thank you for your broad critical stance of our current political system.

Senator Clinton's recent pandering with the gas tax (siding with McCain) is nearly more than I can bear. America is in near free fall and Mrs. Clinton wants to talk about $30.

This same gas tax goes to repair our roads and bridges, which Senator Clinton wants accomplished. You can't keep your cake and eat it too.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:41:29 AM

  (0+)

I just received my email alert from Pew Research poll and it said that Obama was falling behind Clinton. Well, of course, I believe that like I believe milk and honey flows out of garden hoses. Sheesh. The Poll takers/deliverers and the MSM got everyone running around like a chicken with its head cut off. It reminds me of the "orange, red, yellow" Bs that lil Bush put us through after false flag 9-11. Oh well, just go shopping, he said. What a jerk! Pew used to have me, but with that latest poll, you suck Pew! Peew you!

After Hillary's "obliterate Iran" comment, surely ppl can't say she is for curbing War can they? Sounds like a warmonger statement to me. Sounds provocative to the third degree.

Hillary has so much garbage from the past, wait till Mac gets a hold of her. At least Obama's garbage is mostly rumors started by the Rush chaos machine and Hillary herself! Her ties to the Nixon administration, and roll played, should alone be a wake up alert, red flag notice, and beckon to jump the Clinton ship.

I am still sitting on the sidelines, waiting for Lil Bush to declare Martial Law by October, and declare a "postponed election" or at worse, another "appointment from the Supreme Court right wing machine". If Hillary is the nominee, then I will certainly be voting 3rd Party OR McCain(yes, you heard me right). As a die hard Liberal, Hillary slapped me in the face and I will never forgive her, or vote for her for that reason alone. Slap you back b*tch. The Founders were Liberals by all terms of the definition. They told me to slap her, don't balme me. I do what the Founders tell me to do! Haha.

by shirley reese (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 592 comments [98 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 10:59:45 AM

  (0+)

as an Obama supporter and an all round peacenik, I can't help but to agree with you. However and perhaps to our own detriment, American is not a leftist or progressive nation. At least not yet. Regardless of any elements to the left or right, America is a nation of moderates. Now I realize that notion is often skewed. We could probably spend half the day arguing over who or what a moderate really is. It's like the assumptions by the rest of the nation that California is some leftist freak society bordering on Marxism when beyond my own town on the central coast and parts of San Francisco and Berkeley, California is a very moderate state with a republican governor and a democrat assembly.

As for Hillary giving an answer to a hypothetical question, yes she could have been more careful in her wording and I believe she should have been. "Response in kind" rather than obliteration would have been a whole lot better. But make no mistake, her answer, as right wing as it was, caters to moderates too, even those moderates who oppose this war in Iraq.

Of course, one prospect of that comment could force people to draw a conclusion in fear, that she might in fact be trigger happy as Barry Goldwater was perceived back in the sixties when he suggested we nuke Vietnam. For all we know it was a Freudian slip. Let's hope not! But like it or not, many moderates believe in a strong military and don't want a wimp in power either.

On the bright side, maybe her remark will help the Obama campaign. Like Rob says, we'll have to wait and see. But don't forget Obama was willing to supercede any negotiations with Pakistan when it came to getting Osama Bin Laden. He said he would send in US troops there with or without the consent of Musshariff. To many people, that sounded like preemption. And preemption is just as bad as Hillary's obliterate comment. To sum it all up with a word, politics.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:07:38 PM

  (0+)

According to Robin Williams, "It's like a Volvo with a gun rack!"

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:33:54 PM

  (0+)

...have a glimpse of today's elections with Guam where it was a virtual tie. Now with Hillary looking good in Indiana and Obama looking good in Carolina it seems it will all boil down to the super delegates. Neither candidate will have enough votes to outright win the nomination.

Like many, I have been very skeptical about this long drawn out race. The fear of a split in the party has been evident, not only to me, but many in here and elsewhere. One thing no one seems to be thinking about however is the vast amounts of money that not only the two respective candidates are drawing in but the party itself. For this reason, this drawn out election might well be a gift in disguise come November. The democratic warchest is huge and most of their donations average in the 40 dollar a pop arena. So the dems have more money and more people donating money to them.

Another possibility is a Hillary/Obama-Obama/Hillary ticket. Some would say no way Jose, but I think that would really be an October surprise for McBush and the neocon right. For dems too! It would also consolidate the democratic party and negate the race card. It could unite us as never before.

Now I know either candidate, particularly Obama says no way. But just as Reagan was forced to take Bush as his VP, so too may this come forth. Goofier things have happened in the past and this is the logical kind of goofiness that wins elections. In fact dare I call it a Juggernaut?!?

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 11:07:59 AM

  (0+)

I hope Obama doesn't end up with Clinton as his VP candidate without them making up over the next two months.

If there is not any make up, then Obama needs to indicate soon several people he'd like to have as a running mate.  

Having the jump on this issue could create a sense of unity --necessary if Democrats want to win in 2008. 

by ALONE (196 articles, 1 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 557 comments [5 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 11:51:23 AM

  (0+)

....it might well be Clinton who gets the nod. If this happens, what better way to appease the vast progressive and independent support Obama has then to make him her vice president? Since supporters on both sides have threatened to vote for McCain if their candidate loses, what better way is there to appease them? It's a win-win situation isn't it?

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 12:19:04 PM

  (0+)

I believe that even more democrats would defect if the ticket were combined.

How can two people who don't even agree on whether is gets dark at night ever hope to get along...especially with Uncle Bill in the Whitehouse?

No, a combined ticket would smell of pandering from coast to coast.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 2:37:10 PM

  (0+)

I respect your opinion and perhaps you're right but the outcome of either scenario is speculative at this point. I don't know if it will happen. I'm not even sure I would want it to happen, but I still believe in November the bulk of the democrats will in spite of this, remain loyal to the party. I just can't see it ripping the party apart. Those who aren't happy about Hillary(or Obama) will do what they would anyway. The option is another Bush term and I don't think any democrat wants that.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 3:55:07 PM

  (0+)

There's a reason why women voters -- of all ages -- are deserting Hillary Clinton. It's the same reason why Clinton is rapidly losing support among the Democratic Party "superdelegates."

That reason is her very bellicose remarks about Iran. Her vow to "obliterate" Iran if the Islamic Republic attacks Israel has shocked and infuriated many of her supporters -- and has prompted them to abandon her and switch to Barack Obama.

One doesn't have to be a nuclear physicist to know what it would take for the U.S. to "obliterate" Iran; it means the use of nuclear weapons -- a fact that Clinton did not deny in a follow-up interview.

Now Clinton is suddenly hitting hard on her inistence that the delegates from Florida and Michigan -- which were chosen in violation of party rules  -- be included.

There's one reason -- and ONLY one reason -- why she's stressing Florida and Michigan now: She's rapidly losing the support of the superdelegates.

And she's losing their support because of her Iran comments.

Now she's being compared to McCain -- and even President Bush -- on matters of war and peace. The fact that Clinton still refuses to apologize for her vote in the Senate to authorize the Iraq War is also coming back to bite her.

by Skeeter Sanders (32 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 78 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 3:04:34 PM

  (0+)

There's simply no valid excuse for that kind of provocative language, no matter what action a president may be forced to take in a given situation.

Her ridiculous exaggeration of Obama's statement about taking action against al-Qaeda leaders hiding in the mountains of Pakistan if Pakistan's government couldn't or wouldn't do it themselves is even more apparent when compared to her apocalyptic rhetoric.

Why do Hillary and McCain want to bomb everybody besides the people who actually attacked us?

by JC Garrett (40 articles, 65 quicklinks, 7 diaries, 604 comments [10 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 4:22:10 PM

  (0+)

Barrack did make those statements. But after yesterday's election results I agree with you. That obliteration commentary hurt her badly. It was a stupid remark and it cost her.

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 11:52:17 AM

  (0+)

Although I am an Obama supporter -- never have liked Hillary ever since she moved to New York -- regardless of which Democrat wins, I will support that Democrat to the hilt.  McCain announced today that he will appoint even more conservative judges.  It is our legal and judicial system which is the ultimate protection for us as much as anything that is under attack at this time. 

Referring back to the comments by Shirley Reese, perhaps it is our shared name, but I too fear that come October we will have Martial Law.  All of Bush's Signing Statements, Executive Orders, and Legislation point in that direction.  Further just this week Adm. Cullen stated that it is dangerous to change administrations in the middle of a war.  Planting the seed ever so gently.  Then it will be watered by another carefully planned attack. 

by Shirley Bianchi (10 articles, 0 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 97 comments) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 4:35:49 PM

  (0+)

I really wouldn't worry too much about martial law. The rumors that Clinton would declare marshal law ran ramped during his last months. I think Lil' King Bush has already conceded the throne.

by Mike Folkerth (120 articles, 0 quicklinks, 2 diaries, 566 comments [1 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 5:39:00 PM

  (0+)

Watch the World According to Monsanto:  http://100777.com/node/1805

Hillary Clinton has close ties to this company, they are a big contributor to her campaign and she has done legal work for them.  This info comes from a friend of hers who has known her for years.  She is a monster with a sordid past and I wouldn't vote for her no matter who else was on the ticket. 

by macdon1 (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 113 comments [4 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Tuesday, May 6, 2008 at 7:16:26 PM

  (0+)

It will be more interesting to see how many people desert the Democratic Party this 2008 election. It is clear 95% of the blacks vote for Obama just because he is black. I can see a huge number of whites doing the same when the “change” Obama wants comes to light.

It is clear from the last two elections the nation is spit between Republicans and Democrats about 45% each and 10% other. That means 22.5% of the population currently supports Obama and 22.5 support Clinton. Half of Obama's support is the 12% black population in the United States.

If even 5% of the white Democrats vote based on race, as 95% of the blacks have, there is no chance a Democrat will be in office after the 2008 election without a huge amount of election fraud.

Fraud was clearly attempted in northern Indiana but still failed to bump Hillary.

by Gallaher (2 articles, 0 quicklinks, 4 diaries, 990 comments [34 recommended, 1 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 4:17:19 AM

  (0+)

You present some interesting possibilities there. In fact it's a pretty good argument. Another interesting tidbit in all of this is of all of those who say they would vote for McCain if their candidate loses, most of them overwhelmingly come from the Hillary camp.

I still believe the democrats will unite with Obama in November, race card or not. And the facts are evident that Barrack now overwhelmingly has the popular vote even if you count Florida and Michigan.

As for election manipulations in Indiana go, I fail to see Obama having anything to do with that. In fact if anyone had better access to manipulating the vote there it would be the republican party. So perhaps the real question is do the republicans believe their chances are better against Obama than Clinton? The major media is obviously on Clinton's side and the major media is owned by the right. The MIC sees dealing with Clinton as better than Obama too. There are also indications the republicans would rather run against Clinton than Obama.

Hillary's commentary about obliteration was damning, more damning then even I would have suspected just a day ago. Her arguments in Obama having the inability to carry a big state and that she is more electable just flew out the window.  

by Michael Shaw (12 articles, 1 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 439 comments [16 recommended, 0 rejected]) on Wednesday, May 7, 2008 at 11:47:30 AM

  (0+)