."

Any doubt I had has just been removed.

Once again, if you don't think Rove will put this message out there regardless of how untrue it is (at least the muslim part), then you are a fool. If you don't think it will work, then you are in denial. Go ask Harrold Ford Jr. how the voters are able to rise above racist attacks.

Well if you insist on using that twisted logic, Hillary has even less support, so your point is?

My point is that you idiots feel that Obama has mass appeal and that he will win. This is the willful suspension of reality. Obama's support is from blacks (that vote Dem regardless) and he is in the process of alienating most moderates and independents. The exodus of the Hillary block will happen. My point is that the focus should not be on 'is Obama better than Hillary' - it should be on 'we are deadlocked and both Hill and Obama are turds that will be crushed by McCain - let's use this as an excuse to find someone that is actually electable'....when you are appologizing to your children after 4 years of disasterous McCain policies, I guess you can still claim that you voted for the black dude and he would have been better than Hillary...

Just look at the party registration numbers alone from this election to see where the buzz is.

If that is the case, than why does McCain poll dead even with both Hill and Obama? Party registeration does not mean dick. Hell, I registered Dem for the California primary because the Reps did not allow you to do same day registration. Does that mean I will support either Hill or Obama - hell no! Remember, this is before the Dem race gets nastier and before the Rove starts to smear. Obama will lose by 20%+...he will be lucky to carry Illinois.

Jacque-

You pull that "analysis" right out of your ass?

Every racist I've ever known in my life has had a sincere belief that everyone was racist.

I know it is easy to assume everyone is just an "idiot" if they deny your opinion to be the universal one, but I'd say it is pretty safe to say that you don't represent anyone I know with that BS about McCain waiting to "crush" the crippled Dem nominee in August because the country is still stuck in 1965. Maybe you should try going outside and talking to someone outside your bubble. Amazing what you'll find. Dismissing Obama because he's black only sounds smart in small isolated pockets of communities...the very same pockets who have already pledged to vote straight-ticket republican for the rest of their lives...possibly beyond.

"If that is the case, than why does McCain poll dead even with both Hill and Obama?"

Dumbass! Because he has no one attacking him while the other two do. Wait till duck season opens and McCain is sitting there like a dipshit saying "What recession?"

It doesn't take a GED to know this stuff, Jacque. It really doesn't. Common sense.

I would really really really like to see an end to this divisive primary season. HRC should withdraw.

" Rove will put this message out there regardless of how untrue it is "

And you back this guy's party?!? Geez, talk about a water carrier.

"" Rove will put this message out there regardless of how untrue it is "

And you back this guy's party?!? Geez, talk about a water carrier."

Where did it say that I was voting Rep or for McCain. First you accuse me of supporting Hillary and now I am a Republican. I am a true independent and will vote 3rd party - the two party system has to end and the turd candidates put forth by the 2 parties are all turds. Go vote for your favorite turd - does not change that fact that you are enabling this BS to continue. Keep carrying that water for Obama...racist comments don't matter, shady land deals don't matter, using his power for his wife's tripling in salary does not matter, his history of drug use/drug dealing does not matter....tote that water boy!

"First you accuse me of supporting Hillary"

I never did that.

"racist comments don't matter"

What racist comments has Obama made? Not his preacher, not his mailman...Obama.

"using his power for his wife's tripling in salary"

No wonder you put so much stock in Rove...lying seems to come easy to you, too.

DANFORTH

Isn't a Harvard Law Degree worth more than what Obama's wife makes as a hospital administrator? To hear guys like you responded to it's like she just graduated last year instead of 20 years ago.

Aren't some of these posters here on DR a hoot?

"Isn't a Harvard Law Degree worth more than what Obama's wife makes as a hospital administrator?"

Yes Danforth - every Harvard lawyer makes $330K/yr for doing PR work. Keep totin' that water boy!

AU,

Obama was the Editor of The Harvard Law Review. He could have written his own ticket. Instead, he took a job for $13,000 a year---about 5% of what he could have commanded. And his wife's salary didn't triple, she got a promotion and a salary commensurate with the job and the experience. But obviously all that doesn't matter to a lot of the "hoots".

"What racist comments has Obama made?"

Well, I could start with 'typical white person' when referring to his grandmother. In his racist view, the typical white person is a fearful racist. Next we could look at his condoning the statements by Wright and his association with a racist church. Don't fear, I am sure Rove will be able to provide even better soundbites.

DANFORTH

Exactly..

JOCKSTRAP

You want to start holding McCain responsible for Hagee's outrageous remarks, or his association with Charles Keating, McCain's chief financial backer who's in prison for the S & L scandal? Unlike the Rezko innuendo - where Obama voted against things Rezko wanted and never sponsored a single bill that benefited Rezko - McCain lobbied on behalf of Keating in Congress. That fiasco cost the U.S. taxpayer $250,000,000,000 to bail out, and almost landed McCain with a felony. Or McCain's year long affair with Cindy before he left his ailing wife for her? You REALLY wanna go there? There's more....
Careful now.

Yes Danforth - every Harvard lawyer makes $330K/yr for doing PR work

JOCKSTRAP

See? This is where you look ridiculous.

She's a hospital administrator. You know, an executive responsible for day to day operations involving staff and budgets.

It's a pity you NeoCon's are so adverse to doing even a teeny bit of research before making ridiculous statements.

"And his wife's salary didn't triple, she got a promotion and a salary commensurate with the job and the experience."

Yes, her salary did in fact triple (don't lie). After which time Obama tried to cram through a earmark for $1M for the hospital.

"Obama was the Editor of The Harvard Law Review. He could have written his own ticket. Instead, he took a job for $13,000 a year"

The starting salary out of Havard law in the private sector in 2007 was $150K. When Obama graduated in 20+ years ago, I would wager the starting salary in the private sector was less than 1/2 of that. So, a $13K job is not 5% of what he would have earned and to say so it dishonest.

Lastly, nobody has an epiphany and decides to become a politician when they are 35 years old - the decision to become a politician is one made early on and every aspect of your career leading up to that point has that goal in mind. You think Hillary did not tailor her career to becoming a politician until she ran for the senate? When Obama took that job it was because his goal was to be a politician and that is one of the sacraficies required. To say he did not have that in mind from day 1 is either idiotic or dishonest, I will let you pick.

"You want to start holding McCain responsible for Hagee's outrageous remarks, or his association with Charles Keating,"

Well, I would if I was the water-carrying counterpart to you...but I am not voting for McCain so I see no need to do so.

JOCKSTRP

Felony? Canadian? I'm really curious as to why if you're not a voter you're so interested as to spend time discussing politics from a right wing perspective so extensively since you joined up.

PS JOCKSTRAP

When you graduate at the top of your Harvard Law class and are President of the Harvard Law Review your starting salary would be very substantial.

It says a lot about the guy that he spent the last 20 years in public service and teaching Constitutional Law instead of grabbing the brass ring.

But, I find it refreshing that someone can be a public servant at great expense to his own financial well being. They just paid off their student loans 2 years ago. That oughta tell you they haven't been rolling in dough.

Jacque is stinking of desperation. Please show the quote where Obama directly equated "typical white person" to "fearful racist". Or anything to back up any of your wild ass accusations. Can you? No insinuations, I want something definitive from you to justify all that vitriol and bitterness. Or is this normal for you?

"Next we could look at his condoning the statements by Wright and his association with a racist church. "

Would you similarly condemn him if he were still attending a Catholic Church? If he attended, and donated, would he be "condoning" priestly pedophilia, or the Church's stance on condoms in the most AIDS-ravaged part of the world?