Obama & the Clinton Express

Obama supporters are shocked and their feelings are hurt. The Clintons are playing dirty. Surprised? The Clintons, like the scorpion in the fable, are just being themselves: playing race cards, attacking through surrogates and innuendo and just generally knocking the legs out from under opponents. I am interested to see what they will do to flatten Obama to slow his bg SC Momentum. My guess is that it will be the race card, and then the Clinton’s will be outraged at whomever they designated to do the deed.

"Winning isn’t the most important thing; winning is the only thing." Vince Lombardi didn’t mean it in this kind of context, but the Clintons do. They are double teaming poor Obama so that he doesn’t know which way to turn. I saw him on TV trying to contain Hillary. She loved it. Every time she makes him angry, she smirks.

Dems should remember that Karl Rove is but a pale reflection of the true nefarious masters - the Clinton team. I have to admire their skill. I remember the preemptive leaks, the trembling lower lip as the felt our pain and how Clinton opponents didn’t know they were politically dead until they hit the ground. And there were never any Clinton fingerprints on the stiletto. Republicans have some experience with this and we have learned some tricks of our own to avoid the Clinton embrace, but their style of negative campaigning has been very harmful to our country. Dems are just not ready to have this kind of total political war unleashed on them, especially as they consider it friendly fire. Hill & Bill feel entitled to return to the Whitehouse. If Obama is in the way, the Clintons will take him out, maybe not today, maybe not tomorrow, but soon.

Obama is the guy standing on the tracks in a long tunnel. The light he sees is not the end of the tunnel, but rather the oncoming Clinton express and it is not coming to give him a ride to the White House.

Posted by Jack at January 27, 2008 4:56 AM
Comments
Comment #243974

Jack,

I am an Obama supporter, but I don’t see this argument that the Clintons are saying terrible things about him. And the whole “race card” thing is a joke coming from Republicans. If he gets nominated, you guys will play every card in the deck before the election is over. “Call me, Barack!”

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 27, 2008 6:14 AM
Comment #243976

Woody

The Clintons are working hard to torpedo your guy. I have been watching them with a mixture of admiration and outrage. Outrage only because I see how they have been doing it to us too.

Obama even has his own “Fitzmas” coming up.

If he gets nominated, and we wanted to play really dirty, all we need do is recycle the Clinton stuff.

Did you watch that debate? Hillary just kicked him in the groin (figuratively). It is nice that you can be so generous with her.

Posted by: Jack at January 27, 2008 8:02 AM
Comment #243977

Jack,

I am being tolerant of the Clinton attacks for a couple of reasons. First of all, in the early debates it was Hillary Clinton who was under constant assault because she was the front-runner. It’s Obama’s turn. Secondly, he needs to be tested. I think the Democrats made a BIG mistake the last time around by adopting a strategy of not letting the candidates get a little rough with each other. It made sense at the time because the theory was that we needed to be unified to win. The problem was we ended up with a guy who couldn’t fight his way out of a paper bag.
We would have been better off if another candidate had confronted Kerry about his controversial post-war record when he was still a primary candidate.

The final reason I don’t mind is because the Clinton attacks are backfiring. The harder they hit, the worse Obama whips their ass. Jujitsu, I think the call it.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 27, 2008 8:22 AM
Comment #243979

Woody

Good.

It is always a dilemma. If we are in competition, it doesn’t do much good ONLY to talk about your positives. An accurate assessment also requires pointing out where your opponent differs from you. If you think you are doing the right thing, it might mean that your opponent is doing the wrong thing. It could look like negative campaigning, but I do not think it is, although it can be rough.

But those attempts to associate Obama with that crook in Chicago (investigated ironically by the same Fitzgerald that got Scooter) or the implication that Obama is only the black candidate probably are not legitimate.

What also is distasteful in this particular race, BTW, is the black v woman angle. I have seen lots of Dem voters on TV talking about the difficult choice they have to make between voting for a black or a woman. Presumably they should be more concerned about who is the best leader, not gender or race. That is the only reason you should vote before or against anybody.

Posted by: Jack at January 27, 2008 8:35 AM
Comment #243980

Woody:

“… I don’t see this argument that the Clintons are saying terrible things about him (Obama). And the whole “race card” thing is a joke coming from Republicans.” Woody Mena post #1

“I am being tolerant of the Clinton attacks for a couple of reasons….The final reason I don’t mind is because the Clinton attacks are backfiring.” Woody Mena Post #2

Which is it? Are they attacking him or not. First you say they arent, then you admit they are, but that its good for your candidate of choice. Please make up your mind and let us know which side of that fence you are on.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 27, 2008 8:42 AM
Comment #243981

JBOD,

You’re back.

There is no contradiction. Yes, the Clintons are attacking Obama. No, they aren’t saying “terrible things” (my words) about him.

Posted by: Woody Mena at January 27, 2008 9:04 AM
Comment #243983

There is certainly the possibility of a fractured democrat convention if Hillary and Obama supporters feel they were not respected, or outright trashed, in the primaries. Today’s democrat party is comprised of many coalitions, all of which are making demands of the candidates. Should the major demo coalition, black voters, become disenchanted with the Clinton machine over the treatment by the Hillary forces, the party will fail miserably at the polls with millions of their black supporters staying home in protest. The Republicans may have a brokered convention which could have interesting results with a dark horse being nominated. These truly are “interesting times”. The dems would do well to remember the words of Dr. King. It’s the content of character not the color of the skin (or gender) that counts.

Posted by: Jim at January 27, 2008 11:13 AM
Comment #243985

THIS IS SOOOO Hillary-ous

Woddy, Woody, Woody,

I’ve said it before, I say it again!

Hillary and Bill,

So misunderstood,

So Innocent,

It’s all just a great conspiracy!

Hillary’s character standing next to Obama’s character is like the Joker standing next to Batman, like Charles Manson standing next to the Pope, like Billy the Kid standing next to Mother Theresa!

Obama, Obama, Obama!

Posted by: Scott at January 27, 2008 11:41 AM
Comment #243986

I think your analysis is off. I think the Clintons handicapped themselves there and elsewhere. Obama’s advantage is that he can be assertive and take the initiative on playing to the current movements in both the nation at large, and in the Democratic party. The Clinton disadvantage is that people are very sore from the bruising political fights of the last decade and a half, particularly the Democrats.

While I’d hardly compare the Clintons to Rove in terms of divisiveness, they didn’t profit from what amount they employed.

This should be a warning to Republicans considering the same approach. Americans are tired of being cut off from one another. They’re looking for the opportunity to reconnect. If the Republicans had not become as divisive as they did post 9/11, they could have benefited more permanently from this desire for unity. But they rejected that.

How long will the Republicans try to divide their way back to power before they realize that people want something better than that?

Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at January 27, 2008 12:10 PM
Comment #243990

Woody, on July 13,2006, joebagodonuts said: “The Republican recipe has been a winning one.” Of course, 4 months later Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. He may be back, but, his comment’s orientation likely hasn’t changed.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 27, 2008 1:48 PM
Comment #244002

Jack:

Don’t gloat that Democrats are fighting each other. Like you, I think that what the Clintons are doing is dastardly: they are following the Rove and Republican playbook. But the rest of the Democrats will eventually be capitvated by Barack Obama.

When Obama runs against the Republican nominee Republicans will use their old nefarious tactics and Obama will run a positive campaign. He will prove that it pays to be nice by winning.

Posted by: Paul Siegel at January 27, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #244009

Wondering why this “Republican” blog doesn’t show more interest in its own candidates….at least the Democratic party has had a woman, a black, and a Hispanic candidate this year…poor Repubs just run the same drab white rich males…oh, I get it….your candidates are sooooooooooooooooooo boring!

Posted by: Rachel at January 27, 2008 5:37 PM
Comment #244011

At this time a brokered convention is a good thing. Here is another reminder that the Dem race has THREE contestants and Edwards is still the best choice.
Every Rep candidates and HC want to play hardnose in forign policy. Obama wants to play nice. What we need is niether . What we need is a good negotiater,especially concerning trade policy. Edwards,by experience and temperment,is that. That is what successful trial lawyers do,while always keeping the best interest of their client(in this case the US)in mind.
In a brokered convention he will have great influence to furtur his specific agenda,including a real and productive approach to eliminate poverty. Every vote he recieves will strengthen his hand. This is not a horserace. Use your head.

Posted by: BillS at January 27, 2008 6:03 PM
Comment #244012

Seems my last post should have gone on the blue side the red side seems to get as much Dem readership. This is another unbecomming reason why there is less discussion of Rep candidates,a lack of thoughtful inquiery on the part of many Rep voters. They are waiting to be told how to vote by the likes of Rush and Hannity and or have already decided on the basis of theire favorite hate.

Jack
Your boy,McCain has an excellent shot dispite his age.My quite cynical reasons for the belief is that the corporate plutocrats are faced with a similar circumstance as when TR was elected. They could either back TR and put up with some degree of reform after decades of corporate excesses or lose to the likes of populist like William Jennings Bryant or even worse,Hearst.The train cars TR campainged from were provided by the railroad trust he” busted”. He only went so far. He never really went after the oil trust.Too bad. He should have nationalized the bastards and could have.

Posted by: BillS at January 27, 2008 6:36 PM
Comment #244040

I guess I have my liberal “blinders” on but I just don’t get the whole “Clinton hate machine, Hillary has baggage” theme that is being pushed by the media, the right, and, now, Obama’s camp. I haven’t heard anything said by either Clinton that is unfair, or low or racist. I see both Clintons as being ambitious, driven, and at a point in their lives where they are not going to take a whole lot of shit from anybody. Understandable in my view given what happend in the 90’s.
I admit I have not been paying close attention to the South Carolina race on the dem side but I did hear Bill Clinton’s remarks comparing a win by Obama to the wins by Jesse Jackson in ‘84 and ‘88. The overt point he was making was simply that Barack Obama is a black man running in a state’s primary where the electorate is fifty percent black, so, of course he has a tremendous advantage. He made the comparison to make a point: Jesse’s campaign fizzled out twice after his wins because his message was simply not appealing to the democratic electorate, nation-wide. So, he surmised, will it be with Obama. Is there something more to all this that I have missed?
I would really like an answer to a couple of questions:
What exactly has this “Clinton hate machine” done to earn this title and
What exactly is Hillary Clinton’s “bagage”?

Posted by: charles ross at January 27, 2008 11:04 PM
Comment #244042

charles….you know the answer to your question. H.C. scares a lot of people on the right, and not because she is an ogre, or a shrew like some would try to make us think. It isn’t relevent that she speaks in truth, or that she does have experience (if as some think, it is by osmosis) and there are really no Reps who can match her. So, the GOP way of doing things is surfacing full tilt. The nastier the better and no remorse.


Posted by: Jane Doe at January 28, 2008 1:00 AM
Comment #244047

Jack,

If he gets nominated, and we wanted to play really dirty, all we need do is recycle the Clinton stuff.

Yeah, recycling dirty stuffs which would have leaded to his nomination one time would make him fall the second time…
No doubt about that.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 28, 2008 6:23 AM
Comment #244058

‘The Clintons are evil’ is exactly the theme Sean Hannity has been beating to death.

As cruel as republican candidates and surrogates have been to Hillary for years - this may be the greatest double standard in the history of politics.

Posted by: Schwamp at January 28, 2008 10:17 AM
Comment #244078

Jane
hillarys history and positions on issues, is what scares many people on the right. You do realize, that because of those things, that many Reps would rather she gets the nod over Obama, right?
With Obama, its really only a few things, one of those being his inexperience, which can be used as ammo, while with hillary, its hundreds of things.

But hey, if you guys want to ignore the obvious, again, and put up the worse candidate, again, then go ahead. Not saying she won’t win, but it will be alot closer than if you all would have put up somebody which half the country didn’t hate and distrust so much.

Keep blaming Republicans for your clinton troubles if that is how you justify their corruption, and you may wind up snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, again. OR, put up a real candidate who has an almost guaranteed chance and win in a probable landslide?
I know which one I would choose.

Posted by: kctim at January 28, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #244079

Rachel

Yeah, Dems have a woman, a black and a Hispanic. All rich lawyers from Ivy League universities. It is the diversity of mixing and matching the colors of your furniture. Dems like that PC thing, however, and it seems to excite them, so have fun with it.

Why bother even to put names in front of the categories? The group is more important to Dems than the individual anyway.

BillS

I will support McCain until he is president or tells his supporters to stand down. My problem is I also like Romney, but McCain doesn’t. I think McCain is the clear leader on national security. No candidate on either party comes close. Romney is clearly the best qualified in economic and business matters. I would dearly love a McCain/Romney ticket, but I can never have it.

Re nationalizing the RR, the RR worked well until the cars and trucks displaced them. It was a government program and government money that made that happen, so I guess the bureaucrats sort of had their revenge anyway.

Charles

I admire the Clinton skill. Bill, for example, points out that Obama won SC just like Jesse Jackson. A simply true statements that carries a lot with it. Did Jesse Jackson in 1988 leap to your mind when you heard Obama won.

Clinton himself won SC in 1992. Did he forget? I think Edwards won in 2004. Wouldn’t that be more appropriate if Bill wanted to use a losing example. Why do back twenty years? What could Obama and Jesse have in common that made Clinton think they were similar?

Posted by: Jack at January 28, 2008 2:58 PM
Comment #244083

This is too precious
The right wing making comments about anybody on the left “playing dirty” and “having baggage”
and the one comment about the “Clinton Corruption” That is TOOOOO Good!!
Comeon, after the flagrant corruption of the past 7 years (and more if you really want to bring out all the crap that the Republican Congress has pulled even before Bushie and Co came to town???)

What Gall — but oh so typical.

You guys can back whomever you like, and try to gloat about “put up your worst candidate again” — but currently any of the top 3 democrates beats ANY of the top 5 Repubs (actually I don’t think you guys have 5 “top” going right now)
Golden Boy Fred Thompson sure turned out to be a bust once the light was shown on him.
and now the top choices are Romney and McCain??
The flip-flopper and the sell-out???

I lost all respect for McCain — after Bush totally stabbed him in the back during the 2000 campaign, for McCain to turn around and essentially lick George W’s boots for 6 years????
No RESPECT
and then
to start courting the religious right???
At one time I had a great deal of respect for McCain cause I thought he was a straight shooter — and independent of the Repub machine — I did not always agree with him, but at least I felt he wasn’t just parroting the party line — no more.
He is a total Hack, just like the rest.

And that he is the top guy on National Security?? why because he talks tough?? — he was in the military and a prisoner of war??
His position is nothing more than trying to out-macho both Bush and Guilliani — there is no real strategy to his position other than to get the right wing to have a hard-on for him!!

If there isn’t someone better than Romney or McCain showing up, you guys are in trouble — and it seems that there is no one else showing up, so you are in trouble.

Posted by: russ at January 28, 2008 3:46 PM
Comment #244085

Only to a blind partisan hack, does the corruption of the past 7 years, diminish and excuse the corruption of the previous 8.

A post about the clintons doing everything possible to one of their own, ends up, as always, being the rights fault. Its always somebody elses fault.
How very typical. How very liberal.

If Obama gets the nod, many many people who normally vote towards the right, will stay home.
If hillary gets the nod, these people will vote just to vote against her.

You can blame whomever you want for that, but you can only blame your leftist selfs if she runs and loses in an election that shouldn’t be close at all.

Posted by: kctim at January 28, 2008 4:09 PM
Comment #244105

Still waiting for that integrity that supposedly returned to the White House in January 2001….is it hidden under a bushel?

Nope…just nonexistent.

Posted by: Rachel at January 28, 2008 8:41 PM
Comment #244113

Russ

You are very passionate in what you think you believe. The best test for validity in this case is the reversal principle. If a Karl Rove made the comments about Obama that the Clintons have done, would you consider it dirty politics?

If you say yes, you have the answer to your passion. If you answer no, you still have your passionate intensity. I have always been a Yeats fan.

Rachel

Your phrasing betrays your views. When you complain that integrity did not RETURN to the Whitehouse, you also accept that it was not there during the Clinton times.

I do not dislike Bill Clinton. He was a reasonably good steward of the economy and the country. He was a little weak on foreign affairs, but times were different then. BUT the sleaze factor was always strong with the Clintons. Perhaps you recall that one of Gore’s challenges in 2000 was “Clinton Fatigue”. We are being reminded why.

Posted by: Jack at January 29, 2008 1:30 AM
Comment #244114

kctim said: “Only to a blind partisan hack, does the corruption of the past 7 years, diminish and excuse the corruption of the previous 8.”

You are right, there was corruption in the previous 8. But, that corruption didn’t cost our children 3.67 Trillion in inherited debt. That previous 8 did not cost our military 4000 lives in an unnecessary and indefensible invasion and occupation of another nation in violation of treaty and law and ethical principles. That previous 8 did not give us the most incompetent president in modern times, just the most stupid in managing his personal ‘affairs’.

The previous 8 brought out the best of a Republican controlled house of Congress and a Democratic president as regards domestic policy and improvement. One party government brought out the worst of the GOP.

We will see if it does the same for Democrats in 2009. If Clinton is elected, I believe it very well might. I am not as convinced with Obama. I have more confidence in an individual who knows they don’t know everything, than a person who thinks they do.

A person who believes they know it all, won’t learn (Bush and Hillary may have common ground). A person who knows they don’t have all the answers will learn and seek the best of them. (My impression of Obama).

Romney thinks he knows that running a non-profit organization like the U.S. Government is a simple matter of running it like a for-profit corporation. Man, will that be a clusterbuck!

Giuliani - never mind, that one trick opportunist is already history.

Huckabee thinks he knows math. Big trouble, there. Because 23 cents per dollar sales tax doesn’t come close to meeting current and future budgetary obligations. And he thinks exempting the wealthy from all other taxation will answer the middle class voter’s needs and curry their favor. What a believer. He needs to go open a diet clinic or go back to an Arkansas pulpit where he belongs, you know, something he really is good at.

McCain. What can I say? McCain likes Bush, said tonight he like Bush’s SOU speech, and will carry on with Bush’s wars just a little more aggressively. If you like GW Bush, then McCain is your man. The American people as a majority don’t like Bush or his legacy. So, that excludes “More of the Same, McCain.

Who does that leave on top? By my yardstick, Obama. Of course, GW Bush is living proof that the best person doesn’t necessarily win.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 1:42 AM
Comment #244121

kctim,

Its always somebody elses fault. How very typical. How very liberal.

How very human, as it’s not specific to whatever political tint one have.

Posted by: Philippe Houdoin at January 29, 2008 4:24 AM
Comment #244122

David Remer:

Woody, on July 13,2006, joebagodonuts said: “The Republican recipe has been a winning one.” Of course, 4 months later Republicans lost control of both houses of Congress. He may be back, but, his comment’s orientation likely hasn’t changed.

I’m sorry to see that you are still sometimes quick to jump to conclusions. There was nothing in my comments to Woody that would allow you to determine my “orientation”. I saw what looked like a contradiction in Woody’s posts, and I brought it to light. Woody clarified it for me.

My post did nothing more than that. I guess that once you have decided how someone thinks, you also decide not to change, even if it means jumping into a conversation that has nothing to do with orientation or you, for that matter. Maybe you are right—-maybe some things never change.

Woody, by the way, thanks for noticing my somewhat return. Having had a new job in a different location has taken much of my time, and I fear also that the sniping back and forth from both sides made me less inclined to step into the fray. Thanks for your clarification.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 29, 2008 5:40 AM
Comment #244133

David
In an ideal country, candidates from another party would be “left on top.” :)

While “personal” affairs are what the left want to believe is the sole reason for the dislike of clinton, they are only a small part of it. There is plenty of corruption, bad policy, mistreatment of Americans and rights violations in their baggage and millions will vote just to vote against them.

I disagree with Obama and his misguided views and policies, but I believe his nomination would be better for the Dem party than hillary.

PH
No need to get too worked up. It was just a jab back at Russ and his right “gall” comment.

Posted by: kctim at January 29, 2008 9:41 AM
Comment #244142

JBOD, I didn’t decide what you think, I quoted you. HUGE Difference, don’t you think? Perhaps not. Another inconvenient truth.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 11:04 AM
Comment #244143

kctim said: “There is plenty of corruption, bad policy, mistreatment of Americans and rights violations in their baggage”

As compared to GW Bush? Care to cite an example of each so we can compare? I agree there was corruption in the Clinton Administration, but his didn’t cost my daughter a 3.67 trillion dollar increase in her future taxes. Bad policy? Yep, he made some bad calls, but, they didn’t cost 4000 American military lives in an unwinnable invasion and occupation of another country that posed no direct threat to the U.S. homeland, lasting longer than WWII.

Mistreatment of Americans? Sorry, fetuses aren’t Americans until they are born on American soil or to American parents. Abortion is not birth. It is termination and then extraction. Now, if you want to make a Christian soul argument for immorality to go along with his lack of marital fidelity which Republican politicians have enjoyed in abundance, and GOP Gays have denounced, go ahead.

Rights violations? Yeah. American presidents have a long history of that on both sides of the aisle. Doesn’t speak well of our Courts or Congress or strenght of our Constitution, does it? Clinton did not however, openly dismiss and defy the U.S. Constitution like GW Bush has. Not that this is any kind of feather for Clinton’s cap.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 29, 2008 11:16 AM
Comment #244145

David
It is not realistic to believe all voters share your “no big deal” beliefs of clinton and your hatred of Bush.
You see the debt as growing a ton under Bush, others believe fighting a war and winning it, and US security explain the debt.
You see an unwinnable invasion based on lies, others see bad intel leading to a war but still want to finish the job in a way which benefits the US.
Some see wiretapping as the worst thing ever, others see the 2nd Amendment.
Some hate Bush because of the mistreatment of some suspected terrorists, others hate clinton for the deaths of 70+ of their fellow Americans.
Some hate the wiretapping fiasco, others hated Eschelon and Carnivore.
Some hate Bush for his supposed Haliburton ties or whatever and others hate clinton for his supposed chinese and north korea ties.
Some hate Bush for using fear to protect us from terrorism, others hate clinton for using fear to protect us from the 2nd Amendment.

It goes on and on like that, and BOTH sides think their concerns are more valid than the others. They are not, but that is how the political game is played.

In keeping with the Obama/clinton post, I believe Obama, without all this baggage, has a better chance of winning than hillary. I am not saying she can’t or won’t win, but that many many people will show up just to vote against her.
Would you rather give people a reason to show up and vote against your party? Or would you rather not give them a reason and keep them away from the polls?

Posted by: kctim at January 29, 2008 12:30 PM
Comment #244164
Your phrasing betrays your views. When you complain that integrity did not RETURN to the Whitehouse, you also accept that it was not there during the Clinton times.

Bush was the one who said he’d “return” integrity to the White House…I’m just wondering when and if he’s going to learn the meaning of the word and return the integrity which has been missing since January 20, 2001…

And why the over-posting by Republicans re: Hillary Clinton…she’s your worst nightmare, isn’t she…why so worried???

Posted by: Rachel at January 29, 2008 3:18 PM
Comment #244166

I guess I’m still missing the answers to my two questions:

What exactly is the “Clinton hate machine”? Be specific about what her campaign has said that raises it all to a level of “hate”
A couple of examples to model for you that I would consider hateful:
1.bush appealing to republican voters in South Carolina in 2000 campaign by suggesting that McCain had fathered a black baby. 2.bush suggesting in 2004 that a decorated war hero (Kerry) had not really earned his medals.
(for those of you out there who would counter with: bush never claimed these things, someone else did, I say you are either dishonest or naive to the extreme!)

and two:
What exactly is Hillary Clinton’s baggage? be specific. What has she done/said/been convicted of/photographed doing, that would be considered to be “baggage”.

Posted by: charles ross at January 29, 2008 3:37 PM
Comment #244168

Charles

I think the whole idea of hate speech is overdone. People have become too sensitive.

The tone of my post is a kind of admiration for the Clinton skill. They used to have Dick Morris advising them, but then they passed the master. Bill Clinton’s race card play was truly masterful. It does the trick while providing plausible deniabiliy.

I always thought Bill was - strictly speaking - telling the truth when he said he did not have sex with THAT woman, Monika Lewinski. I figure we just missed the full stop. He looked at Helen Thomas and correctly said that he did not have sex with that woman. Full stop. New subject - Monika Lewinski.

Clintons are just very good at this sort of thing. Bush says what HE means and gets in trouble. Clinton says what YOU mean and you think he is on your side. That is why he is the most skillful politician of his generation.

Obama is getting educated about this really quickly, but he will still lose.

Posted by: Jack at January 29, 2008 3:53 PM
Comment #244171

Yes, Jack. looking ahead at possibilites; most likely,

Clinton vs. McCain, with McCain narrow winner.

possible O’bama vs. McCain, with McCain big winner, or

possible Romney vs. Clinton, with Clinton narrow winner

possible O’bama vs. Romney, I could not even begin to guess

My opinion.

Posted by: charles ross at January 29, 2008 4:22 PM
Comment #244185

Sorry y’all but David points out the difference between the FLAGRENT inherent CORRUPTION of the current administration with some of the missteps and mistakes of the previous administration.

To add to David’s list
Secrecy
coverup (all those Cheny e-mails that have “gone missing”?? — right after Cheney called for spying on American e-mails as necessary to fight terrorism??? — guess his e-mails don’t apply)
We have not even gotten into all the corporate appointments to government agencies that are supposed to oversee the industries the appointees worked for
Gas and Oil, Mining interests, FDA, EPA, etc etc
All the raping of the land, and the give away of Federal resources at fire sale prices to the extractive industries —
The Politicization of all the Scientific agencies that are meant to provide objective reports — all run by incompetent party hacks that censured, and edited those objective reports to reflect the ideology of the right wing BS machine.

The absolute gutting of the Constitution — the expansion of President Above the Law powers — promoting Torture and then covering up and denying ever doing so.
on and on and on
and NOT to promote National Security — the NeoCon (and Bush, not quite the same) actions have resulted in a country that is LESS secure
Our borders are as porous as ever
Homeland Security is a joke
Iraq still continues to be a quagmire — and the Taliban is making inroads in Pakistan (of all places!! — as well as being in position to retake Afghanistan!!)
To even compare the two administrations is ridiculous.

and your ARguements??? They continue to be those of people with BLINDERS on who refuse to admit the facts that have come to light over the past 8 years


You see an unwinnable invasion based on lies, others see bad intel leading to a war but still want to finish the job in a way which benefits the US.
BAD INTEL?? are you still kicking THAT DEAD HORSE??
try Cherry Picked Intel and then blaming the messenger for the bad cherries!!

Some see wiretapping as the worst thing ever, others see the 2nd Amendment.
Wire tapping supports the 2nd Amendment??? now THAT is a stretch!! — they admit their wiretapping is merely fishing expeditions — they really have NO probable cause in most cases and it is producing MORE info than they can possibly intrepret — and there have been NO cases of stopping any terrorist attacks.
BUT there have been documented cases of people who dissent being harrased as a result of these wiretapping activities. — 2nd Amendment gone by wiretapping you mean.

Some hate Bush because of the mistreatment of some suspected terrorists, others hate clinton for the deaths of 70+ of their fellow Americans.
Bush has caused 4000 deaths and 10,0000 or more permanent maimed veterans — He has NOT done anything to stop further terrorist attacks, and the torture of what has been shown to be innocent
INNOCENT people of Arab decent (can you say profiling??) has done NOTHING to enhance our security.

Some hate the wiretapping fiasco, others hated Eschelon and Carnivore.
and still hate —

Some hate Bush for his supposed Haliburton ties or whatever and others hate clinton for his supposed chinese and north korea ties.
Ya got that wrong — Hate Cheney for that one.
and we oppose any sort of improper ties — regardless of the administration — that is the difference between us — we bring up what is going wrong NOW with the CURRENT administration — and the only response we get is NOT “you’re right, we should band together and fix the problem” but “but Clinton did ……. how can you criticize Bush?/ You just hate Bush” — and the fact that they are corrupt SOB’s get lost in your mantra of “it’s only Bush Hate” — get real!!


Some hate Bush for using fear to protect us from terrorism, others hate clinton for using fear to protect us from the 2nd Amendment
Again?? what???
So you admit that Bush is using Fear to manipulate us?? — using fear to protect us?? that is laughable!!
Fear does not protect dude, fear causes the masses to give in to BS loss of liberty to gain the APPEARANCE of security.

I really would like to hear an explanation of what the HECK you are talking about re: Clinton, fear, and protection FROM the 2nd Amendment??
(especially when we have a Prez currently that is trashing more than just the 2nd Amendment)

If you don’t think that the illegal wire-tapping couldn’t trump your false security blanket feeling of support for Guns — think again
all it takes is Bush to DECIDE (he is the decider you know) that YOU pose a threat, are hereby declared a terrorist sympathiser (and we have your telephone messages to prove it) and that you have NO RIGHTS (2nd amendment or otherwise) because why should we allow a terrorist sympathiser to own guns?? How stupid is that?? Only upstanding AMERICANS (i.e. those that agree totally with me and are lamblike in their devotion to every word I say) deserve to be armed in order to protect all UPSTANDING SHEEP (errrr American Patriots) from terrorist sympathiser such as yourself. (and anybody who tries to defend KCTIM must be a terrorist sympathiser as well and so we need to lock them up as well — all those who agree, raise your hoof!!)

Even the NeoCons (who created this Monster incompetent) are backing away from this mess as fast as their little Gucci shoes can carry them.


Posted by: Russ at January 29, 2008 6:28 PM
Comment #244208

David Remer:

Please stop focusing on me. You quoted me from almost a year and a half ago, and used that singular quote to assess what I think today. And all in some weird manner of interrupting a simple question I had for Woody. I am humbled that you would save a quote from me for so long—-I’ve long forgotten most of what you’ve written. Thanks . I now remember why I’ve been gone so long, and why I’ll leave again now.

Posted by: joebagodonuts at January 29, 2008 10:34 PM
Comment #244221

JBOD said: “And all in some weird manner of interrupting a simple question I had for Woody.”

If you meant for your comment to be private to Woody, you should not have published it in a public forum. My response was entirely appropriate. Got Email? Then you got a way to prevent my responding to what you say to others. See how easy that is?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 4:17 AM
Comment #244222

Jack said: “Clintons are just very good at this sort of thing. Bush says what HE means and gets in trouble. Clinton says what YOU mean and you think he is on your side. That is why he is the most skillful politician of his generation.”

WoW! I disagree with you so much, I had to double check that this quote was from you. I couldn’t agree more with your assessment. Bill Clinton is the consummate sophist, politician. Bush was indeed a failure at nearly everything he tried, including being a politician. Amazing how that Peter Principle works.

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 4:22 AM
Comment #244224

kctim said: “It is not realistic to believe all voters share your “no big deal” beliefs of clinton and your hatred of Bush.”

My, my, but, I am in awe at this competence with the obvious! And this gift for attributing your beliefs to others is truly remarkable. Amazing that you are able to take my blatant and overt assertions and divine from them my beliefs which only you seem privy to.

Especially in light of your comment’s abject failure to address or refute a single assertion of mine. This pleasure game you play inventing beliefs to critique in the debater opposing your view, is that done with your left hand or right hand?

Posted by: David R. Remer at January 30, 2008 4:38 AM
Comment #244237

Russ
I was only trying to give my opinion as to why I think people, who probably don’t care if Obama wins or not, will show up just to vote against hillary.
I was not giving my personal beliefs on things, just examples of how the left and right differ on some of the issues that seem to divide us.

Missing emails signal a cover-up to you while missing files signaled a cover-up to others with clinton.

“and your ARguements??? They continue to be those of people with BLINDERS on who refuse to admit the facts that have come to light over the past 8 years”

No. My argument is that people only see the last 8 years, or the previous 8 years, as the only reason why we are losing our rights and freedoms and continue to be a divided country. When in fact, it has been the last 16 years, and more, which is has led to our current form of govt. and corruption.

“Wire tapping supports the 2nd Amendment??? now THAT is a stretch!!”

Not what I said. The 2nd Amendment issue is just as important to millions, as the wiretapping issue is to others.

“2nd Amendment gone by wiretapping you mean.”

No. You are assuming I meant that. Some people believe the wiretapping is ok because it could help stop a terrorist attack, just as some people believe violating the 2nd Amendment is ok because it could stop another mass shooting. Both sides think its ok to violate the one they don’t care about, but scream when the one they do care about is violated.

“…has done NOTHING to enhance our security.”

Those are your opinions, great. But, the opinions of millions of other voters is that it has worked. They also believe clinton ignoring terrorism and violating the 2nd Amendment did nothing to enhance security.

“that is the difference between us — we bring up what is going wrong NOW with the CURRENT administration”

But you ignore what went wrong with the previous Dem administration. How can you expect the other side to “band together” and fix the problem, when you only want to fix the problem on their end?

“how can you criticize Bush?/ You just hate Bush” — and the fact that they are corrupt SOB’s get lost in your mantra of “it’s only Bush Hate” — get real!!”

“Its only clinton hate” is the lefts “mantra” anytime their negatives and corruption are mentioned. Silly game isn’t it.

“So you admit that Bush is using Fear to manipulate us?? — using fear to protect us??”

Yes, I do admit that. Very much so. I have no idea of why you find it laughable though.

“Fear does not protect dude, fear causes the masses to give in to BS loss of liberty to gain the APPEARANCE of security.”

Which is why I do not agree with the current wiretapping stuff OR the 2nd Amendment violations of clinton.

“I really would like to hear an explanation of what the HECK you are talking about re: Clinton, fear, and protection FROM the 2nd Amendment??”

School shootings? Brady Bill? Give up more of your 2nd Amendment right or there will be more and worse shootings?

“If you don’t think that the illegal wire-tapping couldn’t trump your false security blanket feeling of support for Guns — think again”

1- I do not support illegal wiretapping.
2- The 2nd Amendment is not a false security blanket, it is a right.
3- I fully understand what happens when we start picking and choosing which rights to protect or give up, we are living that now.

Look Russ, I wasn’t posting about how evil clinton was and how innocent Bush was. I personally feel they BOTH have done great harm to our country.
I was only giving my opinion as to why I believe millions of voters will vote only to be voting against hillary. Whether you agree with them or not, does not matter. The fact is that hillary has tons of negative baggage which could hurt the Dems in the 08 election and Obama does not.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 10:01 AM
Comment #244246

Ah, at last, someone coming out and saying: “the fact is that Hillary has tons of negative baggage”.
What, exactly, kctim, is that “baggage”? I am not particularly enamoured of ms. Clinton myself, but I cannot think of much she has done or said that could be considered to be “baggage”.
Once again: What has she done/said/been convicted of/been photographed doing that one could consider as “baggage”?

I guess what I don’t like about the word “baggage” is that it is a perjorative word being solely directed at a woman. It brings to mind an image of a crazy old lady with all of her life in a shopping cart. Would it not also be accurate to say that Rudy has “baggage”? How about Newt? Doesn’t he have “baggage”? I have never heard this term used against them.

Posted by: charles ross at January 30, 2008 12:42 PM
Comment #244248

Charles
1- Like it or not, she is joined at the hip with her dumbass husband. Unfairly, his baggage is her baggage in many ways.
2- She has been in the national spotlight for 16 years. Voters know if she is liberal enough or too liberal for them. They know if they want her as President or if they fear her as President.
3- The people have not had 16 years to form an opinion about Obama. He has not been parts of major scandals and charges of corruption.

You read way more into words and meaning than I do. Baggage is something people carry, not only women. And in this case, Obama is toting a few suitcases and hill/bill is lugging the entire Samsonite line.

But have no worry. According to Remer, I state my opinions of what I hear so that they support my own personal opinions. Basically, I am the only person who thinks like this so I make it all up so I won’t feel lonely in my little game.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 1:28 PM
Comment #244249

KCTIM
What you presented you cloaked as “other people” – somehow it is a very transparent device for forwarding your own opinions.
The original discussion was how laughable it is for the right wing to be wringing their hands and criticizing the “awful conduct” of the Clintons in their alleged attacks on St Obama.

Dems should remember that Karl Rove is but a pale reflection of the true nefarious masters - the Clinton team

Talk about revisionist discussion!! Rove is so far beyond anyone else as to be laughable, to relegate him to “pale reflection”??? how disengenious.

Anywho – it gets back to why is this discussion going on by a side of the aisle that has made (and continues to make and support) one of the most corrupt, incompetent, slimly, low-life back-stabbing political parties in decades!!

What you brought up as far as trying to show how “but it is not just the last 8 years”
BS

The right wing has spent the past 8 years completely trashing any opposition, mud-slinging of the most vile sort – Throwing around terms such as Treasonous, unpatriotic, terrorist sympathizers, — and Rove has been the main source for any and all these strategies for smearing and discrediting any critics of the President or the Republican Party – so for the right side of the aisle to now shake their heads, and cluck their tongues and try to act innocent and righteous!!! Lightning will be striking any time now!

The previous 8 years (i.e. Clinton Administration?) were NOTHING like what has been imposed by that portion of the Republican Party that has been controlling things for the last 8 years – get off your high horse dude – you guys created the mud pit and then try to claim there is no mud on your hands?? – and at the same time pointing out how OTHERS do have mud on their hands??

BS
You go to any administration and you will be able to find some instances of wrong doing, and shady occurances – Bay of Pigs, Tonkin Gulf – Watergate – Missing 18 minutes of tape, Iran-Contra, and I am sure there are plenty of skeltons in Roosevelt, Truman, and Eisenhower – but these administrations also offset that (usually) with SOME redeeming value – they ended up having their contributions outweigh their missteps and misdeeds (not to let them off the hook, but in the scales of judgement, their contributions are good enough to diminish the memories of the bad stuff) HOWEVER
NONE OF THEM (with the exception perhaps of Richard Nixon) posed nearly the threat to our constitutional government as THIS PARTY and THIS Administration that has made it clear that they feel there are NO BOUNDS to Presidential Power – NO OTHER as gone so far to try to get away with acting ABOVE and OUTSIDE the law.
You compare the ACTUAL illegal wire-tapping and survellience – (not to mention the torture, repeal of hapeas corpus, illegal detentions, etc) and the threat this ACTUAL unconstrained abuse of Presidental power poses with the perceived threat POSED by a SUPPORT for a POLICY (by the Democratic Party, not just Clinton) that might be (or parts were) ENACTED thru the legal political process??? LAME – and to pose it as “some people might see it that way”
Some People KCTIM?? But not You???? LAME and TRANSPARENT.

(by the way – BRADY BILL – he was the press secretary for which Republican GOD (errr, I mean President)?

Posted by: Russ at January 30, 2008 1:36 PM
Comment #244251

interesting revelation by KCTIM
comment calling Bill “her dumbass husband”
Hmmm
and we only criticize Bush because we hate him!

Posted by: Russ at January 30, 2008 1:44 PM
Comment #244254

Ok Russ, you have figured me out just as David has.
I am the only person who believes as such. It was all an evil trick of mine in order to fool you guys into not putting hillary up for election.
I am the ONLY one who dislikes her and her positions on the issues.
And NOBODY believes they are more secure by wiretapping and agree with it.
And NOBODY but me gets upset about 2nd Amendment violations.
I am the only person who disagrees with liberal policy and I am the only person who believes past administrations are just as bad.

You guys got me. You win. Run hillary, nothing to worry about. She will get every vote but mine and win. I’m an idiot for believing people when they tell they don’t care about Obama but will vote against hillary.
I’ll quit trying to trick you guys and keep quiet about it from now on.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 2:01 PM
Comment #244261

Ok, so the “baggage” that people refer to with Hillary is the fact that she is liberal and that she is married to bill (dumbass) clinton. Ok. I was just worried that it was something I wasn’t aware of.

Posted by: charles ross at January 30, 2008 2:47 PM
Comment #244265

Yes Charles, that is all and it is all in my head. Doesn’t matter that for every moveon site there is a anti clintons site and it doesn’t matter that Obama is winning because people view her as more of the same.
Its nothing that you weren’t aware of, just what you refuse to see.
Its all in my head, so run hill/bill without worry, they will get 99.9% of the vote against any evil Republican. EVERYBODY loves hillary, so no need to worry about the very very very few who do not. The Dem party does not need their vote.

My mistake, I should have known that the left knows how people on the right think, better than those on the right do.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 3:19 PM
Comment #244271

hey, kctim. I just wanted to establish that the word “baggage” as regards to Hillary Clinton is just another meaningless buzz word trotted out by the right to hang a label on someone. When confronted about the substance of the label all you can come up with is the fact that her husband likes to play around on her (how is that her fault?) and that she is a liberal (of course she is a liberal, she is running for the Democratic nomination for president. Who was the last person in that position who was not a liberal?)
She does have something weighing on her, though: it is the raw, illogical, misogyncistic, blind hatred that people on the right have toward her.
She is a woman that has a long history of saying what she thinks. How unforgiveable.

Posted by: charles ross at January 30, 2008 4:19 PM
Comment #244272

You are right Charles, it is nothing but illogical blind hatred and has nothing to do with corruption, scandals or her position on issues, that cause us very few idiots to not like her.
It is all a “vast right-wing conspiracy” and you in all your brilliance, were too smart to fall for it.

It was dumb of me to suggest something as wild as people associating her with her husband. It was dumb of me to suggest conservative moveon type sites for info as to what people think of her. It was dumb of me to suggest anything contrary to your beliefs.

Run her. Its not like you guys need every vote you can get to ensure you win, you guys have this election in the bag.

I apologize for even daring to suggest that not everybody believes it is all a bunch of illogical blind hatred.
EVERYTHING negative about Dems is a lie and EVERYTHING negative about Reps is the truth.

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 4:37 PM
Comment #244273

Once again, we’re back to the “baggage” theme although you didn’t use the word. Now it’s “corruption” and “scandals”. How exactly is Hillary Clinton “corrupt”? What exactly did SHE do that is “scandalous?”
If she wins the nomination and runs against McCain she will probably lose. In great measure because McCain really does have the experience she claims to have, but also because there are too many men who, when they are in the privacy of the voting booth, will decide they want to “beat the bitch”. I just don’t like it when people throw around these pejorative words “baggage”, “corrupt”, “scandal” when they clearly do not have the vaguest idea of what they are talking about.

Posted by: charles ross at January 30, 2008 4:56 PM
Comment #244275

I told you I have seen the error of my ways, I am wrong. I searched and searched some of the lefts websites and could not find anything about it. I could only find hundreds of the rights websites that had that information. And since only the lefts opinions and assumptions can be considered as truth, then the info on the rights websites is nothing but part of the vast right-wing conspiracy to rule the world.

So, you are right Charles, I do not have the vaguest idea of what I am talking about. I made it all up.

The lefts opinions and assumptions should be taken as facts and everything from the right is a lie.
My searching for info just got a whole lot easier.
I have been converted.

hillary in 08!

Posted by: kctim at January 30, 2008 5:35 PM
Comment #244284

Ok, since kctim is either too depressed, bummed or some variation of that, I did a ten minute search of “hillary baggage”. I did come up with a pardon by bill in march 2000 of someone who defrauded a bank in ‘83. the pardon was reccomended by hillary’s brother and he received more than 100,000 $ from this person (gregory). The brother claims that it was for work that he did for gregory. that could be something. the only thing about it that strikes me as being illogical is that it was a felony conviction in 1982 for which gregory received probation. I’m not quite sure what benefit it would be to gregory to pay off hillary’s brother for a pardon of a conviction 18 years earlier for which he did not even serve any prison time. Would that be worth 100,000$?
Still, it is something i did not know!

Posted by: charles ross at January 30, 2008 7:51 PM
Comment #244296

KCTIM
Geez grow up dude.

The people honestly confronted you on your unsubstantiated rants and you go 3rd grade — take your ball home and go crying to mama??

Instead of answering the questions and really addressing what was presented to you — you just went defensive and juvenile.

You have done your side of the aisle proud!!

Posted by: Russ at January 30, 2008 10:19 PM
Comment #244316

Russ and Charles, hillary has been in the spotlight for 16 years, it is not hard to find info on her if you look.
Your refusal to look and acting like you have never heard anything bad about her, is why it would be a waste of time. Its all part of the “vast right-wing conspiracy.” But, I’ll bite.

- Took a $100,000 bribe, camouflaged as futures trades, from Tyson Foods Inc. At issue was a $100,000 windfall from cattle futures after a $1,000 investment.
- Speculated in Health Care industry futures while overseeing legislative reform of same.
- Failed to correct false testimony by co-defendant Ira Magaziner in Health Care trial.
- Ordered members of the Health Care Task Force to shred documents that were the target of a court probe.
- Obstructed justice by ordering the shredding of Vince Foster’s documents in the Rose Law Firm.
- Was accused by the Senate Special Whitewater Committee of ordering the removal of potentially damaging files related to Whitewater from Foster’s office on the night of his death and telling aides to lie about their removal.
- Obstructed justice by keeping her billing records, a document sought under subpoena, in the White House residence.
- Any idea of who Peter Paul is?

I got that in less than 1 minute and it was near the top of the first search page.
Is it ALL true? Of course not. Some of it is purposely taken out of context. Is it ALL lies? Only if you are naive. Either way though, it is baggage that she carries.
Now, if you add the fact that she is married and that it is a natural action to lump couples together, you then get her husbands “deeds” being associated with her. I agree that is very unfair, but that is how it is.
A search of Obama with similar keywords, is minimal and pretty trivial.

You can brush it all off as nothing but lies, conspiracy or whatever, it makes no difference to me. But it is some of her “baggage” and it plays a part in why voters will vote just to vote against her.
Obama is a much better representative of the people than she ever could be.

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2008 9:51 AM
Comment #244318

I guess the problem with all this is that Republicans HATED the Clintons from the minute they took office. Remember Jesse Helms? Right after Clinton was elected, Helms, republican senator from South Carolina, said that this new commander-and-chief would not be welcome at military bases in South Carolina. Astonishing. add to this three years of a fishing trip by Ken Starr, impeachment proceedings. Why did all this happen?
Compare this to Bush’s almost completed eight years. Very compareable. He came to office HATED by the left (well, the only thing I can say with absolute certainty is that I’m on the left and I hate him!!). Millions of Americans feeling that he was not properly elected to his office. And yet, over the same period, little or no inquiry into Bush’s activities. What is the difference?

For a substantial portion of Clinton’s two terms he faced a hostile Republican controlled congress. For a substantial portion of Bush’s two terms he interacted with a friendly Republican Congress who provided very little oversight.

A lot of mud was slung at the Clintons. You mentioned Vince Foster, kctim. Remember the allegations that the Clinton’s had Foster murdered? Think about that. If a lie could be spread around about something as serious as that, don’t you think that every other possibility was explored and disseminated also? Did Hillary Clinton ever do any thing wrong in her life? either legally or morally? Even from my memory of the 1990’s and your list I have to say I don’t know.

Republicans went after Clinton for one simple reason: they held the majority in both houses of congress, with the resulting control of the agenda/committees and they COULD go after Clinton.
Democrats did not return the favor simply because they were in the minority for most of the last eight years. Also I can’t help but feel that the Dems in these last two years were acting in a more decent, responsible manner with regards to any investigations. What do you think would be happening to the fortunes of Republicans this election year had Dems acted in the same manner as did Republicans in the last few years of Clinton’s presidency? Every day, new revelations, new claims, new proceedings, all conducted under the legitimacy of the legislative arm of the federal government. Who cares whether or not any claim is true? just so long as a Democratic majority is maintained and expanded in the Congress and the White House is obtained.

Posted by: charles ross at January 31, 2008 11:41 AM
Comment #244325

Charles
There is not difference in how the right hated clinton from the start and how the left hated Bush from the start. That is why I firmly believe that no real change will come until both sides stop make excuses, defending or ignoring their sides negatives and only complaining about the other sides negatives.
50+ million Reps or 50+ million Dems complaining only about each other, accomplishes nothing. But 100+ million Americans complaining will.

That was not a list I created. I did a quick search and found it, only to show that the info has been available for a real long time, where as negative info like that concerning Obama, has not been circulating. People have to investigate to learn about Obama, with hillary, the majority have already made up their minds.

Like you, I do not know what, or even if, she has done legally or morally wrong and just as I do not jump into the conspiracies about Bush, I do not jump into them with her.
I believe she should be looked at as hillary and not as the clintons. But then again, she hasn’t really helped in that matter much.
As for me, I dislike her because of where she stands on the issues, I do not hold bills faults against her and I do not believe every “conspiracy theory” saying she is so bad.

I do not fault the Reps for doing all they could to hold clinton responsible. I fault them for not doing the same for Bush.
And I don’t fault the Dems for keeping Bush in check, but I do fault them for giving clinton a pass.

I think the Republicans would be getting paid back big time IF the Democrats has solid facts which proved their opinions about what Bush has done. As you said, all that matters to them is that the Dem majority is maintained and they will do anything to do so.

Posted by: kctim at January 31, 2008 1:02 PM
Comment #244353

Wow, Jack , This one stirred up quite a few comments.

While funny, I don’t find this all that interesting. It seems to be in the vein of the mutterings of a frustrated loser. All Obama or Hilary has to say if chosen to be the nominee is, “Well, at least I’m not a Republican.” Game Over.

Posted by: googlumpugus at January 31, 2008 4:55 PM
Comment #244757

Now KCTIM, was that so hard???
why didn’t you just respond with that at the beginning??
It seems you were more interested in dodging the question and creating some stirr.
and then when people kept calling you on the fact you were not answering the question you just responded with bile.

Posted by: Russ at February 6, 2008 5:59 PM
Comment #244935

I’m glad that Barack Obama gets such a great support. He is the only one who can unite our country. Visit my site and support Barack Obama:
www.yourdecision08.com

Posted by: Gil at February 8, 2008 10:49 PM
Comment #245043

Here are (2) liberal Democrat’s, who claim they
have all this “EXPERIENCE”. Where is it? They have
“NONE”. Being the “President” of this “Country” is
not a Learn as you go kind of thing. Either you
have what it take’s or “Don’t”!…..


CLINTON,OBAMA do Not………..!

Posted by: j.i.m at February 11, 2008 10:12 AM
Post a comment