Where to begin picking apart the fools and the foolish prattle?
PART I
M.Foley: When you start name-calling ("Obama is the best hope to defeat the bigots.")  You immediately lose credibility. And when you start dealing in absolutes in such an uncertain world ("Hillary can't win a national election."), you show your lack of clear and thorough thinking.

Tammy Granger in 'Munice' IN: Again, name-calling is a tactic of ignorant and self-indulgent minds. If you are a Republican and want to disparage Obama or Democrats in general, it could all be summed up by declaring yourself a Republican. To lump all Democrats (or Republicans, or Libertarians, etc. into one group, dense or otherwise) is the kind of bigotry that has crippled American politics throughout the ages. Since you do not a sufficient number of Democrats nationally to be able to make such a blanket statement, all of your comments are discredited.

Richard, Washington State: "[W]hy is this man considered "fresh" or "new"?
Well, Richard, you're right. Nothing new there. But there's really been nothing close to "new" in politics since Jimmy Carter, the so-called 'outsider' won the White House - and he wasn't really all that fresh, either. Bella Abzug shook things up many years ago but, with the exception of the skirt, she was still status quo. If people want something new, they have to take control of their own government.

Windy City Girl, Chicago, IL: Your response to Granger was no less demeaning and disrespectful than hers. In which case, in damning her, you damned yourself.

Shadow, Hamden, CT:  "Idiot."

Coatesmoe, New York, NY:  "Big money is for Clinton. Do you think democracy has a place here?" Only if you let it. Don't pay attention to the media blitz. Read the candidates' own words. Listen to them. Become an active part of the process. THEN true democracy may stand a chance.

jes, your facts are so very wrong. obama spoke out against the patriot act, but there was legislation tied to it the would have discontinued funding for our covert agaencies. obama and hillary both did the right thing by voting for the patriot act that had certain revisions applied to it at the time of that vote. obama has stated he will bring the troops home in 2008 except for what it will take to guard the embassy and ready reaction force stationed outside of iraq in the middle east. obama also presented legislation to be voted on so it would become law that would prohibit the president from declaring war with iran without congressional approval. it is a matter of fact that he didn't support legislation designating the irg as terrorist organization. he wasn't there to vote because of a prior commitment on the trail as all the candidates have experienced, but was forthcoming to the fact that he wasn't in favor of the legislation. the vote making it more difficult to sue corporation is misinformation and a lie. you can check the voting record on that issue if you have a desire for truth instead of slander. you sir seem to a victim of believing t.v., radio, 2nd and 3rd party campaign slandering, as well as mudslinging instead of taking time to research true factual information. there are serious supporters that are backing there candidates intelligently. they aren't just spewing hate, lies, inuendo and false facts. all of the candidates have good and bad ideas. yes including hillary everyone, but in the end we must decide if we are going to be able to respect, support and congratulate who wins the democratic nomination to avoid having another bush like presidency for 4 to 8 years. If the debate can't be truthful and respectful then when it comes to gether to join as one we won't. at that point we all lose. think about it y fellow americans, please.  

fools & prattle: PART II

Jane Doe, anycity, America:  WHAAAAT?  Okay, I'm going to try to break down some of your rant to make some sense of it.
"(Clinton's) false concern for the uninsured…"   An arbitrary statement. How do you know her concern is false?
"her ambiquity (sic) as to how she would enforce (inflict)
her healthcare policies on all Americans (not just
the uninsured), masks a greater problem of the same
kinds of special interest groups serving found in
his own party."  This cluttered mass seems to be a diatribe against Clinton's proposed healthcare plan. You apparently believe that ensuring that ALL Americans have adequate healthcare is some kind of communist plot conceived only to further advance the financial interests of a few, yet you give no concrete evidence to prove that your assertions are anything more than idle ranting. If you make accusations, you need to have something to back them up.
"…consider the need to vote out anyone who has watched our energy crisis cripple our economy over the last 30 years and replace them with men and women of vision for America. "  Eight years ago, I was paying 99 cents a gallon for gas at the pump. It was on the watch of one Republican that Americans saw the price of a gallon go up by more than $2 per, the price of a barrel of crude more than double, and the cost of home heating oil increase by more than 100%.  
"While the Clintons place their economic stock in healthcare reform by preying on the uninsured using predatory practices of insurance companies and healthcare industries, Mr. Obama will not allow this to happen." … "Do we really want a biased healthcare Czar determining who can or can not contribute to the workforce or economy based on genetic medical forecasts? Democrats and Republicans need to bring themselves into the real world and consider what will happen when all your health information is placed under a biased partisanship leader.  It will give you an understanding of how economic survival will be handed to bias (sic) politicans (sic), rouge (sic) predatory insurance companies and partisan healthcare professionals in determining your future employment. " Again, I'm not sure what your basis for these allegations might be. I will, however, concede that insurance companies do tend to be predatory to a degree. But, since you likely do not have the full scope of knowledge of what goes on in the insurance industry, you might not be aware that the cost of insurance is based of an equation of probabilities. Face it, like every other business from the cable company and the video store to  the grocery and clothing stores to the guy or gal that cuts your hair, they are in business to make money. Do you complain that the Blockbuster recouped the cost of the video you rent four years ago? Do you call your hairstylist names because they charge to cut your hair? It's a fact of business. My sole complaint with corporate America would be the outrageous salaries and perks offered to CEO's and other top execs. But, if you don't like that setup, go buy a share of stock in the company, go to their corporate meetings and complain; start a grassroots movement among shareholders to topple the hierarchy. Otherwise, you're just another mouth that roars.
"Trust me on this.  I've been the target of bias hatred …" This statement gives more perspective to anything else you have had to say. You are angry and your anger has given rise to vitriol.

fools & prattle: PART III

Johnny V.:  "Obama is desperate.$$$$ Hopefund $$$$$$" ????? What makes you think that? Or are you just wishing? Or viewing the race from your own standpoint of hopefulness?

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA: How did you get in here? Sounds like you've got more active grey matter than most contributors.
"In fact, thinking back, that's a good description of H.W. Bush - snippy. Still I'll take him over his son. And its a real shame how that family line has steadily deteriorated since Prescott." Had to laugh over this one. I've made similar comments ever since George the Second moved into "The Nation's House".

Tom Heights, Chicago, Ill: RE: hillaryclinton.com - read, don't get your point. The press release is nothing more than one person's or group's attempt to put information in front of their target audience. In this case, it is a political release and is nothing more than one candidate's effort to put their spin on another candidate's platform. This was not something written by the NYT (or, as you so quaintly put it, the New YOUR Times). It was written by someone on Clinton's staff. Take it with a grain of salt.


Stephen Powell: "When Hillary first began, her banner for a while was "Let's Make History" referring to having the first woman president.......AS IF Obama wouldn't have EQUALLY been making history! The bigger difference? While Hillary is teething on that whole appeal. Which IMO, is quite dismissive/bigot-like, implying that Obama isn't good enough to be recognized by history like she."   Your argument is without merit. Clinton's cry of "Let's Make History" in no way discounted Obama's ability to do likewise. She was, no more-no less, appealing to a sect of the population whose perspectives are colored by women's rights. If you see more than that, you are just not looking - or rather, you're looking too hard.

John Doe, Des Moines, IA: "Wake up people! Obama is not ready for the Big time. He will be in THE FUTURE BUT NOT AT THIS TIME. You speak of Hillary double talking, Obama talks just to make noise. He is  young and intergetic (sic), he is not worldly. We need someone who has been in 82 countries and has talked with world leaders. A person who has respect all around the globe. A person who can repair the damage done by Bush."  John, if your comments weren't so sad, they would be laughable. What makes you think that, in order to be president a person must have a passport with stamps on every page? One need not be widely traveled to be worldly aware. Obama is an intelligent, well-respected man. He is known by political leaders around the world. I don't know if he is THE candidate to take the White House, but I do know he is capable, quick-witted, compassionate, fair, and clear-thinking. Outside of campaigning environments, most other politicians, on both sides of the aisle, would admit that he engenders a great deal of respect for these qualities. And, as such, he is a fine and well-qualified candidate for that high office. He is not, however, the only candidate to claim such qualities and it remains in the hands of the voters, both those politically-informed and those ignorant of anything but the commercials, to determine with whom we will be fettered for the next four years. All we can hope is that the majority vote wisely.

ace p washing, d.c.: "…your stance is purely ideological, emotional and has no substantial or factual reason to weigh your words with serious consideration."
BINGO!  ace, that pretty much sums it up.

to wordsmith, kudo's

God help America if Obama wins. we will be fighting our friends and allies and embrace our enemies.
Obama is no match for the international fiends.  

I haven't endorsed yet, but if it's between Obama and Clinton, it's a no-brainer.  Potentially cheating two generations of women because half the country hates Hillary Clinton is not my idea of advancing women's rights.
Shadow, Hamden, CT (Sent Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:04
_________________________________________________
Yes definitly an IDIOT! As in IDIOT with no brain.
Wordsmith I concur.  You forgot he lies, his blantant statement 1/2 the country hates Hillary is a figment of his confused idiot brain! Only 1/2 the poster here like to perpertrate that lie.
So no biggie I'll be dammed with pleasure.

i have a question for everyone. if your candidate doesn't win the primary are you willing to support who does win the democratic nomination so the republicans don't win the presidency? this question will reveal a lot about who you are my fellow americans.

I've read all these comments back and forth.... I'm still not convinced of either candidate's suitability. I'm still supporting Kucinich, and now that Obama and other well known Dems have voluntarily withdrawn themselves from the ballot in Michigan, I'm hoping Kucinich can pull ahead of Clinton in that state and sweep the nation. He's got a large base of supporters in my own state, that's for sure.

Lets have a Q&A about all the major issues like: troops in Iraq and what should be done and when,
health reform
education reform
National deficit
there are to many to list, so, let me just say that I would like it so the other participants can not hear the answers given by the other participants. Let them give their OWN answers to each question. Maybe then we can hear exactly what the issues are and what they will try to do about it. Having a debate is a situation where the other participants can change or alter their answers, while making themselves look better, and is not a true and accurate statement by the particants going after the first ones.

The new Obama "newest young kid on the block" seems to be running his camaign by belittling women.  I'll bet his wife can't keep him in his place and so he takes it out on the "fairer" sex.  He seems to be running his new found entrance into politics as a woman basher. He will crash and burn soon and find that campaigns are about helping the country not about jealousy and putting women down.  Find some issues little man.

have a question for everyone. if your candidate doesn't win the primary are you willing to support who does win the democratic nomination so the republicans don't win the presidency? this question will reveal a lot about who you are my fellow americans.
ace p washington, d.c. (Sent Saturday, December 01, 2007 3:43 PM)

___________________________________________________

ace  we have been asked that same question over and over for months on this blog. Many have stated as I have that we will support and vote for the Democrat, who ever wins.
So it is time to save our vim and vigor for the big fight against the repukes. (})

The new Obama "newest young kid on the block" seems to be running his camaign by belittling women.  I'll bet his wife can't keep him in his place and so he takes it out on the "fairer" sex.  He seems to be running his new found entrance into politics as a woman basher. He will crash and burn soon and find that campaigns are about helping the country not about jealousy and putting women down.  Find some issues little man.

The 'hostage' situation sounds fishy.  Hillary needed a reason to bow out of her DNC speech.  She gave a poor speech at the JJ Dinner in Des Moines recently and Obama gave a history making speech and the crowd really responded.
Mary (Sent Saturday, December 01, 2007 2:22 PM)

___________________________________________________
Mary, Mary you must be the virgin Mary and have not been out and about .  Getagrip, get informed and come back with your purity and speak as an intelligent voter.  Oh and take a peek at the all the debates and see how badly Obama did in each and every one.  One speech does not a president make!

I was taken aback when I read the above article about Obama's performance. Frankly, I didn't feel any heat. My take:  John Edwards surpassed all of them. The audience seemed very receptive to his firey speech. Unlike his last run, he shows that he is indeed a fighter.

There is something about Obama I just don't like--he seems stand-offish, even afraid or resentful of the limelight. There is just something strange about him.

to wordsmith, i must admit that you have placed yourself on a high pedestal. i am undecided and still researching. i give some of your merits credit, but also point out that you are not all knowing nor the only one in this room with intelligence and knowledge. you don't have to call names and rant to show the level of arrogance and self-emulation you are presently displaying. i am an independent that has not made a decision. so you see your ability to read people and what there stance is a gift your given to you and doesn't give you the right to paint yourself as all knowing. your first mistake is self proclamation of self importance.

Go Obama!!!!!  

Get Bloomberg as your VP and rocket to victory!

Mary, Mary

I am an independent who has not decided which candidate to support, but I must take exception to your statement that "the hostage story looks fishy."
If you think someone would stage something like that for political gain, I think you really need to try to be more objective in your views. No matter how seasoned or dedicated they may be, I can't help but think that the thought of the danger they face must sometimes prey on the minds of the candidates and their families.  The possibilities have to be scary; I can't imagine anyone staging something like that.

I am old enough to have seen the assassination of John Kennedy, M L King,Jr and Robert Kennedy, and would pray that we never see such acts in our country again.  

So please, regardless of how you feel about Senator Clinton, try to fair minded in your assessments of situations.

Wordsmith, way to show your intellectual ass my 'friend'.

You do realize you are coming off rather boorish and very much arrogant, right?

You're not saying one thing or another, not saying hardly anything at all but negating everyone else. Knit picking everyone for the sake of....what? Ego? Smells like a different type of trolling, in the end it's still trolling.

Keep it moving, please.

K. Lambert, I am a black, educated woman (masters degree in education.)  When we (blacks) are able to make history or break through barriers, it is black people like you who still have the slave mentality to keep history from happening or those barriers to be broken through.  I would not vote for someone just because he or she is black but if that person is a good representative of not only blacks but everybody, why not vote for him.

It is obvious you have not followed his or Hillary's campaign.  What has he lied about? Hillary has lied and double talked every time she opens her mouth.  There are many blacks who we call crabs, when one of us are climbing to the top to make a difference, others like you, pulls them down.  You need to keep your a-- in Germany. We have enough blacks in the U.S. who believe we should stay oppressed or too jealous to see a black president or black first lady in the White House. It seems that more whites than blacks are ready for this.  That tells me that something is awfully wrong with the black race, no wonder we can't accomplish anything.  We can't unite because of ignorance or jealousy.  Obama will unite all the people, it is time for that.  We need to get away from Black America and White America.

Some black women say they are voting for Hillary because she is a woman.  I guarantee you if their husband, son, brother,etc. was running for president, whether he was capable or not, they would vote for him and not the woman.

It is time to get over the oppressed, slave mentality.  Martin Luther King, Jr. and others have died for us for us to witness moments like this.  Obama is just as capable if not more capable than anyone on the ticket.  I come from a family of very strong-willed, educated women (some are married and some are single), we are proud of him and we will definitely vote for him.  GO OBAMA!!!!!!!!!!!

Wordsmith, nice post.  If you allow me, I'll add. Hillary Clinton's alleged edge in experience is marred by her three votes to give Bush authority to wage war.  All of this noise about experience v. inexperience is just a lot of propaganda.  No, it's not even intelligeable enough to be propaganda; it's just noise.  Hillary's judgment in foreign policy is either non-existent or is compromised by ambition (posturing for the presidency).  Either is unacceptable.  

I would posit that the election of Obama will have a much more positive impact on the populations of Africa, Asia and Latin America because of what it says about America finally reaching out of its provincial prospective.  And the European view of America as an inferior partner in world policy, will be countered; they will see us as maturing into the role of a true meritocracy.  

Yes Bill was well liked internationally, but Hillary's superficial visits as a first lady, that had no importance in terms of policy, were of no value for the future (as would be Laura Bush's or even Jacqueline Kennedy - who visited many nations, was loved by all, was very intelligent, but was by no means a potential president).  There are and have been women with vast foreign policy experience, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, Madaleine Albright, but Hillary is not one of them.

Hillary's stance on Health Insurance mandates is crafted in a way that is doomed to failure in spite of Paul Krugman's impractical assessment in yesterday's NYT.  The benefit of health insurance held by all is in it's ability to better re-imburse the hospital systems.  The effect does not improve access to medical care in this country but it is designed to stop the unfair practice of hospital system's (and MD's) overbilling to compensate for non-paying and under compensating (medicaid) patients.  By spreading the cost over more insured patients, theoretically, individual bills could be reduced (since this practice of compensation would no longer be necessary).  Would this reduce premiums that insurance companies would charge since the amount that they would be billed would be potentially less?  Well maybe but, pardon my skepticism, somehow I think that there is an equal possibility that this would just throw more money into the system and drive prices up.  The possibility exists that insurance companies would not adjust their premiums downward but keep them the same, hoping to further increase their profit margins.  The possibility exists that hospitals and M.D.'s would continue to overbill.

Access to health care at this time in the U.S., is guarenteed (for the most part) as soon as one walks into an emergency room;  the problem is all with the distribution of money.  And yes hospital bills can bankrupt a patient and that must be stopped, immediately, but again, that is not a problem with actual access to health care. Access is a problem but it is not a crisis.

The most important problem with health care and something that does border on crisis, is the cost of medication.  People do make choices between buying medications and buying food and sundries, but this is a problem with pharmaceutical companies and is in a different realm.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that Health Care is a very complex problem and none of the candidates have taken the time (and Mr. Krugman's hysterics certainly don't help) to really analyze the problems and priortize them.  This whole thing is not going to be solved in one fell swoop and in order to approach the problem correctly, we must lose the demagoguery and utilize the non-polarizing, consensus forming talents of a president who can lead us through this miasma.  As in the actual practice of medicine, making the diagnosis is hard enough, but employing the corect therapy demands a standard that is exponentially more difficult to achieve.

I don't think that Mrs. Clinton and her closeness to the insurance companies or the phamaceutical companies puts her in a position to make the best judgment. I think that the grandiosity of her proposals and her polarizing nature will lead her to the failure experienced in 1993.  Unlike John Edwards, I do believe that insurance companies and pharmaceutical companies must have a seat at the table but only as equal partners (not as prime movers as Dick Cheney allowed the Oil Companies to be, in writing an energy policy).  Kucinich's proposal for a single payer system will increase the government beaurocracy to a level that will be unmanageable and more importantly, medical matters cannot be handled by a one-size-fits-all government policy (Canada is the prime example).  America is a country that may need ground rules (like with any sporting event - in order to prevent mayhem) but it thrives on diversity and competition of ideas.

Barack Obama is the only candidate who thinks with the creativity necessary to appreciate these nuances.  He is the only candidate, who I (yes, subjectively I state this) can govern with the consensus necessary to solve problems of the magnitude of health care.
Obama '08

Sorry for spelling 'perspective' wrong.  I guess that there was a good reason that I was a level behind in spelling, in Mrs. Edelman's 5th grade class.

Personally I would go with an Obama/Edwards ticket for the Presidency.  Between the two I think they stand the best chance at toppling the GOP not just in the '08 election but for the next 8 years to boot.  It is all too true, from what I have seen for years now, that Hillary is not only just way too close to being a Republican in Democrat's clothing, but at this point she is also appearing like the Emperor showing off his new clothes.....does she really think that we don't read and/or remember everything she has done and said, even when there is a public record of such??  Then again, she is so very studious about not ever Really Saying anything on a subject to begin with!

  The fact that Obama is clearly standing for a different way of doing things in Washington makes it just that much more of a contrast to Hillary who is going about the same old things the same old ways.....which, frankly, this is an idea that I think America has finally woken up to:  We cannot have a change in the way our government is run if we keep electing people that have proven themselves to be part of "The Machine".  It is really just that simple.

Sorry for spelling 'perspective' wrong.  I guess that there was a good reason that I was a level behind in spelling, in Mrs. Edelman's 5th grade class.
Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY (Sent Saturday, December 01, 2007 9:46
----------------------------------------------------
Your typo did not compute, post to long to read and notice you have overstated your opinion.

Mitchell Feldman, Vestal, NY

I don't mind spelling mistakes or typos in a post that has something informative to say. I think the picking on imperfect grammar, spelling or typing, is a tad petty.  If I can understand what the blog is trying to say, that's all I care about. So keep on posting--even if you don't spell every word correctly.  Your thoughts are always good ones.

"We need someone who has been in 82 countries and has talked with world leaders. A person who has respect all around the globe. A person who can repair the damage done by Bush.
THAT PERSON IS HILLARY CLINTON!!!!!!!'

John Doe, Des Moines

John, I strongly beg to differ.  THAT PERSON IS JOE BIDEN.  Who have world leaders recently called?  JOE BIDEN.  Not POTUS Bush or candidate Clinton.  Joe Biden is the one candidate who is ready from "minute one" (let's not wait til Day 1) to begin rebuilding America's stature and position in the world. When Hillary talks to world leaders in her "politicianese" nuanced as hell gobbledigook, they, like us voters, won't have a clue as to where she stands or what she will do.  

With Joe Biden you have both solid experience, judgement and straight talk (the John McCain of the democratic party).

Let's go with the real deal.  Support JOE BIDEN.  

God help us all. Hillary walks into a room, Republicans run to the right and throw-up. Democratic freeze and smile because of Party politics, but none of her peers like her. Just like she's forcing this health care coverage even on those who don't want it, she's being forced on Democrats. Look, Obama speaks and both Dems and Republicans want to hear what he's gotta say whether they agree or not. Nobody throws up. That's democracy and Dems know it. You watch, it will be a land slide for Obama both in the primaries and the general.

K. Lambert states that Hillary "is not afraid to say she made a mistake."  You are mistaken.  She has NEVER acknowledged her war vote in 2002 was a mistake.  For that, I can never forgive her.  That was when it was most important to take a stand.  Obama did.  I'm voting for him.  

I"m so over the repetitious, cocktail talking people who direct their anger and fear at Hillary Clinton. Can't you see that the press are feeding you your lines? And you just say them, ten thousand different ways. You are simply the mouthpieces of the mainstream American media that must maintain the status quo. Wake up!

The anger and vitriol at Hillary never ceases to amaze me... now, people are even blaming her for rallying behind the fact that she might make history as the first woman president? Just cut the crap. Imagine for a second what kind of person it would take and how hard assed she'd have to be to be the FIRST WOMAN president. This is the most powerful, coveted job in the country if not the world. Women have had to be a lot more ruthless than she's been just to climb the corporate ladder for God's sake. Don't buy into the crap that she is hated and partisan and can't win. It's the machine talking and you're all feeding it. She's an ambitious, strong, smart woman. Probably the the biggest threat to the way our society operates today (can you say CHANGE?). She's fiercely ambitious. And? So what. So was Kennedy, so was Lincoln. She is brilliant, compassionate, is respected by world leaders and knows how to win. She also has a realistic health care plan. What good is one that sounds good if it can't pass and doesn't insure everyone? And please stop saying that if you already have insurance you like, she's gonna try to take it from you. Read the plan idiot. Don't just shoot your mouth off about the evil Hillary because you read it somewhere.

I like Obama, but I don't think he has the experience or the savvy to beat the Republicans and I worry that by the time he is up to speed untangling all the corrupt webs that have been weaved by or current administration, he'll be seen as weak and be facing the Republican machine again (at the end of term one) only this time, they'll be ready to win. What would that accomplish?

Big, Bad Hillary Clinton... yawn.

Do you also think there was a bomb planted by GWB in building 10 of the trade center? (I refer to the quote below)

"The 'hostage' situation sounds fishy.  Hillary needed a reason to bow out of her DNC speech.  She gave a poor speech at the JJ Dinner in Des Moines recently and Obama gave a history making speech and the crowd really responded."

I,too was excited with First woman Pres. notion. BUT, refusal to apologize for errors--too Bush-like for comfort. More than that,I see shortsighted blind follower of Bush. But, To delegate her responsibility and authority to BUSH--irrespective as to how he woud use that authority--to me is unforgiveable and NOT representative of strong Leader I think this country needs. With Stupid,Sadistic,corrupt Leadership tied to Corporate Dictators means it is no miracle WE the People recognize and embrace intelligent,forward Vision,humanitarian Barack Obama who really CARES for ALL people. War was just too SERIOUS a mistake for any "Monday-nite quarter back" to fix. (IF I had known..)" duh!

 

Ace--seems like you got it right. Like to add, Barack has forward Vision--something that this office sorely needs now, in view of so many "mistakes" whih happens when one does NOT really care. My one vote goes to OBAMA.

I am not one to normally use names and point out things, specifically, from others posts, HOWEVER, Samantha, Los Angeles CA, IF we are to have a First Woman President, America, in all of it's glory, can certainly find a BETTER woman to be the first female President.  I personally thought that she would make a fine President, clear back when 'rumors' were floated to test the waters about her 'nominatability'.  And so I have watched her closely since then and read everything I could find about her.  And after watching her for this long I have come to the conclusion that the very LAST thing we need for our next President is an already bought and paid for shill for the insurance and other big businesses that have paid her way from the very start.  It is NOT the woman here that is the actual problem, the problem is that the woman is being strictly controlled by her campaign managers and corporate advisors and used in a very cynical ploy to appeal to the feminist movement in America.  They are plain Using the fact that "She Would Be THE First Woman President of the United States" very blatantly as a campaign club to beat back opponents with the sexism ploy, saying that it is time for a Woman to be in the Big Boy's Club and to present just that same face to the public as well.  But HOW many of her advisors and campaign managers are Women??  Remember back when she said she was not going to run for president, and then she got talked into it, and was instantly made a figurehead for her own campaign:  She is running, but does not KNOW what her own platform is (Other than 'Against Bush and For whatever America wants' or what her positions are, not until she is Told what her platform and position is by her managers and advisors. THEY are the very same people that have been supporting Bush Co. in the White House for the past eight years.  It may be the opposite side of the coin, but it is still THE COIN that controls the halls of our government presently.  To put Hillary in is only to allow the other 'face' of the same COIN.....in other words it is STILL Corporate Money that is driving the campaign, and afterwards the Administration, whether it is Hillary or any of the Republicans. The Republicans are in a way, very honest, with them you get the whole political machine, no matter WHICH one you pick, it will still be the same corporate campaign managers and advisors that are really running things, because, presently, that is all the Republican political party really is, a closely linked group of corporate and financial interests, with interlocking plausible deniabilities in order to cover each others faux pas and so limit damage should any one thread come unraveled.  And one has to remember, Corporate America is NOT about following the law, not the word nor the spirit of the law.  Oh, they have all the paperwork on the walls saying how good they are, slick ad work that shows them on the Law's side and conforming to the letter of the law all nice and pretty.  BUT They routinely break the laws, they hire staff lawyers to tell them How to break the laws and How to get away with it, and, once they have stolen enough money and/or position, How they can CHANGE the laws in their favor, NOT in AMERICA's Favor, but for their own pocketbook's favor.

  Are these the people that you really want to CONTINUE to run America??  If so vote for Hillary or the Republicans.  If you want a change, or at the very least a President that will Champion a change, in our way of conducting our governance then you should, from all the information that I have been able to find,  Vote Obama in 2008.  Either He or John Edwards would be a much better President for the hard times that we are facing due to the mismanagement of the Present Administration and the past several decades of Corporate America's thwarting of meaningful governance.

 America can certainly do BETTER than Hillary Clinton  for the First Woman President, and I feel that we NEED to!

To Rose:

But it's okay to refuse the idea of an African-American being presient?

Hmmmm indeed...

To wordsmith:

"Windy City Girl, Chicago, IL: Your response to Granger was no less demeaning and disrespectful than hers. In which case, in damning her, you damned yourself."

I don't care.  Democrats have been rolling over and playing the bigger person for years, and do you know where it gets us?  On the floor of Congress banging our gavel saying we will not open the floor again to recount the votes in Florida.  Screw that.  I do belong to the party of better ideas, but because we are trying to be so damn nice we keep getting our butts handed to us.  Didn't happen in the last race for Congress because we didn't roll over, and I will not now or anymore.  Just because someone picks on you doesn't mean you have to take it to be the bigger person.  You became the bigger person the moment someone made you respond when you did not provoke.  Stop taking slaps without giving some back.  You just end up being the only one who looks hurt and weak.

I will reiterate my earlier statement that the MSNBC First Read Blogs are getting very, very boring and full of fanatics.  Same people, same posts, over and over and over again.  Half of what is posted here is blatant lies or shaded versions of half-truths.

You would think that everyone running for the presidency this year beats their spouses, does dirty trades with racially charged groups, acts like they are "Going Wild" when visiting with foreign diplomats and can't spell.  Come on now people!  

I do not want a Republican to win this election.  I do not want to see our country to continue to ruin the advacement of science.  I do not want the class divide to continue to deepen.  I will vote for any democrat who is elected to run in the general election.  I hope that the Democrat who wins the primary is Barack Obama because his views most represent my own, and that is what I find most important when placing my vote.  I am turned off by Hillary Clinton because of her support for the Iraq war and her friendliness with the Bush family.

Go Obama!

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