Hellooooooooo
The Primaries are not the FINAL race

does anyone remember who the REAL opponent is?

Sensible Racist American...Obama continues to surge in the polls and on the ground. Again this weekend thousands of supporters nationwide will knock on doors to register Democrats and to speak about Obama's policies and how he intends to lead this country out of the dangerous course Bush has set. Get on board man, there's plenty of room left on this HUGE bandwagon.

I got an idea. Pistols at 50 paces. Hopefully they will both hit, and then we can get on with the real election.

Face it, all Bill and Hill's old baggage would NEVER fit in AF1. Push the eject button on these two losers Dems.

"After White House intervention, the Senate yesterday...rejected a proposal...to extend health insurance to the nation's 10.5 MILLION uninsured children...Seven lawmakers switched their votes...after senior White House officials...called and said the amendment would imperil the delicate budget agreement."

"A major element of the President's education plan - a proposal to spend $5 billion to repair the nation's crumbling schools-was among the items quietly killed in last week's agreement to balance the federal budget."

"Meanwhile, the government was continuing to spend at least $250 billion a year to maintain the military machine. The assumption was that the nation must be ready to fight "two regional wars simultaniously."

Boston Globe May, 1997

I guess the year really doesn't matter...Bush, Clinton...Bush...Clinton....Whatever

HuffingtonPost is the one place I expect to find decent journalism but lately many of the headlines don't jibe with the content of the article. This post is a perfect example. Interesting too is that the Atlantic's headline represented the article pretty accurately. So why did HP have to gin up their headline???

On top of that there was little in the article worth reading.

Hope this practice isn't a pattern for the future.

Obama might be better than Clinton:

Even though many may like the policies that Senator Clinton proposes, they should also consider her record , just as Senator Clinton insists.
.
The last Clinton Administration, when faced with the fact that protection rackets where torturing people with poison and radiation, chose to avoid its responsibilities to incarcerate the criminals and protect the citizenry.
.
Instead, they made a deal with the criminal gang stalker protection rackets to leave them alone and to consequently abandon the citizenry.
.
Do we want a President who sells out the citizenry for votes?
.
Do we want a President who sends a "crime does pay" message to society?
.
Would you vote for a President who has signed nonagression deals with the KKK or the Nazi party? Gangs that torture with poison and radiation are much like the KKK and Nazi Party.
.
We do not need a sellout President. We need a principled leader President.
.
If you are one of the few who do not know what the above refers to, do a web search for "gang stalking" to see the tip of the dirtberg. Please do it before you decide to reply to my post.
.

A public service announcement - before you post and call people names, READ the story! *thank you*
This is a non-story for either candidate actually. The issue is mandated coverage and what the story tries to say is that the Obama camp's claim that Clinton was against mandated health care in the '90s yet for mandated health care now is weak. Even as an Obama supporter, I'd tend to agree - if I had the time and patience to dig up the '90s health coverage plan proposals and compare them to those of today's candidates, it may change my perception. In truth, the article merely points to the difference in rhetoric of what was being considered for "mandated health coverage" back then and what is being considered "mandated health coverage" in today's debate. And like so many comparisons to the 90s era, the basis for comparison and the economic/political/health cost environment in which health care reform was being negotiated differs significantly from what it is today that it is an apples to oranges comparison. What Obama's folks may be saying is that Clinton's healthcare plan _on the whole_ today differs from what she proposed back then, and that is true. But to get into the semantics of what constitutes mandated health coverage when or where is rather futile for either side. Let's look at today's plans and move on.

All of the healthcare as an issue talk is a non-starter, just as abortion was for Reagan. For those old enough to remember, abortion was one of the issues that got Reagan elected, but he did nothing, he could do nothing to further the agenda.

Healthcare is an issue that has been on the front burner for many Democrats like Sen. Kennedy for at least 30 years. Do the Democrats really think that the Republicans are going to suddenly roll over and allow it to happen.

This is just and election cycle non-issue that will polarize one democrat from another. Clinton won't get her healthcare agenda passed, Obama won't get his passed. Use your heads.

Sounds true to me.

what did you expect from lying opray's puppet liar ,ali-bama--he's a loser and continues to act like it!!!

Very typical and certainly unexpected of the Barack Osama (yes, that IS his legal middle name) Obama would stoop to this kind of disgusting behavior. He's done it before and he'll do it again. He's whined over racism, whined over gender issues, claimed Hillary is too old guard, yada, yada, yada.

There is NO better candidate then Hillary Clinton and that is not going to change one iota. Barack never had a chance of making it to the White House and no matter how many Oprahs he gets to stump for him, that kind of support is only going to put those who stump for and with him right in the gutter where they belong.

Vote Hillary - that's the only sensible thing to do.

Obama got caught again with his pants down. That's what happens when someone carelessly running to be a nominee and NOT doing any homework. For three years he's a US senator, he missed 80% of the vote. He'd be worse than Bush and dangerous at that.

Here Obama...start reading before you shoot off your mouth!

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c103:H.R.3600:

This just seems senseless somehow and an unfair hit on Obama. Especially for it to have the negative implication of the Huffington Post headline. There is enough conflict without "bystanders" just making trash up. What is the point here?

This headline is probably the most pro-Clinton propaganda bullshit headline I've seen yet. If this is as good as her in-the-pocket pundits can do, she's in big trouble.