Angry At Obama? How Hillary Clinton Could Still Be The Democratic Nominee

Many believed and still believe that Hillary Clinton was and is by far the better nominee. The very claim that Obama is greatly feared is belied by the current polls.

PC

Politicalpotter says:

Many believed and still believe that Hillary Clinton was and is by far the better nominee.

But Politicalpotter couldn't be one of those people because Hillary never served in the military and he believes that someone who has never been in the military cannot be trusted with the management of a "war" as difficult as this one.

Again, PC

Never said anything about whether "Obama is greatly feared" or not. CNN Poll of Polls this morning has Obama leading by 8.

I'm sure the republicans think HRC is the better candidate because of what I said before. Let those who still believe do what they must. I've never found airing one's dirty laundry in public a sound political practice and I've been around politics a long time, but if some of the democrats prefer to do that, so be it.

Legacies come and legacies go.

HRC is more dangerous to the Republicans. She won in the big states. She would also be a formidable opponent to McCain during the debates, Obama is also a good debater but he tends to be too cerebral. The Republicans wanted Obama to win because they felt the only way to make McCain at least palatable was to run a hero with experience against inexperience. Though many of Obama's problems have been addressed I'm sure that the Republicans will gin up more.

Vote for Chuttulu!! Don't settle for the LESSER of two evils!

(sorry, couldn't resist.)

Pastaman - For someone who joined in June 2008, where do you get off calling me by a name different than my own. Your continual comments using another name are CoH violations. I have reported this again. Stay off of me this way. I am sick of it.

wake up people, Hillary won primaries in the Democratic strong holds, but not by much and that in no way signals that they will not fall for Obama. The Democratic voters will vote for the Democrat.

Can you be so sure? This whole cycle has been a roller coaster.

Yes, I can be sure. A safely Democratic state is not going to swing to McCain or even have a chance of it happening.

Look at the winner int eh swing states, that is going to be the best candidate.

Behind M S,...Let's say Obama wins in a closer election than was expected. He will then be catapulted to a new standard of scrutiny, if he keeps his promise of transparency. If he makes an error or waffles alarm bells would go off. His presidency would be held hostage to the current level of expectation. He might find himself in uncharted territory.

Say something dangerous occurs in Pakistan. Would he be able to make a fast decision?
Might he finesse the issue to Susan Rice as say the new Secretary of State? Granted these are hypothetical. Possibly nothing of this sort will happen. The doubts, however, are those that some of the population are beginning to consider.

Maybe this cycle will be a disaster for who ever is elected. I'm not sure that McCain will be able to stand up to the pressures. Things look like they're getting worse. If that's the case wouldn't Obama be wiser to wait for the next cycle? His success will be judged in a maelstrom of crises. Would it be better for him to wait until things have become more stable? I propose these ideas in all seriousness.

Jade-log says "If that's the case wouldn't Obama be wiser to wait for the next cycle? His success will be judged in a maelstrom of crises. Would it be better for him to wait until things have become more stable? I propose these ideas in all seriousness."

the obvious problem with this type of thinking is that ALL Presidents must be equipped to think on their feet and respond to keep the Nation and her people safe, respond to threats, and keep the stability of the contry at the fore-front. If a would-be President "waits" for everything to be wonderful before he or she takes the oath of Office, than what type of leader does that signify. IMO Obama is VERY ILL EQUIPPED to handle the Office of the Presidency NOW and quite possibly in the future. He has next to no legislative experience (140 days in the Senate before he started his quest) and although his State Legislature experience was in the YEARS, the Illinois Senate only meets for less than 60 days or so a year. So, not really a lot of "track record" there. He, again, IMO, has proven to be incapable of giving straight answers, and REFUSES to be vetted on the simplest things.

So, if "waiting" for someone ELSE to clean up the mess left by Bush is your thoughts on the best way for Obama to "prove" himself capable, then we who know Clinton IS the better candidate will back your decision all the way. Hillary Clinton is not only ABLE to take on the mess and get a handle on it, but will work hard to clean it up. The problem is that in THIS Society we want an "instant fix" and I am sure the press and the Obama supporters would be screaming within the first 90 days that everything wasn't fixed. But you can bet she would be working, and KNOW HOW to go about the HEAVY LIFTING required to do it.

And on another point, even if Clinton can clean up Bush's mess in 4-8 years, there is NOTHING in the "Book of Fates" that says even IF Obama were President afterwards, that no ills would befall us as a country that he would have to address. Personally, I don;t trust him as far as I can spit, but at least in eight years, if he was still viable in public office, he MIGHT have garnered the experience to manage the job.

If you don't think he can now, than please support ANY candidate that ou belive can. TThis is NOT a game or a popularity contest. It is the future of our country for the next twenty years.

Norma D,.. I agree with you completely. Except for one point. No one will take office without crises on the horizon. If you re-read my post maybe you'll see where my heart is.

...calling me by a name different than my own

Sorry, Cliff.

D'oh!

Norma, I debunk the experience argument quite well in comment 7.4. Read it and lear from history what political experience has give presidents.

Fissure, floor fight, crevasse, to split the big tent party.

The democratic voters are MOST empahtically NOT voting for Obama! Most are voting for Mccain. Some want to write HIllary in, but we're told that's ineffective and some are considering the green vote, but again, we're told that's not really voting DOWN Obama. Obama's getting no money from his bots, because the kool-aid they drank programed them to 'listen to me, I'm different,' but, aside from being black, he's exactly the same politcally expedient politician as every other. He didn't HAVE any positions for the longest time, then he came up with a few and in the span of two weeks, he's done an about face on all his impassioned filibuster ideaologies. His people are disenchanted. Many are angry over the fact that he's been foisted on them. (like Jesse Jackson). The fact is, as most people who had a problem with Obama from the begining have been saying, he's inexperienced, has VERY 'questionable' ties and his own words both in print and now in speech, are anit-thetical to any thinking democratic voter. So, yeah...to reiterate: we're NOT going to vote for Obama.

I don't admire the Democratic attitude that, at this point in time, is crying about certain votes. It's time to put a Democrat in the White house. After Lyndon Johnson, we've had 2 Democrats in the White House; and it took the genius of a Bill Clinton to win one; but that's rare. These opportunities don't come around often. And I will not talk or listen to any crybabies on the left this year who become so anal as to put the party's chances at risk of losing ONCE AGAIN. Look at it this way; McCain and Obama are now tied. There is a real chance we could have close to another decade of White House Republican rule. So I will not listen to ANY of these type of crybabies - not this time. It's too important.

Mike - I used to think like you. I used to believe it was best to get any Democrat in the White House. I consider myself wrong for those years (many years) of belief. I guess that Clinton convinced me that the center was where everyone could be. But Bush and now Obama show that this is not right. With Obama, I have no idea what he believes, and worry that he does not either.

So for me, I trust a guy who jokes about Arizona candidates. A guy who is serious enough about his views to have bucked city hall when he considered it important to do so. And someone who has stuck to his guns when necessary in order to take a moral stand he believes is right.

Indeed, while I regularly opposed going to war and the Iraq "war" itself, it has been very easy to move in the direction of making certain our exit is appropriate. And it is an argument that the politicians should be in charge of the war, not the generals at this point since there is really no war at all.

It would have been far smarter and perhaps more honest for Obama to have approached the Iraq occupation in this way. That he did not speaks volumes about our choices this year. That his ideas about handguns, religion in government, abortion, etc. actually mirror those of McCain make me all the more likely to vote for McCain than Obama.

But none of us will really know until we go to vote in November. Until then, keep them coming. Anyone can change her mind!

One democrat/GOP in the white house is all well and good, but I think a little more attention should be paid to all those seats in the congress.

They don't do much I know, but they did pass FISA, Homeland Security, IRAQ invasion authorization, and so many other nice bills. They were unable to refuse wave after wave of financing for the iRaq, override the 'clear skies' environmental sham, or block the nomination of Alito to the supreme court. They spend months dancing on the hospital bed of poor Terry Schiavo while the mortgage and banking industries colluded with wall street to creatively finance the current economic vortex.

Especially to the Obama crowd, many of who have never Bothered to vote previously, I say; how much do you know about the congress people you sent up to Washington every year? Texas, will you be sending Joe Barton back to the house? CA do you have anything better than Pelosi to wear? CT can you PLEASE remove Joe Lieberman? Clinton, McCain, and Obama will all be up in Washington next year in one capacity or another. Who else will you be sending?

Divide and conquer. Democrats do not need the republicans to bash a fellow Dem they have each other to do it...

Impeach Bush now. Remove him and Cheney from office.

Reinstate the Constitution of the United States.

If you don't do these things NOW you won't have the chance to do them later.

Hear, hear.

to Mike Rupert: Just because American want democracy we are playing into Rove's playbook? Well try the converse... This is not about anyone's playbook...it is about democracy in action!! Do you honestly feel that We as the People will give up our Democracy and our right of free speech because of your view? I think not!!! The Democrats at any cost is the wrong view for if we get another Jimmy Carter this country will be not in a recession, but a depression...

Lastly we are a country of much diversity, but we are all Americans and value our freedom of speech... shall we be sheep? Shall we just follow the Democratic Party to disaster without trying to rectify the failings of that party? Shall we close our eyes to the injustices that have occured? I think not!!

To quote one lovely woman who wrote on Unheardamericanvoices: ...."The world I live in is full of color and individual variances, we have blue, green, pink, red and any other color of hair we have people with a lot of cranial accessories (facial jewelry), we have heterosexuals working alongside homosexuals that do not experience discrimination and vice versa, we have white and black and brown and any color you can image that attend church together, work together, we live along side each other, we travel together, our children go to school together, we are involved in our community together, we dine together, we walk through the same doors, we drink from the same fountains. America has been changing, apparently Rev. Wright has not rather it would seem he has hidden from progress.

....My roots are not in Africa, my ancestors were, my neighbors roots are not in Europe, their ancestors where, my roots are in America. I am a person of color, but I am a American I am not an African and make no mistake my loyalties lie with America Rev. Wright. I do not wish to separate myself nor my family from America I do not wish to see a black America and white America and yellow America and brown America."

We are all Americans and we want to be united not divided!!!

BMW60,...One of the things I learned in this election cycle is that we're all colored. Color is the least important factor in running for public office. We all hope that this country can pull together to reach important goals. I just have lived through so many dashed hopes that I've become sceptical.

But united behind a candidate we actually believe in -- not flip floppers.

Yeah, and McCain is going to show all you supporters how much of a flip flopper he is.

Pseudo Dems. Just what we need at this critical juncture.

They're both flip flopping like crazy now. I'm an Independent and hopefully a little less biased - but from my point of view they're both doing it, trying to get the votes they need to win the election. They're both making promises about fixing the economy that they can't possibly keep - we don't have a monarchy, for crying out loud. McCain promises to balance the budget, when economists have shown his plans don't make that possible - Obama wants to put all these programs in place the economists have shown he can't fund.

I'm not a libertarian or green party person, but it's driving me nuts that I have to vote for one of these two people who do nothing but pander to what they think we want to hear, even when they know they can't deliver.

As an Independent I do agree with those who say if you are really a Democrat, and you vote for McCain - you aren't a Democrat. His ideals are a closer fit to Clinton's than McCain's. A Hillary supporter is cutting off their nose to spite their face if they vote for McCain. My conservative friends aren't thrilled with McCain, most of them wanted Romney, but you won't see them voting for Obama. (Although, they'd vote for him more than they would have for Hillary)

At least both McCain and Obama are being slammed by their own parties. That gives me hope - maybe whoever gets elected won't be so partisan.

I completely agree. For all of you who claim that Hillary is the better candidate, shouldn't good judgement be a quality to consider when deciding to support a candidate. Her judgement on Iraq wasn't very good. I don't want to hear that crap about it was based on the information she got. I knew all along that the war was wrong. Barack Obama knew all along that it was wrong. Hillary Clinton didn't. Her judgement, or rather lack thereof, told her to stay in a race even after it became mathematically impossible for her to win, thereby wasting contributors' money and causing her campaign to get further in debt. I see people mentioning Obama's so called flip flops. Perhaps Clinton should have flip flopped on the issue of remaining in the race and could have saved a lot of her supporters a lot of money. Rethinking your position on something based on revised information is not flip flopping, it's having the good sense to reconsider what may have been the incorrect decision. And all these people being upset about Obama voting for FISA, have you actually read the bill? There is nothing in the bill which will remove your Constitutional rights, in fact, it clearly states that no action may be taken which infringes on the rights guaranteed under the Fourth Amendment. The Republicans want you to believe that Hillary Clinton is the best candidate because she is the best candidate for THEM. She could not garner the support of the majority of Democrats, yet you think she can gain the support of the majority of all Americans, both Democrat and Republican. Wake up and smell the coffee. Support Barack Obama or be prepared to go further down the tubes with another Republican administration.

pc , I did vote for Senator Clinton even after at 9am the 3rd of June our primary the local CBS affiliate was already broadcasting Clintons withdraw, myself and the rest of us Montanans were the ones not given a choice

Joseph C.,...That constant burial of Clinton's candidacy was played out in many markets. MSNBC had buried her after Obama's run of several states. Many, though think she ran more effectively in the latter part of the race. I doubt she will become the nominee but this fissure is something that has to be dealt with.

I would vote for her, were she the nominee. But there is so little likelihood of this, I will devote all my time and money to McCain. The problem is with the "democratic" Party. Until that is fixed, I may vote for some democrats, but never support the Party again.

Ahh PC, your true colors! Now I know where all your anti-Obama articles come from... You're one of "them".

Political Center I totally agree with your statement. I never in my life dreamed that I would change my registration from independent to GOP in order to voter for Ron Paul in the primaries. Yet the candidate spoke to my understanding of what the country should be moving toward.

I will vote for the candidate of any party, whose expressed positions I feel will be most helpful for the country, my state, etc., without the slightest consideration of political party. I was practically in tears in 2006 when Linc Chafee lost his Senate seat for Rhode Island.

That's the thing. There is essentially no policy difference between Clinton and Obama. So ex Clinton supporters are supporting others out of spite? Or what is it?

MartinEZ,...There now is no difference to speak of between Obama and McCain which means that Obama has new bigger differences with Clinton.

There now is no difference to speak of between Obama and McCain which means that Obama has new bigger differences with Clinton.

Wait, are you serious?

They differ on just about everything. Except maybe Iraq, and with that being the case, Hillary and Barack had the same plans for Iraq. They just use different rhetoric.

You are so blinded by you disdain for the victor, you can't see how voting for a "pro-life", tax and spend Republican will effect this world at large.

I really don't understand how you can say McCain and Obama share viewpoints on everything. It just isn't logical.

MartinEZ,...There now is no difference to speak of between Obama and McCain which means that Obama has new bigger differences with Clinton.

Exactly right jade-log. No difference between McCain and Obama...

Except the economy, judicial appointments, homosexual rights, health-care, immigration, energy, Iraq, Iran, Guantanamo, climate change, education, and taxes.

But besides all that, Obama and McCain are practically mirror images of each other.

Well I would argue they have about the same plans for Iraq, they share this with Clinton as well.

Look, McCain talks like a neo-con on Iraq, but if you look at their draw down plans, their timetables are almost indistinguishable, but that's not the point here. McCain and Obama share very few opinions on Domestic policy, especially economics.

The fed up Clinton supporters have turned into what they hate most. Blind supporters of people, not ideas.

My apologies Delores. I read the article, but replied to a comment. That is why this might not fit the same context.

PC,

stop the BS. Obama won by the delegates and that is how the rules of BOTH parties work. Both parties have Caucuses which were perfectly fine until a black man won the nomination.

You think the republican primaries were more democratic? they were run almost exactly the same, except rather than proportional awarding of delegates (the more democratic way of awarding delegates BTW) they use winner take all. Proportional awarding of delegates allowed every state to be heard for the Democrats. Hillary did not see the long road ahead and did not plan for it. The primaries were lost by poor planning because she bet on a Super Tuesday blowout, but that never happened.

Wheel,...I feel railroaded. Obama's youth vote and black vote are avid in their support. I do think if/when Obama becomes the candidate he will have to find away to humanize himself and unify the party. If he can't do that, he can't do it across the aisle, no matter how far to the center he runs.

unless Hillary supporters are willing to open their eyes and ears, and listen to the man, and accept that he is not your person, there is little he can do to court them.

Vote for the person who is more likely to support your ideals. If that is McCain at the moment and you wanted Hillary to be the Democratic candidate, then you might have some thinking to do before November.

Again, if I owned a large successful company I would never hire someone because they had little experience. I also don't disdain the "victor." I'm just noting he has fewer and fewer clothes. Eventually he may have none at all.

many of the good presidents that we have had had very little experience and many of the bad presidents we have had had a lot of political experience. The top of each list (good and bad presidents) is exemplified by this fact. Lincoln, one of the best presidents we had, less experience than Obama. Buchanan, one of the worst presidents we had, more experience than any president ever elected before and since.

Your experience argument is debunked by history. Experience has nothing to do with how they will perform as president and does not even provide a meaningful hint either.

Argue the issues and the candidates' stances since those actually mean something.

Lincoln also got us into a civil war and met an unhappy end. Far too many Americans died in that war. The scar is still tender. The abolitionists freed the slaves and still they suffered in segregated America. Lincoln was a great man thrown into a time of crisis and he rose to the challenge. Is it your theory that Obama is Lincoln's peer?

BMS is merely criticising the idea that experience goes hand-in-hand with good leadership. Obama the next Lincoln? Not likely, but not improbable.

Sgt. P,...Thanks. I just felt there was some hyperbole and wanted to question it. Everything has become to charged.

Lincoln was a great man thrown into a time of crisis and he rose to the challenge. Is it your theory that Obama is Lincoln's peer?

Was he great before he was elected? Would you argue that to be the case? Based on what?

I wouldn't argue the choice of anyone who sees greatness in this man. At the same time to some of us questions remain. After carefully considering the facts, I believe we will make the best choice we can.

basing a choice on political experience would have robbed this country of the best people we have ever had in the office of president. The argument that experience counts is a stupid one that is put forth by those who have no reason to criticize obama on any issue but do not like him.

...if I owned a large successful company I would never hire someone because they had little experience

Jade you need a better analogy. You talk like Obama is straight out of college or something. If the forefathers wanted so much "experience" why did they not make it part of the Constitution?
Imagine that...

Good Call MaryGJ.

If experience was demanded Abraham Lincoln would never had been President. His story is very similar to Obama's (not saying Obama is or will be as legendary as Lincoln, possibly). What will these candidates to for this country is the question. Anyone who thinks that the next President is going to run this country by himself with no help obviously isn't thinking to clearly. If Obama is elected he will have experienced people around him to help him with his decisions.

TC they know that Obama will not be making decisions on his own like George W Bush. They just want a reason not to support this historic candidate. I do not think I expected the Clintons to show against another Democrat how ruthless they are.

I guess when you fight the republican attack machine you become like them.

MaryJG,...I have become well aware of the fact that you and many others hate the Clintons. That's your opinion. Th other fact is that I am trying to make up my mind what will be the best choice for this country. Experience is an issue. It's not a cruel conspiracy to damage "...this historic candidate." Hillary whether you find her a Satan or not, also was an historic candidate. If people could calm down and let history be made. In November things will be more clear. We don't need to exacerbate what is already a tender wound.

Jade do not try to figure out how I really feel about the Clintons because you are making an as*umption.

I had nothing but the highest regard for Hillary and Bill Clinton like many, many others in my community. However, when Hillary and Bill started running her campaign like she was a republican and when she dismissed outright any life and work experience Obama has to elevate John McCain, a republican, well that was the LAST STRAW. I can still see her talking about some darn "commander in chief threshold" nonsense.

So you HRC loving people it is easy to see why you would vote McCain since your candidate tried her best to damage Obama for the republicans. Her behavior, her lies on Obama especially how she lied in Texas and Ohio about Obama's NAFTA position when SHE was the one who supported NAFTA.

I give up. You win. Have a nice day.

Anyone who thinks there might be some good in the Clintons, including Obama lately, is out of touch with reality. Watch Barack he is at least respectful, calm and forgiving. Those are not bad qualities in any person.

jade-log:

Keep posting I enjoy reading them!

MaryGJ:

I see your posts all over Newsvine and on alot of them I are right there with you but I agree with jade-log. We can't expect the Clinton supporters to get over their loss without us opening up to them and to Hillary Clinton herself.

That ruthlessness in Hillary may help Obama in the long run. Just my opinion.

MaryGJ,
Why is it that so many people seem to think that Hillary is some sort of Republican in disguise, who's sole purpose is to sabotage Obama? I realize that you might not care for Clinton and would prefer Obama, but you could at least show some respect for the right of Clinton supporters to have differing opinions, and the right of Hillary Clinton to have run in the primary. Furthermore, why do you think George Bush was making all of his decisions alone? He had people around him advising him, the same as every other president.

Tcarpenter,...Thanks, standing to abuse can be difficult. From where I am there are still a few things to be worked out. For example Obama touching on the withdrawal from Iraq was a home run. His inclusion of Afghanistan made it a grand slam. We're still in the fourth inning but it was a most notable. All the players are out to win. The important thing is to know who is on your side.

Tcarpenter thanks.

Arch:

Why is it that so many people seem to think that Hillary is some sort of Republican in disguise, who's sole purpose is to sabotage Obama? I realize that you might not care for Clinton and would prefer Obama, but you could at least show some respect for the right of Clinton supporters to have differing opinions, and the right of Hillary Clinton to have run in the primary. Furthermore, why do you think George Bush was making all of his decisions alone? He had people around him advising him, the same as every other president.

Excuse me. If the Clinton supporters showed some respect for the Democratic Party and their primary process, we would not be having this discussion. Do not single me out there are plenty of people who are upset with Hillary's supporters. If Hillary Clinton and her supporters had not tried to change the rules regarding FL/MI, then maybe things would be different. The fact that the Clintons and their supporters would tear the party apart because they think Hillary is next in line to be POTUS has nothing to do with "differing opinions."

As for George W Bush, don't there because you know and I know he had advisors that he did NOT LISTEN TO. No, I do not think he made decisions alone he had the devil himself Cheney to help him or do it for him. That is why he surrounded himself with a bunch of sycophants. The worse administration EVER.

Somebody tell me:
How will it help Obama when the republicans play her comments to the media about the commander in chief threshold? How will it help when they play her saying all he had to show for his life work was a speech? How will it help when they show her attacking him with republican talking points and then the most egregious attack of all when she actually sided with McCain and attacked Obama? How?

When has another Democrat done to another Democrat what Hillary Clinton did to Obama. She took every opportunity to bash him. She even got in bed with the conservatives who tried to bring her and her husband down. This is a Democrat? She knows all the hell they put her through and she went there?

Jade:

Anyone who thinks there might be some good in the Clintons, including Obama lately, is out of touch with reality.

I think the Clintons have done a lot of damage to their reputation especially in my community. The fact that Bill Clinton said Obama could kiss his a** did not play well for AA nor is the fact that he has been in hiding since the end of the primary. Also, Hillary showed she was a sore loser when she delivered her non concession speech. She was a complete turnoff. Now, instead of her supporters getting behind our presumptive nominee like they have for the white male candidates in the past, she basically gave them permission to do what they are doing now. Hillary Clinton tried to do major damage to Obama, and the excuse that she was getting him ready for the republicans is pure bull. So, IMO, the Clintons have done serious damage to their standing in the party. I think the power went to their heads and left them stuck in the '90's.

Let's wait and see what ads the republicans come up with. If they use Hillary's lines against Obama, let's see how Democrats feel then.

I'd rather see McCain with a democratic congress personally.

We have a Rep. President with a Dem majority in congress already. I think we can all agree this combination is not working right now.

Sgt. Pepper:

Read Obama's books. Look at the Bills he has either passed or attempted to pass through sponsoring them. Listen to his speeches. Read speculation of him possibly choosing a Republican VP. Look at all the bipartisan work he's done so far.

Obama will NOT be a partisan President.

That trip to the iRaq with Hagel/Hegel is interesting...

I think we can all agree this combination is not working right now.

You are right, it does appear to be dire straits at this point.

We do not want a republican president nor a republican congress. Look what they have done over the past 8 years and are trying to pass it off on the Democratic congress. Bush makes me want to puke when he gets on TV and tries to assail the Democrats for not responding to his demands. I never thought I could be so disgusted with an American president but George Bush is a disgrace (I have lived through Nixon, Ford and Reagan). Republicans are a disgrace in general with their lies and smears.

I'm so out of place here as a true Independent. I prefer the President to be of a different party than the majority Congress. Both parties have some whacked out ideas, and the balance helps keep the ones who are too far out there from getting their agendas and bills pushed through. A little more deadlock is worth it. They do enough damage when they disagree.

MaryGJ, It's a fact that the congress has a Democrat majority right not, albeit a small majority but a majority none-the-less. And I have to say, I haven't seen them do a better job than the Republican congress in the last two years. At this point of time, I'm beginning to think that both parties are worthless.

I agree with Katrix. Both the Republicans and Democrats are so politically polarized, forcing them to compromise might help the political process become more moderate. Right now, I think the checks and balancing of powers between the Executive and Legislative branches is something we really need to focus on.

Checks and Balances something that has been ruptured. This administration have taken us on a Humpty Dumpty adventure. Putting that sucker back together will take a lot of guts and energy.

MaryGJ, It's a fact that the congress has a Democrat majority right not, albeit a small majority but a majority none-the-less. And I have to say, I haven't seen them do a better job than the Republican congress in the last two years. At this point of time, I'm beginning to think that both parties are worthless.

Well Arch, I would say if you wanted the Democrats to change anything you have to give them the OVERRIDE power.

The obstructionist republicans are the problem and the polls should reflect that but the dumbed down American public probably do not even realize it.

What good is a majority if you do not have the numbers to override a veto? Answer: Not much.

We do not want a republican president nor a republican congress.

Who, you and me?

Both parties have some whacked out ideas, and the balance helps keep the ones who are too far out there from getting their agendas and bills pushed through. A little more deadlock is worth it. They do enough damage when they disagree.

A statement I can agree with, though Ron Paul sounds a little flaky on the surface until you start to think about some of his ideas a little more.

One great thing about him is he has never wasted a dime sending me a single piece of junk mail to get more money. That is libertarian.

You mean this PUMA?

niafabo,...Mr. Obama has a few warts too. I didn't find the campaign that offensive. Each has a shield. Hillary the woman shield i.e. victim and Obama the race shield i.e. victim, they both suffered victimization from different quarters. It's getting harder and harder to distinguish the difference between Obama and Mc Cain.

Both McCain and Obama voted for FISA. Obama is the nominee for the DNC. You have your choice. Obama and McCain may share ground on a few issues but on the ones like Health Care, Economics, Energy and World Politics they differ greatly and my choice is very clear.

but the way she ran her campaign made me lose all respect for the

Well, do you feel any candidate - the Hill, the O and the Mcc or any others - ran a campaign that you can respect?

I have to say yes to three, probably the least popular of the bunch -

Mike Gravel
Dennis Kucinich
Ron Paul

All three did the one thing I can respect, tell the truth. That may be why no media would mention their filthy names.

one cares about her vote against FISA? Wow, some party we are.

I love your WOW, some party we are. Yeah right. You have Democrats voting for McCain out of spite and you think her FISA vote redeems her?

You Democrats hiding behind all your excuses are sickening. I am glad the Party I have belonged to for so long finally laid bare their prejudice, hating ways. It is like the Liberals with their so called open attitudes. They love the black young man until you bring him home to them. What a freaking "family."

Thanks you pseudo Dems. DINOS.

It isn't only the 'pseudo Dems' who are dividing the party, I've seen quite a lot of Obama supporters post some pretty hateful things against others as well.

Archaeopteryx,...I curse your name with reference to beginning. Thanks for noticing that some trolls pose as Obama supporters. Their dedicated task is to split the party. They come in many guises. Be beware.

They are all over the place posting so that is why you cannot be sure if it truly is an Obama supporter.

Did Obama lie about FISA? Did he lie about gun control. Or do we say that Obama only "refines" his positions and see Hillary has lied about everything possibly even her name.

"Refining" is far better than "redefining." If you were to look at all the bills, the amendments and the attachments, and listen to his explanations for each vote, you might see a refinement, rather than a redefining.

capitalK,...I agree there's a big difference and that any candidate unwilling to face the facts and modify their positions would be a worthless president. That said. Why do people who support Obama still hate Hillary? The point of what I was trying to express is that the rhetoric gives Obama "refine" but "HRC lies too much about anything just to get some votes." (see musbra #11) I believe that rhetoric is biased. Take it however you want.

My wish is that Hillary could be given the respect that Barack gives her. Even wish that some of Obama's supporters would follow his generous example.

My wish is that Hillary could be given the respect that Barack gives her. Even wish that some of Obama's supporters would follow his generous example.

If she wanted respect, then she should not have run as the "inevitable" candidate or as a republican.

You...

I think if you're waiting for respect from the Obama supporters (the ones who usually don't show it), you'll be waiting for a while. I don't think some of the Obama supporters are capable of respect.

HRC had my respect for years; she lost it as I listened to her during the campaign with her 3-time Bosnia mispeak, inuendo when she thought it the best way to answer questions, her ability to change personas and speech patterns depending on where she was speaking and her poorly run campaign.

Some here have said that Obama supporters should show the same respect that Obama has shown for Clinton. We could do that but have to ask, where was her respect for Obama during the primaries when he was respectful and she did everything she could to put him down, politically and personally? And by blaming Obama because the DNC followed the agreed upon rules and by continually using republican talking points against him, where is your respect?

Most of us can accept that HRC supporters are hurt and obviously angry at the turn of events. Obama supporters could be experiencing the same as they watch the party, and Obama, be torn apart by HRC supporters. We're supposed to act like Obama, but it's okay for you all to continue on with the primary campaign rhetoric?

No it's not OK. We're destroying the chance of the Democrat to win.

Cap you are right on point. My sentiments exactly. Hellooooooo people...

She has a bigger chance than Obama and its too bad so many Democrats are so in denial.

I agree, and I think she would make a better president that Obama. She's definitely tougher than he is and I think she would do a better job in what is going to be tough time for the country no matter who is in the White House.

Dolores:

She won the big states, remember?

So what? Winning half of half the electorate doesn't win you a state in November.

Wheel:

What you say might very well hae been the case in April, but it's not now. No matter how much tougher she is, etc., she couldn't beat McCain now.

It's like a dynamic system. You can't change the value of one variable without changing all the others.

she couldn't beat McCain now.

I don't see what leads to that conclusion. I think she can beat him at least as easily as Obama can.

Wheel:

Are you not reading my argument? Perhaps I need to dumb it down.

She can't beat McCain now because she is not now the presumptive nominee of the Democratic party.

However, there remains a very small chance that she could yet become the Democratic nominee.

But, if that small chance were to come to fruition, the events that preceded it would have to have been such as to hopelessly rupture the Democratic party for this cycle.

A hopelessly ruptured Democratic party cannot win the election in November.

Thus, If she had won the nomination in March, April or May, she could have unified the party and won in November. But if she wins the nomination at the convention in late August, she cannot unify the party in time to win in November.

So why bother with Hillary at all? Pressing her candicacy now will just elect McCain anyway, so why not just support McCain now and eliminate the middlewoman?

jfxgillis,..."What you say might very well hae(sic) been the case in April, but it's not now. No matter how much tougher she is, etc., she couldn't beat McCain now.

It's like a dynamic system. You can't change the value of one variable without changing all the others."

The last sentence is problematic. I believe Obama has changed the values of many variables and thus has changed all the others. Obama says he can unify America yet he can't even unify his party.

jade:

I believe Obama has changed the values of many variables and thus has changed all the others. Obama says he can unify America yet he can't even unify his party.

Okay. If both statements are true, then the Democrats can't win.

In which case, as I suggested above, go with McCain or Crazy Ralph already.

Clinton still has more electoral votes from her old map pre-suspension than Obama has now. Plus, she's far more popular now than she was when MSNBC was bashing her with a sledgehammer nightly.

If the base would stop obsessing over her personal life and look at her record they would realize she's more progressive on many key issues than Obama (or Bill Clinton for that matter) on Energy, Class Action Lawsuits, FISA, etc. Obama voted with the Republicans on all three.

If she was the nominee, I have absolutely no doubt she would immediately make him VP.

I think a Clinton/Obama ticket is unbeatable.
I think an Obama/Clinton ticket won't happen.
I think an Obama/Anybodyelse ticket will equal a win for McCain.

NYDem:

Clinton still has more electoral votes from her old map pre-suspension than Obama has now.

Actually, no. She has ZERO Electoral votes from her old map because there were no Electoral votes at stake.

If the base would stop obsessing over her personal life and look at her record they would realize she's more progressive on many key issues than Obama (or Bill Clinton for that matter) on Energy, Class Action Lawsuits, FISA, etc. Obama voted with the Republicans on all three.

I don't agree, but even if I did, what difference does it make? The time to make that case was months ago--unfortunately, Hillary was running as a cultural conservative at the time to maximize her votes among elders and blue-collar whites. Oh well.

"Hillary was running as a cultural conservative at the time to maximize her votes among elders and blue-collar whites."

jfxgillis,...I may have to go with Crazy Ralph of the Cheap Electronics Party. We are now treated to an Obama attempting to reassure those two constituencies but failing miserably.
I reiterate that winning an election this cycle is winning the booby prize. Four years will provide no opportunity to even begin to reorganize Bush's phenomenal screw-up. The next President will be pilloried. Obama would be better off sitting this one out.

jade:

Four years will provide no opportunity to even begin to reorganize Bush's phenomenal screw-up.

I have EXACTLY the opposite view, for a very simple reason: Bush's expiring tax law.

If the Dems hold the WH and Congress, there's really only two outcomes: Either we return to Clinton-era tax and fiscal policy (if they do nothing), which is good, or Dems write the new tax reform bill on their own (if they do something), which is also good.

I am a genuine "Yellow Dog" this year. At the start I had Biden atop my list with Hillary at the bottom and Obama middle of the pack, but I was always going Dem in November no matter who they nominated.

but I was always going Dem in November no matter who they nominated.

Me too, but I'm not really satisfied with the choice I'm stuck with.

jfxgillis,...I know what a yellow dog Democrat is and have been one all my life. It's not that I don't want a Democrat in office, it's that I can't get a grasp on this guy. At this point as he moves center his economic program is open to question. It's a big problem. His stand on bringing troops home is up in the air. What happened to the primary Obama.

"...or Dems write the new tax reform bill on their own (if they do something), which is also good." It's the -(if they do something)-that catches in my craw. I am in no way trying to change your mind. In fact I am probably trying to find a reason to change mine. I do appreciate your argument and I consider your points. I believe this is a proper respect. In the past I was probably less civil. But now it's just too serious an issue to come down to a quick game of one-ups-manship

jade:

At this point as he moves center his economic program is open to question.

I'm not too worried about it. The absolute most we could ever hope for is just an incremental ratchet to the left in any case. I mean, come on. Hillary represents the Financial sector and voted for the Bankruptcy bill, iirc. As I've said elsewhere, Capital Always Wins. The best we can ever hope for is to hold down the score.

As for getting a grasp ... well, he's new. If the public grasps him before November, he wins. If they don't, he loses.

Bankruptcy bill

Is that the one that made it impossible to wipe away credit card debt when filing?

Martin:

Yeah. Actually, I just checked. She supported it in 2001 but did not vote in 2005 on final passage, which occurred while her husband was hospitalized, although she "entered into the record" that she would have voted No.

Obama voted against.

Any idea why she changed her mind? I know a lot can change from inception to passage. I'm wondering if the bill "got off track" or if she was simply preparing for the 08' election cycle...

Here is a list of the votes on the bill.

Sometimes I fantasize about what would happen if everyone took a bill holiday. No money to creditors. Would we be shot? locked up (where)? tortured? Obviously it would destroy the economy but it would probably get some politicians to notice the People.

Sometimes I fantasize about what would happen if everyone took a bill holiday. No money to creditors.

Why would you be so unethical as to refuse to replay a creditor to whom you made a specific promise to repay money in exchange for goods or a loan? How is it the fault of the creditors, not yours, that you owe them money? What happened to personal responsibility?

katrix,...I pay my bills before they're due. I offered a FANTASY about how the People could get Washington DC to notice them. Money matters there. I didn't ask people to consider this as reality. Good grief there are so many who are hard workers but are almost in foreclosure or bankruptcy. I'm not as crazy as you seem to think.

Well, you have to admit, that sounded pretty crazy! But you're right, fantasies don't have to be realistic, and you did say it was a fantasy. But I don't think Washington DC would notice - the people who we owed the money to would go out of business, and so would their employees, and once they were on welfare DC might notice.

Many of the hard workers facing foreclosure took out loans they knew they couldn't afford, or didn't bother to read that they had an ARM, and the Clintons' treasury secretary pressured the lenders to make loans available without documentation, decent income, enough savings for home maintenance, or all those nasty things that kept poor people from participating in the American Dream of Homeownership. What happened in the Bush administration with the packaging and resale of those loans on Wall Street made things much worse. Garrgh. Too bad neither administration concentrated on credit counseling and financial education before they did anything else, if they really wanted to spend tax dollars to help the uneducated.

katrix,...My thrust was we need something shocking to make Washington understand we still exist and that we're pissed about all this crap. They seem to have forgotten what they're doing there. This isn't about making them money it's about using money to better our lives. Roads, bridges, health, gas, etc. all this struggle to maintain a decent life. That is the purpose of government. Not to make money for the already rich and hope it will trickle down. The government answers to us. Not we to them.

Dorlores M. B,...The one thing that every Democrat agrees on is that G. Bush, Sycophant &
Company need to face the music. They and possibly members of Congress should be tried for war crimes in front of the International Crime Court. I believe we're in such dire straights that whoever is elected will be a one term non-wonder. Change from the center, where both presumed nominees are now positioned, is next to impossible. McCain or Obama what difference does it make. Maybe Hillary will be better positioned for 2012.

BREAKING! The whois for that domain name seems a bit sketchy, at best!

You HRC supporters really, really need to get a grip. The republicans were right when they said the Dems lose because they have so many single issue voters who don't want to give an inch. How in the hell do you think Bill Clinton won? Being a straight up liberal?

Maybe Hillary will be better positioned for 2012.

What part about Hillary will not be president do you all NOT understand. The Democratic Party will not be the same after November whether Obama wins or loses. HRC will have to do a lot to repair the Clinton damage done during this campaign. If Obama loses, she and Bill will be viewed as partly the blame because of the way she ran her campaign against him.

Besides that according to a previous post somewhere Black folks will be rioting in the streets if Obama loses. Yeah right.

If Obama loses (or wins), I hope it's by a large, large margin. Otherwise it will be another stolen election. And the last thing we need is to go through those numbers again, which nobody will ever agree on. Especially right after Hillary has claimed that for herself.

Well my state of Florida is still not ready. The are switching machines so watch for them and Ohio to be watched closely. Although, it should be another state this year.

Those Above,...At least we do know Hillary and her non stop struggle for progressive social programs. Obama has not explained his situational ethics of manipulating S. Chicago politics to gain his seat in the Senate. We have two self promoting books but no knowledge of his true political stance. There are several mysterious acquaintances is his past that have yet to be explained. No doubt the Republicans will bring up a few of them and ask him point blank about them. Mr. Obama is going to become more opaque. His refining issues won't hold water as he gyrates from left to right.

Evidently there's a long article about Obama's political past in the current New Yorker magazine. It also carries a very controversial cover illustration.

You claim to be an HRC supporter, but you feel uncomfortable about voting for Obama because you don't know him. Well, you DO know John McCain. You know McCain's primary economic advisor this Americans are a bunch of whiners. You know McCain wants to appoint Supreme Court Justices who would be willing to overturn Roe vs. Wade. You also know that McCain thinks the center of the fight against terrorism is Iraq "because Osama bin Laden said so". You know that McCain feels that his tax holiday will make you feel better about paying $4 a gallon for gas. And you STILL would consider voting for him? If that's true, perhaps you should read the essay on a web site I discovered recently. timwise.org The title of the essay is "Your Whiteness Is Showing". And as I said in another post, have you actually READ the F.I.S.A. bill?

veteran,...Obama thrives when things are rushing forward it's not an easy journey and some will hang behind. The prerogative of age. You guys are carrying the burden as we have in the past. I taught emotionally disabled at 113 and St. Nick, Manhattan. I taught adult basic ed and GED in prison. I'm a honky? Get your head on straight.

Veteran this guy Tim Wise was on the panel on MSNBC when they did the special on the black man who traced his roots back to a white family. He made a lot of sense and I remember saying people should hear what he has to say. Thanks for passing it on.

that has actually worked for MANY if not MOST CEOs in this country and it worked in 2000 for the idiot we have now.

Of course, Obama has plenty of experience in life, just like Hillary has. The difference is that he has actual legislative experience from Illiois where as she has carpetbag experience from Arkansas to New York.

"that has actually worked for MANY if not MOST CEOs in this country and it worked in 2000 for the idiot we have now."

Yep, and as a result our economy now sucks.

"Just another obnoxious, patronizing politician."

Lynn,...It's too hard to watch. Obama and McCain are so "refining" their previous positions that they could run on the same ticket. It's that old Machiavelli two-step they're dancing.

No sweetie, that old guy who's flip-flopping is named McCain. Obama's the black guy.

sweetie? jerk I'm a guy.

The denial and the hate coming from the HRC camp will ensure HRC will never be POTUS. You people hide behind your "white" lies about why you are not voting for Obama. I find it amazing that other Democratic nominees did not experience this kind of dissention.

Web, I thought female too so do not feel bad...Jade before you call people a jerk--did you identify yourself as a female? Is there a picture on your column that indicates you are a female? If not, then no one can know that you are a male and your name calling is inappropriate.

jade is a gemstone so it's not that surprising that people would assume you were a female - I assumed that myself. I've been called a guy before here and survived. Take the "sweetie" as condescending but don't get upset when you have a nickname that isn't obvious, if someone thinks you're the opposite gender.

Calling someone 'sweetie' is what got Obama in trouble. Personally, I think it's better just not to call anyone names like 'sweetie', 'dear', or 'dude' online, because you can never be sure what someone's gender is online (although, I think it's inappropriate in a professional setting too). MaryGJ, just because someone's not voting for Obama doesn't mean they're doing it because of his skin color, I get so sick of the race card being used constantly anymore.

katrix,...My name is not an acronym. It's based on elements in my full name. I like jade because I lived in Asia for seven years. Jade is not flashy but it is prized. I flattered myself. Log because I'm from the North West. A log is a harvested tree but it grows back.
Hey, I've devoted my life to the humanities, they no longer are of value. Pity.

jade - my comment was NOT directed at you.....it was directed at LYNN and her comment regarding Obama's flip-flopping. The way these threads are set up, you can only reply to the parent. My apologies sir if it came across that I was referring to you.

webslinger,...I get it. Thanks for responding. I just don't get called sweetie very much. I do, for some obscure reason, get called honey.

Arch--that is not what I said--it is how YOU chose to interpret "white" which I did intentionally to see the reaction--thanks.

I do believe that some folks are hiding behind their lies as to why they are not supporting the Democratic presumptive nominee.

tlintx,...Do you have any source for, "Super-delegates accepting monetary donations from a candidate...?" That would be explosive stuff. I too am upset that so many super-delegates did not represent their district or state vote. Obama's preternatural calm is in conflict with the growing storm around him.

not to burst anyone's bubble, since i agree that buying supers is unethical and immoral, but, sadly, it is not illegal and is perfectly legitimate to do in a campaign cycle. there is no law against donating to the campaign of a super before you have been endorsed or after, and any candidate can do it. promises of help are also legal. obama gave huge donations to many coffers and it is all documented in the campaign records. he bought many of the supers, as well as buying the dnc. those he could not buy, he bullied and threatened. his "aides" did all the dirty work so he could appear clean. he has moved the dnc to chicago, and is now giving directives on funding, etc. the daley political machine that obama is such a part of has taught him well. he now intends to spread that corruption nationwide like a virus. most of his dealings are shady, just not openly prosecutable. and the dnc and the media wonder why pumas will not support him? blind adoration has no place in the real world of politics, or anywhere else for that matter.

mcgowan,...Thanks for news I didn't want to hear.

Why don't you people stop whining about the primary process? IT IS OVER. McGowan your facts are skewed. Obama has done nothing any other Democratic candidate has done. It has been amplified like everything else he does. Ask a black person if they are surprised that Obama is being called out on things that have always been done but because it is Obama there is suddenly something wrong. They will tell you no this is how the game is played.

Also, I know there has to be some repubs posting to keep the Party in disarray because when you divide you can conquer so much better.

The problem is you all seem to have your heads so high in the clouds that you can't even see the republicans laughing all the way to the polling places. So proud of themselves for having turned Dems against each other so they could win AGAIN. If you notice, the republicans are still stirring the pot and you turncoat Dems are falling right in line. Let's see how proud you are when McCain screws you like Bush and the rest of republicans.

Just because someone disagrees with you doesn't mean it's some conspiracy thought up by the Republicans.

Once again you misinterpret what I said. Are you a republican? Misinterpreting, distorting and outright lying is what they do best.

NY Dem,...Maybe the place to be for this cycle is on the sidelines. God knows what coming down the pike. Disaster is all about us now.

If you cut off your nose to spite your face, I hate to say it, but you just might deserve what's coming to you. Hillary will NOT be nominated and if you don't support Obama, then you open the floodgates to let McCain become the next president.....If that happens, you will have not only another 4 years of Bush policies, but NO accountability for anything and anyone.

Watch, McCain will nominate someone like Huckabee or Romney as his running mate and they will run on the platform of bombing Iran, overturning Roe, drilling in ANWR and off every shore of the US......Then, when McCain dies during his first term due to some ailment, his VP will come in and try to shove Intelligent Design, Abstinence Only Education and every other fundamentalist garbage belief down our throats.

Is it really that hard to put your pride aside for the better good? Hillary came further than any other woman in the history of this country. She was a trailblazer in that regard, but she was the wrong PERSON for the job. Obama can rescue us from the darkness of the last 8 years and actually start us back on the right path. Hillary should accept the fact that she can help that happen by being a leader in the Senate. But maybe, she DID accept that, and its just some of her stubborn supporters that refuse to.

Bravo, webslinger!

*stands and applauds*

webslinger,...You may be right. I just hope that his supporters have not built such huge expectations that no human could reach them. I see him so far as a very interesting phenomena. It's good to watch him learn to pull off federal politics. He learns fast. Every president learns on the job.

If Hillary Clinton somehow manages to steal the Democratic nomination after the majority of Democratic voters chose Barack Obama, that would pretty much guarantee a victory for John McCain. As of the moment when it became obvious to anyone who didn't have delusions of grandeur that she could not get enough elected delegates to secure the nomination, she should have withdrawn from the race and worked to support the only person who could win enough legitimately elected delegates to secure the nomination. She remained in the race in the hopes of being able to persuade the super delegates to overrule the wishes of the majority of the voters to place her in the spot. Even after that became impossible, she still remained in the race deflecting votes from the only person who could possibly reach the magic number without subterfuge. Even after he had won enough delegates to secure the nomination, she still didn't withdraw, but instead, waited 4 days before suspending her campaign, still not being willing to concede and withdraw. On the night he achieved the magic number, she still allowed herself to be introduced as the next President of the United States and proclaimed that she was the better candidate, thereby reinforcing the opinion that she felt she was entitled to the nomination no matter what the voters wanted. Those who have actually been listening to Barack Obama has said, rather than what Hillary Clinton or Fox News say Barack Obama said, realize that he has not changed much from his original stance on the issues. People who were paying attention backed away from her when she lied about sniper fire, implied she was waiting for someone to assassinate Obama and lied about her support of NAFTA. When she thought she didn't need Michigan and Florida, she agreed not to count their votes. When she got further behind, she suddenly wanted to see that they were counted, but did not support the effort to revote in Michigan with everyone on the ballot. She wanted the results of the uncontested primary to stand. People accuse Barack Obama of constantly playing the race card. Not once has HE ever said that any attacks against him were race based, but at her every opportunity, she played the female victim card and her supporters sucked it all up just like sheep. Her supporters claim she has more experience, but you can't count her husband's career as her experience. That's the equivalent of letting your doctor's wife take out your appendix because she's been married to a doctor for 20 years. If you count only HER experience, Obama has her beat. Before going to the Senate, he spent 8 years as a State Senator. I could go on, but you probably stopped reading already, anyway.

Vet I want to read your comment but it needs some breaking up. A little white space would be nice.

demmywemmy,...He does have rhetorical skills but his perceived arrogance and cerebral Ivy League speak doesn't play in the heartland. His oratory style and vocabulary change at each stop. Who is this guy? Does anyone in their right mind hire a CEO based on lack of experience?

He does have rhetorical skills but his perceived arrogance and cerebral Ivy League speak doesn't play in the heartland

I have to say this is so shocking to me. I must be living so out of touch with the mainstream it is not even funny.

What is wrong with being smart and well-educated? For all my disagreement with Obama's policies, I just can't understand why anyone would Not want a really smart president...even if they are stuffy sometimes...jeez, hasn't it been enough after eight Bush years to get people over good ol' boy idiocy?

That being said, his resume is, well, thin. It does signal a certain grandiose self-image (audacity maybe?) to run for the highest office in the fed on so little of a resume.

Like Hillary or not, she does have more experience in the Senate, if nothing else, is older and more experienced in general, and has a longer history of activism on behalf of children's issues and other issues than Obama.

There are sadly many Americans who can't understand his speeches, not that they watch them. Obama is very appealing to Americans with decent educations but there are many who never finished high school. It's happening right now. This large segment gets lost after two words they don't know. All they understand is there's another guy who doesn't talk regular.

Now, the comments above are ridiculous. Sem you should do more research if you think Hillary has more legislative experience than Obama. Educate yourselves about this woman so you won't keep telling the same story lines about her "experience" or to be exact her "35 years of experience."

http://www.mcclatchydc.com/100/story/26377.html

I didn't say she has 35 years of experience. I said she has more experience than Obama. That is a blunt fact.

She has a longer record of 'public service' than Obama, by virtue of nothing more than being older, and having had more time to do 'public service' including work for children's defense fund and children's issues with other groups, work on the board of legal services corporation under a Carter (patronage) appointment, and work under patronage appointment from Bill in Arkansas, chairing the Rural Advisory Committee.

BTW, don't take any of this to mean that I'm cheering Hillary on. I'm just pointing out her resume is not as thin as Obama's, and in fact it's not. He may have more audacity (though she's pretty audacious herself) but he does not have more experience, at anything, that is also a fact.

Did you read the article? What a stunning observation--

of course she has a LONGER RECORD hell she is at least 14 years older than him.

In case you do not get it, when she was 28 and working on building her resume Obama was still in middle school.

READ THE ARTICLE. She spent 6 months at the Children's Defense Fund. Marian Wright Edelman was NOT HAPPY with Hillary or Bill Clinton. Hillary Clinton's "public service" was performed during her time spent at the prestigious Arkansas law firm she worked for and served on various community boards, etc.

So, how can Obama have more experience when she had a head start by at least 14 years? This is just like the Bill Ayers stupidity. Also, Obama did not go to work for a prestigious law firm. If Obama was thinking of going into politics and working towards that goal by working in the community rather than a high paid law firm, so what. Hillary and Bill Clinton have been planning their careers around being the first husband and wife presidents from the time they met and married. But it is okay for the Clintons because, well who would ever think and African American could ever be president of these United States..

Clinton is the polar opposite of McCain. Unfortunately Mr. Obama has become the polar opposite of Clinton as well.

clintons still a lobbyist dream.
sgt pepper they dont.. it a bunch of gop spin. That's why he did bump after he got the nominee.
PUMA is a bunch of hogwash.
his numebrs did drop after fisa.. but PUMA isnt about fisa.. it is about operation chaos.. and all they have is a bunch of goprs going on tv

We're NOT republicans, that's an imbeclilic denial of the truth. America's democratic process has become CORRUPT! We, the people, REFUSE to watch another presidential election (the 3rd in a row) go the way of those who can BUY their results. I, actually, DESPISE conservative views. My father's an avid republican, we've had nasty arguments my whole adult life, going back since William Clinton first won the White House. You bots will have to do better than trying to just brush us PUMA's under the rug. Perhaps when you get verified information regarding the pay down HRC's debt movement that we effected over the July 4th weekend you'll give up that argument and find something based in reality to stand on. Of course, at that point, you know, the reality one?---you'd be demanding your SD's back HRC to win us back the White House as well. :)

I agree. When Hillary announces her debt has been paid off by her supporters over two weekends and Obama has to release his donations from June there will be some nervous Supers indeed.

I want Hillary back at the top of the ticket not just because she'll be a more effective president but because she will win the election. I sincerely believe that Obama cannot win. He went back on public financing because he foolishly promised the greedy DNC that he'd haul in 100 million a month. We'll it looks like it's more about 30 million and the DNC is broke. Meanwhile McCain has 84 million plus 300 million already in RNC coffers. McCain can outspend him 3/1!

And yet, Obama seems more interested in renting 3 million dollar football stadiums and going on a trip to Europe than he is facing the music right here.

Bad judgement. That's all we've been shown.

America's democratic process has become CORRUPT! We, the people, REFUSE to watch another presidential election (the 3rd in a row) go the way of those who can BUY their results.

And yet you are willing to allow the Super Delegates to go against the majority of pledged delegates and give Clinton the nomination? It seems to me that you care more about Clinton getting the nomination than America's democratic process.

Oh, America's democratic process is a joke anyway. We all know that the caucuses and MI and FL are not a true reflection of the voters.

Obama is the one that made the powerplay, if he really cared about democracy, he would have encouraged all the delegates to be seated since those states will need a voice in the general.

Obama's the presumptive nominee on a technicality. Yes, rules are rules, blah blah, but that's the truth and you all know it deep down. He's also NOT the nominee yet, the supers decide that.

Not having the true winner actually win doesn't bode well for hist future, just like GWB. He'll be fighting it his entire political career.

Like I said, I only hope that Hillary is the nominee by some miracle because she can win. Obama can't. That I am sure of. He's damaged his thin credibility too much already. He's got no record to back up his words. It's going to be a disaster.

How can you say Obama can't win. He has had so much pinned against his credibility and look at where he still stands in all the polls. www.realclearpolitics.com will show you a comparison of all the polls so you dont think I'm taking biased polls. And Clinton is not the "true" winner of the Primaries. She signed the same paper Obama signed saying that these states wouldn't count and she only tried to get the delegates seated so she could get the votes. Even with both states delegates Obama still had the vote. Stop whinning about Hillarys Loss and do what shes doing by backing Obama. McCain is not gonna win in November and if he does is because of people who are too bitter to vote for Obama.

Get over it.

Oh, America's democratic process is a joke anyway.

A statement I can agree with unequivocally.

Thanks.

Your are incorrect, if MI and FL were counted in full and Obama didn't snake the Uncommitted Delegates all for himself, she would have the majority of pledged delegates as well as the popular vote.

Anyway, you missed my point. Yes, on technicalities and rules that were set up before anyone knew it would be the closest primary in history, yes, O squeaked through by not counting votes.

So he's the presumptive nominee. But he doesn't have the satisfaction of knowing that he really was the choice of the people. From his past history, that doesn't seem to matter to him, and it certainly doesn't matter to you, so be it.

But I don't have to get over anything. Neither do the other 46% of Clinton supporters. You need to get over that.

I know many Clinton supporters whom are all for Obama being President now that he is the Presumptive nominee. How did Obama snake the Uncommitted Delegates?

if MI and FL were counted in full and Obama didn't snake the Uncommitted Delegates all for himself, she would have the majority of pledged delegates as well as the popular vote.

If she weren't so dishonest and had actually honored her agreement to strip the MI and FL delegates, instead of changing her mind when she needed their votes, maybe she would be respected instead of being a laughingstock. But then, she was entitled, wasn't she. The rules weren't supposed to apply to her even when she agreed on them beforehand. You want to talk about Obama being wishy washy and you ignore this? She sounds like Bush in some ways.

I hate dishonesty. I lost all respect for her when she tried that trick. It's scary how many of her supporters still feel the election was stolen from her ... even though the DNC made the rules. I also hate idiocy. If you don't like what the DNC did, then rally to change the rules, don't vote for someone you don't agree with just to spite the DNC. Use your brains to vote, not your emotions. If you feel McCain would be a better president, vote for him. If you believe Obama would be, vote for him. But quit saying you'll vote for someone because you're in a little snit. You don't see the Republicans saying they'll vote for Obama just because Romney didn't make it in, do you?

Cripes. This is just sad. And I'm still undecided, so I'm not on any side.

You faux Dems have some serious issues. We will win this thing without you turncoats...

mary you are at least a constant on these threads. Stir it up, you go girl!

The time to change the rules of the democratic party is either way before or after an election; not in the middle of the primaries nor in the lead up to an election that the dems should win if the party is united.

Idealism is a great thing, have a considerable amount myself. But pragmatism will win the day and a divided party will win nothing.

Thanks Jade. I do not know where the rest of the old timers are they have left me to fend for myself. The Vine gets a little intense sometimes and you really do have to give it a break. NY Dem

I agree. When Hillary announces her debt has been paid off by her supporters over two weekends and Obama has to release his donations from June there will be some nervous Supers indeed.

Her supporters should be paying off her debt. If Obama had lost, we would be paying off his and you all would be saying the same thing. So, since you all supported her knowing she could not win by the rules you should pay off her debt. Besides, if her die hard supporters had given up the cash like Obama's did, she would not be in debt. So, pony up...

I want Hillary back at the top of the ticket not just because she'll be a more effective president but because she will win the election. I sincerely believe that Obama cannot win. He went back on public financing because he foolishly promised the greedy DNC that he'd haul in 100 million a month. We'll it looks like it's more about 30 million and the DNC is broke. Meanwhile McCain has 84 million plus 300 million already in RNC coffers. McCain can outspend him 3/1!

Thanks to Hillary again for extending the primaries knowing she could not win. By doing so, she made Democrats donate more money to the primary than was necessary. Now we have to get really busy and raise money for the general. The republicans and their slime machine were always going to collect more money since they are the party of the rich and lobbyists. If the republicans have more money it is the Democrats fault. Thanks again Hillary.

And yet, Obama seems more interested in renting 3 million dollar football stadiums and going on a trip to Europe than he is facing the music right here.

Your point is? He should go over to Europe. What's the problem with that?

Bad judgement. That's all we've been shown.

The only bad judgement that has been shown is by HRC and her supporters for continuing a contest that had already been lost. Bad judgement is running like a republican when you are a Democrat. Bad judgement is surrounding yourself with a losing team because you value loyalty over all else (sounds like GWB to me). Bad judgement is running like you are entitled to the be POTUS. Bad judgement is getting in bed with known conservatives that tried to destroy you and your husband. There's more but I think I have made my point about bad judgement...

Obama DID NOT break an agreement on public financing. Since when has information on a candidate questionaire constitute a bona fide agreement? When? If you have ever worked on an political campaign before you would know that organizations send out questionaires to find out the candidate's positions.

I cannot believe the number of people who bought into that MSM, John McCain and republican driven LIE. You can tell who gets their news from the TV news networks. Instead of attacking the person who really committed to public financing--McCain--you people attack Obama. Incredible. Faux Dems.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/04/13/dems-plan-lawsuit-over-mccains-reversal-on-public-campaign-financing/

kindergarten sex ed = here are the places people shouldn't touch. Tell Mommy or Daddy if anyone tries. They are your private parts.

Perhaps you need to read some better sources other than FoxNews.com. Obama has not changed his positions every day, he may ARTICULATE things differently, and he may suggest things based on changes that have happened, but his core principles have not changed.

And as for the FISA law, yes, the ACLU has filed suit - good - because proving the government tapped your phone is required to sue the government for tapping your phone so the civil suits were a joke anyway. Let the ACLU handle this and come January, Obama can get the DOJ to PROSECUTE the Telecoms.

Sometimes seeing the whole board is required and not simply having knee jerk reactions. Obama is sly and smart. He's a chess player and a thinker versus the Goopers like Bush who can't even handle Connect Four. Remember, just because the clock runs on Impeachment on inauguration day doesn't mean the statute of limitations runs.....so people like Bush, Rove, Cheney, et al can run and hide, for now, but they CAN be prosecuted later.

JoulesBeef,...It's Obama that has become like McCain.

you upset obama is more mccain like
so your going to vote for mccain.. that makes sence.

JoulesBeef,...I look I believe it's OK for me to consider what I think are the necessary requisites to vote for one candidate over the other. McCain would not be my choice but I still have questions about Obama. The vote isn't until November by then I probably will have made up my mind. If he can bring the party together as he claims he'll bring the country together that would prove something to me. In my mind so far he's mostly talk.

So? What's your point? People change their parties all the time. HRC used to be a republican back in her youth. Some people find wisdom as they mature and make appropriate changes. Try it sometime.

Joules -

"I see the dnc do to me what the rnc did to me in 2000.."

He was talking about the RNC screwing us all over with FL in 2000 and stealing the election from Gore. The DNC screwed the voters over this year in FL (and MI) and didn't count the votes. That is the comparison he's trying to make.

He's not a Republican for pete's sake.

Maybe NY Dem.....or maybe he was referring to what the RNC did to McCain in 2000. Both were shady situations and neither have anything to do with Obama winning the most delegates and the support of the Supers. And its always lovely how the Hillary supporters still won't let Florida and Michigan go.....They didn't count as full delegations because Florida broke the rules and in Michigan, Obama wasn't even on the ballot. Had he been on the ballot, she may still have carried the state, but he STILL would have more delegates than she did/does. Just like she blames Texas for the "two-step" - in an open primary where she had many Limbaugh-ists voting for her, she won, but in the caucusses, where it really mattered, she didn't hold. In my mind, that speaks volumes. It was a close race, but after running a dirty campaign and after blowing the lead and her bank account, she backed out. Rather than doing it with grace and class, she and her supporters show the same 'entitlement' mentality of McCain. So, get over it already.

webslinger,...Get over it already, is inflammatory. Your candidate acts in a way I would hope you pay attention to. He is calm, kind and respectful toward the Clintons. Those qualities I admire.

webslinger, great points. Hillary agreed on the MI and FL issues when the DNC came up with their solution - until she needed those votes, and started crying. She lost all credibility right there. Who wants someone so blatantly unethical as President? At least usually they try to hide their lack of ethics. Notice how she didn't want revotes - where Obama would have at least been on the ballot in MI?

Thanks katrix for your comment but these people do not understand nor accept that. Ethics you say. Ha! HRC could have really handled FL and MI differently instead of trying to demonize a fellow Democrat. Everything HRC and Bill did was done for maximum damage to Obama. THAT is why she lost. What goes around HRC comes around...

There are many people starting PUMA sites, there is not one leader. It is a coalition of groups. Yes, a lady donated to McCain in 2000 when he ran against Bush. So what? I thought he was a maverick back then too.

So did I. But don't you think after McCain dropped out, she would at least donate a couple dollars to Al Gore? I was under the impression she was a Democrat.

Sgt. Pepper !

Where's your proof?

Proof? Did you click my link under "donated more money to McCain than Clinton"? It's the words that are in bold and underlined.

Newbie. There is help for you new Viners. Why not try it?