Hillary makes her pitch to Pennsylvania legislators

straight PATHETIC. We have more at stake here than the CLINTON'S LEGACY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!Our country is fightinga WAR AND WE ARE LOSING!!!!!!!!!We will remember those elected officials pulling for Clinton! She is not FOR THE PEOPLE....and we ALL know it!! She is FOR HERSELF! She is loyal to her ambition, and not to the Americn people!
You do not know my name and will not remember my name, but we will remember your names at reelection time!

One of the key arguments in Mr.Obama’s speech is that he has better judgment on issues.
a) One of the biggest possessions an average person has is his/her house. It’s where you raise your family and watch your kids grow. In Mr. Obama’s case the purchase was subsidized by Mr.Rezko’s and his wife and also got help purchasing the adjacent property next to it. Talk about judgment, he knew Mr.Rezko was under federal investigation when this happened.
b) He gave a speech saying no to war but when it did mattered like his senate campaign he was for war. It’s easy to vote no when you don’t have responsibilities and facts in front of you.
c) He was for NAFTA when he ran for senate now he wants to re-negotiate it.
d) He did took money from lobbyist when he ran for senate
e) His association to the Trinity church

All these are coming out this late because I don’t think he was tested on his campaign for his senate seat. The original candidate dropped out due to some personnel issues, and then they have to bring in another candidate from out of state at the last minute. If the Rep’s can derail a decorated veteran and less liberal than Mr. Obama, personally I think he has no shot in November as more and more things comes out.

States which have not voted yet please do the right thing.

My God, where is the anger coming from Caroline!!

I voted for Obama but you do nothing to support his candidacy with your vitriol. Let's keep it clean, shall we?

Backroom politics at its sleaziest. People should remember that she tried to get health care in '92 the same way.

she IS for the people and has devoted her life to community service! she is intelligent and hardworking....and ready to take on the job....obama needs more experience 3 years in the senate is not enough...he has not shown enough commitment to back up his rhetoric either. ...he needs to roll up his sleeves a little.

Failing in her bid for the nomination with voters she appeals to legislators and the super delegates. How sick is this and wjat a perversion of opur electoral process - treuly Clintonian!

Hillary is just another Bush in drag then you get Billy in the mix and you have two people with such inflated opinions of themselves and all through the campaign all you hear is me, me, me...Clinton's just do the world a favor and go away and get a LIFE!

The bottom line is this:

Option A: Go back to the prosperity of the 1990's and risk repeating the Bush/Clinton legacy of partisanship.

Option B: Move forward, heal a divided nation, heal the wounds created by the 'cowboy' mentality of the Bush administration and leave behind the inbred thought process that because we are Americans we are somehow entitled to use force to protect our interests, legitimate or not.

James, one of the reasons you are a commenter and not a provider of real information is that you offer nothing to back up your claims.

Philly people should remember their politicians who is pushing for Clinton and vote them out of office in their next elections. Clinton will do anything to steal this election and it will be revolt if she becomes the nominee and results shows otherwise. Philadelphia esp their mayor people should vote him out in the next elections if he continues to support Clinton.

the media is too harsh on clinton! is it because shes a woman? probably. i am a obama supporter who recently switched to clinton bc she will get stuff done and obama really just makes me feel good and that stuff will get done but making me feel good is not something that i look for in a president, i look for someone who is passionate about solving the issues and its been proven that the clintons can fix things especially the economy so i'd rather have clinton stop the war, fix the economy and health care bc its a sure thing it'll get done, obama, its a chance. I'm 19 and the biggest thing that makes the most sense that made me change my mind was when clinton brought up that obama should be vp. that would be amazing! then obama could run for office and we could have 16 years of a democrate in the white house and obama!!!! AWESOMENESS!

Everyone needs to back off clinton, so much hate, she really does mean well.

It has long been said that if there is a way to lose an election, the Democrats will find it. This past week has been the first time this election cycle that I have feared it may be true again. Since Hillary has been unable to improve her own support after months of campaigning, the only way to the nomination for Hillary is to tear down Obama's numbers. During the last week and a half the Clintons have inflicted as much damage to Obama's positives as they can. The Republicans have been gleefully watching the Clintons do their work for them.

The Clintons know that the wins in Texas and Ohio will not be enough. They even know that there is no credible outcome of the remaining primaries and caucuses that would give her a lead in delegates awarded on the basis of support by the voters. The know that they will need to persuade the party insiders to overrule the will of the voters. Altermatively or additionally, they would have to seat the Florida and Michigan delegations for which Obama, in keeping with his pledge, did not compete. These are indisputable facts.

The Clintons are prepared to risk the consequences of taking this road to the nomination in order that they be the nominee. That would be fine if we were not all on the same bus. The trouble is that WE are on the bus and their road to the nomination leads off a cliff. The cliff is the loss of the vast numbers of new voters that Obama has brought to the polls, the loss of the independents to McCain, a reenergized Republican party that may not be motivated by McCain but sure are motivated to stop the Clintons from returning to the White House. If the Clintons take their road to the nomination, we will lose the Presidency in the best opportunity in decades. We will also lose the opportunity to build a new generation of Democratic-minded voters and set a new tone in our government.

JAMES - I understand your strong thoughts and while I agree with you on some of these points. This election is about change. I am in support of Obama, even though I feel Hillary is more qualified. But will she be able to change anything that is going on now and the answer is NO. She has not changed anything yet. I live in Buffalo, NY (she is my senator) and guess what - nothing has changed. We are the 2nd poorest city in the nation and she has yet to address that issue. She promised us over 200,000 new jobs and we have 30,000 less now than when she made that promise. My taxes keep going up and we don't have "universal healthcare" in New York State. Republicans refuse to work with her and Democrats are just plain tired. I voted for Obama during the primary. I will vote for him if he wins the nomination. I will not vote for Hillary or McCain in November.

We need someone who will make a difference and remember if you're the smartest person in the room who are you going to learn from? No one is ready to be President on day one. What experience does she really have? Being the 1st Lady gives you an idea it doesn't give you the experience. Every world leader that she has claimed to have helped all said they met with Hillary. None of them give her credit for negotiating anything.

Hey James,

Why won't she relase her tax returns, not just for this year, but for any year?

It's because her husband has taken tens of millions of dollars in "consulting" contracts from Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

And they sell themselves as Co-Presidents. Do you think the president, or the person who co-owns two five million dollar mansions with her should have bought their houses and amassed their personal fortune by taking millions from foreign governments in a region we are currently at war in?

She says she has experience, but refuses to release her White House papers. Why? Because they prove, on paper, that she did nothing, was not involved. We already know she had no security clearance, was not in on cabinet meetings of any substance.

They are stalling and dodging and spinning and lying, as they always do.

If you have loved the dirty politics of the first two Clinton administrations and the next two Bush administrations, by all means, vote for her until Jeb Bush is ready to come in and claim the throne for his "side."

If your issue is that "more things will come out" please look to the upcoming litigation against Mrs. Clinton on her campaign contributions.

The Republicans KNOW they can crush her, why do you think Rush Limbaugh is actually CAMPAIGNING for her? The Republicans know that Clinton is their only shot to win.

Statew which have not yet voted, please do the right thing. Do not send two people to the White House with pockets full of foreign cash. Seriously, don't hand the Republicans the win they thought they could never manage.

The DNC has a fantastic opportunity to unseat the Republican Party. Hillary is screwing it up and she is screwing the country as well.

Hey James,

Why won't she relase her tax returns, not just for this year, but for any year?

It's because her husband has taken tens of millions of dollars in "consulting" contracts from Dubai and Saudi Arabia.

And they sell themselves as Co-Presidents. Do you think the president, or the person who co-owns two five million dollar mansions with her should have bought their houses and amassed their personal fortune by taking millions from foreign governments in a region we are currently at war in?

She says she has experience, but refuses to release her White House papers. Why? Because they prove, on paper, that she did nothing, was not involved. We already know she had no security clearance, was not in on cabinet meetings of any substance.

They are stalling and dodging and spinning and lying, as they always do.

If you have loved the dirty politics of the first two Clinton administrations and the next two Bush administrations, by all means, vote for her until Jeb Bush is ready to come in and claim the throne for his "side."

If your issue is that "more things will come out" please look to the upcoming litigation against Mrs. Clinton on her campaign contributions.

The Republicans KNOW they can crush her, why do you think Rush Limbaugh is actually CAMPAIGNING for her? The Republicans know that Clinton is their only shot to win.

Statew which have not yet voted, please do the right thing. Do not send two people to the White House with pockets full of foreign cash. Seriously, don't hand the Republicans the win they thought they could never manage.

This is the first time I have seen a black man admitt that the democratic primary is a race war. I give him credit for admitting the obvious which most Obama supporters seem to have missed.
"said Jewell Williams, a black legislator from Philadelphia who describes himself as a somewhat conflicted Obama supporter but was preparing to attend the meeting with Clinton. “Philadelphia is going to be about race. It’s a race campaign.”

If blacks were voting allbeit for the first time (significant increase in black voters) on the issues instead of simply voting for a talking black man, then this would be interesting but so far blacks are voting based only on skin color . Some people need to start thinking and voting on issues and if you did that then you would vote Hillary and accept Obama as VP (which he will accept). After serving as VP for 8 years Obama will learn to be President from the best, Hillary Clinton. If Obama is nominated McCain will win and then he will be another "also ran" candadate. Think folks, vote Hillary!!!

"In Mr. Obama’s case the purchase was subsidized by Mr.Rezko’s and his wife and also got help purchasing the adjacent property next to it. "

This is patently untrue.

Care to cite the sources to substantiate your claim?

I think the biggest thing we need to note here is that everyone needs to do their research. In terms of purchasing a home, that's completely irrelevent. We are not judging the man on his purchasing ability, but on his record as a politician.

Secondly, he has been against the war since the start. He came out as an Illinois State Senator and as a U.S. Senator.

Third, he is for international trade agreements, but he would like to re-negotiate trade agreements to make sure that thousands of American employees of industry don't get the shaft as much as they are.

Fourth, he took money from one lobbyist when he ran for senate and it was for a community organization he worked with in Chicago.

Lastly, what is wrong with his association with the Trinity Church? If you judge a man on his affiliation with a church, let's take a look at Hillary. She's affiliated with the United Methodist Chruch which has very similar beliefs in terms of doctrine.

My point: if you're going to slam one, you need to slam them all.

John Edwards needs to get back in the race.

Obama keeps saying, lets get away from the old politics, and lets not say anything negative about candidates, (of course, he doesn't want people to know about some of the bad things about him). But politics is politics old or new, if your going to be elected for President, you better believe we want to see the good and bad about you, and we want to see your track record, and we want to see your experience, and you better have some damn good experience if your going to be President of the most powerful country in the world. Obama is one of the best motivational speakers thats come around, and the "anti-establishment" crowd are jumping on the band wagon, avoiding indepth political conversations of how he expects to fix problems. I'm shocked that the movement he has created are not interested in experience. This old world is a very dangerous place, and I want someone with experience when dealing with it. Most experience, McCain, than Cinton, than Obama. So at this point Obama is out!

This is the same kind of special interest-based, closed-door politics that we need to get rid of. It reeks of secrecy and back-room favors, just like Bush's closed-door meetings with the energy industry. Let's face it, Hillary is a sneak, will do or say anything to protect her own personal interests, and cannot be trusted to be open and honest.

Talk about old-school, insider politics-as-usual. I hope someone shares the high points of that discussion.

I could not agree more with your comments on Ms. Clinton's position. To think that she is not in this without an ajenda is being naive. She is part of the old boy network and she is nothing more than the same old politics that all of us are accussing Johm McCain of. Who will running the government, Hillary or Bill or Monica for that matter.

Don't forget Bill got us into NAFTA, and ERISA which now leaves us with jobs going overseas and Corporate raiding of pensions plans and the WorldComs and Enrons. Not to mention the mess it will create with the baby-boomers retiring and a third of the population of Mexico on our Social programs.

Now they want to make it mandatory to get health insurance much like care insurance; How much power will the insurance industry have at that point and it still has not addressed the Pharmacy Industry. I don't need a ton of bricks to fall on me to realize that someone is sleeping with the Medical Insurance industry-this is a very bad solution. The single payor is the way to go...arguments state we will wait for services, we wait now because we cannot afford the services we have. And remember the waiting is for elective surgeries not emergencies so betty boop will have to wait for her boob job but Sam will get right in for his open heart valve replacement. The insurance companies are the enemy to us all they have way to much power and we want to give them more that does not make sense.

The one issue that Clinton has been pounding during this campaign is her years of experience over Obama...This raises a question: How can she count her years as "First Lady" towards experience for her political career? If I sleep with an astrophysicist, does that give me experience in astrophysics? NO, It doesn't! And besides that, her husband was impeached for getting blown by an intern....REALLY HOW GREAT OF A JOB DID SHE DO, EVEN AS A "FIRST LADY" when a stained dress proves she might have been second at best?

Furthermore, as First Lady, she fully supported NAFTA, and now that she is getting called on the carpet for sending thousands of US jobs out of the country, she is back peddling. She keeps throwing irrelevant strikes at Obama to throw him off balance, but he just keeps coming. His persistence and perseverance is what attracts me to Obama as a voter. When she lost South Carolina, she was already on a plant to Tennessee, and Bill gave her concession speech from a rally in Missouri....Now she isn't even canvassing in Mississippi, because she has deemed it a loss!

How, can anybody in their right mind, watch this campaign, and with a straight face say they support Hillary Clinton? Anyone who can, probably thought Bush was a good candidate! And, honestly at this point, that is only one type of person: Stupid.

i am a middle aged white male who will not now or ever vote for a black man to run our country. i grew up in a small town built by white men and run by black men right into the ground. black people do not like white people, no matter what we have done for them. as a white male i feel like my rights have been eroding since i reached adulthood, while our government has done all they can do for anyone who belongs to a minority.

I want to hear more of what they are saying they are going to try to do rather than this constant bickering/one-upping. I can read what their campaigns are about on their websites, and what they have done on wikipedia, but what are the issues they feel strongly about? The media is too busy feeding the frenzy to report what really matters and then we get people who are so passionate that they cannot be bothered to spell-check.

Today is the day all peoples of our country need to stress the importance of race NOT being a reason for decision. Let us soley evaluate a candidate's ideals, experiences, character, and ability to be the leader of our nation, hopeful to be the most powerful and influential leader of the world. Let us ban together to remember these things and these things only.

The idea of meeting in private with Pennsylvania legislators is well in keeping with Hillary Clinton's strategy of trying to overturn the vote of the people by using back-room horse-trading deals with politicians. Another 4 years of this is what can be expected if she is sent to the White House.

She wants the vote of Florida and Michigan to count, now that she won. But she didn't fight for them when the DNC took away their delegates. Now she wants to say that 5 million votes should count now that they will help her.

She wants the superdelegates to look only at her victories in a few states. She has no problem disenfranchising 45 states by saying her victories in NY, CA, OH, FL, and TX are the what make her "electable" and that they should be what the superdelegates look at.

This latest private meeting is all too consistent.

James, let's be honest here.....Whitewater, defendent suicide, Norman Shu-in jail, escaped felon raising $850K for Hillary, " I got peace for Northern Ireland" -Nobel Winner in Peace settlement says yesterday-This was a "WEE" bit exagerated-she was only there for a photo session with Bill--her only participation...I went to Kosovo during the fighting to help settle it--she was there for a USO show..foreign policy experience my butt.....she was window dressing in Arkansas and DC, except for theHealthcare Debacle which she screwed up royally...it is time for a serious change, this is our last chance for that change or more politics as usual.

The guy is honest, Hillary Clinton is not. Leave him alone.

WHy do we not have truly qualified people running for the President position. Why are we always left with the people that few like and need to elect. The early poles do not allow the average voter the opportunity to show their preference amoung the many potential runners. The early voters decide who is to run, the the majority. This to me is a weakness in the system. Unfortunately, no one seems to want to elect good, wise and capable leaders for this country, only those that can sling the most mud and discret of the opponents. I pray, because I can, that the Good Lord is listening.

Great example of the Clinton's top-down approach to politics. They aren't for the people. I lived in Arkansas for Bill and Hillary's 11 years in office and sat through all their controversies and avoiding the law - then through their 8 years in Washington - more of the same. The Clinton's started the DLC designed to make democrats more like them, ie. Republicans. She and McCain are virtually identical and if we elect her as the nominee, it will be another 2000 debacle....50.5% vs 49.5% - campaign only in the states with the electoral votes and hope for the best.

I'm sick of the Clintons. They had their time in the whitehouse and their day is done - it's over. This is the time for Americans to wise up and bring in some good ole fashioned idealism and reject cynicism. It's time for creativity vs partisanship. Obama has the best message and the best demeanor for pulling this off. He has been incredibly restrained to not fall into Clinton's or the media's prodding for a fight so they can say that he doesn't practice what he preaches. He will win because the last strategy of the Clintons have made them look foolish - much like SC did.

For someone who claims to have better judgement than Hillary, this is what Obama means by better Judgement?

"U.S. Sen. Barack Obama expressed regret late Friday for his 2005 land purchase from now-indicted political fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko in a deal that enlarged the senator's yard."

Rich: Caroline is giving fuel to arguments that the Obama campaign is an Anti-Chris cult, by her manic irrational chants.

Hi!
I am just getting stress cause I don't want to see the politics that makes a lots of people to came in this Great Country, include myself to start thinking that people getting real problems looking beyond (Race and Gender) to be United for the sake
of this beautiful and Great country that the hole world is following very close when it
came to fairness and opportunity's in this LIFE.

Bush/Clinton/Bush/Clinton??? Think about it....I'm 68 and it is refreshing to have a choice other than these two families.... This is not a negative comment... simply reality...

Its common knowledge that Washington is run by political favors. You help me pass my bill today , I will support you tomorrow on yours. So I asked myself, do I want to vote for someone with 20+ years of favors to payback? Or someone with five years of favors to payback. Which is the lesser of two evils?
Why is it that Hillary seems to claim her experience with Bill when it's to her advantage. But she is not associated when it comes to the failings of his administration? Clinton was simply lucky that the mid-nineties internet boom happened under his administration. That is why we saw job growth during that period, not because of the Clintons. Lastly, how can she claim experience by association? Brett Favre was a great quarterback, but as much knowledge of football his wife may have. It doesn't mean she can win a superbowl.

Does Hillary have 35 years of experience or 1 year of experience 35 times? Despite her boasting of experience she has been very light on details. What we do know is that although she is smart and an excellent politician she is also so driven for power that she will do anything to get the nomination. That was the Bush mistake. He sold the Presidency before he was ever elected and has had no leadership agenda of his own. In his case we may never know who the real President was.

Experience will not help as most of the issues which will confront the US going forward will require new approaches. Obama can easily evaluate the "Old Experience" and create new approaches. Clinton's experience will bog her down and she will not be free to make the best decision since she and Bill are now trying to buy the Presidency. We shouldn't let her do that.

Caroline, Please enlist and go to Iraq. They need soldiers like you, put your money where your mouth is and go get in the game.

As for the rest of us, the BUSH wars are almost over. Thank God !!!!!!!!!!!

James ... what you have listed above pales to Clinton's baggage.

(a) Can you tell me who is financing Clinton's library?

(b) Can you tell me how Clinton's have accumulated their wealth?

(c) Can you account 35 year experience she claims she has?

(d) Can you tell who is funding her campaign?

(e) etc ...

The FACTS are
(a) Obama has nothing to hide ... if there were any BIG embarrassing issues, the Clinton machine would have uncovered it by now.

(b) The fact that Obama has been the nasty political arena for shorter period is good thing. That means, he has not been bought and he has no political debt pay. I would say ... he not for SALE!

(c) If Clinton's think they can win this -- and if they think they have what it takes to win the nomination, they would have never suggested VP position to Obama. That tells us they are desperate, out of ideas and willing to negotiate their way into power. The Clintons were never about serving their country, but themselves!!

(d) If Obama were to go totally negative -- trust me there is plenty, she would have never made it past super Tuesday. The fact that he resisted and made every effort to stay civil - should tell you something about his character and mettle. IF she becomes the nominee, the republicans will have enough red meat to last them a life time. It will take the democractic party another 12 years to recover.

There is so much mess that needs to be fixed and this will require bringing both parties together. I can assure you if Hilary assumes power, nothing will get done. She is the most polarizing figure and for the benefit of the party, she should simply yield the nomination.

Everyone calm down. Hillary is going where she believes she can get support. Barack is going where he thinks he can get support. America will go where we think we can get a leader who will support Americans and rebuild respect around the world. I happen to support Hillary because I believe she has the qualifications and credentials to best serve our country as President in this difficult period of our history. Barack is an exceptional individual with many good qualities, but I don't think he has the qualifications, or first hand knowledge needed to take on the problems our country is experiencing now. The President we have now came into office lacking the knowledge and experience necessary to lead and look where we are. I'll support the Democratic Presidential nominee, but I had rather it be Hillary.
Andi

On Clinton offering Obama the Vice-Presidency:

I find it interesting that the white lady candidate, who is behind in delegates, popular vote and states won, suggests that the African-American candidate who is ahead in all these catagories should step to the back of the bus.

Please, please James.
Stop the misinformation.
a) He has always criticize some aspect of NAFTA, unlike his opponent who was singing praises to NAFTA until she decided to run.
b) He did not take money from lobbyist when he ran for senate. Stop the lies.
c) I am a catholic and I don't agree with them all the time.
d) The big D. Yes he gave a speech against a war that 80% of American's were in favor. That was a big political risk he took. And it wasn't a speech he was vehemently against the war and predicted every bad thing that happened after the invasion.
He was never, I repeat never for the war when he was running for senate.
Tony Recko; This guy raised money for every politician in Chicago.
The same way I would not blame Hillary for jail bound Hinsu. I don't even want talk about all the back room dealings of the Clinton’s because I don't think it's healthy for the party.
Please refrain from making false statements.

Hillery has had her chance and blew it. Proof enough she's incompetent to get stuff done. Give somebody without all that baggage a chance. OK, lets just say for arguments sake, that Hillery cares about "the people". So do millions of others. But since she as been in government so long, all that "experience", she is now just structure. All her "experience" is how to facilitate the structure. "The people" are just a nuisance,and the campaign for president is just dues needed to pay for the power and prestige of the presidency. Hillery's only real asset is Bill may be there to help, but since Hill has not been using that, we can only assume that she will make all the decisions, and thats about as smart is letting my little sister run this country.

Lesson one: A thief must never call the police to investigate anything.

Hillary Clinton’s campaign suggests that Senator Barack Obama is somehow corrupt because one of his former political donors, Chicago realtor, Tony Rezko is under trial for corruption.

To begin with, one of Senator Hillary Clinton’s past donors Norman Hsu, who gave her $850,000 was a corrupt embezzler who tried to flee and even attempted suicide in the midst of his own corruption trial last year.

Desperate, after Senator Obama had won 11 states in a row and built his insurmountable delegates count which now stands at 150, Senator Clinton decided to focus on sliming Obama. Now nothing is out of bounds.

Many people believe the name “Clinton” is synonymous with “Corruption.” A google search of “Clintons” and “scandal” yields 10,200,000 hits. A search of “Obamas” and “scandal” yields 1,570,000 hits.

The Clinton’s should be the last people to talk about corruption, scandals, and integrity. They are one of the most immoral, amoral, and perhaps corrupt political couples in history. While Senator Obama won’t bring up the issue, even after the Clintons continue “throwing the kitchen sink” at him, some politicians and major newspaper columnists are now beginning to raise questions.

This is what respected Obama supporter and former New Jersey senator Bill Bradley told PBS’s “Newshour,” this past Wednesday: "I think Barack Obama has a much stronger chance of beating John McCain in the general election. I think Hillary is flawed in many ways, and particularly if you look at her husband's unwillingness to release the names of the people who contributed to his presidential library. And the reason that is important -- you know, are there favors attached to $500,000 or $1 million contributions? And what do I mean by favors? I mean, pardons that are granted; investigations that are squelched; contracts that are awarded; regulations that are delayed. These are important questions. The people deserve to know. And we deserve, as Democrats, to know before a nominee is selected, because we don't want things to explode in a general election against John McCain."

The Wall Street Journal columnist Peggy Noonan, also writes that Hillary Clinton is “the most divisive figure in the country” and adds that people “have reason to view her as dark, dissembling, thuggish.” She also wonders: “Why aren’t we talking about impeachment, Whitewater and Osama?”

Noonan is obviously referring to the impeachment of Hillary Clinton’s husband, Bill Clinton, who was too busy molesting the intern Monica Lewinsky with a cigar when the red phone was ringing; and she is asking about the Whitewater land deal scandal that also involved the Clintons; and, finally she refers to the fact that commander in chief Bill Clinton waffled when he was provided intelligence of Osama bin Laden’s whereabouts, allowing him to escape.

Senator Clinton says she’s experienced having learned from her husband’s administration. That should be an excellent reason why she shouldn’t pick up the red phone at 3 AM.

What does all this have to do with the current presidential campaign? That’s the question senator Clinton should have done before she launched the “kitchen sink” attacks rather than sticking with the campaign issues.

Lesson two: If you have dirty underwear never call for underwear inspections.

Senator Clinton is very clever in the way she states something such as, "i have experience to lead this country," and then treats it as fact. She then attacks her opponent saying he lacks experience. But she doesn't support her claim with information. She slips over that part. We are more clever than that, and won't be fooled by this rhetoric.

Lets hope the legislators of Pennsylvania recognize that Hilary has no long-term coat-tails. They should not forget the lesson that after two years in office, the divisiveness of the Clinton administration lost Democratic control of the House of Representatives for the first time since 1932. Those Penna Pols courageous enough to stand with Obama now likely will be at the forefront of a revitalized Democratic Party later.

Get a grip on reality, America! The prosperity of the 1990's is over with and can never be repeated even if you assemble the same players - Bill Clinton's administration and the dot comers for a re-run. It's an economic cycle, it comes and goes. That's the reality of life! That's the reality of economics! What most Americans fail to realize is that that economic cycle could have happened in any other Joe Schmoe's presidency.

Taking it a bit further, some people are making a poor judgement in thinking that Hillary Clinton can repeat back the prosperity of the 1990's. The honest fact is that nobody, not even Bill Clinton can repeat the economic events of that period if he was re-elected for a 3rd term. My honest humble belief is that American has the potential to do better economically in the future than it did in the 1990's. However, to make this a reality, it will take a president with a sound vision and good judgement, not just based on their length of service in Washington. It will take a president who thinks outside the box, and someone capable of energizing and making people believe in themselves and the future once again. Unfortunately, we Americans tend to retreat to our confort zone, settle for less and blame others for what could have been.

America here it go again in this election, it happened before between Al Gore and Bush in the last election American people was looking for a candidate with good hair style, good looking pants and cow boys boots to go out to lunch. They got what they wanted in the White House now every body is complaining and whinnying.
Again in this election American people have found a preacher not a leader who will lead America to the promise land, change America to a nation of color blind, release all ages of black men in prison in his 100 days in office and reconcile America with the nations of Islam, no more wars.
Please America let us do right this time we are not a nation of short of memories, the greatest people and nation on this earth with good blessing.

Obama Mamma - and if we don't use force to protect our interests will we have any interests to protect? I'm not saying that Bush's war is being done for the correct reasons; but people .. I mean liberals come on.. all yes all followers of Allah want everyone else dead yes dead. In their pretzel logic they are followig the only "true" god's will and they feel justified in killing us and believe they will be rewarded for doing so. You Can't Reason With Someone Blinded By Religion - any religion!

I like me life and freedoms as an Amercian and personally don't want to be killed (cause I'm a woman) just for having a cup of coffee in public with a co-worker. Nor do I want to be forced to worship someone else's god.

I think its time everyone not just americans realized that freedom is the reason these terrorists want us dead. Religious freedom - yes - UNTIL your religion says you have the right and duty to kill me. Then Yes - it's time to fight!

I would like to see both Clinton and Obama take a time out and return to the Senate for a few more weeks. After all, that is what we the people are paying them for.

Is it that the Clinton supporters can only remember some of the past? Hillary will be bringing that cheating lying husband of hers with her. Do we really want to debate the definition of "is"? Have we forgotten that we went through impeachment hearings with them? That is something this country should be embarrased by, our leader walking the halls of the white house doing dirty things with interns "just because I can" his quote. Why do you think she is any better.
The only reason we have not been hearing all of the attack ads about her is because Obama has more class than to get down into the gutter with the type of slime that she hangs out with. If she steals the nomination via superdelegates watch McCain win.

DON'T BE DUPED!!!

Large numbers of Republicans have been voting for Barack Obama in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, and caucuses. Because they feel he would be a weaker opponent against John McCain. And because they feel that a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket would be unbeatable. And also because with a Clinton and Obama ticket you are almost 100% certain to get quality, affordable universal health care very fast.

You see, the medical and insurance industry mostly support the republicans with the money they ripped off from you. And they don’t want you to have quality, affordable universal health care. They want to be able to continue to rip you off, and kill you and your children by continuing to deny you life saving medical care. So they can make more profit for them-self.

Hillary Clinton has actually won by much larger margins than the vote totals showed. And lost by much smaller vote margins than the vote totals showed. Her delegate count is actually much higher than it shows. And higher than Obama’s. HILLARY CLINTON IS ALREADY THE TRUE DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE!

As much as 30% of Obama's primary, and caucus votes are Republicans trying to choose the weakest democratic candidate for McCain to run against. These Republicans have been gaming the caucuses where it is easier to vote cheat. This is why Obama has not been able to win the BIG! states primaries. Even with Republican vote cheating help.

If Obama is the democratic nominee for the national election in November he will be slaughtered. Because the vote cheating help will suddenly evaporate. All of this vote fraud and republican manipulation has made Obama falsely look like a much stronger candidate than he really is. YOUNG PEOPLE. DON’T BE DUPED! Think about it. You have the most to lose.

The democratic party needs to fix this outrage. I suggest a Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama ticket now! All democrats need to throw all your support to Hillary Clinton. So you can end this outrage against YOU the voter, and against democracy.

Fortunately the Clinton’s have been able to hold on against this fraudulent outrage with those repeated dramatic comebacks of Hillary Clinton’s. Only the Clinton’s are that resourceful, and strong. Hillary Clinton is your NOMINEE. They are the best I have ever seen.

You should be angry America. “This is not a game” (Hillary Clinton)

Sincerely

jacksmith...

Is it that the Clinton supporters can only remember some of the past? Hillary will be bringing that cheating lying husband of hers with her. Do we really want to debate the definition of "is"? Have we forgotten that we went through impeachment hearings with them? That is something this country should be embarrased by, our leader walking the halls of the white house doing dirty things with interns "just because I can" his quote. Why do you think she is any better.
The only reason we have not been hearing all of the attack ads about her is because Obama has more class than to get down into the gutter with the type of slime that she hangs out with. If she steals the nomination via superdelegates watch McCain win.

Headline should read: Hillary Pitches Her Lies To Gullible Voters In PA". Sad, Clinton and McCain mean into Iran and welcome back draft. Of course the Bush admin has so scared voters with Iraq lies, the young men and ladies in PA probably will be all for enforced military service. Sad the DNC and press has aided and abetted the Clintons. Bush/Clinton dynasty? Disgraced ex president allowed a 3rd term in the White House? True, what Lincoln said about fooling people. Sad for my grandchildren and children globally, that our government, press and many citizens still condone liars and crooks.

# 5 elgarbanzo: True, 27 year old Hillary took her Public Defender career to heart painting a 12 year old girl as a vixen who came on to the older man who raped her to get her a not guilty verdict. She also knew in her heart Goldwater was right, when she was a "Goldwater girl". One of the Senators who tried to prevent a president from "getting it done" by voting no to the 1964 Civil Rights Act that ended Jim Crow law in the south. #2 James: Stretching the truth a bit there. Rezko has contributed to many campaigns, including George Bush. Obama donated the campaign donations he could identify as having come from Resko to charity. Hillary's slander being repeated here. Unlike Hsu, Peter Paul to name two of her sleezy contributers. She and Bill were photographed with Rezko at a fund raiser. Um...

#3 Rich: Ever watch "Burning Bed"? People being abused do sometimes snap, you see. Watching Hillary lie and gloat over her ability to pull the wool over many voters eyes, makes people who know the truth, feel hopelessly powerless, causing anger with no place to go. Anyone who has been verbally abused by a spouse or parent would understand the source of Caroline #1's anger. Hillary has single handedly destroyed the election and any hopes of not going into Iran, by defaming Senator Obama's character in her insane power quest to be Queen of the USA. I have given up hope and plan on voting for Cynthia McKinney in Novembe r, thanks Dame Clinton who lies about caring about, we, the people. Sick lady.

What strikes me from Obama supporters is that they gathered around a candidate talking for unity, and yet they're hateful against Sen. Clinton. It seems like "the politics oh hope" have made them loose perspective or what the real issues are like. I think Hillary Clinton is the best candidate for President. She's proven being effective and tested under pressure and challenge!

The problem we have today for choosing our leaders is the Media's bias propaganda dirty job of profit rating business . The Media knows too well that American people loves their Televisions and this is their main source of information to know what goes on at home and around the World. My space journalist pondents and Youtube, Fox, MSMBC and CNN depending who is talking are doing a great damage to this nation. The Media's bias are worst than politicians in this election, they change black to white and red to green, telling the American people what they want them to hear and believe since they have no sense of their own to think. The Media deservice to this great nation is yet to come to hurt us in many ways we will not imagine. Please America let us do it right in this election to choose a right leader, a fighter for our children future and for a great nation of prosperity, vote for Hillary for president.

Obama camp questions HRC's experience
Posted: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 9:59 AM by Mark Murray
Filed Under: 2008, Security, Clinton, Obama

From NBC's Mark Murray
In one of its sharpest rebukes of Clinton's foreign policy experience, the Obama campaign has released a memo arguing that Clinton herself hasn't passed the commander-in-chief test. "When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the commander-in-chief test” is simply not supported by her record," Obama adviser Greg Craig says in the memo.

"There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was first lady," Craig continues. "It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. he did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue -- not at 3 AM or at any other time of day."

Below is the full memo...

To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008

When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed “the Commander- in-Chief test” is simply not supported by her record.

There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.

When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.

Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, “I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland.” It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, “[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord.” With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that “[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one.”

News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, “[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: “The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it.”

Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that “Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage.”

Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, “I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo.” It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have “negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo,” however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.

The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, “I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue.” Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that “she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations.”

Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.

At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.

Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.

China:
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.

Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called “a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics.” In that speech, he said prophetically: “[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences.” He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would “fan the flames of the Middle East,” and “strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda.” He urged the United States first to “finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda.”

If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most “experienced” men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.

Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed “the Commander-in-Chief test.” That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.

On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled “The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq.” As she cast that vote, she said: “This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make -- any vote that may lead to war should be hard -- but I cast it with conviction.” In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.

Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.

And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.

I see the Obama supporters are still high on Kool-Aid. Look guys, we have a choice...it is either Hillary or it is McCain. The very best Obama can do with his very limited experience is to accept the VP position when and IF it is offered. I agree there is a large black vote this year IF they get to the polls in November but there is also a large women vote and a large hispanic vote. If Obama was nominated the majority of women and the majority of Hispanics will vote McCain.

The NAFTA issue alone should be enough for a 2 year old to realize that Obama was certainly telling Canada that he had no intention of changing NAFTA despite his words while campaigning. Don't tell me that Hillary did the same as that was clearly not true or Canada would have named the Hillary campaign person they spoke with....did not happen with Hillary but it did with Obama.

The war and his lack of opportunity to vote against it since he was not a U.S. Senator yet is also just words. He tells you youngsters that he has a plan and will pull out of Iraq within 16 months while his foreign policy advisor says that he will not use his plan and pulling out within 16 months is highly unlikely.......just more words.

There is a big difference between Hillary's words and Obama's words. Hillary said she would BEGIN pulling troops out of Iraq within 60 days. As the more experienced candidate she knows better than to promise a total withdrawal within 16 months. McCain will distroy Obama!!!!!!!!!!

I wouldn't go down with her. She'd have to tell me whatever she had to say in public. Is she making promises? Is she trying to go even more negative in private than she is in public. Anyone who succombs to this type of munipulation needs to get voted out of office. Backrooms are what make politics dirty.

Senator Obama promises to withdraw from Iraq within 16 months. But his top foreign policy
adviser said he's not really going to rely on that plan. I guess that plan is just words, too.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2008/03/08/ST2008030800051.html

This idea of a joint ticket keeps coming up. I'm hoping to avoid any inflamatory arguments here but it seems like a good chance to examine the current state of things and what may or may not be probable in the fall. What's been going through my mind since Wed. is that Bill Clinton quote, "if she wins in Texas and Ohio I believe she will go on to be the nominee, if not I don't think she can be..." It really doesn't sound like he's talking about delegates there, it sounds like an allusion to this prospective agreement that keeps coming up. I was reading yesterday, more about why the superdelegates were put into place. Carter won the nomination that season and during his second year those delegates were unbound because (much as I like him) he was a weak ticket and they say he was a weak candidate against Reagan. Ironically Ted Kennedy had a lot to do with it. Superdelegates were contrived as a sort of protection against the party being chained to a leading candidate whom party veterans saw as a weak contender for the generals. This also is what's at issue for this year's convention and I think it's what B. CLinton was really referring to in the above quote. Regarding Obama, it was heartening to see (for once) an article expressing what I've been concerned about all along:

Quote:
But Obama's losses Tuesday in Texas and Ohio -- coupled with his Feb. 5 defeats in California, New York and New Jersey -- have not only shown the strategy's downside. They have also given supporters of Clinton an opening for an argument that winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves, such as Boise, Idaho, and Salt Lake City, and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South exaggerate his strengths in states that will not vote Democratic in the fall.

"Winning over affluent, educated white voters in small Democratic enclaves - and running up the score with African Americans in the Republican South - exaggerates his strengths." This would be a good time not to flame back with any knee-jerk first impressions, please. How to say this without pissing people off... I dont know... anyway:

It's a plain fact that Democrats in all states have given the solid majority of their votes to Senator Clinton. The easier it is for conservatives to vote in a Democratic primary, the higher percentage of the total vote Obama gets. This is a fact. That's why Clinton won Ohio by ten points (where its not as convenient for conservatives to vote Democrat) as opposed to winning by four points in Texas (where it was a free-for-all). (Yes Rush Limbaugh contrived to win Republican votes for Clinton but the exit polls still show Obama had more Republican votes). Wisconsin was a dramatic example - Obama had more non-Democrats voting for him than Democrats. In Wisconsin, 27% of the total Dem primary vote were Democrats who voted for Obama, while 31% of the total vote were Democrats voting for Clinton; 31% of the total vote were Republicans and Independents voting for Obama whereas 11% of the total vote were Republicans and Independents voting for Clinton. Now, we either have to say that 31% of the non-Democrats in Wisconsin are actually converts whom Obama magically "won over" with his glowing aura, or we have to say that a lot of what is reffered to as Obama's momentum is really just conservatives taking their chance to vote against a Clinton early. You can call that an example of how "divisive" Clinton is if you want to, but most of these crossover voters in question are the conservative base voters that we'll all be voting against here in November.

The bottom line is that with Obama you can subtract any one of a number of factors and depict a scenario where he's pretty much out of the race for the Democratic nomination. In this current race, he's got the votes that he has got so it makes no difference to the nomination; what we are looking for here is examples of his exaggerated strengths as a candidate. Clinton led Obama among Democrat voters before Ohio by six points (zero margin of error as those votes were already tallied). This margin is increasing. I'm not talking about who wins or doesn't win the primary I'm talking about being realistic about the situation at hand here.

1. Basically, you can vaporize Obama's delegate lead today if you erased all these conservative "November Republican" votes from the tally. It is a true fact that if you take away the conservatives who voted against the possibility of a Clinton on the ticket, Obama wouldn't make it to the convention. I'm not saying this is what I think should happen; what I'm saying is it's a realistic way to look at where he stands.

2. These caucuses award valid points, it's true, but they are by no means a measure of A. Obama's real support in those states, B. how he would do in a general election in those states or C. if he could really compete against Clinton in those states if they held a primary (Washington state for instance, he won the caucus 2-1 but the primary by just a small percentage - which suggests that in a contested primary with delegates he probably might have lost).

He's going to lose in Pennsylvania because only Democrats can vote. My prediction is that he'll win about 33% there. If Ohio had been a closed primary, 33% would be being optimistic of his chances. That Clinton won in Texas with 700,000 Republicans voting (to say nothing of independents) is a real testiment of strength. It's therefore realistic to say that Obama's coalition is composed of four major parts: well-to-do Dems, African American Dems, Republicans and Independents. Subtract just the conservative double agents and he doesn't make it to the convention. Now of course he is going to make it to the convention because basically any Dem ticket this year without Obama on it is going to see at least half the black vote either stay home or defect to the other party. And as far as Clinton voters like me go, there's no way I'm going to vote for either of the candidates (Obama/McCain) that conservatives forced onto my ballot - unless Clinton is on the ticket. So what to do?

What I hope for is not realistic: that these issues come to bear on Obama's candidacy to such an extent that he loses the lead and is owed no place on the ticket. For a variety of reasons that have become clear over 5 weeks or so (and I hope they become more and more clear to the voters as the next 7-8 weeks drag on) I wouldn't want him as a senator, much less a vice president. But it looks like that is what is going to happen. Florida and Michigan will be seated and I expect Clinton to win FL by at least her current margin; and seeing that Michigan is running their caucus like a primary, I think she'll win that by Texas-like margins; she will win Pennsylvania. He wins Wyoming and Mississippi; she will win P.R. The gap will narrow enough to force the need of some reconcilliation and the ticket will read President Clinton, Vice President Obama (unless something unforseeable should happen between now and June 3). 8 years of Clinton, then 8 years of Obama. Not that bad I guess. John McCain will lose, Bush will move out of the white house and we can all get on with the 21st Century at last. Too early to bet on it but that's my guess so far.

elgrbonzo (5) said: "she IS for the people and has devoted her life to community service! "

Friend, she has not devoted her life to community. She served 7 years on the Board of Directors of Wal-Mart. During that time, Wal-Mart was the most anti-labor force in the world (and still is). Hillary is no friend of the working class. "Community service"? Obama has IN the community, helping people and taking part in the American experience while Hillary was earning 1000% profit on cattle futures, making money on shady land deals, and riding her husbands coattails.

Hilary has won all of the big states 2 of which have not been counted and may not be seated. Our electoral process definitely has its problems and leaves much to be desired. I simply do not understand this deep rooted hatred for Hillary. Of course she is going to present her case to the super delegates.This entire process is begining to wear on all Americans. As for myself a lifelong democrat I will change partys for good if Barack Hussien Obama gets the nomination. It's been suggested that 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain I believe it is much higher. Democrats better get it together or we will not be in the white house in 08.

Hey Texasqueen. Barack won Texas - he's got 6 more delegates than Clinton. And the fact that 25% of Hillary supporters will vote for McCain.....doesn't that tell you something? She is a republican. I've known it since they started the DLC. Those weenies can go for McCain all they want, but having listened to John McCain - do you actually think he's going to inspire people the way Barack has? No - he's going to put them to sleep. He cannot read his teleprompter nor can he give a speech. Nor does he have good judgement. McCain vs Obama is the largest contrast you'll ever see in a race for the whitehouse. Given that Iraq is a freakin' mess, Obama's judgement will blow McCain away. McCain flopped on the bush tax cuts to pander to the conservatives - what an honest guy.

This smells to high heaven of back room, closed door politics. It's the antithesis of what we want in America. We've had enough of the secret stuff, of rule by the elites.

And yes, Mr. Stine, you're right. Barack won Texas. I'm a Texan and I resent the media continually saying that Hillary won Texas. It completely dismisses the hard work and time of the hundreds of thousands of patriots who turned out on Tuesday, March 4 to go to their caucus in Texas. It was one of democracy's finer hours in my precinct. About 60% Obama, 40% Clinton, yet we all got along well and even voted to let the people with young children and the old folks sign in first so they could go home.

The rest of us stayed until almost 11pm. And someone wants to tell me that doesn't count?

I thought Senator Clinton wanted to 'open up government'? So she's having a private meeting with legislators behind closed doors.

If anyone making comments here is still saying Senator Obama is nothing but feel good speeches, apparently you haven't done even the bare minimum of research.

If you go to his site, look at issues, you will see the most detailed, extensive and comprehensive collection of how he will run this country. His judgment on so many issues far exceeds that of either his Democratic or Republican opponent. His ability to bring opposing forces together to actually get things done has been legendary since his school days. His ability to inspire a nation to become active in their government again is breathtaking.

Back to transparency in government, Senator Obama passed legislation to actually do that. Hillary Clinton holds closed door meetings and said in a debate, 'You shouldn't always tell people what you're thinking'.

Do the research, please. This is not a sporting match. This election may be the most important one of our lifetimes, and it's time we stopped getting distracted by debunked rumors, misinformation and smear tactics.

Very insightful and thoughtful comments on this article from the readers
Folks, We really need a break from the monopoly on power. Eliot Spitzer worked hard in New York to raise funds for Hillary's election, now there are reports of alleged money laundering and diversion of funds from his state government to prostitutes. In other words, Hillary's campaign funds are maybe very much tainted because of this corrupt process and that is what we need to change. Independent reporters are looking into this and the details should be coming out soon on Hillary funds questions.On the other hand, the Obama campaign has been unusually open and transparent on the sources of money they are collecting and using this "Own a piece of the campaign" strategy where normal people send small donations to become part of an open campaign process. In my view, this is a real open democracy where people get to put their own money where their mouth is.small donations to become part of an open campaign process. In my view, this is a real open democracy where people get to put their own money where their mouth is.small donations to become part of an open campaign process. In my view, this is a real open democracy where people get to put their own money where their mouth is.