strip the super delegates!!!!

I hate to sound sexist but Clinton needs to get a hairdresser to give her a powerfull classy hairdo and for petes sake girl arch those eyebrows.

She looks like shes been working all day in a garden or something!

Another white male for Obama. Still have all my hair at Fifty, so I can't speak for the balding constituency.

She can rail against Bush all she wants, she's just as guilty for supporting this idiot's policies while in the Senate. I hate this: when they try and shift all of the blame to Bush when, for years, they rolled over and played dead while he dismantled the country.

Wake me up when Feingold decides to run.

Yes, Barack, we are definitely tired of being let down, and we are tired of politicians trying to win the next election and the bad choices they make, and are definitely tired of factories shutting down, houses being foreclosed, and soldiers waving goodbye as they go off to fight in a war that should have never been authorized.

And it does go on and on and on, and right now, you have the edge over Hillary in changing this. How anyone could cast their ballot for a Republican, however, I still cannot figure out.

I keep thinking of Hillary as that psychotic senator in the movie "Black Sheep".

Oh my God!

After listening to Obama give his speech I just want to send him money and volunteer to work on his campaign!

Oh wait. I already DID volunteer to work on his campaign.

My only question is how long will Hillary stay in the race and interfere with Obama's and our country's destiny? This is our time. I just wish there was a slogan that summed it up perfectly.

MargeAggedon @ 11:

I showed the results of the votes to my husband and he said, "That's good I guess but he's still got very limited experience don't you think?" and I hate to admit it but he's right. Personally I like Obama. He isn't completely covered with the stink of lobbyist money and political favors. But how will he deal with the pressures that are constantly in play when you are potus? Who is he going to listen to when things start getting tough or ugly? What is his personal agenda? How much is that religious streak in him going to effect his decision making? Are we just setting ourselves up for a more 'gentle' theocracy? Is he going to respect the rights and freedoms of the population? Is he going to reestablish constitutional law? Or is he going to take all that unitary executive stuff and try to "fix" things by believing he can be a benevolent dictator?

Just a few things that came up while we were chatting.

A very good point, but honestly, how could Obama screw-up any worse than this current lot of shitbirds? BushCo has set the bar pretty high, in that regard.

Like I said, I like Obama but you can't forget he's still a politician.

For the people that are still whining about experience take a deep breath and look at what Obama has accomplished to this point. No one gave him a chance against the Clinton machine and yet he is still standing. After the primaries on Tuesday he will have the lead in delegates, votes cast and states won. This man has a history of organizing at street level and knowing how to plan and get his message out and get results.

To all the Hillary supporters ask yourself an honest question is this record voter turnout because of Hillary or because of Barack. I think experience is very overrated if you don't exercise good judgment.

Until Hillary admits that she made a mistake on the vote to authorize the use of force she is going to have a lot of voters that are going to use that at a determinig factor on why they vote one way or the other.

Exactly, bigmoneygrip.

Arizona @ 19:

I'll support the candidate that actually got it right.

Which would who? Edwards voted for it, Hillary voted for it, and Obama wasn't a senator until 2005.

Hmmmmm?

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

Both Dems have talked in specifics, and both have websites with specifics on them. You either aren't listening or don't want to, which is it? MSM talking points are not going to help you decide. For once it would be nice to see an election where people voted with their brains, instead of where the media wants them to vote.

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

I hope you're not one of Billary Zombies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFBPLnnq3s
Geez.

I just get this weird feeling that the MSM likes this neck and neck race and aren't willing to let one candidate surge ahead of the other.

I have seen all the MSM and especially CNN downplay the @$$ whoopin Hillary got last night. They repeat the press releases of the Hillary campaign as fact, when in reality it is just spin spin and more spin.

Obama continues to show us that he can compete in every state!!! But the pundints said that winning in red states doesn't matter, because Dems are very left in those states. But the pundints didn't tell me why the turnout in the red states was much higher for the Dems than the Republicans?

It is clear the media wants to create their own narrative and discount the numbers. The media wants us to believe the ineviblity of McCain and that the Democrats are in trouble because we have a close race. The want us to believe them. Why won't they admit Obama has momentum. Why do they think it is bad that all states will get a chance to vote and have their vote matter?

I even saw one CNN guy say that the poll that says people choose Obama over McCain not matter, and that things could change. Why do they want to see Hillary on the ticket? Maybe they don't want to see the democrats in charge of all 3 levels of government.

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

Well, instead of crying on a message board about not having specifics driven to your home and delivered to your doorstep, you could have taken the time you spent writing this and visited his website. There, you will find detailed analysis of essentially any SPECIFIC ISSUE you could imagine. As to what he does in front of thousands of people on the campaign trail, well, if he took your suggestion and waxed smarty pants about every policy issue under the sun, there would be no crowd to hear it. Stop crying and go seek out the information, its available with two clicks of that mouse.

eLad in MO @ 22:

Arizona @ 19:

I'll support the candidate that actually got it right.

Which would who? Edwards voted for it, Hillary voted for it, and Obama wasn't a senator until 2005.

Hmmmmm?

If you remember the political climate back in 2002-2003 anyone who even hinted at being against the war was branded a traitor or non patriotic yet Sen. Obama was clearly vocal and against the war. He may not have been in the Senate but he was publicly against the war.

james @ 28:

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

I hope you're not one of Billary Zombies: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KLFBPLnnq3s
Geez.

You mean like Hillary's explaination for her vote on the authorization to use force in Iraq? Yeah she was really specific.

Bangkok Bob @ 35:

►Can anyone clue me in on the comment about genealogy that Obama made concerning Cheney?

Dick Cheney's wife was doing research for some book about her family and found that Barack and Dick were like 10th cousins or something like that.

John Doheny @ 33:

ConcernedCanuck @ 26:

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

Both Dems have talked in specifics, and both have websites with specifics on them. You either aren't listening or don't want to, which is it? MSM talking points are not going to help you decide. For once it would be nice to see an election where people voted with their brains, instead of where the media wants them to vote.

Both me and my brain live in New Orleans. Obama gave a big speech here last week, and not once did he mention the Army Corps of Engineers. None of the candidates have.

He promised "100 year storm protection," which is exactly what we were promised in 1968. Didn't work out too well.

I hate to sound like a single issue voter but is it too much to ask? Just ONE candidate willing to admit to the federal government's culpability in this disaster? It'd only take about two sentences in the middle of a speech.

I hear you, but there has never been a single candidate in election history that addressed every issue to everyone's satisfaction.

The sad reality of all this is simple. Look at the totals of BOTH candidates for delegates. Take away the "Superdelegates" and Obama is out front by a comfortable margin. I don't understand the superdelegate system, but that to me says to Democratic Party members "ya, we here you, but go f*ck yerselfs"

brallio @ 43:

Stop crying and go seek out the information, its available with two clicks of that mouse.

Actually, Bin Bin, it isn't any voter's job to seek out the information. It is incumbent, though, on a candidate, to eventually get his/her policy ideas out there. If he wants to win, that is.

There will be a point, IMHO, when photo ops with Oprah or a Kennedy won't be enough, and he will need to let people out there know how he is going to run things.

Most people voting in November are not internet or political junkies, and one thing people out there do know is what Hillary stands for, specifics included, and with all the positives and negatives that entails. And John McCain, for that matter.

I voted for Obama, but I have to say that I see a lot of arrogance (or is it just ageism) in the attitude that people just should check his website if they want to know how he is going to do it. I also think that attitude will hurt in the general election.

I'm not a concern troll; I want Obama to get the nomination because he can win, and, just as important, win with bigger coattails, but at some point he does need to give details, whether his supporters like it or not.

Is there a hearing problem out there?? What?? Is there a hearing problem out there? Now I'm in no position to vote in your election, and even I've heard specifics from both Obama and Hillary. I thought the Canadian electorate was uninformed, but I'm yet to hear them brag that they know nothing.

Chris @ 37:

"The words "never again" - spoken so often in those weeks after Katrina - must not fade to a whisper. The Army Corps of Engineers has rebuilt levees that were most damaged by the storm, but funding has sometimes stalled, and New Orleans remains unprotected." - Barack Obama, Tulane University, 2/7/08.

John Doheny @ 33:

ConcernedCanuck @ 26:

Mike @ 24:

Both Dems have talked in specifics, and both have websites with specifics on them. You either aren't listening or don't want to, which is it? MSM talking points are not going to help you decide. For once it would be nice to see an election where people voted with their brains, instead of where the media wants them to vote.

Both me and my brain live in New Orleans. Obama gave a big speech here last week, and not once did he mention the Army Corps of Engineers. None of the candidates have.

He promised "100 year storm protection," which is exactly what we were promised in 1968. Didn't work out too well.

I hate to sound like a single issue voter but is it too much to ask? Just ONE candidate willing to admit to the federal government's culpability in this disaster? It'd only take about two sentences in the middle of a speech.

Okay, maybe I should clarify. What I was hoping for was an admission of federal culpability. Something along the lines of "The Army Corps of engineers (as well as studies by three independent engineering firms) has indicated that it's levees failed miserably to perform up to their own advertised specifications, and that they were aware of these design and construction flaws 25 years before Katrina and did nothing to rectify it. In light of the fact that an agency of the federal government bears responsibility for this massive engineering failure, I pledge the full and unrestricted support of that same federal government to make things right."

Forgive me if I don't find it particularly comforting that the same federal agency that fucked things up in the first place has now " rebuilt the levees that were most damaged by the storm," once again without any independent oversight or peer revue.

Any candidate who doesn't address these issues head on is just pushing a feel-good line of bullshit.

ConcernedCanuck @ 40:

John Doheny @ 33:

ConcernedCanuck @ 26:

Mike @ 24:

Both Dems have talked in specifics, and both have websites with specifics on them. You either aren't listening or don't want to, which is it? MSM talking points are not going to help you decide. For once it would be nice to see an election where people voted with their brains, instead of where the media wants them to vote.

Both me and my brain live in New Orleans. Obama gave a big speech here last week, and not once did he mention the Army Corps of Engineers. None of the candidates have.

He promised "100 year storm protection," which is exactly what we were promised in 1968. Didn't work out too well.

I hate to sound like a single issue voter but is it too much to ask? Just ONE candidate willing to admit to the federal government's culpability in this disaster? It'd only take about two sentences in the middle of a speech.

I hear you, but there has never been a single candidate in election history that addressed every issue to everyone's satisfaction.

There has never been a candidate in American election history who had an issue like this to beat the incumbent president over the head with, and yet no democratic candidate has taken advantage of the opportunity. I suspect this is for the same reason that Hillary doesn't like to talk about her Iraq vote. All modern politicians in America seem to suffer from Bush disease, ie. the inability to admit a mistake. Since the culpability for failure to oversee the ACE's flood control project in New Orleans stretches over 40 years of administrations, both democratic and republican, I think they'd rather not talk about it at all, lest some of the blowback splatter onto them.

Believe me, any candidate willing to say "look, we all fucked up. But we're going to make it right," would be a shoo-in in New Orleans.

This isn't some obscure "issue" that's not being addressed. A great American city was destroyed by federal incompetence, and these clowns won't address the issue. It's like running for president after WWII and not talking about Pearl Harbor.

Play the two speeches against each other: Absolutely no contest. Obama's in a different league than Hillary Clinton. He inspires but she does not.

"Actually, Bin Bin, it isn’t any voter’s job to seek out the information."

Yes, the voters have no responsibility whatsoever to make an informed decision. It's also the job of the MSM and the candidates to brush the voters' teeth and wipe their asses for them.

ConcernedCanuck @ 42:

The sad reality of all this is simple. Look at the totals of BOTH candidates for delegates. Take away the "Superdelegates" and Obama is out front by a comfortable margin. I don't understand the superdelegate system, but that to me says to Democratic Party members "ya, we here you, but go f*ck yerselfs"

Not really. thegreenpapers.com has Obama at 910, Clinton at 887. That's pledged delegates, not including the delegates in Florida and Michigan who have been excluded. I'm an Obama fan, but that's still basically 50/50.

Assassin @ 52:

"Actually, Bin Bin, it isn’t any voter’s job to seek out the information."

Yes, the voters have no responsibility whatsoever to make an informed decision. It's also the job of the MSM and the candidates to brush the voters' teeth and wipe their asses for them.

LMAO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Zac @ 53:

Both of them repeat the same things all the time.

I heard about the guy who was asked to train his replacement, and the couple who got a subprime loan to put their daughter into college.

Give me something new!

It would be nice to see fresh stuff everyday. But their are problems. Firstly, do you know that these guys speak everyday travel around and shake hands everyday. There simply is no time to come up with new stuff everyday. It is just the nature of this long gruling democratic process. People would get bored with new ideas, and it could put the campaign at risk by causing more chance for error. These guys test stuff in focus groups before they present them to the people. One mistake and it can be over.

I hate to sound sexist but Clinton needs to get a hairdresser to give her a powerfull classy hairdo and for petes sake girl arch those eyebrows.

She looks like shes been working all day in a garden or something!
//

you're an idiot.

Tears of joy came to my eyes when I heard people cheering Barack Obama when he asked Americans to give back to their nation by serving in the Peace Corps and homeless shelters. Such great values. Higher values and higher standards then the pond scum compassionate conservatives.

I'm an over #$ woman in full support of Obama---AND I WILL NOT FALTER OR CONCEDE! (the kids are already experimenting with Obama-friendly camouflage face decor.

But anyway, I do listen carefully to each speech by each candidate whenever possible.
-Obama uses a group of key talking points and a specific style in 80% of each and every speech, consistant with his experiences in life and his policy ideas.
-While Hillary alters about 80% of the contents of each and every speech to match the special interests of each region and to counter holes in her campaign.

The 80% she 'altered' for last night's speech came almost verbatim and twisted point by point into Clintonese, from Obama' s speeches.

Any Journalism Professor would flunk her speech writer for blatant plagiarism. Which makes her, again, the Clinton the Republicans have been screaming about for over a decade.

PS. Hillary is not a witch and Obama is not the messiah or the anti-Christ!

They are both politicians... end of story!

Rasputin @ 66:

PS. Hillary is not a witch and Obama is not the messiah or the anti-Christ!

They are both politicians... end of story!

Indeed! :)

CalGeorge @ 57:

I didn't vote for either of them in my primary. I'm going to continue to take a look at Hillary, despite the Obama craze. She has a good record. I like her anti-Bush rhetoric. Obama has a conformist, Republican-leaning side that is a bit scary.

if i were mccain, all i would do is run commercials with hillary cheerleading the war and then juxtapose her attacks on bush

she loses big

she cannot have it both ways

she voted for the war...she refuses to admit it was a mistake....she insists she didnt think she was voting for a war....horseshit

I caucused in Washington yesterday. There was a huge variety of people that came to support Obama, many of which gave very moving speeches about why... The Hillary supporters had very little to say beyond how great the 90s were and how Hillary has so much experience. I had already made my decision in favor of Obama, but I was really impressed by how many people were excited about their candidate. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama will appeal to a much broader group than Hillary and motivate people to vote.

Cubensis @ 72:

I caucused in Washington yesterday. There was a huge variety of people that came to support Obama, many of which gave very moving speeches about why... The Hillary supporters had very little to say beyond how great the 90s were and how Hillary has so much experience. I had already made my decision in favor of Obama, but I was really impressed by how many people were excited about their candidate. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama will appeal to a much broader group than Hillary and motivate people to vote.

Did you happen to see the undecideds on the repug side? Something like 19 percent. They will not vote for Obama in November. And the undecideds on our side? They are the middle of the road folks who may cross over for McCain. Look folks. You rabid Obama and Clinton supporters. Knock off the attacks on democrats, you're driving the undecideds to McCain. I like both Clinton and Obama, but the little Obama pisher who used Rovian attacks on Hillary lost two delegate votes for him in my district, TWO out of 17. Now we're split 2 and 2 instead of 3 and 1. Middle of the road folks don't like to be strong armed.Take a chill pill and play nice.

Rasputin @ 75:

uncle joe mccarthy @ 70:

CalGeorge @ 57:

I didn't vote for either of them in my primary. I'm going to continue to take a look at Hillary, despite the Obama craze. She has a good record. I like her anti-Bush rhetoric. Obama has a conformist, Republican-leaning side that is a bit scary.

if i were mccain, all i would do is run commercials with hillary cheerleading the war and then juxtapose her attacks on bush

she loses big

she cannot have it both ways

she voted for the war...she refuses to admit it was a mistake....she insists she didnt think she was voting for a war....horseshit

Moot Point Uncle Joe... as of the last debate both candidates have promised to end the war by the end of their first term.

As to McCain vs. Hillary or Obama match-ups... there are polls that show them both winning, both losing and both winding up in a tie with McCain.

The average of the current polls show Obama has a slight edge over Hillary in those contests and Hillary's negative ratings are 10% higher that Obama's.

It also has to be acknowledged that even the most favorable poll for Obama only has him beating McCain by 8% and that is not a huge margin in a poll with a statistical margin of error of +/- 5%.

Either Obama or Hillary will have a real up hill climb against McCain and you can bet there will be wide spread voter fraud as we saw in the 2004 elections. South Carolina for example is using the Diebold machines that 6 states have already banned and flipped over 10,000 votes from Kerry to Bush in the 2004 election.

The most important thing right now is to realize that it is going to take a unified party to put McCain down in 2008 and if we support the Democratic party... the vitriolic hate speech that each of their supporters have been throwing at each other has got to be toned down so as not to alienate anyone.

I'm not singling you out on this, actually you've been quite reasonable, but this thread has got a lot of the BS I'm referring to and it won't help anyone but McCain and the rethugs.

Rasputin, you rock.

uncle joe mccarthy @ 71:

im sorry, but what is hillary talking about?

when she meets the guy who lost his job to outsourcing....its her hubby who made that possible

when she talks about using force as a last resort, its her vote and her fiery cheerleading speech that made the war and now the occupation possible

im sorry, but spewing anti bush rhetoric means nothing as long as our congressional leadership sits back and lets him do what he wants

im pretty disgusted with the dem party

and i will not be voting for hillary come november if she wins the nom

I take it back... you are not reasonable with such a position and it is true wooley headed thinking if you think that you will advance your cause of ending the war by staying home or voting for McCrazy and his 100 year war policy!

Hi Strawberry... How you be Gurl?

Strawberrybitch @ 81:

Rasputin @ 79:

Hi Strawberry... How you be Gurl?

Aw sweetie, it's been nuts around here, thank god for all this primary madness to distract me. Do me a favour, keep up the good work or we're going to have Mccain as president in January. These young folks don't know how dirty politics can get.

I know... it has gotten really out of hand and is really counter productive.

I hope that you and the kids are well and may the "deployment order fairy" keep many thousands of miles from your home!

Cheers!

Whenever someone asks for specifics about Obama on these message boards or other blogs, the answer is always some variation of OMG UR STUPID CUZ U DIDNT VISIT TEH WEBSITE, NOT OBAMAS FAULT.

No, we don't all have time to visit the website, since we are not all pimply faced college kids with too much time on our hands or people making over $100,000 a year. When I watch debates, I want specifics, not more of the same hope bullshit.

People are tired of the Bush/Clinton Presidency's, 20 years is enough..

Strawberrybitch @ 74:

Cubensis @ 72:

I caucused in Washington yesterday. There was a huge variety of people that came to support Obama, many of which gave very moving speeches about why... The Hillary supporters had very little to say beyond how great the 90s were and how Hillary has so much experience. I had already made my decision in favor of Obama, but I was really impressed by how many people were excited about their candidate. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama will appeal to a much broader group than Hillary and motivate people to vote.

Did you happen to see the undecideds on the repug side? Something like 19 percent. They will not vote for Obama in November. And the undecideds on our side? They are the middle of the road folks who may cross over for McCain. Look folks. You rabid Obama and Clinton supporters. Knock off the attacks on democrats, you're driving the undecideds to McCain. I like both Clinton and Obama, but the little Obama pisher who used Rovian attacks on Hillary lost two delegate votes for him in my district, TWO out of 17. Now we're split 2 and 2 instead of 3 and 1. Middle of the road folks don't like to be strong armed.Take a chill pill and play nice.

Are you addressing me with this post? I just made some observations and and voiced a bit of my obama support? You say to take a chill pill and play nice but I think that my comment was pretty chill. But I agree, people need to chill out. It doesn't make your candidate look good when you get all worked up. I have read a lot of nastyness in these comments.

ConcernedCanuck @ 26:

Mike @ 24:

I get so angry at Obama.

I want to like him, but he's too abstract and general.

There should be a moratorium on the word "change." That'll make these people talk in specifics.

Both Dems have talked in specifics, and both have websites with specifics on them. You either aren't listening or don't want to, which is it? MSM talking points are not going to help you decide. For once it would be nice to see an election where people voted with their brains, instead of where the media wants them to vote.

excellent point, I always encourage people to read the manifesto on candidates website. they lay out their agenda on every issue very clearly. there's no excuse for making an uneducated vote these days.

WISE VOTERS = WISE COUNTRY.

memyself @ 85:

I've asked this in several forums several times, but cannot get an answer. Would a Clinton supporter please explain?

For a 60 yo woman to have 35 years of good relevant experience towards becoming the Democratic presidential nominee she would have to have spent 100% of 35 of her adult years working for causes important to the party.

Unless we are supposed to count time beginning when Hillary was 8 or 9 years old, this doesn't add up. She spent 16 years as a corporate lawyer/ board member of blood sucking, union busting corporations like Wal-Mart. We also should not be counting her time as president of the young republicans and as a Goldwater girl. I believe that was at least one full year.

I really do not see how Clinton's experience claim is mathematically possible unless she expects us to count experience that would qualify one for only the Republican nomination.

In the interest of fairness, you should also note that Hillary's time on the Wal-Mart board was not entirely blood-sucking (as you've characterized). For example, she steered the company in a greener direction: stocking products made from recycled materials, using environmental friendly lights in the stores nationwide. She also convinced the board to hire an outside firm to ensure that more women and minorities were hired.

I'm not defending the negative aspects of her time at Wal-Mart. But, you've painted it as an entirely negative experience--which amounts to spin. Certainly, you don't think everything is black and white, good and evil. That seems more a conservative mindset. Do you expect one person to change an entire national conglomerate? Considering that she was the first woman to make it into the board, I think the changes she did engineer are substantial and deserving of note. Instead of this one-sided lambasting.

I keep reading an argument that Obama did not have to vote on the war and so therefore his opposition is somehow diminished. The truth is that he made an outstanding anti-war speech in October of 2002. He was getting ready to make his first statewide Senate run against a very formidable and popular Jack Ryan. This took as much or more courage than any Democrat in the Senate.

memyself @ 85:

I've asked this in several forums several times, but cannot get an answer. Would a Clinton supporter please explain?

For a 60 yo woman to have 35 years of good relevant experience towards becoming the Democratic presidential nominee she would have to have spent 100% of 35 of her adult years working for causes important to the party.

Unless we are supposed to count time beginning when Hillary was 8 or 9 years old, this doesn't add up. She spent 16 years as a corporate lawyer/ board member of blood sucking, union busting corporations like Wal-Mart. We also should not be counting her time as president of the young republicans and as a Goldwater girl. I believe that was at least one full year.

I really do not see how Clinton's experience claim is mathematically possible unless she expects us to count experience that would qualify one for only the Republican nomination.

She discredits herself every time she says that "35 years of experience" bull. Maybe someone on her staff should point that out.

Robert @ 89:

bigmoneygrip @ 18:
The irony, of course: if she were to apologize, everyone would call it pandering. People wrote her second obituary when it was discovered she loaned money to her campaign; people called her it all a ploy when a massive amount of people donated to her campaign the next couple days.

There are just some people who will never admit that anything Hillary does is right. She is always wrong, no matter what.

I'll allow that Hillary has done several things right. I just don't believe she's ever done anything for the right reason. Instead of principles, she has pollsters.

memyself @ 96:

Robert @ 91:

memyself @ 85:

I've asked this in several forums several times, but cannot get an answer. Would a Clinton supporter please explain?

For a 60 yo woman to have 35 years of good relevant experience towards becoming the Democratic presidential nominee she would have to have spent 100% of 35 of her adult years working for causes important to the party.

Unless we are supposed to count time beginning when Hillary was 8 or 9 years old, this doesn't add up. She spent 16 years as a corporate lawyer/ board member of blood sucking, union busting corporations like Wal-Mart. We also should not be counting her time as president of the young republicans and as a Goldwater girl. I believe that was at least one full year.

I really do not see how Clinton's experience claim is mathematically possible unless she expects us to count experience that would qualify one for only the Republican nomination.

In the interest of fairness, you should also note that Hillary's time on the Wal-Mart board was not entirely blood-sucking (as you've characterized). For example, she steered the company in a greener direction: stocking products made from recycled materials, using environmental friendly lights in the stores nationwide. She also convinced the board to hire an outside firm to ensure that more women and minorities were hired.

I'm not defending the negative aspects of her time at Wal-Mart. But, you've painted it as an entirely negative experience--which amounts to spin. Certainly, you don't think everything is black and white, good and evil. That seems more a conservative mindset. Do you expect one person to change an entire national conglomerate? Considering that she was the first woman to make it into the board, I think the changes she did engineer are substantial and deserving of note. Instead of this one-sided lambasting.

I am not questioning whether Clinton should have held these positions. I AM questioning how on earth that time could reasonably be included in the time Democrats consider as good and useful learning/growing towards being our candidate for President. If we don't count that time then her 35 years is pure spin and indeed is simply untrue.

Here's an article that gives background on how much she was cheer leading for Wal-Mart and her lack of support for the unions.

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

Again - she had every right to do that and should be able to put it behind her if she has changed. The question is about her having the audacity to expect Democrats to include that in her "experience" we use to choose her as our candidate.

So you're saying that her anti-union attitude at Wal-Mart disqualifies her from being able to claim she experience to a Democratic electorate. By that same logic, though, her advocating environmental protections and gender/racial equality should very much resonant with a Democratic electorate, as those are core values of the party. I wonder, then, where does this leave us? She has done things that both qualify and disqualify her from claiming Democratic experience. How does this clearly dismiss her claim of experience. I fail to see that clear line of demarcation.

Robert @ 99:

memyself @ 96:

Robert @ 91:

memyself @ 85:

In the interest of fairness, you should also note that Hillary's time on the Wal-Mart board was not entirely blood-sucking (as you've characterized). For example, she steered the company in a greener direction: stocking products made from recycled materials, using environmental friendly lights in the stores nationwide. She also convinced the board to hire an outside firm to ensure that more women and minorities were hired.

I'm not defending the negative aspects of her time at Wal-Mart. But, you've painted it as an entirely negative experience--which amounts to spin. Certainly, you don't think everything is black and white, good and evil. That seems more a conservative mindset. Do you expect one person to change an entire national conglomerate? Considering that she was the first woman to make it into the board, I think the changes she did engineer are substantial and deserving of note. Instead of this one-sided lambasting.

I am not questioning whether Clinton should have held these positions. I AM questioning how on earth that time could reasonably be included in the time Democrats consider as good and useful learning/growing towards being our candidate for President. If we don't count that time then her 35 years is pure spin and indeed is simply untrue.

Here's an article that gives background on how much she was cheer leading for Wal-Mart and her lack of support for the unions.

Clinton Remained Silent As Wal-Mart Fought Unions

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/story?id=4218509&page=1

Again - she had every right to do that and should be able to put it behind her if she has changed. The question is about her having the audacity to expect Democrats to include that in her "experience" we use to choose her as our candidate.

So you're saying that her anti-union attitude at Wal-Mart disqualifies her from being able to claim she experience to a Democratic electorate. By that same logic, though, her advocating environmental protections and gender/racial equality should very much resonant with a Democratic electorate, as those are core values of the party. I wonder, then, where does this leave us? She has done things that both qualify and disqualify her from claiming Democratic experience. How does this clearly dismiss her claim of experience. I fail to see that clear line of demarcation.

Um no I never said anything even remotely like your incorrect interpretation. I said I have a problem with the fact that in order to have her "experience" add up to the 35 years she wants us to be all excited about we would have to count 100% of her years as a corporate lawyer and board member with an anti union attitude.

Like I said before - if she changed then cool. She could be as qualified as anyone else.

That's NOT the problem!

Hillary is claiming 35 years of experience as her strongest suit. She has said over and over again that it is those 35 years that make her more qualified than Obama.

The problem is that a 60 yo woman CANNOT have had 35 years experience if you subtract those 16 years plus the year or more she was president of the young Republicans and a Goldwater girl.

I have no problem with her having done those things years ago - I DO have a problem with being told I should consider her to be MORE QUALIFIED by adding years spent doing anti Democratic activities to the time she was actually doing positive things that should be counted.

Since the 35 years theme is her primary case for being more qualified, shouldn't it at least add up to, oh say ... 35 years?

motorfingaz @ 4:

I hate to sound sexist but Clinton needs to get a hairdresser to give her a powerfull classy hairdo and for petes sake girl arch those eyebrows.

She looks like shes been working all day in a garden or something!

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. I'll bet your eye is full of Obama!!
I think she is regal and very presidential but then my eye is full of Hillary. Intelligent people discuss issues not cosmetics

justletmebe @ 100:

....

He did give an antiwar speech before he became part of the Senate. During his time in the Illinois legislature he also ran for a US House seat and lost. Then he decided for the Senate, I don't know why. His opponent was replaced because of a scandal and he ended up running against the most incompetent idiotic person I have ever heard represent anyone - Allan Keyes - which they had to bring in from another state. Anyone could have beat that opponent. Now, getting back to his anti war speech, it is rather troubling that once he entered the Senate he has voted to fund it and go along with everyone else rather than take a principled stand and vote no to the funding bills. So saying he was against it but now voting for it every chance he gets to me is hypocritical.

Obama also faced very difficult primary opposition in his Senate race. In fact, by the time Jack Ryan dropped out, Obama's popularity was so high that the only person the GOP could find to challenge him was Keyes.

Oh, and on Super Tuesday, in Hillary's home state, Obama took Illinois by almost two to one.

As regards the war, there is a difference between voting to start a war and voting to fund troops in a war that has already begun. The HRC campaign is well aware of this distinction but insists on following the "selective ignorance strategy" learned from the Bushies. It was well documented in the classic How to Elect a President Based Solely on Nepotism.

Cubensis @ 88:

Strawberrybitch @ 74:

Cubensis @ 72:

I caucused in Washington yesterday. There was a huge variety of people that came to support Obama, many of which gave very moving speeches about why... The Hillary supporters had very little to say beyond how great the 90s were and how Hillary has so much experience. I had already made my decision in favor of Obama, but I was really impressed by how many people were excited about their candidate. I have no doubt in my mind that Obama will appeal to a much broader group than Hillary and motivate people to vote.

Did you happen to see the undecideds on the repug side? Something like 19 percent. They will not vote for Obama in November. And the undecideds on our side? They are the middle of the road folks who may cross over for McCain. Look folks. You rabid Obama and Clinton supporters. Knock off the attacks on democrats, you're driving the undecideds to McCain. I like both Clinton and Obama, but the little Obama pisher who used Rovian attacks on Hillary lost two delegate votes for him in my district, TWO out of 17. Now we're split 2 and 2 instead of 3 and 1. Middle of the road folks don't like to be strong armed.Take a chill pill and play nice.

Are you addressing me with this post? I just made some observations and and voiced a bit of my obama support? You say to take a chill pill and play nice but I think that my comment was pretty chill. But I agree, people need to chill out. It doesn't make your candidate look good when you get all worked up. I have read a lot of nastyness in these comments.

No I wasn't attacking you, I was making an observation about Obama having a wide appeal. McCain has more appeal in the center than he does on the right wing fringe. The stuff that is holding him back in the primaries will benefit him in the general. Crossover votes from our side who are turned off from all the infighting. Becareful everybody, both Obama and Clinton supporters.

Robert @ 109:

memyself @ 101:

Robert @ 99:

memyself @ 96:

So you're saying that her anti-union attitude at Wal-Mart disqualifies her from being able to claim she experience to a Democratic electorate. By that same logic, though, her advocating environmental protections and gender/racial equality should very much resonant with a Democratic electorate, as those are core values of the party. I wonder, then, where does this leave us? She has done things that both qualify and disqualify her from claiming Democratic experience. How does this clearly dismiss her claim of experience. I fail to see that clear line of demarcation.

Um no I never said anything even remotely like your incorrect interpretation. I said I have a problem with the fact that in order to have her "experience" add up to the 35 years she wants us to be all excited about we would have to count 100% of her years as a corporate lawyer and board member with an anti union attitude.

Like I said before - if she changed then cool. She could be as qualified as anyone else.

That's NOT the problem!

Hillary is claiming 35 years of experience as her strongest suit. She has said over and over again that it is those 35 years that make her more qualified than Obama.

The problem is that a 60 yo woman CANNOT have had 35 years experience if you subtract those 16 years plus the year or more she was president of the young Republicans and a Goldwater girl.

I have no problem with her having done those things years ago - I DO have a problem with being told I should consider her to be MORE QUALIFIED by adding years spent doing anti Democratic activities to the time she was actually doing positive things that should be counted.

Since the 35 years theme is her primary case for being more qualified, shouldn't it at least add up to, oh say ... 35 years?

So, you're problem is that she expects us to consider 100% of the time she was on the board for Wal-Mart. That's the problem you have?

So it's more about semantics and technicality?

Let me create an analogy. When I tell people I went to high school for 4 years, am I lying? Technically speaking, I am. Summer is anti-high school, as I did not attend any classes nor do anything related to high school. Summer also amounts to about a year. Therefore, I only attended school for 3 years, technically speaking. But I doubt anyone would call me out on that claim.

Breaking apart that 35 years into discrete units of activity is a remarkable useless thing to do--all in an effort to show that the time spent might actually be 34.5 or 35.9 years. I personally don't see the value in creating a mathematical formula to deduce the exact amount of time she had experience, since experience is a qualitative and not quantitative measure.

As for being a Republican, Goldwater Girl: why not count that as experience? I think it's incredibly valuable to know the more intimate workings of the opposing political party. Just because it was Republican doesn't disqualify it from political or leadership experience.

Hey many of Goldwater's positions would be considered liberal today in Bush world.

Brendan @ 103:

Robert @ 98:
She had pollsters telling her in 1992 while she was first lady of Arkansas that it was a good idea to make sure the company was fair to minorities and the environment? Can you point me in the direction of these pollsters? I suspect not. I also suspect that pollsters during the first half of the 90s would say that it wasn't a good idea to advocate for the environment or for minorities.

Interesting ... she advocated for minorities and the environment when her husband was running for President as a Democrat. Actually that sounds exactly like what a poll-driven politician would do. Do you have examples of non-election year advocacy for those causes while she was First Lady of Arkansas?

Let me go ahead and point you in that direction: Wikipedia: Mark "Who said cocaine? I didn't say cocaine!" Penn

First, I don't use Wikipedia for any scholarly or intellectual purposes. And I certainly don't rely on Wikipedia to inform my voting decisions.

Second, this is the problem behind all the Hillary hate. You (collective) place the burden of proof that she is a human being that cares for other humans squarely upon her shoulders. Simultaneously, you ignore her work with these underprivileged groups. As Senator of New York, she has worked extensively for child's health care, prescriptions for children, ensured families of 9/11 victims receive financial assistance.

I suppose, however, instances as these (though they be numerous) are inconsequential and do not disprove the pollster comments. Because, she's been planning for the presidency since she was first lady of Arkansas, right?

fiver @ 106:

justletmebe @ 100:

....

He did give an antiwar speech before he became part of the Senate. During his time in the Illinois legislature he also ran for a US House seat and lost. Then he decided for the Senate, I don't know why. His opponent was replaced because of a scandal and he ended up running against the most incompetent idiotic person I have ever heard represent anyone - Allan Keyes - which they had to bring in from another state. Anyone could have beat that opponent. Now, getting back to his anti war speech, it is rather troubling that once he entered the Senate he has voted to fund it and go along with everyone else rather than take a principled stand and vote no to the funding bills. So saying he was against it but now voting for it every chance he gets to me is hypocritical.

Obama also faced very difficult primary opposition in his Senate race. In fact, by the time Jack Ryan dropped out, Obama's popularity was so high that the only person the GOP could find to challenge him was Keyes.

Oh, and on Super Tuesday, in Hillary's home state, Obama took Illinois by almost two to one.

As regards the war, there is a difference between voting to start a war and voting to fund troops in a war that has already begun. The HRC campaign is well aware of this distinction but insists on following the "selective ignorance strategy" learned from the Bushies. It was well documented in the classic How to Elect a President Based Solely on Nepotism.

I wonder about the logic behind continually funding the war. Why is that permissible?

Well, if Illinois is her home state, then let's say: Hillary won the state in which she was first lady; Hillary won the state of which she is a Senator; Hillary won the state where she attended college. Spinning Illinois as a lose for Hillary's home state is ridiculous. She lived there a short time, and her work was more focused on other states.

trank @ 105:

Let's look at the:

METHODOLOGY: The totals on these charts are calculated from PAC contributions and contributions from individuals giving more than $200, as reported to the Federal Election Commission. Individual contributions are generally categorized based on the donor's occupation/employer, although individuals may be classified instead as ideological donors if they've given more than $200 to an ideological PAC.

And then at Obama's overall:

Source of Funds
Individual contributions $101,429,472 99%
PAC contributions $25 0%
Other $741,170 1%

Nice straw man Rasputin. Did you give $ to JE? What special interest shall we connect you with?

Rasputin @ 65:

pegrod99 @ 23:

I just look at her record and I can't see any difference between her and Lieberman.

I am (or was) an Edwards person

Their Voting Records in the Senate
If you had really looked at Hillary and Obama's voting record in the Senate you would find that they are virtually identical. There are only 10 votes where they differ.

On the War
As to the AUMF, which as an Edwards supporter I think Clinton was wrong not to admit it was a mistake, but Obama voted repeatedly to refund the war and voted to reauthorize the Patriot Act. So his record has some issues as well.

Both candidates have as of the last debate pledged to end the Iraq war by the end of their first terms... so there is little difference between them on this issue.

On the Stink of Dollars... Campaign Financing

Contributions from Lobbyist:

Hillary: $823, 087
Obama: $86, 283

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?cycle=2008

Contributions from HMOs

Hillary:$326,456
Obama: $216,640
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H03

Contributions from Pharmaceutical Manufacturers

Hillary $349,270
Obama: $337,525
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=H04

Contributions from Hedge Funds

Hillary $1,266,342
Obama: $1,040,185

http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F27

Contributions from Commercial Banks

Hillary $1,119,982
Obama: $1,017,200
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/select.asp?Ind=F03

Breakdown of total campaign Hillary:

Individual contributions….$103,611,269….90%
PAC contributions…………….$959,719……1%
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00000019&cycle=2008

Breakdown of total campaign Obama:
Individual contributions…$101,429,472…..99%
PAC contributions…………….$25……….0%
http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/summary.asp?id=N00009638&cycle=2008

Both Campaigns are in the 90th percentile when it comes to being financed by individual donors. Hillary has taken a lot more lobbyist dollars but Obama's hands aren't clean either.

As an Edwards supporter I would have thought that you would have taken the time to really do your home work as John Edwards did and find out the truth.

The partisan hacks on this thread can throw all the BS they want back and forth, but in truth there is very little difference between these two.

Having said that... I will support the nominee of the party for President enthusiastically no matter who it is... because there is just far to much at stake!

Who is really doing the strawman argument here Trank?

1. You point to Obama having taken only $25 from PACs and act like I didn't post that... But it is clearly in the body of the text that I posted... So no soup for you buddy!

2. The threads on donors that I have posted all have links to the pages where the methodology statement is clearly displayed... so I concealed nothing as you suggest. If I were trying to smear someone I wouldn't have provided the links for validation.

3. Any one who works for a major corporation knows that you get e-mails being circulated that "encourage" you to back a particular candidate because they will be favorable to your employer. the FEC requires you to state your employer and those statistics are well known to the campaign managers and don't think for a minute that they aren't.

4. The main point of the post was that both candidates are in the 90% percentile for being financed by individual donors and NOT predominantly PAC or Lobbyist dollars.

If you find that objectionable because you want to claim some level of ideological purity for your candidate over the other... it ain't there and those are the facts as reported by law to the FEC.

So get over it and stop being a partisan hack!

Robert @ 112:

First, I don't use Wikipedia for any scholarly or intellectual purposes. And I certainly don't rely on Wikipedia to inform my voting decisions.

Second, this is the problem behind all the Hillary hate. You (collective) place the burden of proof that she is a human being that cares for other humans squarely upon her shoulders. Simultaneously, you ignore her work with these underprivileged groups. As Senator of New York, she has worked extensively for child's health care, prescriptions for children, ensured families of 9/11 victims receive financial assistance.

I suppose, however, instances as these (though they be numerous) are inconsequential and do not disprove the pollster comments. Because, she's been planning for the presidency since she was first lady of Arkansas, right?

First, this is the problem with Hillary supporters. To them, opposition to her candidacy is equal to hate, even sexism.

I lived in New York all my life up until last June. She was my Senator. I even voted for her in 2006 -- mostly to help the Working Families Party retain their ballot access and because her re-election was a fait accompli. In her capacity as U.S. Senator she has done fuck-all for the state. People are dying of treatable respiratory illnesses from their work at Ground Zero and she has done nothing, said nothing. It took our then-Republican mayor Bloomberg to go down to Washington and pound the pavement. All she has done is deliver pork, mostly upstate. Where was she on Dubai ports? Nowhere. What about NYC congestion pricing, which is probably the most expansive green initiative in New York, and which would be fairly easy to get passed? She hasn't formed an opinion as far as I know.

She carpetbagged over to my home state, had the good luck of facing a little-known Long Island congressman after Giuliani bowed out because of his prostate cancer -- Rudy would have wrecked her in that race -- and has used her Senate seat solely as a springboard to run for president in 2008. Why do you think we never saw her stump for Kerry?

I don't hate her. But I just don't trust her. She's a weak candidate and even if she wins in November she won't be able to get anything done because "those people" she's been "fighting for 35 years" won't be too keen to work with her.

G @ 117:

Which one is the pot and which one is the kettle?

Sweet column: Michelle Obama quits board of Wal-Mart supplier.

WASHINGTON — Michelle Obama resigned Tuesday from the board of TreeHouse Foods Inc., a Wal-Mart vendor, eight days after husband and White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) said he would not shop at the anti-union store.

Obama has been a director of the suburban Westchester food maker since June 27, 2005. Board chairman Sam Reed received a resignation letter from Obama Tuesday. The company said she quit because of “increased demands” on her time. Obama was re-elected to the board April 19 for a term ending in 2010 — during a period she was preparing to take on a larger role in the campaign.
In a statement issued by the campaign, Obama said, “As my campaign commitments continue to ramp up, it is becoming more difficult for me to provide the type of focus I would like on my professional responsibilities." She said it was in “the best interests of my family and the company” she quit.
Wal-Mart is a target of organized labor in the U.S., a Democratic constituency playing a key role in determining the 2008 Democratic nominee. Obama’s link to Wal-Mart through TreeHouse was a potential liability for Sen. Obama. On May 14, during an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, N.J., Sen. Obama was asked about Wal-Mart. “I won’t shop there,” he said. Chief rival Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) served on the Wal-Mart board between 1986 and 1992.
In a SEC filing, TreeHouse stated Obama’s resignation “is not due to any disagreement with the company on any matter.’’
According to the Obamas’ income tax returns, Michelle Obama collected $51,200 from TreeHouse in 2006. She leaves the board with an option to buy 2,266 TreeHouse shares at a strike price of $29.65. Shares closed at $28.10 Tuesday.
Obama’s resignation from the lucrative part-time position comes as she cutback her hours as a University of Chicago Hospitals vice president by 80 percent.
To showcase Obama’s role as chief surrogate for her husband, the campaign has orchestrated a high-profile media blitz in recent weeks.

HERE IS THE LINK TO THE ARTICLE!

http://blogs.suntimes.com/sweet/2007/05/sweet_column_michelle_obama_qu.html

There are parts of Walmart that are union represented. Most of their truck drivers are represented by the Teamsters (about as union as you can get) nice try anyway.

Go Hillary!! She is clearly the best candidate to clean up after George W. Bush. A health care plan that covers EVERYONE, strengthening the middle class, bringing our troops home, improving our education system, making higher education affordable, creating new green jobs, taking on global warming. We need someone like Hillary Clinton now, more than ever!

While Obama talks pie-in-the-sky, Sen. Clinton is telling us how she plans to actually solve our problems. What a refreshing change THAT is.

BAC

People, Karl Rove doesn't work for the Republicans any more. The Daily Show pointed out that he's a commentator on Fox News now (big surprise).

And if Obama were a secret Republican operative, how would he have the support of 126 Democratic superdelegates? Are they all morons?

This is just the "Obama is a secret Muslim" lies in a new package.

A note on the ABC Hit piece on Hillary and her Walmart position...

First remember the source... ABC the network that ran the Crockumentary "The Path to 9/11" written by a reichwing pseudo producer blaming Bill Clinton for the attacks. So consider the source.

Secondly... while the Obamamaniacs were lapping this GOP talking point from ABC, ABC was running expose' on Obama's stated drug use as a teen and this hit piece on Obama that characterizes his campaign as a cult and his platform as being devoid of content:

"And Obama wept"
http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalpunch/2008/02/and-obama-wept.html

Third... Back to Hillary and the ABC claim that she is anti-union...

This is a press release from the head of Walmart's Union:
.
.
Hillary Clinton and Wal-Mart: Statement of Stuart Appelbaum, President, Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, UFCW

To: RETAILING EDITORS

Contact: Jim Grossfield of the Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, +1-202 441-0101

NEW YORK, Jan. 31 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ -- The following is a statement by Stuart Appelbaum, president of the 100,000-member Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union, regarding recent attacks on Sen. Hillary Clinton related to her having once served on Wal-Mart's board of directors.

RWDSU families are proud to be in the forefront of the campaign to keep Wal-Mart from opening in New York City -- and we are equally proud of our close friendship with Sen. Hillary Clinton.

We know from experience that Hillary understands that strong unions built the American middle class.

We know from experience that union families can count on Hillary to be on their side, not once or twice, but whenever she is needed.

We know from experience that Hillary shares our belief that Wal-Mart and other retailers have a moral responsibility to respect every worker's right to organize.

She has stood with us and has been and continues to be supportive of our efforts to call attention to Wal-Mart's business practices that hurt working families. And she has lent her voice to calls for the giant retailer to change its ways.

Over the last seven years American workers and their families have been brutalized by corporate greed and unprecedented government indifference. Based on our experience we are convinced that, as president, Hillary would work from day one to restore workers rights and the institution of collective bargaining.

Some politicians only stand up for labor at election time, but we know from experience that Hillary will be there for workers and their unions long after the ballots are counted.

The Retail, Wholesale and Department Store Union (http://www.rwdsu.org) represents 100,000 workers throughout the U.S. and Canada. The RWDSU is affiliated with the United Food and Commercial Workers.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/usnw/20080131/pl_usnw/hillary_clinton_and_wal_ma...

So Wallmart's Union doesn't have a problem with her... in fact they know that she was responsible for getting benefits for them and pressuring management to hire more women and promote them up through the ranks.

The ABC hit piece doesn't have Hillary saying anything anti-union in it because she never did say anything against the union, so they claimed that she never supported the union... a claim disputed by the head of the union for Walmart workers.

Come on people... ABC is one step above FOX News... don't do their dirty work for them!

Karl Rove is a life long Republican who will ALWAYS represent the interest of the Republicans only. What does that mean? He does not work for the Republicans? You mean he does not work for George Bush anymore! He is STILL 100% GENUINE REPUBLICAN who happens to be a commentator at this time! That is the difference! You are either a Republican, Democrat, or Independent! You dont just "work" for the Republicans then become a commentator and forget about your LIFE LONG political agenda! C'mon! Wake up!

Liberate your mind!

Wow! I had always though that WalMart (especially during Clinton's tenure in the late eighties) was the prime example of the greed in the decade of greed. I had thought it was a union busting monopolistic outfit strongly dedicated to NAFTA so that it could take advantage of child labor, slave labor, unsafe working conditions, etc. all the while running its competition out of business.

What a relief to be corrected. WalMart was actually a sturdy bastion of progressive values.

Some folks will buy anything.

Apparently there are actually people who believe that Karl Rove has somehow managed to get to the thousands of random people being polled who indicate that Obama would run better in the general election against McCain than Clinton.

Wow. I bet his eyes eerily follow them where ever they go whenever his picture is in the paper too.

"Deal with it"

Isn't that the line the Bushies like to use whenever the theft of the 200 election is brought up?
Granted, the Bushies usually use all caps instead of all bold.

I wonder if the "head of Wallmarts Union (sic)" is pleased with the health care plan Hillary brought to WalMart's workers. After all, it's the same plan she gave to the country as First Lady - nothing.

memyself @ 133:

Apparently there are actually people who believe that Karl Rove has somehow managed to get to the thousands of random people being polled who indicate that Obama would run better in the general election against McCain than Clinton.

Wow. I bet his eyes eerily follow them where ever they go whenever his picture is in the paper too.

Learn something about "Cause & Effect" and THEN maybe you will learn something! Learn about "Think Tanks!"

Liberate your mind, please! It will be of service for all of America!

G @ 137:

memyself @ 133:

Apparently there are actually people who believe that Karl Rove has somehow managed to get to the thousands of random people being polled who indicate that Obama would run better in the general election against McCain than Clinton.

Wow. I bet his eyes eerily follow them where ever they go whenever his picture is in the paper too.

Learn something about "Cause & Effect" and THEN maybe you will learn something! Learn about "Think Tanks!"

Liberate your mind, please! It will be of service for all of America!

Don't get so excited. Your tinfoil hat might slip off.

I am still a John Edwards supporter, and, since he had just suspended not withdrawn, I was going to vote for him in the primary and let him decide what he wanted to do with the delegates. After reading all of the things the Obama people have said and the lack of tolerance they have shown for other people's opinions; they totally took over DailyKos (probably with their approval, or they would have made some move to discourage the takeover) so it caused me to re-evaluate my thinking and analyze things more closely.

I have always stated on any polls that the most important thing to me was global warming, because it affects the whole world, not just my own little continent that I love. JRE was against nuclear due to the lack of any really good solution for the waste and, of course, it is not just USA nuclear waste but of all of the countries. As far as our waste, can you imagine any state stepping forward and saying, 'just dump it here; our state doesn't mind at all'.? Goodness, I seem to remember a few years ago there was an uproar about it just traveling through the states on trucks or trains to get to Nevada. Apparently, it is not storing there in Nevada as it was expected to, right? Wasn't there some kind of expose of the containers leaking back in those mountains? JRE had been for coal, but had to change the criteria for accepting coal, due to new scientific knowledge. Also, google mountaintop coal mining in West Virgina; boy that is a nasty sight of what happened to beautiful mountains. This info came out in the debates. Hillary also appeared to be against nuclear, but Obama keeps it in his solutions, as well as coal. Obama at one time was backed by a nuclear company Exelon and Axelrod was a lobbyist for the same company, so perhaps that has some bearing on his thinking, no? Who knows what we will end up with for an alternate source of energy, but I really hate the idea of nuclear.

Ex-prez was accused of doing some coding that was derogatory, regarding Obama and Jesse Jackson. I did not understand the code, but more than likely the politicians did. Stupid move by husband; however, I believe Sen and Mrs. Obama have done a bit of coding on their own lately. Sen Obama indicated that he did not believe that some of his peeps would go ahead and vote for Hillary, which from what I have read is a true assessment; Michelle really stammered around the question of whether she would support Hillary if she won the nomination, since Michelle thought her husband to be much the superior candidate. My sense is that many of their followers would follow that lead (code?) and say they would never vote for HRC. Isn't that the same fear tactics the Republicans use as their baits to get their followers to get out and vote - not for someone, just against HRC.

As far as the vote in Texas, I recently googled vote Texas and found that they now want you to show a drivers license as well as your voters registration -- that is new and probably a Republican move to try to deny some voters. It also mentioned that Kucinich would not be on the ballot, because he had lost his case in the Tx. supreme court. It seems he crossed out the part on the Democratic form to support whatever Democratic nominee was winner. Why did he do that and take it all the way to the top court? Would he rather see a Republican win and continue the horrible economic policies, blocking stem cell research, stop teaching evolution in schools, nominate supreme court judges that think imperial executive is part of constitution, continue war in Iraq with bases for next hundred years or so, etc. etc. And, you Obama peeps, is that what you really really want if Obama does not win?

Still thinking it through, but leaning toward Hillary now.

loubie @ 140:

On Wal-Mart and St. 0-MOB-a:

According to wikipedia, Michelle o-MOB-s was a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc., a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007.

Funny thing, up to about 10 days ago, that Wiki site also stated that Michelle made $51,000 from that relationship in 2006. But now that little morsel has been scrubbed.

I've noticed that Wikipedia is in the St. Barak business. The site for his banker buddy, Alexi Giannoulias, also is scrubbed squaky clean.

BTW, am I a racist for bringing that out about Michelle o-MOB-a?

No, you're not a racist. But you might notice that Michelle Obama is not running for president. It seems extraordinarily foolish to give a candidate's spouse any weight whatsoever in deciding amongst the candidates. Unfortunately, for some candidates, their spouse is their major asset.

Also, the only problem with Treehouse that I have heard is that Hillary Clinton's WalMart was one of its customers. If there is anything else, please enlighten us.

fiver @ 143:

loubie @ 140:

On Wal-Mart and St. 0-MOB-a:

According to wikipedia, Michelle o-MOB-s was a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc., a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007.

Funny thing, up to about 10 days ago, that Wiki site also stated that Michelle made $51,000 from that relationship in 2006. But now that little morsel has been scrubbed.

I've noticed that Wikipedia is in the St. Barak business. The site for his banker buddy, Alexi Giannoulias, also is scrubbed squaky clean.

BTW, am I a racist for bringing that out about Michelle o-MOB-a?

No, you're not a racist. But you might notice that Michelle Obama is not running for president. It seems extraordinarily foolish to give a candidate's spouse any weight whatsoever in deciding amongst the candidates. Unfortunately, for some candidates, their spouse is their major asset.

Also, the only problem with Treehouse that I have heard is that Hillary Clinton's WalMart was one of its customers. If there is anything else, please enlighten us.

Hypocrisy does not equate with hope and change. (Neither does playing an imaginary race card.) You are all already forgetting what you got into this for, and will not want to remember once the media dissects o-MOB-a's Chi-town antics.

He's your Rudi. Only, unlike Repubs, you may have this albatross around your neck come November.

memyself @ 138:

Rasputin @ 134:

fiver @ 131:

Wow! I had always though that WalMart (especially during Clinton's tenure in the late eighties) was the prime example of the greed in the decade of greed. I had thought it was a union busting monopolistic outfit strongly dedicated to NAFTA so that it could take advantage of child labor, slave labor, unsafe working conditions, etc. all the while running its competition out of business.

What a relief to be corrected. WalMart was actually a sturdy bastion of progressive values.

Some folks will buy anything.

Yes some people will buy anything especially if they are a partisan hack that doesn't give a shit about the truth!

The head of Wallmarts Union says that the crap about Hillary being anti-union is exactly that CRAP! and supports her... deal with it!

Interesting. Wal-Mart doesn't think they have a union:

http://www.walmartfacts.com/wal-mart-union.aspx

A union leader (not the head of Wal-Mart's non existent union) supports Hillary. Well, since that union came out in favor of her I'm not surprised.

Clinton may be pro union now. Please explain why her many anti union years are valid experience I'm supposed to count as part of her "35 years making a difference and fighting for what I believe matters to people." (an exact quote taken from her campaign website)

There are quite a few people puzzled about how Hillary can make this claim:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=18391632

You point to a Wal-mart Company page that says they don't have a Union and act if that some how invalidates the claim by the UFCW Union to be there Union.

Except that page refers to the US and not Canada where they did unionize Wal-mart stores and the battle goes on! Walmart closed the Montreal store because the UFCW had successfully unionized that store.

For your reading pleasure:

Canada Campaign: Worker Rights at Wal-Mart

For more information about UFCW Canada's campaign against Wal-Mart, visit:

http://www.walmartworkerscanada.com
http://www.ufcw.ca

April 14, 2005
Ontario Premier Asked to Call Inquiry into Wal-Mart Covert Activities:
The premier of Ontario has been asked to call a public inquiry into the activities of Wal-Mart Canada and whether a covert campaign to bust a union at a Windsor Wal-Mart in the 1990's might have subverted the integrity of Ontario labour laws and even touched the
office of then Premier, Mike Harris.

April 8, 2005
Canadian Supreme Court Rules Wal-Mart Must Hand Over Anti-Union Materials to Labor Board
The Supreme Court of Canada ruled yesterday that Wal-Mart Canada must hand over anti-union corporate documents, including one entitled, “Wal-Mart: A Manager’s Tool Box to Remaining Union-Free,” to the Saskatchewan Labor Relations Board (SLRB) or face criminal sanctions.

February 10, 2005
Wal-Mart Runs Away from Workers
and Runs Over Worker Rights
The world’s largest corporation is choosing to destroy the livelihoods of nearly 200 working families. Wal-Mart has announced it is shutting down the store where workers had unionized six months earlier to have a voice on the job.

January 19, 2005
Wal-Mart Workers Win Voice with UFCW at Second Store in Canada
Wal-Mart workers in Saint-Hyacinthe, Quebec have won a voice on the job with UFCW Canada Local 501, becoming the second unionized Wal-Mart store in Quebec, Canada and North America.

November 23, 2004
Court Upholds Subpoena of Canada Wal-Mart Evidence
The Saskatchewan Labor Board (SLRB) was within its rights when it subpoenaed Wal-Mart to hand over evidence that outlines the company’s anti-union strategies, according to today’s ruling by the Saskatchewan Appeal Court.

March 17, 2004
Union Vote Set for Quebec Wal-Mart
A Wal-Mart store in Jonquière, Québec has moved one step closer to becoming the only unionized Wal-Mart location in North America following a decision Tuesday by the Quebec Labour Commission (QLC).

http://www.ufcw.org/take_action/walmart_workers_campaign_info/canada/ind...

And like a good little partisan hack... you claim that she is anti-union but you have no proof of that and the UFCW has worked with her before... they represent more retail chains than Walmart!

Further... if Hillary is so anti-union why does she have the support of so many Unions like the UFCW and the AFL-CIO :

OPEIU, ATU Endorse Clinton for President

by Seth Michaels, Dec 3, 2007

Two more unions have announced their support for Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) in the 2008 presidential election campaign.

Last week, Clinton won the support of the Amalgamated Transit Union (ATU), and today the Office and Professional Employees (OPEIU) announced it would back Clinton’s campaign for the White House.

OPEIU President Michael Goodwin said Clinton’s pro-working families record was the critical factor in earning the endorsement of the 125,000-member union.

America’s working families need a leader with Hillary Clinton’s strength and experience to bring about real change. Her strong Senate record and longtime commitment to working families make her the clear choice for OPEIU and our members.

Warren George, president of the 180,000-member ATU, also praised Clinton’s record of support for working families.

Hillary Clinton has the strength and experience to deliver the change that America’s working families need. She has a deep commitment to rebuilding the middle class and addressing the pocketbook issues that most matter to our members.

Hillary’s strong record of supporting working families and her detailed plans to promote economic fairness and rebuild the nation’s infrastructure, including our mass transit systems, make her the clear choice for ATU members.

http://blog.aflcio.org/2007/12/03/opeiu-atu-endorse-clinton-for-president/

G @ 146:

fiver @ 143:

loubie @ 140:

On Wal-Mart and St. 0-MOB-a:

According to wikipedia, Michelle o-MOB-s was a salaried board member of TreeHouse Foods, Inc., a major Wal-Mart supplier with whom she cut ties immediately after her husband made comments critical of Wal-Mart at an AFL-CIO forum in Trenton, New Jersey, on May 14, 2007.

Funny thing, up to about 10 days ago, that Wiki site also stated that Michelle made $51,000 from that relationship in 2006. But now that little morsel has been scrubbed.

I've noticed that Wikipedia is in the St. Barak business. The site for his banker buddy, Alexi Giannoulias, also is scrubbed squaky clean.

BTW, am I a racist for bringing that out about Michelle o-MOB-a?

No, you're not a racist. But you might notice that Michelle Obama is not running for president. It seems extraordinarily foolish to give a candidate's spouse any weight whatsoever in deciding amongst the candidates. Unfortunately, for some candidates, their spouse is their major asset.

Also, the only problem with Treehouse that I have heard is that Hillary Clinton's WalMart was one of its customers. If there is anything else, please enlighten us.

Michelle Obama may not be the one running for President; however, her husband is. He says he is about integrity.

Integrity means~ possession of firm principles; the quality of possessing and steadfastly adhering to high moral principles or professional standards. Completeness; the state of being complete or undivided.

When you have integrity, you do not shame others for the same thing those on your side are also guilty of, which is also being a hypocrite! He also blames Hillary Clinton for voting to authorize the war, but Obama's endorser, John Kerry also authorized it. Why is it alright for Kerry and NOT Hillary Clinton?

Voting for the Iraq War wasn't alright for Kerry, and Clinton will face the exact same "I was for it before I was against it" problem that Kerry did.

Perhaps I missed it: What was the problem with Treehouse Foods (other than having WalMart as a customer)?

Rasputin - while I do admire your copy and paste technique I must ask why you are bringing up stuff that has nothing to do with anything I've said.

I have NOT said Hillary is anti union now, not have I implied she has been since her board of directors/corporate lawyer days.

I was not aware that Hillary was running for president of Canada (which is the ONLY way the union status of Wal-Mart Canada would be relevant).

All I want to know is why is is not a lie for Hillary to claim “35 years making a difference and fighting for what I believe matters to people.” when to get to 35 years she has to count time spent in activities that were obviously anti Democratic in nature.

I can't see how ANY Democrat would count those 16 years as "making a difference and fighting for what I believe matters to people.”

That's it - no argument that she has an anti union issues since that time - just wondering how on earth it counts in her experience (the primary thing she claims to have over Obama)