First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:27:24 GMT

That just gave me a headache...and I still don't know when anyone's primaries/caucuses are. This is getting (or has it been?) completely ridiculous.

First thoughts

Ollie frenchburg ky — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:39:47 GMT

What is behind all of these primaries being moved up?

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:42:12 GMT

Biden going on Fox???? Hey Hillary, come on, come play with us at Fox news! Sean Hannity would love to do an interview with you......

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:55:24 GMT

Lets get this clear ...Obama never said he did not take them in the past. He said he would not take them now running for PRESIDENT. He also said WASHINGTON LOBBYIST. Carrying the water of hillaryis44 I see, again

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 13:58:23 GMT

Ridiculous! Some people want to create chaos, that party would be?

First thoughts

Maureen — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:01:10 GMT

Richard Nixon was running for re-election in 1972. The Watergate was broken into in June 1972. It's my understanding one of the reasons they broke into the DNC was to get "dirt" on Ted Kennedy. Nixon feared Ted would run for President against him that year. This doesn't make sense but it's what I've read in the past. How could Ted Kennedy not decide by June '72 if he was going to run or not if the election was the following November? When did RFK decided to run in 1968? That spring?

This is completely ridiculous what's going on now.

First thoughts

Just one voter's opinion... Elkridge, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:02:25 GMT

We should just go to a national primary day, held no sooner than six months before the general election. It's always been ridiculous that two small states have always held so much political power over the rest of the country, especially when they do not have the diversity of people and concerns as the rest of the country. Holding the primary six months before would cut down the election cycle, so we don't have two years of campaigning by people who have already been elected to do a job in Washington that they are neglecting.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:03:53 GMT

Ollie frenchburg ky / good question, I suspect it is for the benifit of someone, but it is too confusing for me to figure out

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:04:26 GMT

It should be obivious based on the last four years why one wouldn't want the President beholden to Washington Lobbyist. Cheney and Bush turned it into an art with the oil industry.

If Democrats thought it was bad for them and they had to much influence and were paying back favors, why should we think no different from our own...but of course you know that too!!.

Funny how Hillary doesn't want to talk about her PAST votes... but wants to talk about what other people did in the PAST. hillary and friends simply want to justify why she will continue to do it.

Hillary doesn't want to have people get into discussions about what PEOPLE used to do. Afterall everyone is giving Bill credit for Change for the better.

I am glad Obama will NO LONGER do it regardless of what he did in the PAST it call CHANGE guys for the better good.

First thoughts

Union Baby, Tennessee — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:22:38 GMT

I think we should have a national primary day just like the General Election. Let the conventions be to celebrate the candidate who wins the nomination and for planning the campaign, but there is no sense in one state or another having all the say in who is nominated. It would be cheaper too, but I guess the advertising folks would not go for this, so big media would never let it happen.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:38:56 GMT

so all you democrats who dislike Hillary and she gets the nomination..you will be voting for??or not voting??? And we'll get a republican again. Very foolish.

First thoughts

D Minter — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:45:33 GMT

Lyn,MD When Obama talks about not talking money from lobbyists, he never say I use to but now I don't. He would be more believeable if he did. Don't be to quick to make excuses for any of these candidates. They have all something they don't want you to know. Obama hands are not clean. He still in a round about way take money from lobbyists. So don't get too excited.

First thoughts

Class Warrior — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:49:06 GMT

I agree, moving primary date up sets a dangerous precedent, and someone is figuring to benefit from it...or some Party, anyway. As for Obama; I used to be a fan, but he started sounding mainstream, same-old-same-old, and now I know why---he's really not that much different from Hillary and her Machine.

First thoughts

Sierra, San Francisco — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:51:13 GMT

Ollie: The politicians in CA supposedly wanted to get more influence for the state. So, they moved up our primary to allow CA to help 'decide the nominee', and not vote after someone had already gotten the nomination.

Union baby: I think a national primary would be bad. It would put even more emphasis on campaign contributions (i.e. special interests control).
Having Iowa, NH, SC + NV do their primaries first, will 'weed out' the field and allow the big two or three or four candidates more time in the debates.

Hopefully, there would be more scrutiny into candidates, policies and opinions after the field is narrowed. (or is that a pipe dream?)

Thank you, Lyn ! Let's discuss real issues like lobbyist influence.

A big part of the discussion has been about 'experience'.
In essence, what this argument implies is that only Washington insiders are qualified to be President.
Only the 'usual suspects' have the 'experience' to lead our nation. Outsiders are disqualified.
I don't think so !!

Ask Hillary's supporters if they voted for Bill Clinton for President.
He had 'NO EXPERIENCE' with international affairs !!
Was HIS presidency a disaster becaus of his 'inexperience' ?

Carrie, JoeCHI did you vote for 'inexperienced' Bill Clinton ? Was it a disaster ??

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 14:57:26 GMT

Minter, Has he ever denied (if asked) doing it in the past?

Again, we don't want to start pulling skeletons out of closets, if I were the Clintons espicially past behaviors !!!!

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:06:14 GMT

Sierra,Obama will get his time after Clinton gets 8 yrs.I like him too but the repubs will tear him to pieces. Hillary can take it and still be standing -just like her husband. Notice who the repubs are going after with a vengence..Hillary.They are petrified of her and her power.We just need a dem in office to straighten the country out and save the middle class and poor.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:06:45 GMT

No, Susan. What would be foolish is nominating a candidate who you know is so divisive, she couldn't even hold her own party's voters together.

First thoughts

Dee of VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:07:02 GMT

Lyn,

Is there any doubt that MSNBC is shilling for Hillary Clinton at this point? They give new meaning to yellow journalism. Instead of Keith Olbermann ranting out Fox Noise every night, he should turn the lense on his own network. Senator Obama expressly and directly said he would not accept money from FEDERAL lobbyist. He has acknowledged his past "sins" of taking money from state PACS and lobbyists, but in that experience recognizes the potential for corruption. Are they saying there is no room for growth in principles?

First thoughts

Dee of VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:10:15 GMT

D Minter,

He damn sure has said that he's taken money from PACS and Lobbyists. Do people judge you on your past or your present? Hell, most preachers have sinned in the past, but that doesn't mean they don't have a right or obligation to speak on the errors of the same behavior they once committed.

First thoughts

Ollie frenchburg ky — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:13:01 GMT

Sierra, San Fran...I can understand that. Thanks!

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:14:19 GMT

I've been reading a lot of Nancy pelosi and her record in congress Sierra. She sure has a lot of dynamite in her baggage and I'm sure Cindy Sheenan has a lot of matches. I'm sure when the big one hits San francisco, there will be calls for why the infrastructure didn't hold up and Nancy pelosi and her pork barrel spending projects will come to light.

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:16:20 GMT

D Minter - that's exactly what Obama did say. And I knew that back in, what, March or so - before I gravitated toward supporting him.

First thoughts

bb — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:19:18 GMT

Lyn and Sierra, when the time comes-just vote democratic. If you have to hold your nose,so be it, but vote democratic.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:33:57 GMT

No Sierra...Bush is the diaster! Voted in by idiots!
Clinton was SMART, A RHODES SCHOLAR for christsake!
No rich daddy to get him passed through school.
There can never be any comparison to Bush the worst and most stupid president in the WORLD!!!!
Clinton was the best, better than all the rest and I still admire him.
Do you think Clinton would have forsaken our country?
Do you think Clinton would have forsaken New Orleans?
Do you think Clinton would have fu---- with our constitution?
What the hell are you thinking?
Things in the past are not helping the present disater of the Bull shit Bush administration.
WE need a tough insider to fight this rigged system the Repuks have set up. They will eat Obama for lunch, maybe breakfast. Hillary will be tough to chew!

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:34:25 GMT

bb - can't do it. Can't vote for Clinton at this point. She's an empty candidate and the few times I've heard her try to be substantive with regards to foreign policy and national security, she has only demonstrated to me she doesn't know what she's talking about.

And I'm not alone. We have to petition for primary ballot access in Virginia - all candidates from both parties do. I joined the Obama petitioning effort about a week ago. I'm hearing it from like half the people working on that. They say they can't vote for Clinton, either.

I've heard the chair of the county party has tried talking to a few (I'm not in the party - I'm independent), but to no avail. She insults intelligence and angers people, even from her own party.

First thoughts

Jerry Patterson, Andrews, N.C. — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:38:15 GMT

530 days left until we have our first women President, Hillary Clinton. hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:38:51 GMT

bb, I'm sure that's what you Clinton people hope and think. You think that if she is LUCKY enough to win we will vote for her regardless..

Well it goes against my beliefs to vote for some people espicially if I don't like what they stand for. If I do that I am no better than the people who voted for GWB simply because he was a republican

First thoughts

Ollie frenchburg ky — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:42:18 GMT

There seems to be some democrates on here that really dislike Hillary. Personally I would vote for any of the dems over any repubs in the general election. In the primaries I will vote for either Edwards or Hillary. I am just curious if the Hillary haters will vote for her if she is nominated or will they vote republican.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:42:50 GMT

Susan must be totally out of her mind. Obama has more in his past then she does????????

Let's review the topics the GOP can pull out, since it is all public record:

1. Whitewater
2. turning $1000 into $100,000
3. Vince Foster
4. Travelgate
5. The health care debate
6. INFOUSA
7. Rose law firm
8. removal of furniture from the white house
9. Savings and loan in Arkansas
10. 1974 anti semetic slur

What say you Susan?

First thoughts

D Minter — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:49:54 GMT

Lyn, MD Did I say anything about the Clintons? I guess you assumed since I'm not so in love with Obama, I must want Clinton. All I'm saying is that this guy is (in bold print) a politician. Politicians will say anything to get elected. I'm just not the bandwagon type. I'm still holding my judgement because time will tell how strong a candidate he will become. I do see weaknesses now so maybe he can build on that. I know you will say well he is rising a lot of money. That's good but right now he is not my guy and I still have time to choose.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:51:40 GMT

Paul Miller, Lyn md,diane, and all you closet Republicans. Go be happy vote as you please.
We will all vote as we see fit and you can yak till the cows come home. Will not change my vote.
I keep listening and I hear conspiracy. I smell conspiracy.
I hear the mantra of the TROLLS.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:53:50 GMT

Paul, I've talked to a few of the democrat party people here about Hillary. She really has some problems here in south Texas. But they have not come to a consensus about who they will back for President.

If you really want to read a funny story about the Clinton's:

I googled;

Bill Clinton---New York Observer---kneepads

You will die laugh at the story.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:56:14 GMT

Paul Miller, Lyn md,diane, and all you closet Republicans. Go be happy vote as you please.
We will all vote as we see fit and you can yak till the cows come home. Will not change my vote. I am reeling from the bush disaster!
I keep listening and I hear conspiracy. I smell conspiracy.
I hear the mantra of the TROLLS.

First thoughts

bb — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:57:11 GMT

Lyn, different party and 1000 miles apart in ideas and values. Thats the difference.Repubs are for the rich and dems are for the middle class and poor and 1000 other glaring differences between the two partys and their beliefs.What if Hillary gets the nomination and Obama tells you to vote for a democrat, which is what frequently happens. So again, if Obama doesnt get in, you will be voting for???? or not voting?And Paul Miller, what then? .Help the repubs get into office again, with many of Bushs-right wing ideas? This sounds like Nader thinking. Doesnt make sense.

First thoughts

HMT-MI — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 15:58:27 GMT

Yup---Democrats eating their own----don't complain if we have mitt or fred as the president in 2009.The republicans do know the democratic voters---cut their noses to spite their faces.The republicans are satisfied with thugs,thieves and liars.If the dems lose this election I hope you will all post that you helped it happen.

First thoughts

FStLouis — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:01:54 GMT

Obamas a good guy and I hope we get him down the road. Hillary is my girl.Shes tough and intelligent. Just the way I like them.

First thoughts

MK,MO — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:06:15 GMT

H P Boston / make no mistake hillary can not win the general election, why do you think they are saving the really scandalous things that she has been involved in? they want her to get nominated first, then they will destroy her making giuliani president, it ain't worth it, vote for a decent person, hillary cares for no one but hillary

First thoughts

Jessica, Monroe, WI — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:07:07 GMT

I'm still waiting for an apology for the truth squading mess from yesterday!

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:07:16 GMT

Lyn - Is there a difference between a lobbyist outside of Washington and a lobbyist in Washington? Please point it out to me, as I thought lobbyists were all after the same thing - persuading government officials to support their causes and donating money to their campaigns.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:13:17 GMT

Sierra - Clinton had executive experience as a governor, which if you notice is the typical route to the White House in the last few decades. Bush, Clinton, Reagan and Carter were all governors.

But to answer your question...no, I did not vote for him as I was not old enough in 1992 and in 1996 there was a mix up with absentee ballots. Had that not happened, in 1996, I absolutely would have voted for him. I'd vote for him tomorrow and the day after that, too, if they'd get rid of that silly amendment.

First thoughts

New Independent — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:14:52 GMT

Jerry - I did read that article and found it in poor taste. However, I do believe they should be allowed to write what they want. I am surprised you found it so amusing since Republicans tend to try and stop free speech by throwing their religious beliefs at us. I am sure if it was about a Republican (surely you can't believe they are all faithful?) you would not be laughing your head off!

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:17:10 GMT

To those of you who say you "can't" vote for Clinton: In all seriousness and with no spiteful intent, what will you do if she gets the nomination? Be honest, please. Will you not vote? Will you vote for an independent candidate? Will you vote for the Republican?

First thoughts

Ann Smith, PeeDee, S.C. — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:21:22 GMT

I hear the republicans saying, you better not pick Hillary. Why ? because they know she will "win". hillaryclinton.com

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:25:41 GMT

Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, Ha, & HA !!!!!!

The sound of Fred Thompson laughing all the way to the White House.

What a bunch of rabid dogs. You actually pass your selves off as informed maybe even smart voters. Cry for how the constitution has been trampled. Then shout out loud "Vote the party line, no matter what." I actually read someone say "I don't care if it's rigged. I'm voting Democrat". Wow... What does that say about the state of the democratic party. And the American political system.
Jesus H. Christ, do your self and the country a favor. Educate yourself and for the best, right, left or independant. The two party system is strangling America. Think for yourself..

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:41:44 GMT

New Independent---Considering the democrats, specially Dick Dumbin and Harry reid want to bring back the fairness doctrine. Before you start accusing republicans of trying to shut down free speech, you better have a talk with your side about why the liberals want to get rid of the first amendment!

First thoughts

Jessica, Monroe, WI — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:42:45 GMT

Carrie,

How about you? If Obama gets the nomination, who will you vote for?? A Republican?

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:43:46 GMT

Jerry dumb dumb YOU just proved my point! YOU are petrified of her arent you? Terrified of the little woman. Hear ye, hear ye, everything that Jerry believes or tells you to do, believe and do just the opposite and you will be deemed a nomal, healthy individual.

First thoughts

JeanneGA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 16:51:44 GMT

RH, now Im laughing at you, Mr Im more informed that everybody else.The republican party has won the last 2 presidential elections by following Bush off a cliff.And you are voting for???? Jeez, your soo intelligent maybe we should all vote for who you say.Gosh youre smart!NOT !Arrogance is more like it.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:04:25 GMT

What scandalous things MK?????
Was HILLary the President of the United States??
Did I miss this?? She held the high office off President??
She was responsible for this country??
She got a BJ?? She is LESBO, they gonna try that?
I hear she does not even like to LICK ENVELOPES!
Well I guess they will try to pin all of Bills errors on her back, huh.
She trusted that shitbum Bush to do his job and work for peace. NOT!

First thoughts

Paul Miller, Woodbridge, VA — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:06:46 GMT

Carrie - if Clinton gets the nomination, I figure the election is a non-event. It certainly will be in my state, which might be in play otherwise. So I'll look at the Republican and then at the third party candidates and see who to throw my symbolic, meaningless vote toward.

First thoughts

jerry/corpus christi texas — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:08:00 GMT

Susan, at least I'm not voting for someone because of the name Clinton......

First thoughts

Jessica, Monroe, WI — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:08:10 GMT

If Pakistan Captures Bin Laden Now, Can Obama Take Credit?

This is interesting.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/cenk-uygur/if-pakistan-captures-bin-_b_59725.html

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:15:54 GMT

Wow you people are playing right into the hands of the NON DEMOCRATICS trolling these Posts.
A REAL democrat knows we will vote for the person our party will back to the hilt and get elected.
This is a very important election and the money and the power will get us there.
How the hell do you think SHRUB got in TWICE!
If your arguement is a strong candidate, then a light weight won't cut the mustard.
Obama will be easy to beat, vote Biden, Edwards, Richardson, Clinton. Or vote for who ever just vote.
You have a choice to vote or not...We need a democrate. Stop letting them divide us. The answer is vote for THE democrate. I will vote for any democrate no matter who that will be.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:17:34 GMT

First thoughts

scott — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:20:16 GMT

clinton said two things that bothered me the other nite: first, she said that presidential candidates shouldn't say what they think and second that she doesn't like to talk about hypotheticals.

Does anyone else see a problem with that logic? Isn't a campaign a psuedo hypothetical? Aren't they telling us what they would IF... all the time?! She is a chicken shit. She just wants us to trust her that she'll perform better than Bush. Why should I take her word for it if she doesn't talk with any substance? I'm tired of our federal government telling us citizens to trust them wit the tough decisions. I refuse to walk blindly through life--which is exactly what Clinton is proposing.

I also love how no one in MSM talks about that. Those two lines stood out to me in the debate, yet MSM is obsessed with ther "girl" line. Give me a break.

First thoughts

Steven, KDH, N.C. — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:27:47 GMT

I totally agree with a previous comment made and cannot vote for someone I don't believe in simply because their a Democrat. Obama will get the nomination. What does this snapshot of bloggers tell you about Hillary....SHE CANNOT UNITE THE PEOPLE!! I see alot of Democrats on this site who don't care about that. That's sad. Are you so wanting to get back at the Republicans that you think the only way is to serve them another round of their favorite targets..THE CLINTONS. Have we learned nothing! AND for those who say the Clintons came out of it standing, you have some real strange memories. Ken Star skewered them like a kabob. The Clintons gave the Repubs. so many reasons to tie them up in court, it was ridiculous. Why are you Clinton supporters so eager to go thru that again. Because you think a Democratic Congress will not let it happen. Bull!!!Why will you not admit that this woman cannot bring us together. Republicans, Independents, and Democrats have all expressed interest in getting behind Obama, which is exactly what this country needs! Not a continuation of the parties one-upmanship. So, in the off chance Hillary pulls the right corporate strings and gets the nomination, I will probably switch to being an Independent. "More of the same", is a concept the Democrats are supposed to be fighting against. And while I know the strength of the women of this nation is powerful, which is 62% of Hillary's support, one part of a political party cannot get our country back to where it needs to be. Senator Obama can bring this country together. Keep watching those polls.

First thoughts

RH Oregon — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:28:46 GMT

Sorry JeanneGAG, but I'm not telling you to vote for anyone. I have gone and looked at most all the voting records and watched both sides debate, which as I see it does make me more informed than alot of Americans will be on election day. Arrogant, again not. Don't vote my way I could be wrong. But I won't vote Guilliani just because Jerry says to, or anyone else. My comment was on narrow mindedness of people to vote only by party. Right now to me, Fred looks good. 'I' like his voting record, for the most part. BUT I also like some of what Ron Paul says and stands for. I went last week and read the whole of the Libertarian Party website. And I am more informed about them. Simple. Again, previous comment was on narrowmindedness. Try to get over yours.

First thoughts

lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:32:25 GMT

For the record..I am a democrat. I guess if I don't like hillary I am a Troll. Would I vote for Edwards, yes, Biden, yes (I once was a big Biden fan...wanted him to run in 2004) most of the others maybe, could hold my nose. Bill Clinton if I could would vote for again in a heart beat.

Living in the area and exposure/interaction with/to certain people 92-2004, has harden an opinion I have of them.

What is more interesting is just how many democrats don't, really don't like her ( espically those who have meet her). Now would they "hold their noses " and vote for her I don't know...many tell me they don't know if they could. Some probably would.

What I will tell you is that most people have no idea just how ugly this can and will get if she is nominated. If you think everything there is to know has been out there think again. The things that have most people have forgotten AND they WILL be reminded by the Republicans. Dems may stay with her but Independants will probably be a big question. Once it starts people are going to question whether they want 4 more years of that.

First thoughts

bb — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:37:43 GMT

Carrie, who WILL you vote for, Guiliani or Romney or Thompson?

First thoughts

New Independent — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:52:45 GMT

Jerry - I'm not sure that would stop free speech. The fairness doctrine would stop radio stations a lot of which are owned by very few people from being allowed to air their views without giving someone else the chance to air their difference of opinion. I don't think that's really stopping free speech. HOwever, many Republicans would like to stop people from being able to listen to Howard Stern for example, even though he is now on satellite radio and people actually pay for it. The same goes for cable television. I don't want the government (Republican or Democrat) telling me what I can watch or listen to if I am paying for it. IF I don't like it, I change the channel! Your opinion of what's indecent may differ from mine. For example, I happen to think that Rush Limbaugh is indecent quite often, but I still think he should have the freedom to say what he likes, unlike the Republicans.

First thoughts

lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 17:54:15 GMT

Carrie...yes there is a difference. Primarly based on who they try to influence and the impact that it has. A Washington Lobbyist looks to influence national not local policy. But you knew that didn't you?

if not you're welcome

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:43:59 GMT

Jessica - Yes, I would. I may not think Obama is the best choice on the Democratic side, but I think he is head and shoulders above the Republican candidates. I also like Edwards a lot. In some ways, I wish he would have won the nomination then. I had the same issues with him and inexperience as I do now with Obama, but I LIKED him so much more than Kerry. I just never got any positive vibe from Kerry at all.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:51:44 GMT

Lyn - Obviously I knew that. But what is the difference, fundamentally? One tries to influence national policy, the other tries to influence local policy. It's the same thing on a different scale.

With all due respect, I think people are influenced just as much, if not more, by state laws than they are by federal legislation. For example, education is largely the responsibility of the state. But it's not just the big things - little things are the province of the state. The federal government has no power to enact legislation that has to do with the safety, health, welfare, etc. of the states - the so-called police powers, if you will. The federal government can only act under its enumerated powers, which are quite limited. Basically, it has the commerce clause. It does, however, have the big carrot to dangle - federal funding. It can condition receipt of federal funds on the state complying with certain demands.

But that is neither here nor there. The point that I am trying to make in a very verbose manner is that local lobbyists probably influence our lives more so than national lobbyists. They just do so in less obvious ways.

First thoughts

Carrie, Eastern Iowa — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 18:54:08 GMT

bb - None of the above. I will vote for the Democratic nominee. As I said to Jessica, I think every one of them is better than anyone the Republicans have put forth this election cycle.

First thoughts

Blue state baby — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:00:43 GMT

..at least I'm not voting for someone because of the name Clinton. What a statement coming from someone supporting the worst predident ever. It has to be because of the name Bush. It sure can't be his good 6 1/2 year record. "President Hillary Clinton" and "First Gentelman Bill Clinton" At least they are the names of intellegent good leaders!

First thoughts

F StLouis — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 19:18:52 GMT

Paul Miller, Great, and dont let the door hit you on your empty head on the way out. Independent my ass!

First thoughts

Lyn, MD — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 20:39:01 GMT

Carrie, I am sorry if you don't get not only the differnce but the importance, I could never explain it to you in the space allotted here.Lets try a few examples:

Needless to say local lobbyist for lets say NY for more roads, special funding for a "pet project" don't impact people in every other state. If they change Federal policy and a President or Vice President can sure have an impact on that ( its worth BIG MONEY). Why do you think Medicare can not negoitate drug prices to get discounts. Big Pharm lobbyist shut it down. Do you remember the oil lobby and there secret meetings with Cheny did it impact our(the nation) energy policy???

I'm not saying local lobbying is good or that all lobbyist are bad. But the person who holds the higgest office in the land and swears to represent all the people should try not to beholden to anyone person or group. Make no mistakes...these guys get paid big MONEY to deliver RESULTS.

Is what Obama or Edwards trying to do perfect...are they a perfect people, no. But they are trying to start somewhere. Please help me understand why hillary can't do the same, set the same example. You have to start somewhere.

First thoughts

jus sayin — Thu, 09 Aug 2007 22:19:16 GMT

The reason why jerri is so preoccuppied with the clintons is simple jerri is jealous that it was monica in the oval office with Bill instead of jerri.

First thoughts

Susan, Miami — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:39:59 GMT

Lyn, I believe Hillary will set a good example. She, like her husband are very skilled politicians-perhaps as skilled or more so than the republicans-who will do almost ANYTHING to win. The Clintons will kick ass this election and then she will come back to strengthen the democats values and ideas and help others in need,focus on our environment and get us out of this horrid war.

First thoughts

Desmond — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:25:11 GMT

bb, more than a few professional bloggers on this site aren't there? Facts at their fingertips.Me, I just say what I think and have to stay off my high horse.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 18:55:58 GMT

Susan,Miami..Great post as usual.Keep up the beat for Clinton. We know what the are trying to do ,let us not fall for the slimming of America ever again.
WE need the strength of the Clintons to win this war on the terror of the republicans.
I HOPE IT IS NOT TO LATE , THEY ARE READY TO START INVADING MORE COUNTRIES.

First thoughts

H P Boston — Fri, 10 Aug 2007 23:36:32 GMT

Desmond no one is better on a high horse than you.
Screw the pros, we know who the slugs are.
They really do want to know what YOU think, it helps them in the attack strategy.
So with that in mind you can be coy, curious or combative.
Pick none or all of the above. Please keep up the great witty posts, you are one of the reason I like this blog.