Why did the NYT endorsed Sen. Clinton? New York Times needs to press this issue to reassure it's readers they are voting for an honest candidate. If she refuses do what some superdelegates are doing.

The comments, the rhetoric and jabs.  Forget about all of this.  Focus on getting a democrat into the White House.

these posters are nothing but a bunch of sickos allthey write about is hate. these are the people who make the world a rotten place. mary westimster md

Obama is not glorified at all. He has stated that the country needs to be ran by the constitution. He believes in the constitution. He uses cliches, this is a campaign. Its better than Hillarys virtual begging the question now. Obama is a wonderful orator, yes, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have plans for the economy and how to fix our problems. They are in description on his website, take a look. But what he doesn't do is what everyone else does and stand up and say this is what I will do, I will give you a million dollars if you vote for me, then when you vote for him he gives you nothing, like all of the other politicians. Hillary says shes going to do this and that, which is the regular politics in this country. That doesn't mean jack. Obama tells you what he will fight for and he will. Obama is not a stupid man by any means, remember he is a freshman senator with a ticket to the WHITE HOUSE. Thats impressive. He is strategic and wouldn't hurt our economy but lift it up. People have literally become oblivious ignorant fools, turning away a brilliant individual because there must be something wrong with him if he went to Harvard Law School, fought as a community organizer in Chicago, served as a civil rights attorney, in the Illinois state senate, and then in the US Senate. Come on people, Obama is a dreamer, and thats what it takes. Dare to dream with an intelligent dreamer who has the brains and strategy to lead this country to something better. Get over yourselves. You could do no better. Obama has heart and soul and the will to unite this country. Not all politicians are in it for themselves. He already has money and a good career. Why would he waste his time? He wants to benefit this country in the best place he could offer his services, in the WHITE HOUSE. VOTE OBAMA 08!!!!

I'm not sure how to interpret Hillary's position on NAFTA. During her husband's presidency she publicly supported NAFTA, but now her aides say we shouldn't count her positions as First Lady because she was forced to publicly support her husband. They suggest that in private, she actually was uncomfortable with NAFTA. Yet she did "stand by her man" and didn't voice any public doubts at that time.

Here's the problem I see: We're asked to credit Hillary for the good things that happened during Bill Clinton's presidency (and clearly she did play a significant role in that administration) but then discount any bad elements as "not her fault." Truthfully, I think it would be more fair if she simply ran on her own record of what she's done in her 7 years in the Senate. If she wants to discuss the era of her husband's presidency, then she needs to own up to her public positions during that time instead of trying to have it both ways.

If Sen. Clinton simply focused on her 7 years as an elected official, and Sen. Obama could then discuss his 11 years as an elected official, we'd have a more clear debate as to these 2 candidates actual positions on the issues.

"And what's the difference between someone who 'eagerly' votes for the war (though I don't agree Clinton was that), or for someone who hesitantly votes for the war?  A yes is a yes, a no is a no.  There's no 'present' allowed."

  "It depends on what your definition of 'IS' is."
   
  There's a big difference.  
 
  Senator Clinton voted to grant President Bush authorization for the use of military force (read the legislation, that's what it was, spin or not)as he saw fit.  While her 'signing statement' speech might detail her wishes, she voted 'yes' nonetheless.  Had more people stood their ground and voted 'no' in the face of pressure, there would be no need to vote on funding the troops.  That's the difference.  Supporting the funding of troops after the fact is different than voting 'yes' to giving a determined President Bush the power of sending them into combat. Trying to say its the same is like trying to say that sending money to safeguard the troops is equal to sending them there in the first place.

billuymur- I am happy that the rest of the country doesn't speak or think like you. Obama is an American, we all are. He unites everyone. You should live in a country of one race. Obama is actually from a white mother and kenyan father. If you want to get particular. I can not stand people making decisions based on race or gender. That is ignorance in a nutshell. The US IS NOT READY FOR A PRES. OF A DIFF. RACE? SERIOUSLY, LOOK AROUND YOU, WE ARE TOTALLY DIVERSIFIED NOW. WHAT BETTER TO REPRESENT THAT THAN A PRES. THAT IS AS WELL. OBAMA IS QUALIFIED AS WELL. TO BE A PRES. YOU HAVE TO HAVE THE BRAINS, HEART AND SOUL, WILL, AND THE KNOW HOW. HE HAS ALREADY DONE SO MUCH GOOD SO FAR. GET A LIFE. PEOPLE LIKE YOU MAKE IT THIS WAY, AND PEOPLE LIKE ME ARE WHY OBAMA IS PREVAILING. PEOPLE LET YOUR GUARD DOWN, OBAMA KNOWS WHAT HE IS DOING. HES RUNNING A REMARKABLE CAMPAIGN AND KNOWS MORE THAN YOU THINK. AMERICA GET TOGETHER WITH OBAMA AND WE AND OUR CHILDREN AND OUR GRANDCHILDREN WILL HAVE OPPORTUNITIES AGAIN. LOOK UP HIS PROPOSED POLICIES. HE IS NOT AN IDIOT, PEOPLE THAT QUESTION HIM ARE. VOTE OBAMA 08!!!!! HE DOESN'T DO WHAT ALL THE OTHERS DO, MAKE PROMISES HE CAN'T AND WON'T KEEP. HE ALREADY HAS MONEY, HE DOESN'T TAKE FROM LOBBYISTS, AND HE SUPPORTS THE PEOPLE. HE HAD NO HELP GROWING UP AND MADE IT BY HIS OWN SKIN. SOMETHING IS TO BE SAID FOR THAT. GET A CLUE!! OUT WITH THE OLD, IN WITH THE NEW. The turtle and the hare, who won? why? OBAMA is the answer to the question of America. VOTE OBAMA 08!!!

WELL, AFTER READING THE AFORE PRINTED COMMENTS FROM DEMS ABOUT HILLIARY & OBAMA,  I DO FEEL BETTER THAT SOME DEMS DO RECOGNIZE WHAT A WISHY- WASHY LIAR HILIARY CLINTON REALLY IS. SHE ALSO EXPECTED TO TAKE THE VOTE IN GEORGIA--- IT DIDN'T HAPPEN! HER EXPERIENCE IS RUNNING HER MOUTH- NO ACTION, EXCEPT TO
CHANGE HER STORY WHEN VOTERS DON'T AGREE WITH HER. I TRULY BELIEVE THAT ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICIALS SHOULD BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE FOR WHAT THEY SAY & PROMISE THE VOTERS WHILE THEY ARE RUNNING FOR OFFICE! THE DEMS HAVE TWO CANDIDATES- BOTH WITH SENATE EXPERIENCE-PERIOD. BEING THE SPOUSE OF A FORMER PRESIDENT DOES NOT GIVE ONE THE EXPERIENCE TO LEAD THE WORLD'S GREATEST NATION. NOW, IF YOU WANT TO TAKE A TOUR OF THE WHITE HOUSE, THEN HILLIARY IS PROBABLY THE BEST SUITED.

Wall Street Journal article, 02/2008:

The Clintons pardon terrorists in 1999-2000 so that Ms. Hillary Clinton can have a better shot running for the Senate with the Hispanic vote - because the terrorists are Latino.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120277819085260827.html?mod=opinion_main_commentaries

I am a die hard conservative republican who ca nnot possibly vote for RINO McCain - he destroyed my hopes and dreams for a better America.  Unless there is a 3rd party conservative candidate for whom I would prefer to vote, I will vote for Obama, if he makes it; at least he doesn't puke me.  Also, I could not vote for anyone who named me as part of "the vast right wing conspiracy," as Hillary did.

People criticize NAFTA for the loss of jobs. But, can you imagine tariffs on beer "Corona" from Mexico. I'm not a big beer kinda guy but hey. We all know America loves their beer. In a sense, it boost all three economies US, Mexico, and Canada. But in a time of country turmoil, repealing NAFTA would not be too effective.

If Hillary wins the nominee, McCain will definitely benefit.  He is going to blow her away.  She lacks expereince, orgainazation skills, character, honesty, unity, and motivation. On the other hand Obama is all of the above.  He is the only candidate that has drawn people from all walks of life in the biggest and brightest way.  He has captured new voters, independents voters strongly, and republicians by far.  He is the right decision for November 2008.
Obama 2008 - White Supporter in Texas

Hillary is winning the democrats, Obama is winning the independents and republicans.  Which votes does anyone think are important in November?  Your side, which you get anyway, or the other side, which doesn't come as easy?  Get real on electability! Blue states stay blue, red states stay red; unless something moves for a shift!!! Obama is the only one who can swing it.  The republicans just don't like Hillary, period.

"When Robstown beat out Corpus Christi as the host city for Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton's campaign rally, many wondered why."

jerry, I feel for your loss

nuanced (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 11:06 AM)

Are you kidding me Nuanced????
Jerry matthers was at Corpus Christi city hall...
got an autograph and a picture....
had a nice chat with him......
Eddie is doing good...
So is Wally........

Only way I would ever go to a Clinton rally would be on a case of southern comfort and an LSD tab......

Whoever is raider Dem and crat3, oh and Hillary vote 08, ok Obama is winning among WHITE men, not just black people.  You should get your story straight.
Jessica, Broken Arrow, Ok
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica--

Maybe you should get YOUR story straight.  Not once, in any of my postings, have I brought up race, class, income, etc.

My postings, admittedly, more focus on double standards that I think are unfair.

And I welcome debate about them, that is what these discussions are all about.

In previous postings, I have said that I would vote for the Dem nominee in November, no matter WHO it is.

No hard feelings, but next time, check your facts.

Let me start by saying I'm not for the war as it stands presently. The original premise for engaging in it was two fold, #1 to eliminate Sadam Hussein from his dictatorial power over those he didn't like. #2 Weapons of mass destuction were never found. It seems to me we satisfied the original reasons for going there in the first place, so at this point in time is when we should have left the area. the initial reasons for going in the first place were satisfied.
As far as Senator Obama is concerned, I'm going to vote for him because he has demonstrated the ability to bring all factions of humanity together. He appears to be honest, sincere , and dedicated to bringing this country back from disaster.
Hillary is a wonderful person and also dedicated to our country but she is the wife of a former president and i firmly believe he will be involved to an extent we cannot afford to allow.
all I ask is  to listen intently to what is said and then vote for the one who best fits your idea of who will bring this wonderful country of ours back from chaos.

Whoever is raider Dem and crat3, oh and Hillary vote 08, ok Obama is winning among WHITE men, not just black people.  You should get your story straight.
Jessica, Broken Arrow, Ok
-----------------------------------------------------
Jessica--

Maybe you should get YOUR story straight.  Not once, in any of my postings, have I brought up race, class, income, etc.

My postings, admittedly, more focus on double standards that I think are unfair.

And I welcome debate about them, that is what these discussions are all about.

In previous postings, I have said that I would vote for the Dem nominee in November, no matter WHO it is.

No hard feelings, but next time, check your facts.

If I hear or see another "She's ready on day one" statement I think I'm might pass out. I'm an Independent supporting Obama but I will vote for McCain if Hillary is the Democratic nominee and there're about 50 million other people who will do the same.

Guys I really have no problem with the Clinton's since I was a Bill Clinton supporter but let's be honest, they have a problem telling the whole truth. They have never really been for the working class just look at their inner circle.

I've met people who's children have gone to school with Chelsea, they say that Chelsea is very nice but Hillary is rude, cold, and very unapproachable.

Finally, is our country democratic or monarchy, why let two families run the country for 30 years?

I don't know about you guys but I'm tired of the same people telling the same lies and we continue to fall for them.

In response to:

All you Democrats supporting Obama is out of your minds.  He will NEVER WIN THE WHITE HOUSE.  The Republicians will not let him.  Someone should investigate. We don't know the real truth about this man. Is this (Obama wins) a reality or simply dirty politics exploted by republicans. Is repuplican really funding Obama so that they have a weaker democratic candidate? Then, Why so many republican senators endorsing Obama? Also, you silly cult of Obama followers take a look at this:http://www.thecityedition.com/Pages/Archive/Winter08/PDFfiles/2008Election.pdf

I think the point that this person is missing is the fact that, say what you want, Obama hasn't been vetted, hasn't been tested, can't win against McCain, etc., he has tapped into a legitimate desire for change in this country. You may not consider him a legitimate candidate, but millions of people around the country are using their votes to say that they want change in how things are done in Washington. That is not a fairy tale. Major unions are backing Obama. Why would "average" workers put their faith in someone they don't take seriously and think he will be capable of doing a good job representing their interests? Obama has tapped into something that was already there; it's not something he's created out of thin air.

Fred, Santa Clara - EXCELLENT point.

The US is in an economic crisis and cancelling NAFTA would not be smart. Canada is the USA's largest trading partner and it's biggest supplier of oil(1.6 million barrels a day).

It's in everybody's best interests to have Mexico raise it's standard of living to make it a more viable place for it's own citizens to remain.

Torpedoing NAFTA would give huge advantages to the SE Asia trading bloc and the European Union. Wake up folks if they get the upper hand current job losses will seem pale in comparison.

I think there might have been some vote early and vote often hanky panky in the primaries.

I do not believe the results such as 90% to Obama!!! Wonder if there should be an investigation???

Go Hilliary

Fact Check: Sen. Obama, Exelon and Rezko
2/12/2008 1:31:21 PM

The Obama campaign produced a "fact check" that claimed:

1. Sen. Obama did not water down a bill requiring disclosure of nuclear leaks after pressure from a major contributor

2. Obama did "nothing wrong" related to Tony Rezko

3. There are no unanswered questions about Sen. Obama's relationship with Rezko

All three claims are false.

First, Sen. Obama did waterdown legislation requiring the nuclear industry to disclose leaks after receiving pressure from Exelon, one of his top campaign contributors. The New York Times reported:

A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks.

…“Senator Obama’s staff was sending us copies of the bill to review, and we could see it weakening with each successive draft,” said Joe Cosgrove, a park district director in Will County, Ill., where low-level radioactive runoff had turned up in groundwater. “The teeth were just taken out of it.”

… The campaign acknowledged that Exelon executives had met with Mr. Obama’s staff about the bill…

Second, Obama himself admitted that he made a "mistake" involving Tony Rezko:

Two years ago, the two men were involved in a real estate deal that Obama later apologized for, calling it "boneheaded'' and a "mistake'' because the transaction occurred while Rezko was widely known to be under federal investigation. Rezko's wife paid full price for a vacant lot in Chicago's historic Kenwood district on the same day Obama bought the mansion next door from the same property owner for $300,000 below the asking price. Rezko's wife subsequently sold a sliver of the land to Obama.
Third, Sen. Obama's hometown newspaper, The Chicago Tribune, said that Obama needs to disclose more about his relationship with Tony Rezko:

Instead, as we've said, Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos.

One more time, Senator:

You need to divulge all there is to know about that relationship. Until you do, the journalistic scrubbing and opposition research will intensify. You should have recognized Rezko as a political seducer of young talent.

Eric Zorn, frequently cited in other Obama "fact checks," agrees:

But journalists are still looking because they're not satisfied that they have the full story.

And that's Obama's fault. At some point early in his campaign for the White House, he apparently decided he'd said all he wanted to say and all there was to say about his dealings with Rezko. He would not grant follow-up interviews on the subject to investigative reporters, and his staff provided written and often inadequate responses to written questions.

I do not believe the results such as 90% to Obama!!! Wonder if there should be an investigation???

Go Hilliary

Dawn, Pittsburgh, PA (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 12:32 PM)
<< Previous

LOL....
Don't you know by now dawn??????
you never mention The Clinton's and investigations in the same breath.....

I want an investigation to see where The Clinton's sent Norman Hsu's money to.....

Probably their Cayman Island slush fund....

Linda Miller,

Obama is a Senator, not a congresman. He has twice as many years as an official, elected by the people, than Mrs. Clinton.

Michigan holds Primaries NOT caucus's.

If you are this misinformed about your own state's rules, and the accomplishments of the candidates, I strongly suggest you do more research before Nov.

Additionally, I Boycotted the MI primary intentionally, for lack of choice/representation. If they attemtpt to seat delegates from a 'no-choice' primary. I will hit the streets hard in protest. MY voice was not heard. My choice was not available. that is true disenfranchisment.

In agreement with raider dem - if Obama wants to start playing hardball, then he should expect it back twicefold - because not only is Hilary formidable, but she actually participates in votes in Congress. We don't want another president who's going to say they are going to get things done and then go on vacation. Obama has missed many congress votes, what makes you think he's ready for Day 1.

"Never forget he is not only running against the biggest, most entrenched,nasty, dishonest and meanest political machine in America and is winning!" To say this is ignorance - those words used to describe Hilary are obviously not backed, because if you have seen her political record - you would know that she always strives to be involved in all issues - as for Obama - I wouldn't be surprised if he knew what issues to combat besides the war and the means to get them done.

And say Obama wins the democrat ticket - its another four years of the Republican party.

Why do all the people that support Hillary say that Obama is scared to debate. They have had 18 debates,and Obama has agreed to 2 more. How many debates do you need? Hillary wants debates of course, because she wants free media, and to change the subject from her getting crushed in every primary.

I just want to point out the Hillary Clinton can't catch Obama even if she wins Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.  Even if the polls don't tighten and she wins with the poll numbers that are out today (which she won't).  Just do some quick over simplified math.

The poll number out Feb. 14 read as follows....

Texas - Clinton 49%, Obama 41% (Texas Credit Union League Feb. 14)
Ohio - Clinton 55%, Obama 34% (Quinnipac Feb. 14)
Pennsylvania - Clinton 52%, Obama 36% (Quinnipac Feb. 14)

If the delegate count works out according to those numbers, which I admit is an oversimplification, which are all premature and therefore Clinton friendly you get the following divides.

CLINTON
(Texas)193 x 49% = 94.57  
(Ohio)141 x 55% = 77.55
(Penn)158 x 52% = 82.16

95 + 78 + 82 = 255

OBAMA
(Texas)193 x 41% = 79.13  
(Ohio)141 x 34% = 47.94
(Penn)158 x 36% = 56.88

79 + 48 + 57 = 184

If Hillary won at the current poll percentages then she would net 71 delegates.  THAT IS NOT ENOUGH.  Obama is leading by the pledged delegate count by about 150. If she did that Obama would still have about 80 more pledged delegates; and that is assuming that he does not win Wisconsin, or Hawaii on Feb. 19, 2008.  

Before I could finish writing this post I see that a poll just released today that show Obama leading by 4 points in Texas.  (ARG)

http://www.americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txdem8-702.html
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/polltracker/

Obama?  Hillary?  Forget about those 2 deadbeats.  Vote REPUBLICAN!!!  McCain is my man!  I'm a vet too and proudly support this courageous man.  What do Obama & Hillary have in common?  They were never in the military.  

There wouldn't even be a broker convention if Florida and Michigan wasn't stripped of their delegates .Alot of this mess is the blame of the DNC.There shouldn't even be caucuses ,they all should be primaries where everybody has a chance to vote all day long .And 100%of the voters have a opportunity not just 30%in a caucuses.Its wrong for the news media to say super delegates will deside this election when 2 states held primaries and their votes won't count .The republicans let their votes count so that created a bias mess .But before its over Michigan and Florida will have to be counted because either these two states will decide or the super delegates will .I think the american public would want the voters to decide .

"Obama?  Hillary?  Forget about those 2 deadbeats.  Vote REPUBLICAN!!!  McCain is my man!  I'm a vet too and proudly support this courageous man.  What do Obama & Hillary have in common?  They were never in the military.  
Rick, Vincennes, IN (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 1:40 PM)"

Neither was Bush, in fact, he did everything he could to avoid active duty .  Did you vote for him too?

McCain is another 4 years of Bush.  No thanks.

I find it funny that the Clinton people are against caucuses because the Obama people are better organized.

Hillary Clinton claimed that she was better able to run an organization.  The caucuses make it painfully obvious that in fact Obama is better able to run an organization than she is.  

Hillary's wins have come in places where organization doesn't have the time to overcome name recognition.  In places where organization has the time and strength to take effect, Obama wins.

Hey crat3, please enlighten on some of Hillary's specific solutions.  Especially the ones where Obama is lacking specifics.

I see John McCain's opinion is the voice of reason for you on his OPPONENT, Obama. I'm sorry, are you a Democrat or Republican?

"The main problem for Obama is that US is not ready for a president of a different race yet. People may not tolerate a first lady who is of different color."

billuymur, san jose, ca (Sent Friday, February 15, 2008 10:56 AM)

So, would you happen to be one of those people? What a retart!!!!!

OK....This is for Obama08....I did an analysis of the website and what each sponsored.  While I used the 7yr tenure of Hillary and the 3 year tenure of Obama, I did find some dramatic things of what they focus on.  Hillary had definite advantage in her focus towards health, but also focus more on the family and social issues, the economy (including the mortgage crisis), Agriculture(which suprised me since Obama's from Illinois), and foreign affairs then what Obama did.  Obama's focus did have some focus towards health care, but had a definite advantage over Hillary in Energy, Consumer Safety, Restricting Lobbying, and Corporate Fraud. They were about equal on Education,Veterans Affairs, Defense, Proverty (only a slight advantage to Hillary), and the War on Terror.  However, the one that suprised me the most is that Hillary has sponsored 3 bills related to getting us out of Iraq and Obama has sponsored only 2.  For a canidate who has put so much focus on how wrong the war was, why didn't he sponsor more bills? And finally, Hillary was the only one to sponsor a bill related to equal rights. That's kind of strange too.  

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