The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

re: Obama's Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Maggie22 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 04:57:05 GMT

Interesting. I got to see Obama tonight in South Bend, IN, and here he did draw some contrasts with Clinton (she doesn't understand that we can't get real change done if we try to go about business as usual). Though the sharper contrasts were with McCain. He also put in the line that the differences between the two Democrats were minimal in comparison with the big contrast with McCain. There was a small response to the McCain complaints about whether he's sufficiently apologized for Rockefeller's comments -- he reminded us that his supporters need to be mindful that McCain's service to the country deserves nothing less than our utmost respect. But then went on to draw strong contrasts with him (3rd term of Bush; McCain once opposed tax cuts for the rich but a wheel fell off ot the straight talk train when he decided to run for office). So here, there's still a bit of Clinton in the room, but much more McCain.

And I'm happy to break the earth-shattering news that the mayor of South Bend has endorsed Obama, as have the mayors of Michigan City, IN and Goshen IN.

There ya go!

I have started to think that we will know that the nomination battle is over when we stop actually talking about Clinton. But it's plain that the media isn't close to there. And I don't think the Obama campaign is really there yet, either.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

NowOnlyNow — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:31:57 GMT

Maggie22 The race isn't over even if you stop talking about Senator Clinton. The race will be over after all primaries are completed and possibly only after the DNC Convention in Denver. Your dismissive attitude is naive.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

MaryBAnderson — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:45:23 GMT

This also happened in Plainfield, In

During a Michelle Obama appearance at Carnegie Mellon University, the school paper The Tartan reported the attention-getting phrase:

The Tartan's correspondents observed one event coordinator say to another, "Get me more white people, we need more white people." To an Asian girl sitting in the back row, one coordinator said, "We're moving you up front, sorry. It's going to look so pretty, though."

"I didn't know they would say, 'We need a white person here,' " said attendee and senior psychology major Shayna Watson, who sat in the crowd behind Mrs. Obama. "I understood they would want a show of diversity, but to pick up people and to reseat them, I didn't know it would be so outright."

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

News and Notes — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:45:29 GMT

It is arrogant of him to think the race is over. Haven't we had enough arrogance and inadequate experience over the last seven years? You can't smooth talk your way into the white house. He is like an annoying baby brother who gets away with everything and blames his older siblings. We are definitely ready for a black president, but it is not Obama.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

shaynag — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 14:48:21 GMT

I have also listened to Barack Obama give speeches and answer questions. I have noticed that during the questios sessions, he sidesteps the question and gives his usual stomp speech remarks. He is not one for giving thought-provoking answers, but rather, crowd pleasing and charming remarks that are sure to stir up the audience. Charm alone will not win him the presidency if he is the Democratic nominee.

Hillary Clinton, on the other hand, gives detailed and thought-provoking answers. She may be more of a detail wonk, but she doesn't sidestep questions. She doesn't always have the charm that Obama possesses or even her husband, Bill, but I would rather have her as the Democratic nominee than Obama. Our country has had more than seven years of a smiling charmer and I think that that is enough.

Voters were asked during the 2000 election who they would rather have a beer with, Bush or Gore. Now, Obama would probably be the one that would fit that description. But I think our country needs someone right now who will be a work every moment of each day trying to make the lives of the American people better. And to me, Hillary fits that description. She may not know all the ansers but she will not surround herself with yes advisors as Bush has, but with excellent advisors who will give her differing opinions.

I agree with Chelsea in that her mother would be a better President than her father was. I am a resident of Pennsylvania and I intend on voting for Hillary Clinton. I want solutions to our nation's problems, not a lot of charming and crowd pleasing retoric.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

mrockefeller11 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:04:27 GMT

Obama needs to focus the election on the issues: Beating McBush, and fixing our economy, foreigh trade, debt and going greener to stop our reliance on foreigh oil Bill ard Hillary's only chacne to win is for something BAD to happen to Obama.

Obama needs to keep campaigning hard, get his message across, and not get sucked into the Clinton Machine gutter politics -- and bill and Hillary are so good at that -- the best.

Obama 2008!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lodmi — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:10:09 GMT

Her answers mean NOTHING.

She is building her own "Political business" in interests of Clintons, no matter what it will take.

She will turn it all around in favor of Clintons, same as they did , donating to Clinton's own charity.

Is it that what You want for the country?

Think.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

go_hillary_go — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:11:53 GMT

I'm a 21 yr old college student from Wisconsin, still bitter that Obanana could shmooze over my state during the primaries. Even though it's a little late in the game, people are finally waking up and beginning to have second thoughts about him.. questioning his patriotism, his ambitions or lack thereof, etc. Like so many other Americans, I'm really restless and plagued by anxiety over this election; namely the April 22 primaries. I just really hope that this guy isn't able to shmoooze over the people of Pennsylvania.. at this point, their role in deciding the nominee is crucial. Obamana knows that, which is why his "regular guy" shenanigans are on overload.

I say this to not only the people who have yet to vote but also to the superdelegates: Sometimes, it's not about popularity. It's about potential. It's about doing what's right.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Twhit1007 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:21:14 GMT

Shaynag, I would have to disagree with many of your assumptions. Obama doesn't always just give crowd pleasing remarks, in fact many times he has told crowds the harsh truth like he did in front of autoworkers months ago. Clinton does sidestep questions all the time...did you see the debate with Tim Russert?

You say that she will not surround herself with yes advisors, yet look at her campaign staff, including the numerous people that have left, these are all long time friends of her and Bill. Is this the type of cabinet that she or America needs? Sounds like she might answer the phone at 3am and give a solution at 3pm after her staff argues for 12 hours about the right course of action. Obama has a clear grasp of the nation's domestic problems and of the fragile workings of foreign policy. For instance he was right about the Iraq war, and didn't change his position after finally consenting to public opinion. She even said the other day that Obama is just telling America that he will withdraw troops. Like my teachers used to say in school "Where's you supporting evidence?"

Should I believe him, who never changed his stance on the war, or her, who uses misleading statements daily just like her multiple references to sniper fire in Bosnia? Should I believe that she knows what Obama is thinking? Please.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Radmanaustin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:23:16 GMT

I disagree with some of what shaynag is saying. I was at Obama's Town Hall in San Antonio where he took questions from the audience. I agree Obama does include much of his stump speech in answering these questions, I also find it remarkable his grasp of the real issues and his unconventional approaches to fixing them. They are always methods that unite people to solve problems. The only time he divides is when there is an unhealthy relation going on such as lobbyist influence on government leaders. Obama's including much of his stump speech material is understandable. These are well thought out positions that promote his campaign and if he sticks with them he is less likely to do a McCainian goof that would help Clinton. I feel this long hard fought nomination race between Hillary and Barack is overall a very good thing. At no time in my life have I seen such energy and devotion to two candidates and their ideas. Hope has been instilled in the American people. With hope we always worry that it could be dashed. But the risk is worth taking.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Red&White&Blue — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:42:59 GMT

Posted By: MaryBAnderson (April 10, 2008 at 10:45 AM)

What is the difference between this and Senator Clinton paying to have black people to sit in on her rallies?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

theothersmith — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:40:27 GMT

To: go_hillary_go

21 year old college student? Then way act like you are 10 with your name calling?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

go_hillary_go — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:45:11 GMT

I say this to not only the people who have yet to vote but also to the superdelegates: Sometimes, it's not about popularity. It's about potential. It's about doing what's right.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

15R8 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:51:13 GMT

I am unemployeda carpenter by choice .

Bush gave away alot of jobs to illegals by alowing the illegal workers replacement army to takeover much of the construction industry .What assurance that on top of this illegal army there wont be an army of replacement workeres who by the color of their skin hope to have great prefereance over meand distroy my job prospects?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

revolved — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:55:48 GMT

Playing the inevitability card is just one of many strategies that politicians use. Obama has been dealt that card at this point in the campaign, so he's using it.

Not mentioning Hillary also focuses people on Obama and his policies and plans. And it maintains his high-ground strategy by leaving attacks and negatives against Hillary out of the conversation.

Also, to those of us who have followed Obama's every word for a year, we're sometime frustrated when Obama reverts to his stump speech comments and answers. He's not giving us anything new and dramatic. But many people are hearing all of this for the first time. Obama planned his strategy regarding what to say at these speeches a long time ago. And by sticking to a message and delivery that works, even though its old hat to some of us, that approach makes him look consistent and confident over time, in contrast to Hillary who's been bobbing and weaving and trying every approach she can think of to counter Obama.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lamm01 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:57:23 GMT

I am absolutely disgusted with the media bias in favor of Senator Obama. He lies about his ties to a slumlord in Chicago, a terrorist who bombed facilities here in the U.S., his 20 year relationship with a bigoted racist pastor, his "professorship" and his father's bail out of Kenya. Wake up people.... Someone stated he is like the "Manchurian Candidate". Scary thougth America. Wake up.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Newsweekbhg — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 16:57:29 GMT

SHE'S---DOING---IT-------AGAINNN!!!!!

Hillary Clinton was spotted ducking gunfire once again but this time in the mean jungles of Colombia, sources close to the situation said she single-handedly fought off a band of Colombian drug dealers while carrying a little girl on her back. We will keep you up-dated with this developing story.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

uwinche — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:18:10 GMT

You Clinton supporters are mad when Obama says anything about her ... and mad when he doesn't ... go fig!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

kshortSD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:20:01 GMT

To "Go Hillary Go" -

You say this isn't a popularity contest? Wow, I thought the people get to elect our leaders. Interesting that you seem to think that because your favorite candidate is losing, someone (the superdelegates) should be able to overrule the votes of the people in order to "do the right thing". Interesting.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

truthmatterz — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:27:38 GMT

lamm01: Is this a Talking Points cut and paste that you BUSH/CHENEY/MCCain supporters are using to plaster on all the blogs? In anser to your question, no we don't find an Obama presidency scary. We have done our research and used factchecker to discover that most of the misleading and somewhat incoherent garbage that you post is done because you yourself are scared. What millions and millions of us find scary is a continuation of Bush/Cheney/McCain policies.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Emanuel — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 17:59:46 GMT

I am a Pennsylvanian and I must say that Senator Obama is the most organized public official I have ever seen. If he had his campaign team organize the invasion of Iraq/Afganisthan, Al Qaeda would be shining all of our shoes by now.

I drove through Allentown/Lehigh/Bethlehem PA yesterday and was astonished by how many “Obama’08” signs were on people's front lawns. Also, speaking with a few people when I stopped, I realized that they are not very enthusiastic about Hillary, but they still have much praise for Bill Clinton.

Pennsylvania will be an interesting primary to say the least. I don't think the results will be anything that Hillary will be able to brag about. People can criticize Senator Obama all they want, but they have to admit that this young man has run a remarkably well organized campaign. Clinton, on the other hand, has overseen two major staff shake-ups in two months. She has left a trail of unpaid bills and unhappy vendors, and has loaned her own campaign $5 million to keep it afloat in January. She has delivered false stories, some of which have caused concern among many psychologists; she miscalculated the importance of organizing in the caucus states; and she was caught with her pants down (OK, bad metaphor given her hubby’s history) after failing to lock up the nomination on Super Tuesday. In short, she has badly underestimated Barack Obama.

When you look at how poor a campaign Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani have run, squandering their advantage of national name recognition and excellent fundraising, Barack Obama stands out even more. Simply put, this young man took the 2008 campaign more seriously than anyone, and it has paid off handsomely. If a candidate's campaign is the best indicator of what his or her administration would look like, then America should feel very optimistic about an Obama Administration.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

FREE AND THE BRAVE — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:03:19 GMT

“What we have,” Peraica says, “is a level of corruption that is integrated both vertically and horizontally across all layers of government: city, municipal, county, and state.” To him, the Rezko case illustrates that corruption in Illinois is a bipartisan problem. “We have a corrupt political combine, where the members of the two parties… have come together, not pursuant to a public interest, but to pursue their own financial interests, which they have done with great zeal and ingenuity.”

This corruption, should it become an issue in the campaign, could cause problems for Obama when people start to wonder how he could have made it through “the combine” without getting involved in the overlapping networks of patronage and influence. Peraica, for one, argues that he didn’t.

“Senator Barack Obama is an integral part and a product of this corrupt system,” Peraica says. “Senator Obama has endorsed Todd Stroger for Cook County board president, Mayor [Richard M.] Daley for mayor of Chicago, Dorothy Tillman for re-election as an alderman, and other epitomes of bad government throughout his career in order to promote himself politically, at the expense of, I would argue, principles and morals and good government.”

Obama’s relationship with Allison Davis -- the alleged go-between in Rezko’s scheme to shake down Tom Rosenberg -- could pose another problem for him. Obama worked for Davis at the law firm of Davis Miner Barnhill. Later, when Obama sat on the board of a charity called the Woods Fund, he voted to invest $1 million in a partnership operated by Davis, according to the Chicago Sun-Times.

Levine’s testimony in the Rezko trial puts Davis in the middle of an attempted quid pro quo, making him yet another associate Obama might be pressured to disown. And the trial could stretch well into May, at which point a Rezko conviction could lead to even more headaches for the candidate. If Rezko is looking at a long prison sentence and decides to start talking, who knows what he might say?

All the more reason that Obama might be tempted to try to address this metastasizing problem with a single bold gesture. Obama made a big speech about race to distract from his ties to one unsavory Chicago character, but distancing himself from an entire network of them might prove to be a tougher task. After all, Obama was able to claim the middle ground in his defense of Wright, denouncing Wright’s most radical views while excusing his run-of-the-mill resentments as being a not-atypical part of the black experience.

But America will have a harder time swallowing excuses for corruption as being a run-of-the-mill aspect of the Illinois political experience -- particularly not from a candidate that has promised a new kind of politics. To succeed, Obama would have to denounce the behavior of some of his closest allies and demonstrate a candor about his own experience in state government that’s been missing from his campaign thus far. In the Rezko trial, Obama might have finally encountered a problem that a speech alone won’t solve.

By Stephen Spruiell

Reprinted with permission from National Review Online.

Stay tuned folks!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

kmcflash — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:21:08 GMT

So easy to understand: Obama has a slight delegate lead solely on the basis of

the Democratic party's conveluted primary system ,,, not on the basis of any true

magnificance in his candidacy. Texas and Nevada both went to Clinton, yet she

received less delegates from those states than did Obama...how can that in any

way be 'right ?" Clinton has won all of the states that must be won (Calif.,N.Y.,

Ohio ... Floida, etc.) in the general election.. you know, that election whereby votes

are not apportioned, but is winner-take-all on a state-by-state basis.

If the Dems selected their candidate in the same way as the Reps, Clinton would

have long ago cinched the nomination. If the party had an even marginally fair

primary allocation system (say: 40% to the winner of a state, the remaining 60%

apportioned to all the candidates) Clinton would be far ahead in the delegate count.

Obama is not winning the primary race, rather the DNC/leaders are losing it for Clinton.

It is not just Florida and Michigan that would appreciate a re-vote opportunity, there

are some who voted for Obama in the primary that would like a do-over of their vote

now that they know more about the candidate.

Why go with the Obama message of "just believe" ... why be afraid that if the candidate

is properly vetted, you may have to change your mind ? Obama is a masterful speaker,

that does not a President make ! Obama lied about ever being "in the pews" for Rev.

Wrights anti-American tirades, then, in order to craft a speech, had to admit "did I ever hear ..etc...of course I did." Rev Wright was also Obama's spiritual advisor. Obama

supporters likely will not like the way the Ayers and Rezco relationships with the candidate

will play out. A candidate of close and ongoing relationship with anyone who states

"God damn America" , then changes his position because it is politically expedient

(you know, the thing Obama always accusses Clinton of) cannot be trusted. Would

anyone accept even a short-term relationship between Clinton and a KKK Grand

Dragon, even if she renounced his advocations ... of course not... and.... In the same

situation, would the news media leap in to say "great speech" and "no real damages

has been done" ... not likely (even if they did, would you allow your opinion to

be molded by the media ?) We have seen what a smiley-faceed "just believe"

Presidency has wrought once he talked his way into the job ... if a dog bites

bites you twice, etc. (different dogs, same trick)

The reality is that Mr.Obama CANNOT win the general election, while Clinton

can (and likely would) Clinton isn't perfect, but the couterpoint to that is not that

Obama is perfect. For me, no candidate in close association of "God damn America"

and of little wisdom of Washington workings (and you cannot bring about change

except within those workings) and a candidate who habitually descibes change

as a speech-crafter only, just appears to be 'holagram man."

Don't fall for speech alone..vet the candidates and make a considered decision,

but at least, and at last, vet the candidate.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

yupik1 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:21:52 GMT

It's Hillary's own fault that she continues to provide the media with negative fodder. The funny thing is that she's doing it on her own! Clintonites, it's time to swallow your pride, and unite behind Barack Obama. You say you'll vote McCain? Go ahead, it's obvious you'll never vote for Obama just because he looks black, and has a middle name that makes you cringe. The fact is, the people that think like you do, are just a minority in the grand scheme of things. There are millions of other democrats, independents, and even Republicans that will vote for Obama this fall, and he will win regardless of your desperate vote Hillary rants. You should be ashamed at your blatant disregard for a fellow American. What has Obama done to you?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

cabebet — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:26:41 GMT

She's done....if Obama was in her position there would'nt be a news station in the nation without comentators saying how "rediculous and selfish it would be of him to stick around and how unsupportive of his party he was being and how he was showing his age"......"the writtings on the wall and given time he'll realize how this done and when to move on".....blah blah blah....so in turn he knows he's ahead and it is very hard for her to catch up or beat him unless he GIVES her an advantage...why do that??? HE WAS NEVER PLAYING ON A EVEN PLAYING FIELD - EVERYBODY KNOWS IT!! The little stuff ya'll wanna question him on is VERY small compared to the corruption in the BUSH administration but you know BUSH will laugh at you and go smoke some critters out the ground at his ranch....cause he can. AS ALWAYS AFRICAN-AMERICANS have had to tip-toe to GET in a position of power then show, once there, that they can do the job much better than their counterparts....its evolution American people...we should love what's happening unless of course you have the agenda of the secret societies and the rich - to dominate the masses like slaves once again....only this time it won't be blacks enslaved - it will be a socio-economic game with the connected and wealthy oppressing the lower and middle classes (whites, blacks, everybody). Wealthy people don't like broke people unless they can use you to do what they don't want to do - remind you of anybody??? Bush or Cheney maybe?? America needs to wake up and realize that the balance of power is shifting from THE people to a specific group of very selfish, dangerous and unamerican, non-patriotic peoples and if we want to maintain our way of life we need to elect someone that will use 'executive power' (which is what keeps The Iraq War Funded, not congress ) responsibly. Look beyond the surface - Red or Blue Pill? Its your choice

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Deep Concern for the Future — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:41:30 GMT

I don't think we can count Hillary out yet - she is resilient and tenacious. She would make a very good CEO of this country but I believe her campaign would be a remarkable fundraising tool for the GOP. Bill seems to be a liability for her at this point despite the high regard many Dems still have for his Presidency. His emotional outbursts are not helping her and his speaking without thinking has been an ongoing problem for her.

I don't think we need to worry about McCain though - his instability and early signs of senility are omnipresent. I feel for him frankly. The Bush/Rove machine left him for roadkill in their earlier drive to the nomination in 2000 and now, seven years older, McCain is on increasingly uneven footing. When Bush's team referred to McCain as "that nutjob from Arizons" they left many with the indelible image of an unstable personality and undercut his chances then - and I think now as well. Before Obama emerged - I would have voted for McCain. Between McCain's position on the war and what appear to be ill-effects of his age I can't say his candidacy has much of a chance. Of course, he's been left for dead before.

Hopefully once we're beyond PA, MT, and WV he will stop talking about Clean Coal (which doesn't exist) and we can really start talking about renewable energy.

We are oh so close....

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 18:58:21 GMT

A common stake in each other's prosperity? sounds like the way corporate managers talk when they are negotiating with unions. Wonder whose writing his speeches? Wonder who's funding his campaign?

for the senate.

2003-2004

Listed among the top 50 contributors to Barack Obama 2003-2004 are found the following political action committees:

AT&T PAC IL

Allstate Insurance PAC

Credit Union PAC

Community Banc PAC

Zack PAC

AIA IL PAC (American Insurance Assn)

IL Road Builders PAC

MCI Midwest Employees PAC

Peoples Energy PAC

Spirit PAC

ICTA-PAC

IL Manufactured Housing Assn PAC

IL Mortgage Bankers PAC

ACPAC (Automobile Club PAC)

one of his bundlers is "lobbyist on leave" Emmett Beliveau. Clients such as Oshkosh Truck and Pinkerton Consulting paid more than $700,000 for Emmett Beliveau and his colleagues at Patton Boggs to represent them during the first half of 2007.

PINKERTONS???????? What's next, Pittston?

CWA members wake up!!!! Obama has been bought and paid for by the communications industry.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:00:03 GMT

Another one of Obama's bundlers is Thomas J. Perrilli, managing partner in the Washington, D.C., office of Jenner and Block, a Chicago general practice law firm, which includes among its clients the National Cable and Telecommunications Association and Time Warner Inc. As an Obama bundler, Perrelli raised $200,000+.

PACs can only donate $5000 to a campaign.

CWA members wake up!!!! Obama has been bought and paid for by the communications industry.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:00:25 GMT

One of his bundlers is Scott Blake Harris, the managing partner of the Washington, D.C., firm Harris Wiltshire and Grannis, which handles such legislative issues as Communications/Broadcasting/ Radio/TV, Science/Technology, Telecommunications, and Trade (Foreign and Domestic), as well as representing the Computing Technology Industry Association. As an Obama bundler, Harris raised $200,000+.

CWA members wake up!!!!!! Obama is NOT your man. He's been bought and paid for by the communications industry.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

kshortSD — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:05:04 GMT

People should stop desperately pointing out that Hillary won the California and New York primaries. These states will vote democratic no matter who is on the ticket.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

rargant — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:14:47 GMT

dentist from sw new mexico

i am a republican. i will vote for obama because i my daughters have taken a great interest in our politic . they feel that it is about time that a politician is talking to them.they and i understand his position and i sincerely feel that this time is for obama to lead us into a new chapter of economic;social; and political direction. let us not petty our intelligence with guilt by association;instead let us focus on the issues and come together to get this country out of this recession;we are better then that.let us help each other. let us help obama to help us as a nation.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

mdenhof — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:19:47 GMT

Keep doing what your doing!

Obama/Richardson '08!!!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

hotstuff — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:29:18 GMT

Obama is too smart to play the inevitability card. Hillary played it and lost it. By not focussing on Hillary, he can get his message across, stay positive and if need be , target his attacks on McCain. That´s much better than whopping a fellow Democrat, which only benefits the GOP. That makes sense to me.

Bloggers like "lammo1" are the ones to wake up! They refuse to see what time it is. Wearing

a blindfold and repeating the same idiotic, racist attacks will not stop the clock from ticking in favor

of Obama. Slowly getting used to the reality now is a lot healthier than the rude awakening later. I hate to hear later that all these guys are committing mass suicide. Because even racists have a right to live, as long as they don´t hurt anybody!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:30:17 GMT

Back again are we, N.S.I.A.? Squaakkkk....Hilary good, Obama Bad....Squaakkkkk, Polly want a cracker, Squaakkkk. You and your rants about something that Obama may or may not have done or someone whom Obama may or may not have known from years ago will very soon no longer be relevant. I see he is moving closer and closer in the PA polls - even if he loses, the HRC victory will be nothing to get excited over. Wasn't PA supposed to be where she brought it all together convincingly? A real blowout??? Oh, I'm sorry, the Hillary victory goalposts have moved again in the last 30 minutes - I hadn't checked. Pennsylvania is now officially in the Clinton "States that do not matter" category...Sad, how truly sad for you....

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:38:17 GMT

kshort, what chance do you think Obama will have of winning NY when his pro-Arab ties are exploited by the republicans? And I'm not talking the baloney about him going to a Muslim school. I'm talking about his flip-flop on the Palestinian issue. At one time Obama was a strong supporter of Palestinian and Arab American complaints about how one sided US policy was in the middle east, how skewed it was to supporting Israel no matter what. Obama actively courted the Arab-American and Palestinian-American vote when he was running for the state legislature, but when he ran for the senate things changed. I can see Republicans using this both ways since Obama was clearly pro Palestinian then shifted to become pro Israel so he would get elected. It's almost a mirror image of his NAFTA situation. He told his Arab American friends that he was sorry for not speaking up for Palestine, but he planned to be more forthright after he won the election. Only problem was that as soon as he got in the senate, he decided to run for POTUS

American journalist Ali Abunimah says this about Obama's political switcheroo:

"Obama's about-face is not surprising. He is merely doing what he thinks is necessary to get elected and he will continue doing it as long as it keeps him in power. Palestinian-Americans are in the same position as civil libertarians who watched with dismay as Obama voted to reauthorize the USA Patriot Act, or immigrant rights advocates who were horrified as he voted in favor of a Republican bill to authorize the construction of a 700-mile fence on the border with Mexico."

http://electronicintifada.net/v2/article6619.shtml

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:45:00 GMT

Oh I think it's great that Obama has decided the Pennsylvania voters votes don't mean anything. That's the same way he treated the voters in Fla and Michigan and in Ohio when the black caucus wanted to challenge the results of the last election, and Obama voted against it.

WAKE UP SUPERDELEGATES!!!

Obama's nomination is not inevitable. If the voters get out and vote in Penn and show the supers that they want Hillary, the supers can save us from another republican presidency.

McCain is now ahead of Obama even though he is making some unbelievable gaffs. Why do you think he is gaining on Obama? Because people are finding out things about Obama and are deciding they'd rather have a bumbling idiot than a man who says whatever he needs to say to get elected and takes credit for other people's work, and is in the pocket of Corporate America and their lobbyists.

All hat and no cattle, Obama can not win the states we need to win to beat the republicans in the fall. Clinton can. She has proved it.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:51:48 GMT

Clinton "proved" nothing except that she is the most bold faced LIAR in modern U.S. history. She "won" NY because she is a senator for NY and has the apparatus to support her there, nothing more. Voters in PA are moving substantially toward Obama - in droves - I know, I live in PA. McCain is making inroads because the party is fragmented due to the delusional thinking from HRC that she has a mandate for victory from the over 55 uneducated white females who seem to be the only ones I see in her crowds anymore....hmmmmm, probably means nothing, I'm sure. BWAAAAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

dunnhaupt — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:54:06 GMT

Anybody can win the big states, even old Hillary who keeps losing elsewhere, because they always vote Democratic, no matter who is candidate. Unfortunately the big states are the ONLY ones she could win, while Obama can win ALL states, big and small.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

sheilaj — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 19:59:40 GMT

Hillary Clinton will make a much better President than Barack Obama and the people of Pennsylvania know it!

Go Hillary!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:05:08 GMT

Sure, sure keep telling yourself that - just like I keep telling myself I'll win the lottery - sure, keep dreaming - this is good. Stalin was a genius, he really understood that if you tell a lie often enough and long enough, there are certain segements of the population who will believe it all of their lives - even when the obvious evidence is exactly the opposite of the lie. He called these people his "helpful fools"..... HAHAHAHAHAHA - yeah she will, she's winning too!!! HAHAHAHHAHAHA

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

yupik1 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:06:47 GMT

Hillary has been bought and paid for by Mark Penn's anti-American job company, and Blackwater which is basically thugs for hire. Do we need Blackwater agents operating in America taking out people that the Clintons don't like? Scary stuff. I'm glad Obama's bought out by the communications industry. The newsgroups should have more freedom to report news. Not less. Unless you want the U.S. to become like Russia or China where they murder and jail reporters. Maybe that's the endgame for Blackwater? Take out Obama and his communications backers...

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:11:40 GMT

To Sheilaj and "not stupid in Alabama"-- My God, your'e fools to think that Superdelegates may weigh Hillary's narrow win (maybe loss) in Pennsylvania as nothing more that the corpse's imaginary heartbeat. Hillary is toast. It's over. It 's the Clinton Hubris that cost them any easy win in these primaries contests and its the Clinton arrogance that keeps them in it. Read Dickmorris.com to get a fresh list of lobbyist ties in Dubai, Tawain, China, and Brazil among CLINTON CAMPAIGN ADVISORS. The Clintons owe so many favors, how do you ever think Hillary could ever make a good president. FREE TRADE IS SOMETHING HILLARY SPEAKS ABOUT TO SAY SHE'S ON THE U.S. SIDE BUT HER ADVISORS SAY AND DO COMPLETELY DIFFERENT THINGS. Come on Pennsylvania, do want to lose anymore jobs to this sociopathic, say anything, do anything to win vote whore.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:16:12 GMT

Oh, gee, well if Obama's got it all sewn up, then I guess the Clinton voters should just stay home, is that what you are saying?

NOT!

Obama just wishes it was over, and he dont want to look like he cares that she beats him in Penn.

It ain't over until it's over. You shouldn't rely on a poll. Let the people vote.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

StrongArm — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:19:04 GMT

Posted By: lamm01 (April 10, 2008 at 12:57 PM)

I could not resist....Lamm01, you need to stop watching Sean Hannity and Karl Rove!! Are people suppose to take YOUR word that he lied?!?! Do what allot of other OPEN MINDED Americans have done......check it out for yourself!! I know you have been watching that crap because Sean is the only person pushing the Weather Underground BS! and Pastor Wrights travel schedule! Did you know that Obama and his senior staff went before the Illinois newspaper editors THIS YEAR for a candid question and answer session about Tony Rezeko? Let me answer that for you NO YOU DIDN'T!!! And if you will listen to Rev. Wright ENTIRE SERMONS from either the 2003 or the 2007 20sec. video loop which FOX News love to play, you will hear him defend white woman who were denied the right to vote, and how the children of Anerica are being neglected by the Bush administration. PLEASE come up with something original rather then being someone who does not want things to change, because OBAMA is going to take it and help ALL of US take back our government!

Seeya in January you loser!!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

vakosh — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:20:31 GMT

He is not going to win here. I live in PA and the man is going to lose and lose big. He is a fish out of water here. I can't wait until both he and Chris Matthews are out of the state for good. They are not welcome here and they never will be. He can save the smoke and mirrors for some other state, we see him for exactly what he is ... a phony.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:20:42 GMT

It's over - OK? really, really over. She can stay in till hell freezes over - I really don't care. But her pride and arrogance will cost Obama against McCain in the Fall. Whether he wins or loses by a thread, Obama's status is unchanged - he will be overall, still in the lead. Get it now???

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Gypsy0126 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:25:12 GMT

Well, the media is going to get a big hit tomorrow with protestors in NYC. Give it a rest media. All you Obama worshippers are so sickening. And say, Mr. ROMANO, how about an few articles on how your hero Obama first said he was conflcted on China and the boycott, then said on a PA stump in PA, that HIllary was wrong because the US can't offend it's banker, and then suddenly appearing today, the Great Obama speacks and repeats everything Hillary has said. Mmm...what did I just phrase here, the Great Obama, yes, he is a magician. He certainly has tricked and deceived all of you.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

kristend749 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:26:11 GMT

I respect everyones' decisions to support whichever candidate and exercise their freedom to vote; however, all of you hilary supporters really need to take a closer look at her. i am sure you have spent time scrutinizing obama and his campaign, but lets take a look at hilary. First, she claimed to have been in Bosnia with bullets flying over her head. she claims she got it confused with talking about it...confused? i think she deliberately lied. and how about the whitewater scandal? documents arent removed for no reason. and no one can takes thousadnds of dollars and turn them into millions literally overnight. no one wants another 4 years of scandal and/or the Bush-Cheney-Rumsfeld charade. if hilary wins, the only thing hilary supporters will be able to say is "we won!." but if she wins (highly unlikely, at this point)...all of america will have lost.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:27:15 GMT

Not stupid in Alabama-- Barack was only symapathetic to the Palastines. for a short time. This was during a time when the Isralis were bull dozing their homes to drive the cost of rent in Palastine . When the bull-dozing stopped he stopped his pro-Palasitne rhetoric. Get some new material. Clinton's pathetic huusband is in bed with the Emir of Dubai. He'll sell anything not tied down to Hillary's past lies on free trade to make a buck. What about the extra 15 million dollars that is not revealed in the tax returns to show actual people, places or corporations that paid this to the living wretch known as Bill Clinton. How can anyone, Democrat, or sociopath want this guy back. I am still smarting over his antics in the Whitehouse. But, I guess this is "none of my business." right? Well, it is my business when my eight your old asks me what trouble the President was in, when she heard kids at school talking about a blue dress. My God, have we all lost our minds? The CLINTONS ARE BAD FOLKS; they are public servants, soley based on power and the thirst for "cashing-in"--nothing more. They don't feel our pain, they only feel their own gain. TAKE THAT TO THE BANK ,YOU SELL-OUTS!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

kristend749 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:27:22 GMT

and dear "vakosh"....i live in PA too. and i support him 100%. so please do not speak for all of us by using "we." obama does not want an ignorant voter like you to vote for him anyway.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:28:32 GMT

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

miltongalfas — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:30:22 GMT

I am going to vote for the Coke head Racist just like the New York media is telling me to. He can do no wrong and walks on water. I like that Obama's church was founded on the premise that all white people should be eradicated.

And cocaine has always been a New York Chicgo, LA favorite so of course Obama is our man.

And he should denigrate women with his cell phone vibrator comments. We need a president with zero class who is a mysogynist.

GO OBAMA! Race riots are fun. Do Drugs and you too can be pres.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

jebrel — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:33:09 GMT

Not stupid in Alabama: Your ao annoying. I have read all the crap you been writing. Jeesh, you can pretty much couteract everything you've written with something Clinton's done. Campaine funding and flip-flopping, common! Hillary has a laudry list of negative things. I mean she's a Clinton! Now I don't care which one get the nomination.. I will vote for either of them.. but all this silly bashing for what.. to put the spot light on him instead of Clinton?? And the fence!? My god, Clinton voted for it too!! Ohh and MI and FL... common, they knew the rules, they broke them, it wasn't him who made the decision.

Funny thing is, I voted for Clinton.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

yupik1 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:44:48 GMT

Hillary is resilient and tenacious to a fault. She'll say anything and everything even if it means lying (mis-speaking) and cheating (counting FL and MI) where neither campaigned. G.W. Bush is resilient and tenacious too. I don't think Hillary has the judgment know when to be resilient and tenacious. She uses those traits for the wrong reasons and if she becomes President, those traits will not work for the betterment of this country.

If you're willing to call Obama a racist because of what his pastor spoke out of context, then you should call Hillary a pervert because of what Bill did multiple times during the course of their so-called marriage. Bill even got impeached for his disgusting abuse of the Oval office with a intern in a blue dress. By the way, Obama's pastor was 'invited' to the Clinton Whitehouse to advise Bill on his sins during the Lewinsky scandal.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:48:13 GMT

Lou4077, here's what Ali Abunimah reveals about Obama's hidden agenda and willingness to take positions he does NOT agree with in order to get elected:

The last time I spoke to Obama was in the winter of 2004 at a gathering in Chicago's Hyde Park neighborhood. He was in the midst of a primary campaign to secure the Democratic nomination for the United States Senate seat he now occupies. But at that time polls showed him trailing.

As he came in from the cold and took off his coat, I went up to greet him. He responded warmly, and volunteered, "Hey, I'm sorry I haven't said more about Palestine right now, but we are in a tough primary race. I'm hoping when things calm down I can be more up front." He referred to my activism, including columns I was contributing to the The Chicago Tribune critical of Israeli and US policy, "Keep up the good work!"

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:48:47 GMT

Miltongalfas- we've all become more stupid having read such an incoherent rant with only trite venom being spewed forth my your recent post. This a true sign of frustration, and I am convinced that your head will explode if you said anything other than petty drivel, and your sophmoric and vain attempts at something related to humoris as pathetic as your candidate. GO OBAMA--make this guy shut-up, please!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:51:04 GMT

Reasons people will vote for Clinton instead of all hat, no cattle Obama:

Even before she became first lady, Clinton was involved with legislation and executive issues. During her post-graduate study, sheserved as staff attorney for the newly founded Children's Defense Fund in Cambridge, Massachusetts, and as a consultant to the Carnegie Council on Children. During 1974 she was a member of the impeachment inquiry staff in Washington, D.C., advising the House Committee on the Judiciary during the Watergate scandal.

Children have always been important to her, and after she married Bill and moved to Arkansas, she continued to do pro bono work in child advocacy, and published the scholarly articles "Children's Policies: Abandonment and Neglect" in 1977 and "Children's Rights: A Legal Perspective" in 1979.

She co-founded the Arkansas Advocates for Children and Families, a state-level alliance with the Children's Defense Fund, in 1977, and served on the boards of the Arkansas Children's Hospital, and the Children's Defense Fund (as chair, 1986–1992).

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:52:42 GMT

More reasons people will vote for Clinton - Obama has nothing to compare with this:

In late 1977, President Jimmy Carter (for whom Rodham had done 1976 campaign coordination work in Indiana) appointed her to the board of directors of the Legal Services Corporation and she served in that capacity from 1978 until the end of 1981. For those who are too young to know what that was, Legal Services were often the only way poor people could get legal services for things like getting a divorce or representation when landlords tried to throw them out. She served on the board of directors for Legal Services from 1988–1992.

As First Lady of Arkansas in January 1979, her title for a total of twelve years (1979–1981, 1983–1992), she served as the chair of the Rural Health Advisory Committee, where she successfully obtained federal funds to expand medical facilities in Arkansas' poorest areas without affecting doctors' fees.

She chaired the Arkansas Educational Standards Committee from 1982 to 1992 where she sought to bring about reform in the state's court-sanctioned public education system. She introduced Arkansas' Home Instruction Program for Preschool Youth in 1985, a program that helps parents work with their children in preschool preparedness and literacy

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:55:14 GMT

Not stupid in Alabama-- Good Post. I think you have a point about the inherent hypocrisy of politics in general, but, Obama is a smart guy and knows the U.S. historical commitment to the Israelis and their homeland. I don't agree with Obama supporting Palastine, but I think, (I am not sure) , there was a centrist position about not alienating Palastine in order to drive home some type of Peace Accord. What do you think?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:55:38 GMT

More reasons people will vote for Clinton - Obama hasn't made a mark anywhere, hasn't done anything he can point to yet, he even lost the one contested election he was in before, back in 2000

Clinton also worked relentlessly for women's rights. She was named Arkansas Woman of the Year in 1983 and Arkansas Mother of the Year in 1984. From 1987 to 1991 she chaired the American Bar Association's Commission on Women in the Profession, which addressed gender bias in the law profession and induced the association to adopt measures to combat it She was twice named by the National Law Journal as one of the 100 most influential lawyers in America, in 1988 and in 1991.

As First Lady, Hillary Clinton traveled to 79 countries. In a September 1995 speech before the Fourth World Conference on Women in Beijing, Clinton argued very forcefully against practices that abused women around the world and in the People's Republic of China itself, declaring "that it is no longer acceptable to discuss women's rights as separate from human rights" and resisting Chinese pressure to soften her remarks. She was one of the most prominent international figures at the time to speak out against the treatment of Afghan women by the Islamist fundamentalist Taliban that had seized control of Afghanistan. She helped create Vital Voices, an international initiative sponsored by the United States to promote the participation of women in the political processes of their countries.

She was a significant influence in the successful resolution of the Irish conflict - a conflict which shows substantial similarities with Iraq. Neither Obama nor McCain can claim that experience.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:57:54 GMT

Dear LOU4077,

"Whore....sociopathic.....corpse?" I like Obama, too, but I don't think that it's neccessary to compare anyone, especially Senator Clinton, to these remarkably unwarranted attacks. I think you need to work on expressing your anger in socially acceptable ways, like making "Yes we can" signs to hold up as her supporters cheer her on, or perhaps, carefully doing research to compare how the two candidates differ on their positions regarding the economy, healthcare, education, etc.

When people use harsh hyperbolic language in a forum of ideas, it creates enmity, discord and

completely obscures the point one is trying to make; in other words, rather than debating an issue, you tear the person apart thinking you've made a strong argument, but you haven't. That's one of various fallacies people fall prey to when they can't properly express their anger.

If one were professionally working on Obama's campaign, it wouldn't take long to dismiss that employee and have that employee suffer the consequence of his actions; i.e., to be villified, exposed to calumny and so on. Be exceptional and rise above people who use a "straw man" fallacy in place of persuasive speech.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 20:58:46 GMT

More Clinton kudos:

Along with Senator Ted Kennedy, she was the major force behind the State Children's Health Insurance Program in 1997, a federal effort that provided state support for children whose parents were unable to provide them with health coverage.

Kennedy, of course, is now backing Clinton's rival, Barack Obama, for the nomination. But last year, before that endorsement, he was quoted by the Associated Press which reported that Sen. Edward M. Kennedy, Oct. 6, 2007 said The children's health program wouldn't be in existence today if we didn't have Hillary pushing for it from the other end of Pennsylvania Avenue.

In that same story, The AP's Beth Fouhy concluded, "While Kennedy is widely viewed as the driving force behind the program, by all accounts the former first lady's pressure was crucial." She quoted Nick Littlefield, who had been a senior health adviser to Kennedy, as saying, "we relied on her, worked with her and she was pivotal in encouraging the White House to do it."

Clinton also promoted nationwide immunization against childhood illnesses and encouraged older women to seek a mammogram to detect breast cancer, with coverage provided by Medicare.

She successfully sought to increase research funding for prostate cancer and childhood asthma at the National Institutes of Health.

The First Lady worked to investigate reports of an illness that affected veterans of the Gulf War, which became known as the Gulf War syndrome.

Together with Attorney General Janet Reno, Clinton helped create the Office on Violence Against Women at the Department of Justice. In 1997, she initiated and shepherded the Adoption and Safe Families Act, which she regarded as her greatest accomplishment as First Lady.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:01:53 GMT

Pardon my spelling...

Dear LOU4077,

"Whore....sociopathic.....corpse?" I like Obama, too, but I don't think that it's necessary to compare anyone, especially Senator Clinton, to these remarkably unwarranted attacks. I think you need to work on expressing your anger in socially acceptable ways, like making "Yes we can" signs to hold up as her supporters cheer her on, or perhaps, carefully doing research to compare how the two candidates differ on their positions regarding the economy, healthcare, education, etc.

When people use harsh hyperbolic language in a forum of ideas, it creates enmity, discord and completely obscures the point one is trying to make; in other words, rather than debating an issue, you tear the person apart thinking you've made a strong argument, but you haven't. That's one of various fallacies people fall prey to when they can't properly express their anger.

If one were professionally working on Obama's campaign, it wouldn't take long to dismiss that employee and have that employee suffer the consequence of his actions; i.e., to be vilified, exposed to calumny and so on. Be exceptional and rise above people who use a "straw man" fallacy in place of persuasive speech.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:07:01 GMT

powin, because Obama has copied almost every policy position Clinton has taken, Lou won't be able to point out differences between Obama and Clinton's policies, except maybe on Iraq where Obama wants to withdraw to Kiwait so we can reinvade after Iraq falls apart again.

Lou, yes, a position of reconciliation will be necessary to successfully obtain a lasting peace in the middle east between Israel and the Arab and Palestinian nations, but that isn't what Obama is doing. He is catering to the wealthy and powerful pro-israel forces, staying the course, repeating all the pro-Israel blah blah blah and immediately recanting whenever he slips up and lets any comments critical of Israel slip out. He is not willing to identify the position he should take and then persuade those around him to join him.

As far as I know, Obama has not successfully managed to get his peers to join him in resolving anything, and instead has alienated even those who have endorsed his candidacy like Chris Dodd, when he tried to take credit for legislation Dodd had championed and pushed through. I have been on these boards for months, asking Obama supporters to name one bill that he worked with legislators on both sides to get resolved, the way Artur Davis does (now there's a great potential VP nominee!) and no one has named even one thing Obama can point to.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:09:09 GMT

for confirmation of Hillary Clinton's important role in the Irish peace process, here are some comments by people who would know:

Amb. Elizabeth Bagley:

"As former US Amb. & Irish citizen, I support Sen. Clinton for Pres., she has strength & experience to assume Presidency, she has proven track record of promoting peace in N. Ireland for a decade, through her advocacy on behalf of children damaged by conflict & her encouragement & promotion of women in political process.

Hillary visited N. Ireland 7 times from 1995 & 2004, she brought together women from communities, Catholic & Protestant, to meet & work together toward a common goal of peace in N. Ireland.

In Sept., 1998, she spoke at first Vital Voices Conference on Women in Democracy in Belfast, brought 400 women to promote their leadership in peace process. Hillary announced $2 M in public/ private partnerships to support community, expand child care services, assist women in business & strengthen advocacy skills. She pledged she & Pres. would stand with them as they took risks for peace & urged them to transform their ideas into actions, & their dreams of a peaceful Ireland into reality.

I serve on board of Vital Voices Int., founded by First Lady Hillary to promote political & economic empowerment for women, co-sponsored 1998 conference with First Minister David Trimble & Deputy First Minister Seamus Mallon, who praised work of conference. It is, puzzling Lord David Trimble referred to Hillary's involvement in N. Ireland Peace Process as "a wee bit silly", when his wife, Daphne, attended all training sessions sponsored by Vital Voices & actively involved in its reconciliation & development work.

Hillary's passion & commitment to N. Ireland contributed to peace process & to Good Friday Agreement of 1998, but it continues to this day. As Senator, she has visited Rep. of Ireland & N. Ireland, where she met all political leaders, including the Taoiseach, Bertie Ahern, whom she also meets every year during his St. Patrick's Day visits to Washington. When Martin McGuiness & Ian Paisley visited Washington as First & Deputy Ministers of new N. Ireland Assembly, they met Pres. Bush & then Sen. Clinton, to thank her for her contributions to the peace process. Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume stated, "Anyone criticizing her foreign policy involvement should look at her very active & positive approach to N. Ireland & speak with people of N. Ireland who have highest regard for her & are very grateful for her very active support for our peace process."

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:12:49 GMT

Dear Articulate in Alabama,

Well said....

Without an NIE report to read, Senator Obama, touts his sound decision-making (as a State Senator) for opposing the War in Iraq. With hindsight, unbeknownst to him, there were no weapons of mass destruction. His argument that he made the right choice is a fallacy: he didn't make any such decision as a U.S. Senator with the emotions of September 11th still riding high while maintaining strong national security. Albeit, none of these assertions are earth-moving or original arguments; what is important here is to remind voters that he does not command a bastion of foreign policy knowledge nor does his redundant, "I voted against the war" a viable argument to support his candidacy.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:16:37 GMT

powin-- I did not refer to Hillary as a "whore" I said she was a Vote Whore -- big difference and it shouldn't be quite as offensive as some of the acts of indescretion weiled Hillary's Husband. I am holding signs like "Yes we can" for Obama with all the positive flair I can. However the corpse comment does describe the Clinton campaign as it appears today. As far a sociopathic. I once heard a commentator descibe Hillary as a sociopath with regards to her Bosnia comments. "She kept returning to the scene of the crime and revisited her mistatements like a sociopathic criminal returns to the scene of the crime." "She hoped to get caught in this deception, so she kept putting it out and embellishing the miss-remembrance..it was like she almost taughted the press, bloggers and reporters to catch her..." Sick stuff, indeed. This commentator was Dick Morris; someone who should know the Clinton's well... As far as "tearing somebody apart' Hllary did a good job at "tearing down" Barrack during the KITCHEN "SINK" Strategy.... Do you at least see some of my resentment towards the Clintons, in so much as it related to the lack of exemplary" behavior put forth by Bill during the Monica affair. Just the fact that I had to explain his "affair" and discuss the blue dress with my school-age daughter disgusted me... THIS WAS OUR PRESIDENT, I VOTED FOR BILL THE FIRST TIME AND HE BROKE MY HEART. One more thing, in the privacy of his limo or, an apartment, hotel etc... Bill can do anything he wants..JUST KEEP IT OUT OF THE WHITEHOSE.. Nuffsaid? Sorry anything I said may have offended you.. GOOD POST,BY THE WAY....

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:17:13 GMT

More Clinton kudos: Nobel Peace Prize winner John Hume, speaking on a nationally syndicated radio show, talked about Sen. Clinton's work in Northern Ireland "her people-to-people approach, her generous use of time in meeting with the various sectors of the region, her interest in the real concerns and needs of the people of Ireland, and her focus on peace." He also talked about Clinton's contributions through her lecturing at the University of Ulster's Tip O'Neill Chair of Peace Studies on the subject of "Peace in the Modern World". "I have no doubt, given Hillary Clinton's commitment to peace in the world, as President of the United States, she would give such leadership," Hume concluded.

In another recent interview, Hume said "I am quite surprised that anyone would suggest that Hillary Clinton did not perform important foreign policy work as first lady. I can state from firsthand experience that she played a positive role for over a decade in helping to bring peace to Northern Ireland."

Recently, former Senator George Mitchell also validated Sen. Clinton's claims that she was part of negotiating the peace process in Northern Ireland, after these claims were questioned. "She was helpful and supportive, very much involved in the issues, knew all of the delegates," Mitchell said. "She accompanied President Clinton on each visit he made to Northern Ireland, made several visits of her own. Her greatest focus was on encouraging women in Northern Ireland to get in and stay in the political process, the peace process. And I have said publicly many times and wrote in my book, the role of women in the peace process in Northern Ireland was significant. It did make a difference in the process, so as I said I think it was a helpful and supportive role."

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:26:06 GMT

Not stupid in Alabama and powin, I am very aware of Barrack's positions on the WAR, Healthcare, and the Economy, the sub-prime mess, etc. I do however , notice a big difference in the rhetoric of Obama where the iraq war is concerned. Hillary has said she would draw down completely in appoximatly 22 months or so. (end of 2010) Barack says 18 months, no big deal. My concern is that Hillary will not listen to the Generals on the ground as she seem to hold some contept for people like Petreaus. This is a stark difference from Obama's position which in essence is: 'we will be as careful getting out of Iraq as we were getting into Iraq." Barrack may be a Hillary clone. I just prefer the character that Barrack possesses, I respect your opinions. I hope you respect mine.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

LOU4077 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:31:53 GMT

Powin and Articulate in Alabama... Goood posts, kudos to both of you... Enjoyed posting with you.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

larryb — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:41:15 GMT

Obamaites

You do realize that you are following Obama like people follow a religious leader don't you? The only thing you will let enter your mind is what he SAYS. You know nothing about him and don't want to know anything about him but what he tells you to believe about him.

The are acting like you are all on a mission from God.

Anyone who doesn't follow the "right" path and support him are evil and deserving of your hate....hate?....don't you realize how scary that is?

You Obama people were most likely nice people before this race, now you are filled with hate for anyone who doesn't follow.

Hillary and McCain are not evil just for not endorsing Obama, they are both imperfect but nice people who have spent their lives trying to do the right thing for our country. You can disagree with them, don't vote for them...but don't HATE them, neither of them hate you.

This should really concern you...stop and think a moment if you still can.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:55:52 GMT

Penn voters need to let Obama know

it ain't over until it's over.

Get out and vote for Clinton.

Show Obama that ignoring you and

acting like losing in Penn won't matter

as long as he doesn't lose by too much

is a BAD STRATEGY

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Not stupid in Alabama — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 21:58:19 GMT

Obama is counting on Clinton voters to not vote,

which is why his surrogates keep saying its all over.

It's not over until someone gets enough delegates

to win the nomination,

and he doesn't have enough delegates.

It's up to the voters to show the superdelegates

that the honeymoon with Obama is over

and that he can't win against McCain.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

mattk — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:16:36 GMT

To larryb:

I am an Obama supporter. I am a straight-down-the-middle moderate that used to lean to the right, but have been pushed a bit to the left by the Bush administration (like many others in our country).

I don't hate McCain, but I DO hate Hillary. You can call her life what you want, but one thing she has NOT done is "trying to do the right thing." I know it's bad and unbiblical to hate; but I just can't help it. She would be the worst possible thing to happen to this country.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:19:02 GMT

Dear yupik1,

Your endorsement of Senator Obama:

"It's Hillary's own fault that she continues to provide the media with negative fodder. The funny thing is that she's doing it on her own! Clintonites, it's time to swallow your pride, and unite behind Barack Obama."

is beyond the pale of any persuasive (or reality-based) argument. The media has distorted itself such that it has become pure propaganda, i.e., not a reliable source of knowledge.

The media's fanfare of who has endorsed Obama is an edifice of transparency. No semblance of journalistic integrity has been rendered here; by this reckoning, even a stalwart PA endorsement of Senator Clinton has been mired inextricably towards bolstering the frontrunner's campaign.

Those who purport that the frontrunner will unite people have already demonstrated that the frontrunner will unite no one except perhaps the myopic misanthropists who, most likely, will be in a seething cauldron of woeful, broken promises teeming with scintillating rhetoric.

Share this with the superdelegates.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

You are joking right? — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:26:44 GMT

After reading the responses below, I am left scratching my head wondering what how limited the eye care plans must be in “Yellowhammer State”. Anyone with an ounce of vision can see the most well thought out plan of this primary and arguably any primary has Obama’s name on it. Side step what you may think about the man, his thoughts, concepts or agenda Senator Obama has compelled America to view this primary in an entirely new light. Love him or hate him at the end of the day you have to respect him for reminding us that extraordinary people make it to the White House. Not just those fortunate enough to have the road paved by family.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

x4faith — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:27:58 GMT

Not Stupid in Alabama: PLEASE, FOR GOD SAKES! You are STUPID in Alabama. I live in Alabama...Mobile to be exact. Just to let EVERYONE KNOW ALABAMA VOTED OVERWHELMINGLY for OBAMA just as we will in the general. Please STOP tearing down Barack and do some good promoting for Hillary. So, STUPID in ALABAMA...Give it a rest!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

the2thdoc — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:31:20 GMT

LarryB...Those are mighty strong words and some generalization of "Obamaites." Where did you get the idea that Obama supporters are hateful towards McCain and Clinton supporters? I think maybe you have come upon some really overly passionate supporters, as are some who follow McCain and Clinton. I disagree with your assessment. However, I think most of the logical supporters are faithful supporters and truly believe in their respective candidates. We "Obamaites," as you call us, see something in Sen. Obama that we don't see in the other candidates. We hear something from him that we don't hear from the other candidates. We feel/sense good something from him that we don't feel/sense from the other candidates. We know our candidate. Sure, there are a lot of fanatics out there. But, those of us who care about this process have studied him, and the others (believe it or not).

Know that we feel the way we feel about our candidate for our reasons, just as you have felt or will feel about your candidate if you chave chosen one. We have heard from the others. We believe that Sen. Obama has a lot more to offer the country in the form of leadership. We just love Sen. Obama much more. And, as believers, we love the rest too (supporters, candidates, and non-supporters).

When Sen. Obama becomes president, I hope you and others will support him as you would/have any other president. Maybe, just maybe, you will open your mind to what Sen. Obama is saying and listen. He just might be the leader we have been waiting for. (But, I guess it depends on the leader you want.)

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Corona Dan — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 22:58:06 GMT

For those of you Oprah-adoring, OJ-is-innocent, Obama-is-a Saint worshipers, I for one will vote for McCain come election day if Barry Hussein Obama wins the nomination. Voting for someone who can make nice speeches and makes you feel good is crazy...Hitler and Mussolini had the same effect during their time... I'm looking for someone who can lead and make tough decisions. If that makes HRC all the hateful things people say about her, so be it. Obama will NEVER win the general election.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

mobaxter — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:09:54 GMT

Sometime it better to listen and answer the question. Instead of bring up Clinton or McCain, OBAMA,etc .

OBAMA, is running on his belief. When someone disagree with someone,does not mean they are enemies.. But may mean they have respect but do not agree with there view point or belief.

But this election as tooken a weird turn of events.

But maybe in America future we should look at election and see if we have a problem and correct it if possible. Two Party Election is basely what we have now is it to people or just some of the people.

Good LUCK OBAMA

McCain

Clinton,ETC

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

char12 — Thu, 10 Apr 2008 23:54:57 GMT

Websites you should check out:

http://larrysinclair0926.wordpress.com/

http://savagepolitics.com/?p=274

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

pasbair — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:26:18 GMT

Uh, lemme guess, Andrew...you're an Obama supporter? And, well, as par usual, so is Newsweek in general...nothing new here, then, except that this article with it's long winded sentences, was an especially boring read.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 00:48:27 GMT

Corona, Corona.......man, lay off the suds will ya bro? You're conflating issues and facts. I hate OJ - I think he was guilty of murder and that he escaped justice. Oprah, I can take or leave - all have no bearing whatsoever on my support for Obama. It's a little like saying because you hate chopped liver, you should hate chili too, because they both begin with "c."

And what in God's name do Mussolini and Hitler have to do with Obama (is this a new Hill charge - were they his advisors or something)? True leadership does not use ARROGANCE, LYING, SPINNING, TANTRUMS and PADDING YOUR PERSONAL WEALTH to achieve its ends. This is what distinguishes Obama from Hillbilly. Obama is no saint, and I have not seen a single post anywhere that promotes this idea. But his character, integrity, intelligence and humanity are light years beyond where the Clintons can ever be.

Also, are you honestly supporting the philosophy of "by any means necessary," to lead America? Are you insane? The next post I see from a Clinton supporter that is not some foam-at-the-mouth rant about how wonderful she is, while ignoring every sleezy thing she has done for the past 25 years will be the first...

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:19:51 GMT

Wow - Powin - we must both have the same Thesaurus - how cool is that?? Only a single botheration with your fustian post, my friend. Bombastic verbiage without a sound and considered base in logic, is unfortunately, pointless. As is the case with most of the Clintonistas - rational thought is an absent element of their armamentarium.

The media is distorting nothing that I have seen in this election. In fact, I came in fully undecided between Clinton and Edwards (Obama was not even on my radar). If anything, my sense was she got a free ride from the media, because the presumtion was, she would be crowned early in the primary - her nomination was inevitable - why bother. Thanks to Hillary's, shall we say, performances - my vacillation has expired. Simultaneously, my interest in and respect for Obama, has grown exponentially.

So you see dear friends, the media really does not "create the news," it merely reports it. When one candidate is consistently and perpetually caught in lies, distortions, shady deals, questionable staff activities (i.e., the Penn incident), has a "colorful husband" and a history of very questionable activities in the 90s - all of these are events that any rational person would deem "newsworthy."

As far as I can discern, Obama is not coercing her into these activities - she willingly submits to this suicide. I seem to remember Obama getting quite harsh treatment re the Wright episode - was the media biased then? The silence from the Clinton camp those weeks was startling in its quietude.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

vakosh — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:46:13 GMT

to Kirstend749: Let me guess Philly or Pitt ... yeah i know we have been hearing it over and over from you city people, but in the real world, the backbone of America, the man is lost. You can see how uncomfortable he is in every single clip they show of him in PA ... he just does not connect with the people here. I bet he himself couldn't wait to get out of the state and I can't blame him. Keep up the good work, but the man is still going to LOSE BIG in Pa. We already have our party planned!!!!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

deep_eye — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 01:55:13 GMT

Ummmm, no - not actually at all. I'm hearing stories from my relatives in mid and western PA - in the deep hinterlands. People are calling newspapers, radio stations, town halls, to see if he is appearing anywhere within a 100 mi driving radius. Believe me, these people would not cross the street for a free ice cream. Admit it or not, it's immaterial - your candidates' pathological lying and baggage is finding catching up with her. Even if he loses PA, it most certainly will not be the "massive blow out" that the Clinton camp has been forcasting for months. It really is over and it could not happen to a more deserving person - maybe there is a karmic justice in the universe.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lee226 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 02:32:32 GMT

I rather look for the person character in every thing he says and has done in the past.

I read Obama's book and has given me a great insight on his compassionate nature and ideology that will affect the main thrust for his policies. He is not interested on making connection so he can earn millions making speech like Clinton. He is a man on a mission to really change the way Washington works and get rid of waste and corruption. A candidate cannot make promess that require careful consideration and approval by both parties.His strength is his vision and judging from the past he has the ability to see clearly the machinations and manipulation that have placed this country on the road to ruin. While the middle class, most of us, are working 2 jobs to make it the few who have connections rake millions. Injustice and simply bad government is rampant, it must stop.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

dabow — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 03:33:55 GMT

These people that think that McCain is the answer I'm not sure what they are thinking of ... another 4 years of Bush Cheney Doctrine .....Iraq is a mess so lets blame Iran maybe we can start a war there? I saw Jessie Ventura on Larry KIng last week and he said "when it comes to war the test is simple to ask your self is the war just" are you willing to send your own son or daughter to fight the said war ...That's a very good point where are the Bush daughters where are the Cheney children grandchildren the Bush nephews nieces ? the Rumsfeld's relatives ? All these trio of clowns can tell us to go shopping for the war effort. I too was sucked up into the war build up and what really blows my mind is that with all the screw ups int his mess over there no one gets fired... After Pearl Harbor military personal were reprimanded for errs made to the surprise attack all we get from the Republicans in charge is "oh well it was bad info" and the American public take that .....I would like to see anyone in the private sector do any of those blunders that happen in this cluster f%^$ would have been ran out of town on a rail. And yet we get the present administration making jokes on several occasions about "no weapons over here " real funny if i had a son or daughter killed or maimed over there and to hear our Commander In chief making comments like that id would be serious but yet in this country it is all swept under the carpet ....now the regime want to go after Iran and the info has come back a few times that that Iran has nothing to do with the united states.... So where is this going to end with John McCain and "stay the course" or "bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb bomb Iran" now that is presidential with him we get another 4 years of what we have already gotten for 8 years .....Now we look at the Dem's well i am partial to obama i voted for him in Iowa....why well living in Iowa we are fortunate to see all of the candidates over and over and over after a year of door knockers and phone calls i think i made the right decision...The clintons have to much baggage not to mention they answer what questions they want to ....Take Chelsea is Monica a no no question is it personal well yes if your a private citizen but once your family goes into the white house you no longer are a private citizen you actually work for us that right Chelsea once your president you work for us and you have to answer questions it is our business.......but that is a who cares question but sit back and ask your self what the hell did that fiasco cost us tax payers the whole works mmmmm i bet it could help a few people out in their mortgage crisis ......The question i want to hear a answer and i have written Russert and Morning Joe obermann and still i never hear a answer on it ...the Clinton's relations with the Rich family Marc and Denise mmmm for those who don't know whom they are well he was wanted by the fed gov for tax evasion and doing some very shady deals during the Iranian hostage crisis basically treason well Bill pardoned him and his wife was basically living in the white house the last year of the Clinton administration and now when Hillary is asked she says "i wasn't involved in the pardons " but yet she claims experience being first lady then russert pointed out that Denise donated over hundred thousand dollars to the campaign and she says " i dont keep track of donors" mmm hundred of thousand dollars just a donor mmmmm and then we go to the Library deal which how do you raise 500 million dollars what is that going to cost this country if she is elected ...... I dont think obama has all the answers but with the right advisers and a level head i think ;he will lead this country in the right direction .....

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

nohair — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:22:14 GMT

I think that the Clintons are crooks and as Imus says will do anything to win. But I think that Obama is against america and dosen't really care for the good ole U.S. of A. There is a saying in Mexico, where I live, that says, "Go with the devil that you know and not with the devil you don't know." We know what kind of person Hillary is but we don't know what kind of person Obama is. I don't want either one to win but we have to choose one of them so it's better to go with the devil we know. Go John.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

larratta99 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:24:08 GMT

Many votes are regret to vote for obama in the past.

Go to www.ITakeBackMyVote.com

to take bacx your vote!

Keep our voice loud and clear!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

YOU CANT FOOL ME — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 04:56:44 GMT

I bet Obama DIDN'T tell the voters in Penn that HIS health plan leaves out 15 million Americans. He is sooo sneaky. Slim Shady. Those Penn voters may be working class but their smart enough to see right through him. He might be able to outspend Hillary 3-1, 5-1 or whatever, and he may BUY superdelagates but he will NOT be able to buy Penn voters. Time for a change allright, Go Hillary!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

YOU CANT FOOL ME — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 05:52:14 GMT

Dick Morris has an agenda of his own allright---On August 29, 1996, Morris resigned from the Clinton campaign after reports surfaced that he had been involved with a prostitute named Sherry Rowlands. A tabloid newspaper had obtained and published a set of photographs of Morris and Rowlands on a Washington, D.C., hotel balcony. Accompanying the photo layout was Rowlands' story of the casual affair, including the revelation that Morris's favorite sexual fetish was toe-sucking. The article also revealed that Morris had allowed Rowlands to listen in on phone calls with the President, and had given her a copy of a campaign speech before it was delivered. Morris resigned on the same day that Bill Clinton spoke and accepted the nomination at the Democratic National Convention. A further scandal erupted over Morris' failure to pay his income taxes. The Connecticut Department of Revenue Services, the state tax-collection agency, listed Morris as the seventh-largest delinquent taxpayer for 2007. The agency states that Morris owes $280,819 in unpaid taxes and that he has been on the delinquent list for years.

and you refer people to Dick Morris? WHAT A JOKE!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Jumpingnots — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 06:40:22 GMT

Well I have good news for all you former writers and this is no bull but straight from my my uncle who is an senator in DC.They alreay know that a young and bright man will be our next president and his name is Obama,the young voters will make it happen they are tired of the old crap in the White-House and want the chance in this country no matter what ,so here you have it get used to it his name is OBAMA,and the Clintons can take a long-long hike and fade away.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Anastasiavonglantal — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:12:10 GMT

I find it ludicrous that some of you attempt to denigrate Hillary Clinton by commenting on Bill Clinton's previous indiscretions. How many of you can honestly say you can control the actions of another person? Are you absolutely sure that your spouse or significant other has never cheated on you? It seems also that many of you conveniently forget how many wonderful leaders were also unfaithful to their wives: Martin Luther King, John F. Kennedy, Thomas Jefferson, John McCain...the list goes on and on. How many public women in positions of authority can boast the same sexual prowess? Judge Hillary on her own merits; thirty five years of experience, SCHIP, the children's health care program, insuring that reservists receive Tricare, and so on. Do your research people. Even Senator Kennedy admired and praised her before he was afraid a woman just might end up in the White House. There is too much misogyny in America. Let's choose someone who can get the job done. Hillaty Clinton is patriotic, tenacious, and motivated to succeed. Those area great qualities in a President.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Anastasiavonglantal — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 08:18:49 GMT

And why doesn't Obama put his hand over his heart for the pledge of allegiance? Why did Michelle Obama say she was "finally" proud to be an American? These issues raise a red flag for me.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

vakosh — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 11:58:06 GMT

... heis going to lose big in Pa. 1) First election since Rev. Wright and while the media has forgiven him, let's see what the people say. 2) the caucuses are OVER. Let's see how he does from here on out. Other than NC, I think the man is facing some problems ahead. Doesn't matter to me though, if the dems give it to him, I'm goin on welfare, everyone else he reps can start to step it up, and give us a well deserved break!!!! Happy times!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

oaksav4000 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:27:24 GMT

Hilary Clinton is done Obama should not even mention her name in pennslyvania he should focus on John Mccain. Obama 08

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

HappyDay41 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 12:51:05 GMT

Is he running as a Democrat or a Republican?

He denounces and maligns the records of two democratic presidents with exceptionally successful legacies-- Roosevelt (New Deal) and Clinton (balacned economy/surplus budget) and espouses and honors republican presidential records-- Reagan (service cuts) and Bush I (foreign policy).

Is he planning to run against the Democratic platform? I'm getting confused by his changes in personality, his change of his message depending on what region or audience he is in front of, and his change of party alliance depending on whose vote he's courting.

But I forgot--- he proclaims himself the candidate of 'change'.

I think I'll stick with my original "change I can believe in" candidate-- after almost 250 years of men in the White House, Hillary Rodham Clinton is the only 'Change I can Believe in".

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

vakosh — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 13:32:53 GMT

You have no idea if she is done or not, if he can't win a general, which is skeptical at this point, wait and see ... maybe the supers will go her way ... know one knows for sure, including you. He is not coming back to PA ... on to Indianna ... probably a very smart move for him ... it is best for him to move on.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

Jack3213 — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:00:23 GMT

NO AMOUNT OF MONEY CAN JUSTIFY LACK OF EXPERIANCE, HYPOCRITICAL ACTIONS, UNQUALIFIED PLANS, AND CONTRIDICTORY STATEMENTS. OBAMA IS ELUSIVE AND A STILL A MYSTERY, AND UNTIL HE GROWS INTO HIS ''SUIT'' FOR MANY MORE YEARS, HE CERTAINLY IS NOT READY TO LEAD A COUNTRY. THIS ISN'T THE 60'S..AND THIS ISN'T THE 90'S.. PS. THE CLINTON ERA IS OVER, TOO- LETS MOVE ON.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

JoeySky — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:12:31 GMT

Yep, let's see Obama the invincible weep after WA big lost. At some point, money won't buy him vote anymore.

I rather vote for Mickey Mouse than Obama the Rev. Wright nephew. At least Mickey is definitely doesn't hate America.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

sedonakaren — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:38:56 GMT

I wish those who accuse Obama of having "no experience" would stop and THINK. Cheney and Rumsfeld had more "experience" than anyone in those positions in history, and just look at the mess they have gotten this country into!

What we need is "new blood" and a fresh new way of doing things in Washington. That means with openness and honesty and new ideas. It's all about JUDGMENT being able to make important decisions without being "flighty" or a "hothead."

As far as Rev Wright, the country has moved so PAST that. Good people sometimes say bad things. It is totally unrealistic to base your view of the entire man's 30 year career of doing good on a few soundbites selected by someone who doesn't want Obama to win.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

sedonakaren — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:50:13 GMT

Some of the Clinton supporters are so bitter, it appears they would rather support McCain in his "3rd Bush Term" than Senator Obama. I would think LONG and HARD about that. Every indication is that he wants to ensnare us in yet another war...this time with Iran. In fact, you may have heard the song he wrote about it.

Can we afford to fight 3 wars at once? Our military deserves to come HOME!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

cabebet — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:51:29 GMT

Some people are so rediculous......Obama is not an anomaly or an accident or a phenomenon or any of the extraneous labels many use to describe him with the intent of being dismissive - Many of you would accept any reason to dismiss him! ANY. And as long as you small minds keep with the petty stuff his star will continue to rise....(i'll whisper it - you gotta do better, its not working) He rises above the insignificant BECAUSE IT'S INSIGNIFICANT! He is a bonafide candidate. So many of you sound like Clinton 2 or 3 months ago saying that Obama was "pulling the wool" over the worlds eyes. Think about it....is John Kerry a well respected, experienced sentor an idiot? No. Clinton an Idiot? No. (She said he'd make a great Vice-Presidient herself...hmm - didn't see what she was walking into with that - no foresight not a good characteristic)The great President Carter an Idiot? No. But maybe his whole family is just stupid.....I doubt it. What you think 'IDIOT IN BAMA' the people who are actually close to him and in positions of influence and have such great support for him and give him rediculous amounts of money and public endorsements because their in a trance?? No. You're a redneck and a crap kicker - wouldn't expect much of a fair shake from you to begin with. Tradition is your greatest influence, so....the world will quietly leave you in the past. And all the other credible support that he has in Washington and all over the country (THE CREDIBLE SUPPORT THAT RECIEVES SO LITTLE COVERAGE) - but some still try to postulate that his whole agenda is to dupe americans. While Dush does exactly that but for some that's okay, I wonder why?? Admit it - What's your real problem with Obama? HIS BEAUTIFUL GOD GIVEN COMPLEXION - its okay if i wasn't beautiful I'd hate him too:)

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

wannabe — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:06:26 GMT

You people that are "star struck" by Obama and Clinton are the ones that need to wake up. Hollywood never did anything for this country except to demean it's leadership and destroy it's foundations. The same is true for both of these inexperienced, naive, and Socialist's with the primary intent of reducing America to a third rate nation. Go ahead and give them the reins, my retirement home is in Costa Rica.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

MargeB — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:49:11 GMT

Posted By: vakosh (April 11, 2008 at 7:58 AM)

WOW! talking about over stating ones knowledge....(((vakosh)))) I also live in PA, yet i wasn't advised you were the "official PA spokesperson" I am an Obama supporter but I believe Hillary will win PA..but NOT by a large margin.

Obama has many supporters In PA. Of course he doesn't enjoy the distinction of being married to a former President,nor of having the Ed Rendell machine backing him. I truly hope PA voters won't be fooled by denial about her support for NAFTA or This Colombian free trade deal. While Hillary "claims" she's against such a deal,her husband Bill is in favor of it. Maybe because of the money he has recieved from that govt.

Hillary's WH papers confirmed she was a supported of NAFTA,how long will it be before we find out she also supports the Colombians??????:

She foold the Ohio voters,I just hope she doesn't fool the PA voters with her convincing LIES!!!!

PS. To the poster that said a 'drug addict" should be president.....You forgot to add whoremongler,draft dodger,and Liar . Bill Clinton PROVED that! Well maybe not "drug addict"...LOL! Bill didn't INHALE! LOL!LOL!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

MargeB — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 15:59:29 GMT

Posted By: vakosh (April 11, 2008 at 9:32 AM)

OK .(((vakosh))))....now I understand that your post are NOT to be taken seriously. Obama is retuning to PA...Do you research anything before you post????? READ SOMETHING PLEASE!!!!!

Secondly why is it that he would not win in the general? You post make you appear to know more than anyone else. Are you following the same primary?

Here's the bottom line....He will still be ahead in the pledged delegate count,win or lose in PA. That's what this constest is about...Pledged delegates!!!!!!

Also what Super delegates have you been speaking to?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

MargeB — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:07:18 GMT

Posted By: sheilaj (April 10, 2008 at 3:59 )

Hillary Clinton will make a much better President than Barack Obama and the people of Pennsylvania know it!

Go Hillary!

NOT exactly ((sheila))) I'm from PA and I don't know that! Last time the People of PA thought George W would make the "better" President....Remember??????

Let's hope we do better this time!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 16:39:54 GMT

Posted By: MargeB Last time the People of PA thought George W would make the "better" President....Remember?????? Let's hope we do better this time!

Dear MargeB,

sheilaj's position that "Hillary Clinton will make a much better President than Barack Obama and the people of Pennsylvania know it! " is her opinion (based on facts?)

However, drawing a comparison Pennsylvania's PAST endorsement of GWB:

"NOT exactly ((sheila))) I'm from PA and I don't know that! Last time the People of PA thought George W would make the "better" President....Remember??????"

is way off. Neither of the two democratic candidates, Obama and HRC, are remotely like GWB. So we can't make an argument that HRC would be a better (or worse) president based on Pennsylvania's PAST endorsement of GWB. Aww-ite?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:05:08 GMT

sedonakaren: "I wish those who accuse Obama of having "no experience" would stop and THINK. Cheney and Rumsfeld had more "experience" than anyone in those positions in history, and just look at the mess they have gotten this country into!"

Dear sedonakaren,

You are exactly right on. The "mess" you are referring to, however, really is quite complex. To simplify, let's call the "mess":

Interest vs. Idealogy

HIstorically, your argument leaves much to debate. Notwithstanding, Cheney is a remarkably articulate man and is knowledgeable in an almost frightening, ominous way. (Cheney called himself, Darth Vader, when referring himself to the Middle East). Rumsfeld, having no military experience, quite purposefully led Americans into a quagmire of despair. Both men are guilty of crimes against humanity and the list of grievances against them could go on and on.

Your endorsement of Barack Obama isn't unreasonable; it's just a gamble that some people aren't willing to take. We don't know what he would do in the Oval Office. That leaves voters with a huge maybe here. But you're right about Cheney and Rumsfeld; their almost sinister means to an end are unbelievable in the age of rapid information and the people that Barack claims he could pull together to topple their counterparts in Washington, DC.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 17:13:52 GMT

Sorry for the grammatical mistakes.....

MargeB: "Last time the People of PA thought George W would make the "better" President....Remember?????? Let's hope we do better this time!

Dear MargeB,

Sheilaj's position that "Hillary Clinton will make a much better President than Barack Obama and the people of Pennsylvania know it! " is her opinion (is this based on facts?)

However, drawing a comparison Pennsylvania's PAST endorsement of GWB is way off:

MargeB: "NOT exactly ((sheila))) I'm from PA and I don't know that! Last time the People of PA thought George W would make the "better" President....Remember??????"

Neither of the two democratic candidates, Obama and HRC, are remotely like GWB. So we can't make an argument that HRC would be a better (or worse) president based on Pennsylvania's PAST endorsement of GWB.

McCain, however, is a candidate that one could compare policy- wise to George W. Bush. We don't know if McCain (with his experience that eclipses Obama's) would make a better world leader than either of the two Democratic hopefuls.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

powin — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 18:49:17 GMT

Dear deep_eye:

In response to your tirade:

deep_eye: "Wow - Powin - we must both have the same Thesaurus - how cool is that?? Only a single botheration with your fustian post, my friend. Bombastic verbiage without a sound and considered base in logic, is unfortunately, pointless..........So you see dear friends, the media really does not "create the news," it merely reports it. The media is distorting nothing that I have seen in this election. In fact, I came in fully undecided between Clinton and Edwards (Obama was not even on my radar). If anything, my sense was she got a free ride from the media...."

Your poorly composed calumny reveals an insecure man with poor etiquette, a below average command of speech and a preponderance of MISINFORMATION. Some people refer to ignorant and extremely rude people as trash; I, however, think you just need to read more and focus on expressing a healthy sense of Self.

"Public relations is a huge industry. They're spending by now something on the order of a billion dollars a year. All along its commitment was to controlling the public mind.... "Support our troops." Who can be against that? The issue was, Do you support our policy? But you don't want people to think about the issue. The bewildered are a problem. We've got to distract them. They should be watching the Superbowl or sitcoms or violent movies...."

"Media news people, frequently operating with complete integrity and goodwill, are able to convince themselves that they choose and interpret the news "objectively" and on the basis of professional news values....Voter attention is to be focused on style, personality (does this remind anyone of "Yes We Can") —anything but the issues that are of primary concern to the concentrated private power centers that largely finance campaigns and run the government" (Noam Chomsky, Massachusetts Institute of Technology).

Share this with the superdelegates.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

vikiss — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 19:26:53 GMT

OBAMA IS NOTHING BUT A LIAR, EVERYTHING THAT COMES OUT OF HIS MOUTH ARE LIES AND HE HAS THOSE POOR COLLEGE STUDENTS FALLING FOR HIS LIES. I BELIEVE HIS PEOPLE ARE THE ONES THAT SET FIRE TO HILLARYS OFFICE IN IND. I WOULD HOPE HIS ENDORSER WOULD LOOK AT THE EMPTY HEAD BETWEEN THOSE BIG EARS AND REALIZE THEY ARE BEATING A DEAD HORSE BECAUSE HE WILL NEVER BEAT MCCAIN FOR THE PRESIDENCY IF HE WINS THE DEM. PARTY. SO SAD KEEP FIGHTING HILLARY

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lillea — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:34:44 GMT

The more we find out about Obama, the more it is revealed that he is a aneaky, scheming, dishonest, crooked, lying, pious politician. He is not to be trusted. He changes with the wind. He is too unstable to be the leader of a free country.

His associations in the past are shady and it is scary to think who he would choose to buddy up to in the world. From his past experiences, I am afraid he would choose the wicked, vile leaders of the world to be his associates. He is draw to dishonest people.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lillea — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:38:00 GMT

Hey PA folks,

Did you hear what Obama said about you today in San Francisco? He was making fun of you to the West Coasters. This guy is NOT to be trusted.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

lillea — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:43:35 GMT

Wow! Check this out!!

http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/obamas_oil_spill.html

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

florida65 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 00:30:41 GMT

I wish people from PA, to pay more attention to Obama and his speach,just nice words,true a tallented Orator,but words never solve problems. He has no experience(maybe in the next few years),his association with wery dubious characters like Rezko,Auchi,the NY bombar,plus his "uncle" Jeremiah Wright. We know Hillary, for many years,the good and bad, about her. But,we don't know almost nothing about Obama.All of us,saw everyday, how bias the media and the press treated her, beaten by them,she stands up more determined to fight what she believe is fair and right. This proved her tenacity,strong character and most of all, to be there for us, the American people. PA, keep her winning.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

joflorida — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 11:52:02 GMT

Attn:florida65

Are you aware that there is a petition to make the Florida votes count. go to www.fldeservesrecognition.com. Info on how this petition got started and and the petition is available to ALL voters who think that everyone's vote should count. Doesn't matter about affiliation or the state that you live in. Obama is blocking our votes counting and Howard Dean (DNC)Chairman said that if the two candidates could agree on terms they would be counted. Obama says he wants them counted but his attorney is blocking them. Makes him look like a nice guy. The only way that is acceptable is to count them as we voted. No Deals!

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

joflorida — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 12:50:17 GMT

To Cabebet

Obama is a creation ,and is indebted to so many large groups that are supporting him that he would not be able to govern efficiently because of the disagreements among the Billionaires,

millionaires, Senior Dems.(that he promised a position in his Administration) and powerful black organizations. Oh, I forgot Oil and Gas CEO's,etc. The main agenda is to just get him elected and YES, it was important to his creators that he be black. He is an extremely ambitious politician along with, his wife, Michelle. Are you aware that while in the Illinois State Senate, he voted not once, but twice, to allow babies from botched abortions to die on table or in trash cans, instead of voting for medical care for them? As Chairman of the Health and Human Services Committee, he denounced the bill to protect them. This is not a man that I would want to govern my land. He is cold, calculating, articulate and ruthless. I believe that this is the vote where he said he pushed the wrong button, however, you do not do this in 2002 and again in 2003 by mistake. He is very convincing with his well studied speeches written by extremely skilled, accomplished speech writers with a goal of presenting him as the vetted, viable candidate. People who are saying they have checked him out confuse me, because if you really have and you are still backing him then I have to question your judgement or reasoning. Obama's campaign is very dependent upon the voters not seeing the race card being played for him but twisting it to look like he is a victim of racism. It is why they chose a black man. I want to stress that I am a white woman without an ounce of prejudice in my body or mind . I would vote for a black or whatever color person if I found evidence that they were of good character, morally decent, with a record that proves they are ready and willing to serve our country in the belief that our government is a government: "Of the people, by the people, for the people.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

maggiesolutions — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 15:20:44 GMT

To: joflorida

It is obvious from your e-mails that you are prejudiced even though you claim that you "do not have an ounce of prejudice in your mind or body". Your perspective is based on your personal judgements on Senator Obama's character not validated by fact or statistic.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

USA Gone Crazy — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 18:54:16 GMT

As in pre-WWII Germany, the young and the educated are being wooed by a charismatic leader promising them great things. Are you going to fall for the Obama trap?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

valadezaj — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 20:39:12 GMT

Exactly "USA"! I have studied the Hitler movement extensively and I can say without a doubt Obama is very similar to him. It's scary indeed.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

katkinson64 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 21:15:50 GMT

In this political cycle it has been interesting to watch the democratic party make the analogy that John McCain is nothing more that an extension of the Bush-Cheney presidency. Do they really believe that the Amercian public is so blind that they cannot see the discension in the conservative ranks over the nomination of Mr. McCain? Certainly with the talent in the democratic field they could come up with a more thought provoking differentiation.

This lack of creativity is further evidenced while we watch the endless debate on who made the right decision to go to war or not to go to war . The real issue is what are we going to do in Iraq. All candidates are backing off the withdrawal time table position ever so subtly with no clear plan being presented to the people on what they propose be done. The democrats continue to make a feeble attempt to make political hay from McCain's comments that there may be a long term presence required without truly stating what they would do instead.

But not to worry the Republicans give us a pedantic response on the other issue that should be addressed by any would be pretender to the George W, Bush throne: the economy. It is impressive to see the level of detail the Clinton camp offers on the course they would take if elected. Where is Mr. McCain's plan? (or for that matter Mr. Obama's).

We have two over riding needs to carry the country forward. A sound national security policy and a sound economic policy to lift us out of the latest banking deregulariton morass. What we are offered is at best half of the solution from each party.

We the voting populace are left to decide which of our needs are more urgent. I really would like to ask the democrats why have we not heard from foreign policy experts of any credential from their camp? Similarly I would ask tell the Republicans it will take a great deal more than the elimination of ear marks to cope with our ailing economy. Is there someone with credibility on economic matters that could be heard from?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

5interiors5 — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 22:29:45 GMT

To maggiesolutions on your criticism of joflorida I do not see her posting as racist (now add me to that list you are keeping) when she states that Obama was chosen for his race. I said that long before he entered the primary. If I wanted to defeat Hillary Clinton, how would I do it I was asked. And without much thought I answered run a black man. Obama is the figment of someones imagination. This is the politically correct theme in todays climate. Unfortunately Geraldine Ferraro was condemed for that statement by those in the Obama camp who did not want to see their plans exposed. It was a mistake by the Obama makers to choose a man who was arrogant, who thought it was his due to become president, and who had very little credentials. Obama supporters are crediting him for running a smooth campaign. It is like believing tha Cindy Crawford or Donald Trump really designs the furniture which bears their names. Obama is not the brains behind his campaign. I do not know who that really is, but this I do know---He has difficulty speaking off the cuff, his lack of knowledge of what really concerns the people and has no real solutions, just empty retoric, and his extreme arrogance are things that are very obvious. He has never been able to best the intelligency of Hillary Clinton who has no difficulty answering questions from media and the public. If you really have arrived at your support of Obama through careful consideration watch Wednesday's debate to see who is the best candidate. joflorida very eloquently explains why Obama is not her choice and it has nothing to do with race. Obama plays the race card as in his San Francisco speech to explain why HE FEELS he is having difficulty connecting with the average person in PA. Again it is not race it is first and foremost arrogance and the apparent entitlement to the presidency that he feels.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

ndnstud — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 00:26:21 GMT

to 5interiors5:

Did you really say "Hillary Clinton who has no difficulty answering questions from media and the public. "....????

Funny, when asked point blank about her husband taking $800,000, mirroring the $800,000 her campaign co chair took, to promote a trade bill she claims to oppose, Hillary had nothing to say but laugh hysterically and admit she couldn't answer the question. Once again she's caught lying, specifically about trade, as she did when she claimed to have always opposed NAFTA but the record shows she lobbied FOR it.

-And I guess we don't need to discuss the lying about the Irish peace process, taking sniper fire in Bosnia, etc.,etc..

Hillary has run an absolutely abysmal campaign. How else do you explain being up by 30 points last summer and raising then record amounts of cash, only to find herself now being so far behind she cannot catch up and not being able to pay her bills?

Mismanagement, thats how. And that is a good indicator of what kind of president she'd be.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

cjtery — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 03:01:25 GMT

If Barrack is inept, unqualified, inexperienced, and naive about everything, what does it say that he is beating and has beaten Hillary and John McCain in every measurable way in this campaign? From popular votes, to financial and crisis management to delegate count and advertisement, no one comes close. Such a moron, I'll take.

Hillary says no one is upset or bitter in small town America, yet she is a fighter. What is she fighting for? If everyone is so positive and optimistic the way things are, why do we need her?

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

15R8 — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 11:32:49 GMT

How different Barrack sounds behind closed doors .Quite frankly what a differance a few days make as 2.0 turns intooops 69 expelative inserted. I can't help but refer back to what BHO said a few weeks ago on how when behind closed doors blacks speek of their annomisety resentments and too often hatreds of those that are not like then. No wonder this candidate has a base that thinks they are better than the middleclass below them,

BHO you just don't get it so let me help you:

we go to church because we love the Christ and the lord our GOD, we don't want to hear racist remarks from our ministers.

we don't resent imergrants, we don't want illega aliens and all the problems they bring from cutthroating the middleclass to meth brewing.

We are the famlies of legal immergrants

We don't mind fair trade we hate unfair trade as a major element in our homeland is fair play

we don't want discrimination ,we have rejected it, but we also son't want color of your skin preferances.

we accept our punishment when punishment is due but reject being punished for 'the crimes " of others

we want our leaderes to be 100% for the middleclass

We have come to see that those who think they are so far above the people rarley do good for the people

we don't want drivers licences for illegals or hyporecy for the electorate

you just don't get it and neither does your wife

wea are proud of america and proud to be Americans

VOTE CLINTON

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

cooned — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 19:16:20 GMT

All of you "liberals" who are ok with Barak insulting a community's religious beliefs and their insistance on keeping their constitutional rights, you are no different than any of the "racist rednecks" you have in the fairy tale world of ideas you imagine to be the real world. I have never heard a more ignorant and bigoted statement come out of a politicians mouth, and for people to call him a "uniter" is ridiculous.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

maggiesolutions — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 20:31:28 GMT

To: 5interiors5

I did not assert joflorida to be racially prejudiced....I asserted that joflorida's perspective and opinion on Senator Obama's character is "prejudiced" due to her support of Senator Clinton. Your assertion of Senator Obama's arrogance and sense of entitlement to the Presidency is also "prejudiced" due to your advocacy and support of Senator Clinton. Hopefully you can agree that many of us are "prejudiced" as it relates to our political biases.

re: The Pennsylvania Strategy: 'Inevitability 2.0'

zmai — Mon, 14 Apr 2008 14:58:58 GMT

it is amazing from an african perspective to see how you guys are polarised on evry subject that is discussed by your candidates to a point where even a fair comment suddenly is twisted. I have followed the so called "controversial remarks" that have been attributed to both democratic camps. What seems to amaze me most is how any coments that touch on race seem to be so sensitive so many years on after intergration. The same reactions in a third world country be it in africa or the middle East or indeed Asia for that matter draws harsher comments from you guys in the first world. Suddenly ethnic cleansing, tribal politics etc etc does the rounds. The strongest condemnation of terms to describe a misnomer has come from H.Clinton who has commented that Obama's views were demeaning and elitist.

The rest of the differences are as a result of safe words like "prejudice" which will never be applied if a Zulu or Swahili guy on the african continent had differences in opinion!