It's Not The Math, Stupid

[liberalcommontater]

Much is being made of Obama's lead in delegates and what an affront it would be to many who support him if the super-delegates were to vote for Hillary. However, he is not entitled to it if their judgment says otherwise.

As much as you may what Obama to be nominated and be president, don't you think it is more important to win in November?

In my opinion, Obama is going to be slaughtered on foreign policy experience.
He is going to have his lunch handed to him on healthcare.
His coattails will be short when the Rezko trial and his involvement become widely known.

If the super-delegates pick Clinton, anyone here who refuses to plug their nose, close their eyes and pull the lever for Clinton is simply putting their own emotions ahead of the good of the party and the country.

I think Obama will lose to McCain in the fall with short coattails. He is tailor made for the Republicans to rip to shreds. They will make the Clinton campaign look like his best friends. It is much more important that one of them wins in November than which of them wins. Even though I think he is a sure loser and has campaigned in the gutter, I will vote for him if he is the nominee.

Anyone here have the fortitude to make the same pledge?

[SoCalDem]

1. bzzzzt....next?

:rofl:

[Buzz Clik]

73. Seriously. Where's Simon when we need a really cutting insult for a poor, amateurish performance?

[NanceGreggs]

2. Do you think that if you keep saying ...

... that Obama can't win the GE, over and over, that makes it a fact?

Let us know when the SDs call you for your invaluable opinion on the issue, okay?

[liberalcommontater]

9. No, not at all

It's just my opinion. No more no less. But, as a Democrat who wants to win I think it should concern all of us that we get behind the nominee. There is a lot of excitement about Obama, no doubt, but the forces arrayed against any Democrat running for president will be tough to beat - especially election fraud if it is close. We need a candidate who can take the battle to them. Not someone who wants to play nice with them.

When it comes to the Republicans Hillary will be the scorched earth candidate. That is what I want. That is what I think will win. And, win we must.

[Gore1FL]

31. Clinton has taken the battle to Obama

as effectively as McClellan, Burnside, and Hooker took the fight to the confederacy.

If she was successful at this, she would have won rather than being a fading memory in this nomination process.

[philk17088]

33. Winning...

Scorched earth candidate.That whole premise is gone with the wind.I for one am sick of that crap. That nonsense doesn't make anybody a good president.
Hillary won't be able to stand up to the loads of shit that republicans will dump on her. This country and planet can't spend the next 4 years stewing in the manure pile that washington will be if she is elected.
She should just get gone already. Her time and type of politics are done for.

[liberalcommontater]

50. Politics has not changed and will not

sorry to pop your bubble, but from ancient rome until today, politics has been and will be a street fight. Public service is a noble endeavor, but the politics behind it are like sausage being made.

[DMorgan]

62. You are really full of it

You have no basis for your opinions, if someone lived with your set of beliefs in 1776, we would still be subjects of the Queen.

Get over your totally unfounded, depressive, pessimistic view of humankind. You need to re-learn the history of mankind which you obviously learned so poorly in your schooling. You are NOT a genius, you are a poorly educated, probably depressed, overweight, pessimist, who clings to perks instead of hope, belittles fellow progressives for the sake of your own ego. Please find another forum where you can spew your racist, self-serving remarks, the Democratic Underground, and the Democratic Party needs fewer of you, the Republicans love people like you, they are just as undereducated and poorly informed, and have equally poor functioning superegos; they think ANYTHING is OKAY, as long as the white male guys and their loved one wives don't have to pay more taxes.

That's you in a nutshell, not willing to take a stand for principle, if it involves you having to give up a perk.

Hillary supporters, take note, there are NO PERKS for McCain winning.

[liberalcommontater]

74. That was my point. There are not perks for McCain winning.

I don't think Obama will win so... Will you vote for Hillary if she is the nominee? (rhetorical question)

I have high hopes for humankind, but I do think politics is a nasty business and anyone who thinks that logic and good ideas and eloquent presentation will rule the day is naive at best and dangerous at worst.

Politics is about the application of power, (hopefully derived from the consent of the masses.)

I would really like to know even some of the following...

How do you deduce that I am
depressive
pessimistic
poorly schooled
not a genius
overweight (damn that web cam)
have any perks at all

How was I belittling?

Racist? Really...How?
Self-serving?

If you have no facts, then the ignorance is on your side, but the post was really a plea to elect a democrat in November....any democrat....even Obama.....or Clinton.

[pompano]

117. There are....

certain lines you don't cross in politics. I understand politics is a full contact sport. There are certain areas you don't go. Hillary has crossed some of these lines so far she can't even see them in her rear view mirror anymore. To suggest someone pinch their nose and vote for her is exactly her plan. She has proven she'll win this thing and not give a damn how many people have to pinch their nose. This Obama supporter is not in the pinching business anymore. I have been pinching here and there for 25 years.

You aren't asking me to pinch my nose for Party unity, if that was the case Hillary would have been reigned in by her supporters a long time ago, you are asking me to pinch my nose, throw what few principles I have out the window, and vote for your choice of a candidate. Who has pinched their nose for another candidate? Who has Hillary pinched her nose for? It's time someone else did some pinching for a change. How does anyone know Obama can't beat McCain? The Republicans know he can. They have been the pinchingest bunch of mofos around here lately. You think they pinch for fun?

No more pinching for me. I'll loose standing with Obama before I'll vote crawling behind Queen Hillary.

She took Party unity and the nose pinching option off my table when she left me with the choice of voting for her and making Lush Limpballs day. Pandering to the Right did just that.

[liberalcommontater]

119. Thanks for responding...

I feel the same way you do, but support Clinton. However, having a Democrat in the White House is more important than refusing to support a nominee I don't care for. I respect your lack of enthusiasm and understand. I hope you change your mind if it comes to that...actually I think Obama will be the nominee. I will have to put my money where my mouth is. I hope other Clinton supporters do as well.

[liberalcommontater]

85. My question was...

If Hillary get the nomination will you vote for her?

I really do not see how this question relates to my weight(174), psychological state(liberal), educational level(Masters +57), lovability by Republicans (in the negatives), etc.

My answer is that I will vote for Obama if he wins the nomination.
Your answer is...

[Name removed]

116. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[NanceGreggs]

45. Take the battle to them?

Not someone who wants to play nice with them?

Yeah, if Hill had been the nominee (which she won't be, BTW), it would have been fun watching her and McCain getting together for a debate, discussing how she said he was a more qualified contender than her fellow Dem (who, as we know, is nothing more than a speech in 2002). After that, they could discuss the Gas Tax Holiday that they both support, maybe chat a bit about their mutual desire to bomb, bomb, Iran. Then they could regale the audience with their respective stories about being under enemy fire.

You've GOT to be kiddin' me.

[DMorgan]

57. If it's "just your opinion, no more no less" why post it over and over?

Again here?

Some of us, in fact MOST of those of us who have voted, don't see it the way YOU do.

So get over your self, please, and pray that you can bury your ignorance and bias and see the way to work for America free of the kind of bias the Republicans and Hillary supporters try to keep forcing upon us.

[liberalcommontater]

64. I was saying that given my experiences, reading, listening, etc

I have my point of view. It was a way of saying that I don't expect anyone else to agree with it just because I hold it. My post is an attempt to say that all of us who repudiate the last 8 years and hold to the political ideals of the Democratic party should agree to come together when the primaries are over and support our candidate whichever one it is.

The fact that "MOST of those of us who have voted, don't see it the way YOU do" is irrelevant to the post and does nothing to convince me that I have anything in common with you. The patronizing "get over yourself", and insulting "you can bury your ignorance and bias" is the worst way to represent our party and does not serve to unify it, but only to divide.

I suspect you were not a gracious winner and a sore loser in the past. We are all going to be sad together is we don't win together.

Go Hillary! (I assume you are biased in favor of Obama?)

[verges]

133. Unfortunately,

Sen Clinton may be one of the most divisive politicians of the past 50 years. Republicans hate her (that's why they WANT her to get the nom), large amounts of Democrats hate her. Even many, like myself, who once respected her, cringe at the thought of her getting the nomination.

Don't let the fact that Obama is polite and fights fair fool you. I'd bet he's plenty tough enough! He'll fight. And the election won't be as close as it would be with Sen Clinton.

[barack the house]

68. =)

[Mz Pip]

3. Yes I'm sure

Senator McSameasbush will just kick ass running on the policies of a president with an approval rating hitting 30% at best.

[Auntie Bush]

30. 27%...last I heard.

Not to be picky.

[Bright Eyes]

4. I find it hilarious that Clinton supporters

think that she is above attacks from the right.

No matter who the nominee is, the Right is going to go after him/her, without mercy. What evidence do you have to support the notion that Hillary is any less likely to be "ripped to shreds" by the Republicans then Obama would?

[liberalcommontater]

12. She can kick ass as well as anyone. I think

she has the discipline and fortitude to do it.

[RazBerryBeret]

19. don't you mean

"testicular fortitude"???
sorry, I couldn't resist.

[liberalcommontater]

29. Hey, from my corner with 8 years of Bush I don't care what she uses!

[RazBerryBeret]

41. ha ha....

I was referring to the news this week:

"Well this afternoon, a local labor leader introducing Clinton pushed the envelope further, saying the nation needed a leader “that has testicular fortitude.”

I had to laugh when I read that---

[Auntie Bush]

40. And I don't think Obama has that fortitude and fight in his heart.

He will let us all down if he's the nominee.

[wileedog]

66. Which is your opinion and you're welcome to it

But because a bunch of Clinton supporters think their candidate is more of a reprehensible, immoral gutter politician is no basis to overturn the Pledged Delegate vote.

Sorry the majority of the country disagreed with you. Democracy is annoying like that sometimes.

[Auntie Bush]

82. She's ahead in the national opinion poll...

or whatever they call it. More people like Hillary than Obama as of now. Check it out.

[Arugula Latte]

83. So ... What' s she going to do ... cry again?

:shrug:

[cali]

107. If she was a halfway decent fighter she would have wrapped up

the nomination in Feb. She's losing to someone who didn't have half her advantages. That's discipline? And her endless whining is fortitude? Please, get a new lens.

[sellitman]

5. You underestimate Obama

I think the opposite. The SD's will pick Obama because he will get Independants and pissed of Repiggies far better than Hillary would. He also gets the youth and the ant war crowd. He also will have the delegates, the popular vote and will make mince meat of that old fart McSame. But.....If Hillary pulls off a win she will get my vote, my support and my money.

[liberalcommontater]

13. I disagree, but will support the nominee too.

Thanks for being so reasonable.

[The River]

6. Pure Fantasy

why debate a moot point?

[Auntie Bush]

7. I'll make that pledge.

Sign me up. I have a feeling I'm going to be lonely.
Obabots are more interested in a movement than winning this election.

[RazBerryBeret]

17. but a movement may be the only way to win this election...

I live in Ohio. 04 sucked. they stole the vote. you know it will happen again. our only chance is to bring out as many voters as possible. that would take a movement. 50% +1 doesn't get it anymore.

[liberalcommontater]

18. Thanks so much, hopefully they will

see the necessity of unity :)

[emilyg]

27. I'm definitely with you.

[cali]

108. another generalization. My sig line makes it clear that

you're flat out wrong.

[Auntie Bush]

111. Sorry... It doesn't apply to you. I know you to be fair

most times...at least you try. Can't see your sig. line.

I didn't mean I'd be the only one left here...I said it would be lonely. I hear or see an awful lot of Obama posters saying no way in hell would they ever vote for Clinton. I don't see that kind of comment from many Clinton supporters...in spite of the national polls. I really think Obama supporters in general hate Clinton but, Clinton supporters just don't like Obama or prefer Clinton....of course I could be wrong. That would be nice!

[MercutioATC]

8. So you want to run "Sniper fire" against a war hero?

Beyond that, you want to run near-identical foreign policy views against a perceived stronger candidate?

You want to run one gas-tax holiday panderer against another?


Obama will live or die (politically) on his own. If somebody wants more of the same, they'll vote for McCain...the candidate with "more foreign policy experience". If they want change, they'll be looking for somebody with acompletely different approach. They won't be looking or "experience" as much as they will change...because "experience" has gotten us where we are now, and the "experienced" candidates...on both side of the aisle...are preaching the same thing.

I believe Obama would carry the general by 5%-10%. I believe Clinton would lose it by the same margin.

[liberalcommontater]

21. Then I agree that you should support Obama, but

will you support Clinton if she is the nominee?

[MercutioATC]

25. The Dem nominee will get my vote.

I won't give a dime or a minute of time to Clinton if she's the nominee, but I'll hold my nose and vote for her in the general.

[liberalcommontater]

35. Thumbs up! Go Dems.

[grantcart]

10. the tedious repitition of people who keep arguing that the person who keeps winning is not

as an effective campaigner as the person who is losing - despite the fact that the loser has tremendous advantages is mind numbing.

To prove that you are a better GE campaigner you actually have to out perform your peers in the primary not lose to them.

[liberalcommontater]

23. Are you talking about Clinton's string of recent victories or Obama's February run?

[kmsarvis]

34. string of recent victories ?

3 spaced out over 2 months.

[grantcart]

47. Obama won more delegates in Jan, Feb and March

But more importantly she has not grown her base in the last 3 1/2 months



One year ago she was polling at 39%. She has increased her support exactly 6 percent in one year.


If you want to have an intelligent discussion then please try to refrain from changing the facts.


The simple fact is that since New Hampshire she is exactly at the same level of support and has shown no gain as 6 other candidates dropped out. During that time Obama increased his level of support by 50%. What is the reason that we would believe that Clinton could convince Republicans and independents to vote for her when she cannot convince Democrats?

[liberalcommontater]

52. Good point

Not trying to change any facts. Just looking at Ohio, Texas and Penn. Essential states in the general election.

The fact that he has gone from about 25% to the upper 40's is significant. She did not get that support and pull away.

Neither did she lose any to him given the graph. My point is that ---I think--- based on what I see and read every day that she is the stronger candidate. They both have negatives that the Republicans will use. The point of my post is that we as Democrats should rally behind the candidate regardless of which it is. We all have our preferences, but I would guess that if you put ten Obama supporters and ten Clinton supporters in a room and had them discuss issues only, you would find much more agreement among them than not. Yes?

Will you support the Dem nominee?

[RazBerryBeret]

11. I really don't think any of us can judge

"who will win" until we have only two candidates. I don't think you can trust the polls on the what ifs right now. when we have 2 candidates, and they debate or run their ads, then we will know.

I think Hillary will be slaughtered on foreign policy--she lied about being under fire and she'll face off against someone who was REALLY under enemy fire.

I think we will hear about Hillary not being able to pass a healthcare plan previously when she had 8 years to do it.

Hillary will have all sorts of bad press when the Peter Paul case goes to trial.

Not to mention the fact that Bill Clinton pardoned sixteen members of the FALN organization. These men belonged to a Puerto Rican freedom terrorist group, which was responsible for planting over 130 bombs in public places in the U.S. They killed six people and injured seventy. (Genovese and Almquist, 83) The FALN represented the single largest terrorism campaign in the U.S. One person, however, may have benefited from this clemency grant. Hillary Rodham Clinton, the President’s wife, won her senatorial bid for New York in the following election. She was elected senator in a state where 1.3 million Puerto Ricans would vote in the election. “Congressional efforts to learn more about the FALN matter came to an end when Clinton invoked executive privilege to refuse subpoenas from congressional committee.” (Fisher, 593) As the critics raged, the White House maintained that the pardon power is not subject to legislative deliberation.

http://www.providence.edu/polisci/students/clinton_pard...

Even with all of this, I will still vote democratic in November and yes, I will be holding my nose.

[John Q. Citizen]

14. I think Obama is the stronger candidate for the GE. And so do the supers, which is why they

have gone to him like 10 to one in the last few months.

The supers know more about politics and who can win in the fall than your or me. We can have and express our opinions, but the supers work in politics every day and they have access to more information than we do.

So when I see the supers all going to Obama it tells me that he's obviously the most electable candidate in the general. Who would know better than our congress people, our senators, our governors and our party professionals?

Sen. Clinton has had a number of supers formerly pledged to her move over to Obama, yet Obama hasn't lost any supers endorsing him move to Sen. Clinton

Do you have an opinion as to why the supers seem to be moving in such large numbers to Obama?

[Kittycat]

15. So what you're saying is... Screw the voters!

:crazy:

[liberalcommontater]

24. No, of course not. But a lead is not 2025 and the purpose of the primaries is to get a candidate

that can win.

[kmsarvis]

43. Don't you think Clinton might be vulnerable in the GE if.......

African Americans and young people don't show up?

[liberalcommontater]

55. That is my point...

We all need to show up because the importance of winning trancends our preference of candidate!

[KansasVoter]

16. I will NOT vote for Hillary unless she wins the most delegates based on the elections remaining.

[Auntie Bush]

20. By thr way...Welcome LC.

:hi: :bounce:

[liberalcommontater]

126. Thanks, glad to be here.

[Aloha Spirit]

22. An electability thread masquerading as a unity thread. Lame.

[liberalcommontater]

26. I had not thought of it that way. This is an electability thread -

first and foremost, but part of the electability issue is the party unifying once a candidate is chosen. No masquerading intended.

[emilyg]

32. Welcome.

[Milo_Bloom]

28. Actually, it is the math AND the candidate.

First, Clinton has no path to nomination.

Second, not voting for Clinton has nothing to do with emotions, it is about doing what is best for the country. She voted for the war, the bankrupcy bill, kyl/lieberman. She is someone who has shown over and over again that principles mean absolutely nothing... she does what is politically expedient at the time with no regard for consequences.

In the last 8 years, McCain has done the same thing.

The reason I see no difference between McCain and Clinton is because they both answer to the same people and make the same choices for the same reason. Yes, their rhetoric is different, but their solutions are the same... bend to the will of the masses no matter what is right and wrong... This gas tax holiday has proven that point again.

So, no, I won't hold my nose and vote for a pandering democrat.. because in the long run, it only hurts the party and the country.

[liberalcommontater]

42. Even if others feel as you do and

McCain is elected? Hillary may be as bad as you say, I think Obama is worse and less electable to boot, but either will nominate better Supreme Court justices than McCain will. Either of them will be better on a host of issues I am concerned about.

[Milo_Bloom]

51. I am not so sure about that.

I do not trust Clinton with the Supreme Court.

I fear she would nominate some type of compromise justice (such as bush did with Souter) who will wind up being against many of the issues we hold most dear.

If she can vote to send people off to war to die w/o reading reports and continue to lie about the reasons for that vote until this day, who is to say she will nominate progressive justices?

I don't see any PRACTICAL difference between McCain and Clinton and don't believe either one would do anything positive for any of the issues I care about.

[liberalcommontater]

56. In 2000 some said that there was little difference between

Republicans and Democrats, they are both in debt to corporate interests. We need to learn this lesson - a dem is better than a rep.

[Milo_Bloom]

93. The problem is they were right.

Which is why we are in the mess we are today.

Democrats like Clinton are to blame for failing to do their job and be a check/balance on the executive branch. Worse, they bend to the pubic far too easily and become pawns of the media.

If Al Gore were in office in 2001 and 9/11 would have happened, he would have likely been BLAMED for it (lack of attention, etc..) and the democrats would have tripped over each other to throw him under the bus and quickly join the blame game.

Bush WAS in office in 2001 and the paper trail PROVES that his incompitence led to 9/11, but the majority of democrats are too cowardly to risk facing the media and the administration. Why? Because they are all slaves to the same master... corporate interests.

Everyone says we wouldn't have gone into Iraq in 2003 if Al Gore was president... With the Al Gore of today, I agree.. but the Al Gore of 2000 who seemed too fearful to rock the boat.. I am not so sure. The GOP with help from the media would have made the same case and put pressure on Gore to attack Iraq... to make sure they didn't have WMD's. They would have made it an election issue and the cowardly democrats, with their hands in the same pockets, fearful of losing their funding and their job would have done what democrats like Clinton have always done... CAVED and lined up against what is right for the quick solution of doing what is politically expedient.

If the democrats, who were in power at the time of the IWR had done their job, forced debate and held the evidence up to light, they may have actually held power, because they would have showed some strength.. but they didn't.. they caved and none of them will be any better than a rep, because they reach the same idiotic conclusions anyway.

[liberalcommontater]

99. Thanks for your thoughtful comments....

I agree with much of it. I think Bill did Bosnia well. I think Richard Clarke explained that Bill was aware and on top of the terrorist threat. I think Bill would have dealt with it differently that Bush did if he had still been president. Gore? I think he might have suprised you, but with a stolen election we will never know. I too wish the dems had more spine. I think the republicans have run amok, but unashamedly so. Why can we pursue our priorities and values as aggressively and without shame? !!!

A couple of folks have accused me of having a super ego and being ignorant, etc., but I think while the specifics of the liberal agenda are debatable, the general direction is the best possible course for the country. Call me arrogant, conceded, and ignorant, but the Republicans have shown their path to be without merit.

[Milo_Bloom]

113. NP,

I agree the gop path is without merit.. unfortunately, I don't think Bill would have handled 9/11 differently and I think his willingness to drop bombs on Iraq in the 90's showed that. Too many times I remember him resorting to dropping bombs, when it simply wasn't necessary. I don't believe he ever launched attacks in a wag the dog situation, but I do think he gave into PNAC type demands too often and too quickly.

It was his order of regime change that the bush administration relied upon in large part to make the case for war with Iraq. That was my problem with Kly lierberman... it creates the same basis for war with Iran some point down the road.

I was not a CLinton fan during his 8 years... he did more to advance the republican agenda than the previous republican... Welfare reform, unrestricted free trade, media consolodation, the DMCA... and Al Gore as vice president didn't force us to find some way into an energy policy, so we get stuck with Cheney doing that task 4 years later?

I don't think Obama is the solution to all our problems, but I think there is at least a chance.. A CHANCE that it won't be business as usual.

[liberalcommontater]

121. Some things to think about...thanks.

[FlyingSquirrel]

36. You mean like the foreign policy experience of GWB when he got elected?

EOM

[FrenchieCat]

37. Your opinion has no reflection on the reality......if it did, you'd have listed

all of Hillary's negatives yet to be discussed. Since you didn't bother to, your OP disses your credibility has having anything to really say.

Further to attempt to diminish the winner by far, and lift up the cheating Hillary is lame.

[Webster Green]

38. Obama will kick McSame's butt!

It's going to be a beautiful thing to watch.:smoke:

[casus belli]

39. I will vote for whoever wins the nomination.

But, I have to be honest that it has been a real struggle for me to try to maintain a positive outlook of Hillary throughout the primary. I'm sure many Hillary supporters feel the same and I don't have any illusions of the discontent being one-sided. I don't think there has been so much damage, though, that someone who is truly a progressive would chance 4 more years of a Republican Executive Branch. A lot of people say they would never vote for candidate X, but I think once the nomination has been made, people will begin to see what's at stake and do the right thing.

I hope so, at least...

[Pavlovs DiOgie]

44. Honestly?

Can you picture the debate stage, Obama next to McCain, and you honestly think that on the issues McCain will win? Seriously?

Do you think that for every point brought up, McCain doesn't have uglier skeletons that will come out? You think McCain is going to win an arguemnt on foreign policy when 70% of the country wants us out of Iraq and he was singing Bomb bomb bomb Iran.

You think that McCain's connections with pretty ugly preachers isn't going to come out during the general and completely negate the Wright issue?

You think the country is going to buy anything he says on the economy after he says he doesn't understand the economy?

Wow, that's pretty darn hard to believe.

[liberalcommontater]

48. What this says to me is that the campaign is going to be negative

in a big way. I think Hillary can win a negative campaign, I don't think Obama can.

Do I think she has been over the top negative with Obama, no. Nothing like what the R's will throw at her.

[Heathen57]

115. Obama has been more than fair

with Clinton. He could have blasted her several times, but he held off because he has morals and wouldn't attack a (supposedly) fellow Dem. Clinton has had no such morals, and that to me translates into no morals in the White House.

With her I see a replay of Bush in the arrogance, the secrecy, the pandering to the big money without any regard to the citizens she is supposed to represent. Nothing will change.

If I have to vote for her it will be a vote against McCain. She hasn't proved herself to be a person who should be trusted with our freedoms.

[karynnj]

46. You are naive if you think HRC couldn't be attacked

This is not 1992 and the media has changed.

Clinton people have said - but she's completely vetted. You say they will call Obama unpatriotic - do you think that they won't say that of HRC. They questioned WJC's patriotism in 2004 - when the media was better and the RW less powerful. Do you remember who defended WJC?
They questioned Max Cleland's patriotism.

Look at HRC's negatives.

[40ozDonkey]

49. I'll be your pander-bear!

Easiest thing in the world to say since Hillary would have to actually destroy the party to get the nomination. Obama has it locked, as Hillary has failed to acheive the miracle she's needed multiple times now. So, yeah, go Democratic nominee, whoever that might be... <snicker>

[crankychatter]

53. No, no Obama supporters have ANY "fortitude"

and you're a Democrat... I can tell by the abject Party "loyalty" you declare... and protestations of "Unity," while sowing strife and division...

it must be true.

No, Obama doesn't "deserve" the nomination just because the majority of Democrats believe he does and have voted accordingly.

ONLY, the elected officials, APPOINTED Delegates and other Party dignitaries have the judgement to decide WHICH candidate is best suited for nomination.

In fact, the entire Primary and Caucus process, costing hundreds of millions of dollars, is just a dog and pony show... we really could've just handed off the whole matter to our "Leaders" at the DLC, and kept our contributions.

The polls that show Clinton's clear negatives, polarizing effect, and unifying effect of the GOP base... the same polls that show her losing to McCain where Obama WON, before Clinton went BERSERKER.

Those polls? they're all wrong. Only the elite with their insider wisdom, can divine these things.

I'm unworthy to respond to you.

[liberalcommontater]

94. Electability, then unity.

The primary process will pick the Democrat the party thinks has the best chance of winning, right? That looks to be Obama, right? Just for the sake of argument. Say Obama has a skeleton that makes him a sure loser. It comes out next week. He and Hillary are still in up to the convention. It is up to the delegates. Knowing what they know then, should they still go with him?

I do think he will be the nominee. If he is I will vote for him. I have not warmed to him and several times I have thought he has hit below the belt, but...as I keep saying I think it is more important for a democrat to be in the White House than for a specific democrat that I will vote for him. I do think that is showing party loyalty and unity. Where am I wrong.

I support Hillary. I sent money. I think she would be a great president. Better than Obama. But, if Obama is the nominee I WILL VOTE FOR HIM because he will be better than any republican alternative.

My question was and still is...can you say the same?

[crankychatter]

110. I've been voting against Republicans for 35 years

Obama scored ten points over McCain in national polls UNTIL YOUR candidate went racial and negative... even African American people were voting for her over Obama.

Her negatives went up... she didn't gain significantly against McCain and she IS STILL projected to lose. The only effect this had was to diminish Obama's polling against McCain. Obama has proven the ability to turn polls around and emerge victorious. Clinton does not have that ability. She hits her ceiling every time, due to her negatives.

She blew it. Now, if our SD's over ride the vote, which technically, they CAN do, within the rules... there will be a schism that renders her unelectable.

THERE is your elect-ability problem.

Why don't you just come out and say "white people won't vote for a black man?" That IS what you mean. It's fear mongering and statistically untrue, as has been established in contest after contest. That's why.

The only thing that will prevent Obama from the largest General Election victory in U.S. History is YOU AND YOUR CANDIDATE... stealing valuable campaign time for your exercise in futility.

The transnational corporations that fund your candidate's campaign... that OWN the media... that write policy in D.C., are going to destroy the fucking world.

HOW DARE YOU LECTURE ANYONE ABOUT WHAT IS AND IS NOT A GOOD DEMOCRAT.

How do you sleep at night?

[liberalcommontater]

120. Oh, brother....you must have me confused with someone else.

I couldn't care less that Obama is black or that Hillary is a woman. I am interested in winning in November, period.

Since you brought it up, I happen to think that it was Obama who was behind, Obama who needed the black vote and did not have it as you stated, that brought up the race issue, not Clinton. Whether I am right about this or not is not my point. Who knows, I could be wrong about this.

The point of the post was to invite Democrats to unite behind the nominee whoever it is. At this point I think it is pretty clear that Obama will get it. When he does, I intend to support him and vote for him even though I think he has taken a low road while claiming the high road. I have never warmed to him at all. I think he is part of the corrupt Chicago political system and his higher road is a con, BUT his priorities are more like mine than Bush or McCain. So, I will support and vote for him.

That was my point. Now, you could say that I have no principles switching from Clinton to Obama once he gets the nomination. It is precisely because I do value Democratic principles that I will put my feelings about Obama aside and vote for him anyway. My challenge was to ask Obama supporters to do the same in the highly unlikely event that Hillary gets the nomination.

Most white people will vote for a black man if he shares their values.
Sorry if you took it as a lecture - that is not what I intended.
I sleep ok most of the time. Hope you do too.

[Exilednight]

54. I'd rather lose with the right candidat than win with the wrong one. Call me an idealist, but .....

almost 40 years and we have yet to run an inspiring candidate in my lifetime. Obama is the first, and our best, chance of ever seeing a JFK style candidate.

It's kind of funny how boomers have looked for the next JFK, and now that they have him they want him to lose.

I also disagree with your notion that "If the super-delegates pick Clinton, anyone here who refuses to plug their nose, close their eyes and pull the lever for Clinton is simply putting their own emotions ahead of the good of the party and the country." The good of the party is to keep rethug style candidates, and their politics, out of our party. We bash shrub for being secretive, moving goal posts, and stealing elections.

Now you want to reward those traits?

Is win at all costs really that important to you?

[liberalcommontater]

58. Beating the republicans with OUR candidate is that important.

And, doing it by coming together. It is not at all costs. If more people vote for the rep, then he should be president. We should not spite ourselves though by not doing what is necessary and that is vote for the nominee, whichever it is.

[Exilednight]

60. I'll only vote for Hillary if she can win it fair and square and not have SD's override the ........

pledged delegates. If she manages to capture 80% of the pledged delegates in the remaining contests, then she has earned my vote. If it's handed to her by SD's, then I'm going third party and will campaign night and day until the DLC is tossed out on their collective asses.

[Ichingcarpenter]

59. Its the 'Stupid' and the math, Stupid

Hillary's stupid mistake on not reading the IWR
Hillary's stupid mistake for supporting Colin Powell's testimony before the UN
Hillary's stupid mistake for not counting small states, swing states, caucus states
Hillary's stupid mistake for saying she would Obliterate Iran
Hillary's stupid mistake for her Kyle/Lieberman vote
Hillary's stupid mistake for pandering on the Gas Tax
Hillary's stupid mistake for discounting economists
Hillary's stupid mistake for her cluster bomb vote
Hillary's stupid mistake for.............................

[liberalcommontater]

69. Stupid?

My point is not that Clinton is flawless. I happen to think that Obama is even more flawed. But, that the Republicans are much worse.

[SoonerPride]

61. I'l vote for Obama before I'll vote for you

Thanks, Hillary, for dropping by

[liberalcommontater]

65. Thanks for the compliment.

[barack the house]

63. We'll support the nominee and superdelegates are likely to support the loyal base.

Every good business takes care of their loyal customers. The site is democratic underground we are here for the Democratic nominee. As is the rules we signed up for.

[liberalcommontater]

79. Good. That was my question.

[BearSquirrel2]

67. Yes ... the heroin of Tusla ...

Yes, the Heroin of Tusla and the lush of Ireland has SOOOO much more foreign policy experience than Barack Obama. Oh yeah, I forgot to mention that she once put on a veil to pose with Yassar Arafat.

[liberalcommontater]

70. So?

If she is the nominee will you vote for her?

[BearSquirrel2]

72. If Barack is the nominee ...

So ... If Barack is the nominee, will you vote for him?

[liberalcommontater]

76. Yes of course.

Dems winning is more important that what I personally want in a candidate.

[BearSquirrel2]

112. You're right ...

You're right, it is more important that Democrats win. Second most important is that Hillary win over McCain. So yeah, I would vote for her (reluctantly).

[liberalcommontater]

122. Funny how a little ole question gets things going...

Thanks for responding.

[wileedog]

71. I think the Repubs are salivating at the thought of a Clinton election

They have more ammunition stored up than they know what to do with. They are LONGING to be able to publicly Swiftboat a political family they have spent literally a decade reviling.

Bosnia Snipers will be a picnic. And don't forget they are starting with someone who already has retarded negatives, is despised by a significant part of the country, and who will have gained the nomination via Supers overturning the Pledged Delegate vote.

There is no shot in hell she wins. None.

[Cha]

75. Yes, it is, Stupid. n/t

[liberalcommontater]

77. So, you are saying that

Obama should get the nomination even if there were a skeleton in his closet that made him a sure loser just because he is ahead in the delegate count, but below the 2025?

[Triana]

78. Oh yes the Queen of Corprat Welfare Will Give Us Peasants a Better Healthcare ..

...program.

BWAH! :rofl:

FAIL.

She will NOT get my vote.


PERIOD.

[The Doctor.]

80. Really?

Just because he doesn't have experience ducking sniper fire in Bosnia?

[frickaline]

81. kudos to you for being the first pro-Hillary poster I've read with actual policy reasons to cite

Now all you have to do is find a way to back them up.

If you could construct a real argument with facts to back up your statements, I'd honestly listen. But posting this:

In my opinion, Obama is going to be slaughtered on foreign policy experience.
He is going to have his lunch handed to him on healthcare.
His coattails will be short when the Rezko trial and his involvement become widely known.

...is nothing more than conjecture.

[liberalcommontater]

87. You are right...it is conjecture.

Thank you for inviting a civil discussion. I have to go to bed, really I do. 5:30 comes early.

My point was to ask others to think about voting for Hillary if she is the nominee no matter their distaste for her.

It is possible that I have been pursuaded falsely about Obama, but whatever my misgivings I will vote for him because our country will be worse off with another Republican.

I hoped to get a conversation going about winning in November. But, emotions are high. I am concerned that our success will only extent to choosing a candidate. That would be a loss for the country.

Have a good night.

[frickaline]

90. you have a good night too :)

[ms liberty]

84. Sorry! Off you go!...eom

[unblock]

86. no one cares about foreign policy when the domestic situation is in shambles

a pat buchannan xenophobe/isolationist could win in this environment.

people want someone who will focus on domestic policy first and foremost. nevermind that foreign policy "experience" is a poor indicator of foreign policy talent.

[liberalcommontater]

89. True, but it is supposedly McCain's strength so

that point will go to him more so against Obama than Clinton.

[unblock]

92. my point is that, if anything, interest in foreign policy is actually a minus in this environment

though you're correct that republicans will try to score points for mclame this way.

but if they only succeed in making mclame seem like the better foreign policy guy and obama the better domestic policy guy, then obama wins easily.

[liberalcommontater]

97. Agreed unless there is a timely terrorist attack.

Bush used the terrorist threat to great advantage.

I would not be suprised if the other terrorists wanted to influence the election for McCain were even now putting something in place. I think Bush played right into their hands. If they wish to stay engaged an attack on us or an ally would bring the issue front and center.

[Erin Elizabeth]

88. It sounded like you had something to say about math,

but apparently you didn't. Just all about how you think Obama would lose to McCain. Obviously, I strongly disagree.

:hi:

[liberalcommontater]

91. That is what democracy is supposed to be about...

the ability to disagree, contest it fairly, then hopefully have a drink together. My place or yours?

Seriously, we do disagree, but don't you agree that more Republicans will be a bad thing? And, that Hillary will be better than that? (Even if you believe that Obama would be better than Hillary?)

I thought Edwards was the best and he is looking even better now!

[Erin Elizabeth]

106. You know how you feel Obama would lose to McCain

in the general election?

That's what I feel would happen with Clinton. It'd be a rout. A complete rout. She's a lightning rod for the right and they'd be absolutely gleeful to tear her apart and make swiftboating look like a nursery school tea party.

They are very upset she will not be the nominee for this very reason.

[liberalcommontater]

123. I hope Obama gets the nom if you are right and...

that Clinton gets it if you are wrong.

[Lisa0825]

95. If the SDs give it to Clinton, it is the death of the Progressive movement and

the coronation of the DLC. It would NOT be worth the win to be stuck with a Corporate president and lose our chance at reforming the party.

[liberalcommontater]

100. McCain would be better than Clinton, really? Really....

[Lisa0825]

102. No, but being stuck with the DLC means I would basically be without a party at all

for the foreseeable future. If the DLC captures the presidency again, the Democratic party will no longer represent me. The DLC has been swinging the Democratic party to the right intentionally. As a proud member of the looney left, I cannot support that.

[olkaz]

96. Thanks for the truthiness (er, waste of time).

I know you think you're an expert, but unless you are Marty McFly or Doc, you are talking out of your ass. This fall is too far away to predict anything.

And yes, I'll vote for Hillary if she somehow upends the process and ends up with the nomination. Then I'll probably leave the party.

[liberalcommontater]

101. Help........truthiness, how?

[Snarkoleptic]

98. Uh...mebbe you should rethink things...

"In my opinion, Obama is going to be slaughtered on foreign policy experience."
She had tea as a guest in 35-40 countries as first lady.
Saying she's strong on foreign policy is like claiming to be a baseball expert after eating a hot dog at Wrigley field.

[AZBlue]

103. Her last name is Clinton. Do THAT math and you'll see she's McCain's only chance to win.

Why else do you think the Republicans are pushing her so much for the nomination.

[cali]

104. please read my sig line

I think Obama has a much better chance than Hillary in the general. I think she's the one who gets slaughtered and even has reverse coattails. In any case, it's doubtful that the SDs will go with someone who's run the kind of sickening, destructive and poorly conceived campaign that trainwreck Hill has run.

[liberalcommontater]

124. If you are right, I hope Obama gets it...

if you are wrong, I hope Clinton gets it. She is my preference.

[Blondiegrrl]

105. OBAMA has campaigned in the gutter? On what planet?

Geesh. Your post is so full of fail, I don't even know where to begin.

[Perry Logan]

118. Joe Cannon has been tracking the Obama campaign's sleazy practices.

http://cannonfire.blogspot.com/

[liberalcommontater]

125. I've been reading this too.

I've read him for a long time. Even though I don't agree with everything he says, he is usually the one to point out the holes existing in his own argument.

[stillcool]

128. He must have missed some news...

December 10, 2007
Third Clinton Volunteer Knew Of Smear E-Mail
A third volunteer for Hillary Clinton's campaign was aware of a propaganda e-mail alleging that Barack Obama is a Muslim who plans on "destroying the U.S. from the inside out. "Let us all remain alert concerning Obama's expected presidential Candidacy," the email reads. "Please forward to everyone you know. The Muslims have said they Plan on destroying the U.S. from the inside out, what better way to start than at The highest level."

Two Clinton volunteers, Linda Olson and Judy Rose, have already been asked to resign from the campaign for their roles in forwarding the e-mail. The AP reported yesterday that Olson, a volunteer coordinator in Iowa County, sent a version of the e-mail to 11 people, including Ben Young, a regional field director for Chris Dodd's campaign. Young passed it on to the AP.
http://hotlineblog.nationaljournal.com/archives/2007/12/third_clinton_v.html

Kerrey Apologizes to Obama Over Remark
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/wireStory?id=4031436
Kerrey's mention of Obama's middle name and his Muslim roots raised eyebrows because they are also used as part of a smear campaign on the Internet that falsely suggests Obama is a Muslim who wants to bring jihad to the United States.
Obama is a Christian.
The Clinton campaign has already fired two volunteer county coordinators in Iowa for forwarding hoax e-mails with the debunked claim. Last week, a national Clinton campaign co-chairman resigned for raising questions about whether Obama's teenage drug use could be used against him, so Kerrey's comments raised questions about whether the Clinton campaign might be using another high-profile surrogate to smear Obama.

Clinton Co-Chair Resigns Over Obama Drug Remark
By JAKE TAPPER
Dec. 13, 2007
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=3992371&page=1
Bill Shaheen, the Clinton campaign's New Hampshire co-chair, stepped down Thursday one day after publicly raising the issue of the youthful drug use of her chief opponent, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois

Shaheen, the husband of a former New Hampshire governor and an influential Democrat, was a constant presence by Clinton's side whenever she campaigned in the Granite State, where recent polls have her and Obama in a dead heat for first in that first-in-the-nation primary state.

Hours after the Wednesday release of a CNN/WMUR poll showing Obama in a statistical tie with Clinton for the first time among New Hampshire Democratic voters, Shaheen told The Washington Post that should Obama get the nomination, "one of the things Republicans are certainly going to jump on is his drug use."

Shaheen said Obama having been so open -- as opposed to then-Gov. George W. Bush, who refused to detail his past drug use during his 2000 presidential campaign -- will "open the door to further queries on the matter.
---------------------------------------
On Sunday, a second Clinton staffer -- Linda Olson, an Iowa County volunteer coordinator, who followed Jones County coordinator Judy Rose -- was asked to resign after reporters discovered she had forwarded an e-mail repeating the scurrilous allegation that Obama, a member of the United Curch of Christ, is a Muslim plant.

Hillary: Sorry for Any Offense Campaign (Bill) Has Caused
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FB65wJ6Rcfs

Bill Clinton Asks for a Second Chance
By Liz Halloran
Posted February 11, 2008
The morning after his wife, Hillary, was routed in three state contests by Sen. Barack Obama in their dead-heat battle for the Democratic nomination, former President Bill Clinton made his case for her before a packed Sunday service at one of the largest black churches in Washington, D.C.
But first he offered an apology of sorts for racially tinged comments he made about Obama and his candidacy that have triggered a backlash in the black community and among many other Democrats.

Clinton invoked his "worship of a God of second chances" in pronouncing himself glad to be at the Temple of Praise, which claims nearly 15,000 members. His invocation of second chances echoed comments he made early last week at black churches in California, where he campaigned for his wife before that state's
Super Tuesday primary, which she won.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-

2008/2008/02/11/bill-clinton-asks-for-a-second-chance.html

Source: Newsday
Posted on Sunday, December 16, 2007 at 12:04 pm
Barack Obama Accepts Apology From Hillary Clinton
Washington D.C. 12/15/2007 09:17 AM GMT (FINDITT)

Hillary Clinton went straight to Barack Obama with an apology following a staffer's remarks about any skeletons that may be lurking in Obama's closet, pointing out that she had accepted the staffer's resignation over the disparaging remarks. Obama accepted her at her word, according to his campaign staff, and is moving on without letting it interrupt his campaign plans.


Obama is currently leading the polls in Iowa and New Hampshire, the two early primary states often considered key to the process, according to numbers at usaelectionpolls.com, but on a national level Clinton still holds a huge lead. The most recently posted poll results show Obama with 31 percent of the
probable voters in New Hampshire backing him with 29 percent showing support for Clinton.
http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=30629&cat=5

Clinton Camp Pushes O-Bomber Links: Ignores
Her Own Radical Ties
By: Justin Rood

ABC News - The Hillary Clinton campaign pushed to reporters today stories about Barack Obama and his ties to former members of a radical domestic terrorist group -- but did not note that as president, Clinton's husband pardoned more than a dozen convicted violent radicals, including a member of the same group
mentioned in the Obama stories."Wonder what the Republicans will do with this issue," mused Clinton spokesman Phil Singer in one e-mail to the media, containing a New York Sun article reporting a $200 contribution from William Ayers, a founding member of the 1970s group Weather Underground, to Obama in 2001.
In a separate e-mail, Singer forwarded an article from the Politico newspaper reporting on a 1995 event at a private home that brought Obama together with Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn, another member of the radical group.
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4330128&page=1

Bill Clinton To Apologize At LA Black Churches
Once again, Bill Clinton is ready to repent.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/02/bill-clinton-to-apologize_n_84573.html
On Sunday the former president is scheduled to visit black churches in South Central Los Angeles, where he's expected to offer a mea culpa to those who "dearly loved him" when he was their president, Rep. Diane Watson (D-Calif.) says. Watson, a member of the Congressional Black Caucus who has endorsed Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), tells us she'll usher the former president to more than half a dozen churches in
her district where she says he needs to "renew his relationship" with congregants who were turned off by his racially tinged comments in the days leading up to and following the South Carolina primary. (Such as when Clinton compared Sen. Barack Obama's landslide victory to Jesse Jackson's wins in 1984 and 1988.)

http://graphics.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/politics/20080112_nevada_lawsuit.pdf
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/17/a-feisty-bill-

clinton-defends-nevada-lawsuit/
CLINTON ALLIES SUPPRESS THE VOTE IN NEVADA...
On Meet the Press on Sunday, Hillary Clinton said her campaign had nothing to do with a lawsuit--written about by Nation Editor Katrina vanden Heuvel--that threatens to prevent thousands of workers from voting in the Nevada caucus on Saturday.
Back in March, the Nevada Democratic Party agreed to set up caucus locations on the Vegas strip for low-income shift workers, many of them members of the state's influential Culinary Union, who commute long distances to work and wouldn't be able to get home in time to caucus. It was an uncontroversial idea until the Culinary Union endorsed Barack Obama and the Nevada State Education Association, whose top officials support Clinton, sued to shut down the caucus sites.
The Clinton camp played dumb until yesterday, when President Clinton came out in favor of the lawsuit.
Clinton's comments drew a heated response from D. Taylor, the head of Nevada's Culinary Union, on MSNBC's Hardball. "He is in support of disenfranchising thousands upon thousands of workers, not even just our members," Taylor said of Clinton. "The teachers union is just being used here. We understand that This is the Clinton campaign. They tried to disenfranchise students in Iowa. Now they're trying to
disenfranchise people here in Nevada, who are union members and people of color and women."
Rank-and-file members of Nevada's teachers union also come out against the lawsuit filed by their leadership. "We never thought our union and Senator Clinton would put politics ahead of what's right for our students, but that's exactly what they're doing," the letter stated. "As teachers, and proudmDemocrats, we hope they will drop this undemocratic lawsuit and help all Nevadans caucus, no matter which candidate they support."
The lawsuit's opponents make a persuasive point. Creating obstacles to voting is what the GOP does to Democrats, not what Democrats should be doing to other Democrats.

Clinton adviser steps down after drug use comments
Earlier Thursday, Clinton personally apologized to rival Obama for Shaheen's remarks.
Obama accepted her apology, according to David Axelrod, the top political strategist for the Obama campaign.
http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/13/clinton.obama/index.html

January 6, 2008, 5:18 pm
Edwards: No Conscience in Clinton Campaign
http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/edwards-no-conscience-in-clinton-campaign/
By Julie Bosman
KEENE, N.H. – John Edwards angrily took on Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton at two news conferences in a row on Sunday, saying that her campaign “doesn’t seem to have a conscience.”

COMPTON, Calif. (AP) — Hillary Rodham Clinton and her campaign tried to mend ties to black voters Thursday when a key supporter apologized to her chief rival, Barack Obama, for comments that hinted at Obama's drug use as a teenager. The candidate herself, meanwhile, praised the Rev. Martin Luther King and promised to assist with the rebirth of this troubled, largely black city.

Bob Johnson, the founder of Black Entertainment Television, apologized for comments he made at a Clinton campaign rally in South Carolina on Sunday that hinted at Obama's use of drugs as a teenager.
http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/election2008/2008-01-17-

johnson-apology_N.htm?csp=34

Clinton Surrogate Compares Obama Ad to Nazi March
http://news.yahoo.com/s/thenation/20080201/cm_thenation/45278988_1
Fri Feb 1, 2:23 PM ET
The Nation -- On a media conference call organized by the Hillary Clinton campaign today, Clinton surrogate Len Nichols compared an Obama health care ad to Nazis.
----------
Accusing political opponents of Nazism is an outrageous smear. Raising the specter of a Nazi march in response to a health care mailer that evokes the insurance industry is so absurd, it would be hard to take the attack seriously, were it not launched from a high profile national campaign conference call in this crucial stretch of the presidential race. And political observers know, of course, that the Clinton Campaign regularly arranges opportunities for surrogates to launch these kind of smears, which are later followed up with apologies. (See: Bob Johnson, Bill Shaheen, Bob Kerrey, and Francine Torge, to name the most recent offenders.) For his part, Nichols did not immediately return a call requesting further comment.
-------------------------
Len Nichols, Director of New America's Health Policy Program, stated, "For nearly 17 years I have worked tirelessly to reform our nation's struggling health system. Today my passion overwhelmed me. I chose an analogy that was wholly inappropriate. I am deeply sorry for any offense that my unfortunate comments may have caused.

AG: Recent Robo-Calls On Voting Info. Are Illegal
Wednesday, Apr 30, 2008
By Steve Sbraccia
General Assignment Reporter
WNCN-TV
RALEIGH, N.C. -- Thousands of North Carolinians have received automated phone calls in the last few days that state officials said the broke the law.

The calls started last week as voters began getting automated phone messages telling them to expect a voter registration packet in the mail.

The problem was, North Carolina’s register-by-mail deadline had passed nearly two weeks earlier, and many who were already registered became confused.

As the complaints began to pile up, those cataloging them began to notice a pattern where certain groups seemed to be targeted.
------------------------------
Voters began complaining to The Raleigh News & Observer last week that they were receiving the automated calls, which the paper reported were primarily going to black households. The calls play a 20-second message voiced by a man who calls himself "Lamont Williams."
-----------------
Meanwhile, the Attorney General says the investigation into the calls continues. Roy Cooper says there could be sanctions and fines imposed on the group as a result of the calls.

He said his office will also be looking at the company hired to make the calls, the contact lists they used, as well as how many people here in North Carolina were affected by the calls.
http://blog.wired.com/27bstroke6/2008/04/north-carolin-1.html

Flashback: Hillary in 2004
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dk1k0nUWEQg

[eridani]

109. No Dem who voted for the war is electable, period

Besides which, presidents rely quite a bit on esperienced advisors to construct foreign policy, and Obama is light years ahead here. Obama's advice team is composed mostly of people like Brzezinsky, who opposed the war. Clinton will be relying on people like Richard Holbrooke, who were mindless cheerleaders for it.

[Stephanie]

114. Ordinary Potato, take heart.

We will win this election, and then we will eliminate the superdelegate provision. It is undemocratic and it NEEDS TO GO.

[graycem]

127. Your girl is tailor made for that...

she voted for the war, she dodged fake sniper fire, she can't defend her war vote or her military experience. PERIOD.

[liberalcommontater]

134. We all try to put the most favorable light...

on what folks say and are very forgiving when we don't want to believe the worst about them. The extreme version is simply denial.

On the Bosnia story, was she embellishing and exaggerating the memory to convey an impression. Yes. Did it go over the line and constitute a lie? I grimmace and wag my head from side to side. I hope it was not a coldly calculated premeditated lie. Because I can't know for sure I would tend to give her the benefit of the doubt, but this is exactly the kind of thing that the Clintons are always accused of. It is harmful to her, the party and the country. Credibility is important. Togo West helped me a little describing the conditions of the visit. Hillary went too far on that one, imo.

On the war, in retrospect it was a mistake, but I think it is very transparent and opportunistic of Obama to try to take the high ground on this when he did not have the responsibility to vote one way or the other, did not have the intelligence, did not have Colin Powell telling you what the "facts" were. Saddam would not have let the weapons inspectors back in unless Bush had the authority to force the issue. Congress gave it to him. It worked. Then, BUSH exceeded the authority given him. He should be held accountable. He should be impeached for his many crimes, one of which was not allowing the weapons inspectors to do their jobs and going to war. Bush is to blame.

[calmblueocean]

129. I think you're dead wrong about Obama, but I've had that pledge in my sig for months.

If Hillary is the nominee, I'm voting for her. McCain is a feeble old man who is still fighting Vietnam in his head. I sure won't let him sit in the Oval Office if I can help it. The stakes are too damn high.

[democrattotheend]

130. She'd have to earn my vote

I previously pledged that I would vote for the Democratic nominee no matter what, but if she uses this so-called nuclear option with Michigan I am going to be so disgusted that I am really going to have a hard time voting for her. I am not saying I wouldn't, but she'd have to earn my vote. And I would have a hard time volunteering for her, because if I met any black voters who didn't think she deserved their vote, I'd have a hard time arguing with them. I have a coworker who is black and supports Clinton, and i told him that I hope he can go out and convince black voters to come out, because as a white person I just would not feel comfortable asking them to come out for her.

[TBF]

131. Fine, putting the math aside, Clinton is not electable. Do you remember the 1990's?

People loved Bill Clinton, but they were not thrilled with Hillary. Her attempt to come up with more affordable health care failed, and she alienated many people on the way.

Now she has used her old tricks to alienate half of the democratic party. I'd rather see the party crash. Why should I care - Hillary sure doesn't. She is too moderate, she lies, she voted for the war in Iraq, and last week threatened to obliterate Iran. I will not vote for her.

[verges]

132. I pledge,

I will vote for Sen Obama WHEN he gets the nomination.

I will also vote for the Democratic candidate even if it's Senator Clinton.