Exactly, the only thing he promises is 'hope for our country' but Hil actually could accomplish things, and has a mindset agenda.

oh you should have heard the View ladies on this...god...I wanted to slap Hasselbeck upside the head...

Personally, I think that Hil will win the dem nod, if it is too close to call [which will happen], because the super dels like her, and plus she is WAY more qualified.

heh.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v3...etrainbaby.jpg

^^*gigglesnort*

:laugh:

George W. Bum**** has screwed up so royally and tarnished Republicans so bad that I could picture Democrats controlling the white house for 16 years IF Hillary Clinton were to preceed Barack Obama as President. But if Barack Obama swoops in and gets the nomination now, I don't think that will happen. It is probably now or never for Hillary, whereas Barack could benefit greatly from a possible eight years in the white house. When was the last time there was one, let alone two candidates that Democrats were so enthusiastic about? Everybody can end up happy if they are put in the correct order.

I've been steadfast in my support of Obama but what disturbs me is why both Democratic candidates now have to pander to the Christians ..what ever happened to the seperations of church and state that the writers of the Constitution so clearly intended? It should be no one' s f*#king bussiness what a candidate's religious beliefs are (if any)nor should they be discussed and dissected ad nasuem..McCain's stance on the Iraqi war is execrable but at least he didn't bother to show up at the preposterous 'faith and compassion ' forum the way Obama and Clinton did .I know plenty of atheist and humanist with far more compassion than most Christians I have come across so how absurd it seems to even equate faith with compassion.

I think they are trying to appeal to that elusive swing voter.

I am stealing this.

Obama!
 

Wow - I'm really surprised that people on this board are siding with Hillary Clinton.
Senator Clinton
began with such a promising start in January. For a while I saw her as a stronger candidate then both
Al Gore and John Kerry.

But since then, she has done nothing to win my
confidence. Instead I have witnessed an embarrasing
determination to pander to elderly voters and voters who
are not educated. She has mixed republican-style fear
mongering with an appaling level of racism that has left me with
only one qiestion: Why would any Democrat that's truly
paying attention buy into this disgusting mafia of a campaign?

We expected more from the Clintons and you will
find that smart voters in places like LA and San Francisco
will no longer welcome them.

After 8 years of sleaze & bigotry, this country will
no longer tolerate a candidate like Hillary Clinton.
They can race-bait to people in
Appalachia, but the rest of us are watching in
disgust with our jaws on the floor.

I'm disappointed to hear fans so easily condone the racism in this campaign.
But all that aside, I know Senator Obama has what it takes to actually get things done.
Clinton would have spent her entire presidency fighting off the Republican attack machine.



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/11/opinion/11rich.html



http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/10/op...4a7&ei=5087%0A

Hillary at this point is just doing what she can to hobble Obama's chances in the general election..and yes her fear mongering and pandering to the god and guns contingent in Appalachia and other places is despicable..she is really coming across as a Medea willing to sacrifice the chance to get the Republicans out of the White House for her own aggrandizement .I don't think it is any coincidence at all that Meryl Streep deliberately patterned her power mad harpy in the remake of The Manchurian Candidate after Hillary.If she continues on her ruinious and deluded course we may have her to thank if we are looking at Mccain's old mug in the White House come January..If she really cared about what happens to this nation she will step down now and throw her support behind Obama.

I am not going to pretend that I know how it feels to live out in rural smalltown America, or how it feels to be elderly or trying to make ends meet in a faded rustbelt city. All I know is that a lot of the American population falls into one of those categories, and they are segments of society that don't receive a lot of attention. Sure, it appears that Hillary seems to have tapped into this underserved demographic with her populist speeches and platforms, but guess what? Obama is now doing the same thing with his "I was raised by a single mother on food stamps" narrative in his speeches. Everyone is pandering. Everyone is doing whatever it takes to get a vote. And I don't blame them at all- they need to do whatever it takes to get a non-Republican into the White House. However, where I do take exception is Obama's supposed high road moral superiority. At the end of the day, he is playing the same dirty politics as anyone else, except he has brainwashed a bunch of yuppies with white guilt into believing he is somehow different.

Put down the Huffington Post and step away. She is hardly fear mongering. Yes, I think the whole 3AM telephone call business was a bit tacky, but I hardly call that fear mongering. But it does raise a valid point. Put another way, do I want a newbie who has failed to serve a single term in the senate, that has not sponsored any meaningful legislation, who has voted "Present" on over 100 occasions, has hardly traveled, hardly exposed to foreign policy issues, has never served in the military, to make critical decisions if the nation is under attack?

I would tend to disagree, especially since Obama has not made much progress with Latinos. And the gays are certainly uneasy about his background with the notoriously homophobic black church and prominent homophobe evangelists like Donnie McClurkin. It is no accident that she won CA by double digits on Super Tuesday.

Can you please name me one instance where she race baited? Sure, the Obamatons are screaming bloody murder at Hillary's comments to USA Today about the fact that Obama is not appealing to the white working class Democrats. Sure, Jesse Jackson won the South Carolina primary. These are statements of fact. This is not mere conjecture or a hasty generalization based upon racist ideology. It's fact, fact, fact, fact. And it also is worthwhile to mention that if Hillary had a KKK leader as a spiritual advisor for 20 years, and she never renounced him or parted ways with him until she was forced to, she would have been thrown out of the race months ago. As far as I am concerned Obama totally got a pass on the Wright issue. Also, if Hillary had said "a typical black person," she would have been kicked out of the Democratic party, whereas Obama's "a typical white person" comment doesn't even cause a flicker. Hello, double standard?

Also, I am purely disgusted at the notion that white people who don't vote for Obama are considered "racists," whereas, when 92% of the black Democrats voted for Obama (rather than Hillary), that's considered appropriate. So, in other words, blacks voting based on race is okay, but it's not okay for whites. Talk about race baiting!

Based on......? His "stellar" U.S. senate record? :rolleyes: Surrounding himself with questionable, shady figures? His ability to give a good speech (with passages lifted directly from Reverend Wright)? What has he done for you lately? What I fear about Obama is that he will be indecisive and unwilling to take the correction actions when they are needed. I fear that he will be singing Kum Ba Ya with Iran while Israel gets erased off of the map. I fear that he will keep talking about issues rather than taking active, decisive steps toward implementing solutions. His "Present" voting record in the senate pretty much sums it up for me.

The first Clinton did that, yet presided over the longest peacetime economic expansion in U.S. history coupled with a budget surplus by the end of his term. The Clintons are a known entity, and much of their dirty laundry has already been aired and retired. They are by no means perfect people, but at least they know how the game is played, and they have extensive roots. Obama for me is still just a nice speech... and he can play a good game of basketball. :shrug:
[/QUOTE]

^^^^

Amen

It is very easy to talk a good game - but actions speak louder than words and Obama has had few actual actions to support his convictions.

In the end, the far left cannot abide that Clinton voted to give W the authorization to, inter alia, use military force against Iraq if SH did not comply with the renewed inspections. To me, the far left conveniently ignores the decade or so of unanimous UN resolutions calling for Iraq to produce the WMD the UN unanimously thought Iraq had. Moreover, the far left conveniently ignores that they likely voted for Bill Clinton and/or their D Congressperson, who likely voted to give Clinton the authorization to routinely bomb Iraq and kill innocent Iraqi's in the name of the same WMD that W asserted were there. All of those facts apparently matter not; It matters only that she voted to give W, inter alia, the authorization to go to war if SH did not comply. Interestingly and consistently with that vote, since then Hillary has condemned W for rushing to war and botching the war from the get go. That explanation is not good enough for the far left despite its consistency. They want her to say that is was a mistake to vote to give W the authorization to renew the inspections in Iraq or Iraq must (finally) face severe consequences. She cannot say that and nor should she say that. Again, the world unanimously though SH had those WMD and the D's screamed for SH's head and killed in the name of those WMD for a decade or so before W took power :shrug: But and again, all that matters not to those with their ostrich head in the sand.

For those who would misquote me - I wish SH had never put us in the position to have to force the inspections to continue. I also with W had never been so hell bent on playing the shell game of the war in Iraq to hide the failures in Afgan and OBL. I can even stomach deposing SH by invasion if W had listened to his top advisors and executed the post invasion with any coherent plan to win the peace. So, I am no fan of W; yet, I assuredly will be called that. I am just saying Hillary's vote was not the horrid mistake people are trumping it up to be. In other words, had W done what he said he was going to do, her vote would not be in question :shrug: Was hillary a fool for casting that vote because everyone knew that W was going to war with Iraq no matter what W said to the contrary - I still say no because I think not to do the inspections was the wrong course to take - a position solidly supported by the D party for over a decade mind you.

As for Obama - for the reasons set forth above, he gets a pass because he is black - no two ways about that. I voted for him here in GA. I kind of regret it because Hillary is far more qualified than the man who can finish an eloquent sentence but not a full term of anything but rhetoric equating to talking a good game. But I still have the audacity of naivete I suppose.

Finally, it is in the interest of the fourth estate to fabricate intent and racial tension between Hillary and Obama. It allows them to sell 30 seconds of air time for a greater price. When I read their comments, Obama's have more racial tension in them. But, as a white male, I am automatically branded a racist for saying it, which the reverse does not happen. Such is life.

Obama is a magnetic character, seems honest and makes great, inspiring speeches, I can see why people adore him (I even like him very much), and not only in Usa. I can't even say I'm a great Hillary Clinton fan. But don't you think if he became the Democratic candidate he would mercilessly lose with McCain? I know that If I were American, I'd vote Democratic, but in this case probably not. Obama simply hasn't any experience to be President. I have this vision of him, awaken in the middle of the night to cope with some international menace and simply not knowing what to do.

Romy

Well, just about every black person who votes will vote for him, at least that is what the D primaries and the major polls show. So, if the blacks come out and vote for him, which they have done in spades, and he gets most of the rest of the D vote, then he likely will defeat McCain. Interesingly, the black vote has not yet called Obama an "Uncle Tom" for rejecting a major black religious figurehead who apparently is racist against whites and jews. If that happens, Obama will get a resounding defeat come Nov.

He cannot and will not win the general election. He is a one term senator with little real experience. Mainstream America sees him as either a devotee of a church that supports Louis Farrakahn or even worse, a Muslim.
I think it's wonderful that the Dems are willing to nominate an African American and or a woman for president. But that is also one of the party's fatal flaws. It sometimes has too tight a grip on it's idealism.
I have a very bad feeling about this. I think it's going to make the McGovern and Dukakis bids look like a pony ride. I hope I'm wrong about all of this. :shrug:

And we know that the black vote hasn't been surpressed over the last two presidential election cycles. While I agree he may win with the numbers, we may never actualy know about it. :shrug: