readerK

beb: what exactly is Hillary's place, in which she should be put? An important excerpt in Rachel Sklar's post is this: Hillary is "clearly still earning her spot in the race thanks to, um, voters." It seems that most of those who don't like Hillary have forgotten that it is the voters who are keeping her going, and going, and going -- like that brand of battery. We fight wars abroad, sacrificing our men and women in the military, and destroying much wherever we fight -- all in the name of democracy. We self-righteously lecture some communities and their leaders about democracy. But, beb, you and folks like you openly declare that you're not wholeheartedly for democracy -- if allowing democracy to take its normal course means letting voters (in Florida, Michigan, etc.) express their free will about Hillary. posted 04/26/2008 at 01:21:15

Lempira, Lempira, Lempira: James Carville spoke about ONLY an editorial. Your citations are ALL op-ed articles, which are not editorials. The two types of writing are not the same. posted 04/26/2008 at 01:49:08

biffer: Did you also find out why blacks have been voting in well-nigh monolithic fashion at 90% to 10% for Obama and against Clinton? Or, you think only whites are racists? posted 04/23/2008 at 23:02:39

DinSea: I'm sorry that your disappointment at Obama's inability to "pull off a landslide yesterday" in PA has made you so bitter. Your frustration is so profound that you forgot that for six long years, the Clintons were microscopically investigated from head to toe, at a cost of almost $70 million. But, ultimately, they were adjudged to be as guiltless as you and I. All the scandals of which the Obama campaign is reportedly about to remind us were looked into. And so, as a former constitutional lecturer at a university, Obama must know that he has a duty to respect the Independent Prosecutor's Report on the Clintons as fully as he obviously respects the U. S. Constitution.

As regards negative campaigning, Obama has not been a saint. You may remember that starting from the first debate in Philadelphia last October -- the one conducted by Tim Russert and Brian Williams -- Obama attacked Clinton from every angle, and Clinton never registered a complaint; nor did you, nor Obama's supporters, nor I. If you asked Norman Hsu, he would tell you that Obama has not run a clean campaign. Search www.latimes.com for "Hsu and Obama" to get stories about Hsu's claim that the politician who promised "hope and change" played some dirty tricks in the entire blow-up of the scandal about campaign contributions.

Hillary is crude in her attacks, and she leaves her fingerprints all over. Obama is silky smooth in his attacks, and leaves no fingerprints. ReaderK. posted 04/23/2008 at 19:37:46

asere: Why not read through the Clinton returns before you pronounce any judgments? Like Bob Franken, you're making all kinds innuendos against the Clintons before you know what was "dumped" on Friday. Be as fair to the Clintons as you'd want others to be fair to you. ReaderK. posted 04/05/2008 at 22:42:31

Stick to the issue at hand, please. It is GOLDEN not to be disingenuous. readerK. posted 03/25/2008 at 00:47:58

Openeyes: you stated: "I object to letting those states vote twice. How is that legitimate compared to the other 48 states?" posted 03/25/2008 at 00:44:39

rikoriki: You didn't respond head-on to the issues raised in the blog. Do you think that what the blog states is true: "According to news reports, the Obama campaign had a lot to do [with the fact that there may not be revotes in Michigan and Florida" outcome. ]" posted 03/25/2008 at 00:28:38

SickOfSpin: I'm glad you seem to be sick of spin. But you cited a Bill Clinton quote as:"It would be a great thing if we had an election year where you had two people who loved this country and were devoted to the interest of this country." What exactly do you find objectionable about that statement? posted 03/24/2008 at 22:43:18