bill clinton is in denial. obama won the last 8 states because voters realize hillary clinton is disingenous and a fraud, a typical washington politician who cares about nothing but expanding her own power, and will say anything to that end.

she stands for nothing except the prevailing public opinion and safe choices that allow her to win political games. she’s terrified of taking a progressive stand on anything that matters, and would go to war with iran if she thought it could win her more votes.

it’s time to turn the page.

“would go to war with iran if she thought it could win her more votes.”

In that strange hypothetical you are speaking of, it would also mean the vast majority of the country would be behind it. In order for that to happen, we’d probably need to have a very good reason to go to war with Iran.

“She’s terrified of taking a progressive stand on anything that matters”

I’d say health care matters. I’d say getting out of Iraq matters. I’d say stopping foreclosures and freezing mortgage rates really matters. What does Obama do that’s more progressive?

She’s a politician, she needs to be careful about what she says and what she supports. That’s the way the world is. You can create change AND be a good politician. Her husband showed that. So did Reagan.

Stupid argument. You hate Hillary and don’t even know why. Probably because you think she’s a bitchy politician. But that doesn’t mean she won’t be a great president.

Maybe it’s just sexism—and that’s coming from a male, for the record.

“bill clinton is in denial. obama won the last 8 states because voters realize hillary clinton is disingenous and a fraud, a typical washington politician who cares about nothing but expanding her own power, and will say anything to that end.” Expanding her own power? Maybe, but to do what? To make this nations livable again for everyone besides the top 3% most wealthy. Even Obama fans recognize their policies are similar. The only different is Clinton’s are PLANS, and Obama’s are vague PROMISES.

“she stands for nothing except the prevailing public opinion and safe choices that allow her to win political games. she’s terrified of taking a progressive stand on anything that matters…” Universal health care is far from a “safe choice,” but she believes in it, as do I. One could argue that’s why Obama refrains from taking that plunge.

Clinton for president in 2008! Maybe Obama can be her VP and learn a thing or two…and help her add more empty rhetoric to her speeches to win over the mindless masses.

The real question to ask yourself is if you would vote for Hillary if her last name was not Clinton. She likes to credit herself for Bill’s triumphs and distance herself from his failures such as NAFTA. The point is that she had nothing to do with his failures or triumphs. She has less experience as an elected official than Barak and was rather un-distinguished during her time in the Senate. Please base your vote on who has actually accomplished something themselves, not by piggybacking on someone elses deeds.

“She has less experience as an elected official than Barak and was rather un-distinguished during her time in the Senate. Please base your vote on who has actually accomplished something themselves”

You might be the first person to say Barack is more experienced than Hillary. The notion in itself is pretty laughable, just because she has only been an elected official since 2000 does not mean she has not been involved in the political stage and making policy.

She’s been doing that since being the first lady of Arkansas in 1979, when Barack was 18. Don’t discredit what she’s done or what she will do.

oh, great, Hillary’s experience is that she was the wife of someone who was first the governor, then president. Wow, that her experience?

The real question that Democrats should ponder, is who can win in November?

If there’s one thing that fires up the Repbulican base it’s the Clintons (rightly, or wrongly)

If Hillary gets nominated, then it’s going to be (more of the same) John McCain who’s going to end up being President.

So, really, Democrats have this choice, who do they prefer to be President: John McCain, or Barack Obama? (because Hillary won’t win)

Me, I go with Barack Obama!

Don’t worry Mike Huckabee, the people of Wisconsin are going to give you the win you need to keep going foward!! Go Huckabee!

Obama presents himself as the candidate who can redeem the time. It is easy to mistake (as I have) Obama’s messianism for vacuity. But the messianism has become unmistakable.

At the hastily assembled rally at UCLA a few weeks ago, Michelle Obama presented her husband as the only candidate who stood to cure our sick souls. Her claims on his behalf only made express the implications of his own more anodyne rhetoric.

By contrast with faiths demanding a genuine commitment, Obama’s only demands your vote. More befitting Peter Pan than a presidential campaign, it’s a juvenile appeal that may explain some of Obama’s popularity among younger voters. Among other things, Obama seems to be leading a children’s crusade.

“That is why I am here, because Barack Obama is the only person in this who understands that. That before we can work on the problems, we have to fix our souls. Our souls are broken in this nation.” Michelle Obama

Well Glory Hallelujah, the Messiah is arrived!

Government doesn’t exist to save souls; it exists to ensure domestic tranquility and provide for the common defense. If I feel my soul needs saving, the very last place I’d look (in the US) for a savior would be Washington DC or Capitol Hill.

When Republicans talk about broken souls in the context of civil society, the nutroots start screaming about the obliteration of the church-state line.

When the Obama campaign uses the same rhetoric to get him elected to the White House, everyone swoons.

Very few people will say this, but the stone cold fact is, were Obama not half-black, he would have no campaign. If he were a white, first term Senator with little legislative accomplishments, a record full of non-votes and dodging controversial but courageous stands, a jug-eared bloviator who spews platitudes and cliches instead of real policy or solutions to real problems, he’d never have even lasted through Summer ‘07.

I think he’s being very overestimated as a campaigner. He just looks good because right now he’s running against the most hated political figure of the last 100 years, on BOTH sides of the fence.