The scheisse man cometh... can obama stand up to him?

With Barack's successes, and Hillary's deep problems, the Republicans see blood on the moon.

Here's comes the smut, Thelma.

They're sharpening the box-cutters, and buffing out the talking points. The White House is tuning up the fear generator; the 527's are auditioning the voices of doom, and actresses who can do the best "slut."

Rachel Maddow (KTTH m-f, 3-5p) described Barack on MSNBC Tuesday night as a cute little bunny frolicking as the Republican Shit Machine, like a giant snow plow bears down.

Rachel says Republicans win elections when Americans are afraid.

Item: WASHINGTON (AP) -- President Bush pressured the House on Wednesday to pass new rules for monitoring terrorists' communications, saying "terrorists are planning new attacks on our country ... that will make Sept. 11 pale by comparison."

Item: Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates issued a stark warning on Sunday to Europeans, saying that their safety from terrorist attack by Islamic extremists was directly linked to NATO’s success in stabilizing Afghanistan.

Here are the talking points fresh from the Shit Machine:

• Obama is likable but he's the most liberal member of the Senate
• Obama is likable but America is not ready for his extreme views
• Obama is likable but he's foreign policy lite.
• Obama is likable but is he mature enough to meet the challenge of a dangerous world?
• Obama is likable but he's black.
• Obama is likable but he made some bad choices when he was young.
• Obama is likable but Americans don't really know him.
• Obama is likable but will Americans still like him when they find out who he really isn't? (read: "when we get done with him")

Barack's never had a negative ad run against him, as the Clinton campaign keeps telling us. He only had to step over the silly little Elmer Fudd/Gantry-like Alan Keyes to be elected to the Senate.

If he thinks the Clintons are mean, he ain't seen shit-- at least not like that extruded from The Machine. He'd better peddle hard to keep up those atmospherics and make sure that tsunami is still cresting after suffering eight long, long months of incoming.

He'd better drop his pledge of nice; get aggressive, and into the realpolitics of fighting shit with shit. Everybody says they wanna be transformed, and want a politicians who can be above all that nasty stuff, but that stuff has never not worked in presidential politics.

When she began in the Senate, Hillary Clinton dove into the subject, and won respect of the security community in the process; she's been inoculating herself from the "Democrats are weak on security" charge ever since.

Barack has not. Our darkest fears are he'll look vulnerable and wet behind the ears when the 2008 version of Threat Level Orange starts making Americans nervous and looking to the Daddy Party.   

This could be trumped, of course if all the folks Barack's wowing now stay engaged and takes takes him (and us) to victory. The 2 to 1 Democrats to Republican voter turn-out is very impressive. The demographic he's winning, and how well he's done so far against daunting and experienced foes gives us flashes of optimism.

But hearing the R's getting ready to rumble gives us the shivers and flash us back to those dark days in October 2004 as we watched our good candidate, a war hero, and thoroughly capable guy, reduced to rubble by some flabby Texas dirty tricksters with a few hundred thousand bucks, a website and the megaphone of talk radio.

We like Barack, and maybe it's just heebie-jeebies, but underestimating the morally-challenged  right-winger who still hold the levers of power would be, as Luke Burbank would say, "not awesome."

Comments

[abob]

Obama has The Audacity of a Dope.

"I reject the Bush Administration's claim that the President has plenary authority under the Constitution to detain US citizens without charges as unlawful enemy combatants" _ barack obama

Supreme Court ruled in 2004, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld: The president has the power to detain American citizens without charges as enemy combatants.

[artistdogboy]

Is the promise of this article really just feminist-man crush Hillary sour gropes? Like here and Bill would somehow do better dealing with Republican dirty tricks? God the Clinton scandals yet unearth out there or the polarizing nature of the Clinton in general?

NO BODY IS LISTENING APPARENTLY.
Get over the fear mongering people and stop being a bunch of gutless lefty wimps.

Obama will kick old grumpy McCane's
ass up one side of the street and down the other. Think contrast. That's if McGrumpy doesn't blow a gasket on his own and say AH FUCK HOPE on national TV during one of the debates.

[Sal Comida]

Obama is a punk. He's gonna look like little boy blue when Rove gets done w/him. He can't even talk tough much less do something tough. hope my ass. We're not ready for a black guy president yetin this country. No woman either. White men still kick ass and the rest of the world can see, and they need to see.

[Ken]

Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate. He is more liberal than Ted Kennedy, Bernie Sanders, or Mrs. Clinton.

Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record. Walter Mondale promised to raise our taxes, and he lost. George McGovern promised military weakness, and he lost. Michael Dukakis promised a liberal domestic agenda, and he lost.

Yet Mr. Obama is promising all those things, and he’s not behind in the polls. Why? Because the press has dealt with him as if he were in a beauty pageant.

Mr. Obama talks about getting past party, getting past red and blue, to lead the United States of America. But let’s look at the more defined strokes of who he is underneath this superficial “beauty.”

Start with national security, since the president’s most important duties are as commander-in-chief. Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, who vows to destroy Israel and create another Holocaust; and Kim Jong II, who is murdering and starving his people, but emphasized that the nuclear option was off the table against terrorists — something no president has ever taken off the table since we created nuclear weapons in the 1940s. Even Democrats who have worked in national security condemned all of those remarks. Mr. Obama is a foreign-policy novice who would put our national security at risk.

Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. And free trade agreements, created by Bill Clinton as well as President Bush, have made more goods more affordable so that even people of modest means can live a life that no one imagined a generation ago. Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over. Big Brother on steroids, funded by your paycheck.

Finally, look at the social issues. Mr. Obama had the audacity to open a stadium rally by saying, “All praise and glory to God!” but says that Christian leaders speaking for life and marriage have “hijacked” — hijacked — Christianity. He is pro-partial birth abortion, and promises to appoint Supreme Court justices who will rule any restriction on it unconstitutional. He espouses the abortion views of Margaret Sanger, one of the early advocates of racial cleansing. His spiritual leaders endorse homosexual marriage, and he is moving in that direction. In Illinois, he refused to vote against a statewide ban — ban — on all handguns in the state. These are radical left, Hollywood, and San Francisco values, not Middle America values.

The real Mr. Obama is an easy target for the general election. Mrs. Clinton is a far tougher opponent. But Mr. Obama could win if people don’t start looking behind his veneer and flowery speeches. His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers. Uniting the country means adopting his liberal agenda and abandoning any conflicting beliefs.

[Duffman]

If indeed Obama wins the nomination (& I still think he will NOT, as Mrs Clinton will win these last biggies AND maintain her support of the Super Dels) he will have no trouble dealing with the Republicans. It's a foregone conclusion that this next election will be won by Democrats. Our Country will demand it...PERIOD!
As Obama has matured as a seasoned debator (from his first) so shall he learn all he needs to know to combat the lies the Republican spin-meisters will churn. If Rove is even involved, he will be ineffective I think - mainly because of our Country's passionate desire for CHANGE.
The only real fear I have of an Obama administration is how he will handle our National security and his stance on our military.
But again I still think it will be Mrs Clinton and she has learned enough about our military to be convinced that without military strength we could very well suffer the insecurities of an Isreal, literally afraid to gather in groups for fear of being blown up or similar. Mrs Clinton IS CHANGE but the kind of change that will not tamper with our security. :)

[abob]

Ken Starr spent $76 million investigating and examining every microscopic detail of Hillary Clinton's entire existence. The smear merchants have nothing left to uncover about her. Obama is whole new territory. God only knows what Obama scandals the Republicans are poised to expose.

[joanie]

I'm not sure...for once I agree with a-boob. I can't imagine there's another non-scandal for the Limbaugh Loonies to unearth on Hillary.

They would do just fine rehashing to the ones already out there.

I have a feeling - yes, no facts heres - that this country might finally be tired of the constant cry of wolf coming from the right and just might refuse to listen to more swift-boating attempts.

Just maybe...

[Master Po]

You have to ask yourself, are you going to vote for someone because they're the safest choice, or are you going to vote for who you think it going to be best for this nation? Sounds like a lot of you are voting through fear. That the Republicans will find less on Clinton than Obama. I wonder if that's how voters used to vote for Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln?

[cowpotpi3]

And here come the trolls.

There are so many lies spewed out by some of the above posters it boggles the mind. Let me just say that either you guys just believe whatever the Faux Newses of the world tell you or you are truly un-American and cowardly. Let's just take a look at a few of the lies and distortions, shall we?

[i]Aboob's tripe:[/i] Civics 101, he gets to disagree with whoever he wants. If you're talking about audacity, the easier path would be to do what you do: ask Bush to do your thinking for you. He spoke out. Habeas Corpus - you don't support it and he does. He's a patriotic American so if we're going to try people we ought to have some evidence and a trial. Disagree if you like but calling it unaudacious is ludicrous.

[i]salcomIDIOT: "Obama is a punk. He's gonna look like little boy blue when Rove gets done w/him. He can't even talk tough much less do something tough. hope my ass. We're not ready for a black guy president yetin this country. No woman either. White men still kick ass and the rest of the world can see, and they need to see."[/i]

White guys are superior...yep got it. Apparently there is one white guy who needs to go back to school to learn that he's a cowardly racist scumbag...and some grammar too.

Kenny the gimp...One by one:

[i]"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."[/i]

We've been over this before...you're referring to a poorly constructed and politically motivated survey of Senate votes during an election year. Basically, National Review took how many votes he cast for the 'liberal position' versus the ones he took for the 'conservative' one. In an election year. Think...I know its difficult but when you're out on the road you tend to miss a lot of votes unless your party really needs you. By the way last year we was 16th.

[i]more Ken: "Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record.[/i]

You are operating on the fallacy that he is the most liberal Senator. This statement is not provable so your argument is flawed. Can you prove he is liberal save for ONE article you read on a right wing blog? Jeez you really are gullible.

[i]Ken...I apologize for the following but you are about to have a fool made of yourself:

"Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad..."[/i]

Obama said he would go after al-queda there if Musharaf wouldn't - "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Here is the kicker, my unthinking conservative wingnut: Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

Now on to Ahmadinejad:

I'm sure you would like to just bomb them, but speaking to him doesn't lend him legitimacy, it shows him as the idiot he is. Shunning the guy creates an aura of power for him and gives him the ability to 'defy' the US. Shit we even met with the Soviets back in the day...a far more deadly threat to national security. This is just a lame attempt to diss Obama.

[i]Ken: Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. [/i]

Oops: Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the highest in the world.[23] Despite this, only an estimated 84.2% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer, purchased individually, or through government sources. The number of uninsured increased from 44.8 million to 47.0 million from 2005 to 2006.[17] One study estimates that about 25% of the country's uninsured, or roughly another 11 million people, are eligible for government health care programs but unenrolled. However, assuring adequate financing to cover those who are eligible remains a challenge.

FYI the sources are cited at the end of the Wiki entry for brevity I won't post them here.

Do you call 11 million uninsured people the "best in the world?" Nice definition.

[i]Ken: Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over." [/i]

I'd like to see you prove any of that. Have any sources or shall we just have to take your word for it? Too bad for you your opinion is wrong again. Omama's statement on tax reform.

He doesn't say anything about taxes for any of the items you list. He talks only about relieving tax burden on middle and lower income people (aka you most likely) and closing offshore loopholes for corporations. Poor Ken...wrong again.

[i]Ken on partial birth abortion[/i]

Nice try pal...but let's look at what he actually was voting on: n 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

The bill had two things in it...partial birth and banning ALL abortions. This is called bundling issues together so you can come back at a later date and say that Senator Obama voted against it. You really suck at this, Ken.

[i]His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers.[/i]

No, that isn't what is said...that's called your interpretation in your wingnut mind of what he said. Did you just label yourself a hijacker of American values and a warmonger? He didn't so why bring it up?

So there you have it. All of the tripe taken apart piece by piece. You guys need to talk about what positive things you want to do for the country instead of running on: 1)fear 2)hatred 3)religion.

[Duffman]

Washington, Jefferson, and Lincoln predates CNN/MSNBC/FOX/ROVE/LIMBAUGH/HANNITY/INGRAM, etc., et. al. and INSTANT communications :)

[cowpotpi3]

And here come the trolls.

There are so many lies spewed out by some of the above posters it boggles the mind. Let me just say that either you guys just believe whatever the Faux Newses of the world tell you or you are truly un-American and cowardly. Let's just take a look at a few of the lies and distortions, shall we?

[i]Aboob's tripe:[/i] Civics 101, he gets to disagree with whoever he wants. If you're talking about audacity, the easier path would be to do what you do: ask Bush to do your thinking for you. He spoke out. Habeas Corpus - you don't support it and he does. He's a patriotic American so if we're going to try people we ought to have some evidence and a trial. Disagree if you like but calling it unaudacious is ludicrous.

[i]salcomIDIOT: "Obama is a punk. He's gonna look like little boy blue when Rove gets done w/him. He can't even talk tough much less do something tough. hope my ass. We're not ready for a black guy president yetin this country. No woman either. White men still kick ass and the rest of the world can see, and they need to see."[/i]

White guys are superior...yep got it. Apparently there is one white guy who needs to go back to school to learn that he's a cowardly racist scumbag...and some grammar too.

Kenny the gimp...One by one:

[i]"Mr. Obama is the single most liberal senator in the entire U.S. Senate."[/i]

We've been over this before...you're referring to a poorly constructed and politically motivated survey of Senate votes during an election year. Basically, National Review took how many votes he cast for the 'liberal position' versus the ones he took for the 'conservative' one. In an election year. Think...I know its difficult but when you're out on the road you tend to miss a lot of votes unless your party really needs you. By the way last year we was 16th.

[i]more Ken: "Never in my life have I seen a presidential frontrunner whose rhetoric is so far removed from his record.[/i]

You are operating on the fallacy that he is the most liberal Senator. This statement is not provable so your argument is flawed. Can you prove he is liberal save for ONE article you read on a right wing blog? Jeez you really are gullible.

[i]Ken...I apologize for the following but you are about to have a fool made of yourself:

"Over the summer, Mr. Obama talked about invading Pakistan, a nation armed with nuclear weapons; meeting without preconditions with Mahmoud Ahmadinejad..."[/i]

Obama said he would go after al-queda there if Musharaf wouldn't - "There are terrorists holed up in those mountains who murdered 3,000 Americans," he said. "They are plotting to strike again. . . . If we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets and President Musharraf won't act, we will."

Here is the kicker, my unthinking conservative wingnut: Although Pakistan has said it won't allow U.S. troops to operate within its territory, "we would take the action necessary to bring him to justice."

Now on to Ahmadinejad:

I'm sure you would like to just bomb them, but speaking to him doesn't lend him legitimacy, it shows him as the idiot he is. Shunning the guy creates an aura of power for him and gives him the ability to 'defy' the US. Shit we even met with the Soviets back in the day...a far more deadly threat to national security. This is just a lame attempt to diss Obama.

[i]Ken: Next, consider economic policy. For all its faults, our health care system is the strongest in the world. [/i]

Oops: Current estimates put U.S. health care spending at approximately 15% of GDP, the highest in the world.[23] Despite this, only an estimated 84.2% of citizens have some form of health insurance coverage, either through their employer, purchased individually, or through government sources. The number of uninsured increased from 44.8 million to 47.0 million from 2005 to 2006.[17] One study estimates that about 25% of the country's uninsured, or roughly another 11 million people, are eligible for government health care programs but unenrolled. However, assuring adequate financing to cover those who are eligible remains a challenge.

FYI the sources are cited at the end of the Wiki entry for brevity I won't post them here.

Do you call 11 million uninsured people the "best in the world?" Nice definition.

[i]Ken: Yet Mr. Obama promises to raise taxes on “the rich.” How to fix Social Security? Raise taxes. How to fix Medicare? Raise taxes. Prescription drugs? Raise taxes. Free college? Raise taxes. Socialize medicine? Raise taxes. His solution to everything is to have government take it over." [/i]

I'd like to see you prove any of that. Have any sources or shall we just have to take your word for it? Too bad for you your opinion is wrong again. Omama's statement on tax reform.

He doesn't say anything about taxes for any of the items you list. He talks only about relieving tax burden on middle and lower income people (aka you most likely) and closing offshore loopholes for corporations. Poor Ken...wrong again.

[i]Ken on partial birth abortion[/i]

Nice try pal...but let's look at what he actually was voting on: n 1997, Obama voted against SB 230, which would have turned doctors into felons by banning so-called partial-birth abortion, & against a 2000 bill banning state funding. Although these bills included an exception to save the life of the mother, they didn't include anything about abortions necessary to protect the health of the mother. The legislation defined a fetus as a person, & could have criminalized virtually all abortion.

The bill had two things in it...partial birth and banning ALL abortions. This is called bundling issues together so you can come back at a later date and say that Senator Obama voted against it. You really suck at this, Ken.

[i]His vision of “bringing America together” means saying that those who disagree with his agenda for America are hijackers or warmongers.[/i]

No, that isn't what is said...that's called your interpretation in your wingnut mind of what he said. Did you just label yourself a hijacker of American values and a warmonger? He didn't so why bring it up?

So there you have it. All of the tripe taken apart piece by piece. You guys need to talk about what positive things you want to do for the country instead of running on: 1)fear 2)hatred 3)religion.

[wutitiz]

It is funny that Republicans, more specifically our "shit machine" are accused of being racists ("Obama is likable but he's black") when the only person so far to say that Obama is too black is Dem. Pennsylvania Gov. Ed Rendell, who predicted Obama would have problems in their primary because many white Dem. voters would not vote for a black man. Rendell, incidentally, defeated a black Republican to gain the governorship.

For Christ sake I do not like to paint with a broad brush, but since we Republicans continually get blanket accusations of racism, I'll just say outright that Dems traffic in 10 times more racial bigotry than R's these days.

Black Dem heros like Sharpton were initially cool to Obama. Why? Because Obama wanted to heal division, not foment it. Dems have made a living off division for the last decade or two. The vast majority of Americans want to move toward King's dream, and to leave racism on the ash heap of history. Dems like Sharpton cannot allow that, because it would mean a huge loss in political leverage for them.

Our current president has appointed the first and second black Sec'ys of State, in contrast to Dem administrations that have stuck blacks in posts like HUD and powerless posts like Surgeon General In a Dem admin. blacks must 'know their place.' Yet Bush is called racist, and Clinton the 'first black president.'

Un-fricking-believable.

[Duffman]

...and I believe it's 'scheisse', is it not? :)

[Duffman]

...and I believe it's 'scheisse', is it not? :)

[Duffman]

oops, sorry 'bout that hiccup! :)

[cowpotpi3]

Wzzzz: If the shoe fits... Look you can't defend the Republican party and their surrogates race baiting by saying someone else 'did it too.' That doesn't answer the question and disingenuously attempts to shift the blame and change the argument you know you're wrong about.

Look your point about appointing two black people to those positions is interesting...but that's two individuals you're talking about. What about policy? Can you sit there with a straight face and argue that policy has been positive for blacks under Bush? You know you can't.

[coiler]

What "scandals" does Obama have, other than as Stephen Colbert noticed the other day, "OMG, he has a black baby"....

[Duffman]

Sie sind willkommen!

[Dana]

>>Obama will kick old grumpy McCane's ass up one side of the street and down the other.<<

He CAN, but will he? I think Michael Hood has hit the nail squarely on the head. If the Powers of Darkness fight dirty, so should Obama. I hope he's got his people out digging up dirt and brainstorming even as we speak.

[Duffman]

...and there is absolutely NO TRUTH to the speculation that Obama is JFK's illegitimate son and secertly resides in Vancouver, Canada. :)

[abob]

I have reservations about electing a black president. Blacks are a very demanding ethnic group and I'm concerned a black in the White House may go overboard in catering to their special interests. One redeeming factor about Obama is that he is half white; so I might vote for that half.

[cowpotpi3]

Thank you to Abob for having the stones to actually say what most Conservatives are thinking but fear to speak for fear of being called racists.

We elect people to the Presidency that have special interests all the time. Are black people a special interest group in the mind of a Conservative? See that's what anyone who isn't a die hard right winger would call racism: assuming that he will put some so-called 'black agenda' before the office.

I think even you guys can come up with several obvious special interest groups Bush panders to without having to play the race card.

The fact that you call into question his race as a deciding factor for why he isn't qualified to be President shows how Paleolithic you guys really are. I encourage you to act like men and join the 21st century.

[Duffman]

"I encourage you to act like men and join the 21st century."

Careful there CPP3, that could be regarded as somewhat of a sexist statement. :)

[cowpotpi3]

Men...you know as in what Abob claims to be. I'll fix it for you to make it unisex (I guess you like that kind of thing): "Quit being morally bankrupt cowards and join the 21st century."

[coiler]

Has Hillary explained her no-show at the FISA vote, Duffman?

[Duffman]

Well re-coil all I've been able to astertain so far is that she apparently 'would have been there' for the vote had it been close. I'm hoping this question comes up in the debate. Sound fair? And thanks for asking. :)

[Duffman]

Hope you know I'm just teasing you CPP3...your posts are most interesting and in-depth; gives me a feeling of power to be able to correct you...ha

[coiler]

So, if the vote would of been 'close', she would of taken the ear-piece out, telling her the vote was close and jumped on the next plane from Texas to vote? She'll dodge the question in the debate, if she still has any of her cash left around to be there.

[sparky]

What you are ignoring is the fact that there are HUGE, GINORMOUS crowds showing up to vote on the Dem side, and they are there because of Obama. You can give people a whole long laundry list of why they shouldn't vote for him, but people are ignoring you and the pundits who do this every night. Obama keeps winning and they shake their heads in disbelief.

I disgree that people will be scared this time by Bush's piehole...not with his record of making shit up in an attempt to divert people's attention.

McCain, who has been quite vocal about not using torture, voted IN FAVOR of it yesterday, in order to gain a few more votes.

[Humbert Humbert]

Sparky, may I ask who you want the democratic nominee to be? And, do you think who you want will the same as who is selected? Example, do you want Obama but think it will be Clinton?

[sparky]

Great quote about Bush from Senator Kennedy:

The President has said that American lives will be sacrificed if Congress does not change FISA. But he has also said that he will veto any FISA bill that does not grant retro-active immunity. No immunity, no FISA bill. So if we take the President at his word, he's willing to let Americans die to protect the phone companies.

[sparky]

I want John Edwards or Al Gore, but since that won't happen, my second choice is Obama.

As for your second question, I have no clue. If the elections were handled honestly, I think Obama would win. The crowds are huge and people are being inspired to vote when they have never voted before. Imagine what we could do as a country if that passion could be harnessed into making this country better.

If Hillary demands that the delegates be seated from Florida and Michigan, after assuring everyone she would not campaign there, it could make a difference if she can bend them to her will.
Just one of many reasons I don't like her.

[sparky]

Plus, that idea that Obama is the most liberal member of Congress was put out there by a Republican think tank. The media grabbed it and ran with it, neglecting to mention where they got it.

[Duffman]

With all due respect to you 'experts', She’s Still Alive!

[Duffman]

...and YES!!!

[sparky]

If she keeps telling people that Obama didn't win any of the "important states" she won't need to worry about spending any more money on a campaign.

[mercifurious]

I don't buy it Sparks, Coiler.

She seemed pretty adamant about checks and balances when she gave her big speech.

But when it comes right down to being our check? She sits on her hands - Says she 'would have been there' (We won't bother asking for a source on that one)

Better to be popular than to be our advocate against power, right? I get it. We all get it.

Occam's Razor:
A.) She was more interested in being popular
B.) The Telecoms got to her.

On a basic level, it's called courage against adversity. One candidate showed it. One did not.

[blathering michael]

my question is: should by chance Hillary win, are you going to say she stole it and walk away from the Democratic Party? Is this a robust debate or the death match it seems to be?
BTW, Obama's most liberal designation was in the Nat'l Journal ratings... Makes me feel better, but of course the R's are already using it as a club.

[Duffman]

Nate,I think you've been listening to way too much Limbaugh! :)

[sparky]

those are good questions, Bla'm. I already consider myself a GDI ( left over from college days, anti-sorority and all...) so I am not sure there is much to walk away from already. It IS becoming more of a death match, and I hate that. Im not sure how much of that is Hillary, and how much of that comes from pressure from Bill and her crew. I have lost what respect I had left for Bill Clinton. He is literally drooling at the thought of being back in the white house, and I think Hillary would have a lot of problems with him butting in.
I think a lot of people will think she stole it if there is any question about delegates. There are 95,000 votes still not counted in California. There are many more thousands not counted yet in New Mexico. Funny how in the states Hillary won, there have been voting problems every time? And since her name was the ONLY name on the ballot in Michigan, it is pretty silly to claim she "won"....

[Mary Nam's future boyfriend]

Ok, I found my new name.

My prediction ... Obama's popular momentum will be for naught. The super-delegates are going for Clinton, and will put her over the top. Personally, I want Obama. Clinton is Republican-lite. That said, I think Clinton would have a better chance of beating McCain than Obama.

[Duffman]

I suggest you doubters of Mrs Clinton Fill In The Form and put away your differences. :)

[sparky]

why vote for "lite" when you can have the real thing?

[Bill]

Mary Nam Reportrix. She's beautiful, single, lives alone, and has a dog. She runs "triathlons." She is also queer sensitive. Stay away Gay Gary.

[Duffman]

Like the way you think MNfb! :)

[WTF]

"Rachel Maddow (KTTH m-f, 3-5p) described Barack on MSNBC..."

Rachel Maddow is now doing afternoons at KTTH? What happened to Dave Boze? Wow, he was fired and replaced with syndication---and there is no "R.I.P. David Boze" on the Web site!

[Duffman]

...but (there's always a catch), lo siento mucho...it appears she is a COUG! :)

[Mr. Mary Nam]

I cannot find a flaw with her. I felt the same way about Alison Starling, if you remember her. But Mary Nam is the perfect woman. What's strange is as much as I'm infatuated with her, I don't go out of my way to watch her. I normally watch KIRO or KING. Not sure why. Just a habit. But my God, what a woman.

[Duffman]

I know, I know DT...you're just more drawn to...jean enerson; I understand! :)

[mercifurious]

Bla'm - "No" and "Never". I've said this before, but again:

First and foremost, I am a member of the Democratic Party - always have been. Not a Clintonite. Not an Obamanite. Not a "Left-Leaning Independent" who reads WorldNetDaily. I'm not about to turn-over my membership because of an interparty personality contest.

But right now, I'm fighting like hell for the best candidate (we all are, and Chuthlu-bless us for that!) One that can be trusted, be our advocate, and be best representative of the DNC Platform.
In my well-sourced opinion, Clinton does not meet that criteria - and I've given several reasons why - and therefore she is not my first choice. Obama does better - and after this last Telecom vote, he's not afraid to make tough votes under fire. His charisma is just a bonus - a great attribute that can bring independents into the fold without compromising principles. Simple.

Beyond this, for the first time in a long time two candidates - both great choices - have made it past Super Tuesday (plus) without a clear winner. Thus, the debate continues. More debate = good thing: our eventual candidate will be more thoroughly vetted, and not just "the best we could come up with" (McCain).

People and pundits are then fearing a brokered convention. I'm not. We have a great chairman - a strong democrat with no personal allegiences & no dog in this fight. I trust his judgement in working with both sides to form a winning coalition. With the votes this close, both Obama & Clinton will have an important role in the eventual nominee's campaign. Again: exciting prospect.

Brass tacks: In November, this will come down to a clear difference between core values and principles: There's vs. Our's.

After evaluating my values against both, there is not doubt where I stand. An easy choice.