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

>First lets start with McCain's flawless record on never flip-flopping. No to off shore drilling, wait a minute lets do it for physiological reasons, plus it plays good in today's economy, never mind that it will take years to produce. Listen to T. Boone Pickens an oil man who says we can not drill our way out of this mess.<

Roger, that's idiotic. First, changing positions in response to changing contingencies is not a "flip-flop." A "flip-flop" is when you change positions for reasons unrelated to the merits; it's a form of pandering. You know this. You're blurring two dissimilar things, obfuscating for Obama.

Second, the fact that it will take a while to produce petroleum products from new drilling is no reason not to start now. We do all kinds of things with long-term benefits in mind. Going to school is one of them. Far from being unreasonable, it's an exercise in subduing the passion for instant gratification in order to achieve long-term goals. It's frankly stupid to say that, because we can't get oil to market this year, it's stupid to drill. A comprehensive energy policy realizes that during the transition to a more environmentally friendly energy economy our country will need to use *all* its energy resources.

>Unfaltering support for HRC. She is now an ardent supporter of Obama, so if she is always right why don't they believe her now.<

Hillary supporters haven't simply drunk a differently-flavored Kool-Aid, and we don't necessarily agree with all her policy positions. I know I don't. But we all believe in the woman herself, her ability to lead our country successfully through the rough seas ahead.

When you're at war, you may not like your most competent general. But winning a war isn't about popularity. It's about competence. You don't go with the one that's pretty. You go with the one who can win the war. Hillary is so well-suited for this job at this point in our history that any other choice is laughable.

And I think "ardent" was a poor choice of word. We'll see how "ardent" a supporter she is.

You and the rest of the Obama crowd need to realize that PUMA, et al., isn't about pique. It's about a perception that Obama is fatally flawed as a candidate for POTUS and would be a disaster for the country. Many of us are planning to vote McCain to protect the country, despite our differences with him on the issues, because we believe that the country itself is a far more important issue than any of the individual issues frequently raised by Obama supporters. Similarly, many of us are astonished and alarmed at the brazenness of the DNC in its promotion of Obama while trashing and marginalizing Hillary, and will not support a candidate whose ascendancy is illegitimate. You may not agree with these assessments; but if you really seek dialogue, understanding, consensus and party unity, you must accept that many others hold them honestly. A movement like PUMA cannot endure built on pique; the fact that it is growing as it is is evidence that it is based in positive conviction rather than negative reaction. Obama supporters are missing the point when they accuse PUMAs of sour grapes and mere anger. If you really want to heal the wounds of the DP, you're going to have to address that reality.

Or disregard it and call people names. I think you'll find that approach impotent; but, hey, it's your time.

>First lets start with McCain's flawless record on never flip-flopping. No to off shore drilling, wait a minute lets do it for physiological reasons, plus it plays good in today's economy, never mind that it will take years to produce. Listen to T. Boone Pickens an oil man who says we can not drill our way out of this mess.<

Roger, that's idiotic. First, changing positions in response to changing contingencies is not a "flip-flop." A "flip-flop" is when you change positions for reasons unrelated to the merits; it's a form of pandering. You know this. You're blurring two dissimilar things, obfuscating for Obama.

Second, the fact that it will take a while to produce petroleum products from new drilling is no reason not to start now. We do all kinds of things with long-term benefits in mind. Going to school is one of them. Far from being unreasonable, it's an exercise in subduing the passion for instant gratification in order to achieve long-term goals. It's frankly stupid to say that, because we can't get oil to market this year, it's stupid to drill. A comprehensive energy policy realizes that during the transition to a more environmentally friendly energy economy our country will need to use *all* its energy resources.

>Unfaltering support for HRC. She is now an ardent supporter of Obama, so if she is always right why don't they believe her now.<

Hillary supporters haven't simply drunk a differently-flavored Kool-Aid, and we don't necessarily agree with all her policy positions. I know I don't. But we all believe in the woman herself, her ability to lead our country successfully through the rough seas ahead.

When you're at war, you may not like your most competent general. But winning a war isn't about popularity. It's about competence. You don't go with the one that's pretty. You go with the one who can win the war. Hillary is so well-suited for this job at this point in our history that any other choice is laughable.

And I think "ardent" was a poor choice of word. We'll see how "ardent" a supporter she is.

You and the rest of the Obama crowd need to realize that PUMA, et al., isn't about pique. It's about a perception that Obama is fatally flawed as a candidate for POTUS and would be a disaster for the country. Many of us are planning to vote McCain to protect the country, despite our differences with him on the issues, because we believe that the country itself is a far more important issue than any of the individual issues frequently raised by Obama supporters. Similarly, many of us are astonished and alarmed at the brazenness of the DNC in its promotion of Obama while trashing and marginalizing Hillary, and will not support a candidate whose ascendancy is illegitimate. You may not agree with these assessments; but if you really seek dialogue, understanding, consensus and party unity, you must accept that many others hold them honestly. A movement like PUMA cannot endure built on pique; the fact that it is growing as it is is evidence that it is based in positive conviction rather than negative reaction. Obama supporters are missing the point when they accuse PUMAs of sour grapes and mere anger. If you really want to heal the wounds of the DP, you're going to have to address that reality.

Or disregard it and call people names. I think you'll find that approach impotent; but, hey, it's your time.

"Many of us are planning to vote McCain to protect the country, despite our differences with him on the issues, because we believe that the country itself is a far more important issue than any of the individual issues frequently raised by Obama supporters"

And that, my friends (!), is what is most terrifying about this whole thing...the issues are the individual parts that sum up the whole. They are important and you should look at them indepth and know fully where each candidate stands on them. "The Country itself" envelopes the issues, each and every one of them. Of course noone could come up with 100% agreeable for everyone, but they should at least have the majority of your agreement. This is a non-refundable election - please vote with your head.

DZCB,

I'm convinced, it's a waste of time talking to you people. You understood nothing of what I wrote. I don't think you want to.

Like some sort of delayed adolescent, you pick and choose snippets of discourse, pulling them out of context and twisting them to your purpose, all the while screaming about how terrible the other side is. Throw every bit of manure you can dredge up and see what sticks.

Not unlike your Master.

Us people? I am only one Mike.

I quoted a direct section of your article, which I believe was unrelated to any other paragraph, so the 'snippet' wasn't pulled out of context nor was it twisted to my purpose. Did I say how terrible either side was? I merely noted that it would be wrong in my opinion to vote for the other side of the spectrum in terms of issues based on what you said. I didn't agree with your argument and was pointing out why. If I misunderstood your point, I'll apologise, but at least give me a little explanation here. Why do these fora always have to descend into people spitting fire at eachother. I don't ever remember calling you names or dredging up manure either, so it's a little unfair to tout that I'm a 'delayed adolescent', funny though it is!

And now I'll quote you again if you don't mind, though this time it is for my own purpose: "Or disregard it and call people names. I think you'll find that approach impotent" - enough said.

My master is myself Mike...don't make assumptions on my behalf thanks.

The entire thrust of my comment, it's heart and essense, its context, that which gives everything within it significance is the bedroot proposition that Obama himself is fatally flawed. The man himself. Not his policies, not his positions. The man.

When the man himself is flawed as Obama is, he can take the purest, most enlightened position there is, and it just doesn't matter. He will corrupt it. He can't help himself. When you and others call Hillary supporters idiots and poor losers for promoting a man whose policies we disagree with rather than Obama, you miss the point -- again, and again, and again. It is the MAN who is flawed. The MAN is corrupt, and he will corrupt any position he takes.

My god, look at what he has done in the past few weeks. FISA bad, FISA good; NAFTA bad, NAFTA good; public financing, no public financing; etc., etc., etc. He has no integrity. He is a joke that you and your friends haven't gotten yet.

Did you even listen to his explanation for his NAFTA switch? Let me put this in context for you.

During the primaries, one of Obama's chief advisors whispered to a Canadian official that he shouldn't put too much stock in what Obama was saying against NAFTA, that it was just politics. Well, Obama protested that his advisor was wrong, and threw him under the bus. Case closed? Not yet. Exit Hillary, Obama becomes the presumptive nominee. Subsequently, in an interview with Vanity Fair, he comes out pro-NAFTA! What's the deal, asks the interviewer. Well, replies Obama, during a primary campaign, the rhetoric sometimes gets overheated ...

You really need to take a look at that. A hard look. Because there is only one way to read that. Obama's excuse is, "Well, I lied. So what?"

Do you remember what Jeremiah Wright said about him? that he would say what he had to in order to get elected? like any politician?

Everything about this clown is a lie. Some of us saw it from the beginning. Some are only now beginning to see it. Some may never see it.

Look at it from our point of view. If you thought a sizeable portion of the electorate was preparing to elect an unprincipled man with no integrity and no honor to the White House, what would you do? Hell, I'd vote for Nixon to keep him out. America can't afford a mistake of this magnitude. Not now.

As for my simile, you apparently missed the fact that it *was* a simile. "Like a delayed adolescent" means "like." If I said you were tall like a tree, I would not be calling you a tree. If I said you were fat like a cow, I would not be calling you a cow. That's what I mean when I say picking things out of context and twisting them to your purpose. You missed the context altogether.

I think that's the same mistake all of you Obama people make: missing the forest for the trees. There are larger issues at stake here, and because you don't see the flaws in Obama, you don't see the larger issues. It is the flaws in your candidate that create those larger issues. I guess until you see the flaws, you won't see the forest.

I think I understand now Mike, because I see you have left many comments on this thread - I hadn't seen them previously and so was only commenting on one, taken at face value and in my opinion, not misunderstood.

Again and again and again, stop using phrases like 'you people' and 'your friends' and 'me and others' - stop putting me in that tick box. I am only me. I do not and never have called anyone a poor loser, nor have I called them an idiot. I was merely making a point that I still think you haven't responded to. And just for the record I don't agree with your tree analogy: 'Like a delayed adolescent' is not so different from 'you are a delayed adolescent' - no less nasty by intended implication at least.

As for Obama being flawed. I certainly don't agree with that, though I want to stress so that ''you people" will know, I have no particular preference between Obama or Clinton - both are great in their own right. However, HRC is out of the running now, and while it is not for me to change your mind about him...I will however note my own clarifications of the following, given that others out there might be reading with mixed thoughts:
No matter how flawed one thinks a candidate might be, luckily, America is not run through a fascist system, so no one person ever governs the country alone and without accountability. Don't forget there is an administration, and furthermore, there is congress etc. It is good to know that for anyone who might be taking the reins in any democratic country. Yes, final decisions go through the president, but he alone does not have the power to change anything irreparably (other than America's reputation in the present climate!!), though responsibility does rest with him/her.

Regarding apparent "flip flops", I'll say this. I did take a hard look. The thing is, I took a hard look prior to any media spins on anything, I have read up on the candidates policies and ethics etc, ...and the facts are, his plans largely remained the same before the media decided to, as you say, pick and choose snippets of discourse, pulling them out of context and twisting them to their purpose. He has always said NAFTA was bad for America in its present condition. I don't think I have heard him actually utter the words 'free trade should be scrapped altogether' but I'm open to correction on this...he has always said that it was bad and needs to be reworked.

Re Fisa. Yes he said it was bad and then he voted for a version of it. I'm glad that he weighed up the pro's and con's, recognised that while there were cons in the bill that he didn't agree with, the overall was for the greater good in his opinion. It is also good to see that he can do this knowing that it would work against him with the media spinsters, but still did so in spite of it.

Re financing: Yes, he changed his mind and went against what he said he would do beforehand, an informed decision considering what he was up against. One instance in this campaign where he has completely u-turned...not bad going for someone who has been campaigning now for over a year and a half.

There are a few questions I'd like to see answered in a clear and proven manner though... for instance, why exactly is he a clown, how exactly is he unprincipled, how exactly has he no honour, and how exactly McCain has been gifted with integrity, honour and principles?

Now for once and for all, while I am not part of what you like to call 'you Obama people', It is true, I wouldn't vote for McCain - because I don't agree with torture or extraordinary renditions or the privacy shrouded around Gitmo, and most of all the lack of diplomacy he appears to practice, but that's just my opinion. And just like you, I'd like to think I can see the wood, the branches, leaves, trees and forest thank you!

It would be nice though if you are going to answer this to refrain from slapping me with misconceptions of what you think I am, and engaging in honest debate. I would like to think that if we were face to face we would talk about it civilly, so would apply the same standards to a blog. Thanks for listening...if you still are!!!

>>Many of us are planning to vote McCain to protect the country, despite our differences with him on the issues, because we believe that the country itself is a far more important issue than any of the individual issues frequently raised by Obama supporters"<<

>And that, my friends (!), is what is most terrifying about this whole thing...the issues are the individual parts that sum up the whole. They are important and you should look at them indepth and know fully where each candidate stands on them. "The Country itself" envelopes the issues, each and every one of them. Of course noone could come up with 100% agreeable for everyone, but they should at least have the majority of your agreement. This is a non-refundable election - please vote with your head.<

I guess this was the point you think I haven't responded to. Fact is, I've addressed this a number of times.

The whole is comprised of more than the issues. It is the man himself that is the glue that holds them together. In the last analysis, the man or woman we elect President is the leader and motive force behind the effectuation of whatever policies he or she decides to act upon. Whether he or she remains faithful to those policies and promises, and how diligently he or she works to effectuate them, are all a function of character. And character is the issue with Obama.

This not to say that either McCain or Hillary are perfect. Far from it. But compared to them, Obama is ... well, abominable.

Obama's depravity was clear to me from the get-go; and I'm far from alone. I knew as soon as he presented himself as a "post-political" politician that he was a fraud and a liar, because there can be no such thing, and he knows it. Politics is about power. There are only two ways a politician can bring about the kind of unity he promised: be a messiah, or be a dictator. The first he is unqualified for, and the second would be bad for the country.

The fact that he would present himself as the agent of such impossible change demonstrates a profound contempt for, not only American values, but the American people themselves.

That this man is wholly corrupt, I have no doubt. It is becoming ever more obvious.

I hope I have responded to your initial observation.

He is a clown because he is incompetent. He wants to be President, yet he knows nothing of foreign affairs, the economy. He can't speak without a teleprompter, he dodges hard questions, he avoids debates. He's a joke. The people who are fawning all over him have stardust in their eyes.

Lastly, you say Hillary is out of it. You're mistaken. Obama is not the nominee unless and until Hillary drops out (she has only suspended, she hasn't conceded) or he has been officially nominated at the convention. The MSM has constantly blurred the two, and they know better; it's more evidence of their conscious bias toward Obama. When an intelligent person like yourself does the same, I have to be suspicious of similar disingenuousness.

Thanks Mike, You have indeed responded to my initial point - and I take your point about the issues, and agree that it will be the leader that holds them all together; however on that note, we may never really know which president will remain faithful and be the motive force behind said issues until they are in the position, so I think it's always going to have to rely somewhat on how important the issues are to you personally and how you think the candidate will reflect & effect your beliefs.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about who's more abominable. Obama's character to me is not so depraved, and I do think he has worked diligently in the past and even in running his campaign has shown great organisational and motivational skills. I am more comfortable with his diplomacy and foreign policy than McCains, an issue I think is extremely important in the current climate. I think in this instance it's a case of: each to his own.

That politics is about power is a different matter altogether - there's nobody who would run for the presidency of any country without wishing to hold one of the highest positions in the world. The importance lies in what you do with and how you handle that power.

Finally, I have not blurred the two, so you needn't worry about disingenuity on my part - I know she has only suspended her campaign, but I think it's moot at this stage. HRC or the Dems wouldn't turn the outcome of the presumptive nominee at this stage of the process as there'd be an almighty uproar from all the corners of America, they'd lose an enormous credibility and trust, not to mention all the youth votes they have garnered thus far. It would go down in history as the year the Democratic party broke up for good, and the year the Republican's secured a permanent power base in the United states of America, due to the fact that they would always have a majority vote...eg, at present it is almost half and half Repub. or Dem, if the Dem's split it would be half Repub., one quarter HRC Dems, one quarter Obama Dems. I seriously doubt any democrat is going to want to upset the apple cart in such a fashion, in such an important election year!

Anyway, that's just my two cent! Have a good day!

Phaedrus these people are for real that is what is so sad about it. Too bad because their candidate will bear the brunt of the backlash if Obama loses and deservedly so.

Not only do many of us know that Hillary can still win, the press is starting to speculate it, too.

It wouldn't take much. Just some superdelegates coming to their senses.

Why else do you think Barry O wants to keep her off the first ballot, something that hasn't been done to a candidate of Hillary's stature since ... since I don't know when. Every serious candidate is on the first ballot, even when everyone knows they can't win. Barry O is scared of her. And he should be, for the same reason he doesn't want her as VP.

How would you like to wake up every morning in the White House knowing your understudy is a hundred times more qualified for your job than you are?

I thought they were joking when they said even after Obama wins the general Hillary will be campaigning. Now I see that's probably not as out of the question as I thought. I cant believe I am seeing this Asinine display from adults its an election not a game. Your team didn't lose because the ref was distracted. Grow up people its really making me sick of Hillary to the point where I'd vote for anyone but her in any election. I cant believe how hypocritical and blind people can be. If per chance Hillary were on Obama's ticket or running instead I'd vote green, independent, or even McCain its painfully obvious now she'd ruin this country like she did her own Party.

A write-in candidate usually just takes votes from that party's candidate and the other party wins.

Welcome to McCainland! But you write-in HRC's name, it's your choice.

You think they care?

Still, wouldn't a spoiled vote be better than anything, at least that way, the votes don't go the opposition instead?

By wasting your vote you do nothing but self serve and prove your of infantile mind. If you are gonna vote, vote for the person you feel is the best of two candidates. Or I dunno do as the person you idolize badly said and vote for the best candidate. Either way all this blind support makes me hope these types of supporters never vote. They have nothing to offer on any level. A write in, this is the most important election of our time and you plan to waste votes and open up a chance for the worse case scenario to what, prove some misguided point. The little bit of shambled hope I had for this country is quickly dwindling with time. No wonder other nations see us the way they do.

Either way all this blind support makes me hope these types of supporters never vote. They have nothing to offer on any level

Well said. We are so lucky in this country to be able to vote, even if our election process could use some changes. People who waste their votes like this are spitting in the faces of those who fought for us to have this type of government. If you're so pissed off, write a letter to Dean or someone and work to get the DNC rules changed. Make an effort to actually change the process instead of acting like a spoiled little kid.

> Still, wouldn't a spoiled vote be better than anything, at least that way, the votes don't go the opposition instead? <

I see. So it's a good thing if a voter's vote is unintentionally nullified if it promotes the result you want.

I think you're voting for the right candidate after all.

Gar -

So it really is all about payback for past favors and entitlement! I thought so. Same old politics; different day!

Please explain how HRC got 'shafted.' Choosing a candidate should be about more than political payback and entitlement.

that's what it sounds like - payback and entitlement......Bill Richardson seems to be doing fine on his own by the way.....but that comment by Gar just shows WHY this whole issue is pathetic, childish and SELFISH as all get out!

She deserves NOTHING.

She is owed NOTHING.

And, if she and her supporters keep this us, NOTHING is what she will get, and she will take her husband's 8 years of prosperity and flush it down the toilet of history.

MaryGJ.

The problem is, you're still thinking like a Democrat. You need to start thinking like an American.

No, Mike you are wrong and that is why I support Obama. He is not trying to be the black president he is trying to be the president of AMERICA--all of it. However, that seems to be lost on some of the Democrats since they want to splinter and divide the party for their own selfish goals.

As I said, you are entitled to your own opinion, but I pity you if you don't see the truth. Obama DOES have experience, its called 46 years of life, a law degree, civic work, state legislative experience and a partial US Senate term. Hillary has a law degree, years of "experience" as first lady at both the state and national level and experience carpetbagging to New York where she keeps a safe Senate seat. McCain meanwhile has sold out any credibility he had in 2000. He is NOT bipartisan or a maverick, he is a pandering, flip-flopping, senile, old man who wants to get us into another war.

And as for your ghetto lawyer comment - do us all a favor and cut the racist crap because there is nothing wrong with actually working the trenches as an advocate. I worked as a Public Defender, it was one of the hardest, most thankless jobs I could have had out of law school, but it was important and it was experience. Not everyone in politics is from the aristocracy afterall.

gar,

you are just sad........I am NOT a government employee and I don't whine and I am NOT a socialist (you sound like an idiot when you spew such garbage). And yes, my statement about McCain is 100% appropriate and it is 100% true. The fact that he was a POW and suffered is not being disputed, but what he has done since then has NOTHING to do with that. SPECIFICALLY, I am referring to the fact that he WAS the moral maverick and Anti-Bush in 2000, but since then, in order to be the viable Republican candidate, he has sold out to the base and is pandering. He IS flip-flopping and he IS a war mongering, senile old man. If you don't see this, then your head is apparently in a dark, smelly place.

As for your PD jab - in a perfect world, the PD SHOULD lose every case - the job of a PD is to make sure that the defendant gets a fair trial, not a win. If the police and state does its job, then the suspect is arrested, charged and convicted because they are the person who committed the crime and that has been proven beyond a reasonable doubt. Of course, sometimes, the system doesn't work and the state messes up, the cops nab the wrong guy, evidence is missing, falsified, planted, etc. Also, witnesses may lie, or be mistaken, and if that's the case, then the state shouldn't bring charges....even if under political pressure. My job was not to stand there and "get my guy off", but to explain the system, work with them and 90% of the time, get them to accept their guilt and take the offer being made. However, if the cops crossed the line and performed an illegal stop, didn't have probable cause or there was some other form of misconduct, I needed to fight for my client. Apparently you just don't understand how the system works.

As for you questioning MY patriotism - that's a joke because you don't know me.....Maybe I served, maybe I still do, maybe I didn't - to assume you know my position on the military is laughable. By the way, the last military parade I've "been out to", I marched in.....and I never bragged about my patriotism.

Another whine from another government employee especially a public defender who can lose all their cases and the only one to pay is the taxpayer.

Gar, I'm more conservative than many Viners. I think far more people need to get up off their asses instead of expecting the Government to take care of them - and yet I find your statement appalling, and your labeling of webslinger as a socialist laughable. You need to read up on your history to understand why we have public defenders, unless you don't believe we have rights as human beings.

Socialism is an economic theory you fool!

And no, I'm not a dove....I'm a realist, you on the other hand have contributed nothing but talking point arguments. Do you know what APPEASEMENT is by the way? Or are you going to be like that blowhard that Chris Matthews had on a couple months ago after Bush's Isreal speech? Neville Chamberlain was an appeaser because he appeased the Nazis, so anyone who appeases is an appeaser because that's what appeasement means.......What does appeasement mean? What did Chamberlain do?

As for my comment about McCain's senility, how can I make this plain: BEING A WAR HERO 40 YEARS AGO HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH SOUND JUDGMENT TODAY!!!! I am NOT questioning McCain's service or patriotism in the past, but he is senile TODAY at 71 (72) years old. He doesn't know how to use the Net, he doesn't know the difference between Iraqi insurgents and Iran. He doesn't remember that Czecholovakia doesn't exist any more. He has no clue how economics work and can't remember most of his voting record.

I do not brag about MY patriotism, and you have no idea what I have done in my life, but there are many who have seen and are seeing combat that do not agree with McCain. So please, go away you pathetic troll.

Gar, I'm sorry you are offended so easily, but you are either full of it, a hypocrite or seriously deficient in the reading comprehension department.

You say that American's have no use for seniors - well, I never said that, but if you want, we can turn the crystals on thier hands black or turn them into Soilent Green. I of course have great respect for the seniors of this country, but having experienced dealing with someone with Dimensia and Alzheimer's firsthand, I know senility when I see it. As for people getting the Czech Republic and Slovakia confused - I understand, I STILL yearn for the days where I could look up the U.S.S.R. on a map and never quite understood the "Unified Nation" in the Olympics that one year, but here's the thing.....John McCain is running for President, not me, not you, not "American's seniors" - John McCain is the one who claims he has all of this foreign policy experience, yet he seems to be having many senior moments as of late in that department.

Granted, everyone has bad days, everyone forgets things - I often joke that I can't remember my own name half the time, but again, as I said, I'm not running for President.

As for your Appeasment comment, you claim to know what it means, yet based on your retort to me, you clearly don't - you claim that you, "...had to defend your original country from a politician who appeased...." - good for you, and if that's true, please tell me how my comment leads you to think that I or Obama are doing the same (In case you didn't see it - Bush just did a 180 regarding Iran - all the talk of appeasers he made in Isreal was just thrown out the window....oops)

Hillary and Bill are owed alot? - Well, if I were in New York, I'd vote for her when she runs for re-election in the senate - too bad I'm in Texas. As for Bill, I gave him my vote (twice) and my thanks.

As for freezing my butt off due to lack of heating oil - sorry, not me......as I said, I live in Texas, we use natural gas - and we have plenty of that.....If not, I've got plenty of blankets and I learned how to make fire long ago, when I received training on the subject.

And for the record, Obama was NOT my first choice or even my second. I was a Gore supporter from the beginning and I fan of Edwards and Clark. I didn't get my choice, but rather than whine and cry and throw a temper trantram, I accepted reality and moved on.

By the way, I never told you my age - but newsflash, I'm not exactly 18 or anything - I've seen a lot in my time and done a lot too......Maybe you're older than me, but I'm not throwing insults about YOUR age, just your opinions, which as I said, you are entitled to. However, when it comes to facts, I will call BS if I see it.

Many try to influence elections for their own selfish gains - there are many who would like to see McCain win because comments such as "Bomb, Bomb, Bomb Iran" go really far in alleviating world fears of ANOTHER war. Obama may want to set timetables (though he has made clear that he will not do this arbitrarily), but he's not saber rattling just to placate the neocons.

Likewise, Obama isn't talking about appeasing anyone, but rather, TALKING to governments of foreign states. Like it or not, Hamas is an elected governmental entity, Iran has an elected leader, Pakistan has an elected (cough) leader, Cuba has a leader - having diplomatic relations with these countries is not a sign of weakness, its a sign of leadership - its what a superpower SHOULD do. Remember, Nixon went to China, Kennedy met with Khruschev, Roosevelt with Stalin. Thats what a LEADER does.

Hillary and Bill are still owed a lot by many and in the end she will win on the floor of the convention. Not my choice but better than Obama.

The Democratic Party owes Bill and Hillary Clinton NOTHING. Hillary Clinton WILL NOT win on the floor of the convention--the party would implode at that very moment. Wake up from your pipe dreams and come back to reality.

Why is it people think the Clintons own the Democratic Party? If anything, they owe us Democrats for supporting them through some of the toughest and most embarassing times Democrats have had to face in the White House. No more Clintons. They do not own the rights to the WH.

Oh, and one more thing Gar - since you bring up patriotism, I can proudly say this, though i don't tend to rub it in anyone else's face:

I had a flag flown in my honor above the US Capitol at the request of my Congressman - how about you? In case you don't know, that is not something that MOST Americans can claim.

Just so we are clear, political views or party affiliation of a person do not necessarily dictate their love and dedication to country.

Yes, she has strength, but the rest of your comment is not exactly how I would describe her. Maybe, she has had moments of devotion to furthering good government, but really, her career has been devoted to furthering HER......sorry you don't see that.

Right you shouldn't vote. Go ahead force friends and family to stay abroad fighting a war that should have never been waged. Good job, truly mature, tell me why you dislike him FISA what flip flop or maybe something credible. That kind of blind support will be the fall of us.

Ms. Turner,

Maybe HE didn't fool you, but SHE apparently did. For a 58 year-old, you are certainly very close-minded and as Macks just said, your actions are not very mature. So by all means, stay home or vote for McCain. But remember this, if McCain wins and we start WWIII, Roe is overturned, we enter another Depression, the Draft is reinstituted, your Social Security is gone, and the possibility of Medicare is nonexistant, just remember, its because there was a vast Right Wing Conspiracy against Hillary.....and that your dislike of Obama was worth it.

I totally agree with everything you said. I'm a Black 58 year old female and I love Hillary. Even if he chooses her as his running mate I will not vote Democrat in November. I dislike him even more than my love of her.You can fool some of the people some of the time but you can't fool all the people all the time and he did not fool me any of the time..

Amazing. Ain't no fool like an old fool.

Turner--

Isn't it so funny that they all blindly follow a man who puts himself above the fray...who has not viciously attacked anyone in a public manner....and why should he when all his supporters foam at the mouth for him?

It's like this girl said when interviewed by the New York Times..."they get this weird, faraway glazed look in their eyes..."

She hit the nail on the head.

So did you, btw.

What are you ranting about. I can bring up a bunch of should be arrested politicians too but what point are you making.

I get the

How do you know? She should be doing her sobbing behind bars with he rest of those who voted for this war

Ok anyone who said yes to an illegally based war should be held accountable.

This is a ridiculous statement and not worthy of print. You extreme anti-war activists are as bad as the war mongers themselves. Let me inform you of a few things: JANE FONDA is not in jail and she is far worse than Hillary Clinton could ever be. You've heard of Hanoi Hanna haven't you?!? Or do you as an anti war activist agree with Ms Fonda's actions during one of the most controversial and stupid wars in the history of mankind? I'm a Vietnam Veteran of the United States Marine Corps, AND an award winning news director. And if you think Hillary Clinton should be in jail, you need to take a serious look at where you're at politically.

Ok swing and a miss. Obama gave a speech against the war so um... wheres your point. And maybe you should look at yourself as a person.