This coming from Mrs. Inevitable. Whatever

sometimes I hate being right - like the time I warned you that anything hilLIARy will use to attack an opponent will almost always be something she herself is guilty of - if hilLIARy isn't measuring the drapes herself, she is having a servant do it for her (unless, of course, she stole the drapes when she last left from there)

attack the attacker with one of your own faults - she'll never stop

by the way, she only won new hampshire because of a few tears - a few paid actors told to look wacko in her staged audience to make women including herself look victimized and also a few thousand votes she bussed in from other neighboring states - and even then - with all of this - she barely won AND THEN SHE LOST NEVADA

THAT'S RIGHT HILLARY LOST NEVADA !!!!!

REPEAT

FYI

HILLARY LOST NEVADA -

IT IS A FACT -

SHE LOST NEVADA EVEN WITH BILL'S NASTY TACTICS AT FULL FORCE -

THIS IS A DELEGATE RACE AND SHE LOST THE DELEGATE COUNT

therefore it is an undeniable fact: HILliary LOST NEVADA

MOST AMERICAN WHITES AREN'T SCARED OF BLACKS ANYMORE BUT THE CLINTONS SURE AS HELLLLL ARE SCARED OF ONE BLACK MAN - NAMED OBAMA - IN FACT, THEY ARE SO SCARED OF OBAMA, THEY ARE PULLING OUT THEIR NEGATIVITY, FEAR AND LIES PLAYBOOK AHEAD OF SCHEDULE

YES, INDEED THE CLINTONS ARE NOW TERRIFIED AND DESPERATE

THE CLINTONS ARE NEVER TO BE UNDERESTIMATED BUT LOOK AT THEIR COWARDLY AND UNETHICAL TACTICS AGAINST ONE OF THEIR OWN

THE CLINTONS ARE WAY, WAY BEHIND IN THE NUMBER OF DELEGATES THEY HOPED FOR BY NOW --

SO EXPECT MUCH MORE IN TERMS OF CHEATING, FEAR TACTICS, NEGATIVISM, DIVISIVENESS AND OTHER DESPERATION TACTICS

THE CLINTONS ARE DEFINITELY DESPERATE

Penn, Penn, Penn-How are you going to explain this?

Top Earmark-er Clinton Grants $303,000 to 'Gay' Lobby Group

(CNSNews.com) - A group that lobbies for needle exchanges, for allowing more immigrants with HIV/AIDS to legally enter the country, and for condom distribution in prisons received a $303,000 federal earmark pushed by Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.). That was one of 261 earmarks Clinton personally helped usher through Congress. That's more earmarks than any other member of Congress seeking the presidency, according to an analysis by the watchdog group Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW). This specific appropriation is from the Department of Justice and is aimed at fighting methamphetamine use - that's what the Gay Men's Health Crisis Center is supposed to do with the taxpayer-funded money. Full Story

Pastor Got $1.5 Million in Clinton Earmarks Before Endorsement

(CNSNews.com) - Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) secured more than $1 million in federal funding last year for a Harlem-based non-profit whose leader gave her presidential campaign a major endorsement last weekend. Clinton - who is aggressively competing for the black vote with her chief rival for the Democratic presidential nomination, Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) - touted the endorsement of Rev. Calvin O. Butts III, a prominent black leader and pastor of one of the oldest black churches in America, the Abyssinian Baptist Church of Harlem. Butts is also known for his controversial comments. Among other things, he has said that "racism is built on a Christian foundation," and he once called for a statue of former President Theodore Roosevelt to be torn down. Full Story

Haha. CLINTON is trying to say that OBAMA was "measuring the drapes"???????? Clinton took for granted from the start that she was going to win not only the nomination but the presidency. Clinton is not one to talk about candidates getting ahead of themselves... Thank goodness voters have a say in this thing.

They are not going to let President Clinton come under attack by the Obama Campaign? Oh - right - ok - so Clinton can attack Obama anytime he wants but Obama is not allowed to respond.

Look, honestly, they might well end up being give twice as long in the White House as any other couple by getting in through the spouse route - but just don't be surprised if the rest of the world thinks America really stuffed up again.

Whatever lingering respect we might have had for these people, in amongst Bill's tawdry scandals (ewwww), have quickly been evaporating as we watch the tactics they use against Obama.

Let me begin by saying that I have been an unabashed Barack Obama supporter since he announced his candidacy last year. In spite of what I consider to be deep political cynicism, he is the first political figure in as long as I can remember that has made me genuinely excited.

I know that this enthusiasm is widespread. I have seen it and heard it from all corners, and unlike any other major candidate, Obama's supporters seem to have an unbridled passion for the man that simply does not exist for anyone else. Not only do we support him, but we care deeply for what he represents, in terms of an end to the division and entrenchment that exists in Washington DC. It is our solid belief that there is no one else who has the ability to reach across party lines and generate consensus, if not reconciliation, like Senator Obama

Up until now, I have been prepared to cast a vote for Hillary Clinton, in the event that she won the nomination. While I certainly have never had any enthusiasm for her as a candidate, I was at least prepared to put a Democrat back in the office, and end what I consider to be a disastrous run by The Republicans over the past seven years.

Unfortunately, the past few weeks have permanently changed my mind. Hillary will not have my support, regardless of the circumstance.

The reason for this is that recent events have demonstrated that Hillary Clinton does not have the capacity to provide leadership on her own. She cannot operate as chief executive without the constant aid of President Bill Clinton. Recent events have demonstrated this point remarkably.

After Obama's resounding win in Iowa, it was obvious that Hillary Clinton's campaign was stunned beyond belief. Through their actions and words, they have made it obvious that they had treated the Democratic nomination as an entitlement. They never expected Obama to acheive such a high degree of popularity, let alone overtake her position as front-runner. It had become increasingly obvious that a large segment of the voters felt Obama is much better suited to lead the country.

In her desperation, Hillary Clinton played the only card she had remaining, and that was her husband. I would have had no problem with Bill Clinton going out and stumping for his wife, as it is perfectly appropriate in the course of a campaign. Unfortunately, Bill Clinton, at the expense of his own reputation, has accepted the position of the hatchet man. He seems to relish every opportunity he can to take a veiled jab at Obama whenever there's a microphone turned on him. It appears he is quite willing to spread whatever conjecture is available in order to discredit his wife's opponent, and deflect attention away from his wife's deficiencies.

His dubious contribution to the campaign has allowed Hillary Clinton to enjoy marginal "victories" in New Hampshire and Nevada. While Obama appears poised to take South Carolina overwhelmingly, there are still great question marks as we move towards Super Tuesday; question marks not only about where each candidate stands, but also about just how involved Bill Clinton will become in the overall campaign.

All of this bodes a very serious issue that Hillary Clinton needs to address as soon as possible, and that question is, "Does Hillary Clinton need her husband to fight her battles for her?"

At this point, all signs point to yes. It has become increasingly clear that Hillary Clinton will not win the nomination, let alone the general election, without heavy involvement by her husband. This raises serious questions about how a Clinton administration will operate. If there is a general perception within political circles that Hillary is powerless without her husband, than she will be unable to retain any credibility whatsoever. Her fellow lawmakers, on both sides of the aisle, will disregard her if Bill Clinton is not signed on. Internationally, she will be regarded as some kind of figurehead.

I have often heard people joke about how George W. Bush is merely a puppet of Dick Cheney, Karl Rove, and the rest of the Neo-Cons. This has been going on for virtually the length of the current administration. Do we really need another 4-8 years of a chief executive whose ability to lead the country is largely discredited by a perception that they are not really in control?

Personally, I am not confident that Hillary Clinton can demonstrate that she is capable of standing on her own two feet, and insure that, in the words of Harry S. Truman, "the buck stops here". These are serious times and we need a serious leader who does not require another person, be it a vice president or spouse, to solve their problems. It is for that reason that Hillary Clinton will never get my vote.

If you feel the same as I do, then I would encourage you to express your concerns across the blogs, message boards, and commentary pages. I think that that the voters, as well as the media, need to know that there is widespread doubt that Hillary Clinton can lead by herself, and this needs to become an issue of high visibility as we approach Super Tuesday.

Wow. That is the most ridiculous and far fetched thing i have ever heard. The Clinton Smear Machine is now the Clinton Spin Machine. Do they really think we aren't paying attention?

Obama was not prepared for Hillary's lying about his record on choice. I think it's insulting to women voters to think that they were persuaded by Hillary choking up for a moment. They were persuaded because Clinton lied to them about Obama's track record on choice. I believe there will be a backlash among women voters for those lies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ILVLzbBcs8A

The biggest question is: Has Bill Clinton totally lost it? His antics of the past week really raise serious questions about his stability. The thought of a person like this back in the White House and no one able to control his red-faced outbursts even against his media friends is a reason for
pause. This country cannot afford to have such a volatile individual back in a position of power.

Wolfson doesn't need to worry about "coming under attack" by the Obama campaign. Its the 50,000,000 Dems who will not be voting for Hillary because of Bill's antics in the Oval Office, and their current campaign tactics that he needs to re-spin.

Dems - remember how much fun it was to be drug through the muck in 1998, with the near impeachment, missed only by 5 votes in the Senate?

And what about the loss of Congress in 1994, for 12 years? That was fun, too. Had a Democratic Congress for 40 years, until WJC came to town. We loved Bill, sure, but haven't we had enough of the Bush, Clinton, Bush dynasty?

If we could get Hillary back out up on the stump, instead of Bill, maybe we could save the Clintons all the embarassment of BOTH of them losing, instead of only Hillary.

Obama has nothing to fear from the Clintons -- they will self-destruct soon enough. Time to turn the page ... God bless 'em but, "Stop the Drama, vote for Obama".

Well of course, HRC is "ready on day 1" to hang her old musty drapes. I don't care who hangs what in the White House as long as it's not those two.

Yeah, but does the rub match the drapes?

Women supporting Barack speak out for THE TRUTH

1. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OVuMYKs8iJs
2. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IArsOH3LzDk
3. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2RhL7jTy-cM
4. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJK3x66gaww
5. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=os-j-zLqYp8
6. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5t99ysXMY_g

HiLIARly!
HiLIARly!
HiLIARly!
HiLIARly!

make that 'rug'....

Oh wow....I seriously love you Obama people. You have the biggest egos out of anyone. You seriously think Obama's inexperienced ass has a chance in hell.

First of all, Hillary has 87 more delegates than Obama. That's including super-delegates. She just received endorsement from Cesar Chavez's organization and the Governor of Pa. Keep in mind, she is getting all the delegate rich states. She's going to take Florida, California, New York, and Pennsylvania. Also, New Jersey and numerous others, she may even take Obama's home state. She said it right, he has ties to a Chicago slum lord. She has so much going for her that Obama doesn't have a chance in hell.

"It's not illegal unless they tell you so."

Shocking. That is an actual quote from instructions given to Clinton precinct captains in Nevada. The Democratic party needs leaders that stand for democracy, not "It's not illegal unless they tell you so." That is not what we are about.

As I see it - You have:

1) Hillary who is known the world over with a husband who was a very well-liked President the world over, and the only Rhodes scholar President, and who left the White House with a 200 billion dollar surplus.

2) Obama with no track record; unknown to the world; no connection with foreign leaders; became a U.S. Senator in January 2005,and spent more time on the campaign trail than actually fulfilling his role as a first time U.S. Senator.

Obama talks a good talk, but can he walk the walk? Maybe, in 8 years with more D.C. experience under his belt, but not now.

I think Hillary left her toothbrush in the medicine cabinet of the oval office on purpose.

The Clinton camp have some nerve saying Obama was "measuring drapes". Hillary Clinton makes me physically ill. As a democrat, I am appalled that there are people out there who are suppoerting this two headed beast. It is so blatantly clear that she is depending on her husband to win the election. As a woman, the more I see how much Bill is behind her success as a candidate, the more I see him out and about degrading his reputation, the more I see that the whole idea of 'breaking the highest glass ceiling' being the first woman president is a farce. She wouldn't even be in this race if it were not for Bill.

I refuse to vote for her if she gets the nomination.

Of course they were measuring drapes. Too bad, soo sad. GO HILLARY!

The thing that stings most about watching the Clintons lying is that, if presidential elections weren't essentially about who has less of a conscience, we'd be talking about President Al Gore right now. We wouldn't be in Iraq, we'd be fighting global warming, and we would have had a president the last few years who's serious about representing ordinary people.

Instead, the infestation of dirty politics has made it all about who's willing to stoop lower. That's not ok, and that manifests itself as real problems in the lives of real people when we get incompetents.

The only way to stop that kind of politics is to stop voting for the people who practice it. Personally, I'll be withholding my vote from the Clintons if they get the nomination.

the truth-
"1) Hillary who is known the world over with a husband who was a very well-liked President the world over, and the only Rhodes scholar President, and who left the White House with a 200 billion dollar surplus"

This is what completely confuses me on the "Clinton" Supporters. What did Hillary do? People are obviously voting for Bill - but you do realize that he's not running?

People speak of the last 8 years and how divisive GWB II has been and how unprepared he was. He was a President's son. What makes Hill any more qualified than GW? Maybe Obama hasn't been around long enough, but the lengths that the Clintons go through have truly alienated themselves and their base. Enough Dems will be so disgusted (as was the case in 2000 when Gore didn't get the support) to keep the Presidency in the GOP if she wins the nomination. That's pretty sad.

Chris, you assume a Clinton win is inevitable because of all of the endorsements and delegates she's won.

Don't forget that we all still have a vote and those who endorse her now will change their tune if the voice of the people cheers Obama.

Chris, you assume a Clinton win is inevitable because of all of the endorsements and delegates she's won.

Don't forget that we all still have a vote and those who endorse her now will change their tune if the voice of the people cheers Obama.

I'm not too sure about Obama any more. He used to sound great, but now he just sounds redundant. Sometimes, I get the feeling he could actually have a conversation with himself.

Nice man. I thin he'll accomplish a lot in his life. But, I really think Hillary is the one for the job up against those Republicans. I can't wait for a McCain/ Hillary match up!!

Wolfson and Penn make me sick. Where did the Clintons find these two? In the sewer? If, and I say if, Billary manages to steal the nomination from Obama by dividing the democratic party, I will not vote for her in the general. I will vote for Bloomberg, or stay home.

If Obama was so dumb as to say that the Republicans were the party of ideas and then follow it up with a reference to Bill Clinton as not chnanging the trajectory enough, then he deserves all the criticisms he gets.

Reagan is deeply hated by blacks because his policies hurt them the most. And yet Obama sacrificed them to get conservative endorsements in Reno.

Typical dimwit. Why would he even risk antagonizing his most ardent supporters - blacks and democrats?

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Chris, you assume a Clinton win is inevitable because of all of the endorsements and delegates she's won.

Don't forget that we all still have a vote and those who endorse her now will change their tune if the voice of the people cheers Obama.

Maybe Obama hasn't been around long enough, but the lengths that the Clintons go through have truly alienated themselves and their base. Enough Dems will be so disgusted (as was the case in 2000 when Gore didn't get the support) to keep the Presidency in the GOP if she wins the nomination. That's pretty sad.

Posted by: karl | January 24, 2008 7:19 PM

*******************

The following letter appeared in the Huffington Post, January 17, 2008. For those of you Democrats who have short memories, it lists the accomplishments of the nineties under Clinton. Now there are those of you who would say, but what has Hillary accomplished? She has accomplished more in her senatorial life than Obama, and has the unique perspective of being part of an era of international accord and economic surplus. I think I would prefer to have someone who has some political clout and international recognition than a person who appears to change "for the sake of change" when the audience changes. Substance is more important than rhetoric. READ AND BE INFORMED *********
Dear Senator Obama:

I admire your campaign theme that aims to look to the future, dedicated to real change, and to rising above partisan politics. The reason I am supporting Senator Clinton is that I believe she stands for all those things too -- but is more experienced than you and ready to be president from day one. Though I have doubts that you are as ready as she is, I certainly believe you are more ready than any Republican running.

But one thing you keep saying confuses me. As you campaign on the theme of change and looking to the future, I have heard you frequently say that you don't want the country to go "back to the nineties."

So my question is: What exactly about Bill Clinton's presidency in the nineties do you not want to go back to? Could you please be specific?

-- Do you not want to go back to the days when Bill Clinton took billions of dollars of inherited deficits and converted them to one trillion dollars of surplus?

-- Or not want to return to the creation of 23 million new jobs and the most extended period of growth and prosperity in many many years?

-- Or not return to a time when America's relationships with the rest of the world were positive and inspiring -- leading to peace in Ireland, the end of genocide in Bosnia, and inspiration to the third world for American values of human rights and democracy?

-- Or not see the first Democratic president reelected to a second term since FDR; who had finally positioned the Democratic Party as competitive to win the presidency, winning over his two elections such "red states" as Georgia, Colorado, Montana, Tennessee, Arizona, New Mexico, and Kentucky; and who brought the Democratic Party from a party that had lost five-out-of-six presidential elections mostly by landslide parties to a mainstream party of the middle class who could compete for the presidency once again?

Most Democrats would love the next Democratic president to be as successful as Bill Clinton was. Do you agree? President Clinton's job approval rating when he left office in January 2001 was about 65%--one of the highest approval ratings for a second term president since modern polling was invented. Is that what you don't want to go back to if you were elected as the next Democratic president?

I know you are referring to the "divisions" of the nineties that you don't want to re-live, and there certainly were plenty of them. But do you blame Bill Clinton for the hyper-partisanship of the Gingrich-DeLay Congress? For the tens of millions of dollars spent by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr investigating a 20-year year-old land deal, in which even Mr. Starr finally concluded after all that money and all those innuendo headlines that the Clintons were not responsible for any wrongdoing?

I hope you are not blaming the Clintons for the virtually entirely partisan House impeachment vote, resulting in Mr. Clinton's acquittal in the Senate -- where even a Republican-majority controlled Senate could not muster a majority vote for conviction.

Yes, there were serious hyper-partisanship in the congress in the nineties -- mostly, from the Republicans. But I assume you are not giving credence or blaming the Clintons, or specifically, Senator Hillary Clinton, for that divisiveness? Or are you? If so, many Democrats would be disappointed to hear you say that explicitly.

I'm not saying all was perfect during the Clinton years. Senator Clinton is the first to say many mistakes were made -- for example, as she often says, she learned from her mistakes in the way she handled the national health insurance proposal. But Senator Clinton understands and is committed to a campaign looking to the future, with the experience to make real change happen.

By the way, I was proud to be a Democrat seeing you, John Edwards and Senator Clinton last night on the MSNBC Las Vegas debate. That high level debate focused on the issues. This is what Democrats want. We also believe accurate information about each of your past records, statements, votes -- and non-votes -- is neither "negative" campaigning nor personal attacks.

They help voters make more informed decisions about each of you. Better now to air all facts about your records than let the Republicans use their attack and "swift boat" innuendo machine in the fall with just a few months till the general election.

Sincerely,
Lanny J. Davis

Originally posted at The Hill's Pundits Blog

The last thing Democrats need and the last thing the country needs is a guy who voted "present" well over 100 times and also voted "in error" on five key votes - as in he pushed the wrong button.

Good grief Democrats. How did such an incompetent rookie like Obama get a pass on all of this?

Is it his lovely smile? His meaningless but beautiful rhetoric?

Wise up America before it is too late.

Hillary will be ready on day one. She's been ready and coming with it in this primary. Nice shot at that stupid unnecessary "kumbayah" move by Obama. He gets offended by innocent words like 'fairy tale' to describe his run but sees nothing wrong with 'party of ideas' to describe ReTHUGlicans.

Sorry, Obama you're not the one for me. AND, ReTHUGlicans suck!

Jeremy -- I believe it. The Nevada caucus was a free-for-all. Total chaos with ZERO impartial oversight. There was no "they" there....hmmm...Nevada....what relationships were at work there, I wonder?

"This is what completely confuses me on the "Clinton" Supporters. What did Hillary do? People are obviously voting for Bill - but you do realize that he's not running?"

You forgot that this is the groundbreaking primary. The first time we have both an African-American and a President's Wife running for the executive office.

The Clinton's and their campaign team are a sea of disgust. They will lie, cheat and steal. Anything to win. That is the truth. If democrats give her the nomination the majority in the house and senate will go back to the GOP.

The 130 present votes have been explained. If you don't like Obama, you might not be able to accept it, but I think its reasonable, and has been verified by others from Illinois. The 5 are a little troubling. Let's keep in mind we're talking about 5 out of four THOUSAND votes.

Let's also remember travelgate, white water, what "is" is, etc. The idea that the Clintons can beat the Republicans at their own game is reason enough NOT to vote for "them" -- keep in mind SHE will be president (IF elected), not HE. He can't do the job for her, and will be more limited by nepotism laws under her administration than he would be under anyone else's.

Very interest mental crap from the Clinton Hunta. I remember not long after the dust settled on the 2004 election and Kerry had been defeated after a record turnout but both parties, CNN and others began to openly question whether and how long it would take Hillary to lay the ground work for a presidential run, search back, it will be found. She was hailed as the heir in waiting after Buch screwed up another 4 years. And it stayed that way, UNTIL

Obama made that speach at the DNC and he became a household name within a few months, and everyone wondered "would he run? Could he be the Anti-Hillary/Anti-Bush Candidate". It stayed that way for the better part of the year with Obama making the rounds on CNN and Monday Night Football, etc. Honestly, I really thought that Hillary probably thought that Obama running against her was "quaint", not a serious candidate and that after Iowa and NH, Barak and Edwards would duke it out for 2nd and Hillary could have her choice at VP.

But note, the uglyness started ONLY after Iowa and NH. The "quaint" Obama was now on his way to overthrowing the Queen as she approached her thrown. In other words, it only got nasty ONLY when the coronation was no longer a done deal.

I have also wondered why Obama has not pulled out the dagger yet, and I believe it will come on the eve of Super Tuesday in ads all across the nation. Because the reality is that Edwards is doing the best Tony Blair to Hillary and is now doubt angeling for the VP spot. And, really, what can Obama loose? If Hillary is nominated she will go with someone else for VP, not Obama, in which case by unleasing this final strike, he might win, but he will loose if he doesn't.

The dagger I believe would be an excellent series of ads reflecting the history of the US and its birth in the REVOLUTION, and how we fought to break from a MONARCHY. All Obama need to is whip up some good ole scare tactics, and hit hard the BUSH-CLINTON-BUSH-CLINTON legacy and mention MONARCHY and DEMOCRACY and FOUNDING FATHERS and a THIRD TERM FOR BILL, and you will have created enough doubt into the minds of the public, that they actually just might stop and think before they vote for Clinton.

If Thomas Paine and Samuel Adams and the other radical revolutionaries were still with us they would be having a field day with the BUSH-CLINTON OLIGARCHY.

END THE BUSH-CLINTON OLIGARCHY, NOW!!!!!!!

Jeb Bush in 2012
Chelsea Clinton in 2016

Maybe if we are lucky one of the Bushes and Chelsea can marry and we can start the coronation planning right away!

"truth"
Thank you for the 50 bullet points....highlighting Bill Clinton.

Why didn't Bubba just run again? It would have made this a whole lot easier. He would have won. He'd be miles ahead of Obama.

Again, do not be surprised if Hillary gets less support than Al Gore got in 2000. Anyone without the name Bush or Clinton will do quite well in November.
Not because they are more deserving, but because they are less divisive.

What Monarchy? We elect daddy and son duo, but when it's our turn it's monarchy. STOP HATING YOUR FELLOW DEMOCRATS. If you think this is monarchy, you have a choice and are free to leave to some foreign anarchy island, if it will be that bad for you after the votes have spoken.

Let me see if I can remember what happened in NH.Here it is: Clinton was about to take a beating, but played the gender(crying) card and got saved by hypersensitive white women.It's that simple!
But, she won't be able to weep and cry her way to the White House.Very strong, indeed!

Nothing shows more strength of character than being able to cry in front of a public, only to know it will be thrown in your face time and time again.

She showed human before gender. Crying is not gender specific...unless your playing the gender card.

WE LOVE HILLARY!!!

I really don't like what Mark Penn and Howard Wolfson have been doing and saying, and I can't say Bill has been behaving any better. And when someone with the track record of Rahm Emanuel feels obliged to tell them to tone things down....

If these are the people Hillary wants to surround herself with, fine. If she wants to call this mudslinging 'the fun part', fine. But under those circumstances, why would ANYONE want to vote for her?

I look at the people Barack Obama has on his team, and the difference is clear. Maybe I just prefer responsible adults, but he's got my vote!

Hillary is a snake. Poison. Do NOT let her into the White House. We need integrity.

OBAMA RADIO AD

Here is the link to the ads we've been running on major radio stations in South Carolina:

http://www.electobamatoday.com/radioAds3/radioAdSC01.mp3

Fun part? Hell yeah. You've gotta gotta gotta get someone in there that enjoys taking people on. Politics is rough. It would get to you if you didn't enjoy doing it; shattering your ability to get things done. That's what politics is......... a game. The strong survive.

"We are not going to let President Clinton come under attack by the Obama campaign."

Let me get my violin out.

Obama 2008

Didn't the Queen B take the drapes in 2001? I think she also had dresses made out of the White House drapes, too, didn't she?

I’ve been doing my homework before I vote and here’s what I discovered.

Legislative Experience
Obama: Illinois Senate: 1997-2004; U.S. Senate: 2004-2007 = 10 years

Hillary: has only been in the U.S. Senate since 2001 = 6 years

Scandals
Obama: One misguided relationship in Chicago.

Hillary (and Bill since he is running too): Travelgate, Filegate, Pardongate, Troopergate, Whitewater, Cattle Futures, Ponzi schemer Norman Hsu, Chinese dishwashers Gennifer Flowers, Zoë Baird, Paula Jones, Monica Lewinsky, Impeachment to name a few.

And we don’t know what is hidden in the Presidential papers that Clinton won’t allow released.

Whining
If Obama takes the high road against the Clinton mud, he is considered weak and not a typical hard-nosed politician revealing his inexperience in the political mud slinging games.

If he tries to set the record straight that the Clintons distort, he is whining.

I want a woman in the White House badly, but she is not the one. Too many lies...

Obama has been whining from the beginning every time he opens his mouth... they say I'm not black enough, not white enough, not experienced enough, they just don't know me enough, they're playing the gender card, they're playing the race card, the fairy tale card, Bill is ganging up on me, ect ect ect.

the fairiest of all fairy tales is that under clinton's first reign we had some sort of camelot - it never happened - it was always a bunch of spin and hot air - too bad hilLIARy supporters can't see the truth for what it is

No Obama wasn't measuring drapes, he was just "present."