Obama is The love child of the globalists. Webster Tarpley outlined it so well.

She again exposed her blind political ambition. Sheesh, hanging on in case Barak gets offed. As if she could not get back in the race if that were to happen.

I'm an Edwards guy. Believe me, Obama and Hill are both choices of the last resort and much better than St. John McCain. Please, drink some coffee or something, cause your incoherent.

^{“Is not our first thought to go on the road? The road is our source, our vault of treasures, our wealth. Only on the road does the ‘traveller’ feel like himself, at home.”
Ryszard Kapuscinski}

None of the Democratic candidates is perfect, but some are worse than others. Edwards (despite his Iran gaffe) was the closest to a viable liberal candidate, but he lacked universal appeal.

Hillary might have made a good president if she didn't have to run for the office; unfortunately, she did, and has really shown a nasty side that I didn't know existed. Not the hormonally wacky side Republicans would have us believe, but bad enough. Her flaws appear to be in her character, not her gender. Supporting Bush's war in Iraq, and his threats against Iran, killed any chance of me supporting her.

Obama is said to be the "least liberal" of the three (based on what, I don't know), but he's got major rhetorical abilities, which to me makes him capable of doing a good job as president. He also opposed Bush's Iraq invasion and his belligerence against Iran.

I don't see how anything SPK has said or published has distorted what appears to be true. Maybe my own perceptions are distorted. Maybe all these people are complete fakes. I'm not quite ready to go there.
.
Good times for Smiley! :-D

Based on his voting record he is less progressive than Clinton. Edwards voting record was pretty awful, I don't know how he'd stack up. But then Edwards was offering more progressive policies than Obama or Clinton, while Obama and Clinton are basically a wash, with points to Clinton on economics and points to Obama on telecom and foreign affairs.

The biggest difference I know between the two of them was authorizing war with Iran, which Clinton did and Obama did not. What other difference, or accumulation of differences, is there that overrides this?

he wasn't in the Senate he didn't get to vote on the War. Once he was in the Senate his votes on the war were virtually identical to Clinton's. Obama talks a good game, but when he's in a position to do something, he doesn't. His VOTE record shows no more opposition to the war than does Clinton's.

Talk is cheap. Obama could have been anti-war in the Senate. Other Senators were. He chose not to.

Why is that?

And I'm talking about Kyl/Lieberman. He had an opportunity to vote for that one, did not, and Hillary did. More specifically, he missed the vote because Reid changed the scheduling at the last minute (literally the night before), but he spoke publicly against the bill, and Hillary voted for it.

Why is that, Ian?

..... upon leaving the hospital, Edward Kennedy's wish was to go sailing. If he were to die on the ocean doing what he loves best, what a lucky man he would be.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

"one she apologized sincerely for"

She did? Please ww, when she actually apologizes, please let us know. She expressed regret, mostly to the Kennedys.

She is nothing but blind political ambition that will do anything, say anything, and hope for anything to become the president. And that makes her very scary and very dangerous as a Presidential candidate.

the example before and no one freaked. Lot of people do nothing but read in the worst to Clinton.

takes the heat off from the painting Appalachia as racist, and those pesky irritated women. ;)

a floor fight in Denver.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

Does that make it okay ian? No one freaked out before so its okay to bring up the possibility of assassination as a reason for staying in the race?

Read the worst into Clinton? Shes gives us plenty of reasons. The current one is her non-apology for this outrageous comment.

Robert Kennedy Jr. issued the following statement this evening:

"It is clear from the context that Hillary was invoking a familiar political circumstance in order to support her decision to stay in the race through June. I have heard her make this reference before, also citing her husband's 1992 race, both of which were hard fought through June. I understand how highly charged the atmosphere is, but I think it is a mistake for people to take offense."

Hilary doesn't need to stay in the campaign to be the candidate if someone assassinates Obama. She'd be the candidate in that case, since she'd have the most pledged delegates. It was clearly meant to indicate that long primaries have happened before and that the people calling for her to leave need to take a pill.

Edward Kennedy himself offered reassurance and stated that Hillary Clinton cited Robert Kennedy's assassination in order to justify the length of the current campaign. He had no problem with it. So bury your paranoia, please.

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

I didn't know I was exhibiting "paranoia". Is that like anger at politicians who will say anything, do anything to get elected?

'unrealistic' anger at politicians who will say what needs to be said. Even Pastor Wright got that right :)

_{"While not a Playboy reader, she invites a male acquaintance in for a quiet discussion of Chagall, Nietzsche, jazz, sex." - not a Hugh Hefner quote}

... usually get it if they crow long and loud enough. Suit yourself.

Funny though, now that you mention it again, it's you I see as the politically blind one who will say anything, fulfilling that righteous indignation nurtured so diligently. As for ambition to actually do anything, I couldn't say.

If you're scared -very scared- of Hillary than I guess the Republican dogs aren't completely wrong about everything.

..it's not going to change the outcome (Obama likely getting the nomination), and most will write it off as 'foot in mouth'.

her 'non-apology apology' certainly didn't help her, though.

At this point I'm adopting a fairly sanguine approach to the Primary....let them fight it out all the way to the Convention floor. If the Dems cannot survive and get past that, then we don't deserve to win---especially with the Rethugs as weak as they are; losing would be the crowning indignity to a race lacking in character on both sides.

-5.75,-4.05
"We're all fucked. It helps to remember that." --George Carlin

DarkSyde in Kos

_{1."George Washington did not cross the Delaware for Capitalism," -Shmuley Boteach.
2.The Dems haven't punished the GOP enough, so you're going to reward the Republicans?}