10 Questions for Hillary Supporters

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-the-war-before-I-was-against-it general election campaign?

Comments

[rubyjewel]

The bulk of Hillary's often trumpeted "35 years of experience" largely includes her "experience" as First Lady of Arkansas, then First Lady of the US. According to Hillary this vital experience is enough to meet the "commander in chief threshold" (her latest, silly meme). I shudder to think that Laura Bush, former First Lady of Texas, current First Lady of the US will someday claim she too is qualified to run for President on the basis of her "experience".

[morgagni]

hey , despite what the Clinton campaign thinks, posting the same thing over and over does not make it true.
Go ahead and look at HRC's speech on the Senate floor--she knew she was voting for a pre-emptive war against a country that had nothing to do with 9/11. She cast that vote, on the Joint Resolution for the Authorization of the use of Military Force against Iraq "with conviction". And now she tries to say she was voting for diplomacy. At best she was trusting GWB to do the right thing (dumb), at worst, she is a warmongerer just like him.
Then she gave GWB a blank check on Iran, it seems like she has learned nothing. Meanwhile, despite the distortions by Clinton et al., Obama has consistently been calling for the withdrawal of troops from Iraq not just in 2002, but every year since to today.
HRC and her buddy John McCain will one day have to claim responsibility for all the costs of the war, the dollars and the destruction, but most all the loss of countless lives of people from all countries.
All this and now we are actually not any safer, in fact, we are more in danger than ever.

[whatchamean]

Here are some facts about the Democratic race for a nominee...

1. When HRC was running for the senate in NY she an Wolfson made Lazio's tax returns a key issue.
2. She knows very well that Obama had not contacted the Canadian goverment but pushed the false report anyway.
. In MI and FL, she signed the agreement that they would honor the DNC rules and she stated publicaly that she agreed that honoring the early state primary calendar was a good thing. She left her name on the ballot anyway where the others horored their pledge.
4. Obama has won twice as many states with over 150 more pledged delegates. The large state small state argument doesn't hold up. Obama actually won Texas in that he got more delegates. along with the fact that he won TX,GA, VA, WI, MN along with other states that will prove pivotal to changing the color of swing states. Hillary won NY by a slimmer margin that Barack won IL.
5. He has won 15 of the past 17 states. In the two states that she won, OH and RI, she netted 4-6 pledged delegates. Than will be wiped out after this Tuesday when Obama wins in a landslide.
6. Obama average margin of victory in the 17 he just won was a staggering 29 percentage points!
7. After Tuesday's win in MS, HRC would have to win every other state by an average of almost 70%. The only reason that this race is bein spun to sound close is because it suits the media to keep it going. If Obama were down by this amount, the drumbeat would be loud to drop out.
8. The Democratic party super delegates are not going to reverse the will of the people, it just won't happen, This possiblity is being conjured up for public consumption by th media.
9. The republicans want to face HRC. She as what we in the biz call a "long tail"
10. If HRC's argument for being president is experience, that will be usurped if she were to run against McCain. He will use her own words against her.
11. If she happens to use Rezco against Obama, there are a thousand Rezco's in her past. In fact others that were indicted with Rezco were Clinton donors. That picture of the Clintons standing with Rezco makes for an embarrassing story to have to tell so they are prodding the press to look in to it but will not be bringing it up themselves. If they push it, Obama's campaign will bring up Mr. Hsu. With Hsu, there is no ambiguity.
12. Hillary already has 48% negatives baked in to the cake and if she is the nominee, you will see massive turn out on the republican side to try to thwart her presidency. That means not only a potential White House loss but many house races for democrates in vulnerable districts could be lost as well.
With Obama, you get all of the people that would vote for for a traditional dem plus first time voters, more independents and disgruntled repubs. Turn out for the dems if Obama is the candidate will set records that may never be broken.
13. Once elected, Obama would attract a larger majority of voters thus a better chance of getting important legislation through congress. Repubs who might allign with a Clinton president would jeapordize their next election. It cannot be overstated as to how much they dispise the Clintons. Don't be fooled by their silence today. If she becomes the nominee, the line "unleash hell" from the movie The Gladiator comes to mind.

My credentials for these conclusions are that I am a marketing consultant with 30 years of figuring out who the winners are going to be. There are some times you have to admit that your competition has a better story to tell. In this case, Obama is Coke and Clinton is Pepsi.

Wishing you the best no matter who you have chosen.
-Mike

[MysticMichael]

From one marketing consultant to another - and from one Mike to another - a very cogent and persuasive summary. Well done...

Michael

[Hilleluiah]

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?
A little thing called 9/11 showed us what kind of a leader she could be in a crisis situation. She had to make a decision on behalf of her constituents and for good or bad, she was strong enough to make a decision. She attended those funerals; she witnessed first hand what happened on that day; and she vowed to represent the people of NY and she did it to the best of her abilities.

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?
Go to the youtube video of her casting her vote on the senate floor and tell me what she said on that day and then tell me if she authorized that war. Again, she was coming from a different perspective as the Senator from NY, where it all began. Would you be more satisfied if she just voted present?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?
How can a candidate that was not in office tell me that he voted against it?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?
To be honest, I don't even know what add you're talking about. I saw a split screen on the huffpost, but his camp is the one spreading the picture around. I'm black and annoyed by the way people outside of my race keep being offended for me because of psuedo racial statements or images. I oppose the news media taking every opportunity to show her with her mouth open as if she's screaming, wide-eyed, and old. While his pictures are iconic or nastolgic with him in thinking pose or the light shining down on him. He's a politician, not jesus christ reincarnated.

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?
Who predicted that it would go past Feb. 5?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?
John Kerry mortgaged his house and Mitt Romney spent $35 Million of his own money and no one said boo. I'm confident that she'll have a strong economic team. I can see Alan Greenspan hanging around.

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?
She said that he would bring a speech and whenever you ask him why he would be a good president, he goes back to the same thing, "I opposed the war in a speech in October 2002. I used good judgement." Well, we're not perfect and we make mistakes. He clearly did not excersise good judgement in dealing with Tony Rezko.

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?
It has that inquesition feel to it. What are you going to do with the information once you get it?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?
No, I think every state matters and they need to fight for every vote. However; the states that she has won are key to winning the election because they are democratic strong holds and the others are swing states. In WY, where there are 59,000 registered democrats out of a population of 520,000; will a democrat win that state? Not likely.

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-­the-war-be­fore-I-was­-against-i­t general election campaign?
Are you okay with another candidate being swift-boated in order to win the nomination?

[bish66]

I tip my hat to you, Hilleluiah. Bullseye.

[bish66]

Great post, hillaluiah. Right on target. Thanks a lot!

[ignorantwillyharper]

Are you sure not Bill Clinton, going by the name of Hillaluiah?

[LunaNik]

Thanks, Hilleluiah! You took the words right out of my mouth.

[jbatch]

Hey Hill:

She cast that vote WITHOUT READING THE NIE REPORT. So what if she included weasel words in a typical attempt to have it both ways. It was a cold, calculated political positioning that put our young men and women at risk.

But the author forogt to include in his list one other fact. Hillary made an identical vote five years later with Iran -- siding with Bush and giving him cover to invade it. Only a near rebellion by the Joint Cheifs prevented it.

So here's another couple of questions:

1) Is experience really that valuable if you make the same mistakes over and over again -- mistakes that are among the worst made in our nation's history?

2) Wouldn't you rather have someone with judgement who makes fewer mistakes and learns form the ones he makes?

[Syco]

I'm glad that I'm not the only one who noticed that

[Hilleluiah]

1. When did Sen. Clinton cross the Commander-in-Chief threshold?
A little thing called 9/11 showed us what kind of a leader she could be in a crisis situation. She had to make a decision on behalf of her constituents and for good or bad, she was strong enough to make a decision. She attended those funerals; she witnessed first hand what happened on that day; and she vowed to represent the people of NY and she did it to the best of her abilities.

2. Was it before or after October 11, 2002 when she flunked the biggest foreign policy test of her career and voted to authorize the war in Iraq?
Go to the youtube video of her casting her vote on the senate floor and tell me what she said on that day and then tell me if she authorized that war. Again, she was coming from a different perspective as the Senator from NY, where it all began. Would you be more satisfied if she just voted present?

3. How can a candidate claim to be ready on Day One when on Day 646 of her senate career she voted for a war without reading the 90-page National Intelligence Estimate that so convinced senate colleague Bob Graham the war was a mistake?
How can a candidate that was not in office tell me that he voted against it?

4. Are you okay with the Clinton campaign darkening Sen. Obama's complexion in its ads and would you be okay with it if that's what it took to win the nomination?
To be honest, I don't even know what add you're talking about. I saw a split screen on the huffpost, but his camp is the one spreading the picture around. I'm black and annoyed by the way people outside of my race keep being offended for me because of psuedo racial statements or images. I oppose the news media taking every opportunity to show her with her mouth open as if she's screaming, wide-eyed, and old. While his pictures are iconic or nastolgic with him in thinking pose or the light shining down on him. He's a politician, not jesus christ reincarnated.

5. Do you think Sen. Clinton's failure to plan for a primary campaign beyond Feb. 5 -- best exemplified by the Iowa insult of Mississippi that she figured would never come back to haunt her -- demonstrates the foresight you want in a president?
Who predicted that it would go past Feb. 5?

6. Do you think Sen. Clinton's top-down, consultant-heavy campaign spending -- that necessitated her $5 million loan to the campaign -- is an indication that she'd be a good steward of the economy?
John Kerry mortgaged his house and Mitt Romney spent $35 Million of his own money and no one said boo. I'm confident that she'll have a strong economic team. I can see Alan Greenspan hanging around.

7. Are you okay with a Democratic candidate suggesting that the Republican nominee would make a better Commander in Chief than her Democratic rival?
She said that he would bring a speech and whenever you ask him why he would be a good president, he goes back to the same thing, "I opposed the war in a speech in October 2002. I used good judgement." Well, we're not perfect and we make mistakes. He clearly did not excersise good judgement in dealing with Tony Rezko.

8. Do you agree with Howard Wolfson's charge that asking a presidential candidate to release her tax returns is tantamount to Ken Starr's $40M fishing expedition?
It has that inquesition feel to it. What are you going to do with the information once you get it?

9. Do you agree with Mark Penn's suggestion that some states are significant and some states are insignificant?
No, I think every state matters and they need to fight for every vote. However; the states that she has won are key to winning the election because they are democratic strong holds and the others are swing states. In WY, where there are 59,000 registered democrats out of a population of 520,000; will a democrat win that state? Not likely.

10. Are you looking forward to another I-was-for-­the-war-be­fore-I-was­-against-i­t general election campaign?
Are you okay with another candidate being swift-boated in order to win the nomination?

[Revrob56]

True feminists,
How can you allow Hillary and her gang to slam a true feminist like Samantha Power and wage a scorched earth me or Mc Cain campaign, destroy the hopes of all the young and formerly uninvolved voters, and condemn our children to more unnecessary deaths in Iraq and have more parents grieve their unnecessary loss. For what? a woman president who has become one of the good ol boys. There are better womwn out there. Is it worth the cost?

[hillarysupporter]

Its awfully easy to write a letter and say you're against the war. But when you have to Actually Vote,
chances are Obama would have voted the same way as Clinton. Most votes were to protect our country, based on the information they were given. Too bad the information was incorrect.

[JavaCityGal]

Let's be real. Bush et al had an agenda and those that voted for the Iraq war blindly trusted Bush because they were afraid of being labeled unpatriotic. Lack of courage is not an excuse to send our milary into harms way. Clinton did not read the intelligence report., She did not ask for proof of WMD. She not ask ask what our objective in Iraq war. She did not ask what our exit strategy was. Lack of critical questioning and courage is not fit to be commander in chief.

[LawOfAttraction]

Hear, hear!

[shotgunjohnny]

its awfully easy to vote for a war while giving a speech suggesting that you may not be for it, and then pretend you didn't know what you were voting for later. moreover, the suggestion that the war was justifiable in the presence of valid intelligence is patently false. to suggest it is, is for spineless dems to try and pass on their own failures of judgment onto Bush and Rummy, which is disingenuous to say the least. too bad no one in Congress or the DoD even had foresight to ask the questions regarding planning the post-invasion, questions that were out there being asked but answered by our elected reps.

[LawOfAttraction]

Wishful thinking.
Obama was a college professor that taught advanced constitutional law; he eats, breathes and sleeps civics, the constitution and policy in general.

The nail in the coffin for your specious argument is that he made those statements publicly when he was running for re-election, at a time when the war was very popular amongst the sheeple.

It's silly to attempt to extend your candidate's overwhelming ignorance and stupidity to envelope a prescient and wise one like Barack Obama.

And for the record, after seeing her fear mongering ad and hearing her smear Barack with lies and then the death gurgle of her campaign, her glowing endorsement of John McCain over her fellow Democrat - she's lost my vote for Senator here in New York.

I don't care who runs against Hillary, as long as they are a Progressive, they'll get my vote.

That traitorous slag has got to go.

[silenttristerosempire]

Too bad she didn't even bother to read the NIE. In her cas we KNOW how she voted. Stop making excuses for a War enabler. In case you haven't heard thisx unneeded war has killed and displaced million of civilians and has caused Al Queada to grow past 911-era strength. Someon needs to be held accountable for this unmitigated disaster. Let's start with flippant pro-war DLC centrists who vote based on polls rather than facts

[remedy]

Amazing how some members read the information and voted agaisnt it. Must have been obvicious to them that the information was incorrect. The fact is HRC has planned on running for president for years. That vote on that day was simple, she simply couldnt run for president one day and have voted agaisnt it and risk another strike of some kind, Thus being seen as "weak" on national security. As so often with the Clintons their decisions are based on whats best for them "politically". I think the fact they are claiming Obama would now make a good VP only proves the point once again. Theyve already claimed hes not ready for that red phone moment and yet their willing to make him VP to win votes. So her first decision as president which is picking a vice president that can take over is a failure by their own admission. Hypocrasy has no bounds for the two from Arkansas.

[bish66]

1. I think that Sen. Clinton has not crossed the Commander-in-Chief threshold YET, but the endorsement from dozens of highranking army generals and admirals indicate that they think she already has. And I take their word on this issue.

2. She gets lots of criticism for her vote back then. If my memory serves me well, a number of Democrats voted for the war back then. Does not make it better or right, but shows that it was not her ALONE.

3. I would like to ask the Clinton haters to remember the political climate back then. Many people had doubts, especially the French and the Germans. French fries were re-christianed "Freedom fries" and the climate was in favor of that war. If she had voted against the war (and she clearly expressed her concerns), people would have killed her as unpatriotic. That does not make it right, but explains a lot. She cast her vote based on the information provided by CIA and other information gatherers. Maybe she read the National Intelligence Estimate, maybe not. Maybe reading it would have influenced her vote, maybe not. Again, she was not the only Democrat that voted for the war.

4. I thought that half-Afric­an-America­n Obama was proud of being black. What happened? Michael-Ja­ckson-Synd­rome?

5. She knew that the primaries were no winner-takes-all, but somehow, she did not realize it truely. You can blame her for making mistakes, but you have to credit her for turning her campaign around in record time. That's the quality that I want to see in a leader: you may make mistakes, but you have to have the energy to correct these mistakes and you have to have the stamina to go the distance. By coming back, she proved to be THE candidate.

6. She spends a lot on consultants. So does Obama. She managed to win Texas and Ohio despite the fact that Obama had the momentum and the money. And she managed to build an online donation machine from scratch in no time at all and that machine delivered 35 million dollars. This is less than Obama raised, but his machine is up and running for months. So, yes, she definitely showed that she is able to turn around a sagging campaign and she will be able to turn around a sagging economy.

7. Oh, what an ugly foul! McCain is one of the top Senators, full of experience and if you stop thinking in rival camps, he is a leader. Compared to him, Obama is even more of an empty suit than usual. Hell, I would have voted for McCain, if he had won the nomination in 2000!
No, when it comes to National Security and military strength, McCain is the better leader than Obama, maybe even better than Clinton, but she is better in all other respects: health care, education, immigration, and the economy.

8. I thought Ken Starr was the posterboy of Hillary haters. So how can it possibly be hurtful to compare Obama to Starr?

9. I do have to agree with Penn. Some states are more important. To win the election, you have to win certain states and since each state has a different number of votes in the electorial college, some of them, California, New York, New Jersey, Michigan, Florida and many others are more important than, say, Idaho, Alaska, Vermont or Alabama. No state is irrelevant, as Obama's camp claimed concerning Florida and Michigan...

10. You talkin' 'bout ma man Obama? The guy who simply votes present or not at all when controversial issues are on the agenda? The guy who would have gained some experiences in foreign politics, if only he had found the time to chair just ONE meeting on the Afghanistan cmmittee? The guy who votes for "gun control", but tells voters in Idaho that he will not take away their guns? The guy who criticizes NAFTA, while his advisor assures Canada that this was just words? The guy who fights for universal health care... sort of...? The guy who blasts Clinton repeatedly because of her vote for the Iraq war, but admits that he might have cast the same vote, if he had been in the Senate back then.

Obama is not a saint, Hillary is not the devil, so stop treating them like that.

[JavaCityGal]

1. She didn't say that she hasn't crossed YET. She said that she's already crossed it. How does a speech in China and traveling with Cheryl Crow make one commander in chief? Do endorsements prepare you to answer the red phone? Ring Ring Ring. There's a crisis in the White House and Hillary has answered the phone. She doesn't know what to do, so she frantically calls all her endorsements.......

2. Are you saying that is was okay for her to send our armed forces to their deaths, without even bothering to read the intelligence report, because the "other senators" did it too? That is NOT commander in chief, that is commander in sheep.

3. You're actually proved my argument for me. She simply did not have the good judgement to know that she was making the wrong decision. And if she did, then she didn't have the courgage to stand up for it. Not sure what's worse, being careless or being a coward.

4. This statement is nonsense. Did you have a real point?

5. She did not come back. On Tuesday, she net something like 5 delegates, and did not widen Obama's delegate lead. She did not have momentum, she had preception. Not to mention that Obama has already stopped her today with a complete landslide in WY. So much for comeback.

6. Her campaign was completely mismanaged and completely lacked any realistic strategy. For the inevitable candidate with all the power, name recognition, money, powerful friends and double digit poll leads -- she lost it all and is no fighting for her life. Her campaign is the largest organization that she has ever run and it's a failure, incompetent staff, infighting and all. About the economy, have you looked into her record in NY. Because she promised my home state 200,000 jobs and instead the state lost 30,000 jobs. If she can't bring jobs to NY, how will she bring jobs to the nation? She cannot be trusted with the nations economy, she couldn't even run her campaign finances.

7:. You miss the point. What she did is like a Yankees star pitcher suddenly start pitching for the Red Sox in the middle of the World Series. It show no loyalty for her own Democratic party. If her own party can't trust her -- how can the country?

8. Agree with you here. To bring up Ken Star is much more of negative to the Clintons and that was a dim witted move. Does her campaign really want to remind the country of blue dresses, cigars and impeachment hearings?

9. Traditionally blue states will vote Democrat as they always do. Can you see California and New York voting Republican in the general? No, blue states will vote for the Democrat, Obama. But Obama's additional advantage that Hillary doesn't have -- is the ability to increase the Democrat vote -- from both new voters, and voters in red/purple states that have shown to vote for Obama but not Hillary in overwhelming numbers.

10. Ah, where to start here, you've given me so much ammo. Voting present is a strategy used when you want the majority party to discuss the issue. Stop just regurgiting others talking points that you don't understand. Your gal has no foreign policy experience -- she does lies that she does. Many real foreign policy experts are coming out now and saying that . NAFTA - you're behind the times -- Clinton actually framed Obama, her camp was the one that said the NAFTA statements. Univeral health care -- he has already gotten healthcare for thousands of children in his home state. Has Hillary? No -- there is no universal healthcare in NY. Actually her first healthcare reform was a miserable failure -- what makes you think this will be any different? About Iraq -- Obama did not admit anything of the sort. He merely said that he wasn't privy to the intelligence report, and if he was, he would have read it. Unlike Hillary who skipped it.

Thank you bish66, for giving me this opportunity to let folks know the truth. Word of advise for you -- know your candidate and the issues before just copy and paste their talking points -- makes you look uniformed.

[bish66]

Dear JavaCityGirl, thank you for taking the time to reply to my post in detail. Replying to your reply stands under a bad star, because my browser crashed twice... :-( and since only Jesus saves... my reply was gone. I do not take that as an omen, though.


Whoever will pick up the phone, he/she will ask advisors for advice. Clinton has a number of seasoned diplomats on her team and a number of military leaders. She is a member of the Armed forces committee, so I am sure that she will surround herself with good people.
Obama's SENIOR Foreign policy advisor selfdestructed while abroad, promoting her new book... But he has good judgment, right?

Hillary had to vote on the Iraq War and that vote went 77-23. (http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=2&vote=00237)
Her concerns were clear by the speech she gave back then, urging the President to use this vote wisely.
Among the prominent warmongers were John Edwards, John Kerry, Dodd, Bidden and a certain Tom Dashle. Kerry, Dodd and Dashle are in the Obama camp. But they have good judgment, right? And he had good judgment to employ Dashle and embrace Kerry and Dodd, right?

To err is human, how you correct your mistakes is that matters.

You point out that Obama won the caucus in Wyoming and I congratulate him for doing so. But what will it be worth in November?
Let’s say Obamania raises the number of registered voters some 10%, from 59.000 to 65.000 and 100% of them cast their vote for Obama.
Let’s say that only 50% of the registered republicans vote for McCain.
He still would win the state 67.500 to 65.000. Close, but in winner takes all, that does not matter.
Let’s say, Obama wins Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. That would net him 11 votes in the Electorial College. Since he will lose Massachusetts‘ 12 votes, that leaves him with a net loss of 1 vote, if he wins Wyoming, Idaho and Montana. IF...
Will he lose Massachusetts? He already did last month, despite the fact that he spent a lot of money, had the organisation from his friend Patrick, was endorsed by him and BOTH senators. The most liberal state and the most liberal candidate fails to win...

You claim that Obama will win the blue states, like New York or California, because „Traditionally blue states will vote Democrat as they always do.“ Like California in 1960, 1968, 1972, 1976, 1980, 1984, 1988? Lots of Hispanic voters, McCain comes from neighbouring Arizona, lots of rural areas, the endorsement from Schwarzenegger?
And New York had a republican governor for a long time and a republican mayor of New York. Upstate and rural New York is conservative, so these two states might easily turn into swingstates.
As a candidate, you have to win the strongholds and the important swing states. Of the states that Kerry won in 2004, she won California, New York, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, New Jersey, Michigan and New Hampshire for 137 votes. Obama won most of the others for 96 votes, Pennsylvania and Oregon still coming up. She won the important swing states of Florida and Ohio and winning either of them would have given the White House to Kerry. Add these 47 votes in her column and she looks real good.
You argue that the voters in the states that Hillary won will vote for him, if he is the candidate. True, but wouldn’t the voters in the states that Obama won support Hillary, if she is the candidate? No? Why not?
If she is the democratic candidate, all democrats should come out to support her.
As soon as a candidate is named, some people will be hurt, because there can only be one candidate and Obama ruled out to run on a ticket with Clinton, no matter where his name will appear. Since it is a close race, people should get together, instead of fighting it out.

So, yes, we will see a split in the party that will cost the Election. Sad, but true.

Unless we find some common ground and common sense. Their programs are not that controversial, the differences are in the details. Their voting record on Iraq is nearly identical and he "conceded that his position on the war is not the "polar opposite" of Clinton's." (http://blogs.abcnews.com/politicalradar/2007/05/obama_slams_cli.html)

Her strong point is that she has more experience (six years more in the senate, 8 years traveling as a first lady and as an inhabitant of the White House, not much, you might say, but nevertheless much more than his experience), his strong point is his charisma. She is conservative in many respects, he has the most liberal voting record in the senate. She wins the big states, he wins the smaller ones. She is good in blue, he is great in red. If she wins Pennsylvania, then she just have to be the candidate, together with him as junior partner. Otherwise, the republicans will win.

P.S. There is no „Truth“ about candidates, only spin.

[LawOfAttraction]

JavaCityGal...I.. I think I love you.... lol..

You analysis was spot on.

I was about to write most of what you wrote, but you summed it up so beautifully, including dismantling the solipsist talking points, that my work was done for me.

Thanks for the assist, SuperGal. ;-)

[silenttristerosempire]

3. She didn't have time to read the 90 page NIE. She was too busy grooming herself to be the next President.

[EvoMan]

The darkening thing is inexcusable. The more I talk to people involved in image and video editing, the more I believe it was no accident. At first, I refused to believe a Democrat would stoop to this; but I'm pretty much there now.

[Liberal2]

Mr. Obama talks about "giving everyone a seat at the table" which means to me "compromising" or "spilting the difference" So the one question I have for Mr. Obama, and his supporters, is:

Which rethug policies is he willing to compromise on? FISA & Telcom immunity, waterboarding & torture, Iraq, Iran, deficit generating tax cuts, "free" trade, enviromental policy, etc.?

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

Well, it seems that Senator Clinton has already done all those things.

[GeorgeKaplan]

WE won't do your work for you. Why don't you answer those question and get back with us. And than maybe we can respond. These are your typical "push poll" questions.

[eddiestardust]

George, don't be smart....if you are going to say vote for Obama you should be able to explain why.

[kingcityguru]

The more I read about Hillary and Barack, the better John McCain looks -- the man showed CHARACTER when he did not jump ahead to avoid torture as a prisoner of war choosing to let those that were there before him leave first. He did not do that as a political move, he did it because it was the right thing to do even if it cost him more years of imprisonment and torture.

[zannamar]

Didn't you hear McCain Voted against the torture bill Bush vetoed today. He also made the comment that Bush should veto the torture bill when the senate passed it. This goes against everything he has said in the past that torture doesn't work. If you missed that here are the links.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/13/mccain-votes-against-tort_n_86549.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/16/mccain-cant-keep-stories_n_86984.html

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/02/20/mccain-bush-should-veto-_n_87664.html

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

it does not follow that because he did the "right thing" once, that his current choices are correct. The fact that he has caved in on torture, indicates he has lost his moral center.

[sej100]

Question what really has Obama done to justify becoming president so quickly after entering his first term in the Senate?????

You realize he had NO power to vote on the war and had no access to any of the security reports thrown around the Senate. If he is so sure the war was wrong why does HE VOTE TO KEEP IT GOING?

Why did he not denounce his own church when they honored Louis Farrakan?

How could two IVY league graduates not smelll foul or bribe when they purchased property offered thenm at 1/2 of its value by a rich businessman who has issues????

Why is he change when he also pursues the same groups for money as Ms. Clinton?

Why do you support sucha a weak health care plan?

Why is Obama never given tough questions to answer? Without that I really have no reason to support him. Slogans are not a sufficient reason!


Why

[eddiestardust]

Good points sej100!

[rosal]

Why I won't vote for your monster, if they paid me? Hypocrisy, thats. why.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

You are bearing false witness against his church. Do you call yourself a Christian. if so, then you are a hypocrite as well as a sinner.

[politicalscientist]

Read the NY Times article today that describes Obama's lack of attention to much other than preparing to run for the presidency since he got to the U.S. Senate. His oratory is based on his convictions about what should be, but he hasn't demonstrated that he can get us where we need to go. Words are just words unless they can be attached to public policy performance. Obama may be of rock star quality, but that does not make him a fit candidate for president. We've had others who have promised the sun, moon, and stars but have delivered none of them. Our situation in our global society at this time is so distressed that we really need someone who can deliver as our president. From my vantage, Clinton will deliver.

[JWLANDSCAPES]

Yes to all those questions , except I do not like Mark Penn and wish she'd ask him to step down at some point. HE did not win her Ohio, Rhode Island, and Texas.....regular people from all over the country came in numbers to volunteer and show their enthusiasm and support for their candidate of choice. I was one of them and it was a fantastic experience. It was fun working with Obama volunteers as we participated together in this historic moment in time. They did not demonize Hillary as you seem so fond of doing here. Perhaps you can take a note from Senator Obama's foot soldiers and learn some class from them.

[sef2121]

Ten questions for Obama supporters:

1. In what parallel universe does a Senator with only two years in the Senate (the last year his absentee rate has been 40 percent as he has been to busy running for prez to represent the people of Illinois) get to become that leader of the most powerful country in the world?
2. Does it bother you that despite initially being against the war, though not in the Senate, Obama later said that he didn't know how he would have voted on several occasions and then voted to fund the war throughout his short Senate term?
3. Does it bother you that with the Dem's first shot at universal health care, Obama cops out and won't require a mandate that would, in turn, leaves millions uninsured?
4. Does it bother you that working-class and older Americans continue to support Hillary, despite Obama trying to woo them with twice or three times the money and advertising buys?
5. Are you okay with the fact that Obama says he will meet with the the prez of Iran thereby enraging the Israelis and our Arab allies and effectively delaying an American intervention in Israeli-Palestinian peace accords by being the first American prez to ever meet with a holocaust denier? Don't you think low-level diplomacy and a closer look at the reform movement in Iran is more appropriate for a first term US prez?
6. Are you okay with HRC having the overwhelming support of admirals and generals despite her Iraq withdrawal is similar to Obama's...are you okay with the idea that many in the American military consider him weak and vastly inferior on military matters to HRC?
7. Ask yourself: does it seem strange that in "open primaries," Repugs who have intention of voting Dem in the general are voting Obama because they know he is easier to beat?
8. Do you get concerned when you see that Obama's PAC has donated over three times as much money to superdelegates reelection campaigns? Does it concern you when Obama supporters in the House and Senate threaten black superdelegates that if they don't change their vote to him, they will have a mighty hard time getting reelected?
9. It is odd that although Obama spouts bipartisan change to come, he has yet to point to more than one bill he worked on with the Repugs in the Illinois State Senate?
10. Does it bother you that despite America's need to reach out to the Muslim world, Obama does nothing but repeat over and over again that he is not a Muslim and NEVER address the issue of American-Muslim relations both inside and outside our country?

Is this the change we can expect?

[EvoMan]

1. The same one that elected Abraham LIncoln, an inexperienced Illinois Congressman.

2. If you want a serious answer, you'll include the fact that he said, at the same time, that in his opinion the case wasn't made.

3. Everybody who want health care under his plan will get it.

4. No. What's your point?

5. Yes. And it won't enrage the Israelis. We met with our enemies, the Soviets for 40 years and they were quite anti-Israel.

6. Wanna bet John McCain can put together a bigger list than hers? Non-issue.

7. Um, you're kidding, right?

8. Provide documentation, please. If you can't, why ask the question?

9. You're kidding again, right?

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/03/AR2008010303303.html

10. Well, maybe it's because he's not a Muslim. I haven't heard Hillary addressing the issue either. Ever wonder where the Muslim email came from? I think I know.

[rosal]

You can rant, and do drama, I am not voting for this woman. I rather vote for Nader. Does it bother you, who cointribuited to her husband's library? Does it bother you, we don't know what is in her taxes? Does it bother you, who did her husband pardoned? Marc Rich comes to mind. So there goes the woman pure as the driven snow. I have to do some research about reaching to Muslims.
Does it bother you, Repugs are pushing for the lady? Does it bother you, Obama has higher points to beat McCain in the genera?
In answering your question, yes, I sure want all the above to change. I want a decent man, with a decent family who respects the White House, the country, and our party.. Obama is he.

[Hopalongpoppyseed]

ZZZZZZZZZZ­ZZZZZZZZZZ

[shotgunjohnny]

1. BHO has been in elected office for over eleven years, Clinton has been in elected office for only seven. Learn how to do research.

2. no it does not. If a party does not have the votes to withdraw or to completely shut down funding, then they should ensure our troops are supplied. that is to say, the decision to vote for the biggest foriegn policy debacle in over a century is a TOTALLY different vote to continue to funding a war, that otherwise lead to unnecessary American deaths. Learn what is called nuanced argument.

3. I think BHO supports a mandate bc his years as a civil rights attorney leads him to have higher regard for the idea of free choice in terms of health coverage. The fact that HRC cannot even fathom that such a reasonable justification for his plan should be more worrying to you. Moreover, BHO supported the Bernadine Amendment to the IL constitution which would have guaranteed universal coverage for all IL citizens. That his federal plan is less comprehensive, does not mean that it is not a step in the right direction, although, the experts agree single-payer is the way to go, which HRC's healthcare guru Jon Gruber acknowledges as the only TRUELY universal approach. HRC's plan is not single payer and as Gruber argues is not totally universal as well. Learn the difference between rhetoric and reality; both plans are politically compromised.

4. No. Does it bother you the HRC exploits racial prejudices to gain votes or flat-out misrepresents just about all of Obama's positions, including the non-story NAFTA-gate? I suppose not, or else you wouldn't ask such retarded questions.

5. No. I do not think Palestinian leadership has any confidence in the neutrality of the US government (see the recent article in Vanity Fair which discusses how the US tried to fund a coup of Hamas) with regard to the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Nor do I think current US policy toward Iran has been at all effective, let alone decades of failure in a true Palestinian-Israeli negotiations. I do think that a meeting with the leader of Iran could help restore the confidence of the US as an honest broker which has been lost by Bush 43. The reform movement has been weakened by Bush 43, challenging A on his own turf may again provide them with domestic cover to regroup.

6. Yes. HRC is a chickenhawk who voted for a war out of political convenience all the while claiming she was not voting for said war. Now she cannot even admit it was a mistake. And so I do not care what admirals or generals have to say about it, since she and they have led us into the biggest foreign policy debacle of our time, if not in the history of this country. Don't you think admirals and generals have a vested interest in war and militarism, as does HRC and money grubbing cronies.

7. No. Sorry I support open primaries as they are more democratic. Many times I have crossed over and voted Republican to pick the weaker candidate. That is par for the course. As far as weaker candidate, why is that you suppose Limbaugh and Coulter have endorsed Clinton? Out of the kindness of their hearts. get real.

8. No and not really. I think funding superdelegates reelection campaigns, is, well, politics. Welcome to our world. Get your head out of your ass. If HRC wasn't a broke ass (if Penn was a giant fat sucking blob that ripped her off) she would do the same, but alas that is her mismanaged campaign and that is not BHO's fault. Now, I do have issues with folks from BHO calling up black leaders and demanding racial solidarity, but I do not have an issue with folks from BHO calling up black leaders and confronting them with the political realities of failing to support a candidate which has the overwhelming support of the electorate in that district. But demanding racial solidarity frankly is nothing compared to sending out pix of BHO in a turban, sending out robocalls in Nevada stating his middle name over and over again, visiting a comedy show in which BHO is portrayed in black face, or stating that BHO is not Muslim "As Far As I Know" I national tv.

9. No. First it is not true if you look at his legislative history, and secondly, the only bi-partisan bill of HRC was her vote for the war in Iraq.

10. No. He has if you weren't an idiot and capable of indenpendent thought you would know that already. Why is that HRC is willing to pretend that BHO is a muslim to generate anitpathy towards his campaign? Isn't a double standard for you to expect that the campaign that is getting smeared by racists, including the white-hooded folks at HRC HQ apparently, to come out defending Muslims (even though he has and HRC has not). Has HRC ever spoken out about racism in the Latino communities she has visited?

Don't you think it is odd that you support a racist candidate and yet you pretend to be liberal, progressive, or whatever? Apparently not.

So there I answered your questions, now let's see if you can answer mine and the gentleman's above.

[sef2121]

Wow! You really proved me right about Obama supporters:
"Learn how to do research."
"Learn what is called nuanced argument."
"else you wouldn't ask such retarded questions"
"f you weren't an idiot and capable of indenpendent thought you would know that already"
I know that Hillary supporters are way outnumbered by Obamas on the Huffpost, but do you really think that calling names and resorting to immature half-responses to the questions I put forth is a good reflection on your candidate? There was absolutely nothing on my post that went after Obama personally or the author. Your vitriolic attack and inability to correctly articulate an argument on 9/10 of my questions (number 5 is a reasonable point, though not according to my many moderate Israeli friends) concerns me. This is what we get from Obama supporters? Hate and more hate? Resorting to the of--HRC-is-racist line? I am ashamed of my own party when I read posts such as yours. This should be a forum of respect and exchange of ideas.