Comments on: Obama, Clinton deadlocked in US Senate, 13-13

By: hlg

hlg — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 00:42:46 +0000

….it does not make any sense for them to use it. …

They will have “guests” co-located all over the
suspected /expected Retaliation target Area . They
will launch . And we will remember your article for
generations , brooklynite.

Admittedly , it is not wise to mention obliterations
and the obliteration of one another. She would never
use such language when interacting with civilized
statesmen. It is Thug level language and therefore for this Iran regime absolutely appropriate.

By: brooklynite

brooklynite — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:55:59 +0000

Yesterday, Clinton threaten to “Obliterate” Iran, what is the difference between her and Iranian president talking the same way about Israel? First of all the newly popular question amongst journalists is completely baseless when the country doesn’t even have nuclear weapon and even if it did, it does not make any sense for them to use it. she talks about Obliterating a nation and blame others to be elitists? what a hypocrite!

By: james

james — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:11:34 +0000

its not a matter of bias or opinion: Hillary cannot win. Its a quantifiable fact. It has nothing to do with misogyny. Its a cold hard fact. Her campaigns nonsense pr about big states is meaningless. The press needs to accept this, not just HuffPo and kos, blogs which are once again way ahead of the political bellcurve.

By: cb

cb — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 21:00:53 +0000

50% of Democrats love Hillary. Why are the Obamanites trying to force her out? Obviously 50% really likes what they see!!

By: Etch

Etch — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 19:32:10 +0000

Yesterday, Clinton threaten to “Obliterate” Iran should they attack Israel. I don’t care how cozy you are with Israel, you should NEVER threaten to “Obliterate” an entire race of people! Wasn’t she the one who criticized Obama for saying he will if necessary bomb Taliban targets in Pakistan (where the real threat still is), and Clinton responded by saying Obama is engaging in “Hypotheticals”???
Well Clinton, There are indeed Taliban targets in Pakistan - that is not hypothetical - , as for Iran, there is no evidence of any attempt at attacking anybody, and the reactors being built by Russia were confirmed to be for generating electricity, which was also confirmed by the IAEA, not to mention that even if Iran is able to become a formidable nuclear power (which will not happen for at least 10 years if they were somehow able to build it undetected under the IAEA’s, Russia’s and the UN’s watch), they will still be severely under equipped to fight Israel & the US! And as for Obama saying he would directly talk to the Iranians about interference in Iraq, well, if our neighbor Mexico was attacked, wouldn’t that directly affect us?? Wouldn’t you want a say in what happens to your next door neighbor, since it directly affects you, and since they are messing in our neighborhood?
Clinton is just as bad as her republican counter-parts. Obama has my vote, at least he promised a measured response: to go after the Taliban, not to Kill off all Pakistanis in the process!! Shame on you Clinton, Shame on you!

You can continue to view this election as a woman vs a black man, or you can forget all these in-conclusive stereotypes and just view them as 2 candidates, one is better than the other, period. Even if Obama was a half white-half Chinese woman, I would still vote for him. I like his approach to problem solving and healing divides, and it is as simple as that.

By: vote4thebest

vote4thebest — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:13:42 +0000

Isn’t this interesting! the numbers, by all counts, show a race that is dead heat. Yet many folks in the media and these so called party elders keep calling her to bow out. It is nothing short of bullying! Even if Clinton wins by 1 vote, then she should be the nominee because the big question that Obama failed to deliver yet again, another big state considering that he is outspending her by 3 or even 5 to 1, same thing that he did in Texas and Ohio.

He can’t connect with the base - he will loose in Nov. It is that simple.

By: hlg

hlg — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:11:31 +0000

After reading this , plus analizing certain
Text in wrapmusic “stacking guns and bombs from ceiling to the floor”
13-13 is not justifiable.

http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/art icle/2662

By: Annette Keller

Annette Keller — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 17:03:04 +0000

Wow! Talk about “separate” but “equal”, in the full sense of those words. These two are like two sides of the same coin, two genders of the same species, two faces of the same politician (ha ha).

Obama hasn’t done a very good job of unifying, has he? If he splits the Democratic Party, what would he do to the far more divided, diverse and problematic melting pot that is the general electorate?

Everyone is blaming Clinton for not quitting and letting Obama (the man) have the race (although no man would quit with this thin of a margin to a caucus-state winner and two large swing states unrepresented). But why is no one looking to he who claims to be the leading candidate, for leadership? Where is Obama’s leadership in this conundrum.

If anything, this divided, perplexing Democratic Primary presents Obama with his first real leadership opportunity, in the very realms of unifying and crossing divides that he is running on a promise of being able to do. Well, where is the leadership from the leading candidate in the race? This Democratic Primary also presents Obama with his first opportunity to win an election against a real opponent, instead of one who gets disqualified, or who implodes or is non-viable.

Why can’t Obama show us either (1) how to cross these divides and lead the Democratic Party out of this dilemma or (2) how he can win a straight-out contest against a real opponent (for the first time in in his career) and close the deal with voters?

If what appears to be a plan to create the pretense of some ad hoc push by superdelegates to push Clinton out of the race before the convention and without counting FL and MY (its popular votes or its delegates), pushing Clinton out of the race instead of Obama leading the party out of the impasse or closing the deal via voters alone, he will be an unacceptable, engineered nominee to many Clinton supporters. That adds negatively to his thin resume of experience and tips the scale toward us casting a vote for McCain in the Fall.

By: The Uncreated

The Uncreated — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:03:02 +0000

Fully half of Clinton’s senate endorsements are women. Imagine that. People will vote for those they feel best represents them, so when Obama secures the lion’s share of the black vote, the principle repeats itself.

- T

By: Gaias Child

Gaias Child — Tue, 22 Apr 2008 16:00:36 +0000

So do the “superdelegates” vote in public or private? It’s going to be a little difficult for the women from Washington to vote Clinton with their state voting Obama.

I’m just sayin’ - all us goddess loving women want a woman but as for me I want one who is real, a healer, a visionary, a natural being. That’s the function of woman in the natural order. Not to say she cannot lead in the society. But what we need to do is have the society reflect the natural order a little better and women won’t be forced to pretend they are men in order to be role models and inspiration for their daughters. You know, a woman like Michelle Obama for example.