Clinton the right choice

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

4 years ago we choosed Kerry the so called experience candidate and the Democratic part failed to secure the white house. Hillary has less than 8 years of legislative experience and Obama has 11. Hillary is running on her husbands records and as a former first lady. Being a first lady does not provide the right kind of experience she claim. She did not have a top secret clearance at that time and regardless by law she is not to be more involved in the decision of the president tnan the secretary of state, vice president and other top officials of the president. Most importantly Hillary has refused to release her white house records. All we have is a failed health care.

The decision to endorse Hillary and also decieve your audience by making it look like Obama has less legislative experience which is the only position both hold is flawed. Edward and Obama has more experience than Hillary based on their records. We are electing Hillary and not Bill Clinton. She should run on her record

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:39 a.m.

Comment removed by staff.

By PulSamsara: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:10 a.m.; Suggest removal

Barack Obama for President of the UNITED States of America.

By JLev: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary is more than just the "experience candidate," eldorado, and it's completely unfair to compare her to Kerry in that manner. Especially when she's running on the same platform as her challengers. Who's to say that a less experienced candidate would not have done worse? Also, in the great state of Massachusetts, he had never faced a serious contest from the Republican machine. They've been assailing Hillary for decades, and she knows how to beat them. Her husband knows how to beat them. He's the only two term Democratic president since FDR. I think that counts for something, Dusacre, despite any mistakes he made in his PERSONAL life. But Hillary is not her husband, she is just advised by him. Her strength during said scandal is unmistakable, and I don't think we have to worry about her making the same mistake. Back to experience. I don't think there's any way that you can compare Laura or Barbara Bush to Hillary Clinton. She is among the most powerful first ladies in history, and they even campaigned in 1992 as a two-for-one. That's how impressive her resume was back then. Her experience as a public servant goes back to when Obama was in elementary school. She has lived an amazing life dating back to her time with the Children's defense fund, to her work on Watergate and with the Carter administration, to doing nearly as much for Arkansas as Bill, to serving on the board of the Arkansas-based Wal-Mart and trying to reform its environmental practices. As first lady, she traveled to over 80 countries building soft power, something the Bush administration knows nothing of. By the way - time spent as a part-time state legislator, while voting present countless important votes is nothing to brag about.

eldorado, she has a fantastic record in the senate, and is a leader on the environment and public works committee and armed services committee among others. She is recognized as one of the hardest working senators by folks on both sides of the aisle and has been extremely supporting of her constituents in New York. She is working to block Bush from forcing us to stay in Iraq for decades and has fought to get our troops the proper armor and protection they deserve. Her support of farmers and local agriculture is impeccable. What legislative record are you talking about? I think you need to check your facts. Just watch the debates and you'll see that her command of the issues is far and above that of her competitors.

By FJR: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

Please go caucus for Obama and tell everyone about Clintons and their record.

Anyone who wants to see the true Hillary, ask her or her supporters why she waffled after initially supporting NY GOV. Spitzer's plan to grant Drivers Licenses to illegal aliens in NY State; remember that terrible debate answer and then the aftermath in which she received a lot of negative airplay. The former President Bill Clinton asked the Governor to pull his plan so Hillary would not have to answer any more questions about it to get her off the hook. Look it up. That is the big supporter of Latinos.

Please call out Obama on his comments in the debate and check with any relatives or anyone else you know in Chicago to see if he has that kind of record there of saying anything to win the moment and move on with your vote to the next audience.

The Clintons record in the White House is they never stayed around to fight for us. They caved in on Affirmative Action and Welfare Reform, and most importantly, their Crime Bill that they brag put so many more officers on the street is also singularly responsible for a generation of historically high incarceration rates for black and brown people in this country. We also have the Clinton years to thank for the mandatory sentencing guidelines, eliminating the discretion of judges, and the disparity in sentencing between crack/cocaine sentences.

We Democrats mobilized to rally around them in 1998 and defend them from attacks, and that was entirely appropriate then. But they are the attackers now, attacking our Union and Obama just to make some kind of triumphant return to the White House; and we have to let them know that we love them but we need bolder, bigger cajones this time around. We need a homerun to sweep in majorities in both Houses of Congress with a message of hope and unity; and then we can claim a mandate to enact sweeping changes in legislation.

The truth that everyone reading this knows in his/her heart is that:

1. Any of our three Democratic candidates CAN win in November.

2. Only one could just as easily lose. (HRC is the only candidate with higher negative ratings than favorable one among all DEM and REP candidates)

3. And only one could win HUGE. (Obama has the biggest margin between favorable and negative ratings among all DEM and REP candidates)

We gotta go for it! This is why the female Senator McCaskill from MO and Gov. Napolitano from AZ along with Native American Sen. Nelson of Nebraska all endorsed Obama last week. No one wants the name Clinton on top of the ballot in their state, except the Republicans.

So please don't stay home. Everyone must go out Saturday and share your views with your neighbors. Go For It. And Ba-Rock the Vote!!!

By Jeffko: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:53 a.m.; Suggest removal

My guy is Edwards, I also think that your reasoning has merit. These previous comments here seem overblown. All three are heads and tails above what the "R"'s have to offer.

Go caucus. Do it with a good heart. Bring friends with, and support the winner at the end of the primary season.

Go have breakfast, calm down a little.

Let's stay friends.

By slbk: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

Not only was GW Bush incompetent, he was a puppet controlled and directed by others when they were interested, ie Iraq.

Who will control and direct Mr. Obama if elected? He does not have the experience or substance or conections to be running the Oval Office? Who will be his "advisors". He has already admitted himself he will need people around him to help him. The media needs to examine who these people will be as Mr. Obama's choice of advisers, who would have far too much influence given his lack of experience, is crucial.

We know his campaign is heavily backed by the nuclear lobby, so assume they will be involved. We know he atttends a very cult like black power church whose minister is a close person al friend of Farrakhan and has gone to Lybia to visit Ghadafi. This man is Obama's personal spiritual advisor, and prayed with the family about his candidacy and dedicated their home and baptised their children and married the Obama's.

Assume he will continue to be Mr. Obama's advisor. Do American's want a friend and admireer of Farakhan advising their President when the middle east is in crisis and the US is at war with Islamic militants?

We know he has had personal dealings involving a 300,000 dollar discount on his home, courtesy of a corrupt influence peddler.

These are serious questions that need to be asked. If Obama had more experience, more of a princpled voting record, and more substance to his candidacy, we could say he would not be that influenced by others. But history shows, and it its fair to say, that will not be the case with someone as inexperienced and unqualified for the job of President as Mr. Obama.

This is not swiftboating. Swiftboating was lies. This is appropriately vetting of a candidate. Obama's voting record is so thin, mostly non-votes of absence or presence, that really no noe knows what he would do as President. A such, I can't imagine why anyone, in good conscience with second thought, would vote for the man.

By 1950democrat: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

I applaud your choice, and urge everyone to go and caucus for Hillary. If anyone needs help to get to the caucus, call her campaign headquarters.

Obama is young and has plenty of time to run again later. He'll have a better chance after he has got more experience; now he can better serve the country in some ambassadorial position.

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan ,

You make no sense and it seems that you compare a teenage responsibility with that of a seating president of the united State of America in his second term?

Now we should magically separate Hilleary from Bill? How did Hillary gain her so-called experience in the last 35 years? Was it away from Bills? Remember the Clintons companying years ago saying that “buy one get one free"? Today a pathetic News Paper like Sun endorses the Clinton with a wrong kind of words:” Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office.” It is a joke to ask the Clintons “to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office “even after Bush. This is the logical equivalence of asking a pig to clean its pigtail. It will just make it messier. After all it is a pig..

Can Hillary go to the Whitehouse alone and leave Bill behind? She claimed that she will be ready for president the first day. Can she do it without Bill?

I am a democrat, but I will vote republican and even campaign for any republican reader than let the Clintons back in the Whitehouse. If the win the Whitehouse, I will leave the country reader than go through four more years of the Clintons. They are the most shameful people this country can send back to the Whitehouse! My God, eight years of crimes, felonies that shamed all Americans are not enough? You want four more? Is this my beloved USA or some backward country in some remote corner of the world?

You want to know why the Clintons stay 8 years in the Whitehouse. It was because the Democratic Party was behind them. The way Bill and Hillary attack Obama now, giving the support of Obama amount the democrat, the Democrat will no longer be behind the Clintons the way we were in the 90s.

The Clintons have divided the Democratic Party and will unite the republicans in such away that they will not win the Whitehouse any way.

By 1950democrat: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

'Swiftboating' means dishonestly destroying someone's well-known strength: for example saying that Kerry, a known war hero, had behaved badly in the war and possibly faked his wounds! Or saying Al Gore was a pathological liar, or that Hillary has no real experience because she was not the person elected to the governorship of Arkansas (12 years) or the White House.

By Debra: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

Think Democrats, do you want 4 years of the psycho drama that Hillary and Bill bring to the table. Didn't we have that experience before? They've done it again during this campaign, bringing up the negatives, inserting race, then retracting statements, union busting, misrepresenting records. Don't you all remember the divisiveness that went along with the Clintons that seems to be back again in full force. And when did it start? It started after Obama won Iowa. Then their power dream began to fade. Come on voters, this is not a game and certainly not one about power. We have too many problems to let this continuing backbiting, divisiveness continue. Obama has brought people together, not torn them apart. And most of all, we won't have another soap opera filling the newspapers rather than projects and plans to make people's lives better. Let's get a grip here. We don't have to hear again and again about poor Hillary's misery at Bill's unfaithfulness and the tears about how tough it is. Geez, don't you think you're wages, your future brings more real tears than whether Hillary will get to have her power. Wake up!

By Dutch: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary for president!!!
Experience, leadership, intellect and know-how is what the U.S. needs in the years ahead.
The economy is in bad shape and America's goodwill in the world is in ruins.
Hillary Clinton is what the U.S. needs.
Some people keep repeating some problems that occured in the nineties, but I think we shouldn't have been informed about that at all. That was a private matter and we all value our privacy.
The democrats are supportive of Hillary Clinton and if she gets a chance to prove herself so will the Republicans eventually.

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:55 a.m.; Suggest removal

Well, here is a link showing Hillary mocking American-Indians on youtube. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV...

So much for for racial sensitivity, notice that she also has a different accent. That is Hillary pandering to her audience. Is that the kind of leader we need? The Republicans will be happy to see Hillary as the Democratic nominee with all the baggage and scandal from the 90s. I sure hope the Democrats can do better, We do not run a monarchy system in this country.

Also her "35 years of experience" will not stand the scrutiny of the Republicans in the general election. This is resume inflation, and only the Clintons can lie like this publicly! Even Obama has more legislative experience than Hillary.

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:11 a.m.; Suggest removal

Debra,

American people are smart and very good people. They will not let the Clintons go back in the Whitehouse. If need be people like Bloomberg will jump in the race. I have great faith in the American people.

tim_japan.

For the Democratic Party, the question is a strategic one: who has a better chance of making the party stronger and winning the Whitehouse? the answer is simple:Obama, not Hillary. the Clintons are the past. Obama and Edwards are the future.

Dutch,

You wrote:"Some people keep repeating some problems that occured in the nineties"

How strange that your post talk about experiece but you don't want people to talk about the 90s. Can we talk about experience and omit time?

Stop repackaging Hillary like a disgusting marketer to sell her to us. Some in the Democratic Party may buy your BS. No matter how you repackage her, you will not be able to sell her in November. Stay in your trance and keep saying: " Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office". The Republican will give you a rude awakening in November if you nominate Hillary.
The Clintons are far beyond their political life cycle. There is nothing you can do about it! So you can repackage her, she may try to reinvented herself with funny smiles, the tricks here and there. The republican and the country will tear your repackaging apart in November and she will be exposed. For the sake of the Party please stop. The Clintons are the Democratic Party’s largest liability. There are not an asset due to the life cycle and their shameful behaviors in the Whitehouse the last 8 years we send them there.

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan, rather than abusing him, calling me delusional. Why don't you just state the facts -If you genuinely believe than Hillary has 35 years of work experience, please state the work experience, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of United States - whilst doing this she and her husband spent most of their time trying to avoid jail time. Is that the kind of experience she needs to run the White House?

You tell me, who is in right mind will send his young daughter to intern at a Clinton White House? I think for myself and I do not care about endorsements, either for Obama or Clinton. Endorsements do not mean anything to me. I just look at the facts, and I believe the Democratic Party would be making a big mistake if they nominate Clinton, because I can assure you Americans do not want to go through the definition of "IS" and all the garbage of the 90s that most of us would rather forget.

By AKBNYC: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

Lets hope this marks the beginning of the end for the Obama campaign. America might finally be realizing that putting the White House in the hands of Barack Obama would only further exacerbate our problems.

I am also glad that the debates are having an effect. Clinton is so commanding, and she is head and shoulders above the other two on policy and issues that matter.

We need a fighter and someone to get things done, not a catchy turn of phrase.

Clinton '08!

By AKBNYC: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan - amen!

For people who want "change" and "hope" to steer the ship, Obama's supporters are the most caustic people on the web. Their rhetoric and vitriolic spewing is worse than anything Hillary, Bill or their supporters put out there. Or, in the words of my candidate, "that's not change."

This is only further evidence of the superiority of the Clinton ticket.

By Girly_Girl: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

Yes!!!!!!! Thank you so much Las Vegas Sun!!!

We the real Democrats, Uniters and those against Yucca Mountain support Hillary 100%! We love you and thank you!

Viva Hillary!!!!!!!!!

By KMB: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

There is no doubt that Obama is inspirational and breath of fresh air. However, his appeal is that he is not a typical politician, will rise above Washington politics and thus will change Washington. The facts show this may not be entirely accurate. My point is only that all politicians are politicians, not that he is worse than Clinton. Clinton has not claimed to be as pure and Obama has. For the most part, he is an unknown quantity, and I believe his record on integrity deserves scrutiny in light of whether the facts support who he says he is.

1. When Clinton indicated that Obama's campaign was touting the race issue, he said such an assertion was "ludicrous." Then it came to light that his campaign distributed a memo to the media that hyped that Clinton was making comments that could be construed as race-related. That is certainly proliferating race even though he originally stated such an assertion was "ludicrous." Seems like a misrepresentation and political maneuver to me. Further, he said "“If I hear my own supporters engaging in talk that I think is ungenerous or misleading or in some way is unfair, I will speak out forcefully against it." And, it doesn't sound like this Press Secretary was fired. Similarly, his preacher mentioned Lewinsky the other day. Inappropriate just like Bob Johnson's comment. Both Obama and Clinton apologized, but his campaign attests to no "dirty politics" until he was called on it. In the same vein, Obama's statement of not being a COO is worth considering too. He said that he will run the government by having good people who will be accountable to him, but do his actions support that by not firing the Press Secretary and not distancing himself from the preacher?

2. He says his biggest legislative achievement is ethics reform, but it hasn't even been passed yet. Even though it may not be his fault, he is claiming credit for something that hasn't happened yet. Its misleading. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010...

3. Obama says he is above the use of lobbyists, but thats not true.
http://www.wtopnews.com/?nid=213&pid...

4. As to honesty and sincerity, there is a potential issue regarding Obama's ads and being transparent about his donors. http://www.politico.com/news/stories/010...
http://www.newsweek.com/id/94900

5. Regarding his position with nuclear power and Yuca mountain, his relationship to Exelon Corp. should be examined. http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/7509662.html...

All politicians are politicians - what is better "the devil you know or the devil you don't know"? Not only does Hillary have the competence and know-how to make change, she can beat the Republicans. Obama is an unknown. If anyone thinks the Clintons have played "politics" with the primary, just wait until the Republicans get involved. Think about Obama vs. a McCain? Obama will look a baby - he has zero foreign policy or national economic experience.

By pm: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

Thank you for the Endorsement. I believe she is the most qualified and ready to lead this nation after George Bush's fiasco of 8 years. Beware of a republican in a democrat's clothing -- there is NO real hope or change there. Why would the republicans go for a fake republican when they will have a real one in GE? It is a losing proposition all the way. The republicans in GE can easily turn the independents against this fake republican. We have to come together for our core democratic principles and values.

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Tim_Japan, very interesting. You want me to let go of the 90s - But that is the Clinton experience. That is their record. What happened to running on your record. If you are talking about snorting Cocaine, who best to tell us about that than Bill. - "I smoked it and I did not inhale"

At least Obama had the courage to tell the truth, the Clintons have always lied to the American people - Marc Rich Pardon Scandal, Monica Lewinsky, The blue dress .. Get real, some Democrats may want to sweep this under the carpet, but you can be sure that Independents, and Republicans will not forget the Clinton White House of the 90s. The General election is a different ball game, and we don't need to remind Americans of the Clinton Whitehouse of the 90s. We need fresh blood and minds, so any day, Obama, Bloomberg or Edwards will do better than Hillary with the general public.

By 1950democrat: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

For those who don't know, here are some short highlights of Hillary's foreign policy experience, and a list of 32 ambassadors supporting her:
http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2008/jan...

Here is a neat list of some of Hillary's accomplishments before and after her time in the White House:
http://1950democrat.livejournal.com/2185...

And here is a longer piece quoting many sources about Hillary's accomplishments for women and children, much of it overseas:
http://noquarterusa.net/blog/2007/12/18/...

By PulSamsara: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

"The Las Vegas Sun, however, said Clinton has the right blend of vision and experience, and an edge over Obama."

What experience ? Experience through osmosis ?
Experience having resided in the White House ?

Clinton's 'Experience' is a fallacy.
It makes for a nice campaign slogan but that is all it is.

If Clinton could translate her so called 'experience' into sound judgment she would not have voted us into Iraq. It's said over and over - and it's still the TRUTH.

By QuiQ74: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

The bottom line is that no other Democratic candidate will mobilize Republican voters to go to the polls in November like Hillary Clinton. Even of Republican voters are not fully supportive of their nominee, having Hillary on the November ballot will be enough to have them go out and cast their vote for McCain, Huckabee, or Romney.

Given Huckabee's recent statments about how he would use God's laws to change our Constitution, and the likelihood that he'll win South Carolina, voters need to really think about the consequences of having Hillary as the nominee.

By VOTER: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

Wonderful endorsement! The real thinking, working people know who can get the job done, and it is Hillary Clinton.

This is not American Idol, people, this is President and Commander in Chief!

You do not want a n00b in that job. No way.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

First Read
January 18, 2008

"Reuters/C-Span/Zogby poll has Clinton up by five points, 42%-37%. But a caveat about the Nevada polls: We just don’t know who will actually show up at these caucuses. If Iowa was difficult to poll, Nevada might to 10-times harder.

Clinton picks up an endorsement from the Las Vegas Sun, while Obama gets one from the Reno Gazette Journal.

Do note, however, that the Sun’s editor, Brian Greenspun, is a HUGE Clinton supporter. "

The endorsement was a done deal way in advance

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:51 a.m.; Suggest removal

NEW YORK OBSERVER (from last May)

"For the Clintons, an Editor and a Friend
by Jason Horowitz
May. 1st, 2007, 12:06 pm

It wasn’t until after Hillary Clinton’s most recent visit to Nevada this Sunday that I noticed this, but as one of her donors based there told me, she was the beneficiary of a fund-raiser hosted for her at the local Four Seasons a month ago by two supporters named Brian and Myra Greenspun.

Brian Greenspun is the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, one of the city's two daily newspapers.

The paper disclosed its editor's political activity in an April 17 blog post that said that the Greenspun family, "which publishes the Las Vegas Sun, donated a combined $31,400 this year to the presidential campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton." (Greenspun’s official title is “President and Editor.”)

Senators Barack Obama and Chris Dodd also received donations from the family, but, according to the paper, "Sun Editor Brian Greenspun is a close friend of President Bill Clinton, the senator's husband."

Given the fact that Nevada is going to hold one of the country's earliest and potentially most influential primary contests, that seems like a pretty useful friendship for the Clintons to have."

By JLev: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:52 a.m.; Suggest removal

Speaking of judgement PulSmsara:

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country …'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' [Obama] said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.'" "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]
----

If you're looking for a way to denigrate Hillary, you can find better reasons than lack of experience. Using that talking point just displays your ignorance. Most people who hate the Clintons know very little about them.

By dee2008: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

Good article. The logic is clear.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

actually we all know too much entirely about the Clintons and the Bushes--

By Dutch: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

Dear Dusacre,

Get a life. Enjoy your weekend!

I can live a happy life with all of the candidates as president. I wonder if you can with either one of the candidates as president.
Stop bashing Hillary Clinton if you don't want her to come out stronger. That seems to be a reaction that normally occurs with her.
A vote for Hillary is a vote for the best candidate in the field.
Obama definetely has my vote in 2016.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:05 a.m.; Suggest removal

Oprah clearly stated she was an Obama supporter--

Are you saying tim_japan -- that someone declaring their support for any candidate is the same thing as a Major Newspaper Editorial in an early Caucus/primary state that does not mention that the Editor was "on the team" of a particular candidate??

Newspapers/TV may have an ideological point of view - but other than FOX (Roger Ailes/Giuliani) there is not usually a PERSONAL connection to this degree --

I don't think that many of the readers of the LVS endorsement knew in advance this was a done deal --

Maybe you did -

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:07 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan -- pretty hostile and defensive reaction

I was merely reprinting an article about the connection between the LVS and their foregone conclusion endorsement--

I think this is somethng everyone reading the encorsement should be aware of

Then draw their own conclusions --

By Irishamerican: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

I totally disagree with your choice. I also think you are missing the forest for the trees.
1.) Hillary Clinton voted for the war, without reading the NIE. Her judgement was to try to protect her right political flank at the cost of American Lives and dollars. This is not the stuff that Presidents are made of. It takes the Iraq War off of the table for contrasting our Democratic candidate against the War Mongering Republican Candidate.
2.) Your logic of choosing Hillary over Barack is also flawed when you make a decision to support her based on fear of what the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy would "do" to Barack. Fear is a faulty way to come to a decision, plus it will be 2004 Kerry/Edwards redux for the attacks that will come that say "She was for the war before she was against it". Barack Obama is the only one that will have any credibility with the American public, as well as the wider foreign policy goals of repair of America's moral standing with other countries. Why? He is the only one that has been consistantly against the war from BEFORE it started.
3.) The DLC. During Clinton's Presidency in the 90's we lost the house and the Senate. Why? Because the DLC triangulated and dilluted all of their candidates in the minds of the American Public because as a party, we lost our identity in the 90's due to the "third way" policies of the DLC.
3.) Healthcare Reform. She already blew it on that one, and because of her mistakes we most certainly lost at least 10 years of healthcare reform. How many people have gone bankrupt in those 10 plus years because of a broken healthcare system?
4.) Corporate influence. She is funded by more Corporations and lobbyists than all of the other candidates combined....
5.) Bill Clinton. Need I say more? He is the biggest threat to a Democratic White House. Hillary and Bill will rally the base of the GOP to get out and vote, even though that don't have a serious Candidate.
There are MANY more reasons I could list. The MAIN reason though is her Iraq War vote. That immediately disqualify's her in my book.

I could list many more reasons, but I am too tired to actually type them all into this post.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

I didn't say the endorsement was "dirty" - I said it was a foregone conclusion

and that it was

you may want to "temper" down (losing your temper doesn't help your candidate)

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:23 a.m.; Suggest removal

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I AM AN INDEPENDENT, AND I SEEK FACTS BEFORE MAKING JUFGMENTS.

here is an artile from Time/CNN stating the facts. These are well established media with seasoned editors. They made a case for the experience issue in question. What is most troubling is the fact that the Las vegas Sun editoria is so misleading by clouding the facts. They mentioned of Clinton sudden change of strategy towards Irag when she infact voted for it. They also ignored the fact , that no matter how Hillary try to decieve the American people about her recent vote to designate the Iranian Revoultionary Guard as a terrorist organization without actionable intelligence counts to her poor judgement and her War mongering intentions or probably her desire to score political points.

I commend Obama and Edward for their ability to fight against the establishment. Bill Clinton has buiilyt and establishment within the Democratic party. It's like a Mafia and besides the country has had enough of 3 decades of the same leadership. The so called subprime loan and the problem we faced today are a result of the Clintons and Bushes decades of government.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl...

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=...

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

These are facts

FOR YOUR INFORMATION, I AM AN INDEPENDENT, AND I SEEK FACTS BEFORE MAKING JUFGMENTS.

here is an artile from Time/CNN stating the facts. These are well established media with seasoned editors. They made a case for the experience issue in question. What is most troubling is the fact that the Las vegas Sun editoria is so misleading by clouding the facts. They mentioned of Clinton sudden change of strategy towards Irag when she infact voted for it. They also ignored the fact , that no matter how Hillary tried to decieve the American people about her recent vote to designate the Iranian Revoultionary Guard as a terrorist organization without actionable intelligence counts to her poor judgement and her War mongering intentions or probably her desire to score political points.

I commend Obama and Edward for their ability to fight against the establishment. Bill Clinton has buiilt an establishment within the Democratic party. It's like a Mafia and besides the country has had enough of 3 decades of the same leadership. The so called subprime loan and the problem we faced today are a result of the Clintons and Bushes decades of government.

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl......

http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=......

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan go get some other work to do. Do you have a job. I noticed you have posted more than anyone on this blog trail. I must admit your judgement may just be as good as Hillary. Clouded

By infinitewy: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Nothing Short of Revolution.

Something is happening in America. It is clear that Americans want to change the fundamental way our government functions. Americans want to see BIG changes in policy, BIG changes in spending, Big changes across the boards. Nothing short of a Tsunami of public outcry will change the way we function as a country within our borders and on the global strange. Nothing short of a landslide victory for change will move anyone in Washington to be able to or be willing to do anything major to change the direction we are going.

I am almost positive that the democrats will win the election in November but it's also clear to me that without a major mandate in the vote, it will be meaningless for change. We need a candidate who has the power to create that mandate. A candidate who can unite democrats, independents and some republicans to join in this cause of change.

Hillary Clinton is not that candidate. Hillary Clinton represents the old establishment in Washington even if she has only been there officially for that past 7 years. She and everyone one around her including her husband and Madeline Albright are past their prime of energetic enthusiasm to lead in bold new ways. They think their way is the only way. A tried and vetted track of success and practices.

By amc7150: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

Has the SUN lost it's mind - Clinton is the right chocie and she's what we need right now!!! Who paid or intimidated you folks. Did Billy Clinton scare you. You have got to be kidding - I thought the Sun was a wee bit smarter that this choice. If that's how you feel, we're all going to hell in a hand bag - Hillary's hand bag. Wake up SUN -

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

As I see it, Obama's support comes from those who were in diapers while Hillary was already well underway in getting things done. In fact, the only change that Obama was orchestrating as Hillary became a change agent, was getting change back on his drug purchases.

I really believe that those who support Obama are mostly ideologically confused. After all, Obama cited Ronald Reagan as an exemplar of change of the kind that he envisions for himself. While Reagan may be admired as a savvy politician who was able to cobble a coalition that included Democrats, this isn't why Obama admires Reagan.

Obama admires Reagan because he agrees with Reagan's basic frame that the 1960s and 1970s were full of "excesses" and that government had grown large and unaccountable. Those "excesses," of course, were feminism, the consumer rights movement, the civil rights movement, the environmental movement, and the antiwar movement. The libertarian anti-government ideology of an unaccountable large liberal government was designed by ideological conservatives to take advantage of the backlash against these "excesses." It is extremely disturbing to hear, not that Obama admires Reagan, but why he does so. Reagan was not a sunny optimist pushing dynamic entrepreneurship, but a savvy politician using a civil rights backlash to catapult conservatives to power. Those who support Obama because they think he is like Reagan are voting in the wrong party. Get your facts straight. Every time a Republican leaves office, he leaves us with the same kind of economic fall-out that we are experiencing right now. He leaves us with enormous debt, with the results of a 'trickle-down' economy that benefits only the rich, with a stripping of the middle class, and with an enriched military-industrial complex. Reagan should NEVER be cited as an example of a change agent by ANY Democrat, EVER.

By QuiQ74: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary on the ballot in November=Republican victory

By vegasshiftguy: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

This is a great endorsement. As a shift worker on the Strip, I believe Hillary will repair the economy and create opportunities for the middle class. She is also the only candidate who will stop nuclear storage at Yucca Mountain. Caucus for Hillary, and ignore the baseless Obama smear ads.

By redguard57: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

Thanks to the Las Vegas Sun editorial board for rehashing Hillary Clinton's campaign points. Heaven forbid they offer any independent thought. It sounds as though they might as well be on the campaign. Tell me a reason Nevadans should support Clinton, OTHER than the canned responses that the Clinton campaign have already given.

By vegasshiftguy: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:44 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama has received hundreds of thousands of dollars in donations from Exelon, a major atomic energy company that supports storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama also adopted a resolution in the Illinois state Senate in 2002 that asked Congress to approve Bush's recommendation for the storage of nuclear waste at Yucca Mountain. Obama supports Yucca Mountain, and he takes money from the nuclear power lobby. We cannot trust him.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama is not an "operating officer," by his own admission. He's just a rhetorician and he knows it. For those of us who have dealt in these circles, we know what happens when such speakers TALK about what they are going to do: NOTHING. He's just a big talker, a blatherer, a rhetor, a go-tell-it-on-the-mountain style preacher, and not an active agent in political change. Proof in point: 130 "present" votes since he's been in the U.S. Senate. That's real action for you. IF you want a president that loses papers handed to him and admits that he's not an "operating officer," you may also be someone who voted for George W. Bush. We had this sort of laissez faire, part-time president, part-time hunting and fishing fool before, and it has been a complete DISASTER. Obama comes from a tradition where TALK is everything.

By eades: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

For Democrats, Obama is the Candidate of Confidence, Clinton the Candidate of Fear:

As Democrats debate on this campaign and on the future of our party, the tone among Clinton supporters has come to differ sharply from that of Obama supporters. While Obama supporters exude confidence, excitement, and the will to win, Clinton supporters seem increasingly defensive; increasingly gripped by the fear that, in debating as we are now, we are fragmenting the party and playing into the hands of the Republicans. Clinton supporters cast Obama as a dangerous interloper who threatens to rip the Democratic Party apart, as an irresponsible dreamer, as a pied piper who is leading the children away to certain disaster. His supporters are cast as misguided idealists, as starry-eyed adolescents who need to give up their "false hopes" of something better than politics as usual and face dull, mediocre "reality." Surely our unruly behavior is already putting the Democratic campaign at serious risk. Surely even now the Republicans must be watching and grinning as we divide so that they can conquer. "Shhhh...," we are told by Clintonistas, "Be careful what you say.... The Republicans are licking their lips right now."

I say if they're licking their lips now they'll be eating crow come November. For any Republican who might be tempted to put tongue to lip, think again: I and other Obama supporters will vote for Hillary Clinton in November if she wins the Democratic nomination, as I should expect Clinton supporters will do in kind if Obama is the nominee, because we intend to win. The United States and the world can't stand another four-to-eight years of Republican insanity. Hillary Clinton is not my first choice among Democrats, but she beats any Republican by far. In the meantime, let the debate continue: Debate is, after all, the essence of that clever little Greek idea for which our party is named. We have the advantage; we can afford a healthy debate. With a field of candidates such as ours compared to the assortment of flawed specimens running for the Republican nomination, and with our enthusiasm compared to the mood of bitterness and gloom among Republicans, I'd say it is we Democrats who should be licking our lips.

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

Clinton talked about being an operating officer and also stated that she will manage the economy. Well respected economist have disputed these facts in recent days. The president does not manage the economy, The Fed does as well as the senate which will is also an important arm of goverment. The president job is not to shuffle papers but rather be of sound jidgement and bring to able to bring together the best minds. Our best minds with Hillary will be the same old people and the fact that she will be this great socialist and manage the economy. Do the Feds

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:53 a.m.; Suggest removal

Clinton talked about being an operating officer and also stated that she will manage the economy. Well respected economist have disputed these facts in recent days. The president does not manage the economy, The Fed does as well as the senate which will is also an important arm of goverment. The president job is not to shuffle papers but rather be of sound jidgement and be to able to bring together the best minds. Our best minds with Hillary will be the same old people and the fact that she will be this great socialist and manage the economy and do the Feds job. Magdalene Albright did a great service during her time , but times have changed in the dynamic world that we live in

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

Biggest Clinton Fraud so far...WATCH THE VIDEO. This is real. It is very emotonal..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&a...

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama needs at least eight years as an APPRENTICE to someone like Hillary Clinton, time enough for the wetness behind his ears to dry.

Those who don't value experience are likely those who do not have any. They cannot value what they don't know. Likewise, they grossly under-rate its importance.

Obama, having no real record of doing anything, is a blank slate onto which people, mostly young people, can project their own fantasies. The over-riding fantasy of this up-and-coming generation, is the sense of entitlement, the sense of getting what one wants and getting it immediately, without really working for it. This trend has been well-documented. When they enter the workforce, this new group expects to start at the top and not have to work to excel. They believe they are OWED advancement and success.

Thus, this group of voters are projecting their own fantasies of easy advancement onto Obama, who has also been given special, kids-glove treatment. In Obama, they see the personification of their own fantasies of immediate gratification.

Also, might they relate to a candidate that admittedly is disorganized and "loses everything?" After all, that is a trait of adolescence, especially of adolescents on drugs.

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

SHOCKING VIDEO HILLARY DOES NOT WANT YOU TO SEE
...

Biggest Clinton Fraud so far...WATCH THE VIDEO. This is real. It is very emotonal..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=xq8aopATYyw

http://youtube.com/watch?v=AMfUajhL24I&a......

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:09 a.m.; Suggest removal

Eldorado,

Learn how to read and listen. Clinton talked not about managing the economy, but about managing the GOVERNMENT, which is, afterall, the JOB of the president. If you want a RHETOR-in-CHIEF, then start a petition to initiate the creation of this post. If you want a COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF, then vote for someone who is COMPETENT and not admittedly DISORGANIZED and full of nothing but SPEECHES. This isn't a job for a TALKER. This is a job for a DO-ER. Nothing on Obama's resume indicates the ability to do things, least especially his 130 "present" votes in the U.S. Senate. I submt that he voted "present" so that he was exactly what is now: a completely blank slate onto which people could PROJECT their own beliefs and fantasies, rather than someone who actually HAS committed to and done things of significance. Hillary was already changing things in the world while Obama was making change for drugs.

By davek11: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:09 a.m.; Suggest removal

America is not a monarchy!

The last 20 years of Bush-Clinton-Bush mis-leadership has resulted in scandal, impeachment, war, polarity, an evisceration of the middle class, inflation, loss of jobs, unprecedented corporate greed, and it has left a mountain of debt for the younger generations. Leaders from the baby boom generation have created a poisonous mental state upon this country.

Hillary Clinton is a continuation of this destructive selfish path. A shrewd, calculating Machiavellian, she peppers her speeches with the words "I" "personal" and "me". She vehemently supported this now trillion dollar war in Iraq and she is deeply entrenched in the pockets of special interest money, an area that her husband turned into an art form. Let's move beyond this generation that pits one side against the other, as the country continues to spiral as a global leader.

Hillary, Bill, Bush, they all contribute to the same sad depressing state of affairs that afflicts this divided county.

Let's be clear, Bill Clinton benefited from a breakthrough technology with the computer industry, as groundbreaking as the light bulb or telegraph. He just happened to be there when it happened, and took full credit for it. Herbert Hoover or Jimmy Carter would have looked good in the '90s. Clinton didn't create 23 million jobs, a new technology created 23 million jobs. Clinton's legacy is that he was a champion focus group watcher, he weakened our defenses, took campaign money from the Chinese government, and is an outrageous miscreant who blew his seed all over the Oval Office. There's not enough space to analyze Bush and his spending or how his administration has turned us into a fearful nation of bed-wetters, easily distracted by non-events like "swift boat" and Hillary's tears. We've become pathetic, Wall Mart shopping retards. Both these families (Bushes, Clintons) are weird and low end. This pattern must not continue!

It's time the younger generations fight for a candidate like Obama that can at least change the mentally ill political culture that the baby boom generation has cultivated, while they deal with the crap storm of debt they'll be inheriting.

By BK0001: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:11 a.m.; Suggest removal

If you want endorse Clinton, fine. But show that you have some vestige of independent thought. This is verbatim regurgitation of Clinton talking points. Did you just outsource the whole endorsement and have a Clinton staffer write it for you?

By Debra: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

Clinton supporters, America is great because it allows everyone to vote, even stupid people. So you will have your vote for the SOS Bill/Hill represent. But there are so many people who will overcome your vote, that we all lose. If you think Republicans don't see a field day with the 'resume' of these dear(?) folks, you're on some powerful trip. I voted for old Bill and for every other Democrat for over 30 years and I can't imagine making a Clinton vote this time. I don't want another Bush in the White House and that is what Clinton is but in Democratic clothing. She voted for the war, voted for the bill sponsored by Bush to step up the war mongering on Iran, she can't admit her mistakes and she slanders any opponent in her way to the Power House. Sound like anybody?

By rosestoraska: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:18 a.m.; Suggest removal

Want to know if Hillary Clinton can handle the White House, keeping this country on task through thick and thin--through anything? People forget that she has accomplished what few people, including the younger, Obama-backing generation have yet to learn--staying power under extreme circumstances. Her decision to stay with her husband, passed all the publicity of his personal mistakes, SAYS MUCH! She did what she felt was right according to her own personal morality and for her family. That, my friends, is something we don't see much anymore! What a wonderful example? Imagine my youthful friends! Someone who can think through just cutting your losses and running. An intelligent fighter who happens to also be a woman! Someone who can use experience to push forward!!!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:21 a.m.; Suggest removal

Davek11, You have no idea what you're talking about. My guess is that you are about 20-25 years old, have very little education, and are enamoured of Obama because you believe his RHETORIC of 'change change change' when indeed he's demonstrated no EVIDENCE of having accomplished anything of the sort. My guess is that you are a Generation Y kid without real political or other experience and no idea about what happened either in the 60s, 70s, 80, or even the 90s. You don't know that people benefited GREATLY during the Clinton administration, and not from RHETORIC, but from real improvements in their lives. They suffered greatly under Reagan-Bush and were left with the very kind of nightmare that we have now, when Bill Clinton took over and turned it all around. People who lived through this period know that the proof is in the pudding and not in the WORDS on the LABEL.

Bill Clinton left the government with a record surplus. Bush turned it into a record deficit. Obama hasn't a CLUE about what to do about this. I don't want a KID running the country, one who is admittedly NOT an "operating officer" and is admittedly DISORGANIZED and LOSES EVERYTHING. I don't want him losing my country. He can learn to handle things first and get his sh*t together first, while a person of proven competence to actually enact change is at the helm.

Give me a break, you Generation Y people. Should we raise the voting age while you people finish college:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/workplace/...

By PAnderson: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:24 a.m.; Suggest removal

"walden9 - you are so right on. These guys were in diapers when our people were working hard and fighting all the hard fights. Then Mister Wonderful just wants to float in and take everything over." -tim_japan

Wow. Talk about a sense of entitlement!

Speaking as someone who was not in diapers, who has never voted republican, and who voted for Bill in '92 and '96, if Ms. Clinton is nominated I will hold my nose and vote Republican. The Clinton's and Terry MacAuliffe and the rest of that crowd are corporatists and as a group are the single most divisive group after the Bushies.

And as for your kool-aid comment remember: projection is a horrible thing.

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

And she bodly used the Karl Rove politics of fear in New hamshire talking about an the fear of another attack by terrorist when a new president is elected such as the recent attack in London. This is something that we decry in politics. It is true that there is always going be an imminent attack. There was an attack on the World trade center when Clinton and Bush took office respectively. Intelligence agency always speculate that such attacks will may occur. In the US, Madrid and London we have survived those attacks and triumphed over the terrorist. It has nothing to do with the President elected on day 1. What gives Hillary the qualifications to stop the unexpected on day 1 more than her other rivals. Why the politics of fear that we all decry. Any president elected will get all the intelligence briefing and support that they need on day 1

By bryan_dwyer: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

The Clintons are angry and worn out. Both of them are behaving as though the next Presidency is somehow owed to Hillary, and many Hillary backers are enabling this: "It's her turn." The Clintons, post Iowa, have demonstrated in clear terms that they are not a break from the past, but that they are indeed THE past. Hillary's unwillingness to get behind real ethics reform, apologize for her vote on Iraq, articulate a Social Security policy, turn down PAC money, and NOT misrepresent her opponents record and views are all hallmark signs of veteran, tired politician. Her main argument against Obama is essentially that his hope and ideas are naive. What a shallow and sad argument with which to attack bigger ideas. Nevada voters, help those of us in the States to come demonstrate the courage to not just take the known quantity, but to vote for the most compelling ideas and yes, hopes. Let's give Obama a chance to help all of us "change the world."

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

The notion that Hillary is a "corporatist" is another rhetorical ball-of-nonsense that is completely at variance with the facts. As a matter of FACT, something that Obama supporters are loathe to consider, Hillary has the MOST PROGRESSIVE VOTING RECORD among the remaining candidates for the Democratic nomination. I wouldn't want something so annoying as facts to upset the foregone conclusions of people used to hurling and receiving epithets and phrases without THINKING or considering the evidence, but here is a little lesson for all of those who call Hillary a "corporatist" or "corporate Democrat," or worse:

http://www.theleftcoaster.com/archives/0...

There you will see that by all progressive standards, Hillary outstrips Obama and Edwards (and outstripped all other contenders, other than the elf).

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Thanks, Tim!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://www.legitgov.org/comment/rec_repo...

For anyone who thinks that funding translates directly into policy, try thinking again.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:43 a.m.; Suggest removal

One thing we may count on, Tim. The caucus in Nevada is at 11:00 AM on a Saturday. Most of the Gen. Y people won't be out of bed till it's over.

By reeda: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:43 a.m.; Suggest removal

Judging from some of the comments made thus far I beginning to smell some wolves in sheep's clothing, Republicans masquerading as Obama supporters for they have the most to gain. They know they can't beat Clinton in the November general election, but they are confident they can defeat Obama no matter who they nominate due to his lack of experience. Remember folk's Obama has been a US Senator for only three years and much of that time was spent campaigning for President. One other thing, I detect that the bloom is starting to fall from the Obama rose.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:52 a.m.; Suggest removal

Reeda, you are exactly right. That's why the CORPORATE media are giving Obama a free pass, that and the patronizing of race. They know that Obama would be SNACK FOOD for the G.O.P. machine. He's a boxed lunch ready to be devoured. The G.O.P. will hold back nothing, and race will REALLY be baited then. The Clintons said NOTHING remotely connected to race, and Obama's team cried racism. Imagine what will happen when the Willy Horton team gets at him. Further, his inexperience, previous drug use and admitted lack of "operating officer" qualifications and disorganization are easy targets. Clinton is battle-tested and can withstand anything they throw at her. Obama, on the other hand, will crumble under the scrutiny.

By AYC: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:53 a.m.; Suggest removal

This morning I was wondering, does anyone know how much the unprecedented aspect of a former President so vigorously campaigning for Mrs. Clinton is costing the American taxpayer?

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

President Obama, where do you stand on abortion?

Obama: "present."

By LondonInNY: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

Why do so many have a genuine inability to see the light when it comes to seeing the truth about Hillary Clinton? For example, so many women like Susan Faludi, Gloria Steinem & Eric Jong who fought for Women's Rights are willing to overlook Hillary Clinton's essential character in order to simply get a woman into the Whitehouse. Ms. Clinton's resume is padded, her experience overblown and her character highly suspect. Even assuming that 95% of the critique of the Clintons out there is a lie and all part of some "Vast Right Wing Conspiracy", which we all know is not, how does any woman reconcile that with the legitimate opinion of militant feminist ANDREA DWORKIN (Are You Listening, Hillary? President Rape Is Who He Is by Andrea Dworkin: http://www.andreadworkin.com/hillary/ind...) which has essentially labeled HRC as FAUX FEMINIST & MARIAN WRIGHT EDELMAN'S (HRC's service for 1 year as Staff Attorney for the Children's Defense Fund) REFUSAL TO ENDORSE HRC? To me this speaks volumes about Senator Clinton and her fabricated legacy.Hillary's self proclaimed legacy serving as premier advocate for women & children seems to ring hollow. It takes a Village of Compromised Feminists to Perpetuate the False Legacy of HRC. What Hillary has done is nothing more than having positioned herself for FORREST GUMP MOMENTS in the historical battles that were largely fought by those who no longer hold any special tie or affiliation with Senator Clinton. "STANDING BY" is the legacy of Hillary. If Hillary is willing to manufacture a legacy on the most definitive aspect of her legacy, then what else has she lied about? Perhaps it is is her lesbianism that holds appeal to some women, that her living a political lie makes her a more sympathetic figure? Why do many more younger and progressive women support OBAMA or EDWARDS? I worked on the CLINTON/GORE CAMPAIGN in 1992 and went door to door in New Hampshire, voting for the ticket twice. History teaches us valuable lessons, including the fact that HRC IS NOT A FEMINIST OR PROGRESSIVE. Judical Watch has also ranked Hillary as the MOST CORRUPT POLITICIAN IN AMERICA(SEE:http://judicialwatch.org/judicial-watch-announces-list-washington-s-ten-most-wanted-corrupt-politicians-2007)

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama admires Reagan as an example of change-maker. Reagan responded to the "excesses" of the 60s and 70s, says Obama. What "excesses" will Obama respond to--the "excesses" of a woman's right to choose? The "excesses" the environmentalists? Who knows? The guy has no clear policies. He may as well end up being a Republican.

By AYC: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

hey tim_japan -- I really was wondering, there is no need to be sarcastic. Is the cost of protecting a former president more than the cost of protecting a spouse? And who is logging more 'miles', so to speak?

By eldoraldo: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

Bill Clinton took cocaine, handled it but did not inhale (Lie) and still became our president. George W Bush admitted the same. Drug use at a teanage age is no news.

By davek11: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:31 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan - keep swearing, it fits.

I stated my main point, Clinton's support for the Iraq War. One could argue that it was calculated move to show how tough she is, as many people theorize; or one could take it at face value, support for a trillion dollar war - and counting. She continued to vehemently support the war until 4 months ago when the campaign started. Meanwhile, the Taliban are estimated to have taken control of nearly 30% of the southern border of Afghanastan, and al Quada continues to grow in the mountains of Pakistan. As Obama stated in his 10/2/2002 speech to the Illinois State House, we took our eye off the ball. Meanwhile our 14 trillion dollar economy is in a tailspin and we have to keep racking up the massive costs of a derelict war. Already, Obama has shown better judgment than Clinton before the campaign even began.

Examen closely how the Clintons have raised money for the past 25 years, starting with their Whitewater and cattle futures involvement, and brush up on Chinese governement contributions to the Clinton reelection in '96. You say she has nothing to do with her husband, but then you point to her experience, which at the latest count is up to 35 years. If you are counting on her White House years as experience then I refer you to Dick Morris's recent comment that the White House cook for the Clintons was also in the White House for 8 years. Which way do you want it, tim_japan? How much experience is there? If it's as much as you shriek about than you have to examen the actions of the Clintons conjointly for the past 25 years. (enter curse word here ______)

As for "slime" tactics, the Clintons have been pulling everything out of their bag of dirty tricks, turning up pathetic non-issues - a paper Obama wrote in 3rd grade; Clinton lackey B. Kerrey apologizing for raising Muslim issues; constant apologies for attacks on a youthful drug issue, an issue Obama wrote about in a book and does not deny that he did do this briefly as a youth (refer to Bubba's "I did not inhale" asinine remark); and Bubba's attacks about Obama's lack of experience. Isn't Bubba the same oaf who sat on Air Force One on the runway at LAX getting a $10,000 haircut, holding up air traffic for 2 hours. This happened in the first week of his first term, when Bubba was 44. These are some of the pathetic and embarrassing attacks the Clintons have been wheeling out there.

Finally, if you can't see how polarizing Clinton is then you need to pull your head out from her pant suit. I'm a lifelong democrat and if Billary gets the nod, I will not vote for her in the general election. I will not continue this Bush-Clinton hippie generation nightmare. If she is this polarizing in the democratic race, I can't imagine what it will be like in a general election. japan - it would be smart of you to reassess your shrill rebuttals and clean up the language.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

"Reverse Psychology is Karl Rove's republican strategy in 2008".

"Reverse psychology is the term that describes the outcome where advocacy of one course of action persuades another person to do the opposite"

Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are two of the most formidable republican strategists in recent history. In fact, the former is solely responsible for the rise of Bush Jr. from governor of Texas to two-term president of the United States while the latter had devised a conservative strategy that led to republican domination of congress for more than a decade.
These two strategists are now using reverse psychology as a means of winning the elections for republicans in 2008. How are they doing that? Both Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich know something crucial about Hillary that their democratic counterparts have failed to emphasize. What Karl and newt know is that Hillary is no Bill Clinton--- that she fares very poorly with independent voters as demonstrated by both the analyzed results of Iowa and New Hampshire. What Karl and Newt are banking on is the following fact:
The next president of the United States will be determined in the end by independent and first-time voters; and giving the negative clout now hanging on the republican party, their best chance of retaining the white house is to have Hillary face McCain in the general elections. Why? it is because McCain does much better than Hillary with independent voters. in fact, recognizing his appeal to independent voters, particularly after they have rescued his candidacy in New Hampshire, McCain gratefully refers to independents as the "fastest growing third party in America".
In addition, both Newt and Karl know in their guts that their biggest fear is an Obama nomination. Why? It is because Obama, not only does he fare very well with independent voters as demonstrated by the results of Iowa and New Hampshire, he also brings in first-time voters in significant numbers. In fact, consistently against all the major republican contenders in hypothetical match-ups, Obama comes on top while Hillary loses most if not all; and that is no accident, because Obama's support among independents is more than twice that of Hillary.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

The reverse psychology is already at work; in fact, many democrats have already fallen for it; for an increasing number of democrats are now thinking that it is a republican conspiracy to publicly favor Obama so as to beat him in the general elections. According to that argument, many republicans are supposedly funding the Obama campaigns as a means of supposedly subverting the democratic choice. In fact, while the hypothesis is true (it is true that republican pundits are publicly cheering for Obama) the conclusion deduced by these democrats is itself false (because it is not Obama that the republican strategists really want, but Hillary.) how does the strategy work? The strategy of reverse psychology in this case takes advantage of the nascent propensity of democrats, after the dramatic finish of the 2000 presidential elections, to claim republican conspiracy whether imagined or real. So just as in all propensities, this particular propensity can be taken advantage of. This is exactly what Karl Rove and Newt Gingrich are intending to do here. They know that by publicly cheering for Obama while apparently dogging Hillary, there will be rumors of a republican conspiracy supposedly involving the nomination of Obama. In reaction, Karl and Newt must have calculated that democrats would choose, as a counter-move, the more established candidate in the person of Hillary Clinton-- the candidate that fares very poorly with independents who, by the reverse psychology strategy, is the candidate that they really hope to face in the general elections. That situation would in the end give republicans their greatest chance of retaining the white house.
After all, Hillary is the only major democratic candidate that has consistently lost to the top republican contenders in most of the hypothetical match-ups; and again, that is no accident because Hillary’s support among independents is very weak.
It remains to be seen if American voters would fall for another trick from Karl Rove's magic hat; After all, older women, and blue-collar moms who represent Hillary’s core democratic support would not be sufficient to elect her first female president of the United States.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

do you you know that illinois is the fifth richest state in the union with important infrastructures? therefore an intrinsic state of the union which reflects the union in all its forms! if illinois were a country, it would be the 25th largest economy in the world!! so underming policy works in illinois as if it were some insignificant state is way off mark!!!
when hillary was handed her seat in new york, she had not lived in new york, and known practically nothing about new york issues and life, but she was elected anyway. now, a man, after having left IVY LEAGUE where he was manager editor of the harvard law review, joined a grassroots law firm and defended poor people; but that man strangely is tought to have no substance!! but one that left IVY LEAGUE to join a prestigious law firm to defend wealthy clients has a lot substance! what kind of non-sense is that? one became senator after being a first lady whereas the other was a legislator for four years, and taught constitutional law, and built leadership programs, and fought for organized labor to save american jobs; but at the end, the former is strangely thought to have more experience than the latter. the only experience that hillary has more than obama is in years lived on this earth. has hillary ever fought for organized labor to save american jobs that by the way are being outsourced by the same big corparations that she defended in the prestigious law firm that she joined right after IVY LEAGUE? and we are talking about substance? obama has a legitimate experience that can speak to the plight of american jobs. both edwards and clinton defended big companies that outsourced american jobs, but obama fought for organized labor. for god's sake, if there is a fairy tale here, it is hillary's works for the masses!!!!
the only fairy tale here is the so-called more-experienced candidate.

in undermining obama, geraldine ferraro claimed in the new york times that "obama's core support is the african-american community, and that he has nothing to lose from distorting clinton's comments". i do not remember iowa and new hampshire having substantial african-american populations. on what logical basis is she saying that, i do not know!!!

By MAJOIFVET: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

Dusacre wrote: "My God, you must be delirious or too young to forget the kind of dignity the Clintons have had in their 8 years Whitehouse stay?"

I think the paper was referring to the current administration's (and republican party's) seemingly endless stream of lies, betrayals, law-breaking. Bill Clinton's sexual affair is meaningless. Many presidents have had sexual affairs while in the White House - some first ladies have too, for that matter.

Hillary Clinton has credentials in her own right. She is an attorney, activist, mother, wife, US Senator, writer, and the list goes on. I'm sure the same kinds of things can be said for Mr. Obama.

None of the leading democratic candidates have executive experience (governor, CEO, VP, etc.). But is that really necessary to be President. George W. has that experience, but he's an awful President.

I'm supporting Hillary Clinton because she is strong, intelligent, committed, pro-veteran, pro-family, and many other things that have moved me.

By davek11: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

japan - you really need medical attention. "Fried Green Tomatoes"? Take your meds, cut down on the cursing and bone up on your writing skills.

By jangles7: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

Each time I hear or read someone dismiss HRC's role as "First Lady", I am angered and I remember the abuse that was heaped on Eleanor Roosevelt and countless women who have stood beside a man and contributed brains, energy and hard work so "the man" can have fame and fortune. BO's put downs of HRC in this regard have totally soured me on considering him, even though I originally welcomed his candidacy. I am not alone in this feeling! Jangles

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:01 a.m.; Suggest removal

after claiming that obama would allow nuclear waste to be dumped in nevada, clinton is surprised by a rebuke from the guy who actually fought against nuclear waste in nevada. i forget the guy's name, but he called clinton's attacks very unfair. After claiming that the rules in nevada caucuses are unfair, and after a judge has rejected such a claim, their own supporter recently accepts having misunderstood the rules, and that the rules were not discriminatory because they did not exclude non-union voters. with the lawsuit, it is as if the clintons are saying, vote for me or don't vote at all. if the clinton supporters went to court to change rules that were adopted 10 months ago, imagine what would happen in new hampshire had the polls given hillary a 9-point lead and that she ended up losing by two points? for god's sake, the supreme would have been invloved.
does not that say much about her character? if there is someone who gest a free pass from the press is the clintons. after all, no journalist dares to revive their past without awakening the wrath of bill clinton. also, no one here mentions the fact that hillary failed to pass her bar examination on the first try. had it been Obama, it would have been all over the news.

it is ironic that they are calling obama a junior senator as way of undermining him. but the real questions are these:
why would an established senator with a former popular president by her side resort to negativity as a way of gaining votes against a junior senator? why would a junior senator manage to register so many first-time voters in primaries whereas the established candidate had to rely on her core support to snatch a narrow win in new hampshire?
why would a 20-point lead one month ago in nevada be reduced to a statistical tie?
when we look at reality for what it really is, hillary is the one struggling here. she is not the comeback kid, the real comeback kid here is obama; after all, clinton was the inevitable nominee just a few months ago. so, obama is the real comeback kid here both figuratvely and literally.

he is the only candidate that fought and defended organized labor. therefore he is the only candidate with a legitimate experience of the real issue plaging the u.s economy, that is the outsourcing of American jobs.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:04 a.m.; Suggest removal

mm, Your pretzel logic is astounding. You really believe that the free ride and constant flattery of Obama is reverse psychology, rather than an obvious, straight-forward attempt to get him elected? For such plan to have coalesced, your plan requires that the rightwing punditry formed a sort of union and all met to agree to support Obama, because then the Democrats, accustomed to rightwing plots, would THINK that it's a rightwing plot, and thus vote for Hillary.

All that I can ask in response is: what are you and Obama smoking?

You really believe that all the right-wing pundits got together to concoct such a plan of reverse-psychology and were able to get a vast plurality to support and engage in this plot? Your explanation is, simply put, INSANE!

Have you ever heard of Occam's Razor? In the face of evidence, the simplet explanation is usually the best. The simplest explanation for their completely obvious rightwing preference for Obama is this: they PREFER HIM AS DEMOCRATIC NOMINEE. They prefer him because they believe they can beat him.

Try getting some lessons in rational thought before posting such utterly outrageous balderdash.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:13 a.m.; Suggest removal

The rightwing pundits DO FAVOR Obama and for good reason. He's snack food in a general election. Oh, no, says, mm, they only say they favor him because they actually want Hillary. If they show support for Hillary, says mm, all the crazy Democrats will see their support as a PLOT to elect Obama. Then, seeing this rightwing conspiracy, they will vote for Hillary, whom they really want to win the nomination.

OMG, these rightwingers are really much smarter than I'd imagined. They have concocted one of the most sophisticated reverse-psychology plots in history! These aren't the same people who made such a mess of the world in eight short years after stealing office, is it? My god, they are much smarter than they SEEM. It's a plot to make us THINK they are dumb. The whole fiasco in Iraq and and New Orleans and the economy is really a plot to make us vote for them in the general election. Go figure. This sounds like Rudy's strategy in the first few primaries: lose so that the other candidates are lulled into thinking that winning is actually the best way to...WIN!

With this kind of logic afloat amongst the Generation Y kids, No WONDER there are people out there supporting Obama!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

Correction to last post:

If they show support for OBAMA, syas mm, they crazy Democrats will see it as a plot to elect Obama, and thus they will vote for Hillary. Sorry, all this twisted logic has gotten me dizzy in trying to follow it.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

clinton supporters can dismiss obama's organized labor works eventhough these organized labor works are quite relevant to the economic situation of today's america in which vast numbers of american jobs are being taken overseas; but one cannot dismiss a first lady experience. when one is a first lady or first gentleman, one does not automaticall have security clearance. it is not that the president can discuss everything with his wife or husband.
when the facts are examined, obama has more relevant experience than hillary.

obama is the only candidate here with organized labor experience, and therefore more ready than the others to deal with the biggest problem facing the American economy today, that is the outsourcing of good-paying american jobs.
michigan voted for clinton by default( she was the only democratic candidate on the ballot because she does not stand for principles where she does not personally gain anything) not realizing that obama is the only candidate here with oganized labor experience.
the only fairy tale here is hillary clinton.
obama's weakness is that he is too nice, he allows clinton to crush him with twisted lies without responding with the truths as a counterattack. clinton has many baggages to talk about, and denounce.

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:20 a.m.; Suggest removal

In Illinois State Senate, Sen. Obama Didn't Speak Out Against Yucca When He Had the Chance

On April 18, 2002, the Illinois State Senate passed SR342 urging the U.S. Congress to support Bush on Yucca:

Illinois State Senate Resolution 342 "urges Congress to sustain President Bush's affirmative decision on Yucca Mountain's suitability as a permanent federal repository for high-level radioactive materials." [S.R. 342, 4/18/02]

Sen. Obama had the opportunity to speak out against the resolution but remained silent. From the State Senate transcript:

"Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not, Senator Rauschenberger moves for the adoption of Senate Resolution 342. Those in favor say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the resolution was adopted." [Pg. 26, Illinois senate transcript, 4/18/02]

In contrast, when a similar resolution came before the U.S. Senate in July 2002, Hillary voted against the resolution and issued a press release underscoring her opposition.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:20 a.m.; Suggest removal

mm says: "it is ironic that they are calling obama a junior senator as way of undermining him."

Actually, mm, by defintion, Obama IS a junior senator. That's why they are calling him one. It's not another plot. It's just part of that irksome thing that the Obama supporters are prone to ignore, namely, REALITY.

By rwilliams1961: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:20 a.m.; Suggest removal

I don't like seeing members of the Democratic party this divided. Everybody, there are some simple facts that we all have to swallow.

First, trending shows that Edwards is not going to win the nomination. If you believe in him, vote for him and let him use his delegates at the convention to interject his values into the November campaign.

Second, if Hillary becomes our nominee, she brings Washington experience to the ballot, but Republican turnout will be huge. They hate her and they will turnout to vote against her. If elected, Republicans in Congress will fight her tooth and nail and will block every bill (including health care and global warming) that she tries to pass.

Third, Obama has eleven years of legislative experience, but they are not Washington years and he lacks executive experience. He's smart, insightful, and seems to inspire both Democrats and Republicans, but he doesn't bring DC experience to the equation. He will have to rely on others to teach him the White House ropes.

So you've got either Hillary's White House years and Senate career, with all the partisan hatred and bickering that comes with her and Bill. Or you've got Obama, with his limited experience, but with an ability to minimize partisan boundaries and inspire the public.

Vote your hopes and not your fears. As for me? I think Obama has the intelligence, the insight, and ability to steer this country toward a better and fresh future. I'm tired of the Bush-Clinton-Bush years of division and hatred. I want a new kind of leader. As for the experience issue, few of our most successful presidents had any White House experience prior to taking the office. They have pretty much all relied upon the insight and guidance of others. Bill Clinton, FDR, Reagan (even if you didn't like his policies), none had prior DC experience, but each had the ability to lead a nation and guide the Congress. They were each elected because they inspired us to reach for greatness by showing us what America could be.

In that vein, I share the dream that Obama presents. I believe it's time to set a new course. I want to move forward, not go backward.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

Here's a little bit of information for all our juniors amongst the Obama supporters:

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glo...

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

Blame the New Statesman!!!

Barack Obama had been a senator for just ten months in 2005 when we devoted a cover to his face, anointing him as one of ten people likely to have an impact on the world.

Read more…click now

http://www.newstatesman.com/200801100000...

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

People who think that "unity" will just come by one person's personal charm offensive are really quite deluded. After the honeymoon, Obama would be dead in the water, without the skills, knowledge and guts necessary to navigate amongst the Republican SHARKS who are not going to either lie down and die or disappear. All this talk of "unity" will go up in smoke as Obama's programs burn into thin air. Oh, wait, he has no programs. Forget it.

By Brittanicus: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

Having lived in Las Vegas for over a year I know there is a large population of illegal foreign nationals, employed by the casino'a and the entertainment industry. Hopefully there is enough supervision to detect at the Nevada caucases illegal voting. The culinary union which I belonged to has thousands of workers, who are not legally in this nation and will without hesitation break any law to gain an advantage. According to the 2006 U.S. census, it is estimated there are 610,000 Latino's in Nevada. Voting is a citizens right, a privilege given to us by the U.S. Constitution. Looks like advocate judges are interpreting the law, as they see fit. Example allowing Caucases to be acceptable in a gambling Casino, where illegal aliens voting would be a travesty of our Democratic process. Does the law of Perjury apply in a Caucase environment, when it come to voting for a presidential nominee?

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:32 a.m.; Suggest removal

I did phone-banking in Nevada and half the people I called couldn't speak a word of English. I suppose having a name ending in a vowel is a benefit in any election amongst illegal immigrant voters from Mexico.

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

Top Donor to Sen. Obama Spent Millions Lobbying to Store Nuclear Waste at Yucca Mountain

One of Sen. Obama's biggest donors is the energy giant Exelon:

Exelon is the sixth largest donor to Sen. Obama's presidential campaign and the fourth largest career donor to Obama’s federal campaigns. Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008. [opensecrets.org, 2008, 2004-2008]

Exelon's CEO is a key advocate for storing nuclear waste at Yucca:

Exelon CEO John Rowe calls Yucca mountain project ‘linchpin’ to solving waste problem and building new plants. "So what does Exelon Chief Executive Officer John Rowe want? Fortune magazine, in a May 15, 2006, article titled 'Meet Mr. Nuke,' details Rowe's call to solve the waste problem before additional nuclear power plants are built. "We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a plant, here's where the waste will go,' " Rowe told Fortune. The Yucca Mountain Project is the 'linchpin' to solving the waste problem and building new plants.”[Las Vegas Review Journal, 5/15/07]

Exelon has spent millions lobbying to open up Yucca mountain:

In 2002, Exelon spent $2,172,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2003, Exelon spent $2,864,400 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2004, Exelon spent over $1,000,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2005, Exelon spent $1,815,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2006, Exelon spent $1,329,014 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2007, Exelon spent $1,732,321 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including the ‘Yucca Mountain National Interest…’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year]

By CT104: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

The incident you refer to in the 90's involving Miss Monica did not involve Mrs.Clinton....that was Bill's doing. In spite of that ordeal Mrs.Clinton kept her chin up and handle that issue with GREAT dignity. She put the needs of her family first, and a divorce would have impacted not just her family but in the long run this country at that time because of potential effect on her husband. Bill's lack of judgement was just that...Bill's, not Hillary's.

By csg: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

Clinton actually has less experience than Obama. She's only been in the US Senate since 2000. Obama's only been in the Senate since 2004, but prior to that he was in the Illinois Legislature from 1997 to the time of his election to the US Senate. Also, so far as Hillary's "record" I suggest the Sun checks out FactCheck.org and compares it against Obama. Finally, bottom line, Clinton Democrat Nominee = Republican in White House.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:38 a.m.; Suggest removal

Great stuff, hrclvs! No WONDER Obama won't rule out nuclear energy from his energy "plan." He's in bed with the industry! If any Nevadan votes for this guy, they deserve the nuclear wasteland they will get from him.

Obama, as expected, is a complete FRAUD. Why has no one called HIM on his backers? No, this is not a rightwing plot to get Clinton nominated. It's a rightwing plot to get Obama nominated! He's the golden boy for nuclear waste!

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:39 a.m.; Suggest removal

New Obama Campaign Ad Falsely Claims Sen. Obama Has Offered a 'Universal Health Care Plan'

1/16/2008 1:03:19 PM

Sen. Obama has a new advertisement running in Nevada intended to mislead voters into believing that he has offered a universal health care plan.

The advertisement cites an AP article from May 29 with the headline "Obama Offers Universal Health Care Plan":
Photo

Sen. Obama did offer something he called a "universal health care plan." But the article was written before Sen. Obama officially released his plan and it was available for full evaluation by independent experts. Still, Ron Pollack, executive director of Families USA is quoted saying "it's not totally clear it would result in universal coverage."

After many top health care experts had an opportunity to review his plan, they concluded he would leave 15 million without coverage:

Concord Monitor: ‘Gruber estimated that 15 million people would remain uninsured under Obama’s plan.’ “Jonathan Gruber, a health economist at Massachusetts Institute of Technology who worked on the Massachusetts plan, said a mandate means "the difference between universal or near-universal coverage. Obama would have a large expansion, better than anything the Republicans have, but not universal coverage," Gruber said. "You can't get it without a mandate; it's just not possible." Gruber estimated that 15 million people would remain uninsured under Obama's plan.” [Concord Monitor, 12/26/07]

Len Nichols, Jonathan Gruber and Mark Pauly: ‘even with other cost saving measures and a child mandate, we think that it is very likely that a least 15 million American would remain uninsured.’ “Recent estimates suggest that a plan with uniform generous subsidies but without a mandate would cover no more than one-half of the uninsured in the U.S. Even with other cost-saving measures and a child mandate, we think that it is very likely that at least 15 million Americans would remain uninsured.” [New America Foundation, Policy Brief, 12/06/07]

Jonathan Holohan of the Urban Institute: ‘Obama would still leave about 22 million, 23 million, but he has a mandate for children, about 9 million uninsured kids, so assuming you get most of them, you get pretty close to 15 million.’ [New Republic, 12/03/07]

Wall Street Journal: ‘Mrs. Clinton charges that Mr. Obama's plan would leave 15 million people without insurance. Outside experts agree that number is in the ballpark.’ [Wall Street Journal 12/04/07]

Washington Post: ‘The Obama plan could leave a third of those currently uninsured lacking coverage [47 million].’ [Washington Post, 6/9/07]

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

So, all you who want feel-good rhetoric and talk of "unity," and other patent horse manure, vote for Obama. You'll get nuclear waste dumped in your backyard and will have no insurance to cover your medical bills when you get sick from radiation poisoning!

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

Fact Sheet: Sen. Obama's 129 Present Votes

1/15/2008 3:39:13 PM

Today, Sen. Obama’s campaign held a conference call to defend his record of voting present on choice issues. But the Obama campaign failed to address the fact that Sen. Obama voted present 129 times on a wide array of issues, including choice, privacy for victims of sexual assault, and school violence. In fact, the Obama campaign claimed that Sen. Obama’s present votes were part of a legislative strategy but failed to mention that Sen. Obama was the lone present vote on a number of key issues.

Sen. Obama’s Present Votes By The Numbers

Sen. Obama voted 'present' 129 times while in the State Senate. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

In 1999, Sen. Obama voted 'present' more often than he voted 'no': According to state records, Obama voted 'present' 43 times in 1999, while voting 'no' just 29 times. [ilga.gov]

At least 36 times, Sen. Obama was either the only State Senator to vote present or was part of a group of six or fewer to vote that way. [New York Times, 12/20/07]

Other Present Votes of Interest:

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on a bill that sought to protect the privacy of sex-abuse victims, and the only state senator to not support the bill. [HB854, Passed 58-0-1, 05/11/99]

Sen. Obama was the only State Senator to vote 'present' on an adoption bill that imposed stricter requirements for parental fitness, and the only State Senator to not support the bill. [HB1298, Passed 57-0-1, 5/6/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill that would increase penalties for the use of a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. The bill called for the mandatory adult persecution of a minor at least 15 years of age being tried for using a firearm within 1,000 feet of a school. [SB759, Passed 52-1-5, 3/25/1999]

Sen. Obama voted 'present' on a bill to prohibit the presence of adult sex shops near schools, places of worship, and day care facilities; bill allows local governments to regulate the presence of adult sex shops. [SB609, Required 3/5 majority, Failed 33-15-5, 3/29/2001]

Illinois Now on Obama's Present Votes On Choice:

During Sen. Obama’s 2004 Senate campaign, the Illinois NOW PAC did not recommend the endorsement of Obama for U.S. Senate because he refused to stand up for a woman’s right to choose and repeatedly voted ‘present’ on important legislation.

As a State Senator, Barack Obama voted ‘present’ on seven abortion bills, including a ban on 'partial birth abortion,' two parental notification laws and three 'born alive' bills. In each case, the right vote was clear, but Sen. Obama chose political cover over standing and fighting for his convictions.

“When we needed someone to take a stand, Sen. Obama took a pass,” said Grabenhofer. “He wasn’t there for us then and we don’t expect him to be now.”

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

I have heard of OCCAM'S RAZOR, and it turns out to be false in most scientific discoveries. according to that razor, it is common sense that the sun turns around the the earth. after all, that is the simplest explanation. also, it is common sense that heavy objects would fall faster than lighter objects under the influence of gravity. after all, that would have been the conclusion stemming from Occam's razor. also, the simplest exaplanation is that space and time flow in one direction, thus eistein's theory of general relativity makes no sense according to occam's razor. most of advanced mathematics also make no sense, complex variables and advanced calculus make no sense according to that sharp razor. you see, my friends, occam's razor has been shown to be the response of lazy and non-creative minds.
so you think that the rightwing pundits are afraid of hillary; then you must be really crazy.
tell me what it is that they are afraid of?
her appeal to whom? her experience in what?
what army did she help command to victory? what national security commitee was she on? what great foreign policy book did she write? what great essay on foreign policy did she write in college?
what great law to stimulate american economy did she help pass in the senate?
so you really believe that reverse psychology has no merit. so you think that karl, a very smart guy would come as obvious as you claim, that he really wants obama. the last time I checked rove's resume, he was smarter than that.

A quick look at rove's political resume would lead any reasonable person to recognize that rove's penchant for obama is a tricky ploy by a historically tricky strategist; and that his strategy cannot be that obvious.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

Yes, tim, I believe that the Hispanic vote will go to Hillary, as it should. As for Clinton being a "Republican," I've answered that charge, or what amounts to the same charge, earlier. Try reading what's been posted, CSG, before jumping in. After all, all the progressive organizations show that Hillary has the highest marks amongst all Democratic candidates for her progressive voting record. The equations and other such phrases, repeated ad nauseum by so-called far leftists, are just pure balderdash. You have no evidence to support your claim and nothing in Hillary's history suggests that. If she is so "Republican," why do the Republicans call her a "socialist?"

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama fairy tale has Chicago-size hole
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/colum...

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan: we can only be held accountable for our own posts -

So on a break I google Brian Greenspun and Bill Clinton and guess what (and maybe you all knew this)

LVsun owner was Clinton's room mate at Yale - and donated $500,000 to Clinton Library

Link for entire article attached:

"The next tier down is labeled "Philanthropists." A major New York labor organization, Local 1199 of the Service Employees International Union, donated at this level, which appears to correspond to gifts of $500,000 to $1 million. Also donating in this range was the editor of the Las Vegas Sun, Brian Greenspun, who was one of Mr. Clinton's roommates at Yale."

http://www.nysun.com/article/5137?page_n...

Obama and Edwards should push harder for the Clinton records and library donors to be disclosed

Maybe the4 LVSun editorial board really believes Senator Clinton is the right candidate - but don't you think this stuff should have been at least disclosed to a public who is reading this?

By hrclvs: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

THE AUDACITY OF HYPE!!
http://www.newstatesman.com/200801100000......

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

bill clinton only loves latinos when they would vote for him or his wife, but when they rebel, he would put them in their place by attempting to disemfranchise them with a lawsuit.
wow! what a great relationship!!
labor endorsement only has meaning when it is for them but when it is for somebody else, it is meaningless or arm-twisting.
wow!!
i am not surprised at all; after all, that is the same president who tried to unwitingly change the common definition of the very common word "sex".

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

mm, Occam's Razor is not the same as "common sense." It has to do, not with assessing phenomena based on common or given predispositions, but rather not needlessly multiplying unnecessary pluralities in explaining events. In this case, your explanation fails miserably and you are wrong. Science does often use this principle and it isn't contradicted by recent discoveries. I see you are no fan of the principle in your own right, as you seem to continually multiply the explanations for phenomena, often to the point of absurdity. Maybe it's triple reverse psychology!

But your notion that Rove and others are orchestrating a reverse-psychology conspiracy is ridiculous on its face. It assumes that most Democrats believe in Republican conspiracies. It assumes that most would consider the pundits and then revolt against them. It assumes some imaginary concord amongst them. It assumes so many factors that cannot be verified, that it is ridiculous. The easier explanation, and much more likely, is that the rightwing is actually trying to push Obama down our throats. Why? That's another issue. But most likely because they believe they can beat him.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

Tim, exactly. The far right says Hillary is a socialist and the so-called far left has been handed some rhetoric -- that they've repeated ad nauseum and to the point that they accept it without thought -- that she's a corporate Democrat or "Republican." Both can't be true. So the conclusion that one should reach based on this craziness is that, simply, she is NEITHER. She's actually a progressive liberal. Oh, wait, her voting record testifies to this too. One never thought to consult that, however. If one did, one wouldn't find 130 "present" votes.

Of course, they would call this "triangulation," whereas I would call it what it is; reason.

By shouaxx: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

GET OUT THERE AND CAUCUS FOR HILLARY YOU WILL HAVE THE ECONOMY WE DESERVE AND THE CARE FOR OUR YOUNG AND ELDERS! DO WE WANT A MAN THAT AT THIS MOMENT IS UNDER INVESTIGATION WITH TONY REZKO? SO WHAT ABOUT THE AFFAIRS WITH CLINTON WHAT PRESIDENT HASN'T HAD PROBLEMS IN THE WHITE HOUSE? HE HAS PROVED TO AMERICA THAT HE IS SERIOUS ABOUT HELPING HILLARY AND WANTS A BETTER CHANGE FOR AMERICA

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

No, Tim, the suit was a piece of reverse-psychology. By apparently benefitting the culinary workers by allowing them to vote at the workplace, the rightwing was actually trying to make the rest of the voters angry to the point that they would support Clinton. So the benefit given to the culinary workers (and Obama) would be overwhelmed by that given to the other caucus goers. It all makes sense and it's Karl Rove's doing after all. This is because he really wants Hillary to win.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:22 p.m.; Suggest removal

Tim, LOL!

I'm sorry, this is just too fun. MM has really made my day. I'm twisted into a pretzel laughig my a** off over here.

But just remember: Whatever appears to benefit Obama is really a benefit to Hillary. Just ask Rudy!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

Rudy is throwing the first few states to lull the rest of the field into a stupor.

That's his strategy and it surely was concocted by Rove.

I have to go for a while Tim. Keep up the good work!

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

Guys, use your brains and be informed. Only fools vote for anyone because someone endorsed him or her. No more block voting - Latinos, African Americans. Vote your conscience, or else we will end up with some pathological liar/potential convict in the white house. Do your research! Bloomberg is waiting for the Democrats to nominate, and then he will make his move. Nominate a useless divisive person, and Democrats will lose big time in November. if Democrats cannot win the Presidency in November, they will not win the White House for a long time to come.

By giub99: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:38 p.m.; Suggest removal

I AGREE with the assessment that Senator Clinton is the best choice for President and for Nevada!

She is clearly the most experience, capable, and ready candidate to make change in this country on day 1.

Viva HILLARY !

By stanjz: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:40 p.m.; Suggest removal

I'm a supporter of Barack Obama. Let me just say first that I noticed some harsh language from another Barack supporter. Please don't do that. Always make a political or moral point. That said.
The Clinton’s never indexed the minimum wage to inflation like Barack Obama wants to, so the poor immediately saw inflation eat away at their small gains.
Federal Minimum Wage Bush one-April 1991 $4.25
Clinton-October 1996 $4.75 Clinton-September 1997 $5.15 You don't close the gap between the rich and poor with a .90 /hr raise over 8 years!
“The income gap actually grew more during the Democratic Clinton administration than it has during the Bush administration. According to U.S. Census data, the share of income for the wealthiest 5 percent rose from 18.6 percent in 1992 to 22.1 percent in 2000. That’s a jump of almost 19 percent.” The capital gains tax was(20%) and less than the income tax(38%) so that helped the wealthy stock owners keep more of their money, and made wage earners pay more in taxes.

By finkmo: Jan. 18, 2008; 12:50 p.m.; Suggest removal

Well tim-japan, the Clintons are definitely ambitious. Can't argue with you on that one. As to being loved...they're even more reviled, even within their own party! Sounds like a plan for unity to me. This endorsement sounds like it may have actually been written by the Clinton campaign. All the taking points are there. "Ready on day one!" "She'll turn the economy around!" "She has so much experience working for children!" "She'll give us all cookies and milk and read us a bedtime story!" What's hilarious to me are these morons who think one person can drastically improve an economy as gargantuan and complex as ours. Like everything was all rosy when Billy boy was in office because he was so darned good. One person can, however, drastically damage an economy by doing something foolish like, oh let's say spending 2 trillion dollars for an unnecessary war. I honestly can't believe anyone opposed to the war is now supporting Hillary Clinton. Let me say this loud and clear. SHE VOTED FOR IT
Our troops, reputation, safety, and economy have all paid the price. But now you're going to nominate her to fix it? If you get shoddy work done on your car or home do you hire the same guy again? No, unless you're an absolute fool, you stay the hell away from them!

By concernedcitizen: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

How much longer will the Clinton Campaign continue to COMPLAIN about the judge's ruling for site-caucusing------when THEY, the Clinton Campaign ACTUALLY AGREED to set the rules into motion themselves 9 (nine) MONTHS AGO? NOW we're constantly hearing about taking away our RIGHTS TO VOTE!!!! It will be interesting HOW their campaign will spin this in order for VOTERS to support them. DECEPTION is not good.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

tim japon and walden9, the judge who presided on the matter concluded that it is not the case that the current location of the caucuses would favor one group over another.why would clinton supporters take so long to challenge it if it were initially so unfair? the answer is very simple, they had an insider who thought that the union would back clinton, but to their surprise it did not, so they attempted to subvert the democratic process under false pretenses. if the clinton political machine is not linked to the lawsuit, why did bill angrily clash with a reporter in an attempt to show how wrong was the location of the caucauses? have you heard of proxies? proxies of a party are linked to that party, they are simply not linked to it officially!!! it was never the case that non-union voters would have problem voting in the casinos as admitted by one of clinton's chief operator in nevada. it was simply a charade.
timjapon, you are the one using race batting. you personally implied without saying explicitly that latinos would not be so stupid as to vote for obama.
you are the one taking latino vote for granted.
the clinton political machine played both the gender and the race card.

walden9, junior senator does not imply no time experience. in fact, senator clinton is the junior senator from new york. chuck schumer is the senior senator. it only means that the other senator has been in the senate before you.
one can possibly be a senior senator in having only two days in the senate, and a junior senator with a 20-year experience.

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

Tim, I am an independent, and I have young children. Will never forget the Clinton White House of the 90s. I could no longer watch news with my children, Bill Clinton debased the office of the Presidency, and I do not want him to spend one more night in the house of the people, doing who knows what.

Also I am asking people to vote for anyone but Hillary Clinton. We do not practice a Monarchy system in United States, and the Clintons had their chance. We have 300 million people in this country, there is no reason we should continue to be ruled by the Bushes and the Clintons. We are just ending an 8 year rule by the Bush Family. No Bushes, No Clintons in 08!!... Fresh Blood for America. No Monarchy system.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

foreign policy experience?

hillary blasted obama for saying that he would act militarily in pakistan's autonomous tribal areas if he had actionable intelligence. here the man conditions his military action on the very careful words of actionable intelligence; yet hillary blasted him for saying a reasonable thing.
she then denounced him unfairly as a foreign policy novice; but after buttho's assassination, clinton interfered with the internal affairs of an independent pakistan by calling for an international investigation; and she added that we should not trust the result of musharaff's investigation. not only does her outrageous statement interfere with the internal affairs of a foreign country in a case where the interests of the united states are not threatened( at the present moment in pakistan, musharaff is the best thing in pakistan that the U.S has against islamic fundamentalism), but hillary's comments could also have emboldened radicals in that country seeking to create an islamic state there.

now which of these two statements is a foreign policy blunder? saying publicly that one would take military action if provided with actionable intelligence, in the eventuality of pakistan's passivity, in an autonomous place that pakistan itself has a hard time administering, or publicly undermining the internal investigation of an american ally at a time of ongoing chaos?
if the latter is proof of experience in foreign policy, then we are gonna have a lot of foreign policy problems.

By robertincharlotte: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

EZboy: I checked out the youtube video. it appears to be bogus. The words dont match what is being said. By the way Ghandi was a leader of the Indian nation not the American indians. It is individuals who take fake videos like this at their word who help proppel the race division currently in this election. Hillary has been accused of being racist against blacks, yesterday was accused of being racist against latinos and now the indian population. This is ridiculous and needs to stop. I wonder who is behind all the lies and distortion? How easy it would be for another candidate to win if all of Hillarys support in the black, latino and minority communities dried up. Who ever is behind the latest comments and racial division should know that Americans will figure it out. They are not all as ignorant as the one who hastily put together a whack video of Clinton on youtube.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

tim_japan

this one you are TOTALLY wrong --

Sen Obama has totally released his Senate records. his IRS records etc
(what you likely are referring to is back up when he was in the state senate which no one has - unless they have a scheduler and the bureaucracy one has when they get to higher office)

Mrs. Clinton: has not released any of the records of her 35 years of experience she keeps touting -- they have the convenience of saying some of these things have to be "confidential" as the President was involved

And what about the donor list for the Clinton library? A few people have been made public -- what about the other 65 million or so --

Are you not even interested??

By rose474: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

The Sun--"Nonetheless, it is our sincere hope that Nevadans on Saturday turn out for the caucus in large numbers and vote for Hillary Clinton, who stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office.
*************************************************
Voters need to be reminded that,a vote for Hillary,is a vote for Bill!

(1)Jennifer Flowers was his mistress
2)Paula Jones-he sexully harassed her,She sued him and he SETTLED out of court.
3)Monica Lewisy-She was a naive young woman.He had her do all kinds of degrading things to satisfy his sexual needs,including using a cigar.
He DISGRACED the whitehouse and the COUNTRY!!Now,why in the world would any WOMAN//MOTHER ,want to see him in the whitehouse,again,with the possibility of seducing someone else's daughter?

Bill has lied so many times that,he wouldn't know the truth if it bit him in the butt! When he was president,the whole world saw him lie under oath!

If Hillary and the other cowardly Democrats hadn't voted for the war,4000 families would not have lost their son,daughter,brother,sister,wife husband,and thousands of soldiers would not be in the hospital,some without their limbs!!

Now,she wants to bring them home! Too little too late for those soldiers!

Those billions of dollars that are spent on the war each month,could have been/be to fix schools,help people with their insurance,help kids with their college education.

There is NO WAY that Hillary can beat "any" Republican because ,they(Republicans) are going to sweep the floor with Bill and Hill!

By rose474: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

Dusacre said-"Let me jumpstart your memory:

In the 90s the Clinton turned the Whitehouse to a Scandal house. Ever hear of Monica Lewinsky? Just to name a few!

How would you like Monica Lewinsky to be your daughter or your sister? How would you like Bill Clinton putting a cigar in her private part, and smoking it? We are talking about a married man. Would you like your wife or your husband to do that to you? Would you not divorce her or him?
And Clinton looking at the American people in the eyes and saying: “I did not have sexually relationship, with that woman". You call that popularity? Do you know how many people are today in American prison because of oral sex or lying to the grand jury?
Now I will ask this question: what is worse; lying to the grand jury or lying to the whole country? I don't understand how a respectable News Paper like Sun can endorse the Clintons back to the Whitehouse and say that Clinton “stands ready to restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office”. Your paper is not worth a cent! You should at least choose a different."
*************************************************
Here! Here!!Maybe the Sun wants Hillary to be the Democratic nominee because,the paper knows she CAN'T win!!

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

RobertinCharlotte, I am neither a Hillary or Obama supporter. There is no reason for me to post a fake youtube posting. Here is Hillary apologizing for the comment. I was not referring to Native Americans, I was referring to Americans from India (Country in Asia).

And here is Hillary apologizing for the unfortunate comment - racial stereotype:

http://www.usatoday.com/news/politicsele...

Is this also bogus? Is USA Today faking it too? Get real. I do not know who I am voting for yet, but I am completely fed up with the Clintons and the Bushes. We have over 350 million intelligent, smart people in this country, and there is no reason why we should continue to be ruled by 2 families. We elected George W on name recognition, we can all see the end result.

By Gamblndan: Jan. 18, 2008; 1:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

Clintons = scandels! No MORE!

Linda Tripp, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinski, Kenn Starr...enough already.

And about this 35 years experience claim...

Hillary Clinton keeps talking about her 35 years of experience. "I am offering 35 years of experience making change," she said in New Hampshire. "I'm not just running on a promise of change, I'm running on 35 years of change." And she repeatedly mentioned the 35 years again in this week's debate in Las Vegas.

Well, Senator Clinton, I'm confused. I've done the math. You're 60, which means that 35 years ago you were 25. And I Googled your name, looking for all the change you were making as a 25 year old and, frankly, I'm not finding much. You were going to Yale Law School at the time -- which I'm sure was a personally transformative experience, but it's hardly the kind of change that should count on one's Presidential Training Experience resume, is it? Is that when you started your personal Working-for-Change-O-Meter?

That summer, the summer of 1972, you campaigned in Texas for George McGovern's unsuccessful presidential bid. A worthy -- if ultimately futile -- endeavor to be sure, but a notch on your Years of Change belt? Kind of a stretch, don't you think?

But as liberal as you are with your Experience Arithmetic, you are awfully stingy when it comes to the experience and background of Barack Obama.

"He was a part-time state senator for a few years," you recently said of Obama, "and then he came to the Senate and immediately started running for president," she said. "And that's his prerogative. That's his right. But I think it is important to compare and contrast our records."

For starters, the state senate in Illinois is not a full-time job, but you make it sound like he was some kind of political temp worker, just filling in when someone called in sick. But leaving that aside, why is it that you get to count your time canvassing for McGovern as working for change, but Obama's time as a community organizer and public housing advocate aren't worthy of mention? And what about his time at Harvard Law (where he was the first black president in the history of the Harvard Law Review)? Doesn't count? But your time at Yale Law does? In the now immortal words of your husband: Give me a break.

I know you are good person who is devoted to public service. But that doesn't absolve you of the responsibility to not distort your record. And to not distort the record of your opponent.

Your 35 years talking point just doesn't add up.

By asoka: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

I am emailing a link to a video which has not been spoken of in the mainstream media. It raises very serious issues with the Clintons. I hope that you will do what good journalism is supposed to do and verify and investigate. In the 23:00 minute there is Roger Clinton, under police surveillance, snorting cocaine and using the N-word multiple times. I don't need to disseminate what this 56 minute video means. Please take time to watch and notify your state of this aberration.

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=...

By jenmarie: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:18 p.m.; Suggest removal

Bravo, LVS for making the right choice!

infinitewy and others who have bought in to the Obama = change: don't be fooled by pretty words. Obama is as much a politician as anyone else running, and will do and say anything to be elected.

We know Obama was considering a YEA vote for Roberts for U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, but was talked out of it in 2005 by his chief of staff Pete Rouse who reminded him it could cripple a future presidential run. (which shows caving for personal political ambitions but we won't go there)

Note the irony here though--

Keeping within the famous Obama themes of "CHANGE" "Out with the Old DC Status Quo, and In with the NEW" - He hires as his number one guy, the insider's insider, Pete Rouse to be his chief of staff.... Rouse is known for his three decades as a Washington DC insider, beginning in 1971 when he worked as an aide to Senator Tom Daschle, later with Dick Durbin, etc. Hardly someone you'd glom onto to craft a spanking new image of freshness and departure from the "Same Old Same Old" style of beltway politics. Yet Obama selects him out of a slew of other younger less experienced offerees (per the article) And puts him in the Decider's seat, the driver's seat --of his career.

With that in mind, lookie here how Obama applauds the senior old time codger who's helping him form some of the most important career decisions of his life.

------------

"Pete's very good at looking around the corners of decisions and playing out the implications of them," Obama said an interview.

KEY PHRASES HERE -----> "He's been around long enough that he can recognize problems and pitfalls a lot quicker than others can." "His familiarity with Washington makes him somebody whose judgment I trust," Obama said.

-----------

So,' been around long enough' had real value in Obama's book when picking his leader -- And longtime familiarity with Washington DC equates with 'judgment you can trust'. Hmmm. Sounds like Obama wants experience running his world instead of all that change/hope stuff that's supposed to be good enough for the rest of us. The guy reminds me of those really smooth talking salesmen that place you momentarily into a semi - trance, next thing you know you've bought a car you don't like.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

By claudiam: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

Why don't you get it? Hillary is so polarizing she will only continue the divisiveness in America. The Repubs do not like the Clinton's and any Repub left in Congress in '09 will not work with her! Yes, a vote for Hillary is also a vote for Bill and remember the gridlock that we experienced while he was in office. Wake up and do what is right for this country. The Clinton's are so yesterday and are part of the establishment! Experience? Some of our greatest President's didn't have the "35 years" of experience Hillary claims she has. Jr. "had experience" and look where that got us. We need "Real Change" and Hillary cannot deliver.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

obama has been faithful to his wife. he has shown that he is a dignified man who would not abuse his power in a self-serving way.
the only thing you can come up with is his admitted drug use as a teenager. most american teenagers have experimented with drugs includning our fine young men fighting in iraq. most people have done just that, but would not admit it; but at least, he is honest to say that he did experiment with drugs as a teenager contrary to those who did try but claim to have not inhaled.
the fairy tale here is with the clintons!!!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

mm, You're the one who complained that Obama was being referred to as a "junior senator." I replied that this was simply a fact, and not part of some conspiracy to undermine him. You then replied by saying that it didn't mean anything derogatory and that it was a relative designation per state. I already knew that. You're the one who complained about this usage, which was merely a statement of fact and not some derisory remark. Get a grip.

By Virginia: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

The Sun took the time to watch and listen to the presidential contenders. The Sun's endorsement for Hillary Clinton is well deserved and earned by the senator. This election is critical - we must gain a proven, smart leader - it's Hillary. Vote Hillary Clinton.

By mom4clinton: Jan. 18, 2008; 2:59 p.m.; Suggest removal

No more Carpetbaggers for Obama!

I am caucusing for Hillary and so everyone knows you can even register tomorrow at your caucus location and check out where your site is at http://www.leg.state.nv.us/. They have it so you can type in your home address and find your location.

Don't let any Carpetbaggers for Obama try to steer you around the room to change your vote. Nobody can make you change your vote and the rules never make you do that.

Here we know how to spot tourists and short term people so this isn't Iowa, okay Political Carpetbaggers?

Hillary's a great candidate and I'm glad this paper thinks so too. She's got detailed economic plans which she showed during the debate were really hers and not talking points. She spoke to our state and the country at the same time which shows real leadership.

Obama wants to be a figurehead. For that you have to be born the King of England. In this country we're looking for workers and teams. Bill really knows how to handle reporters too.

NO MAS, CARPETBAGGERS. VIVA HILLARY, VIVA LAS VEGAS, VIVA NEVADA!!

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

ready on day one!!! does not that sound arrogant to you? even jfk who was a war hero did not underestimate the challenges ahead.
but our junior senator from new york is ready on day one. she needs no advisors because she will be micro-manager and hands-on.
america does not to be micro-managed, it needs to be led. it does not need a coo, it needs a ceo with visions!!!

By wbboei: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

CONGRATULATIONS TO HILLARY CLINTON ON THIS ENDORSEMENT. IT IS SOUND, WELL REASONED AND HAS THE ADDED ADVANTAGE OF BEING TRUE.

AS AN INDEPENDENT VOTER WHO IS DEEPLY CONCERNED FOR THE FUTURE OF OUR COUNTRY, I HAVE STUDIED EACH OF THE CANDIDATES AND THE REQUIREMENTS WHICH THE JOB OF PRESIDENT ENTAILS-- IN AN EFFORT TO SELECT THE BEST CANDIDATE.

IN THE PROCESS, I HAVE COME TO THE IDENTICAL CONCLUSION AS THE LAS VEGAS SUN--HILLARY IS THE ONE WE NEED--FOR NEVADA, AND FOR AMERICA. THE TIMES AND CIRCUMSTANCES REQUIRE NOTHING LESS.

By tomdc: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

NO THIRD TERM !

NO MORE BUSH, NO MORE CLINTON, We're sick of em already.

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

The devil himself can descend in NV and vote for Hillary, He may even bring all his armies. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Bill Clinton may yell at reporters, he may even bark. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Marketer and political strategists may repackage Hillary Clinton and sell her to us; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

All Clinton support can vote for her as long as they want; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Why?

Americans in the vast majority are people with a good judgment. They know and see what the Clintons are.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

first of all, no one here claims that obama is perfect or a saint. no one here claims that obama has no ambitions. to want to be president means that you have ego; and who does not have ego? people with no ego do not accomplish much in life.
however, i know that we already have intitutions and competent bureaucrats; and what is missing is confidence, inspiration, and vision in our government. so, a hands-on presidency without vision, with a history of division and hard-ball politics would not do much; and going to every federal agency to micro-manage would not solve our problems either. also keeping a disorganized desk does not disqualify you to be in charge.
for god's sake, one's weakness could not reasonably be the following: " i am impatient to bring change to america". come on people!!!
this a politically polished response that suggests deep disrespect for human intelligence.

here is a question for the hard-core supporters of hillary: which of the following two statements is a foreign policy blunder:

obama: " i will act in pakistan to get rid of the alqueda threat if pakistan would not act. i would do so upon being provided with actionable intelligence"

clinton: "we should not trust the conclusion of the musharaff investigation into the assassination of bhutto. in fact, there should be an international investigation led by the UN"

now, one does not need to be a genius to know that the first statement is reasonable because it is a conditional statement with reasonable conditional parameters--- passivity of pakistani government, actionable intelligence in an autonomous area hardly administered by pakistani officials. so, such an action would not undermine the soveignty of pakistan per se but rather lead to the paramount security of the united states.
on the contrary, hillary's statement interferes with the internal affairs of an independent country, undermines an american ally, boldens radical interests in a potentially chaotic situation.
now, which of these two statements is a foreign policy blunder?

if that is experience, then we are in big trouble!!!

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 3:47 p.m.; Suggest removal

Katy,

You are a wonderful!

By Dusacre: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

You wrote: "one does not need to be a genius to know ..."

The first thing the Clintons do to get a support is to go for their emotions

The second thing is to divide them, and give them a feeling of being special

The third thing is to take way any logical thought

These are the three steps to become a hard-core Clinton supporter.

By NickD: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

EXCELLENT CHOICE FOR NEVADA.....I'm so happy to see the Las Vegas Sun getting this right. Hillary Clinton is clearly the best candidate running. Everyone else is just fluff.

By SantaCruz: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

1) Sen. Obama has less overall experience.
2) Mrs. Hillary Clinton is not a slave wife of her husband and has stood up for other women's rights.
3) Sen. Clinton is a person with a mind of her own.
4) Sen. Clinton has her individual personal career path not merely a housewife for her husband.
5) Sen. Obama has not voted Yes or No much of the time but has no votes on many crucial issues.
6) Sen. Obama has already embarassed the United States by commenting during his campaign in Fall 2007 that he would enter the borders of Afganistan and Pakistan if they do not submit to that themselves.
7) Sen. Obama made references about Sen. Clinton that she was to blame for Pakistani leader Bhutto's assination which is not only an emabarassment to himself but that leaders in our country say such things about fellow senators.
8) Sen. Obama does not think independantly for himself, nor does he think for others; he seems to poll public opionion and cater to the polls.
9) Sen. Obama does not admit to his own mistakes and when he can, he also side steps just like any other politician meanwhile lecturing rhetoric to the masses of his followers who follow his "fair tales" ready to drink the "cool aid".
10) Sen. Obama takes credit for the work that Sen. Clinton and other Senators and leader like Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. have done before him. One would think from listening to him that no one ever marched or gave speeches before he came on the scene.

By prseshad: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

Wow, the editors must be on Clinton's campaign staff. All the talking points are certainly there. Either that or they are displaying a sad lack of critical and original thought.

I wish other Dems would wake up and realize that according to polls, 40% of the country absolutely despises this woman, and probably another 10 or 15% simply don't care for her. She will never win the general election, unless she is up against Huckabee. Wake up Dems before it's too late!

By maffei1: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

While Hillary Clinton would never get my vote, I have to say that the author is technically correct that Hillary Clinton could "restore dignity and competence to the Oval Office". But this is based on the article's premise that she would bring about something better than a GWB presidency. Hey Las Vegas Sun, not fair! OK... I grant you that, relatively speaking, we would see more dignity and competence in the WH but, we don't just need someone better than Bush - we need the candidate with the most dignity and competence of them all!

Obama '08

By wales: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:47 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary tells editorial board : Reagan and Poppy Bush were two of my favorite presidents..
http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/relea...

"Her list of favorite presidents - Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Lincoln, both Roosevelts, Truman, George H.W. Bush and Reagan - demonstrates how she thinks. As expected, Bill Clinton was also included on the aforementioned list."
-Salmon Press
12/12/07 Endorsement of Sen. Hillary Clinton

HILLARY PUT THIS ON HER OWN WEBSITE. [Grab it while you can]

By SantaCruz: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

Of course even Senator Obama could do better than GWB. My non-english-speaking neighbor could do better than that. That is not good enough to vote for Sen. Obama. I asked many people - at the DMV, the bank, the grocery store - over the past several months. From my polling, people who love Obama are not aware of Foreign Affairs, Economics other than the price of gas and medical, not even Racism/Sexism or other Civil Rights. People who wanted Sen. Clinton were more aware of some of those topics, more readily able to speak about one or more. Some of them know that None of Us want to Offend Another Middle East country so that terrorists want to bomb us. Sen. Clinton has the overall awareness, know-how and Oval Office Tact to keep us out of World War Three.

By wales: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

"People who wanted Sen. Clinton were more aware of some of those topics, more readily able to speak about one or more."

None of the polls show that. She is the favorite among the least-educated and the oldest.

By sbeth7: Jan. 18, 2008; 4:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

I can not believe some of the negative and mean spirited things people are saying in these posts! What has happened to the Democratic party to make us so negative and divided? We should be coming together to work for positive change, not saying things like this- it is sad!

I still think Hillary Clinton is the most knowledgeable and experienced person to be president. I agree with the Las Vegas Sun's assessment of the situation: She is the most likely to win come November and the most likely to be able to take on the job of being president from Day One! Obama seems to be a likeable guy, but he does not seem up to the task of being president. Hillary has a more detailed plan and a better understanding of the complex issues that we face. I also do not like the way Obama has used the issue of race to stir up emotions and cause a division in the Democratic party. To say that Hillary said something racist is totally off the mark and very mean spirited! The Clintons have a history of standing up for civil rights. We should not allow issues of race or gender to divide us! We should also not vote someone because of their race or gender. I support Hillary because she is smart and experienced, not simply because she is a woman. That is true equality electing someone based on their merits! I hope that America can finally evolve to that point where we judge people based on their merits!

Nevada please caucus for Hillary tomorrow!

By wales: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Obama seems to be a likeable guy, but he does not seem up to the task of being president. Hillary has a more detailed plan and a better understanding of the complex issues that we face."

Not according to senators who know the difference.

Senator Kerry says: "He produced one of the most significant ethics reform bills we passed. He has been a legislator longer than Hillary Clinton." And then this zinger: "Health care didn't pass in 1994 if I recall."

Senator Leahy called Obama the best choice because he can "reintroduce America to the world and reintroduce America to ourselves. ... Barack Obama represents the America we once were and want to be again."

"I also do not like the way Obama has used the issue of race to stir up emotions and cause a division in the Democratic party. To say that Hillary said something racist is totally off the mark and very mean spirited! The Clintons have a history of standing up for civil rights."

What rock have you been hiding under for the past three months. IT WAS THE CLINTON CAMPAIGN that raised race.
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/11/us/pol...
http://www.swamppolitics.com/news/politi...

By ObamaTruth: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:08 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama 2008 = McGovern 1972
Democrats need a winner! We Need Hillary!

By ObamaTruth: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama's dirty campaign tactics here in Nevada raises serious concerns for me. It is obvious he will do anything to get elected.. including lie. What should make us believe he would keep his promise on Yucca Mountain? Hillary Clinton has already stood with Nevada on this very important issue when it came up in the Senate, even though it may have been unpopular with constituents in her state. She has shown she will put principle above polictics. When it comes to Yucca Mountain, Obama is a big question mark. The fact that one of his biggest campaign donors is an energy firm that supports Yucca MOuntain should raise serious concerns for Nevadans. But even more, Obama's dishonest tactics in this state should raise serious concerns about his trustworthiness.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:16 p.m.; Suggest removal

katy - dusacre

you both rock!
(and you're right!)

By Edna: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

For everyone's best interests, I challenge you to analyze each candidate's stance on the issues, and carefully consider where we are headed. These problems are complex and will require a great deal of cooperation.

I believe we need Obama to come in and unite this country behind solving the issues instead of choosing the only candidate running who could refuel the battle in Washington.

It's time to make the change from the ineffectual, stubborn, partisan battle in our politics.

By SantaCruz: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

I have been analyzing the entirety of this last years presidential election process. I even did research on the Republicans because I went to a family reunion with me extended family - who by the way are descendants of the May Flower. Being that our family has roots in the Dakotas, I paid members of my family respect and looked at their candidates. Of course, I have had friends who followed Kucinich for years. Frankly, the more I looked into Sen. Obama's record, rhetoric, tone, demeanor through his speeches and debates, the more I was adamant that Sen. Clinton was the most prepared individual amongst both Republicans and Democrats to take the Oval Office and make heads and tails of the mess GWB will leave for her.

By dahawt: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

Women of Nevada:You can assure that a message is sent forth across this country. You can confirm the power of your presence in the political arena. My mother told me over 50 years ago that the greatest freedom we have in this country is the freedom to vote, to assure that our interests, our dedications, our deepest felt loyaties to those we love and those we care about are heard. No matter what sacrifice it takes, vote in the caucus. Do what it takes to get where you have to go to vote.Women of Nevada:Support the person who for 35 years has supported us and our loved ones without fail. Bring your friends or go with them. Whether the caucus is down the hall, or down the street, show up for Hillary Clinton--an advocate for working women and unions all her life. I grew up in a Union family and am proud of it. Show up for Hillary Clinton. Show up for this country.

By JohnEdwards2008andbeyond: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:43 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11...

Send this link to everyone you know who votes. Americans and our media seem that this is a two person race. They are dead wrong. Some them that Edwards is the best candidate in the GENERAL ELECTION!!!

On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent).

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats," Holland said. "Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties.

By gsirod: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:44 p.m.; Suggest removal

If it is possible for one moment to take gender and race out of the voters minds and just look at the candidates ability to address the issues that are upon America and the world.

Issues like the economy, Iraq war, Health Care, Environment and so on.

Edwards voted for Yucca Mountain to be used as a radioactive waste site not once, but twice. Obama could have tried to turn down Illinois' support of Yucca Mountain, but said nothing and let his state approve the project. Hillary has consistently been against this project.
The Iraq war, Hillary and Edwards both approved the authorization of the Iraq war, which at the time we had just gone through 9-11 and we were told by the Bush Administration that Saddam potentially had access to nuclear weapons. In hind sight, what if the Bush Administration was this time actually right. Not taking action would have been lethal. Their vote was justified. Obama says he has always been against the war. What would he have done, waited until they dropped bombs on America before reacting. Is that what America wants for a President? Although Obama says he has been against the war, why has he voted to support it each time being a U.S. Senator? A little hypocritical.

Hillary started the initiative in getting Universal Health Care back in the early 90's. She saw a need out there way back then. Instead of someone trying to improve upon what she initiated and take care of the American people, the people in Washington just criticized it and we got no where. It did not hurt them, they have health insurance, but their actions costs many American lives by lack of action. A decade later there is still not Universal Health Care (way to go Washington) and suddenly it becomes an issue of the other two candidates (Obama and Edwards). Hillary has a new and revised health care plan that covers all Americans. Her opponents do not. Her efforts in getting health care for all Americans never ended.

Every moment of ones life is an experience. Whether one was a First Lady, a Mother, a Father, or a Senator. One cannot discount any of it. How many Mothers not only work full time jobs but also manage their own personal families. Everything we do makes us who we are today. Hillary who had to go through the embarrassment of an unfaithful husband, yet managed to pull the family together. Our divorce rate is so high. I commend her on keeping the family together.

It does not matter, what your color or ethnic background is. People are people. We all have our struggles.

Hillary gets criticized by Edwards because she displayed a few seconds of emotion. Then she gets criticized for showing no emotion at all. If she says anything factual about Obama it becomes a race issue.

I salute the Las Vegas Sun for carefully looking at the candidates voting records, accomplishments and experiences in life. Thanks for endorsing the best PERSON for the job - HILLARY CLINTON.

By Edna: Jan. 18, 2008; 5:52 p.m.; Suggest removal

Our party could stay with the status quo candidate(s) of whom they are comfortable and familiar. Or they could embrace a new generation of leadership with a new understanding of a new age and new policies and ideas.

Obama's endorsements are by people who best understand the urgency for a new direction within the party and have the courage to change.

Arizona governor Janet Napolitano, and U.S. Sens. Ben Nelson of Nebraska, Tim Johnson of South Dakota, Claire McCaskill of Missouri among others understand that a new generation of leaders - unbound by old policies, old commitments and arrangements, old deals and old friendships - can move America beyond the gridlock which is destroying our country.

This is a time when America must leave old politics behind. This election is about transition not power.

By 1950democrat: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

Why does everyone see this in isolation? Obama is 46 -- he can take his two terms later. Hillary and Bill are 60; if they don't take Hillary's two terms now, they may not want to commit 9 years of their life later. We need the proven winners to take back the White House and make the voting process fair, so that Obama CAN get elected later. This year, the GOP would destroy Obama.

As for the 'at large' caucuses, are they open to ANY voters that work within 2.5 miles, or just union members? And can a union member choose to caucus in the neighborhood where he lives (if he can disappear from work)?

As for HIllary being behind the lawsuit, I'm sure she was not; she would have known it would cause her bad publicity.

By prseshad: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

Thank you Edna! I want a Dem President like everyone else, but Clinton is too divisive. Voting for her would just pave the way for a Republican in 2012. How can someone who won't even admit she has any weaknesses and won't admit she was wrong on Iraq work in a bipartisan fashion with Republicans? She can't. Can we please elect someone who knows how to get things done without pissing off half the country? I know a lot of Dems think Republicans are evil, but as a Dem living in a red state, I can tell you that most of them are reasonable people. I don't blame them for disliking the Clintons either.

By stellaroo: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

I am so dismayed by The Sun's promotion of the Clinton nomination. From the start, her campaign has replicated the disingenuous, dishonest, manipulative and corrupt campaign policies which characterized both Bush elections. By this endodrsement, you are buying into the corporate meme and acknowledging the powerlessness of MSM in forwarding cohesive and honest editorial reporting. It is moments like this that make me ashamed to be an American. The Obama campaign has created a nationwide movement of citizens who are ready to engage in reclaiming our active role in democracy. I will not vote for Sen. Hillary Clinton for President. This is a major disappointment and an example of how unethical journalism in America has become.

By dranfu: Jan. 18, 2008; 6:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

Allow me to provide some light on a lot of misunderstanding here:

One, Senator Obama championed an extremely successful health care plan for Illinois children - All Kids http://www.allkids.com/, created with Rod R. Blagojevich(IL Gov.)is literally a model for a workable, affordable national health care plan. All children qualify, $40 per child for full coverage health insurance? How many of you making around $45,000 a year pay such a low premium. What health care program has Hillary created. She stated during the Nevada debate that she helped pass the CHIP, Children's Health Insurance Program, the federal program that covers millions of children in the US. She completely mislead the audience. Senator Orrin G. Hatch, a conservative Republican, along with Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat, wrote the monumental health care bill in 1997. Hillary boasted bravely of her achievement that night, but she was not in office in 1997, she was the first lady at the time, and was wrapped up in the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Two, Barack Obama has had a fantastic career, even before his political office. He was an Illinois Senator from 1996 to 2004. As a state legislator, Obama gained bipartisan support for legislation reforming ethics and health care laws.[33] He sponsored a law enhancing tax credits for low-income workers, negotiated welfare reform, and promoted increased subsidies for child care.[34] Obama also led the passage of legislation mandating videotaping of homicide interrogations, and a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped.[34] The law was at first very controversial, but due to Obama's skills as a negotiator and bipartisanships, he won the support of the police. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.-Wikipedia.

Time Magazine wrote an excellent article on Obama's political achievements - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

I'm fairly shocked at the misinformation of this election cycle. I wish I could remain unbiased. But Obama's dedication to service, his consistency to fight on behalf of the interest of the American people cannot be ignored. A presidency under him would indeed be a win for the common man, and undoubtely would be a new era in Washington politics.

I'm afraid that under the Clinton's - If her current smear and suppress tactics are any indication - it would simply be more of the same Washington politics. I am voting for Obama because I beleive we do need a new direction for our country, and Obama is exactly the man that can do that.

By seven: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

And the Obamaniacs go NUTS! Sweet!

GO HILLARY!

By snoke359: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:47 p.m.

Comment removed by staff.

By HillaryNow: Jan. 18, 2008; 7:55 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama does not deserve to be president.

His supporters are rude, vicious people from what I have encountered steadily.

Obama encourages it like he did with his smear job "stand up" routine attack on Hillary at a high school today.

He was AWOL and did not vote a record 130 times!!! in the Senate when it came time to '"change" America.

He fixed his wife's salary in Chicago, it doubled to $365,000.00 and he did nothing for the people there on top of it.

I do not trust him.

His health care plan leaves millions of Americans out in the cold.

He and his campaign workers constantly use bait and switch attacks on their fellow Dems. Being sneaky and dishonest are hardly traits we need all over again for 4 - 8 years.

After he slanders and damages Hillary he plays all innocent and becomes Mr. Nice guy, and it's 'let's all have a truce' after he started and encourages the whole incident.

He has no experience compared to Hillary, only a Jr. Senator 2 short years to Hillary's 7 including her re-election.

Is too young to be President yet, JFK had 14 years in Congress and Senate before he ran, and Obama is no JFK.

Obama steals lines from MLK and JFK for his speeches in an attempt to dupe his zombie youth clone army to thinking he is as great as those great men. Hey Obama, here's a clue! accomplish something first, and be original, "I have a dream" ?? oh brother..

He is a "dreamer" Hillary is a "doer"

His second largest campaign contributer is Exelon, the largest nuclear energy company in America, so much for the environment..

He and his wife both are very materialistic, it is quite obvious seeing their lush lifestyle.

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of giving all our money away to foreigners, we don't need another one.

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of that bases his judgments on what God tells him to do, we don't need another one.

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of who refuses to hold people accountable who screw up when they work for him, we certainly don't need another one.
Hillary on the other hand has fired several of her people when they stepped out of line.

Obama uses preacher speaking techniques in his speeches, an actual phony mind control 'roll technique' used by preachers to hypnotize their followers into mental submission.

Is very arrogant talking down to Hillary in his blatant disrespect for her being a woman and 15 years his senior.

Very disrespectful along with his snotty, clueless followers to both Bill and Hillary thumbing their noses at the Clinton's incredible legacy and all the great things they have done for their country and people all over the world.

I really could go on here more but I think that will suffice for now.

Hillary All The Way!!

Obama please just GO away..

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:01 p.m.; Suggest removal

Anyone but Hillary. Hillary's nomination would be a disaster for Democrats in November. The Clintons had their chance and they decided to trample on the trust placed in the Presidency by the American people. Americans want to be able to watch TV with their Kids, that would not happen with the Clintons in the White House. Part of the reason Al Gore lost in 2000, was because of all the Clinton scandals. George Bush campaigned on restoring dignity and respect to the Presidency. The Clintons are now part of history, and I'd like to see them just go away. Time is up, off to Chappaqua..

By NickAtNight: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

<quote>One word can sum up George W. Bush’s presidency: incompetence... Hurricane Katrina ... instantly come to mind.<end quote>

Oh really? You owe the citizens of Louisiana an apology. We are tired of ignorant, biased journalists bashing George Bush's and the Federal Governments response to Katrina for political gain.

The Federal governments performance during Katrina was extremely competent. The rescue and rebuilding effort was by far the largest, quickest and most expensive disaster recovery operation ever conducted by the federal government.

George Bush's performance was excellent.

First and foremost, George Bush, on the advice of meteorologist Max Mayfield, encouraged the Governor and the Mayor of New Orleans into calling for the FIRST EVER MANDATORY EVACUATION OF NEW ORLEANS. EVER. Everyone who wanted to leave did.
http://www.wwltv.com/local/stories/WWL08...

Second, George Bush declared the area a federal disaster area BEFORE the hurricane had even hit. This allowed the prepositioning of federal supplies.

Third, there were plenty of emergency shelters available for those of us that chose to obey the order and leave. Me, my daughter and our three cats went to Monroe and sheltered at the Civic Center. The emergency shelter was well staffed, safe, clean, and provided food, water, medical care and showers.

Fourth, the Superdome was a shelter of last resort. Over 30,000 flooded out residents from the city sought refuge there. Many of the media started rumors about the 'chaos' at the dome turned out to be exaggerations and misinformation. The Superdome was staffed with National Guard troops at all times. There were medical personnel in the Superdome.
http://www.reason.com/news/show/34103.ht...

Fifth, the efforts by the Coast Guard were both heroic and stupendous. They rescued over 33,520 people.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-cp/comrel/factf...

Sixth, the extra effort to provide us all with $2,000 debit cards was life saving for many of us.

Seventh, the massive, rapid temporary home building effort was unprecedented. The massive military aid to secure our damaged homes from looting was fabulous.

While we may all wish that Katrina had not happened, the massive and quick response of the federal government saved many lives. As with any major disaster, mistakes and miscommunication's did happen. But much of the carping was people deliberately looking at the glass being one tenth empty and not the glass being nine tenth's full.

Thank you President George Bush, Governor Kathleen Blanco, Mayor Ray Nagin and new Governor Bobby Jindal for your heroic efforts during this unprecedented period of disaster (Katrina and Rita) for Louisiana. We may not have always appreciated your work, but y'all both did the best you could under extremely trying conditions.

By Jade7243: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:04 p.m.; Suggest removal

Sadly, the Las Vegas Sun endorsed the wrong candidate.

One need only look at the transparent attempt by Hillary Clinton, her husband (the former President) and Nevada backers to manipulate and re-write the caucus rules at the eleventh hour to see why she is a poor choice to lead this nation. It was brazen attempt to undo what was originally crafted to boost her chances to win in Nevada. When the Culinary Workers decided to back a different candidate (and I firmly believe the same tactics would have been in play if the CW had endorsed John Edwards and not Barack Obama), the Clinton surrogates sought to disenfranchise not only CW workers but those who also work long hours on the Strip.

I believe that Nevada voters can see through her shameless attempt to "game" the system. We do not need that in the White House.

Fortunately, there are two candidates who deserve your caucus votes: Barack Obama or John Edwards. I wholeheartedly support Barack Obama. I believe he is the candidate with the best vision for where this nation should go from 2009 and beyond. As an alternative choice to Hillary Clinton, I urge you to also consider the candidacy of John Edwards, who brings a fighting spirit to the challenge of the presidency.

When you consider the future of our country, consider in whose hands it would be safeguarded: someone who believes in lifting us up and bringing us together? Or someone whose politics of division and polarization? One who works for the betterment of all? Or one who puts self (and winning) above all else?

You have seen the candidates, now it is time to make your decision. The right decision for Nevada and our country is Barack Obama.

Caucus for Barack Obama on Saturday, January 19.

By ezboy03: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

I am an independent, I do not want vote for Republicans this November, but will be forced to if the Democrats nominate Hillary. Anyone of these guys will fare better: Edwards, Obama, Bloomberg. We do not have a monarchy system, why should we continue to be ruled by 2 families. No Clintons, No Bushes in 08.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:14 p.m.; Suggest removal

I guarantee that an Obama presidency would be a disaster. There is no way anyone with experience with people of his ilk would vote for him if they knew exactly what comes from talkers of his ilk: NOTHING. Try working in an organization where people like him are in charge--and you'll find nothing but blatherers, talkers, big blowhards and complete INCOMPETENCE. Nothing ever gets done. Obama even admits that he's not an "operating officer," but only a speaker, a talker. By his own admission, he loses everything handed to him. His habits are those of an adolescent. No wonder all the kids want to vote for him. They see in him what they are themslves. And since they HAVE NO EXPERIENCE DOING ANYTHING, they highly undervalue it.

These kids project their own fantasies onto Obama, as they too want instant gratification without having earned their advancement.

We don't need an affirmative action admittance to the White House. We need a qualified candidate.

By 1950democrat: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

Many people don't know HOW Obama got his state senate seat. Instead of letting the people vote, he got ALL his opponents knocked off the ballot, including a respected "elder stateswoman", Alice Palmer.

For many details, see a Chicago Tribune bio published in April titled "Showing his bare knuckles
In first campaign, Obama revealed hard-edged, uncompromising side in eliminating party rivals"
http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit...
<I>And he defended his use of ballot maneuvers: "If you can win, you should win and get to work doing the people's business."</I>

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:19 p.m.; Suggest removal

The Clintons had nothing to do with the law suit to move the caucuses. The teachers' union did. I know Obama fans have a problem with a little-known realm called reality, but try to imagine a world filled with facts, and then try to imagine yourself inhabiting such a region. Once you enter, we will welcome you to reality.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

Notice that the media is not reporting that the polls in Nevada have Hillary ahead by 9 points, and that Hillary leads in the delegate count by 87 delegates. Instead, they keep suggesting that Obama is the leading candidate. They are patronizing him on the basis of race and in the hopes that they can help land him the nomination. That way, the rightwing will have him for a snack before trampling onto the White House. His credentials are as slim as his build, if not more so. He has not been vetted. But be sure that the Republicans would tear him apart, limb from skinny-a** limb. You think that race was a factor in the primary so far (and only Obama made it so); well, wait till the rightwing Willy Hortons Obama. Of course, you children have no idea what that was about. You weren't born yet. The only "change" you were involved in was having your diapers changed.

One thing we can count on: the 18-25 year olds will still be in bed when the caucus is over.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:36 p.m.; Suggest removal

Here's your champion for change--pushing competitors off the ballot like a gangster. I guess he learned something from being a street druggie after all:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/polit...
excerpt:

But in that initial bid for political office, Obama quickly mastered the bare-knuckle arts of Chicago electoral politics. His overwhelming legal onslaught signaled his impatience to gain office, even if that meant elbowing aside an elder stateswoman like Palmer.

A close examination of Obama's first campaign puts a hard edge on the image he has honed throughout his political career: The man now running for president on a message of giving a voice to the voiceless first entered public office not by leveling the playing field, but by clearing it.

One of the candidates he eliminated, long-shot contender Gha-is Askia, now says that Obama's petition challenges belied his image as a champion of the little guy and crusader for voter rights.

"Why say you're for a new tomorrow, then do old-style Chicago politics to remove legitimate candidates?" Askia said. "He talks about honor and democracy, but what honor is there in getting rid of every other candidate so you can run scot-free? Why not let the people decide?"

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

Either the Obamites are reconsidering their ridiculous conviction, or else they are too embarrassed and humiliated to keep posting their drivel. Either way, things have gotten very quiet in here.

By aw: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:58 p.m.; Suggest removal

sorry
my Internet is down

We're still here

By denwa: Jan. 18, 2008; 8:59 p.m.; Suggest removal

Does this mean if Obama gets elected no one can ever use the words “fairy tale” again, or any other words that might suggest he doesn’t know what he’s doing or what he’s talking about or that he might be full of BS, because that might be perceived as racially insensitive?

That’s a serious issue, regardless of Obama’s politics, if political speech is going to be curtailed about something as important as the performance in office of the president of the United States, because someone’s feelings might get hurt.

I’m guessing anything remotely resembling any of the delightful remarks about Bush's chimpy appearance, intelligence, preparedness for office and performance in the last seven years would pretty much be out with poor old Obama.

Can you imagine four years of an Obama adminstration's racial slicing and dicing? What a mess. No way.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

Denwa, precisely. Racial patronizing day after day, despite whatever incompetence might result. There's simply no way that the country can withstand an affirmative action presidency where criticism becomes impossible because anyone criticizing performance is labeled a racist.

By Dem08: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:09 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama said:
"I think it's fair to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10 to 15 years in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom,"

Enough! I lost the little respect I have for Obama! Just because he is courting republicans doesn't have to mean he has to wear republican glasses to see the world. I wonder if he should be even running on Democratic Party ticket. We probably are fortunate that he lost New Hampshire. The longer the primary season, the better we are getting to see the true colors of our candidates, particularly the lesser known ones on the field. Democrats, please take a second look at the field and judge for yourself who will uphold the fundamental values of all Democrats, before you cast your valuable vote.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:12 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama doesn't belong in the Democratic party. His hero is Ronald Reagan. He favors Reagan over Bill Clinton. This guy has no principles. No Democrat should EVER have Ronald Reagan as a model. Obama voters, you are in the wrong party. Further, see his methods for getting into office in the first place--strong arm tactics and gangster politics.

By vtown: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

back when HRC was the presumed nominee, I just assumed i would vote for her thinking we need a drastic change.

but it's amazing how off-putting she is on such a visceral level. "the Clintons" (and isn't it sad that we can't disentangle them) are power mad. all the candidates are egomaniacs, but watching them do their good cop (HRC crying) bad cop (Bill kneecapping Obama) routine has just been pathetic.

a lot of people who would vote for "Anybody But Bush" are going to stay at home or pull the lever for McCain if HRC is the nominee.

i have no problem with somebody thinking HRC would be the best POTUS. i do think it's a little ignorant to think she doesn't bring a ton of baggage, so much so that she could elect a Republican in the wake of GWB. that was an unthinkable sentiment last year. it's becoming thinkable again.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:17 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama supporters don't need sleep. They need to wake up! Stop dreaming. You are in a fantasy land. Your man is a mirage. Try scratching the surface of his rhetoric and looking under the hood. You'll find nothing but a fake.

Thank goodness you're going to lose.

By cnmircea: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

Stop miserable ad attacks to Hillary, Mr. Obama! You are a big cheater, using the powerful Culinary Union to constrain hard-working people vote for you against their will. Shame, shame, shame. Obama supporters, this is the change you talk about?

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

Katy, your candidate is a joke. His record is NIHL. What evidence do you have of his ability or even his views? Would that be the 130 "present" votes while in the US Senate? You are voting on nothing but rhetorical dressing and not a whit of reason or evidence.

I see Obama's supporters are akin to the "faith-based" Bush supporters. Facts are anathema to both groups.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

"Change I can believe in"--once again, it's about "belief" and not knowledge. More and more I see that Obama supporters are really like the religious fanatics on the right.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

Belief will get you a nuclear waste dump in your backyard. Knowledge will get you a nuclear free zone at Yucca Mtn.

I don't live in Nevada so I won't be caucusing there. But I am begging you Obamaniacs to reconsider your faith-based, 'belief' and consider the facts. All this rhetoric is really overwhelming your reason, including the ridiculous ball of rhetoric that you are claiming as fact about Hillary. Her voting record is far more progressive than Obama's, as every progressive group analyzing the votes have shown. Her record is unassailable. His is non-existent.

By NickAtNight: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

I agree, Hillary for President !!!

Bill and Hillary's co-presidency was the best moder presidency ever. They have the three best accomplishments of any other modern president.

Why in 1994, after just two short years in office, they gave us the first Republican Senate since 1986. The 8 seat swing gave the Republicans solid control of the Senate at 53-47.

Even more astounding, in 1994, again after just two short years in office, they also gave us the first Republican House since 1954 !!! That was the first time in 40 years. It was a 54 seat swing giving the Republicans a huge majority 230- 204 !

The swing in 12 Governorships in 1994 was an added bonus.

Now it took them a little longer, until 2000 and 2004 but they also gave us a two term Republican President.

The Republican congress managed to control the purse strings and helped to bring the nation it's first 'budget surplus' in decades. {In quotes, because there was still a lot of funny Washington math going on to claim a surplus}

So in summary, please vote for Hillary so that we can have a Republican House and Senate for 2010.

By vtown: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden,

i love how you parrot the latest main HRC slogan (her 5th?) and then claim Obama supporters are delusional.

it's a message board. what do you want people to do? write policy papers on their candidates?

if this were really all about policy-wonkiness, then we should nominate Biden or Dodd. we don't b/c they aren't appealing.

By Gore08: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

Barak Hussein Obama, Jr.'s candidacy will be doomed in the general election. He has shown his inexperience in the debates. In the Vegas debate he admitted that he lacked managerial experience and would misplace papers given to him within 10 minutes. I hope he doesn't misplace the nuclear codes. Secondly, he has given up the hope of winning the battle on health care. In the debate before the Nevada one, he was accused by Senator Clinton of flip flopping on health care. His answer was that he changed his plan because although his first plan was the best one for America he felt he couldn't get it passed through Congress. I'm sorry but I don't need a President who is clueless about how to get important legislation passed and has given up the Dream. We don't need a President who negotiates against himself.

The most qualified person on planet earth to be the next President of the United States is Albert Gore, Jr. Hopefully the Edwards Candidacy can come to life and we can have a convention that becomes deadlocked. If that is the case I would like to see former President Clinton place Gore's name in nonmination.

By vtown: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden,

you're so busy patronizing Obama supporters that you're blind to the fact that HRC is the most divisive candidate in the country.

McCain would defeat HRC. Easily. If you're just a big Clinton fan, I understand your ardor. If you're a fan of the Democratic Party, "I beg you" to reconsider :-)

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:40 p.m.; Suggest removal

vtown, In case you haven't heard, the job of president is that of "Commander-in-Chief," not "Rhetor-in-Chief." It is, effectively, a position of Chief Operating Officer. Obama says he's not a Chief Operating Officer. Rather, he's an inspirer, a preacher, a rhetor.

This isn't a job of go-tell-it-on-the-mountain. It's a job of go climb the mountain. Obama supporters should start a petition to inaugurate a new position in the US government for a speaker in chief. He might be qualified for that. But not for president.

Policies and voting records do matter. "Present" won't cut it in the oval office.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

I am a fan of the Democratic party and Hillary Clinton, the best representative thereof.

Obama hasn't a snow-ball's chance in hell of winning the General Election.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

"so if democrat realizes that reagan prevented a nuclear disaster, then he or she must be a traitor". what kind of stupid crap is that walden?
just as a republican would look at FDR as a great president, a democrat can also see a great president in reagan for they both accomplished great things that benefited all americans irrespective of party loyalty.
similarly, most republicans see a great president in JFK; so in your book, are they also traitors?
when are we going to get beyond stupid and extreme party loyalty?

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary can beat anyone in the Republican field. Obama would be eaten alive. Even the race patronizing of the media wouldn't save him, and affirmative action is not a favorite of the right wing.

Obama has exposed so many weaknesses in his candidacy, even within the last five days, that his GE chances are zero. "I misplace everything within ten seconds." Great recommendation for a world leader. He has the habits of an adolescent. No wonder the Gen Y kids love him. They see themselves in him. They also project their fantasies of unearned advancement onto him. He's the champion of getting ahead without merit.

By Kiku: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

I've seen the argument to give Hillary her turn. This assumes that she will be elected.

Hillary has a machine, but the Republican's have been building up a campaign to run against her since 2000. 51% of the people will vote against her, already.

Compare Obama and Hillary in how they work with other people, and it explains why Obama is successful in leading and better at passing legislation.

Obama has passed successful legislation, Hillary has not.

Obama is humble, he gives more credit than is due, and includes everyone he can. Hillary takes too much credit for work she has done (SCHIP).

Obama wants to hear all sides, Hillary shuts people out (her failed health care)

Obama is a concensus builder, Hillary is a statesman (lectures). .

Obama gives us hope, Hillary tears it down.

Obama is the better candidate to get things done. He has shown this by being right on the issues, and by passing successful legislation that has required difficult work with opposing parties.

Please, look deeper than giving someone a turn.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

MM, you mischaracterize my statements and then put quotation marks around your misreadings. What you've quoted above was not written by me. For one, if it were, it would be better written. Secondly, I never said anything of the sort. Obama said nothing about Reagan averting nuclear disaster. Rather, he said that he saw Reagan as reacting against the 'excesses' of the 60s and 70s. That is what he admires Reagan for. And what were those excesses? Let's see, that would be Civil Rights, the anti-war movement, the feminist movement, and the beginnings of the environmental movement. Oh, and the "excesses" of big government. But, Obama needs some history lessons. I know he was smoking dope when Reagan was in office, so he might not recall that Reagan was the biggest advocate of wasteful governmental spending on the defense industry ever. Those were the days of 8000 dollar toilet seats and 10000 dollar nuts and bolts paid for by the taxpayers and purchase from his military contracting buddies. That was the EXCESS that Reagan caused. He left us a massive deficit. But you kids were either not yet alive or else were engaged in "change"--like having your diapers changed.

Obama is a Republican in Democratic clothing, I see, and so are his supporters.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:57 p.m.; Suggest removal

Bill & Hillary: Union-Busters?
By Ronald A. Cass

Fresh from the Listening Tour, the Hillary I Know Tour, the Watch Me Cry Tour, and the Clintons for Change Tour (traveling the Back to the Future Express), the dynamic duo rolled into Nevada with a new message that should be music to conservative ears, but not an easy tune for them to carry: Let's Break the Unions!

The Clintons now tell Nevada caucus participants: don't follow the union bosses' directions. Think for yourselves. Act as individuals. Just because a union's governing body decides to support, say, Barack Obama is no reason to follow along blindly. After all, what right do union bosses have to tell the rank-and-file how to behave, to dictate your political choices? Not that there's anything wrong with that when it's the AFSCME union endorsing Hillary, but it's downright Orwellian mind-control when leaders of the local Culinary Workers Union pick the wrong gal (or guy). That's why Hillary shamelessly went door to door in Las Vegas imploring Culinary Workers to ignore union directions while Bill lectured workers on independent thinking.

After getting Hillary endorsements from the leaders of 13 unions representing 6 million members, thanks to relentless pursuit of every establishment credential they could find, the Clintons responded with outrage that a local union with 60,000 members could prefer her primary opponent. As Bill said, this shows the "establishment organization" is with Senator Obama, while the "insurgents" are with Hillary. (Somehow I missed Hillary's days as a grass-roots community organizer - which must have come somewhere between her stints as First Lady of Arkansas and First Lady of the U.S., great places to hone those bottom-up organizing skills!)

That endorsement sparked the recognition that union bosses are elitists whose power hurts workers. In his best, red-faced, finger-pointing, hoarse-shouting style (right on cue for the 10-year anniversary of Matt Drudge's exposure of the Monica story), Bill told listeners that union leaders "they think they're better than you are" and challenged workers to buck the unions.

Of course, Hillary and Bill aren't suggesting that the 6 million members of unions endorsing Hillary should be independent. Union members should still vote for Hillary when union leaders say they should, but they also should vote for Hillary when the union says they shouldn't. That's the kind of independent thinking the Clintons want.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 9:58 p.m.; Suggest removal

The system works well for the union leaders and the candidates they support. Laws pushed by Democrats have allowed union taxation of worker wages to support leaders' spending priorities. Unions collect $8 billion or so annually through involuntary assessments. One court, looking at union spending, found that about 80 percent of union collections went not to worker representation and collective bargaining but to political activity. Something like 95 percent of this spending goes to help Democrats. In the 2000 elections, unions spent an estimated $800 million on attack ads and other political activities to promote Democrats, including Senate candidate Hillary Clinton (a special favorite of the United Auto Workers Union). The AFL-CIO alone will spend $200 million on the 2008 races.

That's not small change, even for a party now obsessed with change.

The Supreme Court's 1988 decision in Communications Workers v. Beck ruled that union members have the right not to support political spending they don't agree with. But one of President Bill Clinton's first acts was to repeal an executive order from President George H.W. Bush implementing the Beck decision (by requiring federal contractors post notices telling workers they aren't required to give money to unions for political spending). Bill and the union establishment saw no reason even to let workers know they have the right to think for themselves when that threatens the Democrats' prime engine of political sponsorship.

But that was then.

**********

The Clintons are nothing if not flexible. Bill can lie straight-faced about anything with enough charm to almost make you believe it, and Hillary will morph into any character - from tough cookie to cookie baker - to get votes. Yesterday, she was the candidate of experience. Today, she's the candidate of change, even if that just means she gets the Oval Office and Bill gets to have tea with the other spouses.

Few people bother to challenge Bill and Hillary's reversals and revisions - like backing a lawsuit challenging the location of caucus sites in Las Vegas that their team helped pick when they thought the Culinary Workers Union would endorse Hillary. Blatant self-interest and bold infidelity to facts are simply part of the package we've all come to know. But the former and would-be future First Couple continues to push the envelope.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama SAYS he's this and that. He's proven nothing.

Anyone without a record can SAY he's a "uniter" and not a "divider." Gee, that sounds familiar. But what has Obama united? Where is the proof for these assertions? He provides none, other than more words.

This guy is a hot air balloon.

By Kiku: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

The US Presidency is not a Chief Operating Officer position. Look at the power that the President has, look at the difference between Bill and George. Bill shut down the military, cut back on government, raised taxes, and balanced the budget. George went a typical direction for Republicans and directed money toward his oil and war buddies.

The Presidency IS about vision, not about filing papers. We need a leader with vision, to take us in a new direction.

Obama has that vision, Obama has been successful passing legislation, Obama has been right on the important issues, Obama brings people together to get things done.

Hillary can't do any of these things. She doesn't know how, that's why she hasn't passed any important legislation. That's why, in just the past for months, she's angered women, men, blacks, whites, youth, and Muslims.

Obama knows how to lead, he knows how to get people to work together. Hillary does not.

By Edna: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

All change in America starts with ordinary people. Not only is the current administration corrupt and deceptive but it has worked very hard to arrange politics to resist change.

Hillary Clinton is a part of this politics of resistance. The only experience she represents is the roadblock to meaningful change. The experience of stockpiling political capital; the politics of taking turns; the quest to regain power; the resumption of old alliances. All point to the exclusion of having government work for ordinary people.

By lepush: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary Clinton has made me ashamed to be an American with the way she's run her campaign.

I thought we were better than this.

After seeing Barack Obama's record, I realize that every single she's said about him is a lie.

Don't believe her. He is the only chance we have at beating the Republicans.

P.S. Some facts: Hillary was a Republican. She voted for the war. She voted for the Patriot Act. She has never once passed a single bit of legislation.

Do you really want more Bush/Clinton insanity?

If you're still thinking, please, go here: BarackObama.com

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:07 p.m.; Suggest removal

There are two legitimate Democrats left in this race: Clinton and Edwards. Obama is running in the wrong party. His hero is Reagan. So why doesn't he run as a Republican, where Reagan is invoked in every other sentence? Or, does Obama really think that he can hold the little Democratic support that he has while also picking up Republicans? He's really reaching here. He's hoping to build a coalition of the confused.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

Edna, I see that you have been rolled over by the ball of rhetoric:

"Hillary Clinton is a part of this politics of resistance. The only experience she represents is the roadblock to meaningful change. The experience of stockpiling political capital; the politics of taking turns; the quest to regain power; the resumption of old alliances. All point to the exclusion of having government work for ordinary people."

Just what does this MEAN and what PROOF do you have for this pile of rhetorical balderdash. Are you not aware that Hillary Clinton has the most progressive voting record of any Democratic candidate left in the race, other than the elf?

You have no proof for this pile of nonsense. It's all a bunch of words piled up and repeated ad nauseum, which you take as self-evident fact.

By lepush: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

Walden, please...

Try not to drink the Clinton Kool-Aid, huh?

Obama was referring to Reagan's ability to work with both Democrats and Republicans to get things done. That is the ONLY thing he was talking about. The reporters he said it to wrote an article, endorsing him, CLARIFYING THAT ALREADY.

He was talking about bi-partisanship.

Clinton then took that - and LIED, completely taking what he said out of context.

Please, people. LOOK AT THE ACTUAL FACTS before simply believing what you hear.

Her campaign has paid people to totally misinform everyone on his record.

Another fact: he has MORE public office experience. Look it up.

Talk about a "coalition of the confused" - that's exactly what Clinton is banking on.

She thinks you're all stupid, and that you won't look his record up yourselves.

Let her know she's wrong.

BarackObama.com

SAVE AMERICA, NEVADA! PLEASE!

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:16 p.m.; Suggest removal

People accept and repeat phrases ad infinitum and then begin to believe the supposed assertions contained therein. "Clinton is a Republican. Clinton is a Corporate Democrat. Clinton is a corporate w*ore." And other such nonsense. Where do these ideas come from? Surely not from the facts. Clinton is the dreaded "socialist" according to Republicans, and the corporate Democrat according to the near relgious zealots on the supposed "left." But nothing in the record substantiates this garbage. Nothing substantiates it except that people have repeated it on the web without end, until they accept it as a given.

That's how religious ideology works. But such 'thinking' has nothing to do with rationality. Faith-based fanatics exist on both sides of the aisle, I see.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:20 p.m.; Suggest removal

CLINTON said NOTHING about Obama's post hoc endorsement of Reagan. See, there you go again with baseless assertions. Rather, it was JOHN EDWARDS who chastised Obama for his admiration of Reagan. And, if you actually LISTEN to the audio, you'll hear that Obama said Reagan's great vision was his reaction to the "excesses" of the sixties and seventies. Deny it if you want, like religious fanatics often do. But you cannot erase that tape. It's very clear and it was EDWARDS who jumped on it, not Clinton. Try to base your claims in reality.

By dranfu: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

I will always site my sources in my comments. I am not afraid of vetting.

What I regret about these recent weeks of dirty politics, is that Barack Obama, through no fault of his own, has been painted, in lurid colors, by the Clinton's (cause let's face it, Bill is running with Hillary this time:)) into a person he is really not. It's obvious that many people didn't know about Obama before this election heated up.

I'm not trying to sway anyone's vote, because we are all going to vote according to our own reason. All these heated exchanges and bare naked attempts to appeal to each other's emotions for the benefit of our chosen candidate is not likely to change our minds.But with that said, and no matter if Hillary winds up destroying Barack, or if people wind up supporting him in wild numbers, Barack Obama has still led a remarkable political life, and has largely worked toward helping the poor, fighting corporate power, and working to improve health care. This is not a fantasy or conjecture.

Now, you may be skeptical of that, given all the press coverage and rumors that have been floating around, but it really is true. Read Time Magazines article on Obama's career, political experience, and record of accamplishments- http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/...

Time's article is clear and concise, but if you'd rather read just a listing of facts on Obama, read the Wikipedia Encyclopedia entry on him: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barack_Obam... -- wikipedia is well cited, so any person who 'thinks for themselves' can easily follow any claim to its source, and judge it for yourself.

Barack has lived a fairly noble life, as far as politicians go. So I just don't think it's fair the way the media and the Clinton's are trying destroy his image. he's lead a good life, and honestly believes in the idea that our government would operate better if we'd minimize bipartisanship polarization. He's one of our better politicians, and even if he doesn't win, he's still going to keep fighting for the common good.

I hope you're reading this Obama. Keep fighting for the people no matter what happens in 2008.

By Kiku: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:23 p.m.; Suggest removal

How is Obama a uniter?

Look at his work while Republican's have been in control of both the State and US Senates.

From the State Senate, he worked with Republicans to pass the health care act. He worked with the police force to pass difficult legislation for video taping interrogations, and logging the race of people stopped to monitor racial profiling. He passed the Gift Ban Act, Illinois toughest ethics reform bill since the Watergate era.

In the US Senate, he passed the Lugar-Obama bill to stop nuclear and conventional weapon disarmament. He passed the Coburn-Obama bill for transparency in federal spending.

From the Time article, this is what people have to say:

http://www.time.com/time/politics/articl...

On Obama's KidsCare initiative:

Obama was elected to the Illinois state Senate in 1996, when Democrats were in the minority....
John Bouman, president of the Sargent Shriver National Center on Poverty Law, said Obama's work helped make the program more consumer-friendly. He also said Obama was often willing to give up credit for the legislation if that helped win Republican support.

"It tells you something that as a relatively junior member in the minority party, he was an important negotiator," Bouman said.

On Obama's police work:

When Democrats gained a majority in the Senate, Obama's political mentor, Senate President Emil Jones, gave him high-profile assignments, including two contentious issues involving police — videotaped interrogations and racial profiling.

Police weren't happy about recording their interrogations of murder suspects or having to study racial bias in traffic stops. Initially, they opposed both pieces of legislation.

Ultimately, police groups endorsed both bills and they won unanimous approval in the Senate.

One of his Republican colleagues was so wowed that he has appeared in an Obama campaign ad...

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:23 p.m.; Suggest removal

Save Nevada by voting for Obama and giving his sixth biggest donor his way by dumping nuclear waste at Yucca Mtn. Great idea.

By Edna: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:24 p.m.; Suggest removal

Consider that we are faced with a critical moment in our nation's history for choosing the course we take on the war, affordable health care, and ending our addiction to oil. Nevada can choose between continuing the status quo - Clinton's war with the other side of the aisle and keeping what should be our government ruled by the corporate lobby - or beginning to lead government toward accountability, working together, and solving the issues. This draws the greatest distinction between Clinton and Obama.

By walden9: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

Again, Edna, you're just parroting a bunch of unsubstantiated rhetoric. Where is the proof that Clinton is the "status quo" candidate? Are you referring to her funding? If so, you'd be surprised to know that her voting record has never been influenced by her funding. Rather, she has voted against corporate interests 100 percent of the time, according to several progressive organizations. Try the facts.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden, cut the nonsense!!!
you are not smarter than me. you are being condescending with your comments. first of all, i know about occam's razor for i have a phd in mathematics and did graduate work on logical foundation of mathematics involving the works of russell, godel, and many other mathematical philosophers.
english is my fourth language, not my first tongue; and america is my adopted country which i have served proudly in the army contrary to vietnam-avoiders.
you are not saying anything logical here!!!

now, if obama is so easy to beat, why do you apparently have quantum phenomena where you need many clintons in many places at the same time to edge a narrow win against a junior senator?
why are the huge national leads evaporating so fast? did they have a lower boiling point than previously thought? lol!! what happened to the invincible political machine?
if a young man without familiarity with the dog-eat-dog world of washington can do all that in less than two years campaining against the clintonian political machine, imagine what he could do to the republicans with full support from democrats.
take away the first lady experience, and one would realize that there is not much there to brag about.
by the way, do you know that hillary did not pass her bar examination on the first try?
what great visions does hillary have for the country? we are asking obama to be specific, but i am waiting for the great wisdom of hillary to be laid out as a reflection of her supposed experience; but i do not see it. i went to obama's conference on tax reform in washington D.C, but never have i heard a conference given by hillary on any deeply intellectual subject. not law, not tax, not anything worth bragging about!!!
her self-admitted weakness is of course her impatience to bring change to america. what a laughable answer!!!

by the way, why do you think that the republicans' strategy is the very obvious one, something that any idiot can see through?

By NickAtNight: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:33 p.m.; Suggest removal

<quote>And after the circus that the Republican started and all the millions of the dollars they spent on investigating all the "scandals" of the Clinton's. What did they come up with - nothing! That's right zero.<end quote>

Zero? I think the sum was a bit better than zero.

Bill Clinton got disbarred from his Arkansas law license for 5 years and was ordered to pay a $25,000 fine.

Bill Clinton was suspended by the Supreme Court and resigned from the Supreme Court bar rather than be disbarred by them also in October 2001.

Ken Starr was appointed by Janet Reno to head up 5 investigations. 1) Whitewater; 2) Travel Office Firings; 3) Vince Fosters death; 4) the misuse of FBI files; and 5) the Lewinsky matter.

Starr successfully prosecuted:

1 Arkansas governor Jim Guy Tucker for one count of conspiracy and one count of mail fraud in July 1996. Resigned as Governor of Arkansas on July 16, 1996. he was a partner in the Rose Law Firm.

2 James McDougal, Whitewater partner of Bill and Hillary, convicted on April 14, 1997 on 18 felony counts, including conspiracy and wire, bank and mail fraud made by Madison S&L in the 80's. The taxpayers bailed Madison out for $68 million. He died in prison in 1998.

3 Susan McDougal convicted on May 28, 1996 on four counts of fraud and conspiracy relating to the Whitewater scandal. Also spent 18 months in jail for contempt of court. She was pardoned by Clinton in the final hours of his presidency.

4 Web Hubbell, deputy US Attorney,former law partner of Hillary, former chief justice Arkansas Supreme Court and associate atty general of the United States, pled guilty on Dec 6, 1994 to mail fraud and tax evasion and stealing $400,000 from the Rose law firm. Received 21 month jail term for plea-bargain deal.

5 Larry Kuca pled guilty to misdemeanor conspiracy.

6 Robert Palmer sentenced to probation in 1994 for filing false papers.

7 William Marks, business partner of Tucker, for conspiracy to defraud the IRS in 1997.

8 John Haley, a lawyer for Tucker, pled guilty to a misdemeanor charge of failing to provide correct information to the government.

9 Eugene Fitzhugh, a lawyer and businessman, pled guilty to trying to bribe Hale. Sentenced to 28 months.

10 Charles Matthews, collegue of Fitzhugh, pled guilty to a misdemeanor bribery charge. Sentenced to 16 months.

11 David Hale, former municipal judge, pled guilty for conspiring to defraud the SBA.

12 Stephan Smith, former clinton aide, pled guilty in 1995 to lying about federally backed loan from Hale.

13 Christopher Wade pled guilty to bankruptcy fraud in 1995.

14 Neal Ainley pled guilty to concealing cash payments to Clinton's campaign in 1995.

By NickAtNight: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:43 p.m.; Suggest removal

and in recent news:

Norman Hsu. Funneled over $850,000 to Hillary's campaign. Three year sentence as of Jan 2008. Convicted of fraud 16 years ago on 6 counts of wire fraud, six counts mail fraud and three counts violating the federal campaign contributions law. Went on the run after pleading no contest. Surrendered in August 2007. Posted $2 million bail. Fled again. Arrested a few months ago. Also facing fraud charges in New York. Indicted in November for defrauding investors of at least $20 million and for violating the Federal Election Campaign act.

A Dec 15th fund raising event for Hillary by prominent Mississippi trial lawyer Richard "Dickie" Scruggs was canceled when he was indicted for bribery. Bill was to be the start attraction.
http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2007/11/29...

Here's another oldie - from 97, Michael deVegter, Bill's top donor in 1992, indicted for taking a $41,936 bribe to help a Wall Street investment company gain $500 million.

Vin Gupta, CEO InfoUSA, gave Bill $3.3 million consulting contract, investigated by SEC for diverting company money to his own uses.

Peter Paul, top donor to Hillary Senate campaign, convicted con-artist, who staged massive Hollywood Clinton fundraiser. Now suing Hillary.

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

what is hillary's vision?
why is she so negative? she is so negative because she has nothing to stand for, but only things to stand against. if obama wanted to be negative, he would have many ammunitions.
walden, the man who fought against nuclear waste in nevada rebukes clinton's negative attacks. where have you been?

By Edna: Jan. 18, 2008; 10:56 p.m.; Suggest removal

I'm convinced that Clinton supporters want what's best for our country. But when Rupert Murdoch and 5 other News Corporation/Fox News execs have contributed to Hillary Clinton's campaign, along with $567,950 under the heading "lobbyists", according to opensecrets.org, you know the spin masters working to divide this country are foaming at the mouth for Clinton. Exactly the inverse to "Now the fun begins" as I'm sure you're reminded, but nonetheless is a reality.

By katylies: Jan. 18, 2008; 11 p.m.; Suggest removal

To those who are up in arms over Obama's recent comments about Ronald Reagan, please look into the abundant remarks made by both Bill and Hillary Clinton in recent years referencing Reagan in an extremely positive light. I think you will find your "outrage" misplaced indeed.
I don't understand why, as a Democrat, I'm not worthy if I recognize something worthwhile in a Republican? If I agreed with Republicans on policy matters, I would probably just be a Republican. How silly.

People who do not do their homework yet insist on sharing their views do a great disservice to those of us making a genuine effort to be informed so that we can make the best possible decision in this most important election.

By caffeinemary: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

I like the way Barack Obama responded in his own words to the whole Hillary & Bill bluster about the Culinary Workers:

Asked his reaction to an angry outburst by the former president - who in Oakland Wednesday suggested the at-large system was "rigged" - Obama laughed.

"This caucus process was designed by the Democratic Party of Nevada in conjunction with the Democratic National Committee," said Obama. "I, as somebody who's not part of the establishment of the Democratic Party, had no say in the rules ... (but) individuals like Harold Ickes, Clinton's key adviser, were a part of making these rules. And some of the people who filed the lawsuit were a part of making these rules.

"President Clinton now suggests they didn't understand the rules that they designed," Obama said. "This is coming from the campaign of extraordinary detail and thoroughness and experience.

"But somehow, they didn't know what these rules were," Obama said. "Six days before the caucus - two days after I received the endorsement of the Culinary Workers (Union), suddenly these rules are grossly unfair and a violation of 'one person, one vote.' And a lawsuit is filed that would disenfranchise mostly Latino maids, dishwashers and bellhops."

Obama said that was "an implausible argument before the court rules. I am glad the court bought none of it. I think it took about an hour for the court to decide that this lawsuit had no merit.

"And I think at this point we should go out and persuade the caucus-goers of Nevada who the best candidate is," he said.

______

After all this, I just don't trust the Clintons & I can't vote for them. You know they'd never have been complaining if they'd gotten that endorsement ... which they wanted very badly.

By Jeffko: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

Katylies, edna, mm, NickatNight, waldo, edna, Tim Japan, Eldorado -- All of you--are good fighters. It will be great to have everyone here on the same side. Start getting new voters. It is our last mission this time around.

Everything else will happen in its time.

By krjkw: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

In your article “Clinton the right choice” printed on January the 18th you have made some statements worthy of comment.

That “Clinton has a long and substantial record of leadership fighting on behalf of working Americans and children” is a prime example of why we don’t want a leader like her. In her “35 years” of fighting, she has accomplished nothing. We don’t need an experienced loser. That added to the fact that she has never held an office other than her senate seat questions the intelligence of those who considers her to be experienced and competent.

She preaches for change, and true to form practices what she preaches. Nobody changes their position as often and radically as her.

Getting away from Clinton, your statement “We need someone in the White House who can get our economy back to the way it was when Hillary’s husband, Bill, was president” demonstrates ignorance, a poor memory, or improper intentions. If you go back and read recent economic history you will discover what others can remember. At the end of Clinton’s presidency our economy was headed toward recession. That was mainly a result of Bill’s “do nothing” policy, one which he could have taken control. The setting president managed to revive that failing economy, see it through 9/11 and two extremely major bankruptcies, and maintain a thriving economy until oil prices skyrocketed. No president has the ability to control the price of foreign crude oil and like it or not, our society’s life blood is energy derived from crude oil.

A president Hillary would, without doubt return us to the days of coercion, corruption, and shady deals that were prominent during her husband’s administration. Have you all forgotten “White-water”, the “Foster suicide”, missing documents, character assassination of anyone bearing witness against their activities, firing of transportation department employees, illegal association with contributors, etc. etc.?

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

no wonder she is so negative in her ads. she moved from a 20-point lead to a statistical tie.
wow!!! obama closed the gap with no negative ads!!! people, do not forget to caucus for honest obe!!!!
from now on, obama is honest Obe!!! Both honest Abe and honest Obe are from illinois!!!

when obama says no money from lobbyists, he really means that because he takes no money from big lobbyist interest groups.
clinton's desperate claims that honest Obe is hypocritical when he hired a registered lobbyist to run his campain is laughable. obama never says that he is against lobbyism per se, he is rather against the kind of aggressive lobbyism that is borderline immoral, the criminal kind where politicians are bribed to vote in a certain way, the kind of lobbyism where the retired politician goes straight to work with a questionable big salary for the company that has lobbied him while in congress.
if a doctor says too much fat is unhealthy, would you call him or her a hypocrit upon seeing him or her eat a big mac?
similarly, it is not the lobbyism that is wrong, it is the excess of it, the criminal or immoral aspect of it.
so, there is no contradiction in having a registered lobbyist run the campain as long as the lobbyist is not doing excessive lobbyism that is borderline immoral or straight criminal. as far as the records show, most of obama's money is raised on the net and contributed in small amounts by the the little people.
also, if one is going to hire a professional political strategist, there is a 99.999% chance that such a strategist is going to be a registered lobbyist for political strategy and lobbyism tend to overlap. now, why isn't clinton holding herself to the same moral standards that she is holding obama? her political machine is designed and funded by interest and pressure groups, and among her big contributors is found a criminal fugitive-turned-convict!!!
with the internet and freedom of information, the truth can be discovered and shared with reasonable people before the lies of pathologial liars could end the HOPE!!!!

i am a fan of capitalism, but do not support laissez fair capitalism. similarly, obama is not against lawful lobbyism, he is agaisnt bribery masquaraded as lobbyism!!
big difference people!!!!

LET'S STOP THE "HELL-AWRY MACHINE"!!!

By mm: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

I Will take honest Obe anytime before any Hell-Awry machine!!!!

By trey91: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:46 p.m.; Suggest removal

you have got to be kidding me with this write up - could you have one independent thought of your own instead of asking the Clinton folks to write this. sad

For a state paper to just disregard stat legislative work as experience baffles the mind. You can endorse her fine - just don't cherry it up - tell the truth. If she is nominated by my party I will take the action the grand state of Michagan took...uncommitted

By Truth: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:52 p.m.; Suggest removal

But if Obama rejects Wright’s warped view of this country, why does he continue to attend his church, raising the question of whether Obama secretly agrees with his friend and mentor?

While the Black Value System includes such items as commitment to God, education, and self-discipline, it refers to “our racist competitive society” and includes the disavowal of the pursuit of “middle-classness” and a pledge of allegiance to “all black leadership who espouse and embrace the Black Value System.” It defines “middle-classness” as a way for American society to “snare” blacks rather than “killing them off directly” or “placing them in concentration camps,” just as the country structures “an economic environment that induces captive youth to fill the jails and prisons.”

In sermons and interviews, Dr. Wright has equated Zionism with racism and Israel with South Africa under its previous policy of apartheid. On the Sunday after 9/11, Wright said the attacks were a consequence of violent American policies. Four years later, Wright suggested that the attacks were retribution for America’s racism.

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

In one of his sermons, Wright said, “Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!
http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_Chu...

By julianbook: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:52 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary went out of her way to bring race into the campaign. After the Iowa loss, she was going down fast in New Hampshire by all indications. She had played the gender card to the hilt, and was seemingly still losing. Next trick was to stir up racism. So the last message she wanted to get out is that people should vote for her because she is white - and forget about the unimportant Martin Luther King. She will find every possible subtle way to divide the country on race, and keep that up front on people's minds, in the hope that they will then choose her over Obama. Attacking Martin Luther King is a way of writng off the black vote, in the hopes that whites will vote simply on race, thus giving her more votes. Would she have said "It took a man to give women the right to vote?" - in the way that she said of Dr. King and the Civil Rights Act that "It took a president to get it done.” No, because Susan B. Anthony would turn over in her grave, and women's groups would see her as deranged trash. In essence she was saying to Barack that he should be a servile Uncle Tom that should leave it up to white people to get the job done. This is white supremacist propagandising that the media fails to point out. Her statement could have no other meaning - if so, let's hear it. Is that what the Democratic Party wants for leadership?

By Truth: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:53 p.m.; Suggest removal

http://abcnews.go.com/print?id=2937953

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17701499/pag...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

http://www.trumpetmag.com/home.cfm

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZXeNk7H3...

http://quod.lib.umich.edu/cgi/k/koran/ko...

By Kiku: Jan. 18, 2008; 11:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

Please note, it is Hillary's people who continue to play the race card, and it was Hillary who started it on Jan 7.

Obama has nothing to gain by playing the race card, I think African Americans get that he's black.

Hillary does have something to gain, though, and that is that she could play off of white racist fears to pull people toward her.

Here's the history:

On Jan 7, Hillary made a comment about Martin Luther King.

This comment offended a number of people, and a media storm started brewing as a number of people started discussing it. Obama's campaign was silent.

On Jan 11, someone obtained a memo from Obama'a SC office that had quotes from different articles discussing race. The last quote was on Jan 11, and it was posted on Tyra Banks web site the same day.

Nobody knows how the memo was obtained. It's possible that someone called Obama's office and asked if they had a list of articles that had been discussed in the media.

That's it. That's the sum total the Obama campaign involvement. It had little influence over peoples' opinions.

But, Obama couldn't claim his campaign was innocent, so he took responsibility and shut down the discussion.

For a history, see:
http://backpedals.blogspot.com/2008/01/r...

By Veronica: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:02 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama has stated this week how much he admires republican president Ronald Reagan for bringing about the changes (which is Obama's word, of course) he did in the 1980s.

If, perhaps, you aren't old enough to know what those "changes" were... please research them. This is a big deal.

Make sure before you vote for any candidate that you understand fully what "change" means to that candidate. Don't project your own hopes and dreams into that very vague word. We all hope. We all want change. Every single one of us.

By Truth: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:10 a.m.; Suggest removal

Kiku,
The last thing on earth Barack Osama wants to do is play the race card.

He's one of the biggest racists on the planet.

Both his father's are radical muslim's and his church is a front for the nation of islam.

While God created all equally, Osama's church, with the help of louis farrakhan and the nation of islam, only promotes black betterment and black supremacy and blames white and Jews for everything.

This is the official website of the church: www.tucc.org

Check out their "Trumpet Magazine" while there and especially check out the "About Us" section.

Replace the word white with the word black everytime you see the word black mentioned and you have a very racist organization in front of you.

Check it before you wreck it!

By SantaCruz: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

"On Jan 7, Hillary made a comment about Martin Luther King.

This comment offended a number of people, and a media storm started brewing as a number of people started discussing it. Obama's campaign was silent."

There is an interview of an African Male on the YouTube who says, "Black people have freedom to speek about racism. White people are made to be quiet." Racism is not about being African American as Sen. Obama's team is stuck on. Race is not skin color: race is cultural. There are over 6,000 languages on the planet. That means that there are over 6,000 cultural differences. So, the Obama team wants to be offended because in their mind's eyes and ears, they do not see any other "color" as a race. That is real racism.

By Herunar: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

What must be noted is that, though it is undeniable that Hillary has more political recognition than Obama, they both have a short solid political career. In her 35 years of so-called experience, Hillary was little known for his political activities, except for ruining the country's health care and lying to defend her husband. I find it amusing that Hillary would bring out experience as her selling point. What's worse, everyone seems to be buying it.

They both struck me as candidates who could do a real good job. But what sealed my support for Obama was the absolutely honest way in which he ran his campaign, in direct contrast with Clinton's negative campaign. The difference does not need to be elaborated.

Moreover, I find it shocking how so many of us are falling to the ridiculous anti-Obama rumours that are spreading in the Internet. I also find it strange that most of the negative rumors on the Internet are about Obama. Doesn't this tell us something about the integrity of each candidate and their supporters?

By Kiku: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

SantaCruz and Truth:

A group of people organizing to help themselves is a good thing.

Looked at their website, and I find people rallying around Christian ideals committed to helping themselves and their community.

By tomdc: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:45 a.m.; Suggest removal

There's excellent coverage of the US prez campaign on The Guardian, a progressive but fair Brit newspaper, the largest in England. Here's an excellent, unbiased and insightful column today:
http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/rich...

They really have a good objective and historical perspective since they're not emotionally involved.

Important is that they compare this primary to the Democrats close primary in 1984- Walter Mondale, former VP and Gary Hart, a progressive Senator from Colorado. Hart was a young new honest face and won many states but Mondale pulled out the nomination (on the basis of experience and party ties). Mondale lost 49 out of 50 states, the worst Democratic defeat in history.

There's also another article on Mayor Bloomberg that makes clear that he's waiting to see if either Obama is nominated by the Democrats or McCain by the Republicans. If neither is then he's definitely in and will spend at least $1 Billion of his $20 Billion to guarantee that he gets elected. ( By comparison Ross Perot spent $35 million, chump change even then.)

Emotions aside, it's a safe bet the next president will be Obama, McCain, or Bloomberg.

By SantaCruz: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

For the Vote Record - Barack Obama, here is the vote for Sen. Obama, 07/29/2005 and again on 06/28/05 for the Energy Act of 2005.

see down the page for nuclear:

"- Amends the Price-Anderson Act, extending it through 2025, raising nuclear power plant operator's liability from $6.3 million to $95.8 million, and increasing the maximum annual payments to $15 million from $10 million"

"$1.25 billion over 10 years to finance the “Next Generation Nuclear Plant Project,” a two-phase plan to research, develop and operate a prototype nuclear plant that includes a reactor capable of generating electricity, producing hydrogen, or both"

http://www.vote-smart.org/voting_categor...

Vote Smart today.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:02 a.m.; Suggest removal

The devil himself can descend in NV and vote for Hillary, He may even bring all his armies. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Bill Clinton may yell at reporters, he may even bark. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Marketer and political strategists may repackage Hillary Clinton and sell her to us; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

All Clinton support can vote for her as long as they want; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Why?

Americans in the vast majority are people with a good judgment. They know and see what the Clintons are.

By Truth: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:08 a.m.; Suggest removal

Is
there
a man
or woman
among
us
that
applauds
those
who
applaud
innocent
Deaths
?

Minister Wright (Obama's Minister, Mentor and Best Friend) has applauded 9-11 since 2001, and yet, Wright was the 1st person Obama thanked after winning the Senate in 04. Obama to this day refers to Wright as his spritual advisor.

Isn't this a little odd to even the most stubborn of you all?

If my life-long, best-friend, told me those 3,000 innocent people who only showed up to work that day, deserved to die for whatever reason he gave, he would not be my friend anymore.

Views like Wrights and Farrakhans are not simple disagreements... They are definite friend breakers.

If you spin this in your mind or create other circumstances in your mind, you are simply being a fool.

As a matter of fact, I'd have to hold back striking my own mother if that filth came out of her mouth.

I certainly wouldn't be showing up for dinner again.

Not only has Barack continued to show up for dinner, he's still putting his good friend on a pedastal while his friend still preaches black/muslim power and hiding their muslim faith behind Christianity.

By Truth: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

“In the 21st century, white America got a wake-up call after 9/11/01,” Wright wrote in a church-affiliated magazine. “White America and the western world came to realize that people of color had not gone away, faded into the woodwork or just ‘disappeared’ as the Great White West kept on its merry way of ignoring black concerns.”

Just before Obama’s nationally televised campaign kickoff rally last Feb. 10, the candidate disinvited Wright from giving the public invocation. Wright explained: “When [Obama’s] enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli” to visit Col. Muammar el-Qaddafi with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, “a lot of his white and Jewish support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell.”

http://www.newsmax.com/kessler/Obama_Chu...

By Truth: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

SO THEY L I K E O U R B E S T F R I E N D S :)

But in an interview with PBS's "Religion & Ethics Newsweekly" recorded just before Obama's February announcement, Wright said he warned the senator that their association could pose political problems, partly because of his history of supporting Palestinian causes.

Wright also told The New York Times in an interview published March 6: "When his (Obama's) enemies find out that in 1984 I went to Tripoli" with Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan to visit Libyan leader Moammar Gadhafi, "a lot of his Jewish and white support will dry up quicker than a snowball in hell."

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17701499/

By michalakis: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

No matter who is the Democratic nominee, Hillary or Obama, I can see a Republican landslide in November. Both of them are relatively inexperienced liberal senators with no executive experience.Compare their experience to that of John McCain. Hillary Vs McCain or Obama Vs McCain: How many states each Democrat can win against this American hero? The only difference is that Obama will cause less damage to the Democratic Party: He'll lose, but the Democrats will most likely keep the House and the Senate. A Hillary landslide may come with a loss of either the House or the Senate or both. This is the reason why a number of Democratic dignitaries from "red" states endorsed Obama. Wake up people. Experience does matter, especially in this precarious state of economy.

By dahawt: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

CULINARY UNION MEMBERS;CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING IDEAS AS YOU CAUCUS TODAY AND AS YOU MOVE FORWARD AFTER THE CAUCUS:

Your leadership has encouraged you to caucus for Barack Obama. Fine. Are you ,therefore, obligated to do so? No. You are obligated to seriously consider,however,why your leaders have done so.

What does Obama pledge to do for your Union in the state of Nevada? What does he pledge to do for all unions across this country?

Does he pledge to support a Federal law to outlaw the "scab" practice of the "so called right to work law" in Nevada and across this country?

Does he pledge to appoint a Secretary of Labor in his cabinet who actually comes from the ranks of the labor movement and unions rather than an anti-union, anti-labor person-the insulting practice of every Republican president for as long as I can remember.

Does he pledge to appoint an Attorney General who comes from the legal advocate ranks of the labor movement, the unions, rather than the ranks of the corporate world?

Does he pledge to have this Attorney General spend his time enforcing the anti-trust federal laws already on the books ?

Does he pledge to add thousands of OSHA regulators to enfoce federal laws of safety in the workplace for workers?

Does he pledge to support a federal law to ban multinational and national corporations from taking away the health and income benefits of retired union workers after the fact of their retirement?

These issues and others are the bread and butter issues of the labor movement and of unions.

Politics is about voting your self interest. If your leaders cannot tell you anything specific that Barack Obama has specifically pledged to do for you and the union movement (what little remains of it, since Ronald "scab" Reagan and the two "scab" Bushes, then your leaders have not done their jobs.)

Before you vote today, you need answers to these questions.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:55 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary's war vote history:

White House:

Mrs. Clinton had become a champion of the bombing campaign, and many officials — including Madeleine K. Albright and Richard Holbrooke in the administration and Tony Blair, then Britain’s prime minister — turned to her at times to stiffen Mr. Clinton’s resolve to take on Serbia.

“Bill, you’re the president,” was a refrain that several administration officials said she used when Mr. Clinton was torn between his advisers.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/26/us/pol...

The Iraq vote:
Hillary voted for Iraq. There was another vote, prior to the Iraq resolution, introduced by Levin. This called for the use of UN inspectors, and insisted that Bush come to Congress before using military war. Hillary voted NAY. She wanted to give Bush the tools to go to war, presumably so that Bush had sufficient power with the UN.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/01/opinio...

She then voted for the unfettered Iraq Resolution. This is a quote from at NYTimes Magazine article:

At the time she cast that vote, she was among the Senate’s most outspoken Democrats warning of Saddam Hussein’s dangerous arsenal. Unlike nearly all of her fellow Democrats, she even went so far as to argue that Saddam Hussein gave assistance to Al Qaeda members.

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/05/29/magazi...

Durbin verifies that the Iraq Resolution was a vote for going to war:

Later in the day, another Obama ally, Sen. Richard J. Durbin (Ill.), spoke with reporters in defense of Obama's antiwar record while challenging Clinton's assertion on "Meet the Press" that the 2002 authorization vote, which Clinton supported, was intended as a means for sending inspectors back into Iraq and was not tantamount to giving President Bush a free hand to invade the country.

"Those of us voting on it that October night took it very seriously," Durbin said. The invasion of Iraq as a consequence of the vote "was a very realistic option," he said.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Hillary has acknowledged that she did not read the NIE intelligence report, which pointed out the weaker evidence than they were told. Those who did read the report tended to vote NO on the Iraq resolution. Now, Hillary is trying to blame Condaleeza Rice.

Iran:

Hillary beat the war drums harder than Bush in 2006 to take on Iran.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/con...

Hillary was the only presidential candidate to vote for the Iran resolution.

Hillary voted against an Iraq funding bill that tied funds to political progress in Iraq. It passed, 80-14. She was the only Democrat to vote against it.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary lethal to Dems

Projection: if Hillary is nominated, other Democrats will loose their seats.

Here is the evidence:

THE HISTORY:

1. In the 90s the Republicans regained the Congress for the first time in decades.

2. Dems lost 9 Governor positions.

3. Al Gore, the sitting VP, lost the following election.

4. Hillary did win the Senate. She claims campaign prowess got her there. In reality, Giuliani dropped out of the Senate race with Hillary, she basically had no opponent. Her re-election opponent was under funded. So, she can't claim her Senate seat as proof of knowing how to win.

What does this predict for the current elections: Two seats in the Congress were just now won by Republicans when campaigns linked the Dem contenders to Hillary.

THE PATTERN:

We can see that people WILL vote against Hillary. The Clintons are lethal to the Dem party.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

It's time to ask, to what degree do the campaigns reflect the presidency that the candidates offer. Forget about the Whitehouse, which campaign would better suit the country?

We can see now why Obama is able to pull people together, and why Hillary is divisive.

Obama asks everyone to vote for him, to build a new team that can change the US. Hillary asks us to vote for her because she is a woman.

Obama is humble, he gives more credit than is due, and includes everyone he can. Hillary takes too much credit for work she has done (SCHIP).

Obama wants to hear all sides, Hillary shuts people out.

Obama is a concensus builder, Hillary is a statesman (lectures).

Obama gives us hope, Hillary tears it down.

This election is about judgment, not about experience.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 2 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama vs. Hillary

Consider that Obama has had the right judgement:
Obama has been right, Hillary has been wrong (Iraq, Iran, talking to foreign leaders....)

Consider who will work best to bring people together in this country:
Obama has shown with his work with Republicans in the State and US Senate to pass important legislation (nuclear arms control, federal spending transparence, ethics in Congress) that he can work with others. Hillary has not passed successful legislation.

Consider who has had the most legislative success:
Obama has helped pass legislation on civil rights; education; women, kids and veterans health; alternative energy initiatives; as well as those mentioned above. Hillary has not produced meaningful legislation. Her Senate record is bleak. Her health care plan failed. She was kicked out of Bill's administration because people didn't like her.

Consider who the rest of the world will work with the best:
Obama listens to other people and finds agreement in disagreements. Hillary lectures and insults people. In this campaign alone, she's insulted women, men, whites, blacks, Muslims, and the youth.

Obama has shown that he is a doer. Hillary has not been successful in the Senate.

Obama is ready to be the president, he has the constitution to do it. Hillary knows how to set up the government because of the White House years, but she will not be as good at making the right decisions and working with people.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:14 a.m.; Suggest removal

People have pointed to Hillary's experience. Please note, that the items listed have not been passed into legislative law, but have only been sponsored, some have passed Congress.

Here's a list of Obama's work that has been turned into law, it addresses not only issues for women and kids, but nuclear weapon proliferation, federal spending transparency, alternative energy, ethics reform in Congres, international aid:

Legislation Passed in US Senate

* Lugar-Obama Act for reduction of conventional and nuclear weapons world wide

* Coburn-Obama Transparency Act transparency in federal spending, found at www.usaspending.gov

* Cosponsored the Healthy Kids Act of 2007 and the State Children's Health Insurance Program (SCHIP) Reauthorization Act of 2007 to ensure that more American children have affordable health care coverage.

* Obama worked to pass a number of laws in Illinois and Washington to improve the health of women. His accomplishments include creating a task force on cervical cancer, providing greater access to breast and cervical cancer screenings, and helping improve prenatal and premature birth services.

* As a member of the U.S. Senate Committee on Veterans' Affairs, Obama passed legislation to improve care and slash red tape for our wounded warriors recovering at places like Walter Reed. He passed laws to help homeless veterans and offered an innovative solution to prevent at-risk veterans from falling into homelessness. Obama passed legislation to stop a VA review of closed PTSD cases that could have led to a reduction in veterans' benefits. He passed an amendment to ensure that all service members returning from Iraq are properly screened for traumatic brain injuries
* Congo
* Darfur

* Introduced Patriot Employer Act, August 2007, to reward companies for keeping jobs in the US

* As a member of the Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee, Obama helped pass legislation in the recent improvements to the Higher Education Act to increase the maximum Pell Grant award to $5,10.

* Obama passed legislation with Senator Jim Talent (R-MO) to give gas stations a tax credit for installing E85 ethanol refueling pumps.

* Obama sponsored an amendment that became law providing $40 million for commercialization of a combined flexible fuel vehicle/hybrid car within five years.

* Congress ethics legislation passed by Obama and Feingold that ending subsidized corporate jet travel, mandating disclosure of lobbyists' bundling of contributions, and enacting strong new restrictions of lobbyist-sponsored trips

* Obama has introduced and helped pass bipartisan legislation to limit the abuse of no-bid federal contracts.

By Kiki: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

Here's Obama's work in the Illinois State Senate:

Illinois State Senate 1996 - 2004

* Welfare legislation

* Created the Earned Income Tax Credit program that gave over $100 million in tax cuts for families throughout Illinois over 3 years.

* Expanded early childhood education

* Enlisted the support of law enforcement officials to draft legislation requiring the videotaping of interrogations and confessions in all capital cases. He also passed a law to monitor racial profiling by requiring police to record the race of drivers they stopped. The law was at first very controversial, but due to Obama's skills as a negotiator and bipartisanships, he won the support of the police. During his 2004 general election campaign for U.S. Senate, he won the endorsement of the Illinois Fraternal Order of Police, whose president credited Obama for his active engagement with police organizations in enacting death penalty reforms.

* Passed the toughest campaign finance law in Illinois history. The legislation banned the personal use of campaign money by Illinois legislators and banned most gifts from lobbyists. Worked with U.S. Sen. Paul Simon (D-IL),

* Created a working, affordable health care plan in Illinois, that covers 70,000 kids and 84,000 adults, where all kids qualify for $40 per child. Obama sponsored and passed this legislation, working with Rod R. Blagojevich(IL Gov.) See All Kids http://www.allkids.com/ . It is a model for a workable, affordable national health care.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:29 a.m.; Suggest removal

Truth(lies),

If I am Catholic and my priest molest a child, what does that have to do with me? According to you brainless thinking, I should be held responsible!

Mitt Romney is a Mormon; the Mormons did not allow Blacks to have the priesthood until 1978 and still today, the Mormons still consider the Blacks descendants of Cain and not equal to other races. Should we call Romney a racist?

Most slave owners and Indian Killers were Christians and many of them pastors and preachers. Should we hold every Christian responsible for that?

George Washington and many who signed the declaration of independence were slave owner, but they put in writing that all men are created equal. Should we reject all the good things that they have done and call all of them bad people?

You are a liar and a narrow minded person, should we consider you fundamentally bigot?

Pat Robertson said that Sharon, the premier Minister of Israel was punished by a stroke from God because Sharon gave land to the Palestinians. Should we consider each born-again-Christian anti-Israel or should we be held responsible for what Pat Robertson said?

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

Sun staffs,

You are going through the posts and you are removing most of the post that have strong argument against the Clintons. How pathetic! You are the press and you should uphold the free expression of the press. It makes me wonder what kind of reporters you are. Today is your last day of glory until 2012!
You are biased

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary Clinton will say anything to get a vote. I'm listening to her lie to a Reno crowd about how she would destroy the No Child Left Behind Act. The crowd applauded on cue, she winked and moved on to the next lie. Dec 18 2001 she was pleased to vote yes on the No Child Left Behind Act, but now she's against it. She voted for the war in Iraq, but now she's against it, she voted against the Help America Vote Act of 2002 and now she wants your help by voting for her.
Her footprints are knee deep in Washington sewage and she is the last person who'll be able to clean up the mess. Hold your nose and vote for her if you like, but I think Obama has demonstrated superior judgement.

Obama/Edwards 08!!!!

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:41 a.m.; Suggest removal

Dusacre,
Pay truth no mind, he really is a simpleton and a racist. Your argument was 100% correct.

By Killpatrick: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

It's great to see that the LVS has done the right thing and endorsed Hillary. Despite the luaghable attempt by the CWU to "make people vote for Obama", regular Nevadians, are having none of that. We will vote for Hilalry, and we will do it in front of the CWU leaders...if they don't like it, well...tuff titty:)

Hillary will win, and the CWU will be left looking like chumps:)

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary Clinton will say anything to get a vote. I'm listening to her lie to a Reno crowd about how she would destroy the NoChild Left Behind Act. The crowd applauded on cue, she winked and moved on to the next lie. Dec 18 2001 she was pleased to vote yes on the No Child Left Behind Act, but now she's against it. She voted for the war inIraq, but now she's against it, she voted for the Bankruptcy Bill that is causing many to have their homes foreclosed on, but now she has a plan to fix it. I have a better plan. I plan to vote for Obama because he has demonstrated superior judgement at crucial times.

Obama/Edwards 08!!!!

By Killpatrick: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:53 a.m.; Suggest removal

years ago we choosed Kerry the so called experience candidate and the Democratic part failed to secure the white house. Hillary has less than 8 years of legislative experience and Obama has 11

Yawn. Obama has two years in the Senate...thats it. The guy is an empty suit. Hillary has been in the Senate for 8 years, and was in the WH for 8 years. She has forgotten more about National Security and Domestic Policy, then Obama has ever known. Hillary will win in NV, and she will get the nomination...Obama and his supporters will be left crying and sucking thumbs.

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:30 a.m.; Suggest removal

OBAMA DOES NOT DESERVE TO BE OUR PRESIDENT

Obama was AWOL from his Senate seat and did not vote a record 130 times!!! when it came time to '"change" America, some "agent for change" Obama is!

In Illinois Obama fixed his wife's salary doubling it to $365,000.00 a year while he was doing nothing for the people of Illinois.

Obama's supporters are rude, vicious people from what we have encountered steadily, obviously not deserving of their candidate winning anything let alone the White House.

Obama encourages his supporter's ill behavior like he did with his smear job "stand up" routine attack on Hillary at a high school yesterday. Why not ask Hillary those questions instead of a bunch of high school kids coward?

Obama has not paid his dues like Hillary has.

Obama's health care plan leaves millions of Americans out in the cold!!

Obama and his campaign workers constantly use bait and switch attacks on their fellow Democrats. Being sneaky and dishonest are hardly traits we need all over again for 4 - 8 more years like we've suffered through with Bush.

After Obama slanders Hillary he plays innocent and becomes Mr. Nice guy, and it's "let's all have a truce" when he was the one who instigated the whole thing! never mind a truce, how about an apology Mr. Arrogant!?

Obama has no experience compared to Hillary, only a Jr. Senator 2 short years to Hillary's 7 years, including her re-election.

Obama stooped to playing a false race card effectively dividing the Democrats, pitting Democrat against Democrat and Black against White, how does Obama expect to unite the whole country when his false race accusations have split his OWN party? Hillary was simply making a point that it takes team work between leaders like MLK and FDR to get work done, and she is right! because she knows from her experience how it's done! MLK Jr. even said "Hillary didn't mean anything against his father"

Obama is too young and inexperienced to be President, JFK had 14 years in the Congress and Senate before he ran, and Obama is no JFK, how arrogant a comparison is that?

Obama steals lines from MLK and JFK for his speeches in an attempt to dupe his zombie youth, clone army into thinking he is as great as MLK and JFK. Hey Obama, here's a clue! accomplish something first like MLK and JFK did! and be original, "I have a dream" ?? get your OWN line!

Obama is a "dreamer" Hillary is a "doer"

Voting for Obama just because he says he "has a dream" is like voting for Bush because you can "sit and have a beer with him"

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:47 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama's second largest campaign contributer is Exelon Corp, the largest nuclear energy company in America, so much for the environment! We already have a President and Vice President tied to big energy screwing us and endangering our environment, we don't need another one!

Obama and his wife are both quite obviously a very materialistic pair, as evidenced by their lush lifestyle. Bill Clinton is right! Obama is the Establishment Candidate, just look at his 'health care plan' it only covers those who can afford it!

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of giving all our money away to foreigners, we don't need another one.

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of that bases his judgments on what "God tells him to do" and that helped cause Bush's Iraq war!! we don't need another one.

We already have a President we are trying to be rid of who refuses to hold people accountable who screw up when they work for him, we certainly don't need another one. Hillary on the other hand quickly fired several of her people when they stepped out of line, she does not mess around or cover people who step out.

Obama uses the "roll technique" in speeches used by preachers to brain wash their followers into believing anything they tell them! Cult leaders use this technique to brainwash their followers into "believing" too, beware!

Obama is very arrogant talking down to Hillary in his blatant disrespect for her being a woman, 15 years Obama's senior and First Lady for 8 years, how egotistical and arrogant!

Obama is disrespectful along with his snotty, clueless followers to Bill Clinton too thumbing their noses at Bill's incredible legacy and all the great things he has done for America and poor people all over the world.

Hillary is a great lady and ready to lead on day one, she already knows exactly what to do! and we need change NOW.

Hillary All the Way!!!

By dannysoapbox: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:56 a.m.; Suggest removal

If we can all agree that the establishment is the problem... (that the glad-handing, back-stabbing, power-playing, money-grubbing, keep all of us in power without regard to the people is at the core of our national distress)...

Then I cannot see how reasonable, passionate, seemingly good people...can choose someone who's been entrenched in this system "for 35 years."

Um....if she's so good at change....why's so much stayed the same?

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

"Um....if she's so good at change....why's so much stayed the same?"

ok that's a fair question.

When Bill Clinton was elected ALOT changed, our nation sported a 3 trillion dollar SURPLUS by the time he was through, not a 9 trillion dollar deficit like we have now with Bush. DO NOT mistake Hillary for Bush, not even close, two totally different worlds. The only thing they have in common is they have both been there awhile now, the rest is the complete opposite. Please study the changes Bill Clinton made when he replaced Bush disaster #1 and you will see a blue print for success, one Hillary will no doubt build on herself. Hillary is exactly what we need right now.

By Demsout: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:27 a.m.; Suggest removal

O.K.!! If her "experience" counts as being quantifiable. She should be able to stand up to scrutiny of it. Answer me this then. How did hundreds of FBI files end up in the Clinton Whitehouse?? Who really found the Rose law firms billing records?? And Who killed Vince Foster.
I can remember... Her answer.."I do not recall"...

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:32 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary said herself yesterday in fact..

"I want to get back to where we were before President Bush became president, when the budget was balanced and the economy was running a surplus"

and in regards to Obama, Hillary said..

"My leading opponent the other day said he thought Republicans had the better ideas for the last 10 to 15 years," she said. "That's not how I remember the last 10 to 15 years.."

the choice is yours Nevada..

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary said herself yesterday..

"I want to get back to where we were before President Bush became president, when the budget was balanced and the economy was running a surplus"

and in regards to Obama, Hillary said..

"My leading opponent the other day said he thought Republicans had the better ideas for the last 10 to 15 years," she said. "That's not how I remember the last 10 to 15 years.."

the choice is yours Nevada..

By bettyh: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

I believe that Hillary means well. But the powerful influences of Washington politics will overwhelm anyone who is too tied into it. Too many favors to repay, to many deals to make good on. Only one candidate is completely free of any "strings attached". John Edwards. It is a lot harder to campaign without making deals and taking money along the way, but in the end Edwards will owe only one group. Us. Regular American people. Edwards will fight hard for us, and have nothing holding him back.

Stand up for John Edwards at caucus. He is the candidate who truly is standing up for you, and always will.

By PAnderson: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary said..

"My leading opponent the other day said he thought Republicans had the better ideas for the last 10 to 15 years,"

Is that a direct quote from your candidate, HillaryNow?

Because if it is it is a complete lie that Obama said Republicans had "better ideas". Below is the actual quote that Obama gave and it will give the quote something you and your candidate cannot do- provide context and accuracy in his statement.

“I think [John] Kennedy, twenty years earlier, moved the country in a fundamentally different direction. So I think a lot of it just has to do with the times. I think we’re in one of those times right now. Where people feel like things as they are going aren’t working. We’re bogged down in the same arguments that we’ve been having, and they’re not useful. And, you know, the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years, in the sense that they were challenging conventional wisdom. Now, you’ve heard it all before. You look at the economic policies when they’re being debated among the Presidential candidates and it’s all tax cuts. Well, you know, we’ve done that, we tried it.”

Nowwhere does Obama say directly nor even imply that the reublicans had "better ideas".

It is exactly this kind of garbage that I see going on here and that went on in NH that I have changed my support from the Hillster to Obama.

By Gore08: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:03 a.m.; Suggest removal

Let us remember how high the stakes are for this election. If Al Gore, Jr. had been elected President the World Trade Center would still be standing, we would have attacked al Qaeda after learning who bombed the USS Cole in February of 2001 and placed our forces on high alert. Instead, Bush was advised, according to the 911 Report, by Condi and Wolfowitz not to go "Tit for Tat" with the Terrorists and Bush took no action over the objections of Colin Powell.

America, we need a President who is READY on Day 1.

By sunnybnny: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:04 a.m.; Suggest removal

I'm caucusing for Hillary today and urge you all to do the same. Bring this nation back to prosperity and stability with Hillary at the helm! GO HILLARY!

By PAnderson: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:09 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hey HillaryNow

I love how you tout Bill Clinton's accomplishments. I need to point something out though: He isn't running. Hillary is.

So who is running Bill or Hillary?

By dannysoapbox: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:23 a.m.; Suggest removal

Funny...every time I ask the question about Hillary making substantive "change"...I get a rant about what her husband did 10 years ago while she was mucking up the idea of universal health care.

(Not bashing Bill, per se, hell, I voted for the guy...but let's face it...the explosion of the internet age provided for much of the "positive" statistics people throw out about an administration that...er...had some problems of it's own...Ken Starr...Mon Lewinsky...Whitewater...Cattle futures...and before that...there was a five year affair with Jennifer Flowers that no one wants to seem to mention...)

Sorry...I digress.

Obama is a risky vote, people. He is a voice and a presence that can POSSIBLY mobilize a LONG silent and LONG suffering majority in this country--the MIDDLE CLASS. And the disenfranchised voter. (over 40% of us STILL don't vote!!!)

That's what makes him risky--he's going to ask EACH of us to participate in the reshaping of America...and hold the stringpullers to account for the raping and pillaging of our country.

That makes the status quo TERRIFIED...from the congressional level...down to your local mayor and town council. If we FINALLY wake up and take an active participation in our leadership at all levels...things can change. To the better for ALL of us.

And that's BAD NEWS for the status quo!

Dammit, haven't you all had it UP TO HERE with keeping the status quo in office? We've had a Bush or a Clinton in the White House since 1980!

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

"the Republican approach, I think, has played itself out. I think it’s fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years"

yeah what ideas they have had! look at what hole America is in!

Obama - "the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last ten, fifteen years"

ok so Obama's exact wording, even better! and this guy calls himself a Democrat?!

By dannysoapbox: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:42 a.m.; Suggest removal

Even from across the country (Pittsburgh, in this case), eyes are turned toward Nevada to see if the revolution this country really needs...will continue in your great state today.

(Senate Majority Leader Reid never foresaw this--Nevada was supposed to be a Clinton Coronation and unstoppable momentum-builder for the Clinton machine through the rest of the primary season.)

What it has now become is a battleground where the establishment's GREATEST FEAR is being realized: The American people, long suffering and long silent, are COMING OUT in record numbers to exercise their one remaining power--the power of the vote.

Long before "Change" became a tired, often repeated JINGLE...Barack Obama was quietly yet forcefully stirring a desire in millions to simply SEE a new and better nation take shape, one American at a time.

Barack has steadfastly used another word that you're going to hear more and more from other candidates...because he's tapped into the one thing SO MANY of us have been without for so long.

That word is HOPE.

Do the right thing, Nevada. For all our sakes.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 6:50 a.m.; Suggest removal

HillaryNow(but Nut the Next US president),

You talk too much! And you talk a lot of non sense!

The devil himself can descend in NV and vote for Hillary, He may even bring all his armies. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Bill Clinton may yell at reporters, he may even bark. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Marketer and political strategists may repackage Hillary Clinton and sell her to us; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

All Clinton support can vote for her as long as they want; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Why?

Americans in the vast majority are people with a good judgment. They know and see what the Clintons are.

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:12 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary!! Hillary!! Hillary!!
Hillary!! Hillary!! Hillary!!
Hillary!! Hillary!! Hillary!!
Hillary!! Hillary!! Hillary!!
Hillary!! Hillary!! Hillary!!

You can't knock down our spirit no matter how hard you try you Obama zombies!!

WE LOVE YOU HILLARY!!

Hillary in 08!!

By krjkw: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

Wouldn't it really be great to have a president that might break down in tears during "tough" talks with our adversaries.

By PAnderson: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

Once again HillaryNow you pulled ONE SENTENCE from the ENTIRE QUOTE and now have shown that you, like your candidate cannot acknowledge the truth of what Obama said in any way shape or form.

That is an issue of LACK OF CHARACTER reflecting on you and your candidate who did the same thing.

By Darryl: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:33 a.m.; Suggest removal

Wouldn't it be great to have a president
* who you know will not be high on cocaine when she is negotiating between war and peace, (can you say that about obama?)
* who does not see the world as an entitlement circus
* who does not divide our nation by race for her own gain.

ONE NATION, ONE TRUTH, ONE CANDIDATE > HILLARY '08

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

if any obama strategist is here, listen to this suggestion:
in big states with big unions that have already endorsed the co-presidential candidates(the clintons), we should have an ad called "clintons, union busters" in which a video of the clintons is shown disapproving of union endorsement, and showing how union-members should vote as individuals with their conscious mind. also, do not forget to remind union members about the failed lawsuit intended to intimidate union-members.
wow!!! it would be their own words against themselves!!!

people of nevada, let's stop the Hell-Awry machine!!!!

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:46 a.m.; Suggest removal

Would not it be great to have a president that reads a treaty before signing it into law? imagine a treaty that gives all rights of our ressources to other countries. oops! Hell-Awry would not read that treaty either!!!
would not it be great to have a president that would not cry in front of the dictators of iran or north korea when things get very tough?
if she cries now, how would she react if she dealt with the cuban missile crisis that JFK went through?

By Jeffko: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:48 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama's name surfaces in a Patrick Fitzgerald case. The Republicans will eat him for lunch with this kind of stuff. I am not am Obama supporter, but I am a Large D Democrat. Let's see how Obama handles this:
http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob...

By JoseyJ: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:48 a.m.; Suggest removal

For the past year - John Edwards has consistently warned about the economy - citing statistics of 37M Americans in poverty, 47M without health care, 200K homeless veterans, workers stagnant wages, outrageous CEO salaries, etc.

Obama and Hillary offered "hope" and "experience" - while IGNORING the coming economic crisis.

THEY KNEW. But they said nothing - because they knew the CORPORATE OWNED MEDIA wouldn't promote them 24/7 if they exposed the awful truth about the economy.

We need a Truth-teller and a fighter in the White House!
John Edwards!

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:22 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hey Hey! Ho Ho!
Obama's Got to Go!

Hillary All the Way!!!

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama is more qualified than the coat tail riding, ignorant vote casting, gay secret lover having Hillary

OBAMA/EDWARDS 08!!!!!!

By Girly_Girl: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:44 a.m.

Comment removed by staff.

By RachelB: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:48 a.m.; Suggest removal

OBAMA'S RECORD ON YUCCA:

On April 18, 2002, the Illinois State Senate passed SR342 urging the U.S. Congress to support Bush on Yucca:

Illinois State Senate Resolution 342 "urges Congress to sustain President Bush's affirmative decision on Yucca Mountain's suitability as a permanent federal repository for high-level radioactive materials." [S.R. 342, 4/18/02]

Sen. Obama had the opportunity to speak out against the resolution but remained silent. From the State Senate transcript:

"Is there any discussion? Is there any discussion? If not, Senator Rauschenberger moves for the adoption of Senate Resolution 342. Those in favor say Aye. Opposed, Nay. The Ayes have it and the resolution was adopted." [Pg. 26, Illinois senate transcript, 4/18/02]

In contrast, when a similar resolution came before the U.S. Senate in July 2002, Hillary voted against the resolution and issued a press release underscoring her opposition.

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:49 a.m.; Suggest removal

Love you too girly,
As any man would tell you, I have no problem with a woman having a woman lover, but damn I can't stand secrecy!!!!!1 :-)
Are you a racist or do your hands type independently of your brain?
Why do you support a candidate with such poor decision making skills?
When Clinton cast her vote to support the Bankruptcy Reform Bill, she cast the vote to start the housing decline and the foreclosure frenzy going on now. Her poor judgement in casting her Iraq war vote, has caused her to take more positions on that than the karma sutra. We need a President who can make the right decision at the right time, not a President who can justify making the wrong decision years ago. Judgement Matters!!!!

OBAMA/EDWARDS 08!!!!!!

By prouddemocrat: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:54 a.m.; Suggest removal

I wonder who "HillaryNow" supports?
Why the hate for Obama? Are you a true Democrat?

It is amazing the level to which Hillary supporters, including Bill Clinton, have lashed out against Obama, simply because he threatens their "entitlement" to the nomination. The Clinton distortions on Obama are way out of bounds.

Obama's experience is not in Washington DC = true. We have not seen Obama on TV since the early 1990s = true. Is that good or bad? Make up your own mind.

By ARMYSFCC: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

I agree proud,
I'm losing a lot of respect for President Clinton and Hillary. It looks like Rovian tactics, it stinks and it's beneath them to act this way.

By NickD: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:11 a.m.; Suggest removal

Not only is Hillary the ANTI-BUSH, she is would be the People's President.

She is one of the hardest working public servants out there.

Endorsing Hillary Clinton for President is the right choice. She is the right leader and right candidate that will be able to deal with all the crisis facing us.

From our economic woes, to our reputation abroad - Hillary has a plan to deal with these issues and I trust her to lead us in the right direction.

It should not go without notice that our allies abroad - from Europe to Japan WANT Hillary Clinton in the white house because they understand that having a positive, great world leader will bring what we all ultimately want - which is Peace and Prosperity to the planet.

I am anxious to head out with my whole family today and CAUCUS for Senator Hillary Clinton.

By JohnEdwards2008andbeyond: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

http://i.a.cnn.net/cnn/2007/images/12/11...

Send this link to everyone you know who votes. Americans and our media seem that this is a two person race. They are dead wrong. Show them that Edwards is the best candidate in the GENERAL ELECTION!!!

On the Democratic side, Edwards performs best against each of the leading Republicans. In addition to beating Huckabee by 25 percent and McCain by 8 percent, the North Carolina Democrat beats Romney by 22 percentage points (59 percent to 37 percent) and Giuliani by 9 percentage points (53 percent to 44 percent).

"Edwards is the only Democrat who beats all four Republicans, and McCain is the only Republican who beats any of the three Democrats," Holland said. "Some might argue this shows that they are the most electable candidates in their respective parties.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:19 a.m.; Suggest removal

The devil himself can descend in NV and vote for Hillary, He may even bring all his armies. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Bill Clinton may yell at reporters, he may even bark. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Marketer and political strategists may repackage Hillary Clinton and sell her to us; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

All Clinton support can vote for her as long as they want; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Why?

Americans in the vast majority are people with a good judgment. They know and see what the Clintons are.

By jangles7: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:32 a.m.; Suggest removal

One can only look at this long public dialogue posted here and the passions unleashed and conclude either that Obama and Clinton are each major polarizing figures in the political arena today or that this is a very tight race and people supporting these two candidates feel very strongly about their choice. I am a Hillary supporter for many reasons but if I must some day support BO rather than not vote, or vote for a Republican, I will. I would like to know if BO supporters (and/or Edwards) can make such a statement and commitment? I believe that many independents probably have these same feelings about a Republican choice in November. In NH while BO got more of the independent vote than HRC, she did get 40% of that independent vote. I hope that all of us as Democrats can conduct ourselves with enough passion, reason and dignity in this process so that this nation does not switch over to anyone but a Dem in the White House. This country has a decided preference for keeping political power divided between the executive and the legislative branches. I hope we can get over that hurdle in November. None of us and none of you really have any way to make a valid prediction on electability---using some hypothesis about where the American people will be about this election or any candidate in November is a real fairy tale premise for voting today. We all need to make our best judgment about the facts and delete the arguments based on hype, hyperbole and hearsay. In the end our collective choice made on such a foundation will probably be the right one. As for Karl Rove, I have seen him play back and forth between Clinton and Obama and what I think about that is that Karl is just out there trying to stir up the Republican slime machine and get some red meat on the table. Do not feast at that table. Jangles 7

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

I support the only true blue Democrat in this race that is for the American People, the one candidate that will make some serious changes on day one! Hillary Rodham Clinton

but au contraire! we really need to ask the question - "Who is Obama really for?"

- Obama supports the Republican Reagan doctrine - http://www.dailykos.com/story/2008/1/17/...

- Obama said recently that "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years" So what Obama is saying then is Bill Clinton was a failure? that was when Bill was President after all! and Reagan was Obama's hero?

- Obama's second largest campaign contributor is Exelon Corp. the largest provider of nuclear energy in America. You cannot get any more Republican than Exelon!

- Is it any wonder why Obama is so very disrespectful to the Clinton legacy of prosperity and success?

Doesn't sound like a true Democrat to me!

No the real question here is, Who does Obama really support?

These are not the qualities and traits of a true Democrat!

I smell traitor in fact, don't let him in people, with Republican "values" like Obama's just think of the damage he will do if we make that fatal mistake!

Hillary All the Way.

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:37 a.m.; Suggest removal

Barrack Obama in fact said recently that "I think it's fair to say the Republicans were the party of ideas for a pretty long chunk of time there over the last 10, 15 years"

So Democrats have had no ideas in the last 10 - 15 years? What!? Some Democrat this guy is! Obama is just using the Democrats as a stepping stone to further his own career and personal agenda, quite obvious!

By GoJake: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:57 a.m.; Suggest removal

Sacramento Bee endorses Obama!!!

http://www.sacbee.com/110/story/646229.h...

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

Yeah right! It is time for a change alright! time for Obama to get back to the Senate, get some work done for once and actually VOTE on something for a CHANGE! BELIEVE in Obama the do nothing dreamer and watch America go down the drain is more like it!

Hillary All the Way!!!

By nefariouschafe: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:14 a.m.; Suggest removal

Nepotism, secrecy, hyper-partisanship...Hillary is, at best, a slight upgrade over President Bush.

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mY2jmgwwmFk

We can aim higher this time.

By denwa: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:21 a.m.; Suggest removal

The further away you get from Chicago, the more the saintly image takes hold. Is he fooling you Nevada residents?

Publications like the New Yorker may coo for Obama, but the two Chicago newspapers are much more interested in Obama's close 17-year friendship with Antoin "Tony" Rezko, a long-time Obama pal and donor, and property developer awaiting trial on charges of attempted extortion, money laundering and fraud. A low-income housing project received more than $14m from taxpayers while Obama was a state senator, but he consistently denied that he had done any favours for Rezko. That was until the Chicago Sun-Times unearthed two letters Obama wrote to state officials in 1998 urging them to grant extra funds for Rezko's project.

Democrats and Republicans alike in Chicago, too, are intrigued by the question of why Obama paid $1.65m for a mansion in the city's south side in 2005 - $300,000 less than the asking price - on the very same day Rezko's wife happened to buy the house next door for the asking price.

Obama is a con man.

By denwa: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:26 a.m.; Suggest removal

Senator Obama, I served with Jack Kennedy;

I knew Jack Kennedy; Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine;

Jack Kennedy was a military hero; Jack Kennedy had nearly a decade of experience serving in the U.S. Congress before he became president.

Senator Obama, you're no Jack Kennedy.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:28 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama= The Republicans have been the party of ideas. Yeah, those ideas have just been great. It seems Obama thinks that he's in the wrong party.

By Demsout: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:35 a.m.; Suggest removal

Anybody but Hillary !! I am thinking about changing my party just so I can vote against her in the democrats primary!!! If Hillary makes it, This Great Country will become the next Socialist Republic... The Clintons= Nafta, Amero, Socialized medicine, North American Union, Bill as head of the UN. UN agreements that take over our National parks and turn them into World Heritage Sites. Yeah man... Please send them back to the 90's

By denwa: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama is a selfish fraud.

He promised us “change” in Illinois too -- but failed to deliver anything. He has NEVER inititated or supported the kind of fundamental changes that would improve our lives or rid Chicago (my hometown) and Illinois of the politics as usual that has crippled it. On the contrary, he has supported, and benefited politically and financially from our corrupt system here.

The media has an obligation to provide a more insightful and meaningful exploration of Obama's profound lack of record on the issue of “change” in Chicago and Illinois.

Obama has done nothing while on our payroll as our senator but cut deals to enrich himself (e.g. Rezko) and his wife (tell us, Michelle, what was the deal Obama cut that more then tripled your salary to $350,000 at the U of Chicago Hospitals immediately after he was elected to the senate?).

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:44 a.m.; Suggest removal

Obama, "Change we can deceive in."

By GObama: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:55 a.m.; Suggest removal

Will SOMEONE---ANYONE PLEASE DETAIL HILLARY CLINTONS '35 Years of Experience'. Hillary is 60---35 years ago she was a 25 year old law student. She graduated at the BOTTOM of her class. She 'worked' at a law firm with BILL!!! According to others who worked there--she was ONLY there because of BILL! She was first lady of Arkansas and First Lady when Bill was President. She served 7 years in the Senate...she won btw because she is a CLINTON and people loved BILL...NOT HER! This witch was a Republican 35 years ago! This witch didn't march for Civil Rights! This witch Supported Nafta (Millios of jobs now overseas!), This witch has done nothing aside from ride on her HUSBANDS record!!! Where is her experience????????????????????????? Someone answer that PLEASE.
Obama graduated at the TOP of his law school class. He is a CONSTITUTIONAL LAW SCHOLAR!!!!! He went straight to work as a community organizer in Chicago after law school---ALTHOUGH he could have chosen to work at an established law firm ANYWHERE and could have made millions for himself! Instead he took a 12,000 a year job on the South Side of Chicago. HANDS ON EXPERIENCE!!!!!! He then served in the Illinois Senate for 8 years and he's served nearly 3 in the U.S. Senate!!!!!!!!!!! Hillary does not even compare to this man in any way!!! She is a charlatan!
Also, this WITCH voted FOR the WAR!!!!! Obama Voted against it from day 1!!!! Give me a break!

By GObama: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:59 a.m.; Suggest removal

I want one person to detail Hillary's experience! Just because she keeps saying it..doesn't make it true! 35 experience doing what???
Also she is nearly 15 years older than Obama......he is not at fault because she is older. He's accomplished MORE ON HIS OWN at his age than she did at her age! She is 60 and has done what??????? She just happened to marry Bill Clinton. She is not self-made. She can not lead. This country will be a great mess. Who in the heck wants Bill Clinton back in office----she's better keep her eye on the interns because he's going to have a lot of free time on his hands....LOL. Stop being fools. Do not believe everything these people say! She keeps harping on 35 years experience but none of her supporters bother to question it! I can not wait until someone calls her on that 'experience'!

By denwa: Jan. 19, 2008; 11:25 a.m.; Suggest removal

Look who the media and party pundits attack most on each side and you have the most feared candidates.

Democrats attack Romney and give Huckabee a pass; Republicans attack Clinton give Obama a pass. Romney and Clinton are the candidates the opposing parties are most afraid to run against.

On the other hand, Republicans are dying to run against Obama and Democrats are salivating at running against Huckabee.

By aw: Jan. 19, 2008; 11:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

really?

Then why was it annouced that if Hillary is the dem candidate NY Mayor Michael Bllomberg wull run?

The republicans are afraid that Hillary will NOT be the nominee -- you got it backwards

By julianbook: Jan. 19, 2008; 11:58 a.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary is a farce. Bill was elected promising universal health care. The Congress was democratic. Eighty percent of the public was behind it. The economy could easily support it. Yet her program was 1000% failure. She had another 6 years to try to revive it. Nothing happened. Let's hear the excuse for 8 years of failure on her supposed pet program - when her husband was the president no less. Have you heard of anything that incompetent. Now there's an election, she's promising you healthcare again just like Bill did - with an unworkable mandatory plan. The theory is that if you can fool them once, you can always fool them. Get it? She thinks you're an idiot. As Geffen says, "the Clintons lie with such ease, it's troubling". and the NY Times' William Safire called her a "congenital liar". Hillary flunked healthcare. She flunked Iraq. She flunked Iran. She flunked Pakistan. She even flunked the Washington bar exam twice, and is a serial failure as a housewife. That's her record on important matters - her so-called experience. She cannot even take care of her household, but wants to be president, and leader of the free world, with her fingers on the nuclear arsenal. Would you bet on an old horse that in its younger days collapsed every time it came out of the gate? Bill is a huge security risk to the USA as he is susceptible to anything that comes along in a skirt. We cannot have a sexual predator running around the White House, with a hysterical nutcase in charge. We need intelligent and honest leadership. Obama is a brilliant and visionary leader with a powerful brain. He graduated first in his class at Harvard. That's not easy. He's a uniter that gets all the difficult things right.

By nothingbutthetruth: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama is the best choice. Many other newspapers endorsed Obama. Vote for the man who can get the job done bring our country together. I just don't believe Hillary can do that. We don't need Bill and Hillary the sequel. Another Clinton presidency? Not. Besides the "vast right wing conspiracy" (remember that statement)is waiting to pounce on Hillary. Select Obama. Barack Obama for presidency. Obama 08, Obama 08, Obama 08, Obama 08.

By hurbur: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

one of the silliest arguments made by the supporters of the co-presidential candidate( hillary clinton) is that Obama should wait his turn.
while hillary claims that the presidency is not a game, her supporters do think that is is some kind of game where one should wait one's turn. it is as if the presidency is some trivial line in the post office in which whoever is ahead in the political line of washington should be selected without questions. "wait your turn" has been their loudest rallying cry, but yet one of their many silly arguments.
it is as if hillary has an unlienable right to be president on the mere basis of seniority in washington hard-ball politics.
to see how silly is the argument, just think about the following:
among the list of democratic contenders, chris dodd is ahead in that so-called experience-line, followed by joe bidden who himself is followed by richardson, who himself is followed by kuchinich, who is himself is followed by hillary.
in that washington-based experience-line, hillary would be fifth in line, so hillary's turn would be in 32 years( 4*8). so, if obama's turn should come in 2016, then one could use that silly argument to claim that hillary's co-presidency should come in 2040.
of course, this descontruction of their silly arguments would be dismissed by intellectually dishonest people such as walden9.

hillary is indeed very experienced, but in failed attempts and blunders.

1) she signed the patriot act, but claimed she did not read it; therefore did not realize how overreaching it would be.
a)reality: she is supposed to be hands-on and experienced, but she would sign important and crucial documents without reading them.
b)potential problem: without reading them, hillary would sign bad treaties with unfortunate and potentially irreversible consequences for American economy and security.

By annevilla: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

"OBAMA PORTRAIT MUSIC VIDEO" on Youtube - Don't Miss It!

For those of you who still have not heard:

There is a WONDERFUL and INSPIRING music video on Youtube.com entitled "Obama Portrait Music Video by Bjarne O."
You can use the free downloaded high-quality stereo version from the composer's website in DVD form to show at house parties and fundraisers. Even people who knew nothing at all about Obama have been moved: either a thrilling introduction, or further inspiration for those of us who already know and fight for Obama.
The music soundtrack, which incorporates excerpts from the famous 2004 speech, can also be downloaded separately in high-quality.

So please, SPREAD THE WORD!

http://youtube.com/watch?v=mCPwbozpIzM

YES WE CAN

Anne

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

2) foreign policy expert?
she would blame obama for asserting that he would act militarily in the presence of pakistani passivity to deter any Alqueda threat if given actionable intelligence that would save american lives.
a) reality: she would commit the ultimate foreign policy blunder by attempting to interfere in the internal investigation into the assassination of a foreign national by claming that the world should reject any results put forward by the pakistani government. in doing so, hillary undermined a reliable american ally, and unintentionally took the side of radicals intent on using bhutto's assassition to take over. by hailing bhutto as a modern heroine, our so-called expert on foreign policy failed to realize that it was that same former prime minister who was the only head of state to officially recognize the taliban, also under whom pakistani engineer khan spread nuclear technology to rogue states. by undermining the pakistani government, hillary unknowingly boldened islamic fundamentalists who are banking on a chaotic pakistan to create an islamic state there in the image of the taliban.
potential problem: she would make those mistakes ON DAY ONE for as always she is ready to repeat the past ON DAY ONE!!!

3) vote to brand the iranian revolutioary guard a terrorist group:
a)hillary did not learn from history. she gave the same administration the same inch as in the case of iraq that would lead to a mile.
by voting this way, she gave the administration an excuse to come up with another WMD( Willingness to Manipulate and Destroy).
b) conclusion: she has failed to realize that such a branding would increase tension between us and iran; and it would also symbolically embolden AL-QUEDA by giving it a false sense of being in the company of a relatively strong revolutionat guard. why it is a false sense? because al-queda considers shia and iranians to be infidels, and therefore there cannot be any real connection between them. but they would have no problem accepting the symbolic value of such a company.

arrogance?
calling obama arrogant, but hillary initially asserted that she is in to win it. she assumed just because minorities voted for her husband, they would also blindly vote for her.

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

hypocrisy:
she would love union endorsements, but would sue them when they rebel.
she would use the race card and blame it on obama. her strategy was to show that activism and good words are not sufficient to make big changes. on that alone she is correct!!! but she could have used a better analogy than what she used in the case of MLK and LBJ. in that case, since her words are generally scripted, it is not unreasonable to say that they were ill-adviced since she could have found a better analogy with no racial overtones. "Ill advised comments" was simply the response of obama; but somehow, hillary found a way to blame the entire thing on the ill-advised comment. she would press obama to apolgize for other people's comments, but she would do no such thing when her senior advisors belittled, and smeared obama in very nasty terms and obvious insinuations.

By hurbur: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

THEY ARE CROOKS!!!!!!

By hurbur: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

HILLARY SUPPORTED GOLDWATER WHO VOTED NO TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

CIVIL RIGHTS ARE AS IMPORTANT FOR BLACKS AS THEY ARE FOR HISPANICS AND ANY OTHER MINORITY.

By DrToketee: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:42 p.m.; Suggest removal

So much talk, but so simple to see. You're welcome to use my simple voter's guide:

Barack Obama:

1. Expert on Constitution law, taught it as law professor.

2. Demonstrated to be of high intellectual, social, problem-solving and community leadership intelligence. Former editor of the Harvard Law Review.

3. Chews out own staff whenever any suggestion of negative attacks arises. Fights with facts.

4. First move after law school degree: straight into the streets of Chicago to help people face-to-face in fighting for their legal rights.

5. Not a whiff of scandal in his 46 years.

6. Held elective office for 10 years starting in 1997 when he was 36 years old.

7. Never held a corporate board position.

8. Solid marriage with kids and accomplished wife, a true partnership.

9. Only leading Democrat nationally polling decisive wins over every leading Republican.

10. Obama web site's main message: Yes We Can.

11. Campaigns not as "Barry", but always using proudly his full family name.

12. Upon his becoming President, justice is very likely to be served to those who broke our government and shredded our Constitution.

Hillary Clinton: (followed by what I think she's telling me)

1. Co-sponsored flag-burning prohibition law with Bob Bennet in 2005. ("1st Amendment? What's that?")

2. Flunked Washington, D.C. bar exam. ("Who cares? The crummy Arkansas exam is good enough!")

3. Re-writes and attacks Obama's official record. ("Who checks facts, right?")

4. First move after law school degree: Faceless litigation for corporations. ("Girl's gotta make a living, right?")

5. Not yet elected to any office, still became directly involved in Whitewater, TravelGate, and FileGate. ("Subpoena? What subpoena?")

6. Held elective office for 6 years starting in 2001 when she was 53 years old. ("But I "served" as "First Lady" since 1979!")

7. Held numerous corporate board seats, including Wal-Mart. ("Donors of the future!")

8. Long reluctant to marry Bill, but then stayed with him after Monica. ("Are you kidding? He's my ticket to the White House!")

9. If national election were held today, would lose decisively to McCain. ("Well, we agree on many issues.")

10. Clinton web site's main message: Contribute. ("Hey, I burned $80 million on IA and NH, guys.")

11. Only candidate often hiding last name. ("Shsssh! I'm not really a Clinton, you know, but a Rodham!")

12. Upon her becoming President, Bill and George W.'s dad are very likely to be sent together on a world-healing mission. ("Let bygones be bygones, right?")

By hurbur: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:44 p.m.; Suggest removal

THEY USE SCARE TACTICS IN IOWA AGAINST STUDENTS...

THEY USE RACE CARD AGAINST BLACKS IN SOUTH CAROLINA...

THEY USE SMEAR TACTICS IN NEW HAMPSHIRE ABOUT DRUGS AND ABORTION...

THEY USE LAWSUITS IN NEVADA AGAINST HISPANICS...

THEY WILL DO ANYTHING FOR POWER!!!!WELCOME TO THE CLINTONS WORLD!!!

HILLARY SUPPORTED GOLDWATER WHO VOTED NO TO THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT.

CIVIL RIGHTS ARE AS IMPORTANT FOR BLACKS AS THEY ARE FOR HISPANICS AND ANY OTHER MINORITY.

By UnionGRL: Jan. 19, 2008; 12:46 p.m.; Suggest removal

I JUST CANCELED MY SUBSCRPTION!

By Darryl: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

HILLARY WINS! HILLARY WINS!

NOW THE OBAMA PEOPLE WILL HELP HER IN THE GE, RIGHT.

By steiney: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

As someone who donated $1000 to Hillary's senate campaign, I can honestly say I am totally turned off by the tone of her presidential campaign. It's way too Karl Rove for my tastes. And my admiration of Bill Clinton has completely evaporated after seeing his constant mudslinging.

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:34 p.m.; Suggest removal

You guys just did the same thing that the Dems have done time and time again. I feel like you just are missing the big picture. Here's my prediction: Hillary wins the Dem nomination. McCain wins the Republican nomination and McCain wins the general. Can't you see it? I can tell you that between those two, I don't know who I'd prefer and I'm a lifelong democrat. Even if Hillary and Bill haven't been playing dirty (which they almost certainly have), they will never shake that perception. McCain will appeal widely to independents and Republicans (who will vote AGAINST Hillary in droves). Mark my words: once again the Democratic party has decided to play it safe with the machine and the Democrats will lose. Mark my words.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

hahahahahahaha

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

I said she would win Nevada and you Obamaniacs, so short on reality and facts, said Obama would win!!! hahahahhahahaha YOU LOSE!!!! WE WIN!!! YOU SUCK!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:43 p.m.; Suggest removal

Jeremy, your predictions are off already. Romney just beat McCain in two major states--SC and Nevada. So there goes your theory. We will beat a rightwing hack like Romney any day. Obama should just drop out now and switch his party affiliation, since Reagan is his hero. Bye bye Barack!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:45 p.m.; Suggest removal

I see the sour grapes are already flowing. Poor babies. You lose and so cry foul play. Try again. Yo had a 5% point advantage and still lost!

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:46 p.m.; Suggest removal

I'm telling you, things will change when we move to the general and you laugh now. You will regret it, I don't wish for that, but I think you don't see the HATE that republicans and many dems have for the Clintons. I'm not sure if you're referring to me as an "Obamamaniac". I am very critical of him and understand the risk that he represents but Hillary and Bill are ultra-polarizing. You're blinded by her and Bill's star power and not seeing that whatever excitement that there is around her now will turn to ugliness. Especially since McCain will be able to make a bigger claim to integrity (whether true or not). I don't think you suck. You're tearing us apart with this rhetoric.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:50 p.m.; Suggest removal

Everyone has been warning about how Hillary has no support, has this 'baggage' (all of it total b.s. and created by the rightwing) and how she can't win. Yet she keeps winning. Keep telling her and others what she can't do. She'll keep proving you wrong.

I don't care about Obama supporters. You are ideologically and politically confused people. Go join the Republican party. We don't need you.

Your man's hero is Reagan. Why are you even voting for a "Democrat?" Go away. You may have to get your supporters up before the election is over next time.

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

btw, McCain is the republicans' only real choice. Romney wins in Nevada because NOBODY campaigned in Nevada and Utah is next door. Huckabee might win SC, but he is not a viable candidate and republicans know that in their bones.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 1:53 p.m.; Suggest removal

Romney already won South Carolina. Wake up!

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 2 p.m.; Suggest removal

uh...walden9...I think we're talking about different countries. What polls are you reading? McCain and Huckabee are tied in SC, with Thompson in 3rd. Romney doesn't stand a chance there. But I won't stoop to flaming like you seem very willing to do (and it's kind of scary).

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:05 p.m.; Suggest removal

Recall comment about SC and Romney.

I am not flaming you, Jeremy. I am saying that Clinton has been the victim of utterly outrageous media attention as well as internet vitriol from both the left and right. Yet, she is still the candidate of choice amongst Democrats and will be in the nation at large.

By somedudesomewhere: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

If the world loves Hillary as tim japan suggests, then the world is in really deep doo-doo.

By latinwaterpolo: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:16 p.m.; Suggest removal

Way to go Hillary! Hillary will go onto to be the best President this country has ever had...Why because she is hard working...dedicated and can withstand anything...If she can withstad the constant attacks by political pundits like Dick Morris, she can withstand anything. We need a strong Woman in the White House...once they attack us again...911 is just around the corner again...we don't need a youngster like Obama to protect us...we need a STRONG LEADER...

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:25 p.m.; Suggest removal

I, for one, hope that you Hillary supporters know what you're talking about with her. I will most likely vote for her, but I will hold my nose. I'm deeply worried that the Republicans are going to take the White House. Please, try to imagine a Hillary vs. McCain race. Her "experience" platform works only against Obama. It will not work against McCain and she will be very, very vulnerable against his "straight talk" nonsense. Republicans are followers and they will get behind McCain. I'm very worried...and I'm not an Obama-maniac!!!!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

What is wrong with references to the guy's NAME? Again, the Obamaniacs really have an aversion to REALITY. After all, isn't Obama's full name Barack Hussein Obama? If not, please apprise. If so, what's your POINT? Sorry, that's the guy's ACTUAL NAME! What, you want us to avoid using his name? Any other requests? OMG, this guy really expects special treatment. Would an affirmative action advantage also help? How about a five million vote handicap? Anything else?

Give me a break, YOU WHINING BABIES! We don't WANT your vote. Go join the Republicans, where you belong!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:44 p.m.; Suggest removal

Hillary can win the white house without Obama's supporters, who probably will still be in bed when the election is over, since they are a bunch of 18-25 year old SLACKERS.

Poor babies, upset because people may have used the guy's full name. LOL. What a JOKE!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 2:48 p.m.; Suggest removal

Using the guy's actual name = dirty politics! LOL. you BRATS! you are a bunch of BABIES. He left the state before the caucuses even closed. Maybe he is watching a sporting event or losing his driver's license. After all, he loses, by his own admission, everything handed to him. whoops. there goes that national security advisory! stay in bed, whiners.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

If Obama had to withstand one one-hundredth of the abuse and baseless criticism that Hillary has taken, he'd be home crying like a baby and probably would need to be hospitalized for depression. He has been given a complete FREE RIDE. The race patronizing is understandable, since the media tries to expiate its white guilt on a regular basis. But the utter contempt heaped on Hillary is utterly outrageous and misogynist. Yet she doesn't complain or chalk up her losses to unfairness. Not a negative word has been as much as WHISPERED in the media about Obama, and yet he still whines! What other special treatment would he like?

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:10 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden, you are short on thinking skills if you think that such very narrow wins are reflective of clinton's broard support. on the contrary, it spells trouble for clinton on the national scene. obama is the one getting momentum by substantially reducing the huge deficits in every single state so far by bringing in new voters. obama was never the front-runner, hillary has always been the front-runner due her marriage to a former president. but the media would not make such conclusion because they would love to witness the political drama of the century with clinton as the national nominee. after all, such a nominee is a dream come true for the drama-driven media.
first of all, she has had a 20-point lead all year long. the people that voted for her were not won over, these are the same hard-core supporters that made up their minds more than a year ago. if someone won over voters, it is obama; for he moves from a 20-point lead deficit to a narrow loss. if that means anything, it means that hillary is incapable of winning over new and undecided voters; and in contrast obama is quite capable of doing just that. to be able to come so close against an established whashington politician with bill clinton as a co-candidate, it means that hillary would be a very weak national contender, and obama a very strong national contender.
there is another factor that you have failed to take into account, that is the Edwards factor.
The overwhelming majority of edwards voters supports obama as a second choice. so, it is the selfishness of edwards that is helping hillary here.
if edwards were to leave the race just two days before nevada, hillary would have lost by a large margin. remember, she is the establishment, narrow wins against a fresh face without double-agency of bill-and-hillary is not reflective of broard support.
also, it is no coincidence that negative ads work better in states with fewer college graduates.

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 3:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

my last comment on this site (and I won't be reading responses). I just realized that the there's a good chance that walden9 and tim_japan are monitoring sites and flaming anyone who criticizes Hillary. Reading through this site, it's really creepy. Creepy.

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

obama actually got more delegates in nevada because he did better overall in the state of nevada than in highly concentrated areas around las vegas.
remember the gap is less than 5-percent after substancial distortion of obama's record, and subliminal negative ads.
yet, the party recognizes that doing good overall is better than doing great in a few places and very bad in a lot of other places.
that is the case of hillary, she only has pocketed support built over her husband's popularity; her narrow win is not reflective of cross-over support; that is the reason that with her narrow win, she still gets less delegates than obama in nevada.
the smart people that designed this caucus arithmetic recognized that pocketed supports do not win national elections, but cross-over appeal does.
so, it makes sense to consider overall performance within a particular state. the logic here is similar to college graduation standards: one does not get to graduate because one gets a few A's in a few courses while flunking everyrhing else.
all the statistics suggest big trouble for hillary in any national race because she has no cross-over appeal.
now imagine hillary with the same level of experience without a popular former president as a husband. where would she stand in the polls?

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:35 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama has crossed the line. He's lost all the liberal Democratic support he once had with this IDIOTIC Reagan praise. Face it, whatever he was TRYING to say, that was the DUMBEST series of comments he could have made. He lost touch with reality and imagined he was a superstar running for the General Election and trying to garner Republican support. Now he's lost all the liberal Democrats over his very dubious praise of Reagan, as outlined clearly in this article:

http://www.consortiumnews.com/2008/01190...

DUMMY!!!!

By pennyson: Jan. 19, 2008; 4:46 p.m.; Suggest removal

Its the same on every board I've seem Obama people sniping calling names every manner of negative comment no substance to back it up only pausing to declare how dirty the other side is How Bush like. or maybe more like baracks model the Reagan camp

By mm: Jan. 19, 2008; 5:06 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden, you are using his middlename in a subliminal attempt to link it to that of the late dictator of iraq. but what you do not realize is that the same middlename is also the first name of the late king of jordan, a great american friend who married an american wife queen noor of jordan. that late king of jordan was king hussein who was the first leader in the middle east to recognize the state of israel.
so we know what you are trying to do that is using the same karl-rove-like dirty tricks.
after all, your dirty tricks might work since it is the undereducated that overwhelmingly support hillary.

By Bettybb: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:15 p.m.; Suggest removal

This 20 yeaer plus Dem has no choice but to vote Repub (while holding my nose). The most important issue facing our country is the illegal invasion. Since Obama, Clinton and Edwards are all open border, amnesty types, I am left no choice.

There must be a lot like me. The latest poll indicates 68% of Americans want deportation, not a racist amnesty. ( ie huge preference for Hispanic Americans in bringing in their families and race, in numbers and tiing, over all other Americans. US Constitution forbids that kind of discriminationa and provides equal protection of the law to all Americans. )

By HillaryNow: Jan. 19, 2008; 7:49 p.m.; Suggest removal

HILLARY ALL THE WAY!!!

wooo hooo! we did it!

We Love You Hillary! :D

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:13 p.m.; Suggest removal

mm, the guy's NAME Barack Hussein Obama. I'm not doing anything but actually USING THE NAMES he was given. NO ONE suggested any connection to Hussein, the former president of Iraq. If Obama is concerned about any such association, it's up to HIM to change his name. Anyone who simply USES his actual name can't be held accountable for any associations it may bear.

It appears that Obama's supporters are all paranoid conspiracy nuts. Using the guy's actual name is now "dirty politics." You people are CRAZY. What other special treatment will you demand for your kid-glove-treated candidate? He's had NOTHING but the most positive coverage on every network in the country. And yet he is still behind. Sorry, do you want us to simply HAND him the nomination? Should we give him an Affirmative Action pass straight into the White House? Anything else you'd like? How about a couple million vote handicap for his name and another couple million for his race?

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:41 p.m.; Suggest removal

Watch any cable news show on tv and listen to the coverage of the race, and in particular, Hillary Clinton. You won't hear in the course of a day across all of the networks a single positive remark about Hillary, unless it's a backhanded compliment about how good she is at politics.

Obama on the other hand has been treated as the Golden Boy, a prince, royalty. Nothing but positive comments, nothing but praise and/or a championing of his cause. Yet the true Democratic voters are not buying it. Clinton has withstood a constant barrage of negative commentary, and yet her supporters still see through the CRAP and support her. We know that all her so-called "negatives" were specially constructed by the right wing. Every one of the so-called "scandals" were completely fabricated by hers and her husband's political enemies, from Richard Scaife on down. I suggest you political neophytes, your Gen Y supporters of Obama, see a documentary called "The Hunting of a President," which documents the right wing's decades-long attempt to ruin Bill Clinton out of sheer political motivation. He threatened their power base in the Reagan continuum, which your boy recently praised. I suggest you consider that all of the bilious vitriol that you Obama supporters are bandying about was crafted for you by the right wing. And you are acting like little busy bees spreading the polluted pollen that they planted years ago.

We Hillary supporters know better and will not let the mass mediated construction of her identity as an evil person replace the reality-based knowledge that we have garnered using our own intelligence. Good luck with your continued deployment of right wing smear. You and your boy will be done after Feb. 5th. and he can go back to the Senate as a real disgrace to his party (which he shouldn't be involved with in the first place, given his special admiration for Reagan).

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 8:50 p.m.; Suggest removal

Btw, MM, I happen to hold a Ph.D. It's not the "uneducated" that support Hillary. Rather, it's the politically educated and not the parvenu to the political process, like Obama's Generation Y slacker supporters. People who support Clinton know the real world and are involved in actual work. Obama's supporters are kids who are yet to hold their first job, or at most, are larval adults in their first apartments after college. What the hell do they know? NOTHING. Obama was smoking dope while Reagan was in office, so he missed the complete nightmare that he brought us and people around the world. Obama's supporters were in diapers or yet unborn when Bill Clinton bailed us out of hell. So, who are the educated now, MM? You and your little larval adult crew, or the Clinton supporters?

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:08 p.m.; Suggest removal

Mark my words: the flirtation with Obama is over. He may win SC, but that will be the last hurrah. He's done.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:18 p.m.; Suggest removal

After all that the Clintons have done in NV, they get 12 delegates, Obama get 13.

Many of you claim that the Clintons have many more superdelates. Ok but believe me, Obama will get more of them as time goes by.

As far as the website Hillary44 is concerned, Americans will no longer let a few people dictate the outcome of an election. If Hillary44 was an Obama site, the Clintons would go to court to put it down. Bill Clinton would be barking like a dog in front of the reporters.

Imagine America voting in November between John McCain and Hillary Clinton. Do you actually believe that Hillary will win? No!

As I told you before:

The devil himself can descend in NV and vote for Hillary, He may even bring all his armies. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Bill Clinton may yell at reporters, he may even bark. All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Marketer and political strategists may repackage Hillary Clinton and sell her to us; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

All Clinton support can vote for her as long as they want; All that will not matter. Hillary will not be the next president of the United States.

Why?

Americans in the vast majority are people with a good judgment. They know and see what the Clintons are.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:23 p.m.; Suggest removal

Dusacre, you're repeating the Obama team's lie again. Clinton won the state and the majority of delegates. Delegates for the national convention will not be determined until April 19. Obama is spreading more mis-information for his fantasy-hungry followers, who can't deal with the facts.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:26 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden9,

PhD online from Walden University! We are scare! Almost anyone who can pay tuition can get one of those. You call that a higher education?. Some of us get ours the hard way! So stop bragging for very little

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:28 p.m.; Suggest removal

Try again, Dusacre! I have a Ph.d. from a university where you wouldn't have been admitted as my student. Try a top twenty university in the country, child.

You aren't qualified to eat crumbs from beneath my desk.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

walden9,

You can deny the reality as long as you want. It will not change. Obama 13, Hillary 12!

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:30 p.m.; Suggest removal

Anyone who supports Obama is a politically and ideologically confused parvenu (look it up, moron). You have no idea what the hell you are talking about. You buy pure balderdash from the Obama campaign, obvious lies and distortions to "keep hope alive," despite being false. I teach at a university where you couldn't get in if you studied for a hundred years, you little moron.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:31 p.m.; Suggest removal

That's not the reality, idiot. How can a candidate win by losing? That's special Obama affirmative action math for you. You're a complete idiot.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:37 p.m.; Suggest removal

Here's the delegate count for you, you challenge affirmative action math student:

http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primari...

Your boy is down by over 87 delegates. I guess that means he's ahead in your book. LOL.

By walden9: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:53 p.m.; Suggest removal

Despite strong-arming tactics by Obama's thugs...

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/...

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 9:54 p.m.; Suggest removal

Walden9'

You wrote:"Anyone who supports Obama is a politically and ideologically confused parvenu"

A very good scientific conclusion! I am sure you conclusions come after a very scientific research a la Walden! All can see your academic prowess!

I am done with you! Good night Walden PhD.

By Dusacre: Jan. 19, 2008; 10:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

BTW..

"http://www.guardian.co.uk/uselections08/...'

How sad! A PhD from USA needs a news paper from UK to tell her about the presidential elections results in the USA. Go figure!

By jeremysomer: Jan. 19, 2008; 11:32 p.m.; Suggest removal

is anyone moderating this site?! It's so obvious that walden9 works for Hillary. Don't get duped.

By hanio68: Jan. 20, 2008; 2:16 a.m.; Suggest removal

I am from Asia and have been following the US Presidential Election with interest from Asia, since the US policies affect the rest of the world to varying degrees. The current world economic situation is not bright, despite good growth drivers from India and China markets. US has big influcence in the world on many issues. The world need a US President who has experience, strong leadership and the ability to deliver results. The plain facts are in front of us - America do not draw warm reactions (sometimes hostile or unfriendly) in Middle East and many parts of Asia, be it politics or effects of poor decisions made by the US government that affect our lives which we have no control over. May I urge all of you who will be making history to consider your vote carefully, it should be based on who is the most COMPETENT and EXPERIENCED candidate for your country and for the world. I trust that your country system coupled with the individual voter's intelligence will elect the President who will help make the world a better place.

Personally, if I can vote, I will vote for Hillary.

Best Wishes!

By walden9: Jan. 20, 2008; 7:21 p.m.; Suggest removal

Obama is done. Mark my words.

By jeremysomer: Jan. 20, 2008; 9:03 p.m.; Suggest removal

I do have one more comment: I've thought about it and the division that seems to be forming between Clinton supporters and Obama supporters is no good for any of us. I think we do have common ground and I will support whoever the nominee is. I wish Mrs. Clinton well and I certainly don't wish division amongst us - we've had enough of that already. Bush has made me so deeply angry and frustrated for so long that passion runs deep. Politics will never be perfect but this election season, no matter who wins, does give me reason to hope. You go Hillary! You go Obama!

By mm: Jan. 21, 2008; 7:17 a.m.; Suggest removal

walden, you are denouncing affirmative action while hillary is in full support of it. this is kind of hard to apparently support someone with such a zeal that you disagree with on such a major issue. your double coat somehow leads me reconsider my reverse psychology hypothesis. could it be that you are supporting hillary behind a screen, but in fact waiting to vote against her in the general election coming november? that is not an unreasonable question; after all, you disagree with her on a major socio-political hot-button. i would not be able to support obama if i disagreed with him on a major socio-political hot-button. by the way, hillary went to yale on the basis of a gender-based affirmatime action structure.
by the way, hillary supports affirmative action as it is whereas obama would support more of a class-and-income-based affirmative action. but either, you are intentionally ignoring those facts for your own hidden agenda, or you are vastly misinformed.
my social observation of the past ten years suggests that people that would fervently denounce affirmative action tend to be conservative republicans.
walden, we do not need to be personal. my fellow obama supporter did not have to insult you; let's keep our exchange civil; but you are wrong in assuming that obama's educated support is solely among the college teens. i may be slightly off, but the number of graduate students that has so far supported obama would triple that of clinton.
walden, it is not paranoia! you are using the full name of obama for the opposite reason that you would use the shorter version of hillary's full name.
you omit the hillary's maiden name to intentionally create a much closer link to the former president.
come on!!!!
let's not get personal, let's analyze the candidates'record!!!

By mm: Jan. 21, 2008; 7:34 a.m.; Suggest removal

i agree with you on the unity part. i support obama, and denounce clinton bad tactics; i may consider to vote for hillary if she wins the nomination, but she has to stop the mischaracterization of Obama. if she continues in that manner, i am done with her whether she wins the nomination or not.
she has so far distorted obama's record very efficiently; and i am getting pissed off with the obama strategists for not counter-attacking as efficiently.

for god's sake, bill clinton should be the last person in politics questioning the moral standards of others.
by the way, walden, what happened to bill's argument. after all, the people that he claimed that would be undercounted in the caucuses overwhelmingly voted for obama-- that is the people of northern nevada.
does he still believe that the people of the vegas strip have had un unfair advantage after they handed her wife the victory in nevada? not at all, because union bosses are great leaders when they endorsed the clintons but arm-twisting dictators when they defy the clintons.

By JohnRoberts: Jan. 21, 2008; 2:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

JCJCD - stop spreading your propaganda videos on youtube!

You have been uploading hundreds of videos and have DISABLED the comments and ratings on them because you don't want users to post the reality on your videos!!!!

YOU ARE NOTHING BUT DIRTY! Your smearing tactics are very deceitful and we will get you REMOVED from YOUTUBE for your propaganda and dirty smearing attacks. You are as DIRTY as the party you're campaigning for, the Clintons.

SHAME ON YOU for posting hundreds of videos!! People are catching on to what the Clinton campaign has been up to... Smear campaigns and dirty attacks.

Everyone realizes how dirty the Clinton camp is. SHAME on you jcjcd! Everyone who's against his nasty actions and attacks, complain to YouTube and have jcjcd's videos removed! Be a man and allow people to be able to respond to your videos instead of hiding. You know the truth hurts and you just want to suppress the American people's say! Time to take action against jcjcd!!!

By isupporther: Jan. 25, 2008; 4:02 p.m.; Suggest removal

I've been watching the slow change of a poll at www.sodahead.com. I voted on the poll a few weeks ago, and Hillary was leading at the time. After many derogatory remarks against Sen. Clinton and an influx of younger people from MySpace to this particular site (SodaHead), Obama has surpassed her. So many people are flip-flopping in their decision during this primary, and it disturbs me that people are changing their minds based on appearance, looks, and "What's Cool" rather than facts.

By seilnotnilc: Jan. 30, 2008; 4:36 a.m.; Suggest removal

Oh, Clinton has experience alright; unfortunately her experience lies in lying.

By darthbry: March 4, 2008; 2:39 p.m.; Suggest removal

I guess all you posters don't like keeping the money you earn. i love the fact that I will get to pay for a person to have healthcare who does nothing of their own accord to get it. Let's all vote in tax increases, entitlement programs and newer programs that will do nothing but further ruin and weaken our country. I am not rich, but hey I would really enjoy working to support someone else. I'm not saying McCain is good, but putting Hillary or Obama in the white house is suicide for the US.

By marmar: March 8, 2008; 5:51 p.m.; Suggest removal

Please someone explain Hillary's 35 years of experience. Are we saying that her years of working and being the wife of the president automatically qualifies her to be the president of the United States? If that is the logic, then I ask, what about Barbara Bush? Barbara Bush is most qualified. Lets elect her.

By wbboei_is_cumfiesta: June 10, 2008; 4:40 a.m.; Suggest removal

Would you trust the wife of a pilot to fly a plane ? No.
She isn't experienced, she didn't even have a security clearance for the White house, so couldn't attend anything.

Las Vegas Sun

Hillary Clinton’s vision, experience are what’s needed for America at this time

Discussion: 472 comments so far…

Post a comment

Spotlight

The Sun

RSS Feeds