Wow, what was all that?  Hillary’s campaign needs to settle on a persona here.  They’ve been arguing about these flyers for weeks.  How did we go from being honored to be on the same stage to shame on you with hardly a breath in between?  I guess we’re back to the feisty political infighter Hillary, which seems to work pretty well with loyalists.

Here’s a link to a good objective discussion of the Obama health care flyer that has drawn Hillary’s newfound wrath.   http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/harry_louise_again.html
This site is a good resource when you want to escape the spin room.  While they don’t find any untruths, there are plenty of errors of omission in the flyer designed to emphasize differences rather than further the interest of fairness.  Surprise, it’s a political mailer.  To me, the main difference in plans is that a blanket imposition of government mandates will be a tougher sell to folks on the other side of the aisle.  And make no mistake; it will have to be sold to a solid majority of the American people if we are to get past entrenched interests.  But that’s primarily a difference in strategy, not in substance.

Basically the flyers in question are standard political fare and certainly don’t stoop to the Rovian level Hillary was talking about.  Her own campaign has already done worse.  To me, the relevant part of her argument is the idea that these sorts of business-as-usual political tactics violate the fundamental principles of a campaign that aims to change the way we conduct politics.  I think that is a legitimate criticism and worth discussing.

Notice the clever trap here.  On the one hand Barack’s supporters are portrayed as naïve political newcomers who have been dazzled by pretty speeches and couldn’t possibly stand up to the nasty Republicans.  If on the other hand we accept the proposition that Barack must conduct this campaign as though the job of transforming politics were already accomplished, we would in fact be guilty of acting like political neophytes.  This is tricky territory to navigate because it comes dangerously close to an ends justifies the means argument.  

If you don’t win the election the purity of your motives is utterly irrelevant.  Ask the Green voters how all the causes they thought they were promoting in 2000 have fared under the Bush administration.  We have to fight this battle on the political terrain as it exists today.  If we win the fight then we will earn a chance to talk about leaving the old battlefield behind us.  The trick for Barack is to get through the campaign without losing himself in the process.  Barack himself seems pretty well grounded by his family, his church, and his community.  I worry more about how we get through the primary without muddying the message.  It’s an important message.  

nafta is an excellent example of the corporate machine at work, everyone associated with this bill new it would be the end of good paying jobs with benefits in the u.s.a., but they took the money and ran, one of the most disgusting things about the clintons, they are not stupid, they intentionally make the wrong decisions for personal gain with complete disregard to the consequences for the american citizen, that is unacceptable and reprehensible in anybody's book.

Of course, neither Dem is calling for cancelling the trade agreement.

Of course not.....
Then The Clinton's win Ohio, but lose Texas.....
Hillary can flap her gums all she wants to about NAFTA.  If she had any brains, she would be in the Senate today calling foran end to NAFTA.  But she could care less about people losing jobs in Ohio.

At a Houston rally Saturday night, Clinton joked about a sign in the crowd that read, "The White House is no place for training wheels." At a Providence rally Sunday, she said: "If you were hiring a surgeon to operate on a family member, I think you'd want to know what they'd already done."

I know one thing....
I would not want to hire the assistant surgeon that just sat back and watched the surgeon and still has not got her feet wet.......

I'm sorry to see Mr. Nader diminish his own legacy by running again.  It almost appears like he is doing this for his own need for attention rather than the nation's good.  

Nader may actually be a good thing for Senator Obama in the general election, since he will take the position of "liberal" as used by our conservative friends which will make Senator Obama stand out as a centrist.

Barack Obama's campaign is founded on principle and nurtured in truth. He should continue to do well. A lie is not a threat to the truth. The truth is a threat to a lie.

Great example of being ready to lead on Day 1.  What can we expect on Day 2?  Nobody knows because she changes every day.  And of course, she's touting this "experience" nonsense again but doesn't want to take the blame for NAFTA.  That's a real sign of a stand-up leader who we can all respect.

Senator Obama has got to stop being Mr. Nice Guy and finish this thing.  Time to get out the stake.

I hope in mid-February next year, we will all be very enthusiatic about President Obama's performance.

Top Obama Flip-Flops

Monday, February 25, 2008; A04


Top Obama Flip-Flops


1. Special interests In January, the Obama campaign described union contributions to the campaigns of Clinton and John Edwards as "special interest" money. Obama changed his tune as he began gathering his own union endorsements. He now refers respectfully to unions as the representatives of "working people" and says he is "thrilled" by their support.


2. Public financing Obama replied "yes" in September 2007 when asked if he would agree to public financing of the presidential election if his GOP opponent did the same. Obama has now attached several conditions to such an agreement, including regulating spending by outside groups. His spokesman says the candidate never committed himself on the matter.


3. The Cuba embargo In January 2004, Obama said it was time "to end the embargo with Cuba" because it had "utterly failed in the effort to overthrow Castro." Speaking to a Cuban American audience in Miami in August 2007, he said he would not "take off the embargo" as president because it is "an important inducement for change."


4. Illegal immigration In a March 2004 questionnaire, Obama was asked if the government should "crack down on businesses that hire illegal immigrants." He replied "Oppose." In a Jan. 31, 2008, televised debate, he said that "we do have to crack down on those employers that are taking advantage of the situation."


5. Decriminalization of marijuana While running for the U.S. Senate in January 2004, Obama told Illinois college students that he supported eliminating criminal penalties for marijuana use. In the Oct. 30, 2007, presidential debate, he joined other Democratic candidates in opposing the decriminalization of marijuana.

Everyone (especially Hillary supporters) should read Frank Rich's most recent column in the New York Times.  Yes, I'm sure we're going to see responses to this post that slam Frank Rich but if those of you in Clintonian delusion land would start reading things other than her website, you might get a sense for what normal Americans are thinking.

You know, I had a comment . . . but jaycee from Ventura said it so well, there's no need to repeat!

:)

Obama '08

READ CARL BERSTEIN BOOK AND YOU WILL FIND THAT SHE AND HIM FOUGHT OVER NAFTA. AND LIKE SO MANY OTHER DEMOCRATS HAS CONTINUED TO GO ALONG WITH IT INCLUDING YOUR WONDERFUL OBAMA. AND BY THE WAY WHY DOESN'T HE METION THAT HE BACKED THE HORRIBLE PERU TRADE THAT GOES WITH NAFTA? IS HE AFRAID THAT IF THE DRONES FOUND OUT THAT HE BACKED SUCH A THING THEY WOULDN'T VOTE FOR HIM. ALSO YOU FIGURED IT OUT OBAMA GET ALOT OF PEOPLE FROM HUGE CORPS. TO DO SMALL DONATIONS THEN IT WON'T LOOK LIKE SPECIAL INTEREST BUT IT SMELLS LIKE SH T. bUT MSNBC HAS ROSE COLORED GLASSES ON BECAUSE OF THEIR LONG DISLIKE OF THE CLINTON'S THAT THEY WOULD NEVER GO AFTER OBAMA.
BY THE WAY IS IT TRUE THAT OBAMA IS ON THE DOWN LOW?

Another innuendo from the Clinton's campaign; well, I am going to shock the Clinton's campaign by providing my own picture of Bill Clinton's in Nigeria's traditional gown. It is time to start calling all my buddies in Africa for that picture.

To be continued...

This is a really good site I think that everyone should visit.  It is very informative:

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_Obama/ObamaLies.htm

I loved seeing Nader on MTP this Sunday. As usual Chuck Todd, or whoever wrote this dismissive take on a Nader candidacy, can't see beyond conventional wisdom - Nader's participation will be good for our democracy and good for the Democrats. I loved hearing a politician tell the truth on MTP for a change! We need new political voices and new pundits!

REMEMBER OBAMA HEALTH CARE HAS A MANDATE ALSO THAT WOULD EFFECT THE WORKING CLASS CITZENS AND COULD LEAD TO FINES AND/OR GARNISHMENT OF YOUR WAGES.
AND OBAMA BACKED PART OF NAFTS ITS THE PERU TRADE AND ITS JUST AS BAD AS ITS PARENT NAFTA SO HE SOULD NOT THROW STONES. AND WHY DOESN'T HE EVER SHOW UP TO VOTE OR PUSH THE RIGHT BUTTON. (TRYING TO PLAY BOTH SIDES OF THE SPECIAL INTEREST, VOTE ONE WAY THEN GO BACK AND SAY YOU PUSHED THE WRONG BUTTON UNBELIEVABLE. NOT ONCE BUT 6-8 TIMES)
AND IS TRUE HE IS ON THE DOWN LOW?
WATCH OUT HERE COMES FARRAKHAN!

Obama claimed that he was "looking forward to the debate," but he said that he doubted that little new would come from the discussion. *********

In our count of super delegates, it’s Clinton 257, Obama 194
****************************************************

Yes Barack do debate, do you know how?  You ANSWER questions, do not parrot Hillary, you must stop stealing all the better plans , OTHER PEOPLES and GET your speech writers to give you some new material.  WE are sick of your same old empty rhetoric, you are so pathetic!  Experience and wisdom are not your claim to fame.

Here's something else Bill Kristol once said,

"There's been a certain amount of pop sociology in America ... that the Shia can't get along with the Sunni and the Shia in Iraq just want to establish some kind of Islamic fundamentalist regime. There's almost no evidence of that at all. Iraq's always been very secular."

This guy is an old fashioned conservative idiot. The kind an Obama Administration will leave behind wondering what happened.

Nader should leave running for President, to the younger candidates, like McCain. Besides, his legacy will always be that he was the man who killed the Corvair. We don't need a 'Road Rage' President.

NAFTA seems to be working just fine for the Clinton, I don't see what the problem is or why the people in OH keep belly-aching.  Ohio will just have to learn to deal with it.  So my advise would be for them to learn to live with it and quit screwing up Hillary's chances.  

GO Hill.

Nice to see that the Quinnipiac poll, which have Hillary Clinton ahead by 51 to 41%, but you should not have tried to demean those results by your clain that it was down from a month ago. Today's Morning News confirms that Obama's so called surge in Texas is being fueled by the black vote. I am white and have already voted. I voted black, white and hispanic. My vote went to the best person to do the job. The Texas population numbers are as follows: Black 11.4%, Asian 3.3%, white 48.1% and hispanic 35.7% If we all voted along racial lines and needed 51%, no one would ever get elected. I know that's just not possible, but think about it when you cast your ballot.

Nader wants to join the marathon at mile 13, what a creep.

Chuck, Mark and Domenico,
The three of you are Prostitutes for Obama.
Yes, thats right. "Pimp Daddy B" has 'turned you out,' and you are doing his political media bidding for him.
#1) Obama is no better than Al Gore. He could (and should have to) deal with a Nader candidacy just like Al did in 2000. (...and there are plenty of "Green" types out there who'll vote for Nader too). You people make "Pimp Daddy B" out as someone special who shouldn't be inconvenienced in any way shape or form.
By the way, if Al Gore had run for this year's nomination, "Pimp Daddy B" wouldn't have stood a chance.
#2) Hillary wasn't even in The Senate when NAFTA was passed. Once again, this is another area where "Pimp Daddy B" is full of 'ka-ka.'
#3)Clinton is changing tactics because being nice didn't work. "Pimp Daddy B" has campaigned negatively everywhere he's gone. She makes nice with him at last Thursday's debate, and in return he slaps her in the face by sending out flyers which misrepresent her position on multiple issues. Maybe it's time for the media to scrutinize "Pimp Daddy B" a little more. (HINT, HINT)
Hey, what's this I hear that Obama has ties to the people who were involved in the Brink's robbery a few years back? Bet we won't see anything about that on MSNBC's First Read, will we?
#4) Clinton is leading in Ohio, no matter how you 'spin' the polling data...get over it.
#5) Why would Clinton provide a photo to a website/news source (Drudge) that attacked her husband when he was President, and why would anybody bother to ask such a STUPID question? Did anyone ask Obama's campaign if they were the one's who pushed the New York Times to run the story about McCain, after they held it for four months? (You people are IDIOTS)
#6) The delegate count shows that the race is still close, still wide open, and STILL anybody's ball game. But, you'd never know that from reading your very biased and at times UNTRUTHFUL website.
#7) Here's hoping Hillary's fundraiser takes in enough money to run negative ad's about Obama from now until the convention.
Get REAL First Read, GET TRUTHFUL!
(...or is that too much to ask?)

Here's something elese Bill Kristol said just yesterday:

- If Hillary Clinton wants to gain ground on Barack Obama, just do what the Republicans do - use the fear card -

Lovely.

a picture of obama in somali garb?  come on!  who is stooping to "rovian" tactics now.  for shame, for shame. i think the hillary campaign needs a timeout.  my five year old gets five minutes, so i guess the correct amount of time for hillary would have to be 35 years.  and no talking while you're in there!    

Memo to Ralph Nader...

I don't get to drive a Corvair!

Therefore, you don't get to be President!


Seriously, the man's one great accomplmishment is a book.  His candidacy ends all talk of which candidate has the least experience.

Ralph, this is your 5th run for President.  What's that old adage about "insanity" and how it's defined?

You Could Be Voting Your Rights Away
http://www.naturalnews.com/z022707.html


CLINTON WON'T COMMIT TO RENEW CONSTITUTION...
Illinois Senator Barack Obama has finally signed the American Freedom Pledge, joining his fellow Democratic presidential candidates in encouraging the restoration of basic Constitutional principles after the battering they have taken during the Bush-Cheney era.
All the Democrats, that is, except New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

http://www.thenation.com/blogs/campaignmatters?bid=45&pid=239574

Nader on the far left, Paul on the far right. Both old, both entrenched in the political polarization that is destroying this country..

And both are irrelevant.

Obama gets that you have to work the middle ground for the best interests of the American people. He told the truth on NAFTA, it's not going away but it needs to be renegotiated for the benefit of American
workers.

Hopefully a candidate will address that job losses are also driven by US corporations locating offshore, utilizing cheap labor and then reselling in this economy at massive profit.

I think that's more of a problem for the American worker than NAFTA.



 

If only Nader were as important to ANYONE else as he is to himself.

Don't accuse either candidate of hypocrisy before you actually check your facts. I'll try to help.
1. On the Obama Ohio mailer, I  consider the mailer on NAFTA a bit misleading but not necessarily false as Clinton and Gov. Strickland argued. Go  to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obama_mailings_false.html.
2. On the mailings Hillary sent out attacking Obama, go to http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/youve_got_mailers.html I have said that her own mailer/ad attacks are almost always loaded with outright lies (PLEASE NOTE: The Fact Hub at Facts.hillaryhub.com is actually a part of Hillary's site and is NOT to be always trusted because it merely reflects the responses to Obama's mailers/ads from her campaign).
Now here's my take on the issue of who should be guilty of frequent fabricated facts:
Although Hillary defended her husband's signature of NAFTA and other trade agreements into law, I believe she should not be held responsible. But she must cease calling Obama's mailer on this particular issue 'false' and come out clean on what her positions on trade are. She has also done this by defending her Iraq vote rather than acknowledging or regreting what voters call 'mistakes'.
I will leave it up to voters to use their conscience and judge the issue of whether she is a hypocrite -- or Obama is a hypocrite -- by calling Obama's mailers entirely false while her own mailers have been deemed false. She cannot falsely attack while accusing Obama of outright fabrication, which I am not always able to prove. Obama's campaign has twisted facts a bit, but you have to understand that Hillary's own attacks in the form of mailers and ads are often loaded with fabricated allegations. And for fairness's shake, Obama has to do all he can to defend himself against a propaganda machine -- Hillary's persistent use of completely twisted facts and the GOP's and its allies' use of deceitful campaign tactics. You cannot expect change or preach hope under these circumstances. And when the candidate is fighting deceitful tactics, don't call him or her a hypocrite.

Since the NY Times ran a wonderful eight year old story on John McCain will they follow suit on Barack Obama?

We were treated to the Obama Girl, will we now be treated to the Obama Man - Larry Sinclair?

Bill O'Reilly alluded to Sinclair last week. Fact, fiction or muckracking?  It is better to know now in view of Obama's admitted cocaine use!

First of all:

Decision Analyst Poll from 2/21 - 2/22:

Texas:
Obama - 57%
Clinton - 43%

Ohio
Obama - 54%
Clinton - 46%

Nader's becoming a public nuisance--from being the consumer's advocate hero to spoiler to irrelevant....ahhhh, hubris.

With the two-faced Hillary Clinton, I can’t seem to catch her Voice...what with all the mixed messages.

Let's face it, we will never have a perfect president, but we will have a more perfect union with the election of Barack Obama and certainly a much, much better president over the last two.

Senator Clinton, I am a white, female feminist, but what the heck were you going on about this weekend? Do you honestly think that mocking Obama supporters i helpful? what about your own flyers accusing Senator Obama of not supporting the right to choose in New Hampshire? Sorry, but if you are claiming 35 years of experience, which includes 8 years of being First Lady, you gotta take the good with the bad--Bill can't save you on this one--you definitely supported NAFTA--time for you to GET REAL!

HILLARY CAN'T RUN HER CAMPAIGN. HOW IS SHE GOING TO RUN THE USA?? WITH HER ACCOMPLISHMENTS, WHAT HAS IT GOTTEN US. BEFORE SHE BECOMES PRSIDENT, SHE MUST LEARN TO PLAY "HARD BALL." IF SHE WINS, IT WILL BE BILL'S 2nd TERM IN THE WHITE HOUSE. IF McCAIN WINS, IT WILL BE ANOTHER TERM FOR FATHER & SON BUSH. THINK ABOUT IT, McCAIN LOST IN 2000. NOW HE IS 71 YEARS OLD AND TRYING TO KEEP THE WAR GOING ON FOR ANOTHER 100 YEARS. DO YOU THINK HE WILL BE AROUND?  

If Hillary is going to lump in her time as First Lady with her 35 years of experience, she must take ownership of NAFTA. She must be accountable for the good and bad policies of Bill Clinton. She just can't take credit for those policies that are politically convenient for her.

The problem with Nader is that he's not seen as any threat to Republicans. He's a Democratic party spoiler only. His rhetoric sounds left but his actions support the right. If it is clearly obvious that his running adversly affects Dems but not Rep. one would ask what does Nader stand to gain?

If you buy the classic Nader argument that both Dems. and Reps. are both crooks why is he far more critical of the Dems. Why pick at Obama abnd Clinton almost exclusively? I find it hard to believe that Nader has no Republican ties. He only comes out during Presidential elections, kinda like a spoiler groundhog.

This year if Nader sees his shadow, then it's 4 more yrs. of Republican regime!

Nader jumped the shark on Nov. 3, 2000. And the world's been paying ever since.

This video pretty much assures that I, as an Obama supporter, will NEVER vote for Hillary Clinton.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1ckrEeHDRY

You Hillary supporters can say all you want, but the one thing Obama has not done is mock you.  

I am truly beginning to think that Hillary is in cahoots with McCain trying to help HIM win in November.

The latest poll by the most respected pollster in the nation shows Hillary Rodham Clinton leading 40% (margin of error 60%).

The Clinton juggernaut continues to roar along at a blistering pace, neh sayers be forewarned, it is inevitable the Clintons regain their rightful place as 'Commander In Chiefs'.




 Van

Some of the sites listed here ending wit .com contain information that are not authenetic. They are biased.  urge you to avoid such sites as your resources on the web. It is much more approrpiate to use fact checking sites when determining issues of cocnern to yo.

I'm so sick of hearing about Clintons stirring up trouble.  It's time for America to move on.  Sorry Hillary, you just aren't what America is looking for right now.

Too much drama from Clinton. Will she attack or won't she? Which persona will we see today? Will she concede or won't she? Is she circulating photos of Obama in African garb?

Ugh. Glad its almost over because the thought of this in our living rooms for the next four years...

Obama supporters:  The time has come to be patient with Hillary (all of her personalities included).

We will be needing her supporters soon.  The time is almost here when we have to able to unite.

Hillary supporters:  You are welcome to join us.

Nadar is a conservative plant. His entire function is to cause confusion and split the ticket just enough to allow the repub. candidate become more relevent. Given the amount of media coverage in relation to the war-chest he appear's to have, he is now the talk of the town.

THANK YO RALPH NADER !!

YOU WERE RIGHT ABOUT NAFTA !

Clinton and Gore were wrong
They sold out America nad Americans

THANK YOU RALPH NADER !
THANK YOU ROSS PEROT !

You both tried to warn us about NAFTA
But, the media ridiculed both of you and marginalized you both

Now, look at where we are......

Stop lying about NAFTA, Hillary !
SHAME ON YOU, Hillary !!

sotiredofignorance: '...I'm sorry to see Mr. Nader diminish his own legacy by running again.  It almost appears like he is doing this for his own need for attention rather than the nation's good...'  

No, Nader is doing what he's always tried to do...
Move the Democratic left
Make the Democratic party face it's stated 'principles'

He won't win
I won't vote for him
But, I do respect Ralph Nader

He was RIGHT ON NAFTA ....
How many of you can say the same ?

I question Nader's strategy.  I anticipate his point being that neither of the pollitical parties, given the present Beltway atmosphere and the cost of obtaining political office, will be able to free themselves from corporate coersion and act independently.  he would argue that only a third party candidate can plausibly promise to do that.

How good is that argument?  And, if it is sound, does Ralph Nader likely merit the trust and support of a substantial number of the American electorate for the office of President?

The answers, I suggest are that the argument may have substance, and that the electorate answer is no.  The answer to the first question will await the proof of the pudding, as they say.

To my mind, Nader's argument carries more weight if Hillary is nominated than if Obama is nominated.  Obama just does not bring the Presidential History and Political Connections with him that Hillary does.

Nader canot win the presidency.  If I have Nader's message right, and if Nader's candidacy does nothing else but emphasise it, Nader's candidacy could be a boon to Obama in the coming primaries.  If Nader's candidacy energizes more of Obama's people than McCain's people, it could be a boon to Obama in the general election.  

I do not see how Nader's candicy profits Nader, but it could be of some benefit to Obama.

This political season has been a roller coaster ride for Americans.  There is too much drama and too many personalities.  I don't understand why people just won't just show themselves, instead of running around like loose cannons.  Being grateful one day and the hell with everyone on day 2.  

I admit, I am a Obama supporter, but what is more important to me is getting a Democratic President this year.  Gosh, I am assuring myself I would be happy with either candidate; I still am, but this drama has got to stop!  One thing about it, if you show your a$$ during the preliminaries, even if you get the nomination and go on to be president; people here and abroad will remember your behavior.

I say campaign hard, but don't do the "dirty" and when it comes back to you, you yell foul!  For the sake of women, say what you mean and mean what you say! Stop this do-gooder act then raising hell in the next breath...This is why so many people are critical of Hillary.  I am a hellraiser myself and I am passionate about America and the things that I want to see changed and I will also go to battle, but be yourself.  

I say, whomever Democrat needs to be in that damn White House this year, so America I believe this year is damn good year to hold your nose; especially with ENVADER NADER in the race.  

Time out...Come on People!  Root for your candidate now, but if it's not your candidate, think of the last 8 years and let's get this party started.  This is for Democrats, Republicans, and Independents.  This year is too important to stand on pride!  

IF YOU CAN'T ENDORSE WHOMEVER:
ENDORSE AMERICA 2008 & 2012 and beyond...      

The American Flag Lapel Pin

I have seen no one mention it, so I want to make an important point about the American flag lapel  pin.  Barack Obama apparently doesn't wear one, and for this reason is being accused of not being patriotic.  To this, I say baloney!  Shortly after 9/11, bumper stickers, window stickers, lapel pins, etc., displaying the American flag began to proliferate all over this country.  This was an understandable display of patriotism and anger, and such symbols were probably used by Democrats and Republicans alike in those early days.  However, after our failed current President made the illogical connection between 9/11 and Iraq, and started this terrible war, these American flag symbols evolved into a display of support for THE WAR and the policies of this gang of criminals in control in Washington.  It has been an important part of their rampant fear-mongering campaign, and obviously will continue with the next Republican nominee.  I work in a building with 12 floors on a very liberal University campus, and out of hundreds of offices in the building, there is ONE, repeat ONE, American flag symbol posted on ONE office door.  It so happens that this is the office door of a radical Republican who tapes Rush Limbaugh every day so that he can hear him when he goes home.  It is MANIFESTLY CLEAR to me that this symbol currently, and sadly, represents the failed policies and ideology of the extreme right wing.  I love my country and am particularly excited to be a part of it right now, with Barack Obama having a reasonable chance to lead it, but I would NEVER wear one of those lapel pins, for fear of being identified as a war-loving Republican.  I don't think that any Democrat politician would ever say this, because it would be fodder for the Republican smear machine, but I would be willing to bet that everyone who reads this will know exactly what I mean.  IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH PATRIOTISM!    

1) It would be really easy for Hillary to defend herself on the NAFTA argument, just release her papers as First Lady. If she was against NAFTA originally I am pretty sure it would be in her papers. PLEASE RELEASE YOUR WHITE HOUSE PAPERS!!!!!!!

2) When will they start calling Hillary the angry candidate like they called John Edwards? I was originally an Edwards supporter before switching to Obama when he dropped out (and by the way I am a black male).  It is funny how when Edwards was attacking NAFTA with the zeal that Clinton has, he was the angry candidate, but the same is not true for Clinton?  Better yet how about screaming at the Camera and saying ‘shame on you and I expect more from you’ like Obama was her child?  I mean how hypocritical to say I can mail and say anything I want, but you Mr. Obama should hold yourself up to a higher standard than I hold myself.  Another Clinton saying do as I say not as I do!!!!!

3) This part of the campaign has done nothing more than show that Ohio, Pennsylvania and other rust belt states should be earlier in the primary calendar.  Both candidates have taken a populist tone (although Hillary has stolen Mr. Edwards words) during this part of the Primary Cycle and it shows that Edwards message resonated much more than the elite news media ever wanted to let on. Maybe Ohio should be in Super Tuesday so that NAFTA and bad trade agreements have to be tackled earlier.  

She could be asked if they are...but are they?  

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