cascades

Thats right, based on Democracy. The people have voted and Barack Obama has an insurmountable delegate lead. He leads in popular vote, he has won twice as many states. Do you suggest that these results be overturned? The only way that Hillary can win is through superdelegates, the MOST undemocratic way to win. That would FRACTURE the democratic party. We most unite around our nominee. Barack Obama.

If anyone is undecided please read these articles.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/25/opinion/25brooks.html
http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0308/9149.html posted 03/28/2008 at 16:56:21

"some people actually like a politician that is tough and will do whatever it takes to win."

They are called Republicans, and they are divisive, and they have put our country through hell. I am not sure where this "angel" and "halo" bit comes from towards Obama but mabye just mabye real Democrats dont like the Republican campaigning style of Hillary.

Do Democrats forget that the Clintons were are all about the Clintons when in power? They were solely responsible for handing the Republicans power for 12 years. Why do you think Rush is urging his listeners to vote for Clinton? Because he cant think of a better rallying call for Repubs. posted 03/28/2008 at 12:14:08

I would like to hear about Obama playing dirty too. I read alot of posts about supposed Obama abuses by Clinton supporters but rarely are examples posted along with it. Is his strategy called the "kitchen sink"? posted 03/28/2008 at 12:01:13

The question is how do you nominate someone that cannot catch up in pledged delegates, popular vote and states won? Do you think that Hillary deserves the nomination despite in all likelihood losing in these categories? The point is Hillary brought out the "kitchen sink" after it was apparent that she could no longer catch up in pledged delegates, in other words she is willing to tear down the presumptive nominee of the party in order to win.
And why is that you think that Hillary has such a better chance of winning the general? She is about as polarizing as W. Plus how could she win it if the super delegates overturn the will of the people? It is the pinnacle of lust for power. She has lost the race that was her coronation pure and simple. posted 03/28/2008 at 11:45:46

As an Obama supporter I dont think that sort of language is really constructive. Dont give the HRC clan ammo please:) posted 03/26/2008 at 17:57:25

Please give intsances of thuggish by Obama supporters. It seems to me that W. likes to accuse people of being "thugs". Just an example would be appreciated. Thanks. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:54:15

Please name an instance of Obama's "mass smear campaign" against Hillary or Joe Wilson. That is a pretty bold statement. Is it called the "kitchen sink"? I would really appreciate if you backed up your claims with instances of smear. Such as 3AM ad, insinuating Obama is a Muslim, saying McCain is a more qualified candidate. Details like that. If you pointed out some of Obama's smear I would be willing to listen, but it seems evident that Hillary brought out the "kitchen sink" in order to make Obama appear unelectable in the eyes of the super delegates because it appears impossible to overtake him due to his 170+ pledged delegate lead. posted 03/26/2008 at 17:47:08

Wait a minute, how are Obama supporters bitter? He is ahead! Are we bitter that he has virtually wrapped up the nomination? Are we bitter that he has won twice as many states and leads in the popular vote? Perhaps we are bitter that our candidate offers a vision of change and shaking up the old politics of Washington. Mabye we are bitter that he offers us hope.
Or mabye perhaps we are bitter that he has virtually wrapped up the nomination and he is fighting a horrible rearguard against a member of his own party that has endorses a man who policies are essentially the same as W. over a democrat! Its unbelievable! posted 03/26/2008 at 16:47:11

I know anyone with a basic understanding of history and current world affairs would have known that invading Iraq was a bad idea. Do we want a president that is so easily duped into war? I would like to ask everyone here reading these comments here today to ask themselves did they feel that the rush to war was necessary? If you didnt feel that the war was necessary why support a candidate who couldnt see through the spin and helped rush headfirst into the greatest foreign policy blunder in American history?
Obama can be our standard bearer because he was right from the beginning and he has the moral high ground on McCain, Hillary on the other had unfortunately does not. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:17:13

Doesnt it occur to you that mentality is very similar to the Republican dogma. Such as, if you dont support the war you are a traitor. You are either with us or against us. Isnt loyalty one of the central tenets of the Bush administration? Where qualified people were overlooked because their loyalty was suspect. This lead to disasters like Katrina and the debacle in Iraq. And a gonverntment where young republican fresh out of college are given important jobs, or "heckuva job Brownie!" Is this the leadership style you want for our country?
I think that Obama supporters want to end this culture of cronyism, its destroying our country! Out with the same old, its time for a fresh start in this country. posted 03/26/2008 at 16:06:16

I agree, I find it incredibly ironic that he would want to align himself with a politician that seems to represnt the same sort of politics that he claims to be against and that have brought him and his family such harm. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:53:13

You wouldnt agree that Hillary has run a campaign reminiscent of prior Republican campaigns? The old politics of fear, that Rove was so adept at using? Insinuating Obama is a Muslim, the 3AM read phone ad, Endorsing McCain over Obama. Are these values that Democrats should share that build up the party? Why would she do this to a candidate that cannot be caught up to in pledged delegates, leads in the popular vote and has won twice as many states? It seems to me that Hillary is doing the tearing down and yes, is running her campaign like a Republican. I don't think that it is an attack on Hillary's character to say so. It seems self evident.
Also doenst it bother you that Hillary is making the argument that Fl and MI should count as is? Doesnt that seem more than a bit disingenuous given the circumstances?
Lastly could you name some of the nastiness of Obama supporters? Did Obama come up with "Kitchen Sink" strategy? It seems to me that the double speak and policy of scorched earth was instituted by Hillary when it was apparent that she could no longer win the nomination fair and square (super delegates should overide the will of the people), and yes Obama supporters are confident that Obama can win the nomination fair and square, we are just worried about Hillary's attitude that if she cant win then no democrat should. And rightly so. posted 03/26/2008 at 15:37:54

Why Joe Wilson are you completely ignoring the fact that Hillary is the candidate that brought out the "kitchen sink" strategy? A strategy that is based on personal attacks, a strategy that is Republican in every way and that is probably going to fracture the Democratic Party. Why are you supporting a candidate that is willing to lay scorched earth on her OWN party when her chances of winning are slim to none and that she has basically endorsed McCain over Obama? Why Joe Wilson are you supporting a candidate that supported the war and is hawkish on Iran. Why are you you supporting the establishment candidate that offers eight more years of polarizing politics when the country needs unity? DId you benefit under the Clintons? Are you part of the establishment Joe Wilson IV? Why Joe? I am just curious. posted 03/26/2008 at 14:04:52