I am not a big fan of Hillary but I'm currently planning on voting for her next week. Regardless of who wins the nonmination, I will support them next November.

My first choice didn't run, and my second third and fourth choices quit. That left Hillary and Obama.

I learned long ago to trust my feelings but look for the facts. Something about Obama made me uncomfortable, so I started looking into him.

One of the things that disturbed me was that his supporters were often fervent Hillary haters. They seemed to hate her more than George Bush.

They also talked about him like he was a religious figure rather than a politician. All I heard about was how he transcended politics and race and would unite everyone. I started calling him the "Magic Unity Pony."

But my unease didn't have a solid basis until I landed here. Now I have some facts to back up my feelings.

Thanks.

Is this a Hillary blog?

As a UK resident I would think that i'd marginally support Obama if I had a vote.

Isn't Hillary `yesterday's man`?

Jeez - what a piece of hack crap ;Monica showed more dignity on her knee pads . This site used to have credibility , please stop the NONSENSE .

Hilliary's attempted use of racial politics is unforgivable. So is the Clinton's NAFTA & WTO stuff and don't tell me she is not Bill -that strains credulity .

RJ Eskow:

I wrote earlier that I felt the Clinton campaign had engaged in a set of coordinated race-related comments, any one of which might seem innocent but which seemed deliberate when viewed as a whole. Although I mentioned the possibility that I was wrong (and that they might have just suddenly become "accident prone" on the topic), I had misgivings. A number of people I respect said this was a false, media-made accusation, and I worried I might have some serious amends to make if I was eventually proven wrong.

Sadly, I haven't been. Bill Clinton's comments equating Obama to Jesse Jackson - while another, unnamed "Clinton advisor" was saying this victory makes Obama "the black candidate" - is as overt a pitch to racial stereotyping as any Democrat has made in many years. Of all the South Carolina primary winners in the last forty years, why pick Jackson? Why not John Edwards, who won in 2004? Why not George Wallace, who won in 1976?

Why not Bill Clinton, whose 1992 victory in South Carolina led to his nomination and election? Cooler heads than mine, like Glenn Greenwald, have drawn the only reasonable conclusion: This was a race-based pitch, and a shameful one. Imagine if the Obama campaign had responded to the New Hampshire results by saying that Hillary is merely "the woman candidate." I would have slammed him. So why aren't we seeing a backlash from Clinton backers?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rj-eskow/black-candidate-blue-v_b_83474.html?view=print

I became Independent after the '04 debacle because I intensely disagreed with the party strategy of taking their cue from GOP talking points and concern trolling rather than doing what was right -- including acting as an opposing party that swung for the fences when it was its turn up at bat.

Doesn't anyone remember the bipartisan healing offered by the Oh So Optimistic Dem convention of '04? It was based on dire warnings that criticizing the Bush administration was political suicide? Kerry was the "electable" healing golden child until he got on the presidential ticket and the swiftboating could proceed on all thrusters.

GOoPerCon '04 responded with "supporting the troops" by mocking electable JFKerry's actual service record with purple heart bandages and accusing him (and other Dem veterans) of everything from treason to blowing off their own limbs to get media sympathy.

I gave the invertebrate Dems a gimme and supported the drive to take back Congress, only to find that the braintrust running the party was practicing the same goalpost shifting and credibility gap between backroom appeasement on its supporters that BushCo has been playing on the country as a whole.

We don't need MORE appeasement, MORE Blue Dog enabling and MORE trust that the same Repug machinery that hasn't -- and doesn't intend to -- leave political life will be nicer if that good-looking, vision-oriented Obama votes present instead of taking a stand.

We need Dems who'll attack the douchebaggery head on. (Apply direcly where it hurts!!!)

There's a good reason the Repug attack machine took Howard Dean out hard adn first in '04 and it's the same one that had them attacking John Edwards with the same focus this time. Edwards has stayed focused on issues rather than fixating on media-friendly fluff.

If anything should send up a red flag, it's that.

I'm not a Hillary supporter nor an Obama one (yet). I've seen Obama supporters falsely typify the sought-after Independent voters as disgruntled "moderate" Republicans.

I do know that SOP for the Rethuggernaut since the Nixon era is to game the system lawfully or illegally until they get to run against the candidate they want. Obama supporters who regard the current Obama "honeymoon" as phenomenal should remember that.

And then crush him like an insect.

oops ... pardon my bad cutting and pasting. That last line should read:

Republicans will praise Obama as the more desirable and electable Dem over that "polarizing" "divisive" Clinton -- and when he gets on the ticket, crush him like an insect.

From the Los Angeles Times
Kennedys for Clinton
She stands for Democrats and for the nation, these family members say.
By Kathleen Kennedy Townsend, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Kerry Kennedy

January 29, 2008

This is a wonderful year for Democrats. Our party is blessed with the
most impressive array of primary candidates in modern history. All
would make superb presidents.

By now you may have read or heard that our cousin, Caroline Kennedy,
and our uncle, Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, have come out in favor of Sen.
Barack Obama. We, however, are supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton
because we believe that she is the strongest candidate for our party
and our country.

While talk of unity and compromise are inspiring to a nation wary of
divisiveness, America stands at a historic crossroads where real
issues divide our political landscapes. Democrats believe that America
should not be torturing people, eavesdropping on our citizens or
imprisoning them without habeas corpus or other constitutional rights.
We should not be an imperial power. We need healthcare for all and a
clean, safe environment.

The loftiest poetry will not solve these issues. We need a president
willing to engage in a fistfight to safeguard and restore our national
virtues.

We have worked with Hillary Clinton for 15 years (and in Kathleen's
case, 25 years) and witnessed the power and depth of her convictions
firsthand. We've seen her formidable work ethic, courage in the face
of adversity and her dignity and clear head in crisis. We've also seen
her two-fisted willingness to enter the brawl when America's
principles are challenged. Her measured rhetoric, political savvy and
pragmatism shield the heart of our nation's most determined and most
democratic warrior.

She has been an uncompromising and loyal ally for each of us in our
battles to protect the environment and to promote human rights around
the world and juvenile justice in America. Hillary is a
problem-solver, listening to people and then achieving solutions by
changing attitudes.

Her transformational leadership was on display when she ran for the
Senate seat in New York that had been held by our father, Sen. Robert
F. Kennedy. She faced rabid, heavily funded attacks from the far right
and the challenge of prevailing in traditionally Republican upstate
New York. Traveling with her, we watched admiringly as she
persuasively articulated an inspiring and unifying vision rooted in
American values and history. Then, through patience, hard work,
leadership and political acumen, she transformed many of those
rock-solid conservative counties into solid Democratic strongholds.

We look forward to working beside her in the general election as she
uses those same talents to change once rigid opinions and political
affiliations across the nation.

Like our father, Hillary has devoted her life to embracing and
including those on the bottom rung of society's ladder -- giving voice
to the alienated and disenfranchised and working to alleviate poverty
and injustice, while urging that we cannot advance ourselves as a
nation by leaving our poorer brothers and sisters behind.

She's been an equally effective champion for human rights and for
women's rights, a worldwide cause that will profit enormously by her
elevation to the presidency. She has worked for peace in Northern
Ireland and fought to bridge religious, racial and ethnic divides from
Bosnia to the Middle East to South Africa. She has shown a rare
understanding that American values can only be exported by moral
leadership, by a strong home economy and by a detailed understanding
of the history and cultural backdrops of the nations we engage.

She understands, as our current administration does not, the uses of
power. The world, she says, is hungry for U.S. leadership but will not
accept our bullying. She knows the difference and will reestablish
America's lost prestige and moral authority.

Hillary Clinton's political career has been centered in comforting the
afflicted, afflicting the comfortable and reminding Americans what it
means to be American. As a young lawyer, she focused on children's
issues and legal aid. As first lady of Arkansas, she brought
healthcare to rural areas and helped reform the state's lagging
education system.

As first lady, she courageously took on healthcare reform. When a
massive propaganda campaign by Big Pharma and the radical right
derailed her efforts, she didn't give up. She helped create the
nationally acclaimed Children's Health Insurance Program. That kind of
persistence in pursuit of our highest ideals is the brand of
leadership America now requires. Inspirational leadership comes in
many forms.

Seldom has history confronted America with such daunting challenges: a
catastrophic foreign policy that has cost us our international
leadership and aggravated the threat of terror; a misbegotten war that
is squandering precious American lives and treasure; a healthcare
system that leaves millions of Americans without coverage;
irresponsible corporate power that is corroding our democracy and
outsourcing our jobs, aggravating global warming and other
environmental crises and reducing our economy to shambles.

We need a leader who is battle-tested, resilient and sure-footed on
the shifting landscapes of domestic and foreign policy. Hillary
Clinton will move our country forward while promoting its noblest
ideals.

Kathleen Kennedy Townsend is the former lieutenant governor of
Maryland, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is an environmental advocate and Kerry
Kennedy is a human rights activist.

OK, this blog is back to being a ridiculous shill for Hillary Clinton. This post is, simply, laughable. A perfect example of how some will put themselves through embarrassing contortions to defend Clinton and her husband.

FACT CHECK:
In fact, she won many more independents in Florida just yesterday than Sen. Obama did - and she got more votes across a much wider variety of demographic groups than Sen. Obama did. (How's that for "divisiveness"?)

Eriposte check the facts. Florida is a closed primary state, if you are not Republican or Democrat you didn’t vote in the primary for either candidate. In your zeal to promote the Clinton’s “road back to the 20th century” you skewed the facts. You are entitled to you own opinion but now your own set of facts.

I have been an ardent Edwards supporter since last year because he is a fighter. When he withdrew on yesterday, I considered lending my support to the Repubs because I wanted to avoid the Clinton/Obama food fight, however, after last night’s debate there is no way in hell I am going to support either Repub candidate. While supporting Edwards, I watched in horror as the “fairytale comment, drug dealing, Johnson’s comments that he alluded to in Obama’s book and drug use, Charlie Rangel’s comments and the many comments by surrogates and cronies. John Edwards refused to get involved in any of that nonsense.

RJ Eskow above got the facts right. Clinton’s strategy was simple; drive blacks to Obama in SC and collect white votes in the remaining southern states. I am a proud Obama supporter.

disclaimer: i'm a hillary supporter.

for those who think hillary and bill would ever use racist tactics for political gain, i'd really encourage you to get to know them first, and consider whether the media hasn't been duping you into thinking that.

i've blogged a little about it here:
http://gettoknowhillary.blogspot.com/2008/01/dems-of-color.html

http://gettoknowhillary.blogspot.com/2008/01/diversity-love.html

Sorry, I meant here and here

RJ Eskow above got the facts right. Clinton’s strategy was simple; drive blacks to Obama in SC and collect white votes in the remaining southern states. I am a proud Obama supporter

That's just a stupid thing to say on the face of it. Hillary's stratagy was to win.

Nance;
I for one would never accuse the Clintons as racists! However, the strategy they employed was not made up be the Media; the words came from the mouths of Clinton supporters like Bill and Johnson and others. You should visit AA blogs and read what they thought about Bill's "Jesse Jackson won South Carolina in '84 and '88," comments. Please explain why many black think those remarks were out of bounds in light of the previous remarks.

Moses;

It is ok because the ends justifies the mean? Guess what, we in the Democratic Party need the African Americans come the fall. Dividing them is not a winning strategy.

Wow. I feel like I've wandered into a freeper thread. I thought the Republicans were the party of hate.

Eriposte,

Did you happen to see Lakoff's current piece in HuffPo, What Counts as an Issue?

see article!

It is kind of interesting about Obama, but seems too perfect, and if true, why doesn't Obama speak directly to the voters this way? Could this be true, or is Lakoff just an Obama supporter framing and spinning the candidate he prefers?

angryman,

the media has been baiting the clintons throughout this whole campaign. we don't get to see that stuff because the media edits out all the parts where reporters throw out really nasty remarks that would make any human being defensive--and yeah, sooner or later it's gonna get to the person. but the media only shows us the part where the responder (here, bill) snaps--they don't show you the 10 offensive questions asked by the reporter before bill responded in exasperation.

you can't underestimate the power of the media to control our opinions. just look at what happened with dean in 2004, and this study and these articles here and here, for instance.

but most importantly, the issue of race in this country is an extremely delicate, hyper-sensitive topic. so it doesn't take much to ignite a firestorm in that arena, and lord knows the media has been trying their hardest to do just that.

the fact that many older, more experienced people in the african-american community continue to firmly support hillary is a testament to their personal knowledge of who the clintons really are, as well as their familiarity with the media's antics.

but that doesn't always get translated over to younger voters, including younger african-american voters, who have no relationship with the clintons and only hear what the media tells them. the end result is that they all get duped because they never get to know the real hillary.

Kcvill13,

Lakoff's post has a couple of valid points but it is a fine example of fiction writing. Obama has triangulated far more than Hillary - and in doing so has explicitly criticized progressives or progressive values and positions. As for incrementalism, it is Obama who is incrementalist on healthcare rather than Hillary.

Where Lakoff is right is that our candidates need to appeal to voters at an emotional level and talk about values and trust and so on. But, as is the case with most progressives who are relatively clueless about this, he fails to point out that Reagan won because the media was on his side and didn't challenge his fictitious self-portrayal. Democrats face a far more hostile atmosphere - and no amount of talking "values" and "trust" and God knows what else will break through the media filter in the conservative dominated media environment.

Thanks nance,
Point well taken; we know what happened with the build up to the war.

However, how would you intrepret the outcome of the SC votes? Rep Clyburn intervened several times during SC because he didn't want things to get out of hand. These accounts appear in several publications.

http://www.startribune.com/nation/13813131.html

In response to RJ Eskow, his statement about NH is laughable because after New Hampshire the news was rife with mentions about how Hillary won because of the female vote. I myself mentioned it to many people and said that her identification with women - as a female candidate fighting sexism - helped her garner some of the female vote. There have been myriad articles talking about how her strength is because of the female vote. I don't know what planet Eskow is on but he's certainly not on earth.

So, I disagree with Glenn Greenwald. The media had long been talking about how Obama was relying on the African-American vote to win South Carolina. It may not have been the right thing to say at the time, but it wasn't racist of Bill Clinton to say what he did. More on the Jesse Jackson incident from Bob Somerby:
http://www.dailyhowler.com/dh012808.shtml

The media - helped by Obama surrogates - turned this race into one about race, with repeated false accusations that harmless and factual statements from the Clintons were racist (MLK, "fairy tale", and so on). They continued to make false accusations of racism, even though Sen. Obama and Jesse Jackson himself made it clear that the statements were not racist. Normally, in today's America "facts have a liberal bias" - the media and Obama surrogates created the dynamic where facts now have a racial bias. Clinton surrogates somehow magically were merely repeating what the Clintons wanted them to say, but Obama surrogates - who made sexist or racist comments - magically never spoke on behalf of Sen. Obama. The Clinton Double Standard has been pretty strong.

So, if Obama is seeing some impact of racism, it is not because of the Clintons. He brought it on himself with a campaign where surrogates continued to falsely cry wolf again and again and allowed the media to stoke the false fires of racism - as I've shown in previous posts.

nance,

You are clueless about how politics works over the last 30 years or so at the presidential election level. The divisive race card has been the most powerful tool in presidential elections. It is not about whether Bill and Hill are personally racists, it is that they are willing to employ a divisive racial politic to win power.

Go read Dan Carter, From George Wallace to Newt Gingrich or Kevin Phillips, The Emerging Republican Majority from 1969.

How do explain Clinton's Ricky Ray Rector moment in '92 or his "conflicts" with Sister Souljah and jesse jackson that year? And, by the way, Clinton I's policies were terrible for African Americ an communities.

eriposte,

well, this kind of ridiculous, bogus analysis is what we've all come to expect from this pro-Hillary site.

Hillary Clinton eats black babies.

Anonymous,

According to MSNBC's exit poll, voters were asked the question: "No matter how you voted today, do you usually think of yourself as a" (Democrat, Republican, Independent or something else). See here:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21225974

Those who picked Independent or something else voted for Clinton over Obama 40-30. That's what I was pointing out.

I was looking at the citation from the TPM bit. It appears that Obama was attacking Clinton on voting for the Kyl-Lieberman Iran statement. Didn't she?

Look, either she did or she didn't. I have no problem with any candidate saying that they took that position for this reason or that reason, or that he/she has changed her mind since the vote. Just an explanation.

Really, I keep hearing about how terribly unfair Obama is, but at least this example is just normal politics, calling a politician on his/her record.

It is annoying to look at these shocking examples and find a lot of nothing.

It is painfully obvious that Obama is the Media's Darling and can do no wrong. At least not until the general election if he's the nominee.

It is also no surprise that his supporters seem as driven as did Bush's in 2000, IE: he can do no wrong.

When has he actually said how he intends to solve the problems facing the nation?

Sloganeering doesn's count.

For those of you who hate AIPAC, you'll be happy to vote for Obama.

While the article is very right-wing (it is an article against Obama) and has a Sean Hannity tone to it, there are some things in there that worry me as a supporter of Israel (though not a supporter of everything Israel does.) There are also things the article criticizes Obama for that I cheer Obama for.

Regardless of where you stand on Israel or AIPAC, the article raises the issue of Obama's pastor, which has come up in right-wing emails accusing Obama of being racist. This is something he'll get hit with from the republicans in the general if nominated, and to me it's along the same lines as appearing with the ex-gay homophobe in SC. His pastor praises Louis Farrakhan. Obama also had a fund-raiser in the home a basketball player who had made anti-semitic comments. Whether you believe this kind of thing is important or not, this is what's coming down the pike if he gets the nomination. The Clinton campaign will be attacked if they try to get this out during the primaries, but if it isn't vetted now, it'll be out in the general.

As far as the information about Hillary Clinton attracting independents, the Independent Party and independent voters in New York State are a different breed than independents throughout the country. In open primaries independents skewed into Obama's camp, not Clinton's.

Obama's quote said that he is a more viable candidate than Clinton among Republicans and independents. Primary candidates throughout history have claimed that they are more viable than their opponents. Why is this such a shocking bit of campaign rhetoric when this blog is making the same argument?

And Obama's politics of division is that he says he can win big in November? What would be the proper answer? I can't win big in November?

I keep hoping that enough oxygen gets into the room here so that the posters begin behaving like they've been in campaigns before.

One of the post eriposte links to under the heading "make stuff up" reads:

"Fourth: Sen. Obama accuses Hillary of changing her policy on torture due to ‘the politics of the moment.’ He couldn’t be more wrong. Hillary met with retired generals, talked with experienced military officers, and read reports commissioned by the Defense Intelligence Agency. She concluded that 'torture cannot be part of American policy, period.'"

I'd like a show of hands here of how many posters had to "meet with retired generals", etc, before concluding that torture is wrong. This type of attitude from our choices is why none of them are suited to run any country. The only available discussion in this election is which candidate is the least non-progressive. Calling any of them "progressive" is a sad joke for fools to swallow.

Bob in Pacifica,

My post is about Obama calling Clinton divisive. It is not about anything else.

Hillary supported the designation of the Iranian Revolutionary Guards as a terrorist organization. Well, so did Obama - on a bill he *co-sponsored*. This is old news.

I didn't say anywhere that he was "unfair". I said he was making stuff up and parroting false GOP talking points. He is free to continue doing so, just as I am free to point that out.

Also, why don't you criticize this post using what I said rather than criticizing straw-men? Did I say it is shocking for him to appeal to independents or Republicans. Obviously not - since I'm pointing out that Hillary does the same and there's nothing inherently bad about it.

This pretty interesting to watch. We have one of the only national Dems who actually, uncontrovertibly came out against Nero jr's oil invasion BEFORE it happened and he is declared to "really" be a "trojan horse" non-progressive who I guess "really" supported the invasion, while an actual senate backer of Bush's Iraq invasion and enabler of Wall Street/globalisation actions undertaken is "really" the progressive.

Has Hillary said anything about how Clinton II would be different from Clinton I? Don't Hillary backers want to know? Slightly curious? I guess we're just to be ecstatic that we're out of Bush II, whatever we're into.

And now a member of the very DLC-type administration that we around here (used to) lament UNDERMINED and damaged the Dem "brand" for 8 years is lauded as the candidate that "cares a lot more about building the Dem brand" than Obama. Um, OK. We are now at war with Oceania!

I'd like to see Hillary get asked the question "Tell us some policies of the Clinton administration that you disagreed with at the time. Which do you think were mistakes? Which would you act to alter or reverse as president?" Has anything like this been asked of her yet? Does anyone care?

She may not be that divisive. But if you look at the polls on ST states, she may win states but looks like she may loose even with him on delegate count. She is just 12 point behind in NY. Where as look at him in IL. She was born there for god sake and she do not much support. I am not sure these negative attacks on her are not hurting her. I am voting for her this Super Tuesday in GA. Looks like Obama may win GA. But I think she may not win the nomination.

I should have said, 12 points ahead in NY state.

Eriposte,
I just sent you an email on another topic. I hope you find it interesting.

Yes, eriposte, we know you like Hilary.

Ah, yes, but Hillary wanting to WIN is a "No-no"...that upstart WOMAN (who is articulate and intelligent)should be off baking her cookies not playing with the BIG BOYS!!! Of course Bill has said some things he shouldn't ...point me to a candidate who hasn't (how about Michelle Obama's sharing of how her husband snores and smells, UGH)...could we get back to the ISSUES and the need to free America from the stranglehold of BUSH and COMPANY (read that REPUGS)...anyone calling themselves a Democrat who would move to REPUGS because they have a bias against Hillary/Bill loses the right to be called a Democrat because they do not understand what is at stake here. Are all Democrats saints? Silly question...but take a look back at the list of these past 7+ years and tell me you want more of that! The only way to turn the corner is to elect more Dems then keep their feet to the fire...get involved/stay involved/LEARN/THINK!!!

eriposte, you seem to be using a Rove tactic...find out what people think is your candidate's weak point and then accuse the other candidate of it. It's no secret that Hillary has been called divisive (and no amount of argument can make that go away) so the Rovian counter to that is for her camp to call Barack divisive. That tactic in and of itself is divisive.

Name a politician who isn't divisive.

Duke Cunningham sold a house to a defense contractor for $700,000 more than it was worth.
Obama bought a house for $300,000 below market value on the same day his "currently being investigated" US Senate campaign finance manager, Tony Rezko's wife paid full price for the property next door.

Later he bought a strip of the land next door from Mrs. Rezko for way below market price, and when the Chicago media jumped on it, Obama upped the price voluntarily.

Anyone with common sense should realize that this deal will be Whitewatered to death. Obama needs to put this to rest up front beyond any shadow of a doubt.

Who would you rather defend- Obama with his Rezko mistake or the Clintons with their continuing dealing such as the latest $131 million Clinton library haul from Bill's trip to Kazakhstan? Do we want another Clinton Presidency? I don't.

For all of you Billary supporters. She is ahead in all of the polls for ST states.
http://www.electoral-vote.com/

Despite the efforts by many of the bloggers here to frame the divisiveness of the campaign in the court of Obama. My request is that you leave the comfort of your familiar blogs and websites to see what AAs think. What advantage would Obama have by going there? What, so he could win SC and loose the rest of the south? You have gotta be kidding me. AAs are only approximately 12 percent of the population. Do you mean he can win the nomination with 12 percent of the vote? I think not!

I was going to post some articles I came across at Talkleft that rationally examined obama’s campaign tactics and lack of substance to help an informed discussion, but after reading obama support(aka: clinton ad hominem) on the net I realize that would be inappropriate, I should instead summerise these rationals.

To that end...

obama eats babies!

No Really, he eats babies and sleeps under their skins, it’s some kind of shame-anistic ritual that helps him draw power from a sycophant base.

It’s part of a Polytheistic religion/campaign called obomanation and he’s keeping it faith based so he can claim a tax-exempt status.

In practicing this shame-anism he has developed polycephaly (the condition of having more than one head) it helps him when having to deny what he has previously said, he can simply answer with the other head.

NB. Few two-faced animals have survived due to associated internal organ abnormalities and brain abnormalities. The most famous was Ditto the pig. Ditto was raised to adulthood, but died of pneumonia caused by food inhalation when breathing through one muzzle while eating with the other.

And it’s no surprise that you won’t see this reported by the MSM or regressive blogs.

Hillary's a Witch! She turned me into a newt!

I heard Obama's a Muslim! He wants your daughters!

Vote for Nader! He'll save us!

Hey, I think you and your readers would really enjoy Blue State. It's a new movie coming out on DVD this month starring Breckin Meyer as this super-liberal guy working on the 2004 Kerry campaign. He makes a drunken bet that if Bush wins the election, he'll move to Canada -- and we all know what happened in that one. It also stars Anna Paquin (of X-men fame) = check it out!

www.bluestatemovie.com

CG, about Obama and AIPAC and Israel, that article is supposed to bother me?

So Obama not completely towing the AIPAC line is a bad thing? Obama advocates talks with Syria and Iran? Obama opposes John Bolton? One of Obama's possible advisors think Israel lost some "moral high ground" by bombing Lebanese civilians (is that even an opinion or simply an observation?)? Obama's pastor opposes the Iraq war? [sarcasm]Oh, no! The horrors! The horrors![/sarcasm]

Okay, so his pastor is judgemental on Israel, maybe a bit too much. But according to the article, if that quote from his pastor is about the worst he has said, I still don't hear any actual anti-semitism. And, I'm supposed to have a problem with George Soros, too?

Give me a break. If anything, CG, you have just increased my conviction that Obama is the man for the job.

Anyway, none of this addresses what I see as one Hillary's major weaknesses that is just now getting some attention. As I said in another thread, I see no reason to vote for an anti-union, union-busting, supply-siding ex-Wal-Mart executive like Hillary. When did it become a Democratic or liberal or leftist position to bust on unions like Hillary did? Moreover, are those things Hillary participated in with Wal-Mart as an executive any different from being a Republican?

Face it, Hillary's a conservative at heart, I don't care what her party affiliation is.

Do we want another Clinton Presidency? I don't.

If the alternative is another Republican't pretzelduncy, you'd better believe I do!

I'm supporting the Democrat in November. How 'bout you?

Joe, I don't believe Obama eats babies.

Now, there are "some who say" Obama's mother is related to one of the surviving cannibals from the Donner party.

It is a shame that this blog has become a Hillary cheerleding blog and putting down Obama who may very well become the Democratic nominee. I thought this blog was for Democratic party victory regardless of who is the candidate.

By the way it is totally inappropriate to blame media for Hillary and Bill Clinton's mistakes. If Bill says that Obama's ideas are 'Fairy tales", he should know that the media is going to pick that up. Or he is not as smart as we think he is?
Does'nt he know that his criticism is providing ammunition to Republicans in case Obama is the nominee? Come on give me a break.

I investigated fully every charge made against the Clintons, and found each instance that Obama was using the race card. The only instance that could possibly be taken as a negative by the Obama people, was Bill's J. Jackson comment. It was the truth, but maybe it was best not to say it. Americans voted for the talker twice in 2000 and 2004, and now find themselves hoping for change. Democrats are not looking at the accomplishments and the work HRC has done and dedicated herself since she graduated from college, but are again going for the least accomplished talker. Democrats went for Kerry in the early primaries of 2004 because he was supposedly the most electable and went on to lose the general election. I predict that if Democrats choose Obama, he will lose the general election because Republicans and independents will not vote for him. I know I won't vote for him, even though I expected to vote for any Democrat in November. Obama has been too divisive and I find him and most of all his supporters disgusting.

Obama's mother is related to one of the surviving cannibals from the Donner party.

I heard this, too! And I totally believe it!

http://www.gocomics.com/rallcom/2008/01/28/

It is a shame that this blog has become a Hillary cheerleding blog

It is a shame that this commenter hates freedom of speech and wants to curtail other's right to their own opinion.

Actually, if you count the posts, there are more Obama peeps, or does it just seem that way because they cry louder?

Again, I give you the You Tube Britney cry-guy:

"Leeeve Barack alone"

One of the biggest red flags for me is the level of Hillary hate coming from the so-called progressive blogosphere. Bloggers that I really liked have proven themselves to be juvenile, petty, and hateful. It's completely changed how I view blogs now. I no longer feel part of the online community as I once did. It has been eye-opening to say the least. Nearly all of the progressive blogs are full of young, angry, males whose style seems very similar to the extremists on the right. As a middle aged woman I don't have the stomach for this, and I absolutely can't identify with it.

If this is what your wonderful Obama inspires in you, I want no part of it.

The only result I see coming from Obama's unity message is a lot of nastiness from his supporters and pettiness toward Hillary from him.

As for SC, what the Obama camp did there was about as divisive as it gets. If there is one thing in the south that is even more divisive thatn racism, it is false accusations of racism. And that is what his supporters did. They drove around in vans SCREAMING at AA Hillary supporters on the street that they should be "ashamed to vote for that white woman". With bullhorns, no less.

My entire family is in SC, and they were disgusted. Not a peep from the press on that sort of behavior, which went on all over the place. Obama is one sleazy piece of Chicago work. He is a stone bully, as are his people. Flame me if you want, obamdroids, but my family saw it happening.

iamcoyote, now that Edwards is out, who is likely to get your vote?

Give me a break. If anything, CG, you have just increased my conviction that Obama is the man for the job.

Actually Brian, that was sort of my point. There is a lot of anti-AIPAC talk on this blog and I was pointing out that this article would make someone support Obama. BUT, even though there are parts of the article that give Obama points in my book, there are things there that bother me, and regardless of whether they bother me or you or anyone else here, they will become an issue in the general election if Obama is the nominee. His closeness to a pastor who says a lot of really questionable things, doing a fund-raiser with someone who said Jews have the blood of Jesus on their hands, etc. It matters who you surround yourself with. So in that sense, it was just a heads up of what's to come in terms of attacks during the general.

Obama has been too divisive and I find him and most of all his supporters disgusting.

We're replacing one cult with another, and Rove's smiling to see that his work has been adopted by the opposition. How pleased he must be to watch the left and the blogs finish the job of burying the Clintons using his tactics. All this time, I thought we were learning how to counter his shit, but no, we've been learning how to use it to destroy ourselves. It appears he was righter about human nature than anyone guessed.

TIKI, of course they cry louder. I remember a post by digby talking about how the right uses whining and wailing to get what they want. It works on the left, too, sadly. Obama's tapped the lizard brain, and you really can't fight it. It's not enough to try to bully the few remaining Hillary supporters into shutting up; like most religious fanatics, it's not enough that they've got every blog trumpeting and whining about Obama, "racism" and hope, they want to wipe any positive thoughts about the Clintons off the map.

What if she does win? There will be no going back in the blogosphere, and maybe that's a good thing. We've already passed the point where the left can claim to be the "reality-based community." It's just sad to watch it all circling the drain in pursuit of "unity."

iamcoyote, now that Edwards is out, who is likely to get your vote?

I'm on the west coast, so my vote doesn't matter in the primary. I'll vote for whoever gets the Dem nom in the general election.

iamcoyote, you may not realize it, but some people like me have learnt to respect your insight.

It's good to see Yellow Journalism is alive and well!

And just like Margaret Mead, eriposte always finds what he goes looking for regardless of what the facts would indicate. Bias in the post interpretation always bends the analysis. Write on, Margaret.

The Faux news of the Hillary blogs needs your acolyte-like input to keep the uninformed masses of the Hillary-as-savior movement misinformed. So never mention the fact that Hillary is trying to take personal credit for any successes associated with the surge. Keeping these people misinformed is the golden path to victory.

Do I like Hillary? No

Here is a dose of reality. Think of the people who debated last night. Now think of another 4 years of the SOS.

Again, I dont like Bill or Hill. But I would rather Bill and Hill over HUKABERRY, RUMMY, McOld, or What's his name whose name you can't mention.

So Calm down CG. We all want the same things we just have to vent a bit.

"It is a shame that this commenter hates freedom of speech and wants to curtail other's right to their own opinion."

Classic, iamcoyote. What a bogus straw-man. It isn't about "free speech." No one here is arguing against free speech, just suggesting some balance and fairness from this site. Although, your previous posts make clear you are not interested in those things, but rather in dominating this blog for the anti-Obama forces. It is what turns many off to this blog, in fact!

Bill and Hill eats Hattian babies. You know the ones they kept sending back to Hati to their deaths.

Obama supporters are founding out that not everyone is buying the garbage that Obama is selling.

...some balance and fairness...

That's what Fox News is for.

Bill and Hill eats Hattian babies. You know the ones they kept sending back to Hati to their deaths.

And had Clinton opened the boarder to Haitians boatloads more than actually died in Haiti would have died on their makeshift boats trying to make it to Florida. Because the second they knew they wouldn't be sent back thousands of them would have piled onto anything that would float (for a while) to try and make the trip.

Have you donated any money to Haitian relief lately angryman? Ya know, to help the dying babies?

I'm starting to giggle a bit. I can't imagine the level of fury all the TLC Hillary boosters will have when she wins the nomination and then 72 year old John McOld begins the GOP task of dividing the country into Warriors vs. Women. You want divisive?? You are gonna get the real thing soon enough. Rove's Warriors will make the Obama campaign look like a cakewalk.

The mendacity of this campaign is getting out of hand. I'm willing to accept Obama as a Uniter(TM) as much as I would have accepted Bush as a Compassionate Conservative (TM).

Both have scant experience, not enough for us to judge on, and have made decisions choosing ambition over his constituents on a regular basis (say what you will, at least Hillary waited until she proved herself as a competent senator - winning a second term - before she tried for the Pres.). She made DECISIONS, even if they ended up biting her in the ass later on. Obama just blows through DC to pick up his check and make symbolic gestures.

Add to that the religiousity and I am very very uncomfortable with this young and unproven man in the most powerful office in the world. Look what it did to us these past few years.

"The missiles are flying. Hallelujah, hallelujah."

Boy, we all care deeply about the outcome, don't we?

Five days left, and tempers flare, and feelings of betrayal are rife. Charges and counter-charges are flung back and forth; names are called.

I’m an Edwards supporter, and I truly don’t know for whom I will vote on Tuesday.

Both are wonderful candidates, but they have in my mind completely different strengths and weaknesses, and I think that the choice will lead the country in very different directions, (although their stated policy differences are not large, particularly when contrasted with the policies of their Republican opponents.)

If one earned the Presidency by piling up qualifications and experience, by deserving it, then Sen. Clinton would certainly have the better claim. And this is a note I keep hearing from the more passionate Clinton supporters, that she _deserves_ the Presidency, has earned it.

But the White House is not a reward. Getting elected to the Presidency is not an end, it’s the beginning. What I want, what I think much of the country desperately wants, is for the next President to be an effective agent of change, and both Democratic candidates promise as much, albeit vaguely.

As I see it, there are two fundamental problems in changing this nation’s course.

One problem is to work the levers of power, to know the players and how the game is played, and understand the stakes that keep the other players in the game — the LBJ approach. By all accounts, Sen. Clinton has in her Senate career become very skilled at this aspect of working for change, and has earned the respect of many of her colleagues, including some who were not initially inclined to think much of her as a Senator. But the other face of this same strength is the “pragmatism” and “centrism” that so alienates the progressive wing of the Democratic party. The DLC faction that has dominated the party since 1992, had an historic, generational opportunity in the popular Presidency of Bill Clinton, and they used it to advance an agenda that you may think of as centrist, but which I see as moderate Republican. NAFTA. Don’t-ask-don’t-tell. The end of welfare as we know it. These are policies that an Edwards voter is not likely to regard as change for the better. And in the years since the Unpleasantness of 2000, the DLC-dominated party has been singularly ineffective at opposing a Republican government that is leadings into outright fascism. Rahm Emmanuel and his ilk apparently can not or will not attempt to lead the nation. (I am keenly aware that Sen. Clinton is not Bill Clinton, but her campaign staff is dominated by her old DLC connections.)

So: Sen Clinton — deserving, tough, capable, tested. A survivor.
Sen Obama — promising but far less experienced.

But the other fundamental problem of the Presidency is to use the bully pulpit change people’s minds, to lead, to inspire the populace of America to become better than they are — the JFK approach. And here I think that Sen. Obama has a clear advantage, holds out the possibility of igniting a fire that Sen. Clinton can not. The outpouring of new voters, young voters, crossover voters, from an electorate that had grown apathetic, had ceased to believe that politics could change their lives, or that they had a stake in American politics, has been the brightest feature of this election. We, as a nation, desperately need that optimism, that engagement, that hope, that sense that we can create a new future. The voter turnout numbers in the primaries have been astonishing. It is possible that Sen. Obama can harness that energy to take us somewhere new. To me, and I’m sure to many other Democrats, Sen. Clinton represents a continuation of the triangulating Democratic politics of the 90s, in which we were disappointed.

So : Sen. Obama : inspiring speaker in the mold of JFK.
A long shot, maybe, but possibly a transformational leader.

Sen Clinton : a managerial approach to leadership.

No one here is arguing against free speech, just suggesting some balance and fairness from this site.

Suggesting? People like you are demanding that eriposte just shut up. This is not a newspaper or tv station. This is a personal blog; there are no rules that say that a person is obligated to provide "balance." This blog doesn't advertise itself as a "balanced" medium. No one is obligated to pander to whiners who don't like what's posted. You can always go to another blog if you want to be pandered to. Trying to tell someone what to write about is like going into someone's home and saying they can talk about what they want. It's an attempt to limit their free speech, so don't give me your strawman shit. You're trying to tell us what we can and can't say.

It is what turns many off to this blog, in fact!

And yet, here you are, every day, reading and whining about pretty much the only blog left that has the utter audacity to post what it wants when it wants. It's just not enough that every prominent blog has joined the GOP's hatefest on the Clintons - people we'd just spent the last 7 years defending, btw - you want them erased, you want anyone who defends them erased. Pretty sick, I think.

PS - New Age, thanks...as you can tell, I'm pretty down today about other things, so my fuse is short.

Speaking of Haiti, did anyone see the article about the people there are now eating mud cookies because there's no food? Heartbreaking.

My only comment: TROJAN HORSE

How can we determine where Obama's internet contributions are coming from? Under $250.00 and we can't find out. But I wouldn't doubt that Republicans are partially funding him. It doesn't make sense why he is running a Republican, Rovian campaign. It is further alarming that the wimp Democratic establishment is backing him. My evidence? Governor Sebelius was the worst person to put on national TV for our Democratic response to the SOTU. She announced the next day for Obama. So who made such a disastrous decision to put such a loser on TV with Obama's loser message?
The answer: The same people who are behind other loser campaigns for a Democratic President. It almost seems that some people would rather Obama win the nomination and lose the general as long as the Clintons don't return. We need to expose this threatened wimpy part of the Democratic establishment. The same part that have no backbone and have had trouble uniting against our true opposition, the Republicans. We must fight back before the liberal establishment forces their weak candidate on us. As I said, there is something stinky in all of this. Something untoward. And we need a fighting spirit to combat it.

We must expose the Josh Marshall's, and EJ Dionne's who are double agents. Josh Marshall did this same thing with Gore as did Frank Rich and many others as documented by bob somerby at dailyhowler.com And we must expose the outright lies that Tim Russert peddles...We must damage the credibility of the MSM liberal version and the liberal progressive blogs that misrepresent the truth as well. We have an alarming development on our hands.l..the progressive movement's abandonment of the principle of fair coverage and truthful reporting. And the sexism that underlies the blog posts...and the pure bias that is the MSM.

What about exposing GE and its connections to the defense department? And its ownership of NBC.

There is something much more subversive going on. And we must tackle it before it is too late.

Speaking of Haiti, did anyone see the article about the people there are now eating mud cookies because there's no food?

There's food.

They just don't have anything to buy it with.

It's your blog. You can obviously post whatever you want and the rest of us don't have to read it. I used to visit here regularly, but probably won't in the future - my choice. But, "main stream" media, whatever their other failings, are at least usually upfront about who they are endorsing, or flacking for. Even though you bill yourself as "outside the beltway", you very obviously favor Hillary Clinton as the Democratic candidate even though the Bushes and Clintons have been THE inside the beltway powers for 20 years. How about a simple tag line at the top of your site that says "This Blog Endorses Hillary Clinton"? At least it would be an honest disclosure.

RJ Eskow is a liar...He peddles lies on Huff Post...run by the jealous for power Arianna, herself a right winger years ago in California when she tried to buy a Senate seat for her husband and almost made it. Now she figures out a new way to accumulate power...spout an anti Clinton narrative. I wouldn't trust her about anything. And Eskow has lost credibility long ago. He is a hack...who believes the ends justifies the means.

But it's surprising that none of these Obama supporters can every respond to Eriposte, known for his intellectual honesty and factually based posts, with a similar rigor and intellectual honesty. No posts by Obamamaniacs that take each of Eriposte's points and responds to them with facts. Why not? Why is it that all we hear from Obamamaniacs are declarative statements without a factual underpinning? Is this an acknowledgment of the weakness of their positions? Don't these people know how to contruct an argument?

Or do Obama's promoters deliberately avoid actual truthful reporting because their mission is propaganda not intellectual discourse?

Speaking of Haiti, did anyone see the article about the people there are now eating mud cookies because there's no food?

There's food.
They just don't have anything to buy it with.

Begging your pardon, but the first poster, iamcoyote, is correct.

The entire ecology of the Haitian end of the island is completely destroyed: virtually every tree gone, then pretty much all the other vegetation, followed by most of the hillside soil. Also, a burgeoning population that is far in excess of the sustainable carrying capacity even of the original ecosystem. Add to this impossible situation disease, ignorance, abject poverty, superstition, and a near-complete lack of natural resources.

To compare the fates of Haiti and the Dominican Republic is to tell a nearly perfect parable of environmentalism: when we destroy the ecosystem, we destroy ourselves.

Joel Haynes...no fact...no analysis of polling data in Florida...the most diverse of the states so far...failure to see a diminishing white vote for Obama...Clinton got the young vote in Florida and is trending up with these groups. She brings in women by a large margin...and women are a bigger part of the electorate who are reliable voters...somehow no one who is supporting Obama brings this up. If all women vote...Hillary brings in more women to the polls and this number add more to a winning coalition and electoral victory than all of the "talk" about young voters as measured by Iowa alone. (and that was a caucu)

Intellectual dishonesty is rampant here. False statistics are cited. There is a concerted effort to force this TROJAN HORSE upon us. We don't even know who are enemies are. They masquerade as a host of different groups. But those who are paying attention know that something doesn't feel right.

Because if you must lie and resort to misleading and false media coverage, then you must be hiding something. So what are they hiding? They've convinced too many that the Trojan Horse is a gift..They make the outrageous clams about RFK whe n RFK Jr. and his sisters are ardently for Hillary. But they don't tell us that. Something smells rotten. I say lock the doors on the Trojan Horse. Or make them expose who they are.

Here here Lily15....I'm more than willing to read any pro-Obama piece here that provides facts and logical arguments to his candidacy, without the need for invectives and ad hominem attacks on the Clintons.....

Tell me, Obama supporters, how your candidate will help the Democratic Party (DLCers, DFL's, et al) and this country in a substantive discourse and bring all Democrats (Clintons, Edwards, etc..) together....I'm waiting....

Joel,

I'm well aware of the fact that the ecology of the Haitian side of Hispaniola has been devastated. The poverty stricken in Haiti are not eating mud cakes because there is no food available. They're eating mud cakes because they can't afford to purchase anything else. The wealthy, and what middle class that is left have plenty to eat.

How about a simple tag line at the top of your site that says "This Blog Endorses Hillary Clinton"? At least it would be an honest disclosure.

Why? Because your unity pony will get its feelings hurt if it reads an opposing view? Or are you just too fucking stupid to figure it out for yourself? Or is it really because you think you can make people do what you want if you whine loud enough? I wonder, have you gone to dKos or TPM and asked them to put a disclaimer at the top of their blog? No, I didn't think so. Maybe Hillary supporters need to start wearing badges with a big yellow H on them. Would that make you feel better?

Hillary Clinton eats black babies.

Obama eats white women. Oops!

Obama eats white women. Oops!

I thought that was Harold Ford?

I thought that was Harold Ford?

Hey Harold! Call me??

Oh, and I didn't mean that there wasn't any food per se, though Joel may have a point. I just wanted people to see that article. The mother whose nursing baby was "colicky" just broke my heart.

Yeah coyote, in fact they gang up on white women.

What a fucking mess! I'm staying out of it until "FAT" Tuesday.

Isn't it curious that Obama supporters scream that Clinton is divisive, yet they would prefer for a republican to win (by not supporting the Democratic candidate) if Clinton is nominated?

Oh, and I didn't mean that there wasn't any food per se,

I know that.

... though Joel may have a point.

He certainly does. One could argue that there's no food on Manhattan island also. But that wasn't the point. Whether food is grown on the island or imported from elsewhere the people eating mud cakes are eating them because they can't afford anything else. This the article you linked to makes perfectly clear.

Isn't it curious that Obama supporters scream that Clinton is divisive, yet they would prefer for a republican to win (by not supporting the Democratic candidate) if Clinton is nominated?

Sad isn't it.

Obama MIGHT have been viable among Independents and moderate Republicans.

But the minute he aligned himself with Teddy Kennedy---considered in Peoria to be the most liberal Senator in Washington---he DIMINISHED his possibilities of attractin those two categories.

He is now tagged as Teddy Kennedy's protege, and to moderates in America, that's anathema.

While I appreciate that he may be inspiring, and the Teddy Kennedy branch of the Democratic Party may give better speeches, in general elections, THEY NEVER WIN. NEVER.

Like it or not, the centrist, "triangulating" Clintons got elected, twice. The Kennedys , after JFK (who was decidedly NOT as liberal as brother Teddy), NEVER got elected. Middle America in the purple states doesn't like them.

I fear Obama was way too naive to know that.

And if he's nominated, as Kennedy's protege, he will cost the Democratic Party the best chance of winning again we've ever had.

iamcoyote finally admits her hypocrisy! Congrats!!! For months you've been arguing this is, in fact, not a blog with a pro-Hillary or anti-Obama agenda. Now, you claim it is a personal blog with a bias... Well, for all of us who come here, no sh*t. The "bias" ooozes from the blog.

All I am saying is that when you always criticize Obama and his followers as mindless, but then steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of the obvious and well-evidenced shortcomings of the CLinton campaign, you lose credibility.

Nice ahistorical analysis of the Kennedys, Mary. Very insightful... 1976 was not 1968 was not 1960. Very different elections. Very different men in many ways.

I'm sure if Hillary had received the Kennedy nod, you'd be making the same criticism of her... not. If the endorsement is so poisonous, why did Bill call Ted in desperation to try to woo it away from Barack for Hillary?

You are right in one aspect, though. You are supporting the more conservative candidate in the Democratic primary.

Poor Patrick, (yes, we know it's you), are you still sore that I exposed you for the fraud you are - pretending to be a professor of women's studies? I really hope manufacturing this silly gotcha with a non-existent controversy made you feel better, 'cos such a deep-rooted stoopid like yours must surely be terminal.

Did anybody notice the remarks by Bernstein that Hillary was argueing with Bill against NAFTA. If this is true, she can help herself by allowing this to come to light. What else did she argue with Bill about, (besides his fidelity)

I believe McCain will probably be the Repug. nominee. Seems it'll hard for either Obama or Hillary to beat him. I lean towards Obama for a personal and some would seem 'selfish' reason. I don't like forcing lower middle class workers such as me to buy health insurance as Hillary (and Edwards) have suggested.

The corrosive growth of health care costs are killing industry, both individual and corporate, in America. Hillary is taking mucho bucks from Big Pharma and Health Insurance. I believe socialized medicine is by far a better alternative...but until then I don't think forcing people to pay a one size premium while wealthy people can pay much less is a good thing. Obama said it: we need to lower health care costs, not force people to pay ever higher costs.

Romney is running away from what he helped with Democrats in Mass. where mandated premiums forced upon young and lower income people who lack jobs with health insurance and so far health insurance rates have gone up, not down...just proving that the uninsured are not the cause of extortionary health care costs. We need to stop the unregulated and monopolistic greed that dominates health care now in America.

iamcoyote,

Why can't you address the hypocrisy of your position, rather than constantly attack, attack, attack everyone in sight?

Please deal with this substantive critique from above:

"All I am saying is that when you always criticize Obama and his followers as mindless, but then steadfastly refuse to acknowledge any of the obvious and well-evidenced shortcomings of the Clinton campaign, you lose credibility."

Are you still trying to win? You've got an overdeveloped sense of vengeance. It's going to get you into trouble someday.

Funny how a guy who pretended to be something he's not, then tried to use my name to post talks about credibility. Your accusation of hypocrisy was stupid and I give it all the respect it deserves - none.

Poor guy is too embarrassed to use his name anymore.

Well, he does have a lot to be embarrassed about, doesn't he?

Again, why aren't you all addressing the substantive issue the previous posts raised? That speaks very loudly for itself!

You make many assumptions about me that are false. What does that say about you, too? Do you know anything about me, really? of course not!

I'm still waiting for you to raise a substantial issue, honey. But now I'll do what every parent does when their kid starts throwing a tantrum - ignore the whining.

Well, he does have a lot to be embarrassed about, doesn't he?

You mean to tell me "anon." is PATRICK?

Bwaaa!!! I'm sure he'll sign on as "SpongeBob" next!

Damn, I missed it, I 101ed it!!

Patrick,

Your point is addressed constantly here. No one here is holding up Clinton or her campaign as "without shortcomings". I find it hard to understand why you think that. The creator of this site has endorsed Clinton, not as a perfect progressive candidate but as the most likely Democrat to get the White House back for the Dems. He invited others interested in reporting on the other campaigns to do so. Several did for a time. Most have since stopped for whatever reason. If you'd like a more Obama orientated discussion go to dKos or TPM. There's just no there there in your gripe with this site. Get over it.

And your right. All we know about you is what you have presented here, which isn't terribly flattering to you from where I'm sitting.

Yeah, SoS, he's been posting anonymously since he was busted. What a dork, huh?

And dang you for 101ing it! We've had quite a few of those recently.

Next he'll think he has to have a rotating IP address!
Scary!

Is that the Hillary borg? Is that you? Plleeeaaaaasssseeee assimilate me and end my pain. You have been right all along. Obama supporters are just plain dumb and Hillary is infallible... ahhh... yes, I can feel the pain slip away... ooooooo... thank you, thank you, oh, Great Hillary Borg! I am now released from having to think for myself.

I am now released from having to think for myself.

Good thing, since you're really not very good at it. Maybe when you get to the 6th grade...

You continue to impress Patrick.

i love you iamcoyote. i love you snark. thank you for setting me straight. ahhhhhhh...

Is that fucker talking about me! Shit, I'm for Obama, you idiot! However, I was originally for Edwards.