Seral

I think that is the rightful response of the Clinton people against someone who continuously criticizes her vote on Iraq war.

See no one is perfect and Obama is no different than Clinton when it comes to judgment calls. posted 04/29/2008 at 16:01:32

Changing the rules, the Obama side says. Yes, changing the rules. So, forcing your opinion on Superdelegates, and instead of letting them to decide what is best for the Dempcrats at the end, making them follow the lead of Obama, is not a change of opinion, is it? Come one, now. You are playing with the rules and the words yourself. And, believe me, at the end, the number of votes is what matters to win the general election, and with strong enough margins. Right now, neither candidate has that. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:09:09

Don't worry, the liberal penmilitary forces will make sure Hillary's past is not going to be forgotten. I guess, that is what Obama camp is also trusting on, to deplete Hillary's base of support. You need to congratulate Hillary to fight all of those almost alone. Otherwise, it will only be negative against Hillary, as the media will definitely not ignore a single moment to diss Hillary, regardless of how or what she does. posted 04/23/2008 at 16:13:22

I am imagining you will get a lot of "you are wrong" comments from hardcore Obama supporters (or all Obama supporters, cause among them there is no non-hardcore ones, that is why they are considered as a political sect, and you know the main characteristic of a sect, right?).

After all, according to them, democracy means erasing the votes of Clinton, ignoring her voters, the people who continue to support her despite being outspent by her opponent in the media, ignoring her other uncounted voters in Florida and Michigan, and handing Obama the Prince the crown of leader by his racial, who-cares-about-the-poor liberal, live-on-others' money youngster, bath-me-with-money richer supporters. Yes, according to them, that is democracy. Oh, and of course, forcing their opinion onto the Superdelegates who have the same right as the voters who vote for either candidates to make their own decision for the candidate they believe to win the general election.

Way to go Obama supporters. Yes, you can.... posted 04/23/2008 at 13:40:41

That is a nice read, a fresh breath of air considering all those crappy "all hail Obama" articles, with no mention of negativity about him, instead a presentation of a silky white price charming being the best in everything, with no flaw whatsoever. And, they think he can win against Republicans just with that. Haven't they learned their lesson after the last two elections? Or are they living in a separate dimension that will prevent them seeing what is in front of them?

And, the ones below claiming they will never vote for Hillary. Well, that is your choice. But, know that many Hillary voters feel exactly the same way. So, you are not alone. And that means take your scary tactics somewhere else, where it works, like to be used during Obama cult-sessions among yourselves. posted 04/23/2008 at 20:29:53

Correct me if I am wrong. How do we call the African-American voters voting for Obama because he is black? Are they racist? Are they preferring black over white? Are they preferring male over female?

If you call the white voters who vote for a white candidate over a black candidate as racist, I believe, you should say the same thing about the other side. The problem in my opinion is the difference between those two. If in the country-wide vote, the number of those white and black racists are equal to each other, then I don't have a problem with it. If they are different by a large margin, then you can call this a problem, in terms of the result it will have at the end of election.

Until then, blaming one side as racist intentionally or unintentionally into forcing them to change their opinion by saying they are racist is not what I would like to see. Let me also say this, if Obama is okay with African-American people voting for him because he is black, then he shouldn't mind the other side too. And, if that is the case, then why are you? posted 04/23/2008 at 05:22:58

By the way, does anyone notice the way HuffingtonPost present the results, instead of using 55% to 45% which was the usually followed method, including the digits to reduce the visual measure of 10%. I smell a desperation here. By the way if you are that accurate loving writer, why don't you give all the available digits on the results. Oh, and of course, the difference in the number of votes, and how unfair it is used to select the delegates. Come on, trying won't hurt.... posted 04/23/2008 at 15:37:49

It is refreshing to hear the struggles of Obama fanatics that claim if Hillary ever gets a higher vote despite not winning in delegate count, that would be meaningless. Really! And they say Bush's win was not justified. Well, according to you, it is.

Anyways, including the Michigan and Florida votes, which would be brought to the table at the end at least in terms of the number of votes, Obama's current lead is 200 thousand that is including both primaries and causes. Let me say this, I don't care much about the caucuses, as they do not represent the democratic tendency as clear as the primaries. That is why primaries are what the Clintons are considering as of primary importance. And Obama is losing in those.

If Obama cannot even win the democratic core base, and on the opposite, let them not vote, but vote for McCain, then the numbers he will bring will not have a lot of positive impact at the end, other than recovering the loss he creates himself. At least, with Clinton, those new voters will neither vote for Clinton not McCain. So, Clinton will have a more positive edge, when going into the general elections.

About how McCain performs against Clinton and Obama, have you forgotten how trustable those results are, especially considering the fact that McCain still have enough time to correct his initial mistakes by selecting the right people, making the right speeches, and promoting them accordingly. posted 04/23/2008 at 15:30:57

Sorry, but BlackLeatherRain got it correctly. There is no reference to Christianity in my post (even Obama-ist does not refer to a single religion or non-religion, it is a general reference). I was mostly referring to the classic example of sheeps being controlled by the flute played by the shepherd.

And, if you cannot even past the religion line to understand my posts, then I highly doubt you are past all that. posted 04/21/2008 at 08:16:12

Please, go by logic. If someone made that kind of speeches recently, he should have done much worse speeches 20 years ago. Claiming otherwise would be going against the common sense.

And believe me, I think for myself more than you do, as I have actually no right to vote, and I can look at things more objectively compared to you.

Regarding Reverend's speeches, ask yourself this. If his speeches were taken out of context why did Obama feel the need to defend himself, and make Wright leave his campaign? If you can come up with an answer, then you can clearly see there is something wrong with Wright's approach on racism and other matters. posted 04/21/2008 at 08:10:16

I defend Hillary because Obama is no different, when it comes to honesty issues. Since I consider Hillary to be more experienced, she gets my support. And sorry to disappoint you, but I am trying to be realistic, instead of feeding on dreams that won't come, just for personal satisfaction. posted 04/21/2008 at 08:04:15

Since my previous message was cut short due to one word the critics didn't like, I should reiterate what I said.

Obama's relationship to Wright is all about honesty. And, a person following someone like Wright for 20 years without questioning that person's actions, but, then refusing those words because the voters wanted to hear them instead f what he really thought can only be explained with dishonesty and disloyalty. I am pretty sure you are pretty okay with dishonesty yourself, that is your choice, I cannot say anything about that.

But, attacking Hillary for the same reason while embracing Obama ignoring those reasons can also be explained as dishonesty. I guess that is how I see many Obama supporters. At least, a person supporting Hillary not ignoring those reasons would be a bit more credible when it comes to having a better critical decision on the subject. Because, in that case, the main issue will be how that person will be expected to do, instead how you dream of him to do. posted 04/21/2008 at 06:24:11

I still haven't heard the end of Hillary's marriage and the relation of what her husband did to her. And that is even more personal than Obama's issues, and that is what many Obama supporters are using the discredit Hillary.

Talk about the ends!!! Before telling others, I suggest the Obama-ists to do the same. Interestingly, isn't this exactly what Obama is doing against Clinton? Kinda like the story with the sheep and the shepherd. I can almost hear the hypnotizing flute playing. posted 04/21/2008 at 06:10:07

I don't need to go any deeper than that. Sometimes it only needs a single example to see someone's real character. That example is the right example to show his dishonest nature. Refusing the ideas of somebody whom you have been together with for nearly 20 years, just because of the risk of losing voters, not because you really refuse the "neo-racist" ideals that person supports. That is dishonesty, and disloyalty. That is the kind of person who would not mind betraying your hopes if it would mean gain for him, and his own personal self. And, that is exactly the opposite of the way he sells himself to many pure-hearted voters (unlike the many willingful buyers and the propagators of his dishonesty). posted 04/21/2008 at 06:03:44

What a cry-baby! Anything that is said about Obama is misleading. Thank God, he went out and speak about the evil-get-rid-of'er Reverend to also clean his wife's mess (created by her hate towards the country she is a part of as a whole, not only the past, but even the after-past). Otherwise, it would have stayed as a misleading subject. Oh, wait. It was not misleading. The claims were right. Isn't it, Mr. Apology-in-return-for-vote....

I guess, I should donate a few boxes of handkerchief to the Obama campaign. They can cry all together...and use those all together... posted 04/21/2008 at 05:30:34

About the questions, let me repeat again. I don't consider them inappropriate, as any question will definitely be evaluated subjectively regardless of how you look at it, and there is a very large set of questions like that to ask and expect an answer. Just because ABC didn't ask those other questions does not mean they were wrong. They weigh on one side, and that is their choice. A politician ready to be President should be happy to answer any kind of question that comes his/her way. If not, then, defending the person fail to respond as a leader he/she claims to be would be exactly what I consider as inappropriate.

To those who are complaining about the questions. I had watched the other debates. And, in all of them, most of the really good questions were answered "politically". In other words, in a way you would call superficial. Just to satisfy the demand of saying something on the subject. Other than that, it is all about fillers. Sorry to say that, but, if you are okay with that, and have a problem with ABC's debate, then to me you are the one who has a problem. The other debates were baiting debates, trying to make Clinton and Obama fight each other, ABC's is an invitation to fight own self. posted 04/21/2008 at 05:53:49

In a political arena, there is no inappropriate question. If you make the voters decide on the right person, then that person should be evaluated in all aspects. I wished the Republicans would have done the same, but they cannot. They are too deep in that kind of worse of the worse kind of connections or affairs, that they have to hold their hand together to not enter the subject.

But, for Democrats, it is different. At least, they claim to be different. So, here is your chance to show your difference. If you cannot, then it is not a matter of question type you are exposed, but it is a matter of how ready you are and how good you are according to what you say.

And, let me say this. Neither Obama nor Clinton is clean, it should be obvious by now, that both have connections that you would not want them to have. For Clinton it is more like political, for Obama, it is more like personal. I don't know what is your weigh on each, but, as long as there is a connection, then you cannot just see one and ignore the other. posted 04/21/2008 at 05:53:33

I don't think you get the problem. Obama is the one creating concerns by not holding his long tongue inside his mouth, when he has to. Clinton is bringing those in front, when the media does not want anything more than ignoring those.

What I am saying happens after that. After Clinton brings those issues, the Obama'ist media starts its attacks on Clinton to settle the score. Oh, you did that when you were 13, how can you claim that? Or, I remember in a speech, which was not recorded, I remember her saying something along those lines. But, it is my just my word, believe or not. Nice way to defend Obama by throwing muds out of nothing, whereas Clinton only needs to show the mud already created by Obama himself. posted 04/18/2008 at 23:47:44

Yes, I was also there, but, my hearing device ran out of power in the middle of the speech, so don't tell anyone...Geez, the effort the Obama-ist people bring the issues of the past like that. I sure hope the Republicans or Clinton people would continue to do the same, if Obama is selected as the person the represent Democrats.

Why I am saying this is clear. If Hillary would have selected, this media would have done the same. The amount of hate I am seeing here is really annoying me. Especially stuff that doesn't rely on actual evidence but he says she says kind of attitudes. At the least, what Clinton people brought up regarding Obama are based on actual evidence, even if they may have extended the range of those actions, they are there. But, what the Obama people are doing here is "pure", hate. And these are the people who are voting for Obama to unite the Americans. First do it yourself, before asking it from others. posted 04/18/2008 at 17:32:48

You don't get it, do you? O'Reilly is not running for President on false promises. Obama does. posted 03/24/2008 at 15:10:36

Maybe that is "the best" an African-American thinks of a white person. And, that best happens within the family, imagine the case with the outsiders!!! posted 03/20/2008 at 23:38:23

A few moments?

How can you say that when Obama was "with" that guy, "supporting" that guy, "getting supported" by that guy, possibly having family based deep relationship with that guy, putting him at a place of giving spritiual advice to him for nearly 20 years (17 years might be the correct number), and consider that as taking a few moments out of a very long career?

Maybe, that career was built upon the support he got from people like that? Doesn't that look strange, for a person who promises in other direction?

To be honestly, I am not surprised, and I am not a lot affected by that. What annoys me most is the people who hate Hillary for similar reasons-according to them- claim Obama as a milky-white holy something. Additionally, they still insist on disgracing Hillary.

You know what is ridiculous? People claiming that Hillary continued her marriage despite the adultery because of her own political career, are not a single bit disturbed by the fact that Obama cut the political relationship with the Reverend for exactly the same reason.

Let me also say this, Obama has the potential to surpass what you think of Hillary or Bill in the worst way. posted 03/20/2008 at 23:34:35

Hah, comparing a one-night based photograph to Obama's 20 year based relationship is utterly ridiculous. But, I applaud the Obama fanatics within that church, to show the level of intelligence they "share within", clearly. posted 03/20/2008 at 21:48:29