hillary promised new york 20000 new jobs now that area is negative 30000 jobs when asked during the debate, why? she said she thought al gore was going to be president.wow ! now she makes all these promises again? i belive  these are empty promises too! because if you cannot unite people everything you propose will die in the senate ! true!
stop saying what people want to hear at obama is honest so far!he tells the truth you punch him and he does not want to play you sad devisive games i pray that god will make it clear who the president will be!america watch the empty promises.  

I heard Hillary will nominate trained baiters in her cabinet because all she can think is attacking others and not undertaking careful management of our government. Her campaign management style will feature prominently in the White House.
Why don't you find something else to say and convince voters that Obama is less qualified than you? Do you think his statements prior to his run for the presidency matter more than your actions -- such as war vote?

The Clinton sabotage machine is going all out.  It's funny how all we have heard about is the media's bias for Obama and against Clinton.  Now, think about that for a moment. Who are we hearing that from?  The media??  Whoa, sounds like anti-Clinton bias to me . . . The fact is that if you go to any website (CNN, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, ABC, Fox, etc.) there are far more pro-clinton articles than there are for Obama.

One more thing:  Hillary claims 35 years of experience and yet has never indicated what constitutes that experience.  Neither Clinton was in office 35 years ago.  What a joke!  The fact of the matter is that Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary has.  Funny how the "anti-clinton" media never brings that up.  Funny how the same media never brings up the fact that she will be in court later this month answer charges of campaign fraud.  The evidence is on tape, people!!! Go to Youtube and see for yourself!!!!

The Clinton sabotage machine is going all out.  It's funny how all we have heard about is the media's bias for Obama and against Clinton.  Now, think about that for a moment. Who are we hearing that from?  The media??  Whoa, sounds like anti-Clinton bias to me . . . The fact is that if you go to any website (CNN, Yahoo, AOL, MSN, ABC, Fox, etc.) there are far more pro-clinton articles than there are for Obama.

One more thing:  Hillary claims 35 years of experience and yet has never indicated what constitutes that experience.  Neither Clinton was in office 35 years ago.  What a joke!  The fact of the matter is that Obama has held elected office longer than Hillary has.  Funny how the "anti-clinton" media never brings that up.  Funny how the same media never brings up the fact that she will be in court later this month answering charges of campaign finance fraud.  The evidence is on tape, people!!! Go to Youtube and see for yourself!!!!

"Clinton Keeps Swinging", and missing...............

Right now we are at an impasse with Bush. He has the veto pen--and uses it at his leisure. The 'bus is in the ditch(thanks to Bush/McCain/Clinton), only a working majority can get it out. How does HRC plan to get a working majority to override any veto at this point. What is her coattail appeal when she insults Barack's voters and uses the 'insult 40 state strategy'(as described by some left bloggers) in the primary.
Sitting on a subcommittee is a strawman argument that she is pushing to low-information voters. NATO is doing their job. In general, the problem is the Bush policy. The problem is the 'sucking sound' coming from the Iraq policy.
As far as his votes on Iraq, it has been stated that she waits to see how he votes then follows. Also, voting for funding while the boots are on the ground is not a persuasive argument.

enough of msnbc's biased reporting, this is the worst form of media reporting....be more responsible of yourselves..

I guess Hillary can't find two minutes to call her accountant and release her tax returns because she's spending all her time coming up with these attack ads.  What a joke.  Do all of you Clintonistas just not care that she's hiding something from the voters by not releasing her tax returns?  Do you really buy the "I'm too busy" excuse?  Really?

For all the people that claim they can't stand Hillary Clinton, there are just as many people that HATE Barack Obama and it didn't take them 2, or 4, 8, 12 or 20 years to get to that point, it took all of a couple of months for them to have Barack and Michelle Obama fitigue.

Little by little, people in this country will start to get tired of hearing his voice and him running his mouth.  November is over 8 months away, plenty of time for people to fall out of love with Obama.

And for everyone that plans to respond to this comment using words like racist, or any of the many words you could use to attempt to desribe this comment or the people that CAN'T STAND OBAMA, don't bother.

It won't change the final outcome.

You can be in love with Obama all you want, but whatch what happens in November and beyond.

Please check your facts.  How do you interpret this?

"There's not that much difference between my position and George Bush's position at this stage". The article went on to note that Obama "opposed the Iraq invasion before the war. But he now believes U.S. forces must remain to stabilize the war-ravaged nation -- a policy not dissimilar to the current approach of the Bush administration."

I hope she can bow out gracefully on Weds and try to heal some of the damage she has done, so we Dems can go on to victory in November.

And swinging, and swinging and swinging.  Just like the energizer bunny.  Cuz, she's a fighter.  She will fight for us.  

Thing is, I don't want a fighter.  Don't want to have anything to do with it.

Sen. Clinton's ability to speak truthfully, while also pressing her case, has fallen rapidly.  The last few days of her statements seem rife with flat-out falsehoods.  (I suppose, after complaining about plagiarism and then plagiarizing V.P. Mondale's red phone commercial, she's lost her ability to "get real.")

Since Obama, his supporters and the media want to take up the issue of TRANSPARENCY in government, and in so doing paint a picture of Hillary Clinton as someone who dishonest versus Obama as someone who is honest, lets talk about Mr. Obama’s honesty since his supporters and the media refuse to do.
While it has become TRADITION since the Watergate era for Presidential Nominees to release personal income tax returns, there is no requirement for a Presidential candidate to do so.
Senator Clinton has said that she will release her personal income tax returns when she becomes the Democratic nominee.  If Obama wants to release ONE tax return from 2006, which hardly paints a true picture of where his money has come from over the past 20 years, then good for him.  Although if Obama is trying to convince everyone that he’s holier than thou, he should release his personal tax returns for the past 20 years since that’s how long he claims he’s been saving the world.
If Obama, his supporters and the media are going to talk about Transparency and insist that Obama is The Saint of all Saints, then Obama needs to walk-the-walk, not just talk-the-talk when it benefits him.
Under Obama’s Fiscal Plan he claims he will
• Cut Pork Barrel Spending: Obama introduced and passed bipartisan legislation that would require more disclosure and transparency for special-interest earmarks. Obama believes that spending that cannot withstand public scrutiny cannot be justified. Obama will slash earmarks to no greater than year 2001 levels and ensure all spending decisions are open to the public.


Yet, to date Obama refuses to release his 2005 and 2006 earmarks.  While he has released his 2007 earmarks, it’s obvious that he did it because that is when he decided to run for President.

February 15, 2008

Lynn Sweet of the Chicago Sun-Times said
CAMPAIGN '08 | He preaches transparency, doesn't practice it, foes charge
I'm returning to transparency and Obama -- I've written columns on this topic since 2004 -- because Obama's reluctance to tell the whole story on earmarks and other matters is a habit with him. Now Obama has created an opening that his GOP opponents are using to hit him.
In the year Obama has been running for president, he has made government transparency a central campaign pledge. That was his strategic decision. But there are consequences when you campaign saying you would do one thing as president, but don't do it as a senator.
One might guess that Obama is a model of disclosure. He is not. He has been improving. But he has gaps, and Thursday's blasts from the Republicans showed they have no reluctance to exploit an Obama weakness. I have made my points over the years -- on how Obama is not as forthcoming as he could be with his schedules, fund-raising events, bundlers and earmarks. To the credit of Obama and his campaign, there has been some progress on these fronts.
Earmarks are spending measures tucked into legislation. Earmarks are controversial because some people call this pork; others see this as funding for projects important to a state or a community. McCain has made getting rid of earmarks a crusade and seeks none. A searchable database put together by Taxpayers for Common Sense just triggered a new round of earmark stories. Obama helped get $91 million for Illinois projects; Sen. Hillary Clinton assisted in securing $342 million for New York.
Thursday's Washington Post ran a front-page story about Clinton, Obama, McCain and their earmarks. The story noted that Obama "since last year" does disclose his earmark requests "but has not released those submitted to the [Appropriations] committee in 2005 and 2006."
In November, I wrote about how Obama's Senate office, after repeated requests since June, had yet to disclose earmarks Obama sought in 2006.

Today David Kirkpatrick and Jeff Zeleny of the New York Times wrote
Early Obama Commitment on Money Becomes Target
Just 12 months ago, Senator Barack Obama presented himself as an idealistic upstart taking on the Democratic fund-raising juggernaut behind Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton.
That was when Mr. Obama proposed a novel challenge aimed at limiting the corrupting influence of money on the race: If he won the nomination, he would limit himself to spending only the $85 million available in public financing between the convention and Election Day as long as his Republican opponent did the same.
Now his challenge to his rivals has boomeranged into a test of Mr. Obama’s own ability to balance principle and politics in a very different context. After taking in $100 million in donations, Mr. Obama is the one setting fund-raising records, presenting a powerful temptation to find a way out of his own proposal so that he might outspend his Republican opponent. And the all-but-certain Republican nominee, Senator John McCain, is short on cash and eager to take up the fund-raising truce.
Mr. Obama was notably noncommittal about his previous proposal in Tuesday’s Democratic debate, indicating that he would add new conditions, especially on spending by independent groups, to his previous pledges to accept the deal. If nominated, “I will sit down with John McCain and make sure that we have a system that is fair to both sides,” Mr. Obama said, alluding to the need to close “loopholes.”
Campaign finance experts said the issue was a major test of Mr. Obama’s commitment. It is also a first glimpse of what might come in a general election fight between two candidates who have championed public integrity, opening themselves to accusations of hypocrisy.
Obama is a fraud and a hypocrite.

And what has Hill done??? Armed services commitee but has done nothing to make a difference. Voted for Iraq war and still has not done her taxes...
Get a life Hill. We have nothing to fear but fear itself remember???
Anyone who fall for this is a coward. We can not live in fear and fear of change.

Senator Clinton probably has no choice at this point except to continue to go negative and hammer on his weak points, which quite honestly, probably is his lack of experience on national security issues.  Personally, although I don't disagree with that, I don't believe Ms. Clinton has much experience there either...
If Barack makes it through and eventually gets the Democratic nomination for POTUS, Biden would be an excellent choice for him as VP, as a counterpoint to the experience issues.  I think Hillary should choose Barack.

The Clintons runs a gutter campaign. It's probably Penn's fault, but she doesn't have to listen to him. I'd be curious to see who hires Penn after this debacle is all over.
Mark Penn and Patti Solis Doyle= Alberto Gonzales and Don Rumsfeld?

February 24, 2008

The Audacity of Hopelessness
By FRANK RICH

WHEN people one day look back at the remarkable implosion of the Hillary Clinton campaign, they may notice that it both began and ended in the long dark shadow of Iraq.

It’s not just that her candidacy’s central premise — the priceless value of “experience” — was fatally poisoned from the start by her still ill-explained vote to authorize the fiasco. Senator Clinton then compounded that 2002 misjudgment by pursuing a 2008 campaign strategy that uncannily mimicked the disastrous Bush Iraq war plan. After promising a cakewalk to the nomination — “It will be me,” Mrs. Clinton told Katie Couric in November — she was routed by an insurgency.

The Clinton camp was certain that its moneyed arsenal of political shock-and-awe would take out Barack Hussein Obama in a flash. The race would “be over by Feb. 5,” Mrs. Clinton assured George Stephanopoulos just before New Year’s. But once the Obama forces outwitted her, leaving her mission unaccomplished on Super Tuesday, there was no contingency plan. She had neither the boots on the ground nor the money to recoup.

That’s why she has been losing battle after battle by double digits in every corner of the country ever since. And no matter how much bad stuff happened, she kept to the Bush playbook, stubbornly clinging to her own Rumsfeld, her chief strategist, Mark Penn. Like his prototype, Mr. Penn is bigger on loyalty and arrogance than strategic brilliance. But he’s actually not even all that loyal. Mr. Penn, whose operation has billed several million dollars in fees to the Clinton campaign so far, has never given up his day job as chief executive of the public relations behemoth Burson-Marsteller. His top client there, Microsoft, is simultaneously engaged in a demanding campaign of its own to acquire Yahoo.

Clinton fans don’t see their standard-bearer’s troubles this way. In their view, their highly substantive candidate was unfairly undone by a lightweight showboat who got a free ride from an often misogynist press and from naïve young people who lap up messianic language as if it were Jim Jones’s Kool-Aid. Or as Mrs. Clinton frames it, Senator Obama is all about empty words while she is all about action and hard work.

But it’s the Clinton strategists, not the Obama voters, who drank the Kool-Aid. The Obama campaign is not a vaporous cult; it’s a lean and mean political machine that gets the job done. The Clinton camp has been the slacker in this race, more words than action, and its candidate’s message, for all its purported high-mindedness, was and is self-immolating.

The gap in hard work between the two campaigns was clear well before Feb. 5. Mrs. Clinton threw as much as $25 million at the Iowa caucuses without ever matching Mr. Obama’s organizational strength. In South Carolina, where last fall she was up 20 percentage points in the polls, she relied on top-down endorsements and the patina of inevitability, while the Obama campaign built a landslide-winning organization from scratch at the grass roots. In Kansas, three paid Obama organizers had the field to themselves for three months; ultimately Obama staff members outnumbered Clinton staff members there 18 to 3.

In the last battleground, Wisconsin, the Clinton campaign was six days behind Mr. Obama in putting up ads and had only four campaign offices to his 11. Even as Mrs. Clinton clings to her latest firewall — the March 4 contests — she is still being outhustled. Last week she told reporters that she “had no idea” that the Texas primary system was “so bizarre” (it’s a primary-caucus hybrid), adding that she had “people trying to understand it as we speak.” Perhaps her people can borrow the road map from Obama’s people. In Vermont, another March 4 contest, The Burlington Free Press reported that there were four Obama offices and no Clinton offices as of five days ago. For what will no doubt be the next firewall after March 4, Pennsylvania on April 22, the Clinton campaign is sufficiently disorganized that it couldn’t file a complete slate of delegates by even an extended ballot deadline.

This is the candidate who keeps telling us she’s so competent that she’ll be ready to govern from Day 1. Mrs. Clinton may be right that Mr. Obama has a thin résumé, but her disheveled campaign keeps reminding us that the biggest item on her thicker résumé is the health care task force that was as botched as her presidential bid.

Given that Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama offer marginally different policy prescriptions — laid out in voluminous detail by both, by the way, on their Web sites — it’s not clear what her added-value message is. The “experience” mantra has been compromised not only by her failure on the signal issue of Iraq but also by the deadening lingua franca of her particular experience, Washingtonese. No matter what the problem, she keeps rolling out another commission to solve it: a commission for infrastructure, a Financial Product Safety Commission, a Corporate Subsidy Commission, a Katrina/Rita Commission and, to deal with drought, a water summit.

As for countering what she sees as the empty Obama brand of hope, she offers only a chilly void: Abandon hope all ye who enter here. This must be the first presidential candidate in history to devote so much energy to preaching against optimism, against inspiring language and — talk about bizarre — against democracy itself. No sooner does Mrs. Clinton lose a state than her campaign belittles its voters as unrepresentative of the country.

Bill Clinton knocked states that hold caucuses instead of primaries because “they disproportionately favor upper-income voters” who “don’t really need a president but feel like they need a change.” After the Potomac primary wipeout, Mr. Penn declared that Mr. Obama hadn’t won in “any of the significant states” outside of his home state of Illinois. This might come as news to Virginia, Maryland, Washington and Iowa, among the other insignificant sites of Obama victories. The blogger Markos Moulitsas Zúniga has hilariously labeled this Penn spin the “insult 40 states” strategy.

The insults continued on Tuesday night when a surrogate preceding Mrs. Clinton onstage at an Ohio rally, Tom Buffenbarger of the machinists’ union, derided Obama supporters as “latte-drinking, Prius-driving, Birkenstock-wearing, trust-fund babies.” Even as he ranted, exit polls in Wisconsin were showing that Mr. Obama had in fact won that day among voters with the least education and the lowest incomes. Less than 24 hours later, Mr. Obama received the endorsement of the latte-drinking Teamsters.

If the press were as prejudiced against Mrs. Clinton as her campaign constantly whines, debate moderators would have pushed for the Clinton tax returns and the full list of Clinton foundation donors to be made public with the same vigor it devoted to Mr. Obama’s “plagiarism.” And it would have showered her with the same ridicule that Rudy Giuliani received in his endgame. With 11 straight losses in nominating contests, Mrs. Clinton has now nearly doubled the Giuliani losing streak (six) by the time he reached his Florida graveyard. But we gamely pay lip service to the illusion that she can erect one more firewall.

The other persistent gripe among some Clinton supporters is that a hard-working older woman has been unjustly usurped by a cool young guy intrinsically favored by a sexist culture. Slate posted a devilish video mash-up of the classic 1999 movie “Election”: Mrs. Clinton is reduced to a stand-in for Tracy Flick, the diligent candidate for high school president played by Reese Witherspoon, and Mr. Obama is implicitly cast as the mindless jock who upsets her by dint of his sheer, unearned popularity.

There is undoubtedly some truth to this, however demeaning it may be to both candidates, but in reality, the more consequential ur-text for the Clinton 2008 campaign may be another Hollywood classic, the Katharine Hepburn-Spencer Tracy “Pat and Mike” of 1952. In that movie, the proto-feminist Hepburn plays a professional athlete who loses a tennis or golf championship every time her self-regarding fiancé turns up in the crowd, pulling her focus and undermining her confidence with his grandstanding presence.

In the 2008 real-life remake of “Pat and Mike,” it’s not the fiancé, of course, but the husband who has sabotaged the heroine. The single biggest factor in Hillary Clinton’s collapse is less sexism in general than one man in particular — the man who began the campaign as her biggest political asset. The moment Bill Clinton started trash-talking about Mr. Obama and raising the specter of a co-presidency, even to the point of giving his own televised speech ahead of his wife’s on the night she lost South Carolina, her candidacy started spiraling downward.

What’s next? Despite Mrs. Clinton’s valedictory tone at Thursday’s debate, there remains the fear in some quarters that whether through sleights of hand involving superdelegates or bogus delegates from Michigan or Florida, the Clintons might yet game or even steal the nomination. I’m starting to wonder. An operation that has waged political war as incompetently as the Bush administration waged war in Iraq is unlikely to suddenly become smart enough to pull off that duplicitous a “victory.” Besides, after spending $1,200 on Dunkin’ Donuts in January alone, this campaign simply may not have the cash on hand to mount a surge.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/24/opinion/24rich.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

Wow she only drew 2,500 in Dallas?  Senator Obama drew 13,000 in Ft. Worth yesterday.

Wow, what complete and utter horse pucky.
Such a dizzying array of falsehoods and distortions...it's difficult to pick which one is most egregious. Good job by the reporters here for that last paragraph correcting the record, though Clinton saying that Obama "had decided that maybe he wasn't sure which way he would have actually voted" is a deliberate falsehood. As most know by now, just prior to the 2004 Democratic convention, a NY Times reporter asked him how he would have voted. Obama, in deference to the nominee and the potential VP who had voted for authorization, said he didn't know because he may have been shown classified information that could have changed his mind. But in the very next statement, he's quoted as saying, "But from my vantage point, the case was not made."
Really, Hillary should focus on other issues. The Iraq vote just points out her craven political instincts. It's likely too late now, but if she had just conceded the point and said something along the lines as, "Obama was right; I should have voted against it, I regret it with every ounce of my being" and then pivoted about what to do next, she's probably be the nominee by now. Alas, it's not in her nature to admit error.

Let's hold the primaries today so we can get past Clinton's defeat and get on with electing a new President, Barack Obama.

Clinton, lying?  Amazing.  I can't believe it.

Look, the simple FACT is that she cast her vote in favor of using force in Iraq WITHOUT READING THE RELEVANT NIE.  Do we really want a President who is going to essentially go off half cocked every time something comes up, without at least examining the issues?  That's one reason her campaign is sinking so fast - she does not do research, she does not learn all she can about something before committing.  As an example, look at how she is now griping about Texas's primary + caucus system.  Obama had the judgment and foresight to clearly predict what would happen in Iraq, and it turned out just as he said in 2002.  Clinton did not.  Then she tried to treat us all as uneducated, uninformed dolts with this BS line about not knowing Bush would use the authorization to use force...to use force!  That, coupled with her vote in favor of a bill she said she hoped would not become law makes me think that either she's a complete DITZ, or she thinks we're complete ditz's.  

We don't need a female version of W in the White House for 4 more years.  Note also that she FAILED to plan for a campaign to go on beyond Super Tuesday, because by then the people would be greeting her as a liberator and offering flowers.  She also wouldn't need much more cash, because her shock and awe campaign would result in a quick victory, and then the campaign would pay for itself.  It would be a cakewalk!

Like she says, "get real!"

Nevermind national security, this is more important.


Let us not forget the crime statistics associated with the last Clinton administration:


Crime Stats:

- Number of individuals and businesses associated with the Clinton machine who have been convicted of or pleaded guilty to crimes: 47
- Number of these convictions during Clinton's presidency: 33
- Number of indictments/misdemeanor charges: 61
- Number of congressional witnesses who have pleaded the Fifth Amendment, fled the country to avoid testifying, or (in the case of foreign witnesses) refused to be interviewed: 122

Forgetful Clinton "friends":

Number of times that Clinton figures who testified in court or before Congress said that they didn't remember, didn't know, or something similar.

Hillary Clinton 250.
Bill Kennedy 116
Harold Ickes 148
Ricki Seidman 160
Bruce Lindsey 161
Bill Burton 191
Mark Gearan 221
Mack McLarty 233
Neil Egglseston 250
John Podesta 264
Jennifer O'Connor 343
Dwight Holton
348 Patsy Thomasson 420
Jeff Eller 697



Folks, this is a the prefect example of the old adage, if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck and looks like a duck, chances are, it is, indeed, a duck.

Follow all the links above and ask yourself one final question.

Will Americans vote for a person that has such close associations with fraud and crime and fugitives?

Hillary can claim all she wants that there is some vast right wing conspiracy against her, but if her actions didn't warrant such close scrutiny then what would this vast conspiracy have to use against her?

She believes the statement alone, the words "vast right wing conspiracy" is a get out of jail free card for her to accept questionable donations, be associated with fugitives and criminals, have a fugitive host her campaign fund raisers and to claim under oath 250 times that she couldn't remember, didn't know or something along those lines.

I repeat what I said on a previous post, linked above, if the Democrats are foolish enough to make Hillary the nominated candidate for presidency, that is the best news the GOP could ever get.

I'm sorry, but I just don't feel that Obama is ready at this point to take the helm of the highest office in the land.  He preaches a good game, but I'd feel much more comfortable with Hillary in charge.  I've watched all their debates, and to me it's clear that she has the vision, depth, compassion and toughness to be president. She also has Bill, who can only be a major asset to her presidency.   Obama is too new, untested and insufficiently vetted ... after 8 years of a disastrous Bush legacy, I believe strongly that it's too risky to elect him at this juncture.

quote:

It was, in this reporter's opinion, the most interesting moment in today's Clinton campaign phoner with reporters. Responding to the release of HRC's new TX TV ad, which asserts in no subtle terms that only she has the experience to deal with a major world crisis, and, relatedly, to keep your children safe, Slate's John Dickerson asked the obvious question:

"What foreign policy moment would you point to in Hillary's career where she's been tested by crisis?" he said.

Silence on the call. You could've knit a sweater in the time it took the usually verbose team of Mark Penn, Howard Wolfson and Lee Feinstein, Clinton's national security director, to find a cogent answer. And what they came up with was weak -- that she's been endorsed by many high ranking members of the uniformed military.

http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2008/02/pregnant_pause.html

Obama needs to move forward with his suggestion of collecting social security witholding on all income and not just the first $100,000 or so as it is now. With the proceeds from this he can expand medicare and medicade to whoever needs, cut the insurance companies completely out of the equation and forget about garnishing the wages of the working poor.

Obama supporters are trying to overplay Barack Obama risk opposing the war with his speech, considering that most Americans supported or did not think the war was a mistake in 2002-2003 by 2-1 margin.

Considering Obama major portion of his constituents in Illinois was the 30% the African-American voters adding to a weak opponent running for the Senate, the risk of opposing the war was not a big as many in the media want us to believe.

While most Americans supported the war from the start by 2-1 margin African Americans did not as per the excerpt "Atlanta Journal-Constitution/Zogby America poll found that only 23 percent of African-Americans strongly or somewhat supported a war, compared with 62 percent of white Americans".

Barack Obama failing to hold a single hearing on Afghanistan since he became chairman of US senate oversight committee is resonating among Texas voters on the question of "SPEECH versus SOLUTION regarding National Security and terrorism.

This was a great speech, but no its not the biggest crowd since El Paso. Do you reporting correctly!!! She was in Fort Worth earlier today and there were between 5000-10000 people there.

Just because Obama did not actually vote in the Senate does not make his stance on the war any less pivotal. She is constantly trying to twist what he says, his intentions and his record. I am so frustrated by people taking words out of Clinton's mouth for truth without any investigation on their own.

For one, he has been using his speech he made primarily to outline the predictions that he made with regards to the war that have all come true. Whether he was in the Senate or not, I would think showing that he had the foresight and judgment to predict what the results of our actions in Iraq would be shows that he not only understands foreign policy, but can make sound and wise judgment calls. Clinton is trying to frame this in such a way to belittle that fact because she has no real rebuttal to it. I could care less where he was when he was saying no to the war!! At least he knew what was right for the country.

Second, I am so sick of hearing about Clinton's "experience" factor. Why? Because Obama has experience too. It may be a different kind of experience than hers, but who is anyone to say that her experience is more valid than his. I happen to think that his experience and background are more suited to the type  of leader we need right now. His unique experience is what has enabled him to run an outstanding campaign that has beaten her in every possible way that you could measure a campaign.

Okay, let's make this really simple. I at one point was undecided between these two candidates. I researched their records, their websites, their policy  and watched every speech I could. That is a lot of information to sift through and sometimes it is hard to get the facts straight. People can often view events that happened in the past from skewed angles. So if you are one having a hard time, lets just focus on what we can see and hear and what is present....their campaigns.

It is indisputable that Obama has run a superior campaign in every way. Her campaign has failed miserably in every way. If we are going to elect someone to run the country, shouldn't we also be taking into account how they are running their campaigns? I hear those that say they can not trust Obama because he has not been around long enough, but for me the proof is in the pudding. Not only has he beaten Clinton, who was considered a shoe-in for this nomination, he has done so without lobbyist money, without getting really nasty and ugly,(even when she has), and without following the typical rule-book campaign strategies of the past. He truly has revolutionized the campaigning process and lifted us all up not only to get involved in our country again but to be better Americans and to strive for more in our own lives.

I personally find it offensive and ignorant that Clinton mocks him and says he is "just words". His campaign management is an "action" that no one can refute he has excelled at. And his "words" just happen to be engaging all Americans to get involved and make sure this country gets back on track. If Hillary does not understand the dire importance of inspiring and mobilizing the American people, then I think she is the one that needs to get real.

And for those of you running around saying he is just words...you might want to take time and check out his website that has all of the policy you will ever want to read on it. He has chosen to leave detail out of his speeches because he knows Americans don't need or want to hear about dire details. We need to be lifted up from the cloud that has been George Bush and begin to remember what America stands for again.

If you think Obama has no experience I think you need to wake up, he obviously has whatever experience he needed to wipe the floor with the ominous Clinton machine!! And I believe he has the experience we so desperately need right now!!

This will end on Tuesday night, Then Obama "OUR NEXT PRESIDENT" will be able to focus in J.McCain.  No matter what Hillary does or say is too late for her and i hope she will concede and endorse Obama on Tuesday night.  OBAMA PRESIDENT

This speech is really why he isn't fit for the job.Our leader has to be able,I believe, to move as things progress.Always going back to this vote (he doesnt know what he would have voted ) shows a bit of quagmire, We have seen enough of that for sure.Hillary has moved ahead of it and planning next 4 moves while he is still hung up on it.Didnt couple of his supporters vote same as Hillary??Does this mean they are not worthy either???A balloon, no matter how much hot air, will eventualy leak air till gone. I hear a leak

This is what we have seen here in Illinois. Obama makes you believe, gets the job and never follows through. He has run for office for more than 10 years and he certainly is not fresh in Illinois. The only change Obama will deliver is a bunch of disappointed groupies drunk on kool aide,

Naomi Wolff on the Huffington Post, Feb. 28, 2008:

"Why Barack Obama Got My Vote"

…Gender has nothing to do with it. Race has nothing to do with it. Integrity has something to do with it.

That is why Barack Obama has my vote. Of all the leading candidates, he is the only one on these issues who has consistently acted like a true American.

And if I hear -- as I am likely to -- from legions of US feminists outraged at me for choosing this man over that woman, I will gladly sit down and explain why I am certain that these issues are so urgent that they overshadow absolutely everything else. Anyway, the man is a feminist; he has a woman-friendly policy vision. And while it would be a thrill to see the first woman elected President, in the last analysis, a real feminist need not define people or support on the basis of gender. Certainly not when our house -- with the precious Constitution held without representation within it -- is burning down.

...and swinging, and swinging.

She's a fighter, alright. She's just not particularly good at it.

I have posted here numerous times and have followed the guidelines but have never seen one of my postings.  I hope this one makes it.  I have given and campaigned for Hillary because as a 60 year old woman I truly believe it is time for a woman to be president of the USA.  I do not personally have anything against Barack Obama; however, he is too inexperienced to handle the mess that will be awaiting our 44th president.  Hillary can do the job and I ask that all rethink their votes next week.  We need strength and leadership and knowledge that comes from experience to make the decisions that will be awaiting our next president.  God Bless America and help HRC be that person.  Thank you.

The definition of insanity- Doing the same thing over and over again yet expecting a different result. Hillary keeps using the same arguments hoping that somehow, someway they will gain traction. Its as if she thinks the voters are under some kind of Obama Voodoo and if she keeps throwing the same argument in their faces they will wake up and vote for her.

Attention Hillary and McCain. Here is Obama's secret. He is speaking to the hearts of Americans. He actually spent a vast part of his career finding out how the weakest amongst us live.

As anyone knows, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link. Under the Bush administration not only our poor, but our middle class has become our weakest link. Obama is the only one who has turned down the Wall Street jobs he could have taken after Harvard, the Pac and special interest money he could have taken to run for President, and money I'm sure has been offered under the table. The truth is even if he had taken some prestigious high paying job, the American people wuold not have held that against him because thats what most of us would have done given the same opportunities. What we detest more than Satan himself is lying politicians who take a position because its convenient. Politicians who listen to some obscure polls, no one but the press has ever heard of, but they ignore the wisdom and needs of the American people.

When Obama makes a mistake he not only apoogizes for it he corrects it. He doesn't have to be given an out by Tim Russert to aknowledge his error in judgement. In other words he presents himself as being a man of integrity who actually listens to the concerns of the average citizen and then does something about it.

Forget the error in judgement Hillary and others had on the war in Iraq for a moment. Did Hillary even know that wounded soldiers were paying for their own food and phone calls at Walter Reid? This is the kind of "experience" America wants. We don't give a damn if one can name the next Russian successor if you can't name and do something about the problems we are facing right here.

This is why he is beating Hillary like a rented mule. She, and every other politicians, Republican or Democrat, that wants to keep his or her job in the future, should think about these things. All politicians should.

For those politicians who choose not to learn the lessons of us being pissed at the Republicans and Democrats that got us into this mess may I remind you of one other truth. We vote again for Senate and House members REAL SOON.

Dumbama is a hollow joke!


Clinton '08

Her husband keeps 'swinging' too. (wink wink)

Cl;inton has outraised obama in funding by 10 million dollars yet obama has outspent her 2 to 1 and michigan and florida dont count and he is barely ahead - lol

Clinton '08

Hillary is president.  The phone rings in the White House at 3:00 AM.  Monica Lewinsky answers it.

What's with the onslaught of Clinton-centric stories on this blog lately? Hillary this, Clinton that...Boy, MSNBC is swallowing the Clinton spin and going into overdrive to cover her every utterance without challenge. Are you guys that afraid of being called biased by the Clinton camp? Just because she says it doesn't make it so. It is sickening and shameful that you so-called journalists and analysts can be so intimidated by these people.

The GOP would love for obama to get the nod from the DNC cause the will have a field day with his voting record and his past.  One thing hillary has going for her is there is nothing we do not know about her.  Obama will be 4yrs. of backgound checks and investigations by the media and the republicans.

makes me laugh people have to always go back back back, Cann't get anything of substance on Hillary??Lets get her husband.People that dont make mistakes are people that dont do anything.For people looking to change things they have to paddle faster just to get to present.This is what we have been saying:Obama cannt see the experience cause he doesnt have it.Hasnt been there.We learn as we go and experience all things.Calling names and smearing people so your messiah can appear clean is pathetic.That itself is so politics as usual. You know the kind you all are supposed to not be able to stand. Grow up!!I will say he is smart keeping his wife hidden. Falling on stage spouting renarks against Hillary and Now so proud of country, What a first lady that will be.Will she lower herself to move to Washington if Obama gets the WH or will she move it to Ill.

Lets face it: msnbc just HATES Hillary and has no idea what the word journalism means. It's disgustingly biased. At the same time we see young paid Obama supporter overflow this website with hatred against Hillary. I deeply hope that the American people is clever enought to see through this and wote for the best person.

Hillary 08!!!

Senator Clinton will be on Saturday Night Live tonight--

More free press from her buds

personally offinsive?? Related Andria?? Maybe so close you could tell us of his family in Kenya.Does he have a cousin running for pres??what did he or his people have to say to the canadians about  NAFTA?Is it conflict of interest to have alledgence to Africa while being Pres, of America?I am offended, too, at the way he ruined Pres and Mrs Clinton's work in cival rights.Talk about turning there words against them without truth.He is good at that. He is ambious to a fault and doesnt keep his word,Everything is a stepping stone for him. This man you try to paint as a saint is not.He is not a JFK or MLK.He is a wanna bee.He will not win Nov and thanks to him we will have 4more yrs of Repubs.

Just want to point out to the moderator--I can't get an opinion in, but there are doctoral thesis opinions--who is going to read an opinion 20+ paragraphs long??

MHO--If Hillary is further behind Obama in delegates and popular vote after Tuesday she should cash in her chips and go home.  The longer she overstays the harder it will be for her and Bill to market the Clinton brand in other endeavors--and most importantly--the more damage they do to the party and chances of winning the national election for dems.

I dont know what websites some of your have been on but the entire media is PRO-OBAMA!

The fact that you see one thing printed about Clinton that is not negative you WHINE that CNN or all others are Pro-Clinton.

When i "was" an Obama supporter even I noticed how the media took a favorite turn towards Mr. Obama. Some people are just so biased it is crazy.

Nick,
How do you define "bias" then? Are you whinin about bias in anticipation of your candidate's defeat? Or, do you do frank analysis of how the media reprots and the behavior of both candidate? If you see absolue bias on MSNBC, how about going to www.factcheck.org or other resourceful sites to do your own unbiased analyses/fact checking before you baselessly claim biased reporting and accuse MSNBC accordingly?
I guess those who whine about media bias are the ones who have fallen victims of ignorance and propaganda.

SHE JUST LIES! LIES! LIES!

WHAT do hillary supporters see in this woman who has absolutely no integrity?

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