President of the Debate Team

(Hillary Clinton) Hello, Iam Hillary Clinton and the most experienced candidate in the democratic race.
(Combinedsun) why do you say so?
Hillary Clinton) Because i was married to Bill Clinton.
(Combinedsun) why do you think being married to the former president gives you more experience as a candidate?
(Hillary Clinton) because we went travelled around the world together and i waved at people and i eat in the finest places, you can never imagine.i also worked on the famous health plan for America and supported my husband to sign Nafta into law?
(Combinedsun) Didnt you just say Nafta was a mistake and didnt your Health plan for America Fail?
(Hillary Clinton) this is where you are trying to play gottcha! this country is the war because of Georce Bush and i will end it!
(Combinedsun) that dont answer my question, can you place answer my question?
(Hillary Clinton) your questions are coming from a Repulican playbook and so i wont answer.
(Combinedsun) any final words mrs Clinton? seems you have come out and trashed the current leader of Iraqi and called him incompetent, dont you think this will haunt you when you become presdent because you will have to deal with him or the Republicans you have trased without mentionin to your audience that without the Rpublicans support our country will still be in the same place?
(Hillary Clinton) Normally i dont answer qustions, but i will answer this one, this is an all boy's club trying to come after me Becase iam ahead in the polls!

Another one living in Obama's fantasy land! You attack Hillary for the driver's license issue (as if that is somehow an issue) yet you don't mention Obama's convoluted answer. You attack her for "travelgate" and "cattle futures" yet you fail to mention that when fully and overzealously investigated by a republican congress and a republican prosecuter there was never one charge proven. You also fail to mention Obama's avoiding the isuue of the people he met with and the missing records of his time in the Illinois senate. You claim he will tell the truth given the chance, yet he can't clearly state his position on social security, produce the records of his meetings with a federally indicted real estate broker -the same one he bought his house from in a sweetheart deal -. As a matter of fact, I have yet to hear one coherent, qualified position on a single issue from the man. You also attempt to paint Hillary in a bad light with the same old tired arguement about her vote on Iraq. Yet, again, you fail to mention that in an interview after the Democratic Convention of '04, Obama stated that he didn't know how he would have voted since he wasn't there and wasn't privvy to all the information that was being put forth to congress. Then on Meet The Press, he said "well, I didn't think I should attack the party's nominees"! If there ever was a moment in time that defined Obama and his "truth-telling" it was then on MTP. He admitted to saying something he didn't believe, just to satisfy the party and media. You attack her debating skills and liken them to acting. The way I see it, a person that can debate is one that shows KNOWLEDGE and PREPAREDNESS on all the issues thereby showing that you will be well-studied on these very same issues when it comes time to lead. I question I often pose in these forums, yet have never received an answer to, I will pose once again to you: why is it that you and all the other Obama supporters who latch onto the soundbites of "the politics of hope" and "changing Washington politics" never put forth an arguement as to why your candidate is best suited to take on the job of president, but only attack Hillary with hollow arguements as to why she shouldn't be president? Please get off the slime and fear-and-smear politics of the republican playbook and state your candidate's position on the issues and why you support that position.

Atleast someone knows..a hillary nomination will guarantee Rudy or Romney because she is such an easy person to crucify using her own words and past.As an idependent i want change and change that should come from the democratic win but if the democrats elect Hillary, they lose my vote, id give it to anyone other than Clinton but gie me Obama or Edawards and we on the same page

Watching Iowa and judging it to be a trend is so far off base. First, and probably least important, is the fact that Hillary was never expected to do well there. Do you remember the early Hillary-bashing media frenzy when one of her camp[aign aids suggested not to bother with Iowa? Second reason to ignore the Iowa vote, is they get a "do-over". In other words, if their candidate doesn't get at least 15% of the vote in a first round ballot, they get to change their vote to one of the candidates that did get at least 15%. For this reason, it is far from indicative of how the rest of the country is going to vote. And finally, I believe that once the American people wake up and realize the propaganda that the media has been trying to push down our throats, and they begin to seriously look at the candidates and their positions on issues as opposed to who has the best soundbite, you will see that gap between Hillary and Obama, on the national level, widen even more.

Too funny! Actually it was 6% of the country that makes over $95,000. And of that percentage 3% make between $95,000 and $200,000, which are the people Obama wants to raise taxes on. Now granted, to a farmer in Nebraska or a witress in a diner in the backwoods of Mississippi, $95,000 is alot of money and would probably consider themselves rich if they made that much money. But to the people that do make that money, the majority of them live in a metropolis.like New York City, Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago, Seattle, etc., where $95,000 is barely making ends meet. And if you have a wife and a child or two to support, it is nearly impossible to survive. The $20,000 a year that would make the farmer or waitress "rich" wouldn't even cover the cost of rent in these cities. Not to mention the cost of food, transportation, utilities, and the such. You also mention the J-J Dinner and the speeches, claiming Hillary was "shrill". Well, I watched those speeches and in my opinion Hillary was poised calm and very effective in the points she was trying to make. And to me it sounded more like Obama was angry, I mean did you see the veins popping out of his neck and forehead? Seemed he was the one shouting and trying to force his opinion on the audience. One of the 10 greatest speeches? Can you rewatch that video and tell me exactly where he put forth one policy and how he expects to acheive that policy? I heard a lot of angry fluff and attacks yet not a single substantive issue. Another supporter of "the politics of hope" that can't define why Obama is a better candidate, but just attack, attack, attack.

This is the exact reason people are turning off to the MSM and getting their information from the likes of Jon Stewart and the internet as a whole. Headlines that read: "Clinton attacks Obama On Foreign Policy Experience"(-where she did nothing more than challenge his premise that living in a foreign country at the age of 10 gave him experience in foreign policy) and "Obama Strikes Back" ( where he did not answer the charge, but changed the subject to attack her on her Iraq vote). They accuse her of acting like she has already won the nomination, when actually she is out every day, trying to convince voters she is the best candidate. It seems the MSM are the only ones trying to portray her as the "inevitable" choice. They try to claim she is too polarizing or devisive. Yet you never hear them state one issue on which they believe she is polarizing or devisive. As a matter of fact, Hillary is much more to the center on issues than Obama. It seems to me if there is a chance of anyone bringing the country together on issues, it would be the one that has a more moderate view as opposed to one that leans way left. It is funny how it was the top story for 2 weeks when Hillary attempted to explain her position on the driver's license issue (never saying she supported drivers' licenses for illegals, only that she supported what the governor was trying to do) and when Obama gave such a convoluted answer to the same question, he got maybe a couple hours of press time. Again, mcaoile raises another valid point with regards to Obama's ability to deliver a speech filled with promises of changing the way of politics in Washington". Yet he has never delivered a speech on the way he plans to acheive this. For anyone to believe that a person so far to the left on issues is suddenly going to bring the republicans on board with him, is living in a fantasy world. Has anyone ever put Obama under the microscope the way they have Hillary? I believe if they did, they would find that he is the one that is polarizing, offers absolutely no substance in those Utopian soundbites, and doesn't stand a chance against the republicans in the general election. Further, people attack Hillary on the last debate, saying CNN is the "Clinton News Network" and they gave her softball questions. What puzzles me is why it was okay for Tim Russert and Brian Williams to launch an all-out attack on her in Philly and set up Obama and Edwards to join in on the "pile-on". So now they are attacking her on her debating skills. As far as I'm concerned the debates are a great way to judge the candidates. They show how dignified Hillary has been, how knowledgable she is on all the topics, and how well prepared she is. MSM seems to have picked their favorite candidate, and it shows through with everything they say (or don't say, as is the case with why they feel Obama is their preferred choice).