The polls have not moved. Senator Clinton's dominance continues.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_primaries.html

It's all Hillary, and by HUGE margins in several states. Look at California, Florida, New Jersey, Nevada, all overwhelming double-digit leads. She is up by almost 10 points in NH, and SC too.

http://rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/daily_presidential_tracking_poll__1

In the race for the Democratic Presidential Nomination, Hillary Clinton continues to lead with 40% of the vote from Likely Democratic Primary Voters. Barack Obama earns support from 21% while John Edwards attracts 17% (see recent daily numbers). New Mexico Governor Bill Richardson tops the Democrats’ second tier at 5% while Dennis Kucinich is at 3%.

Clinton is viewed favorably by 77% of Democrats, including 43% with a Very Favorable opinion. Twenty-one percent (21%) have an unfavorable view. Obama’s numbers among Democrats are also very strong—74% favorable and 24% unfavorable. These figures include 34% with a Very Favorable opinion of the Illinois Senator. Edwards is viewed favorably by 67% of Democrats and unfavorably by 28%."



The Hillary bashers screech their repetitive screeds to NO avail. When the nominating process is done, we will be able to clearly see who these people really are representing. Any democrat who says they won't vote for the democratic candidate for president, and right now that IS Senator Clinton, is really saying that they don't care if the republicans win. What does that say about them?

If Senator Obama can't gain any traction in the polls between now and say, Halloween, and if Senator Clinton continues to slowly gain support, as she has been doing for the past months, we'll get to see who the real democrats are, and who the republican dirty tricksters are, long before the first votes are cast in January.



Van

Interesting thoughts...


http://nymag.com/news/politics/powergrid/36536/
Barack in a Box

His advisers are at pains not to let Obama peak too soon. But if he doesn’t let loose, he loses.
By John Heilemann

The season now ending may not have been the summer of Barack Obama’s discontent, but no one—least of all the candidate himself—is likely to remember it as his summer of love, either. At the end of June, Obama was bathed in a chorus of hosannas over his fund-raising prowess, his grassroots appeal, his message of reform. Two months later, he is engulfed in a blaring cacophony of criticism over…well, pretty much everything. His alleged foreign-policy gaffes. His supposedly conciliatory comments about the role of lobbyists. And, of course, his purported insufficiency of experience to hold the highest office in the land. When ABC’s George Stephanopoulos asked at the recent Democratic debate in Iowa whether Obama is “ready” only one of his fellow White House wannabes rose to defend him: Mike Gravel. (Gee, thanks.)


As Hillary Clinton would tell you, being pounded like a piñata can be a signifier of stature. But it can also be an indication that the sharks smell blood in the water—and this is the case with Obama. After a white-hot start seven months ago, the campaign of the junior Illinois senator seems palpably to have stalled. Indeed, in Democratic circles, the meme is spreading that he may turn out to be the Bill Bradley of 2008: a cerebral, somewhat standoffish candidate with an appeal to upscale, liberal voters (and the capacity to get them to open their checkbooks) whose star burned brightly for a while but then dimmed. Thus are Obama’s rivals, in anticipation of his fall, jostling to position themselves as the next-most-plausible alternative to Clinton.


This meme may prove one day to have been prescient. But, at the moment, it strikes me as premature. From the start of his bid, Obama has styled himself an agent of change, and all the available evidence suggests that voters still consider him the most credible aspirant to that role. The questions facing him have always been the same: Can he fashion a coherent vision of what the change he’s promising would look like? And can he convince voters that transformative capacity trumps experience? While it’s fair to say that Obama has failed to answer either in the affirmative, it’s also true that he’s barely begun to try—and that the opportunity to do so remains in front of him.


The doubts about Obama’s viability in the Democratic race revolve primarily around two phenomena. The first is the gap between him and Clinton in the national polls, which has widened from as little as eight percentage points to closer to twenty. The second is the sense that, at age 46 and in just his third year in the Senate, he may be too untested to be commander-in-chief. Obama is acutely aware of this vulnerability. “People have to feel comfortable that, ‘You know what? This guy can handle the job,’” he told the Associated Press. “It’s a stretch for them because I haven’t been on the national scene for long and haven’t gone through the conventional paths that we traditionally draw for our presidents.”


On the face of it, Obama has elongated that stretch with some of his recent statements (or stumbles, depending on your point of view) on foreign policy: about his willingness to meet with the likes of Fidel Castro and Hugo Chavez; his plans to order military strikes on Al Qaeda targets in Pakistan if the country’s president, General Pervez Musharraf, refused to do anything to curtail the resurgence of the Taliban there; and his ruling out of the use of nuclear weapons in such attacks."


Van

Pyrrhic..consider the source.  He is supporting HRC and will spin against anyone else.

The people are less important ...the Leader is more important or Leadership.  You didn't hear Van talk about the insiders and former Lobbyist working for HRC.

Keep the faith

For MK's  logic to be right, one has to assume that those who support Obama do so because he is black and those who support other white male candidates are doing so because they are white. I guess in MK's world, every one is racist.

When are you guys going to carry Hillary news with positive spin as you do for other candidates you are personally supporting?

Carrie, Eastern Iowa / carrie it's easy to pick out the people that are voting on the gender only basis, I don't care if the nominee is black, green, male, female, whatever, I do care about what the candidate intends to if elected and whether they can be elected at all, sorry but there is no-way hillary can win the general election, and it has nothing to do with gender, look at who she works for, she is deceptive as hell, she flip-flops constantly, her healthcare plan is tailor made to keep the drug and insurance companies rich and does nothing to help get everyone insured, I mean if your not a republican the only reason you could be voting for her is because she's the only women candidate, that ain't enough for me, but it is for some, who's the real sexist bigot?  

nuanced ***** The champage is flowing over here,we been parting for hours! Come on over and join in the fun.


Yes - real good time is being had.  Also, Hillary is coming over later, and we're going to play Pin the Broom on the Witch.

HRC's political faux paus was probably because she didn't filter her thoughts before speaking. She can't hide her weaknesses forever nor can her natural tendencies always be denied, and her handlers know this.  

My family and I would like to vote for a woman but HRC's consistently disingenuous, too calculating, too pugnacious, has too much negative baggage, and lacks consistently good judgement. With so much on the line for '08 there's no way my family or I will vote for her.        

Doris you are such a fool.  My post was DRIPPING sarcasm, read it again.  It is your spin I just threw back in your face! The people are important, Rove the gargole of evil comes to mind!


Senator Clinton our next LEADER.

Yes another glass of champagne. I'll pay for this in the morning.But it's well worth it ! Party on !!!! It's the end of the Republican party.

CD - No need to spin, as in my opinion it is not a gaffe at all.  How many people think the Iraq government is doing a good job?  Let me pause to listen to that deafening silence.  

Iraq is obviously not a territory of the United States...let's not get ridiculous.  But neither are they a true sovereign nation so long as we are there cleaning up the mess.  

Some of us on this blog aren't against HRC b/c we dislike her. I for one as many times I've said, live the Clintons and she seems to be a more than capable Senator. But by her nature and period of politics she gained her experience from..she is a political animal. The GOP attacked her and Bill viciously but yet she is prepared to do the same and that doesn't help this country. I can only imagine the women the GOP have lying in wait to sue her over being harrassed during the Clinton scandals. You can't put the past under a rug..we as Democrats have to let the Clintons go and move on. I know Edwards may not be as bright as Obama..but atleast he offers that and can provide a unified Democratic front. The same goes for Obama..and not only that he can win over voters with his attitude and common sense. Even if Obama doesn't win b/c of his race, I believe he can fundamentally change the politics of the left to that of hope and bring the nation to that side...as it should be.

MK - Who does Hillary work for?  She collects her paycheck from the federal government, just like the other Senators who are running.

And keep in mind that just because YOU find Hillary objectionable does not mean that others do as well.  You impart your opinions and your erroneous conclusions on everyone else.  You don't like Hillary.  You think she is beholden to special interests.  You think she is a liar.  You think she is <insert negative characteristic here>.  These are all things that you THINK.  This is not empirical fact, ergo it is reasonable to assume that there are people in this world that do, in fact, like Hillary Clinton as a candidate because of more than her "mommy parts."  

In fact, the only one I see focused on her mommy parts is you.  

Fred Thompson visits the Minnesota State Fair. I know he's a fat ass so he looks like a shoe-in in the porker contest. Maybe he'll have his babe with him. A nice two piece on her bod would be an easy winner with those Minnesota huckleberry's.  

Samkan Gato, you are a party pooper.

people might think it is the end of the Republican party....

but with Hillary leading the Democratic party into the general election, the game just got more interesting.....


Hillary the duck hunter or Rudy the dress wearer.

Blue State Baby /The more stupid they are, the longer they hang on

Very true.  The same is true for this board.  How long you've been around here Blue?

Pyrrhic...I got it, then and now...but you were not my audience.  Who's the fool?  You're supporting Hillary.  You Carrie and Van don't get it.

Even at 40-50% of support if she has that, she can't make it if the rest of the democrats and Independants are against her.  I never hear an Obama supporter say if Edwards gets the nomination  or anyone else that they wouldn't support them.  Its almost universal with Obama supporters and most people who support anyone else.  Just look at this site as an example.  She is a polarizing person even in her own party.

No wonder the GOP wants her to win the nomination they know that it will energize their party and Democrats aren't really 100% behind her.

As for not voting for her means a Republican wins...what's the difference?  You never know where she stands anyway.  It depends who who she is talking to.

Aug. 24 (Bloomberg) -- Zbigniew Brzezinski, one of the most influential foreign-policy experts in the
Democratic Party, threw his support behind Barack
Obama's presidential candidacy, saying the Illinois
senator has a better global grasp than his chief
rival, Hillary Clinton.

Obama ``recognizes that the challenge is a new face, a new sense of direction, a new definition of America's role in the world,'' Brzezinski said in an interview on Bloomberg Television's ``Political Capital with Al Hunt.''
``Obama is clearly more effective and has the upper
hand,'' Brzezinski, who was President Jimmy Carter's
national security adviser, said. ``He has a sense of
what is historically relevant, and what is needed from the United States in relationship to the world.''  Brzezinski, 79, dismissed the notion that Clinton, 59, a New York senator and the wife of former President Bill Clinton, is more seasoned than Obama, 46. ``Being a former first lady doesn't prepare you to be president,'' Brzezinski said.
Clinton's foreign-policy approach is ``very
conventional,'' Brzezinski said. ``I don't think the
country needs to go back to what we had eight years ago"

Van...I will take his opinion over yours....or  people that you quote any day.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa / get over it carrie, this is a blog, I will let you in on a little secret though, more people in this nation do not think hillary should be president, than do, she represents everything wrong in washington, not change

Another thing to think...if the GOP want HRC to run you know it can't be a good idea. They are looking for someone to smear and she fits the bill. Even if she wins the smear and the division will not stop. Don't give the neoconservatives what they want.

Carrie, Eastern Iowa: Obviously not everyone supporting Hillary is doing so because she is a women, however a large percent of people who support her are doing it for that reason. There are others who just want Bill back in the WH, and see Hillary as a means to that end. I have been asked countless times why I'm not supporting Hillary. I used to answer, she'll lose in the general (name one state Gore lost she'll win- possibly Ark., but she'll lose Iowa in a general), and my other reasons. Now I answer with a question. I ask why should I support Hillary over Biden, Dodd, Edwards, Obama or Richardson, and few have been able to give a reason why, she is superior to most of the other candidates, let alone to all. The responses are usually lame (she's the front runner, etc.)In the conversation it usually becomes clear that they want to know why I'm not supporting the women candidate, especially given I'm a women. I have been asked straight out "don't you want a women President?", etc. I think voting for a candidate because they are a women is as foolish as voting against a candidate because she is a women. I've had clients want me to represent them because they want a women, I could understand that if I were a ob-gyn, but I think choosing an attorney based on their gender, as opposed top area of specialty is stupid. If two candidates truly were equal in every measurable aspect, including electability, then using gender as the tie breaker would make sense. But to support a candidate because of her gender is foolish. I will wait until the best candidate is a women, or a women candidate is at minimum equal to the men in the race, before I use gender in my decision.

While it is a regular occurrence to be asked why as a women I'm not supporting Hillary, no one has asked me, or accused me of not supporting Obama, because of his race. I have been asked whether I think the country is ready for a black President, but those conversations are independent of conversations regarding who I support. I do think that the country is ready for a black President. I think Colin Powell, had he not been tainted with the Iraq war could be elected. My concerns regarding Obama have nothing to do with his race, but rather my concern is he does not yet have the experience to be President, and never has experience been more crucial than it is now. I saw Obama in Waterloo/Cedar Falls on C-span. He was asked a question about whether he would commit to eliminating a boon doggle military project ( a specific weapons systems the DOD doesn't want, doesn't think has utility, but keeps getting funded) His response was very weak. He agreed that there was fat in the military budget, etc, he ended saying that he was not aware of the military system that the questioner specifically asked about, so he couldn't answer the question. While I appreciate his honesty in admitting he didn't know about the specific weapon system, however he really should have known about the system. Not only because he has presumably already voted once or twice regarding its funding, but it wasn't an obscure system. The name escapes me, but I've seen it discussed on TV several times over the years. There have been other times that Sen. Obama had no clue as to the facts behind the question (whether it be on ERISA or other federal law), these are things a candidate should know about. And while I think he is extremely intelligent I don't think he has enough experience at this point.

One thing that I really find irritating is how so many Hillary supporters leave events after she has completed her talk, but before the program is concluded. This happened at the Hall of Fame dinner in May (although that was almost exclusively her large contingent of paid staff), the Hawkeye Labor Council Forum on 8/18, and again today at the Livestrong Forum. It will be interesting to see how Hillary's reception at forum is reported. If MSM claims she was the favorite I will now become a conspiracy theorist  and conclude that the MSM is making things up to bolster her "front runner status" All four candidates (Clinton, Edwards, Richardson and Kucinich) were well received. Even though a lot of people left after Hillary (she was first up)Edwards received a far more enthusiastic response than Hillary. There is no way that Chris Matthews couldn't have picked up on it. I'm not supporting Edwards, but he was clearly the favorite among those at the civic center. Even Kucinich had louder cheers and more spontaneous applause than Hillary, despite their being about 20% fewer people  there when Kucinich spoke. (After Edwards spoke more people left, and after Richardson left even more people left)  

 

Since most comments that shed light on ill-constructed arguments usually go unanswered, or are answered with an "Oh yeah, well your candidate smells funny" remark, I am simply going to state my line of reasoning when I consider which candidate will receive my support.

I truly believe that Clinton and Obama have closely aligned views on many issues. They have basic disagreements on very few things - the differences are generally minor and usually media-spun. The differences they do have tend to make me lean toward Obama, but that is not the clinching factor.

For me - and I think for most people - the clinching difference between the two is this:

Clinton uses her "I've battled the right wing machine" argument to try to convince voters that she can win. I don't like the fact that she will HAVE to fight the right wing machine. That is the problem we have right now. Her reputation precedes her, and for me, that is a problem. I don't care that she can beat the Republicans in an election, I want her to get things done IN OFFICE. I think a lot of Republicans will block her agenda simply because of who she is, regardless of how good her policy is.

On the other hand, Obama is not weighed down by that baggage. Some say he is "inexperienced". For me, he has plenty of relevant experience, and more importantly, he has the judgement to be a good president. Also, whether you call it naive or not, I think he really does believe he can inspire change in this country. And that inspiration is something that I don't get from Clinton.

I guarantee that many of the bloggers here that profess support for their candidate cannot tell me where they stand on 3 important issues without looking it up on their website.

No candidate-bashing can change that, and it is obvious that candidate-bashing is not having much of an effect on many of the bloggers on this site. So it would seem more efficient if we could actually discuss the candidates rather than participate in this meaningless exercise in baseless argumentation. But then again, perhaps I also am a little "naive".

If anyone is interested in joining me on my quest to better the discourse with which we discuss our future, please let me know, and maybe we can set up a blog where we can begin to make progress.

"As for not voting for her means a Republican wins...what's the difference?"
Doris (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 3:13 PM)

If you don't know the difference...

Van

Josh (Sent Monday, August 27, 2007 4:05 PM)

Civil discourse comes and goes. Some days it is better than others. I've long wanted to have a blog such as you describe. There is one, actually named "Civil Discourse" but it, apparently, was abandoned. I would like to buy it but can't find the owner. Good tooling.

You sound sincere in your desires, so please accept my comments in the spirit in which they are intended.

Do you believe that the republicans won't slime Senator Obama, or any of the other candidates, with their, "attack machine", in the general election? Do you believe that the only candidate that is vulnerable to attack is the one who is the likely nominee?

Do you really believe that Richardson, Biden, Dodd, Kucinich and Gravel supporters DON'T know why they are supporting their candidates? It would be insulting to them if you did.

It's tough to engage in discourse, those whose knowledge you openly hold in low esteem, and whose very opinions you, "guarantee", are uninformed.

The place you seek is the Obama '08 website. You won't find anyone who disagrees with your beliefs and they will welcome you with open arms. You don't seek discourse, you seek validation of your beliefs, and this is probably not the place for that.


Van

You are the fool Doris, you  adressed me.
I KNOW where Senator Clinton stands on EVERY thing and I agree with her. I have always had great admiration and respect for Hillary. She is the best canidate and I do not care if you vote for her or support her. You are irrelevant.

This site is LOADED with trolls and republicans pretentending to be "independents", but are in fact working to be divisive. I am aware and I do my homework.
WE DEMS are with all our candidates, if Hillary should by some freak reason not be the nominee, I will vote for the Democrat elected. Got that, any   Democrat is a qualified canidate.

Hillary has 77% of Democratic voters, we are legion!

So go spread your republican retoric somewhere else.

Carrie, Van and I need no advice from you.
Go haunt another blog.

PYRRHIC / "Van and I need no advice from you." just remember champ nobody needs any advice from you or van either, you cats come on here with your bloated egos actually thinking people should pay attention because you attempt to form a sentence without any mistakes, but it's the always twisted logic and meaningless poll numbers that show how pathetic you are for taking money to make entries on a blog, everyone knows poll numbers go to the highest bidder, I talk about facts, real facts not the cannon fodder you and van post constantly, here’s a fact for you and the vanster, the descriptions I give of hillary are quite factual, they are ugly but true, notice how many people on this and any other open blog cannot support hillary but can support any other dem? all your fancy words and store bought poll numbers ain't going to change that fact, I want a positive change in this country, and I want it to be for any american citizen not just for you holier than thou people but for all, edwards can make those changes, hillary won't  

Van - Clinton's staffers criticized Obama for his willingness to meet with the heads of Syria and Iran, too. One of them even made the point that Obama would be willing to meet with Holocaust deniers.

But in Clinton's Iraq withdrawal plan (which really isn't a plan, but that's another topic) she talks about meeting with all of Iraq's neighbors.

And on the nuclear thing, Obama was right and Clinton was wrong. Obama understands U.S. policy and Clinton is ignorant of it.

Pyrrhic...a chorus of three...that says it all.  The 77% you quote is not support ..you dummy.

Again for you guys anyone not supporting Hillary is a republican.  Notice no one else regardless of who they support accusses anyone else of being a republican.

One of the so many reasons...people won't vote for her and it grows everyday people like you speak up for her.

Good...thats the difference you will vote for who ever is chosen.  They opther guys aren't as polarizing.  Face it there is a large group of democrats who just "WON'T" vote for her ANYBODY but her.

Dummy leading dummies  LOL

Pyrrhic,

You know where Hillary Clinton stands on every issue? I find that amazing. I first met Hillary Clinton the evening before the 96 election when Pres. Clinton, Chelsea and Hillary were in Cedar Rapids for a rally for Sen. Harkin. (their last stop before going to Arkansas to vote), Sen. Harkin was in a close race according to the polls, but won easily. She (as well as Chelsea, and Pres. Clinton) held my then 2 1/2 year old daughter for a photo. She was very nice. I went to a fund raiser at her DC home in 2002 for an Iowa congressional candidate. (Really nice home, great use of gold, and lots of cool White House memorabilia)I donated money to her first Senatorial campaign. I've talked with her one on one at least a half dozen additional times. I do not hate Hillary. Her picture (with my daughter) hangs on my wall, which she has autographed.

But I do not support her, and one reason, in addition to my ardently held belief that she would lose in general, and take with her many state and federal democrats (due to high anti- Hillary turn out) in the process. The anti-Hillary sentiment is unfair. But the reality is unfair or not a very large segment of the country can not stand her. However even if I could be guaranteed that a she would not lose in a general election I still would not vote for her in the caucus. I'll support her, if she's the nominee, in the general, but she will lose Iowa no matter how hard the Iowa Democrats work (unfortunately Iowa has never elected a women to a federal office- not a single congresswomen, even when they were more qualified. This is not a negative reflection on Hillary, but on my state).  I won't support Hillary in the caucus, because she hasn't been up front. You say you know where she stands on all the issues. That is impossible, unless of course you are really Bill Clinton, which I doubt. Hillary has yet to release her health care plan. She claims she will in September. So I imagine you are accepting on blind faith it is a good plan. Where is she on Darfur? In the you tube Debate, Anderson Cooper had to ask her three times to get her to answer the question of whether she would authorize troops. She kept trying to evade, but for once someone kept on her until she answered. (a lightweight no less!) Where is she on global warming? Does she have a plan? Where is it? What about Iraq. At the ABC debate, she was asked who was right Biden or Richardson. What did she say? She did say Biden was right (2 's), but she first tried to say what she would do, and not answer the question. She has been all over the map on Iraq.

Going into this election I liked Hillary a lot, but didn't intend to vote for her, because I don't think she is the most qualified candidate, and I don't think she can win in November, but the more I see her in debates, or at forums (that I have personally attended) the more I am offended by her, and frankly that surprises me. She insults the intelligence of many in her audience. Which is probably why her poll numbers among college and post graduate degree democrat women are her lowest of any subsection of women. Apparently she thinks those of us in the audience won't notice (or care) that she doesn't answer the question. We do notice, and even if we were going to cut her slack, we know that the media and the GOP won't ignore it in the general election. And her pandering is nauseating. I don't know if she thinks we don't know she is merely pandering, or thinks we see it as a sign she knows something about our group, city, state, organization, etc, and will be so impressed that she took the time to learn the tidbit and put it in her speech. Sorry she thought wrong! Every thing she has done in the last few years has been politically motivated. Spending an obscene amount of money to cream a crappy GOP candidate in her re-election race, so she could say how she can win in heavily GOP upstate NY. Big deal. Wouldn't 10%-50% or more of that money have been better spent trying to help Harold Ford win the Senate seat, or any number of congressional candidates that lost narrowly, instead of blowing away the opponent instead of settling for a merely commanding win? In my mind yes. She pays off Governor Vilsack's campaign debt in exchange for his support. I adore Tom Vilsack, and have known him long before he was Governor, but  Iowans know what happened there, and unfortunately being her attack dog in Iowa is not only unbecoming, it hasn't helped her. Her vote on the most recent Iraq spending bill was shamefully political. It was the first and only time she did not vote to fund the war. It is also the only time she did not speak on the Senate floor on the issue, and  she did not reveal her vote to the media prior to casting her vote. Sen.'s Biden and Dodd both spoke passionately on opposing sides of the issue. Whether you agree with their vote or not, I respect their doing their duty and speaking out on their position. Hillary and Obama waited until the outcome of the bill was known, and then Obama cast his vote, and Hillary followed 1 1/2 minutes later just before the end of the voting. Any one who does not believe both Hillary and Obama were playing political games with a war vote is in denial, and if you don't think this cowardly act will not come up if either is the nominee, you are fooling yourself. It negatively reflects on their character! When Obama was asked at the AFL-CIO forum/debate why he waited on the vote, etc, he gave a lame excuse about the issue being hard with pros and cons on both sides. It was a cop out, but it at least address the question. Hillary's response was that this was George Bush's war. We know that, but explain why you played politics with the vote, she didn't.

I wish Hillary supporters would explain specifically why she is the most qualified for the job, instead of making conclusory statements. (she's most qualified- really how, what makes her more qualified than Biden, Dodd, Richardson?)

Van,

I really thought that you were a more critical reader than you have shown. First of all, I never said anything about the other candidates not getting "slimed" by the "attack machine" in the general election. I said that Clinton would be more hampered by that attack machine than others if she should reach office.

Second, my reference to those with little knowledge about the candidates they support was limited to the posters on this blog. That was clearly stated in my post, and I think that many would agree with that statement. You spend more time than anyone taking criticism from these people. I stand by my original statement.

Third, it is interesting that you presume to know my desires. I thought, again, that my statement was clear about what my desires were. In fact, I believe I said, "So it would seem more efficient if we could actually DISCUSS THE CANDIDATES rather than participate in this meaningless exercise in baseless argumentation." (emphasis added)

So, instead of complying with my request, or simply staying quiet, you continued with baseless argumentation. Not only do I not wish to blog on Obama's website, I would actually rather blog on Clinton's website. Or Biden's. Or Edwards'. Maybe, just maybe, I will learn something about another candidate. Or maybe you will be nice enough to post another link to some poll that I can look at to see who is winning and by how much. I can learn a lot that way, too.

"It's tough to engage in discourse, those whose knowledge you openly hold in low esteem, and whose very opinions you, "guarantee", are uninformed."

It seems to me that you, sir, are the one that is uninformed. Uninformed about me, and uninformed about my intentions. I would appreciate it if you would refrain from presuming to know what I desire, and stick to your polls.

Thanks for the reply.

Van

The pleasure is truly mine.

Beyond the politics: Survivors fund and lead conferences in two countries

http://ovariancancerdebate.blogspot.com/

Ovarian Cancer Debate: “The Past Decade in Ovarian Cancer”


WHAT:

Ovarian cancer survivors, Carolyn Benivegna (U.S.) and Sandi Pniauskas (Canada), announce the first ever Ovarian Cancer Survivors Debate. The two conferences are survivor-led and survivor-organized with debate and discussion surrounding the multitude of issues - the past and the present. Open and lively dialogue will be encouraged. Funding for these events has been primarily through the ovarian cancer surivors.

WHO SHOULD ATTEND:

All cancer survivors/caregivers, healthcare professionals, researchers, pharmacists and the general public are encouraged to attend and participate.

WHERE/
WHEN:


#1:  Sheraton Hotel, Novi, MI                 Sat. October 27th,   2007

#2:  Metropolitan Hotel, Toronto, ON     Sat. November 3rd, 2007

Time: 10:00 am - 12:30 pm

No cost to attend


Ovarian cancer has no early detection test. The debate and ensuing open forum public discussions will include the specifics of disease-related issues including genetics, access to care and communications. Carolyn Benivegna is a nine year ovarian cancer survivor, a BRCA1 carrier and  Founder/Board Member of OCAG-GC. Sandi Pniauskas is an eight ovarian cancer survivor with a genetic predisposition to Lynch Syndrome/Hereditary NonPolyposis Colorectal Cancer and a member of the Cochrane Collaboration. Ovarian cancer survivors Annamarie DeCarlo and Dr. Yi Pan, MD, PhD  will co-moderate both events. Bridget Capo (R.N.) and Pamela J. West (R.N.) will provide support and collaborate with Benivegna and Pniauskas in formal publication of the event proceedings.

        "Our community is very pleased to offer this exciting open public forum without cost to participants and we encourage active dialogue. We value our professional and family caregivers, but have seen the need, over years, for our community of cancer patients to have open discussions on the real issues that affect their lives. Today, and for the future. We need to appreciate the past, so that we may effectively bring attention to the sufferings experienced in our community. Most importantly we need to escalate change.” Benivegna/Pniauskas

Message (please, no HTML tags. Web addresses will be hyperlinked):