No-Lose Proposition

The media act like lemmings in that they all seem to want to follow each other over the
cliff (no pun intended.)
So far, the media has been able to back its favorites (Obama and McCaine) while
bashing their competitors, especially Hillary. They perceive of every Clinton statement
that of being racially biased which is patently ridiculous viewing their history in supporting
racial equality. However, when all black leaders, black correspondents and columnists,
and all black politicians and clergy tell their flocks that, because this is the first time that
one of theirs has a chance at being president, it is their duty to back him. Why isn't that
bigotry? Not a word from any media about that.
I am an Independent voter who dislikes that far left and the far right and want politicians
who will stand the middle ground. Obama is about as far left as you can possibly get
and so I will not vote for him. I'm not overly enthused with McCain but he is closer to
the middle than most Republicans. Also, while Obama has gotten a free ride thus
far, it will be something to see if he wins the Democratic nomination. The media's
overwhelming favorite is McCain and you can bet the Obama mystique will be torn
apart by the media and the Republican party. the difference is that the Republicans
and the media have nothing more that they can do to Hillary, so it would become
a clear choice for the voters. Someone who has experience and wants to stay in
\Iraq indefinitely (McCain) and someone with experience and wants to make the
Iraqis take control of their own destiny as soon as possible because we are not
going to be there very much longer.(Clinton.)

You couldn't be more wrong on your perceptions
regarding Obama and Clinton on Iraq.

First, in 2002, when HRC voted for force, so did
everyone else, and as much as 90% of the country
was in favor of war based on the info given. That's
where you were then, Where are you now?

HRC was a member of the US senate in 2002 and
privy to sensitive itelligence info from the
White House and CIA and considered it the most
up to date intelligence at that time. She was a
senator, not a member of the CIA, or the administration.
Whether you are democrat, republican, independent, or
other party member, we are all Americans united to protect
our country from what we perceive as a possible threat.

HRC saw a possible threat and rightly moved to action.
With the same info as she had, under the same circumstances,
BHO would have voted the same. At that time, to do otherwise,
he would have been perceived as un-American and he would be
pushing up daisies today. He is being disingenuous to have us
believe otherwise.

BHO was a member of the Illinois legislature in 2002
He did not get any more Iraq info than you
or I received, so his opinions on Iraq from 2002
are worthless. They certainly were not based on
any intelligent thought, because he was doing
no more than shooting from the hip.

He wasn't getting his info from the White House,
so if he was basing his decision on known info,
where did he get it? Maybe he had an in with another
"Hussein" in Iraq? I'd doubt it. I believe he was just
shooting from the hip, which is what I see as his ideas
on health care, the economy, etc.

We don't need another SHOOT FROM THE HIP president.

It's interesting to note, however, that Obama keeps
talking about how he was always against this wrong
war, but he keeps voting to continue funding it.
Hypocrite

Go home Osama Obama, you're through in this town.

HRC used the best info she had at the time. If you
want to point the finger, point it at G W Bush,
he's the criminal here.

by Real PA Voter

Eleanor, your columns should end with "I am Barak Obama and i approve this mesage".

Party activists control the nominating process at the Dem Convention, so Hillary will be it. Unfortunately for her, the general population will not elect Leona Helmsley for Prez. She's a polarizer in two ways: Those Repubs who here-to-for were not going to vote . . . will. One poll had 17% of registered Dems refusing to vote for her, and she will not carry the women in sufficient numbers since she is what she is - the Queen of Mean. The Black vote is dissaffected due to Bill. Hispanics will trend toward McCain for his amnesty overtures. Might as well put up John Kerry again.

You have to give the Democrats credit for good overall politics in the L.A. debate. Let's face it, with only a few days until Super Tuesday, there are millions of Americans tuning in and getting involved in this race for the first time. Compare the tone of the Democrats' debate with the Republicans. Their debate was dominated by McCain and Romney squabbling over a cheap shot McCain took at Romney just prior to the Florida vote.

Look at rhe polls - they are both behind McCain in the national polls.

Look at the polls - they are behind McCain in the national polls.

The Iraq War is one of the most defining moments in American history, circa 2003.

The men and women who have died in Iraq aren???t coming home. Except for a belief in a Heaven for them to reside, they are gone forever. If they didn???t have children, even their seed died with them.

A fundamental question about the War and the election is how did Hillary get it so wrong and Obama get right?

Did the Junior Senator have access to one of NASA???s satellites that can see distant galaxies light years (9.4605284 × 10 ^15 meters) away from earth, spin it around, zoom in on Iraq, and see that there were no weapons of mass destruction?

Maybe, he simply went online, accessed one of the free-access Virtual Earth satellites, and did it.

Maybe, he knows that America has the most powerful and sophisticated weapons known to man, and could push a button and send Iraq and the Iranian Republican Guard into the ether, if and whenever necessary.

???real leadership and sound judgment is what America needs.

I only see platitudes in Obama???s speech and not much else. There is no doubt that Obama is a darling of the left wing of the Democratic Party. Whether he could deliver on his promise is debatable. I still remember a similar approach adopted by GW Bush Jr. 8 years ago. He was to be the ???uniter???, the ???outsider??? that could bring decorum and unity to the government. I am tired of people promising ???change is in the air???. Obviously, there is always change whenever we elect a new President. But what change? For better or for worse? Obama touts his early opposition to Iraq war as proof that he is someone with good judgment. Yet, not so long ago, he advocated nuking Pakistan, a sovereign country, to get at Bin Laden. Obama???s Iraq position had no downside political risk when he was just running for a state senator position in a primary where most of his electorate was already anti-war. When he had a chance to show people how he would vote in the administration-sponsored legislation to condemn the Iran Revolutionary Guards as terrorists, he chose to abstain from voting, citing schedule conflicts. After that, he was free to hypothesize how he would have voted had he actually been there. For all his rhetoric, Obama has never ???walked the talk???.

As a moderate Republican I'm repelled by the wings of both parties. Although they have very different policies, the more consensual demeanor presented by Obama and McCain make both the most appealing candidates for the moderate and independent voters.

However, there are vast differences between Obama and McCain. The former is uplifting and optimistic. Yet his speeches are filled with broad platitudes towards bipartisanship that is belied by his voting record and stated platform. Those are straight left wing and show no sign of the promised bipartisanship. If Obama really intends to govern that way, why has he not shown any inclination towards compromise with the opposition during his time as senator? Nor has he seen fit to inject moderation into much of his platform, instead being the most outspoken candidate towards tax increases, strongly supporting that paleo-liberal interest groups, the trade unions, and staying firmly in the troops out of Iraq immediately camp, with hardly a paeon to the undeniably improvements evident there in recent months.

If we didn't have a McCain, who has demonstrated true bipartisanship in the many initiatives he has sponsored with leading Democrats, even if he doesn't trumpet it loudly, I would find Obama compelling. At least, until you lift the covers on his breezy conciliation and discover nothing but hot air.

What is the difference between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton? A lot more than most think. It lies in their actions and their records, which speak far louder than their similar policy platforms.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/2/2/0181/84501/394/448113

Obama has the judgement, the dignity, the disposition and the background, to potentially be a great president. Hillary says she has "35 years of experience" to be president. Her real background is 20 years as a patent lawyer in Arkansas (she flunked her law exam in Washington DC, then moved to Arkansas and passed it there, where the pass rate was significantly higher than in Washington). She then became First Lady and held that "position" for 8 years. (And if you think being first lady is appropriate exprerience to be president, then I have a used car I'd like to sell you).

True, Hillary has had 6 years in the Senate. Obama has 8 years as State Senator of Illinois, and another 3 years as U.S. Senator. Obama has 11 years in ELECTED PUBLIC OFFICE. Hillary has a total of 6.

Obama gradutated in the top 1% ofhis law school class at Harvard, and was elected President of the Harvard Law Review. He worked as a community political organizer in Chicago's poor neighborhoods, where he gave blacks, hispanics, other minorities, and poverty-stricken whites a political voice, and helped them get ahead.

Obama also worked as a Civil Rights lawyer for several years in Chicago, and he worked as a Professor of Constitutional Law at the University of Chicago.

HILLARY, WHERE'S THE MEAT ???

You are Judged by The Friends You Keep.
I challenge any of the mainstream media to investigate this and see if this is true. We need to know for sure. (Colonel Ray)
Obama's link to Saddam Hussein exposed by London Times today, no wonder he was against the war! Today the Times of London discovered: "Mr Obama???s long-serving bagman Antoin ???Tony??? Rezko, a Syrian immigrant to the United States, has been linked to Nadhmi Auchi, the Iraqi-born billionaire who is one of Britain???s richest men. The relationship is a potential embarrassment for Mr Obama, who has made his opposition to the Iraq war a central plank of his campaign. Court papers describe Mr Rezko as a close friend of Mr Auchi. The Times has, however, discovered state documents in Illinois recording that Fintrade Services, a Panamanian company, lent money to Mr Obama???s fundraiser in May 2005. Fintrade???s directors include Ibtisam Auchi, the name of Mr Auchi???s wife."For you who do not know, Nadhmi Auchi is an Iraqi with deep ties to Saddam Hussein and made billions off him! Was also co-chair of the of the Kennedy School of Government at Harvard University between 1996 and 2000 and is a wanted fugitive in France! The trail of the newly crowned Prince of Camelot is beginning to really become more open! No wonder Obama was against the war in Iraq and people complain about the Clinton's being involved in bad things, this is beyond bad!! See what not knowing a stump speecher without substance hides? Hope this is further investigated by American reporters!

Wrong. As an independent, I could easily vote for the uplifting, inspirational message of Obama. I could see him bringing our nation together. But, Hillary? Indisputably the most polarizing figure in American politics? An extension of a political machine that is the embodiment of special interest politics? I'd rather die. If she wins, I'll gnaw off both arms at the elbows just in case I'm tempted to turn on the TV and see her. I couldn't bear it.