I forgot about the late Ann Richards.

Texans aren't afraid to have a woman running things because they've recently had one.

pps @ 2:

Damn Ohio

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

pps @ 2:

Damn Ohio

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

fact: americans say they hate negative campaigning

fact: they consistently vote for the guy with the better negative campaign

fact: americans will vote against their own better interests if you are better at scaring the living shite out of them

hillary cant use god, guns and gays

so she uses kids, muslims and white fright

and i dont care about the delegate count, the clintonistas will use a big win in ohio to state that obama cannot win the swing states

and she will run with that all the way to pa

the convention is gonna be very interesting

Hillary spoke with great confidence

Hillary spoke with great arrogance.

Splendid @ 598:

This is a humiliating embarassment for Obama and his supporters. Even with the media on his side, Hillary's obituary has been written for the last several weeks, he won Vermont which he deemed inconsequential, lost Ohio by double digits because people saw through his lies about NAFTA (not to mention lying about lying about it GO CANADA!) and it's still a dead heat in Texas when he and his media supporters swore he'd sweep it by high double digits....

We didn't say Obama would win Texas by double digits. He only went ahead of Clinton in the polls last week. He could still win by 1% if Houston has not yet been counted.

But let's be clear, the MSM has been flip-flopping on whose side they are on. Tonight, they were on Hillary's side, since a Clinton win in Ohio means seven more weeks of higher ratings and more debates on CNN and MSNBC. The gang at MSNBC is giddy that we have 7 more weeks of this.

Thank goodness for the new thread.

Now, can we keep the Hillary-bashing to a dull roar over here? The Obama supporters are startingto froth like rabid Republicans.

I am gonna kill these people at CBS for interrupting Jericho with their damn Special Reports. I can follow the results on the computer without having to miss my show, forchrissake!

Mugsy @ 11:

Thank goodness for the new thread.

Now, can we keep the Hillary-bashing to a dull roar over here? The Obama supporters are startingto froth like rabid Republicans.

Or maybe it should apply to everyone, eh?

uncle joe mccarthy @ 5:

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

pps @ 2:

Damn Ohio

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

fact: americans say they hate negative campaigning

fact: they consistently vote for the guy with the better negative campaign

fact: americans will vote against their own better interests if you are better at scaring the living shite out of them

hillary cant use god, guns and gays

so she uses kids, muslims and white fright

and i dont care about the delegate count, the clintonistas will use a big win in ohio to state that obama cannot win the swing states

and she will run with that all the way to pa

the convention is gonna be very interesting

Vote for McCain then. Don' come complaining to me when your on a soup line.

Mugsy @ 14:

CD @ 1:

I forgot about the late Ann Richards.

Texans aren't afraid to have a woman running things because they've recently had one.

Ann Richards, Molly Ivans, Bill Moyers, Dan Rather, Jim Hightower, Barbara Jordan... the list goes on.

I should of pointed out that this is a list of good Texas Liberal Democrats.

L.A. Confidential @ 17:

uncle joe mccarthy @ 5:

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

pps @ 2:

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

fact: americans say they hate negative campaigning

fact: they consistently vote for the guy with the better negative campaign

fact: americans will vote against their own better interests if you are better at scaring the living shite out of them

hillary cant use god, guns and gays

so she uses kids, muslims and white fright

and i dont care about the delegate count, the clintonistas will use a big win in ohio to state that obama cannot win the swing states

and she will run with that all the way to pa

the convention is gonna be very interesting

Vote for McCain then. Don' come complaining to me when your on a soup line.

Hey, at least of a Democrat is elected we'll have a soup line. I hate being hungry.

So, how many times did John McCain say “My friends?”

I lost count at around a thousand.

Mugsy @ 11:

Thank goodness for the new thread.

Now, can we keep the Hillary-bashing to a dull roar over here? The Obama supporters are startingto froth like rabid Republicans.

Yeah, I'm really beginning to wonder about that myself.

So, how many times did John McCain say “My friends?”

Anyone that says my friend in every other breath is probably my enemy.

TheNextDylan @ 20:

I am just checking in. Has Gravel won a state tonight? ;-)

He wasn't even on the ballot here in Texas.

Biden, Edwards and Richardson were though.

krisken @ 12:

I can't believe I miss John Edwards. At least every other sentence wasn't about race, gender, and negativity.

Get used to it...The MSM, Corporate America and his bad campaigning buried our best hope for actual progressive (not sloganeered) change and we're left with corrupt and corrupt-er.

TheNextDylan @ 20:

I am just checking in. Has Gravel won a state tonight? ;-)

rim shot

nonbeliever @ 33:

TheNextDylan @ 20:

I am just checking in. Has Gravel won a state tonight? ;-)

rim shot

Oh, Rim shot. Damn, I really read that wrong the first time.

Splendid @ 358:

Anyone who votes for McCain because Hillary wins over Obama was never a democrat, progressive or even a liberal to begin with. Get over yourself.

Anbody who ridicules people for supporting Obama is not a progressive either.

Get over yourself!

Splendid @ 358:

Anyone who votes for McCain because Hillary wins over Obama was never a democrat, progressive or even a liberal to begin with. Get over yourself.

I think if you look beyond the "wool-over-your-eyes" partisan politicking and take a serious look at what our democracy is turning into, you'll realize that people need a wake-up call, not 4 more years of bickering.

Another Republican presidency would show all the divisive cheerleaders like yourself just what a serious situation our little hegemonic nation is in, and maybe people would take to the streets and scare the government into acting right again.

Quiet Burp @ 364:

Splendid @ 358:

Anyone who votes for McCain because Obama wins over Hillary was never a democrat, progressive or even a liberal to begin with. Get over yourself.

I fixed your post for ya!

Strawberrybitch @ 362:

xoites defends Constitution @ 356:

Strawberrybitch @ 350:

brokenrob @ 344:

How about we just settle on Ivy League? Is that good enough?

How about the same old boy club?

Northeastern White People?

More of the same?

Splendid @ 354:

xoites defends Constitution, to answer your segregationist question, I am a democrat who would only switch to independent to confuse the pollsters, and would only vote republican if there were a gun to my gay husbands head and would even then file an appeal to undo my vote due to mortal distress. The reason the Obama kool-aid drinkers think anyone who challenges their lord or calls him out must be a republican simply displays their true old school divisiveness they rejected when they supported Nader but which seems not so cool all the sudden now that Ndaer might eat into their Obama victory.

Welcome the new boss….
Same as the old boss….only helps us alleviate our white guilt
(Not sure how to fit that into a pop rhyme. Maybe Black-Eyed-Peas could help…and then donate their profits to the middle class workers in Ohio Obama couldn’t be bothered to meet with.)

Xoites, if the son of my blue collar husband won a scholarship to an Ivy League school AND a Rhodes scholarship I'd drop dead from happiness...as well as shock.

And i would be happy for you. Winning a scholarship is a world away from the people who know they will be going by the time they are three years old.

Dennis Kucinich would have been the best canidate as opposed to these two bought and sold cohorts. He had guts to say things like no NAFTA, NCLB, a single payer system for Healthcare, instead of just "tweaking them all a bit." so show him some darn respect. Anyways go Dems!

P.S. Media wants Obama to win?
Maybe Hillary is the best bet for that very reason.
Now piss off idiots. :)

FeRReT @ 366:

xoites defends Constitution @ 353:

Let me see:

Coniving slime slinging gold digging power grabber

Or

Addled war monger

hmmmm....

So which is supposed to be Clinton and which is supposed to be McCain? Its too hard to tell!

No kidding.

YOU SIR ARE AN EFFING IDIOT!!!

YesWeCan @ 82:

H. Clinton cannot and will not mathematically win the nomination. If for some reason, with a divine intervention of course, she gets the nominee, there's still a choice...it's Nader! And if either Clinton or McCain wins, sigh...I seem to have fooled myself once again...

Abby @ 370:

Are you Democrats? I don't think so.

I'm registered Democrat, I've always voted democrat. I like to avoid labels, however. You seem to apply them at every opportunity, so let me tell you this - No political party perfectly aligns with my views, and if you were better informed about the issues I doubt you would be so quick to parade around under the Democrat banner.

Both sides are flawed, there is too much money involved for either party to be ethically perfect, and if you're taking corporate money your decisions are influenced. Period.

Now please go read something, instead of just spouting partisan vitriol and adding absolutely nothing to the board.

usafail @ 375:

Abby @ 370:

Are you Democrats? I don't think so.

I'm registered Democrat, I've always voted democrat. I like to avoid labels, however. You seem to apply them at every opportunity, so let me tell you this - No political party perfectly aligns with my views, and if you were better informed about the issues I doubt you would be so quick to parade around under the Democrat banner.

Both sides are flawed, there is too much money involved for either party to be ethically perfect, and if you're taking corporate money your decisions are influenced. Period.

Now please go read something, instead of just spouting partisan vitriol and adding absolutely nothing to the board.

usafail, I actually appreciate you pointing out your political affiliation and reminding us all how easily we tend to catagorize one another. Even though you still wouldn't qualify as a democrat, liberal or progressive by this sites definiton if you voted for McCain were he up against Hillary.

YesWeCan @ 82:

H. Clinton cannot and will not mathematically win the nomination. If for some reason, with a divine intervention of course, she gets the nominee, there's still a choice...it's Nader! And if either Clinton or McCain wins, sigh...I seem to have fooled myself once again...

What's so funny and pathetic is that if Obama were in the same position of winning the popular vote vs. the delegate vote, Obama and his supporters would be storming the gates to get in.

usafail @ 378:

Splendid @ 374:

"So you are a gay liberal racist? Or are you a woman?
Anbody who ridicules people for supporting Obama is not a progressive either."

Typical liberal Obama supporter. You're either for Obama or you're a racist. LOL

You're either for Hillary or you're a misogynist. LOL

Let Obama claim to be a uniter while his surrogates tell his true story of divisiveness.

And HRC's supporters are all saints, who have never disparaged BHO. Plus her campaign has been squeaky clean, not a hint of Rove-ian mischief.

Wouldn’t be surprised if you were a white-guilt liberal who sees no light of day between racial mentalities.

Pretty presumptuous there, huh?

usafail makes no sense so I assume he's drunk the Obama-aid as well.

Haven't been reading my posts, huh? I'm way far left of all the candidates, but I think for practical reasons BHO would be the better candidate, I think he'd do better in a general election and improve the U.S.'s world image (Even though his foreign policy leaves much to be desired, as does HRC's).

That Kool-Aid comment is much played out, btw.

Now you're just displaying 'former front-runners paranoia'. Sign of things to come, I guess. Good reminder though. Thanks.

McCain would only be acceptable if he were running against some corporate lawyer who sat on the boards of several multi-million dollar corporations and owed the entire candidacy to family connections. Then again McCain both supported the Iraq War and Kyl-Lieberman. What kind of warmongering POS could do that?

DJ&Chip @ 384:

There is a very aryan nation looking photo on WaPo right now. Illustrating Hillary's win.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030500015.html

Nothing whatsoever 'aryan nation' about the photo or the win (espeically when you look at the numbers of her winning back hispanic vote) but your post does demonstrate the continued race-baiting of the Obama campaign and its supporters.

The Democrats could fuck up a free lunch.

fiver @ 383:

McCain would only be acceptable if he were running against some corporate lawyer who sat on the boards of several multi-million dollar corporations and owed the entire candidacy to family connections. Then again McCain both supported the Iraq War and Kyl-Lieberman. What kind of warmongering POS could do that?

lol.... I'm just going to kick back and watch this comment sail over everyone's heads...

usafail @ 389:

fiver @ 383:

McCain would only be acceptable if he were running against some corporate lawyer who sat on the boards of several multi-million dollar corporations and owed the entire candidacy to family connections. Then again McCain both supported the Iraq War and Kyl-Lieberman. What kind of warmongering POS could do that?

lol.... I'm just going to kick back and watch this comment sail over everyone's heads...

haha, the funny thing is the people who won't get this are the ones who should. sigh.....

usafail @ 386:

Splendid @ 377:

usafail @ 375:

Abby @ 370:

I'm registered Democrat, I've always voted democrat. I like to avoid labels, however. You seem to apply them at every opportunity, so let me tell you this - No political party perfectly aligns with my views, and if you were better informed about the issues I doubt you would be so quick to parade around under the Democrat banner.

Both sides are flawed, there is too much money involved for either party to be ethically perfect, and if you're taking corporate money your decisions are influenced. Period.

Now please go read something, instead of just spouting partisan vitriol and adding absolutely nothing to the board.

usafail, I actually appreciate you pointing out your political affiliation and reminding us all how easily we tend to catagorize one another. Even though you still wouldn't qualify as a democrat, liberal or progressive by this sites definiton if you voted for McCain were he up against Hillary.

The REASON I would vote for a McCain presidency, I should clarify - is not in support of any of HIS policies. I simply believe a Hillary win would be an empty victory, nothing of substance would get done during her presidency, and by 2012 people would be clamoring for another Republican president.

I think this country needs to "hit bottom", to use Alcoholics Anonymous jargon; another 4 years of Republican raping and pillaging would really open people's eyes, and they wouldn't have Hillary to blame when the bottom drops out of the economy.

Always be skeptical, these people are your enemies. I drink no one's kool-aid.

How in the world is Obama SOOOO different then Clinton? Can you name more than 5 differences in their policies? I doubt it.

He's going to end partisanship? Really? Have you met today's Republican party? It takes two to tango and The Republican's don't want to dance.

I'm a Hillary supporter, it's true. But I'll support Obama if he wins the nomination. I'm not fooling myself into believing that Hillary is 1000 times better than Barack. In the areas that i find important, the environment and health care Hillary is MORE progressive thus i like her better.

But please stop with the idiot notion that Obama is some kind of perfect savior and that Hillary is some kind of satan. Neither is true.

Insipid, thanks for the voice of minority dissent.

What's going on w/Kucinich?

Ivan @ 37:

What's going on w/Kucinich?

He still gets to go to bed with that sweet sweet wife.

And someone took his lucky charms.

I feel so dirty.

Obama's speech was brilliant.

Karl Rove looks like he just shit his pants.

unbelievable......
have at it.
way too narrow minded

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

pps @ 2:

Damn Ohio

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

Pa-leaze! Ohio is showing itself to be the most ignorant state in the Union.

Right behind Florida!!

Agent Provocateur @ 41:

Obama's speech was brilliant.

Karl Rove looks like he just shit his pants.

He should've given a speech like that Sunday or last night!

DJ&Chip @ 384:

There is a very aryan nation looking photo on WaPo right now. Illustrating Hillary's win.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/05/AR2008030500015.html

Holy shit. Your an idiot.

Hillary will have to figure out how to win without the Obama supporters voting for her.

And I'd rather have Obama's problem of fighting Hillary and McWeathervane with his warchest of $$$ than what those two have to deal with.

Even the moonie conservatives are dressing her down...
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080305/NATION/95...
Clinton's hits on Obama don't deliver big margins

By the way...who's rumored to be endorsing Barack Obama later today?

25>10 Clinton defectors vs. Obama defectors
86>65 Obama voters for Clinton vs. Clinton voters for Obama

Vote for the candidate that has the support of Big Pharma and the Health Insurance industry, fine, but the claim that that same candidate will be MORE progressive on health care is ridiculous.

There is, however, an amazing consistency to Hillary when it comes to health care: as director of WalMart she gave her employees the exact same health care plan she gave the nation as First Lady.

116 Mugsy Says: Ted @ 101:

I am still going with Nader since he is the only real anti war candidate.

…with about as much a chance of winning as I do.

If Nader wasn’t running, would you REALLY stay home this November and sit this one out?

If your answer is No, then you’re casting a vote for McCain. Don’t be an idiot.

Living in Nebraska it really doesn't matter who I vote for, the state has always gone red and it will again this year. My vote for Nader doesn't matter since the President isn't elected by popular vote. Nader may not have a chance but I can vote for the anti-war candidate.

fiver @ 403:

Vote for the candidate that has the support of Big Pharma and the Health Insurance industry, fine, but the claim that that same candidate will be MORE progressive on health care is ridiculous.

There is, however, an amazing consistency to Hillary when it comes to health care: as director of WalMart she gave her employees the exact same health care plan she gave the nation as First Lady.

Hillary got $40,000 in PRESIDENTIAL campaign contributions from WalMart. http://www.nwaonline.net/articles/2008/03/01/news/030208dcwalmartclinton...

Splendid @ 404:

Jason @ 398:

Splendid, you are a fool. I love how the Clintonistas wont even acknowledge the fact that a quarter of them will defect if Obama gets the nomination while only 10% of Obamatons will do the same.

Typical hate-mongering of the Obama-supporters whenever they don't win totally everything. Spoiled, spiteful. children. Nice. This is change?

I relish how Obama and his supporters get exposed when they don't get their Cha-Cha Heels on Xmas morning.

LOL

Hate mongering? LOL. Clintonistas are the ones who are gonna take their ball and go home if she doesn't get the nomination. They call themselves Democrats? DINOS. She's the one who ran as the inevitable. And when it turns out she wasn't going to be coronated Clitonistas got perturbed. Oh well. But don't worry Splendid. I'm still gonna vote for Hillary. I just know she's gonna get her ass handed to her.

BL @ 255:

DHavok @ 248:

Can I just say that it seems somewhat irrelevant to me that Senator Clinton won Texas? I mean, Republicans can cross over and vote if they want to and with so many of the right-wing mouthpieces (Limbaugh, Colter, etc.) saddened by McCain so much that they claim they'll vote for Clinton, couldn't it be assumed rather accurately, considering how willing the right seems to be when it comes to following these people, that they did so this primary season?

Would it have been relevant if Obama won? Couldn't the same principle of Republican crossover apply since Obama, apparently, appeals to such a broad cross section of Americans including Independents and Republicans?

Possibly, but what Republican mouthpiece is urging people to go vote for Obama? Also, what are the odds that southern Republicans, in Texas, are going to vote for a black guy for President?

I'm just saying that these crossover primary states should be analyzed a bit more closely and personally, he's got fewer weaknesses than her in my opinion.

usafail @ 400:

Insipid @ 393:

usafail @ 386:

Splendid @ 377:

The REASON I would vote for a McCain presidency, I should clarify - is not in support of any of HIS policies. I simply believe a Hillary win would be an empty victory, nothing of substance would get done during her presidency, and by 2012 people would be clamoring for another Republican president.

I think this country needs to "hit bottom", to use Alcoholics Anonymous jargon; another 4 years of Republican raping and pillaging would really open people's eyes, and they wouldn't have Hillary to blame when the bottom drops out of the economy.

Always be skeptical, these people are your enemies. I drink no one's kool-aid.

How in the world is Obama SOOOO different then Clinton? Can you name more than 5 differences in their policies? I doubt it.

He's going to end partisanship? Really? Have you met today's Republican party? It takes two to tango and The Republican's don't want to dance.

I'm a Hillary supporter, it's true. But I'll support Obama if he wins the nomination. I'm not fooling myself into believing that Hillary is 1000 times better than Barack. In the areas that i find important, the environment and health care Hillary is MORE progressive thus i like her better.

But please stop with the idiot notion that Obama is some kind of perfect savior and that Hillary is some kind of satan. Neither is true.

READ. MY. POSTS.

I already said Obama is flawed, and the same argument almost applies word-for-word to him. EXCEPT that he has a nearly-universal charisma, and I believe thats what we need right now. You're talking about the republicans not playing ball? Remember Clinton health care reform in the 90's? They didn't play ball then either. They will spite her every step of the way, should she win.

I'm under no illusions about any major change in the next four years, regardless of WHO wins. I think Obama would be a (largely superficial) step in the right direction, and would somewhat improve our international image.

The Republican party is in shambles. You want to see them re-group? Give them a common enemy. They HATE Hillary Clinton. A lot of them don't know what to think about Obama, and quite a few conservative-leaning independents like him better than McCain (...yet can't stand Hillary).

They're going to hate Obama too in a couple of months. It's what they do. It's what they always do. I've got a good idea, let's not let THEM choose ARE nominee. Ok? What's a matter with you? Can't you defend Democratic principles? It should be easy for you after 8 years of Bush. Why do you think we need the cult of personality to win it? We need the best person for the job and i'm SOOO damn tired of jumping threw Republican hoops. We did that in 2004 when we bought into the Republican talking point that Dean was too unhinged to win. We did it in 2000 when we bought into the notion that America was tired of the tone of the Clinton administration (the tone they caused) and decided to allow the vote to get close enough to steal. If we win it we should win it based upon selling OUR beliefs, not based upon personality.

What i HATE about Obama's rhetoric is that he blames the problems befalling this country on partisanship. The strong implication is that BOTH sides are equally to blame. Bullshit. It's the Republican's fault. It's ALL their fault and where the Democrats are to blame its in their lack of ability to FIGHT them and beat them into the ground and then kick them goodfellas style while they're down. I want a leader who's proud of the Democratic platform, who doesn't run away from it. Obama runs from it, Hillary embraces it. That's why i support her.

We need a DEMOCRAT who will say OUR party has been right and their party has been wrong and we need a democrat who will get people to join by pointing them out, not by advancing the false notion that somehow both sides are to blame.

Hillary got six (6) extra delegates in Ohio. RI and VT were a wash canceling each other out.

She got an extra two (2) delegates in the TX primary.

It looks as if Obama is in line to get more delegates in the TX caucuses than she will.

He's still ahead in the popular vote according to RealClearPolitics, and he's ahead in delegates.

Clinton Wins Big, But Math is Troubling

Insipid @ 413:

usafail @ 400:

Insipid @ 393:

usafail @ 386:

How in the world is Obama SOOOO different then Clinton? Can you name more than 5 differences in their policies? I doubt it.

He's going to end partisanship? Really? Have you met today's Republican party? It takes two to tango and The Republican's don't want to dance.

I'm a Hillary supporter, it's true. But I'll support Obama if he wins the nomination. I'm not fooling myself into believing that Hillary is 1000 times better than Barack. In the areas that i find important, the environment and health care Hillary is MORE progressive thus i like her better.

But please stop with the idiot notion that Obama is some kind of perfect savior and that Hillary is some kind of satan. Neither is true.

READ. MY. POSTS.

I already said Obama is flawed, and the same argument almost applies word-for-word to him. EXCEPT that he has a nearly-universal charisma, and I believe thats what we need right now. You're talking about the republicans not playing ball? Remember Clinton health care reform in the 90's? They didn't play ball then either. They will spite her every step of the way, should she win.

I'm under no illusions about any major change in the next four years, regardless of WHO wins. I think Obama would be a (largely superficial) step in the right direction, and would somewhat improve our international image.

The Republican party is in shambles. You want to see them re-group? Give them a common enemy. They HATE Hillary Clinton. A lot of them don't know what to think about Obama, and quite a few conservative-leaning independents like him better than McCain (...yet can't stand Hillary).

They're going to hate Obama too in a couple of months. It's what they do. It's what they always do. I've got a good idea, let's not let THEM choose ARE nominee. Ok? What's a matter with you? Can't you defend Democratic principles? It should be easy for you after 8 years of Bush. Why do you think we need the cult of personality to win it? We need the best person for the job and i'm SOOO damn tired of jumping threw Republican hoops. We did that in 2004 when we bought into the Republican talking point that Dean was too unhinged to win. We did it in 2000 when we bought into the notion that America was tired of the tone of the Clinton administration (the tone they caused) and decided to allow the vote to get close enough to steal. If we win it we should win it based upon selling OUR beliefs, not based upon personality.

What i HATE about Obama's rhetoric is that he blames the problems befalling this country on partisanship. The strong implication is that BOTH sides are equally to blame. Bullshit. It's the Republican's fault. It's ALL their fault and where the Democrats are to blame its in their lack of ability to FIGHT them and beat them into the ground and then kick them goodfellas style while they're down. I want a leader who's proud of the Democratic platform, who doesn't run away from it. Obama runs from it, Hillary embraces it. That's why i support her.

We need a DEMOCRAT who will say OUR party has been right and their party has been wrong and we need a democrat who will get people to join by pointing them out, not by advancing the false notion that somehow both sides are to blame.

I'm not even going to waste any more of my time or energy on someone who absolutely refuses to think critically or objectively, types "ARE" in the place of "OUR", and "threw" instead of "through".

Guess what? Partisanship IS bad, on EITHER side. Yeah, the conservative agenda is evil, but "liberal" and "Democrat" are not always the same thing, and you'd do well to learn where you stand in the real world instead of always regurgitating the party line.

Insipid @ 418:

Hareli @ 415:

He's still ahead in the popular vote according to RealClearPolitics, and he's ahead in delegates.

So you guys keep changing the rules. First it was all about the popular votes and the delegates should always go in line with what the majority says. Now it's all about the delegates and the majority doesn't matter at all. ....

Your ignoring half his sentence, he's ahead in the popular vote.

What do you think? Popular vote or delegates? I'm a popular vote man, myself.

Attention lurking Hillary Clinton advisors. You wanna beat the fraud that is Barack? Here ya go:

1. He voted FOR funding the Iraq war yet tries to claim how against the war he has been
2. He voted FOR the Patriot Act
3. He supported Bush's energy bill which included tax breaks for his largest contributor over the last 6 years, (a nuclear power company in Illinois), and subsidies for oil and coal.
4. Canadagate. Drive it home!
5. Show the clip of him praising Rumsfeld and Reagan
6. Emphasize how often he has been absent from voting both in the IL & U.S. Senate

That should just about do it.

Congrats!

Aaron @ 416:

Can anybody envision a scenario where Clinton continues the attack, further dividing the party, and somehow goes on to beat John McCain in the general election? I cannot. Either Obama wins this or Clinton is somehoe able to win with her typical slash and burn politics. Who else would vote for her? Repubelicans? Independents? Ha! And the Democrats would lose....again. The only question remaining is whether Clinton insists on bringing Obama down the toilet with her.

This is the depressing truth. I am not an Obamaton, I hated the "Yes We Can" video, but I know in my gut that if Hillary wins the nomination, the Democratic party is toast.

Unfortunately her campaign and her rabid minority of supporters can't divorce themselves from their idealistic view of her. Hillary is not getting anywhere near the White House, the right wing is DYING to have a Clinton to demonize.

She'll be ripped to shreds in the general election... and if by some act of providence, she does win? The division created by her aggressive campaigning, and the partisan legacy of the Clinton 1990's, will usher in a new era of violently divided politics. When 2012 rolls around, no one in their right mind will want to vote Democrat anymore. The Republicans will unveil their new version of Ronald Reagan, and we get World War 3.... if we're lucky.

Saloum @ 423:

Attention lurking Hillary Clinton advisors. You wanna beat the fraud that is Barack? Here ya go:

1. He voted FOR funding the Iraq war yet tries to claim how against the war he has been
2. He voted FOR the Patriot Act
3. He supported Bush's energy bill which included tax breaks for his largest contributor over the last 6 years, (a nuclear power company in Illinois), and subsidies for oil and coal.
4. Canadagate. Drive it home!
5. Show the clip of him praising Rumsfeld and Reagan
6. Emphasize how often he has been absent from voting both in the IL & U.S. Senate

That should just about do it.

Congrats!

Such great reasons to vote for Hillary. Limbaugh couldn't have done it better (though he's been trying). Have you checked Ann Coulter's website? She's a fellow supporter with similar tactics.

If she wins the nomination, I wont vote for her. I'll vote for McCain. Her remarks about the new Russian Pres this past week and comments about Chavez and Venezuela when the issue was Columbia vis-a-vis Ecuador show me she has the foreign policy instincts of a dead gnat. She will be Bush Lite. And what what? in her background commends her to fix the economy.

Also, her big cajone I've met all the leaders of the world is a non-starter. With the exception of Irish Prime Minister Bertie Ahern, none of the leaders that Bill met, and that Hillary can piggy-back off of, are in power.

Hareli @ 430:

Insipid @ 418:
Obama has the popular vote.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/

Yes, he does have more popular votes....for now.

I was talking about Texas in particular. Some are claiming how wonderful it is that Obama might wind up with more delegates in Texas when all is said and done because of the quirky way Texas has of allocating its delegates. If Hillary wins Texas, but loses delegates would you agree that is wrong?

Ok, the overzealous Obama supporters are making me sick too.

So, how many times did John McCain say “My friends?”

A few more times than he uttered "Islamo Fascist"...

to some of you folks,
it wouldn't matter what she said.
you'll find the fault you're looking for.

chris @ 32:

Way to go Hillary, you fight this thing all the way to the convention, you deserve to be the dem's representative, your the ONLY one who can fix my problems, day one!! hahaha

never said she would fix anything...just that she would be ready

and she will be awake every nite at 3 am for your phone call

its time to prank the wh

mo_dem @ 40:

Kucinich has a big lead in his race, thank goodness. http://vote.sos.state.oh.us/pls/enr/f?p=152:5:0

That's great news. Now on to the Bush impeachment resolution.

Agent Provocateur @ 41:

Obama's speech was brilliant.

Karl Rove looks like he just shit his pants.

Um...Karl Rove came out in defense of Obama and the racist slurs....what does that tell you?

CD @ 54:

krisken @ 39:

Ivan @ 37:

What's going on w/Kucinich?

He still gets to go to bed with that sweet sweet wife.

And someone took his lucky charms.

I feel so dirty.

If someone wrote a kids book about Dennis it would have to be titled the worlds luckiest nome.

Gnome, sir. :) It's ok, I couldn't spell its before.

Hillary wins in Battleground states, she wins in rural America and in urban cities. Hillary wins the diverse vote, she wins catholic votes and she will win the Presidency. McCain does not have a prayer in hell against Hillary Clinton in the general election.

The one thing she doesn't win is the elite liberal rich vote. But that will change, they'll come on board as soon as they wake up and see Obama will never win the nomination or the White House. The liberal elite wanted someone like Obama they thought they could control, easy going and not ready to be the leader of the free world.

Hillary Clinton is the candidate with the spine that can and will take America back to her greatness.

Here on the local news, the on-the-scene ABC reporter at the caucuses keeps referring to the "Democrat" Party. :-/

Mark @ News Corpse @ 28:

Alright, I don't care what anyone says, both Dems gave great speeches tonight.

And both Dems can beat McCain.

So revel in our good fortune.

They better. Seriously, the last fucking thing we need is another Gore/Kerry situation where people get bored or disillusioned and don't turn out to vote. This is the chance after 8 MISERABLE, UNIMAGINABLE, DESPICABLE years, to change the source and flow of power in Washington, D.C. We need to stop bashing either of these Dem candidates and be excited that either of them will be the next President.

bmw 528 @ 26:

uncle joe mccarthy @ 5:

L.A. Confidential @ 3:

pps @ 2:

You shouldn't treat poor and struggling middle class citizens with disrespect.

fact: americans say they hate negative campaigning

fact: they consistently vote for the guy with the better negative campaign

fact: americans will vote against their own better interests if you are better at scaring the living shite out of them

hillary cant use god, guns and gays

so she uses kids, muslims and white fright

and i dont care about the delegate count, the clintonistas will use a big win in ohio to state that obama cannot win the swing states

and she will run with that all the way to pa

the convention is gonna be very interesting

Ohio delegates: Clinton 66, Obama 51. Not exactly an overwhelming victory for Republican Lite.

its not about the delegates, unless the party elite push that point

when it comes down to the general, its a winner take all thing

hillary will say that obama cannot win the swing states

there is gonna be a floor fight at the conventioN

I'm starting to think this place has campaign managers working a late shift here. They do realize that most of the people on forums are mostly decided already, right?

Insipid @ 428:

First off, being a grammar cop is obnoxious and a sign of desperation. If you don't want to see typos or mis-used homonyms, you shouldn't be here.

Partisanship is not always bad. The abolitionists were partisans. The suffragists were partisans. Those marching in Thelma were partisans.

As far as the real world goes: who's been controlling the White House for the past 8 years? Who's been controlling Congress for most of the past 8 years? (and again, where most of us find fault with the Democrats is in not fighting the Republicans enough) Who's been controlling the courts? The Republicans. So how in the world can anyone blame Partisanship for the sorry state of our country when only ONE party has even had a voice?

Partisanship is inevitable, but I do not rescind my comments. The political divide is destructive and dangerous in its current form, and we're never going to be able to find common ground with the right wing unless we drop the Us VS Them mentality, and start agreeing on basic human issues. You're right, the Democrats don't fight the right hard enough. They've proven themselves time and again to be paper tigers.

Allegiance to a party that is in such a constant state of compromise or concession is unhealthy, and so is this simplistic Red VS Blue mentality.

Insipid @ 428:

....
First off, being a grammar cop is obnoxious and a sign of desperation. If you don't want to see typos or mis-used homonyms, you shouldn't be here.

Partisanship is not always bad. The abolitionists were partisans. The suffragists were partisans. Those marching in Thelma were partisans.

As far as the real world goes: who's been controlling the White House for the past 8 years? Who's been controlling Congress for most of the past 8 years? (and again, where most of us find fault with the Democrats is in not fighting the Republicans enough) Who's been controlling the courts? The Republicans. So how in the world can anyone blame Partisanship for the sorry state of our country when only ONE party has even had a voice?

The abolitionists were not partisans; they formed a new party to represent their views. Which party were the suffragettes so completely behind? They always seemed so issue driven in the history books.

Also, nobody marched at Thelma - she and Louise drove.

fiver @ 435:

Insipid @ 428:

....
First off, being a grammar cop is obnoxious and a sign of desperation. If you don't want to see typos or mis-used homonyms, you shouldn't be here.

Partisanship is not always bad. The abolitionists were partisans. The suffragists were partisans. Those marching in Thelma were partisans.

As far as the real world goes: who's been controlling the White House for the past 8 years? Who's been controlling Congress for most of the past 8 years? (and again, where most of us find fault with the Democrats is in not fighting the Republicans enough) Who's been controlling the courts? The Republicans. So how in the world can anyone blame Partisanship for the sorry state of our country when only ONE party has even had a voice?

The abolitionists were not partisans; they formed a new party to represent their views. Which party were the suffragettes so completely behind? They always seemed so issue driven in the history books.

Also, nobody marched at Thelma - she and Louise drove.

Ok, since that last line was funny, i'll declare that you kicked my ass in this argument and go to bed. But i meant partisan in the sense of being strongly behind some movement or cause. Not necessarily a party (although it can be a party and that's not necessarily a bad thing.)