And though I won't, to many, be a good Democrat, I won't even vote for Obama if he is the nominee. I first made this decision months ago when I realized that his wife would be a first lady who seems incapable of controlling her speech and resents the vast majority of the nation. I never thought I would feel this way about a candidate's spouse. When Bill Clinton first ran, a Republican friend said she would never vote for him because she didn't like Hillary. (Of course, she wouldn't have voted for him anyway, being a one-issue anti-abortion voter). Now, of course, BO apologists are saying that Bill would be running wild in the White House, embarrassing Hillary with affairs. Anyway, Michelle Obama's problem goes to a much deeper level. I can even see her insulting some foreign dignitary! My reasons for not voting for BO have become more substantial, though, as I have come to realize that he is either a man of very poor judgment--whose friends and close associates include racketeers, racists, and terrorists--or he is man who agrees with the sentiments of the latter.

I think it's odd that a candidate in a hotly contested election would take several days off to leave the country for a vacation. Of course, it could have been simply to be out-of-town on Easter, so that he'd have some excuse not to be in that racist church for the holiday. But couldn't he have just gone to one of the many upcoming primary states and pretended to be too busy to get back to Chicago? If he had any judgment at all, he would have attended an interracial church with a non-controversial pastor. When he walked over to talk to a reporter in the Virgin Islands, he seemed morose and claimed that he couldn't go to church there. What--no churches available in St. Thomas? His demeanor alone made me think he is extremely down. (I'm hoping he went there to think about dropping out!) The pro-BO pundits can scream louder and louder, hoping people can't even hear themselves think, but he personally must realize just how precarious his situation is.

has been grueling- it's been grueling for me & I've only been watching it unfold. The perpetual months upon months upon months extra campaigning has made this all extra stupid, particularly for people who should be at work at their day jobs in the Senate already. 

I wish Senator Clinton could have several days rest but she is working harder than ever. Barack has a family with smaller kids- so taking time off is understandable. The thing is he consistently shows he won't work & put in the elbow grease where it isn't favorable to him.  

I think he is feeling guilty about the awful statements he made about his grandma.

The extreme right wing newsbusters.org thinks? These people vote down the people that scares them the most, and the extreme right is terrified of Obama.

the Hillary attacks than I personally may have recognized! People like Olbermann, for instance, appeared kindly disposed toward her until he became a raving Obamaniac. Of course, if nothing else, anti-woman feelings appear to have at least added vitriol to the frustration with BO's inability to win big states and/or show any hope of reaching the winning number without the superdelegates. And, when I think about it, mad4clark, it IS difficult to imagine the MSM going after John Edwards the way they do Hillary! My husband just told me that a black analyst on TV recently said Bill should sit her down and tell her she needs to drop out. Now, that's, without doubt, sexist.

nt

he won't vote for president if Obama is the nominee, and I have actually said I was considering that, as well. But, truth is, there is no denying, if we end up with McCain I don't think what's left of our Constitution and our freedoms will survive. At the very least, the damage already done will not be repaired. Not to mention how many innocents around the world will suffer and die with the PNAC crowd continuing to set FP policy.

I honestly don't believe Obama can win, but I have a feeling, if he's the nominee, I will vote for him, and will try to get my dad to as well...

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

not because I think he can win; but because I'd rather not see him lose as badly as George McGovern did. A McCain Presidency is scary enough without a huge mandate. I expect the majority of Dems in my family would do likewise without any urging from me. However, I seriously doubt that any of my Republican friends and family members would vote for Obama. Not even the ones who've already told me they will vote for Hillary, given the opportunity

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

This is going to spin negatively for Hillary I'm afraid. Obama camp has already started the Clinton likes McCain more than Obama meme. There will be talk about how Obama unifies the Dems and Clinton does not. Obama supporters TRUE Dems. Clinton supporters not. Arghhh.

I know those are his "words" but his actions have been incredibly divisive.

That sounds extremely uncertain, and I am honestly curious to know why individual Dems choose him. Also, whatever your reasons, do you believe him to be the more likely candidate to beat McCain? I think what makes so many Hillary supporters so testy is the MSM swoon over BO and its frantic, hateful campaign to destroy Hillary. And, as for the CCN, I've been contributing for only a short time, and I personally find it to be very civil.

You write about delegates and popular vote. In the good old days we lamented the disenfranchisement of Florida's voters.

I support Hillary. She's the best candidate in the race, and will make the best president when she gets elected in November.

except it's not. Apparently, you haven't visited 99% of the "lefty" blogs recently, if you think this place is full of vitrol. See, to about 1/2 the Dem Party, we see it exact opposite as far as who is tearing the party apart. We see who introduced the race card, then flipped it to make the Clinton's be the racists. You go with what you believe and we go with what we believe, but please don't come here and accuse of us being lemmings.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

once in a "bluemoon" and shoot off their mouth, with little recent pertinent experience on the blog to back up their claims, are what makes this blog "devisive." You should do us all a favor and spend some time at Daily Kos where you can learn what vitriol is all about. As for us "Clarkies" here, we're trying to keep an even keel and hope that Obama will soon come to his senses and drop out of the race. (Or is that too racist to say "race.") As for you, please return when you've learned how "civil" this place actually is.

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

there is an NBC, Wall Street Journal poll out today, it shows the Bosnia lie, the semi resurection of Wright courtesy of Hillary, Carville comparing Richardson to Judas. In essence her kitchen sink strategy is having a much more serious effect on Hillary than Wright has had on Obama.

And Obama should drop out? Explain the logic of that...

If the NBC news poll is to be beleived Hillary's campaign is destroying her chance to win this fall, her negatives are surging and her approval is sinking like a rock, more people now have a negative view of Hillary than approve. She is self destructing because of the conduct of her surrogates.

I have mine and the twain shall never meet.

Obama has been sinking like a rock as people find out more and more about his past escapades. He could avoid more embarrassment by quitting now instead of stubbornly hanging on to his hopes and dreams of his Messiahship. As for running some time down the road, he says this is the only time he will be running; he knows that as time goes by and more and more "stuff" comes out about his lack of integrity and blatant falsehoods, his chances or ever becoming president are virtually nil. In other words, it's now or never for him.

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

Hillary has had her problems and gaffes as well, plus she's behind in the counts. Neither should drop out.

Both candidates are flawed, in different ways. You have to choose your poison.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

And as long as the Messiah's sock and media puppets keep insisting Hillary should drop out, I will keep on insisting that it's just as valid for him to take a hike. They're essentially tied and he has yet to win any of the big states and she's on line to kick butt in the next few months. (Of course, no one gives a fiddler's damn what I say, but I have the right to say it.)

Her "gaffe" is just another example of the media playing it's gotcha game and blowing a molehill into a mountain. BTW, how long ago was that incident??

Why aren't they questioning some of Obama's "gaffes?" If they actually did, I'm sure he would continue his downward slide with considerable more speed.

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

That was more recent? And Rev. Wright's GD America? That was more recent?

Please...

And it was St. Patricks day I think, plus the incident in December and another Febuary.

Mountain out of a mole hill? Give me a break, if Obama had claimed he had to run for the cars and had to skip a greeting event to aviod sniper fire and it was not true you and many others here would be all over it like ants over spilled sugar, and you know it...

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/224531/594

Fine - Let's Talk About Misstatements
by alegre, Tue Mar 25, 2008

Right, it's time we cleared up a few things here guys. Yeah sure - after 12 years and probably tens of thousands of speaking engagements and press conferences, and as sleep-deprived as I'm sure she must be these days - Hillary misspoke at an event on the 17th and for that people have been jumping down her throat.

She said they went into a camp under sniper fire but as she's said on lots of occasions before - the sniper fire was in the nearby hills and the Army had snipers around the air field as she landed for protection. But let's get one thing clear here boys & girls - she was flying into a combat zone. Something that I'm pretty sure her rival for this nomination has ever done and (I'm pretty sure) never will do any time soon.

Take a look at what CBS reported at the time...

SEE CBS REport at above link.

Now some of Hillary's critics are claiming this wasn't a case of her getting it wrong - that she'd been reading from a prepared text so that proves this was done on purpose. They point to this page as proof but if you'll follow that link you'll see that these were her remarks as delivered. The part about Bosnia was NOT in her prepared remarks that day.

Now I've done a little digging and found a few things on the Net. Check it out...

Lissa Muscatine, who served as Hilary Clinton's chief speechwriter in 1996 and accompanied her on the Bosnia trip, feels that I have failed to provide a full picture of what took place. She gave me her "vivid recollections" of the arrival in Tuzla, which I quote below:

I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C17-- a plane capable of steep ascents and descents -- precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter.

Source

And this from the FactHub...

Hillary recently misspoke about her trip to Bosnia. She accurately describes the trip in her book, Living History:

'Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac...' "Security conditions were constantly changing in the former Yugoslavia, and they had recently deteriorated again. Due to reports of snipers in the hills around the airstrip, we were forced to cut short an event on the tarmac with local children, though we did have time to meet them and their teachers and to learn how hard they had worked during the war to continue classes in any safe spot they could find. ... We were then off to the fortified American base at Tuzla, where over two thousand American, Russian, Canadian, British, and Polish soldiers were encamped in a large tent city." [Living History, p. 343]

Contemporaneous news accounts confirm that Hillary's trip to Bosnia was a dangerous situation:

Hillary's trip to Bosnia marked the first time since Eleanor Roosevelt that a first lady traveled to a potential combat zone. Accompanied by singer-songwriter Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, Mrs. Clinton traveled to this northwestern Bosnian town on a morale-boosting tour for the 18,500 U.S. troops participating in the NATO-led peacemaking operation. She heard a poem of peace from a Bosnian girl and praised U.S. troops for 'showing what American leadership is.'...This trip to Bosnia marks the first time since Roosevelt that a first lady has voyaged to a potential combat zone. During World War II, Roosevelt toured the devastated streets of London and the southwestern Pacific, bringing cheer to U.S. troops. [Washington Post, 3/26/96]

Hillary was 'protected by sharpshooters' in a 'military zone' when she visited troops in Bosnia. "Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal 'thank you, thank you, thank you' to U.S. troops. 'They're making a difference,' the first lady said of the 18,500 Americans working as peacekeepers in Bosnia. Mrs. Clinton became the first presidential spouse since Eleanor Roosevelt to make such an extensive trip into what can be considered a hostile area, though others have visited hot spots..." [Charleston Gazette, 3/26/96]

And a comment left in an open thread at TalkLeft on Sunday - apparently, Sinbad (the guy who set all this off) wasn't on the entire trip with Senator Clinton - just part of it...

I did some research on Lexis Nexis last night (5.00 / 6) (#131) by standingup on Sun Mar 23, 2008 at 04:45:19 PM EST

The trip she made to Bosnia was on March 25, 1996. I can't find anything in the press reports that supports the exact account that Hillary has recollected but Sinbad's account might be underscoring the risk too. She did visit two outposts outside of the base camp in Tuzla without the celebrities there for the USO tour.

Protected by sharpshooters, Hillary Rodham Clinton swooped into a military zone by Black Hawk helicopter Monday to deliver a personal "thank you, thank you, thank you" to U.S. troops.
...
But this was a day of celebration and celebrities - a day for the U.S. troops helping to uphold the Bosnian peace accord. Mrs. Clinton hosted a USO show with comedian Sinbad and singer Sheryl Crow and briefly addressed the gathering.
...
But the highlight of her trip were visits to two fortified posts outside the U.S. base in Tuzla. Even President Clinton, restricted to the base by bad weather in January, did not see as much of this war-wracked region as Mrs. Clinton did Monday.
...
Riflemen rushed to the brush line as the helicopter landed and surrounded her as she walked into the post. Located in a "separation zone," the U.S. outpost nestles between two tree lines. Just months ago, one was Serbian territory, the other Bosnian.

Security was tight - fighter jets accompanied her C-17 cargo plane to Tuzla - but officials said the first lady took no extraordinary risks on the trip.

Lexis - By RON FOURNIER, Associated Press, March 25, 1996

Another report:

THE First Lady of the United States, Hillary Clinton, visited her country's troops at their fortified outposts in north-eastern Bosnia today and said their peacekeeping work was "extraordinary to behold".

Mrs Clinton's helicopter flight to Camp Alicia, home of a mechanised infantry outfit and a combat engineer batallion 15 miles east of Tuzla, took her over burned out villages and farm houses whose roofs had been blown off in the fierce fighting before last December's Paris peace agreement ended the 43 -month-old war in Bosnia.

A machine gun emplacement guarded the entrance of the outposts and marked Bosnian minefields were visible outside its perimeter.
...
After lunch with the troops in a makeshift dining hall surrounded by sandbags, she flew on to Camp Bedrock south of Tuzla to visit an army field hospital.

Mrs Clinton, who later returned to Tuzla for a show starring singer Sheryl Crow and comedian Sinbad, said she was "amazed at how much has been accomplished in such a short period of time" by US troops in Bosnia.

Source - Lexis - The Herald (Glasgow), March 26, 1996

And she did spend some time in the cockpit ;-)

So it was probably no accident that the C-17 pilot was a woman, Capt. Cheryl Beineke of Ohio. She is among just four female C-17 pilots out of about 100 in the Air Force.

"I'm loving every minute of this," the pilot said after Mrs. Clinton spent several minutes in the cockpit.

Source - Lexis - By RON FOURNIER, AP International, March 25, 1996

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

The rest of the story; sorry for the length, but I think this thread is about to expire anyway. Also from:

http://www.mydd.com/story/2008/3/25/224531/594

Ok now why don't we take a look at some of the instances where St. Obama's misspoken, eh?

Just Embellished Words: Senator Obama's Record of Exaggerations & Misstatements

Once again, the Obama campaign is getting caught saying one thing while doing another. They are personally attacking Hillary even though Sen. Obama has been found mispeaking and embellishing facts about himself more than ten times in recent months. Senator Obama's campaign is based on words -not a record of deeds - and if those words aren't backed up by facts, there's not much else left.

"Senator Obama has called himself a constitutional professor, claimed credit for passing legislation that never left committee, and apparently inflated his role as a community organizer among other issues. When it comes to his record, just words won't do. Senator Obama will have to use facts as well," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said.

Sen. Obama consistently and falsely claims that he was a law professor. The Sun-Times reported that, "Several direct-mail pieces issued for Obama's primary [Senate] campaign said he was a law professor at the University of Chicago. He is not. He is a senior lecturer (now on leave) at the school. In academia, there is a vast difference between the two titles. Details matter." In academia, there's a significant difference: professors have tenure while lecturers do not. [Hotline Blog, 4/9/07; Chicago Sun-Times, 8/8/04]

Obama claimed credit for nuclear leak legislation that never passed. "Obama scolded Exelon and federal regulators for inaction and introduced a bill to require all plant owners to notify state and local authorities immediately of even small leaks. He has boasted of it on the campaign trail, telling a crowd in Iowa in December that it was 'the only nuclear legislation that I've passed.' 'I just did that last year,' he said, to murmurs of approval. A close look at the path his legislation took tells a very different story. While he initially fought to advance his bill, even holding up a presidential nomination to try to force a hearing on it, Mr. Obama eventually rewrote it to reflect changes sought by Senate Republicans, Exelon and nuclear regulators. The new bill removed language mandating prompt reporting and simply offered guidance to regulators, whom it charged with addressing the issue of unreported leaks. Those revisions propelled the bill through a crucial committee. But, contrary to Mr. Obama's comments in Iowa, it ultimately died amid parliamentary wrangling in the full Senate." [New York Times, 2/2/08]

Obama misspoke about his being conceived because of Selma. "Mr. Obama relayed a story of how his Kenyan father and his Kansan mother fell in love because of the tumult of Selma, but he was born in 1961, four years before the confrontation at Selma took place. When asked later, Mr. Obama clarified himself, saying: 'I meant the whole civil rights movement.'" [New York Times, 3/5/07]

LA Times: Fellow organizers say Sen. Obama took too much credit for his community organizing efforts. "As the 24-year-old mentor to public housing residents, Obama says he initiated and led efforts that thrust Altgeld's asbestos problem into the headlines, pushing city officials to call hearings and a reluctant housing authority to start a cleanup. But others tell the story much differently. They say Obama did not play the singular role in the asbestos episode that he portrays in the best-selling memoir 'Dreams From My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance.' Credit for pushing officials to deal with the cancer-causing substance, according to interviews and news accounts from that period, also goes to a well-known preexisting group at Altgeld Gardens and to a local newspaper called the Chicago Reporter. Obama does not mention either one in his book." [Los Angeles Times, 2/19/07]

Chicago Tribune: Obama's assertion that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing 'strains credulity.' "...Obama has been too self-exculpatory. His assertion in network TV interviews last week that nobody had indications Rezko was engaging in wrongdoing strains credulity: Tribune stories linked Rezko to questionable fundraising for Gov. Rod Blagojevich in 2004 -- more than a year before the adjacent home and property purchases by the Obamas and the Rezkos." [Chicago Tribune editorial, 1/27/08]

Obama was forced to revise his assertion that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House.' "White House hopeful Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) was forced to revise a critical stump line of his on Saturday -- a flat declaration that lobbyists 'won't work in my White House' after it turned out his own written plan says they could, with some restrictions... After being challenged on the accuracy of what he has been saying -- in contrast to his written pledge -- at a news conference Saturday in Waterloo, Obama immediately softened what had been his hard line in his next stump speech." [Chicago Sun-Times, 12/16/07]

FactCheck.org: 'Selective, embellished and out-of-context quotes from newspapers pump up Obama's health plan.' "Obama's ad touting his health care plan quotes phrases from newspaper articles and an editorial, but makes them sound more laudatory and authoritative than they actually are. It attributes to The Washington Post a line saying Obama's plan would save families about $2,500. But the Post was citing the estimate of the Obama campaign and didn't analyze the purported savings independently. It claims that "experts" say Obama's plan is "the best." "Experts" turn out to be editorial writers at the Iowa City Press-Citizen - who, for all their talents, aren't actual experts in the field. It quotes yet another newspaper saying Obama's plan "guarantees coverage for all Americans," neglecting to mention that, as the article makes clear, it's only Clinton's and Edwards' plans that would require coverage for everyone, while Obama's would allow individuals to buy in if they wanted to." [FactCheck.org, 1/3/08]

Sen. Obama said 'I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage,' but Obama health care legislation merely set up a task force. "As a state senator, I brought Republicans and Democrats together to pass legislation insuring 20,000 more children. And 65,000 more adults received health care...And I passed a law that put Illinois on a path to universal coverage." The State Journal-Register reported in 2004 that "The [Illinois State] Senate squeaked out a controversial bill along party lines Wednesday to create a task force to study health-care reform in Illinois. [...] In its original form, the bill required the state to offer universal health care by 2007. That put a 'cloud' over the legislation, said Sen. Dale Righter, R-Mattoon. Under the latest version, the 29-member task force would hold at least five public hearings next year." [Obama Health Care speech, 5/29/07; State Journal-Register, 5/20/04]

ABC News: 'Obama...seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he made' on ethics reform. "ABC News' Teddy Davis Reports: During Monday's Democratic presidential debate, Sen. Barack Obama, D-Ill., seemed to exaggerate the legislative progress he has made on disclosure of "bundlers," those individuals who aggregate their influence with the candidate they support by collecting $2,300 checks from a wide network of wealthy friends and associates. When former Alaska Sen. Mike Gravel alleged that Obama had 134 bundlers, Obama responded by telling Gravel that the reason he knows how many bundlers he has raising money for him is "because I helped push through a law this past session to disclose that." Earlier this year, Obama sponsored an amendment [sic] in the Senate requiring lobbyists to disclose the candidates for whom they bundle. Obama's amendment would not, however, require candidates to release the names of their bundlers. What's more, although Obama's amendment was agreed to in the Senate by unanimous consent, the measure never became law as Obama seemed to suggest. Gravel and the rest of the public know how many bundlers Obama has not because of a 'law' that the Illinois Democrat has 'pushed through' but because Obama voluntarily discloses that information." [ABC News, 7/23/07]

Obama drastically overstated Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance. "When Sen. Barack Obama exaggerated the death toll of the tornado in Greensburg, Kan, during his visit to Richmond yesterday, The Associated Press headline rapidly evolved from 'Obama visits former Confederate capital for fundraiser' to `Obama rips Bush on Iraq war at Richmond fundraiser' to 'Weary Obama criticizes Bush on Iraq, drastically overstates Kansas tornado death toll' to 'Obama drastically overstates Kansas tornado deaths during campaign appearance.' Drudge made it a banner, ensuring no reporter would miss it." [politico.com, 5/9/07]

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

http://www.truveo.com/Rodenator-Pro-ad/id/1192468579

Just face it...why would you go to all this trouble trying to find some far fetched statements to justify Hillary's 'mis-speak'?? She made it up. It happens all the time with candidates running for president who need to exaggerate to show their experience. We forgive her - and the funny thing is, she didn't have to 'mis-speak' at all - we believe her, we believe her...she has experience as a first lady.
Tell me, however, do you really think any military person (general, pilot, whatever) would so easily agree to swoop down amidst snipers with the wife and daughter of the president of the United States??? I think not.
The best take on this one was Andrea Mitchell's unprepared and very unprofessional hosting stint on MSNBC-she asked Jamie Rubin (who by the way, was as rude as he could be) why the fibbing. He (Rubin) went on and on, non-stop, repeating the 'she made a mistake', it was a dangerous area, she had the military briefing...blah blah. Andrea Mitchell finally got a word in - and said'Jamie, I was on that flight with her...and heard the briefing.' He totally shut up.

...that she WAS there, in a dangerous war zone, meeting with commanders and troops on the ground, while Obama was in training pants running for the state senate for the first time. She screwed up, big time, with her embellishment, no question about it. But she was THERE. And she was there in over 80 other countries, representing the President and the country. Obama's foreign policy was living in Indonesia when he was a child, one trip to Africa, and I think he passed through London once. Embellishment and exaggeration aside, her experience totally drowns that of Obama.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

Have you ever been in a room with a bunch of old army guys and the stories get more dangerous and racier with each telling? I suspect there's a little of this here. But it seems you didn't read about the conditions and the preparations for security that were made. Or didn't care. In any case, she was there - or do you question that, as well? BTW, I thought it was Andrea Mitchell who get her head handed to her with her rude questions and trying to promote her own bias. She's a disgrace to the profession, but then a lot of the media is, as well. Kudos to Jamie Rubin for not letting her bully him.

Now, why aren't you questioning Obama's list of 12 "mis-statements" below? Or don't you like your ox being gored?
Nothing like being objective, I say, especially when it comes to O'bots.

For the good of the Democratic Party, Obama must drop out - NOW! He is no longer a viable national candidate.

"Any military person" would fly the President's wife and daughter wherever he or she was told to. That's a simple fact. I'm a retired army officer, and wife of a retire army pilot (and officer) and I know it to be 100% true.

The fact is, Hillary and Chelsea were flown into the Tuzla airfield, as all the Obama friendly media showed in the video, but from there she also flew to two forward bases. The threat was real, and I have no doubt that she was told there was a danger of snipe fire. I'm also sure she exagerated what actually happened -- it was over 12 years ago that it happened, memory plays tricks on us all, and we all after a while have a tendancy to confuse what we see or feel or experience with what we are told about it later. It just happens that way.

Just remember something. Andrea Mitchell is the wife of Alan Greenspan and a hard-core Republican. Rubin had every right to be as rude to her as necessary. And then some.

You may think Mitchell is your friend, but she is friend to no Democrat. Remember Susie Madrak's rule of thumb: "...if you read or hear something that makes you hate another Democrat, you need to dig down further because there's more to the story. The real enemy is the media, and they see themselves as the only superdelegates."

And they seem to be having an effect. If Obama
wins, they will destroy him, too. McCain is now
and always has been the media favorite. McCain
will ridicule Obama and his preacher and his
criminal croney. He will not care what Dem
pundits or AAs or liberals of any stripe say.
Conversely, I don't think Obama will be able to
destroy McCain's character as Obama has tried to
do to Hillary, because the media will not help
him.

She's tested, she's been through it before, the media can't move her negatives, she's vetted... that she was somehow immune to the Republican slime machine.

We are beginning to see that argument crumble into dust.

And yes McCain will say all those things about Obama, but was Hillary not the one to bring Rezko into the race in the first place in the SC debate? Did she not just yesterday inject herself into the controversy over Wright? What was the effect?

Barack Obama just had the worst 2 weeks of his campaign, he was hit over the head almost constantly with Wright soundbites for over a week. Heck, Faux is still at it, following Wright's every move as "breaking news". And yet, Obama's negatives barely budged according to the NBC poll.

With regards to McCain, the media does not have to destroy him, McCain will destroy himself with his lies, mistatments and blunders. All Obama has to do is call him on his BS.

McCain is in trouble, he raised only 1/5th the amount Barack did last month, it has been a long time since the Republicans have had less money than Democrats to spend in the election. And I doubt the far right Republican 527 groups will do that much better. He is running on a unpopular war that is about to take a turn for the worse if current events in Iraq are any indication. And he doesn't have a clue about how to even talk to the American people about the economy, much less manage it. He has even admited it, there is tape of him saying it.

This is our election to lose, and so far, we have done a better job than Karl Rove could have ever dreamed.

I'm not saying Hillary should drop out, neither of them should, but saying Obama *the front runner who is still polling ahead of McCain* should get out like Donjo has advocated? It is patently absurd and it honestly smacks of a level of desperation that has completely lost touch with reality.

If Obama is such a disaster then let the voters decide that for themselves, Wright is out there, Rezko is out there, Obama's tax returns are out there, it's all out there for the voters to see. Let the voters decide and lets put an end to this non sensical talk of the front runner dropping out over a "scandal" that has had far less impact on Obama than Hillary's surogates behavior have had on her.

We resented the calls from the Kerry, Dean and Edwards people for Wes to drop out in 04 and he wasn't even the frontrunner. As Hillary has said before lets "get real".

At least that's how I remember it.

But since I'm no longer young enough to know everything, I'm sure you must be right that "All Obama has to do is call (McCain) on his BS."

Thanks for easing my irrational fear that the country that somewhat recently sent Al Gore and John Kerry packing might just send the next brainy liberal preacher-man packing.

Do you think Obama's cakewalk could rival the one Bush took to bring democracy to the middle-east?

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

It's not worth bickering over. But it was certainly not by the margins this year.

Will it be easy, no. It will not. But let us let the voters make their own determination instead of making irrational calls for either candidate to drop out that have little or no basis on the facts. And yes in case you were wondering that in my opinion includes Michigan and Florida.

Obama has no easy task ahead of him, point out John McCain's BS will be no easy task, but it can be done. Trying to out flank McCain on national security credentials unless one is a four star general is simply not going to work. And making false claims about the events in Bosnia does not help that, is it a big deal? Ultimately no, it doesn't sit well with me I'll admit it. I don't like any politician making false claims about having been under fire when American troops are under real and actual fire.

But politically for someone who is trying to say she has stronger national security credentials than McCain and cite something that is patently false it is unwise. I can see the republican 527 attack ads based on this and her following excuses already. It is the "Al Gore invented the internet" meme all over again. Only Hillary really did say that there was no greeting ceremony because of sniper fire, there is video tape of it.

Both of them have their scandals, let the voters decide which of them is the better to run against McCain this fall.

I do not conceed the point on the money.

$367,227,801 Bush 2004 fundraising $326,236,288 Kerry 2004 Fundraising. Last time I conceed a point on benefit of the doubt without googling first...

Please use the google next time.

and I think that's the more relevant issue. It may look bad for McCain right now, but let's not count those chickens before they hatch.

I think you mean concede.

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

I certainly do not mean "conceed" in fact I deeply regret giving you the benefit of the doubt on that, I can be so naive sometimes...

You said that I was wrong, called me out on it, inserted age into the debate, which I did not. Only I simply was not wrong, and I don't want to play "gotcha" here, but when you say that I am wrong when in fact I was not that undermines the credibility of your point. No offense.

As for the future, no google does not predict the future, but the facts as they stand now support the argument that the Democratic nominee will quite probably outraise the Republican nominee this year.

Anyway I think enough time has been wasted on this so I wish you a pleasant night.

Sorry I tried to help you with your spelling. I didn't disagree with what you posted - just your spelling. I also declined to use google to check what you posted since I originally posted that my impression was from memory (i.e. could be incorrect), and what really matters is what McCain may raise.

One more time for your benefit, not mine - I think you mean "concede", not "conceed".

Nick Kelly

Wes Clark could still secure America as a national security candidate.

The Grammar Snob

The media has not found anything new she has
done to hit her with. They haven't found any
hate-mongering preachers who've been "mentoring"
Hillary for 20 years, or any of your basic
Chicago gangsters who've been raising money and
greasing the skids for her all her political
life. What they have found is a DEMOCRAT(?) who
is willing to repeat the most hateful, divisive
and bitter invectives about her and a complient
press who have endlessly repeated his inane
drivel as if it were the word of the Messiah.
A DEMOCRAT(?) who set out to destroy the
Presidency of Bill Clinton, the only positive
thing real Democrats could point to for many
years, in order to advance his own short-
term political goals. Yes, he may be
accomplishing his goal, to get the nomination
for himself, but he has caused irreparable
damage to the brand of "Democrat," and the
recent polls show that.

Rezko
Rev. Wright
Exelon
Ayres
Dennis Ross(Scooter's pal)
NBPP...
Shall I go on??

I know I'm forgetting alot on the list,
must be a senior moment.

"Whatever" I learned that from my kids. Ha!

It's just that before, the vitriol wasn't leveled at anybody someone else here supported. We blasted Kerry, Dean, Edwards, and of course the Republicans, but they had no support here. Now the vitriol comes from Clarkies of both camps, aimed at each other. But we were always pretty good at being snarky.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

You make good points. Glad you're doing well.

But then again, people like me, according to donjo, shouldn't shoot off my mouth. I've only been here once in a blue moon.

Of course, I think being a Clarkie from the beginning and working my tail off in many different areas of the effort really have no pull, I suppose.

Apparently my efforts have afforded me no right to an opinion, according to donjo.

I also have to say that I'm more leaning away from Hillary as opposed to leaning towards Obama. The way she has run her campaign has really turned me off to her.

In regard to Obama dropping out, other Clarkies have made the same arguement I have, so I'll leave it at that. Bottom line is, we need to ignore the destructive politics and focus on beating McCain, as soon as possible.

Hillary is not entitled to the nomination. Do the math, she can't win, and the right thing to do is for the Democratic party to respect the will of the people. If Obama has more popular votes and delegates, he should be the nominee. Florida and Michigan knew what the deal was going in, so did the candidates. To change the rules mid-stream because they'd get her closer is just flat out wrong.

I'm an old fashioned kinda guy, the person with the most votes and delegates should win. Period.

My thought is that the best thing Hillary can do for her country and her party is to drop out herself, suggest and deliver Wes Clark as the VP candidate and begin the uniting of the party...now.

Again, just my opinion, I could be wrong.

Florida and Michigan may or may not have delegates that will be seated at the Convention, but that doesn't change the fact that there were something like 2.5 million votes certified by the election officials in those states and the DNC has no power to erase those results.

Hillary is currently 80,000 popular votes behind Obama and could very easily overtake him with the results from Pennsylvania (and very possibly expand that lead with the later primaries). If you really want to follow the "will of the people" and consider the popular vote, then Hillary has a very good chance of winning.

As far as the "rules" are concerned I'll refer you to a couple of references:

http://securingamerica.com/ccn/node/15106

You might also want to read the delegate selection rules of the Democratic party here:

http://s3.amazonaws.com/apache.3cdn.net/3e5b3bfa1c1718d07f_6rm6bhyc4.pdf

Violation of timing: In the event the Delegate Selection Plan of a state party provides or permits a meeting, caucus, convention or primary which constitutes the first determining stage in the presidential nominating process to be held prior to or after the dates for the state as provided in Rule 11 of these rules, or in the event a state holds such a meeting, caucus, convention or primary prior to or after such dates, the number of pledged delegates elected in each category allocated to the state pursuant to the Call for the National Convention shall be reduced by fifty (50%) percent, and the number of alternates shall also be reduced by fifty (50%) percent.

Tell me how disallowing 100% of a state's delegates is compliant with the rules noted above?

Maybe both of them should drop out and then we'd have a completely open convention to select someone without all the baggage.

Stan Davis
Lakewood, CO
Wes Clark -- Make America All It Can Be!

WES CLARK??

I thought so. ;)

"Obama is winning in delagates and popular vote. Hillary cannot catch him"

"By the numbers, she can't catch him"

Hillary is currently only 80,000 popular votes behind Obama and there is a good chance that she'll be leading in popular votes after Pennsylvania.

Also, I seem to remember Obama's top foreign policy advisor calling Hillary a "monster" just a few weeks ago. I guess that was a clean, non-divisive commentary.

It seems that if we select the nominee based on what the American people want, then total popular vote would be the supreme measure of this and there is a good chance that Hillary will finish ahead on June 3.

To believe that she has no chance is the mark of a lemming listening to the MSM which has their own agenda. Or should we throw out what the American voter has to say and just pick our candidates based on the opinion of Keith Olberman?

comment at Talk Left, which I think is very true:

What they fear is that

by rooge04 on Wed Mar 26, 2008 at 06:00:53 PM EST

HRC actually has states that favor her coming up. What they fear is that she will beat him in the coming states and he'll be behind in votes. What they fear is that they didn't succeed in tearing her down and forcing her to end the race because they say so. That's the fear. That she'll win.

Once in a while you get shown the light, In the strangest of places if you look at it right.

It might be about crooked chicago power brokers and hate mongering preachers.

I don't know who you are but I agree with your post! I too thought of Wes Clarks' supporters as very tolerant and open-minded. I was really shocked when I read the vicious attacks on Obama...same as taylor marsh's site - only the latter defies description - if you don't declare your undying admiration and love for Hillary your post will just disappear!
There are far too many one-sided blogs out there, but even the Huffpos of the blogging world ALLOW a pro-Hillary post - not so the Hillary blogs. You are either for her or against her - no discussion of the issues or candidates allowed!

Let me clue you in. This is Wes Clark's blog. He has
endorsed Hillary Clinton and has been campaigning
vigorously for her. Ergo, this is a Pro-Hillary crowd,
for the most part.
To what "vicious attacks" are you referring?
We've tried discussing the issues with BO supporters but
almost all of them repeat the standard talking points
and refuse to listen to logic and reality. It gets
pretty tiresome, and so some posters may go a little
ovrboard in their criticism. Geez, it's not like Hillary
hasn't been slammed on this blog and most other so called
Left blogs, not to mention the corpress.
Oh, and this site is not censored (a shame sometimes).

<

We've tried discussing the issues with HC supporters but almost all of them repeat the standard talking(and trashing) points and refuse to listen to logic a