geese1920

Really? I could not tell that at all from what he was saying. He sounds like all the other ignorant conservative talk radio blow-hards on the air. posted 05/15/2008 at 23:51:37

I find the talk surrounding whether or not Obama asks Clinton to be his VP fascinating. Personally, I am opposed to the idea for many reasons, not the least of which is her behavior during the democratic primary campaign. So far, the only substantive reason anyone has offered is the fact that by Clinton being on the ticket, this will somehow mend the rift which she is largely responsible for creating within the democratic party. I do not buy this rationale one bit. As the democratic presidential nominee, she would energize the republican party in a way that their own candidate can't even do. If she is on the ticket, she will have that same rallying effect, although maybe not to the same degree. She can help reunite the party just as well by going out and campaigning hard for Obama when he is the democratic nominee, while not having the inadvertent effect of inspiring republican voters to defeat an Obama-Clinton ticket. If Hillary has any ideas of continuing to be a major player within the democratic party, she will understand how important it is to help the democrats get back into the White House. She will not want to be perceived as trying to insure she will have another chance at the presidency in 2012. Anything less than her best effort will do even more damage to her already shaky reputation within the party. posted 05/11/2008 at 15:47:32

Well, If Senator Feinstein wanted to know what kind of campaign Hillary Clinton planned to run the rest of the primary season, look no further. She has chosen to continue to divide the democratic party. So much for reason. posted 05/08/2008 at 11:50:15

That's what makes this site so wonderful: thoughtful words from a reasonable person who shows respect for his or her fellow readers.

And name-calling serves what purpose, exactly? Just asking. posted 05/07/2008 at 15:34:16

You bring up some interesting points, Mary. However, her tactics you so glowingly applaud have been used on a member of her own party. And I and many others find that unconscionable. One can only hope that she will do everything in her power to help repair the rift within the democratic party for which she is largely responsible. posted 05/07/2008 at 12:49:17

One would have to assume that most of the super delegates who have yet to officially endorse a candidate are very mindful of the fact that many republicans are coming out to vote for Clinton, and that they will factor that into their decisions for whom to endorse. I think that it is telling that during this very rough period for Obama, he is still garnering more super delegate endorsements than is Clinton. They obviously see him as a better candidate, and that is going to continue. I imagine that we will see another group of SD's make their feelings known after North Carolina and Indiana have their say. posted 05/06/2008 at 14:50:49

I guess Hillary Clinton's campaign has a groundskeeping crew so they can keep digging up the goal posts and moving them to another part of the field. posted 05/06/2008 at 13:36:42

I think Edsall's headline is spot-on. If Hillary and her campaign cronies go through with this strategy, then it will quite literally blow up the democratic party and do unthinkable damage for the foreseeable future. And I would have to believe that the majority of the party would also recognize this, and do whatever they have to do to not let it happen. posted 05/04/2008 at 19:41:06

My family uses approximately 100 gallons of gas per month. If the gas tax is suspended for the summer, we would save $18.00 each month. I am sorry, but I fail to see how that is going to make a substantive difference in our lives. On the other hand, suspending the gas tax for three months would cost billions of dollars that go to fixing fixing roads and bridges. I was not a fan of the government bailing out Bear Stearns, when they are not really adequately addressing the mortgage crisis. However, for the amount of relief the average family would get from the gas tax suspension, I fail to see the logic. Clinton and McCain are doing nothing more than pandering for votes, while Obama is the only one of the three who really understands what is going on. The more I see and hear of Hillary, the less I like. posted 05/04/2008 at 16:51:46

Here is a link to an excellent article about "The Family." And I wonder why no one has really covered this on any of the major cable news shows.

http://www.thenation.com/doc/20080331/ehrenreich posted 05/03/2008 at 01:21:14

That is the best description of James Carville I have ever seen! posted 05/03/2008 at 01:54:29

"I'm certain it was impressed that the consequences of an Obama rejection would be met with a full court press of hate, detractions, superfluous negativity regarding Obama's Campaign from the WSJ, NY Post, various and sundry media outlets owned by News Corp."

You mean like saying repeatedly that Obama attended a madrasa when he was younger?

Or constantly using his middle name in stories about him?

Or focusing so much time on Rev. Wright?

I don't think they will be stopping that any time soon. You are naive to think that will stop now since he appeared with Chris Wallace. posted 04/29/2008 at 00:16:04

You are absolutely right, lavonne. He was never supposed to win Pennsylvania. Her lead was huge when PA became the spotlight. And during that time, he had to endure so many attacks about Rev. Wright, his comments in San Francisco, etc. And yet he closed the gap considerably, down to single digits. And then on election night, all anyone can talk about is what a sound defeat it was! You are right that one needs to take what the pundits say with several grains of salt. And in my opinion, no republican pundit's opinion on this race should even be considered. They are interested in one thing: prolonging this fight so as much damage can be done to the democratic party, and ultimately, to defeat Obama. They want to run against Hillary. Period. That is their end game. Hillary will rally the troops like nothing else, including their own candidate. Stay vigilant, everyone. Eyes on the prize. posted 04/25/2008 at 16:41:40

I am not exactly sure if this signals the end of Obama's chances of winning the presidency, if he wins the nomination. But one question comes to mind: If this is true, then it is Hillary Clinton and her campaign who is most responsible. She is playing dirty politics and pandering for votes just like the Republicans do against Democrats. Only she is doing it against her own party. And she will be largely at fault if McCain ends up in the White House. The Republicans all want Hillary to win the nomination, because she will energize their party more than McCain ever could hope to. Obama has the best chance against McCain in November. He will draw large numbers of Independents, unlike Hillary, who is too polarizing to get many cross-over votes. I hope I am wrong if she ends up with the nomination. posted 04/25/2008 at 02:20:45

I hope that when this nominating process is over, and all the wounds have been licked clean, all the passionate democrats, and there are many, will realize exactly who the real enemy is. It is not Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama. It is not Bill Richardson, or James Carville, or any of the other surrogates from either camp. It is John McCain, and the Republican party. I have been thoroughly disgusted with the way Hillary Clinton has been conducting herself during this campaign. I have said several times that I am going to have a hard time voting for her if she wins the democratic nomination. I live in California, so it would be mostly symbolic, as my state will be solidly blue come November. But I will say this; if there is even a hint of a chance that McCain can win my state, I will do what every good democrat should do. I will hold my nose and go into that booth and cast my vote for Hillary Clinton. Because what is at stake is far too important to hand the reins of the country to another Republican for another four years. I really hope people realize that in the end. Think about it. Another conservative Supreme Court Justice, making Bush tax cuts for the wealthy permanent, continuing a foreign policy that is making us less safe, and so on. Are we willing to risk all that just because our guy (or girl) doesn't get first prize? posted 04/24/2008 at 23:48:35

OK, I am no fan of the Bushes. But you cannot be serious about that article. It is some bullshit article written as a joke. I cannot believe you think this is a serious story. Besides, there are plenty of TRUE stories about Bush et al that are far worse than this nonsense. posted 04/24/2008 at 12:37:12

Why is this news? Has anyone seen "Short Cuts?" She does a 3 minute scene with Matthew Modine completely naked from the waist down. So I don't really think seeing her breasts through a sheer blouse qualifies as news. Not even for the "entertainment" portion of this blog. posted 04/24/2008 at 12:46:03

Maybe so Daisy, but it took almost eight years for McCain and Bush to "patch things up." Wounds will still be very fresh come Fall and personal attacks not easily forgotten. It will be interesting to see if she and Bill back that up, as I feel Obama is going to win the nomination. posted 04/21/2008 at 23:27:41

Gary, I couldn't agree more about needing to direct attacks at McCain, but when you are getting pummeled by your democratic opponent, you need to respond, and when Hillary et al behave so atrociously, we feel the need to respond with anger. I, for one, am so thoroughly disgusted by her, it is going to be a long time before I can look at a picture of her and not be repulsed. posted 04/21/2008 at 23:12:10

Two words for Bush and his tax cuts: Mission Accomplished.

He should have given a speech on the economy on a yacht in the marina with that banner in the background. It sure would have made a hell of a lot more sense than his speech on that aircraft carrier. posted 04/14/2008 at 10:23:01

I will tell you what the problem is: The increasingly nasty tone of the democratic primary election is pushing more and more people over to McCain. We are doing the work so the rebublicans won't have to, and it is unconscionable. Listen, I am an Obama supporter, and I have been so disgusted with Clinton that I am going to have a very hard time voting for her if she wins the nomination. And I am a very left-leaning democrat. I am hardly alone in my thinking. Many on both sides are feeling this way. If the democrats want to have any chance at winning in November, then there needs to be an immense group hug and reconciliation at the end of the primary season. Short of that, say hello to more conservative Supreme Court justices, and more of a class gap as Bush's tax cuts become permanent. I guess we get what we deserve. posted 04/14/2008 at 10:58:57

Uhh, that's reasonable? Or is your screen name supposed to be ironic? Just wondering. posted 04/14/2008 at 13:06:02

And when exactly has Barack Obama ever advanced an ugly stereotype about other black people for self-serving reasons? I would love an example of that. posted 04/12/2008 at 10:31:59

Really? Despicable? Listen, I know Hillary's supporters will fight to the death for her, however misguided their loyalty might be. But despicable? Really? posted 04/12/2008 at 01:05:44

I agree with you to a point, Bodi. I would have voted for him for a third term had it been allowed. That said, you cannot tell me that his behavior during his wife's campaign has been terribly smart. He has consistently made comments that her campaign, or Hillary herself, has had to explain. She has had to tell him to basically shut up a few times. And bringing up Bosnia after it had nearly faded away? I really do not have any explanation for that. He is not a stupid man, by any definition, so maybe he really doesn't want hi wife to win the nomination. That is as plausible as any reason I have read. posted 04/12/2008 at 11:27:44

Are you kidding me? Is her campaign serious? They have the entire Pennsylvania "machine" behind her, other than Sen Casey. Obama is gaining on her in the polls, so now her campaign is spinning this into a scenario where any victory by her will be a stunning blow to his campaign. Never mind the fact that she was about 30 points ahead not too long ago. It is laughable to me that she and her campaign would even make such a statement. She is really getting desperate. posted 04/09/2008 at 15:58:44

OK, these comments are hysterical. I have never seen Weeds, but I have long been a fan of Parker. She has a quirkiness about her, usually going for the more interesting roles. Never typical, always good, even if the material isn't. She sounds a bit crazy, from what I have read about her, but as long as I don't have to work with her, I will continue to enjoy her work immensely. posted 04/09/2008 at 21:55:34

I couldn't have said it better myself. I have been seeing a lot of Ware's commentary on Iraq on CNN and also on Real Time With Bill Maher. He sees for himself what a terrible shit storm Iraq has become, but I do not think he quite gets it that whether we leave in a year, two years or ten years, once we do, things are going to get worse before they get better. It's a civil war, after all. And say what you will about Saddam, he did the same thing in Iraq that Tito did in the former Yugoslavia. He kept a lid on the ethnic tensions in their respective countries. And once we took Saddam out, there was nothing to stop those ethnic tensions. We uncorked a lot of bad blood, and that is what is happening in Iraq. And their hatred at what they see as a U.S. occupation is certainly not helping things either. posted 04/08/2008 at 22:28:38

Absolutely right! posted 04/09/2008 at 23:53:40

You just don't get it. Fox would love for Hillary to win the nomination. They know that Hillary is the best way to get out the republican vote. She will energize the party more than their own candidate. Open your eyes please. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:04:50

A note to all the people who keep bringing up the fact that Clinton has won states such as California and New York, thus showing that she is the candidate who has the best chance of winning in November: These states have almost always gone democratic in presidential elections. So if Obama is the democrat running in November, he will likely win those states as well. It is a hollow argument, and shows a lack of understanding of national politics. posted 03/31/2008 at 15:16:52

I am sorry, but getting the color of the dress you wore 14 years ago, and "remembering" sniper fire are just not the same thing. Can you honestly tell me you would "remember" being shot at if it never happened? Please. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:25:54

This is not a situation where she forgot about details of a specific event. If you can't tell the difference, then I guess nothing anyone says is going to change your mind. And she didn't misspeak, as she had said, either. She told a story that never happened. Her telling wasn't even close to the facts. It is clear she was trying to embellish her record as a way of making the case that she is more battle-tested. And she got caught red-handed.

And I am sure neither you nor your wife remember having to dodge sniper fire in the delivery room. posted 03/31/2008 at 18:14:40

OMG, spare us all the "revelation." We are supposed to believe that you have found out the truth about Obama. Any crap about him being anti-American and anti-Israel is so off base as to not even deem a response. Do us all a favor, and please stay off message boards with that kind of post. That belongs on the Fox News blogs. posted 03/29/2008 at 16:18:30

I see an interesting parallel here between Hillary Clinton and George W. Bush: W failed to have a plan after the overthrow of Saddam, and thus his post invasion campaign has been a complete disaster. Hillary failed to have a plan beyond Super Tuesday, and thus her post Super Tuesday campaign has been a complete disaster. Both failed to make the right decisions and have a long-term outlook. Obama, on the other hand, has had a consistent strategy the entire campaign. That is a quality we should all be looking for in a future president. Hillary has been acting like the nomination is rightfully hers, regardless of the fact that Obama is leading in the delegate count and the popular vote. She views Obama an an interloper. For the good of the party, she needs to graciously end this foolhardy quest. She is tearing the party apart. I have always said I would have voted for Bill Clinton for a third term. Right now, I can say I would not vote for Hillary under any circumstances. Ever. She is doing so much damage to the democratic party, all for the most selfish reasons. It's not for the good of anything but her own inflated ego. She will throw away our chances in November of being able to do some serious repair work that this country desperately needs after eight years of Bush et al.

Obama in 2008. posted 03/27/2008 at 21:52:09

good riddance to you both. posted 03/31/2008 at 15:11:35

The only problem with the nominating process continuing on is that the Clinton campaign is doing the work for the McCain campaign, and that is just wrong. I do not understand why she is continuing her campaign. She is not a stupid woman, so it must be that she is willing to destroy any other democrat's chances to win if she herself cannot win. I see no other explanation. And another thing, she did not "misspeak." She LIED. Did you get that? She LIED, on several occasions, about her trip to Bosnia. Anyone who thinks otherwise, clearly doesn't get it. posted 03/27/2008 at 00:18:10