Originally Posted by ocealdia

Oh Harper - she is a popular senator in New York - she must be doing something right....doncha think? Maybe just a little teeny bit?


As for the fairy tale, exactly when has obama laid out his plans on what and how he's going to do it to bring the big change.

HIllary has laid out her detailed plans, Obama has never really outlined anything, but he does give good speeches.

Originally Posted by ThetaBurst

You know Harper, Ocealdia is right.

Perhaps Obama supporters should seriously consider these questions, as Obama wins state after state after state after state (etc.)...while Hillary loses state after state after state after state (etc.) and finds herself forced with having to loan $5 million to her own campaign, forced to replace her failed national campaign manager midstream, forced with deflecting questions about suspicious Clinton Library sealed documents involving the Saudis, and forced to deal with why she and her husband haven't released their tax returns to provide transparency and full disclosure as to her campaign funding. We should really focus on how Obama will -as Ocealdia eloquently describes- "bring the big change" and do so as Hillary Clinton simultaneously promises, "You know, I can assure this reader that that (more sex scandals) is not going to happen".

Thanks for the heads up, Ocealdia.

Originally Posted by Veronica

There is always an opposing view. Search for it and you will find it. NY Times did endorse Hillary, and media Matters was explained by another post. You are the one searching and posting these articles to beat down the Obama supporters. You are now ranting. I didn't say anything about being unfair, or a hater. You putting words in my mouth. The argument is moot. You won't give and neither will Obama supporters. Let the rest of the voting public decide. I am tiring of these back and forth silly arguments. Enjoy your doubt of Obama, obviously you are the one of the few smart ones, all of us are just falling for the snow job.

Originally Posted by Kanadesaga

In the most corrupt city in America, Washington D.C., in the most corrupt occupation in that city, politics, and you're going to tell me that Saint Hill has remained above the backroom deals, the influence of lobbyists and special interest groups? Here's a question for you; someone posted the Clinton's worth, $34.9 million, how much were they worth before 1992? and owing favors is the name of the political game.

Originally Posted by itsmeeeeeee

you're questions regarding HOW he'll unite people are moot simply because it's already apparent that he's doing so right NOW. he's getting a WAAAAAAY higher percentage of independent voters than clinton or mc cain on the other side.

this is why people get frustrated with your silly question game.

could you please quit asking a question that's impossible to answer in the way you're posing it? i know others have begged you to stop asking such a ridiculous question, yet you persist.

Originally Posted by CosmicRocker

A vote is not a uniting force. it's a choice.
Governing is much more complicaed,
You HAVE to make deals, you HAVE to be manipulative.

When the campaign ends, and if Obama is elected the same forces will be in DC.
The enthusiastic voters who come out every 4 years will forget about politics
( not us board members, and activists- but the average Joe/Jane).

So getting a vote from an independant is not anything like uniting the contry..
the politicians will be in control - not the voters.

The country will get behind some good ideas - but Clinton's and Obma's are virtually the same.

Originally Posted by RK77

Teri--

Why do the Hillary people---which you and I are not---keep trying to have it both ways?

The argument is one moment that Obama does not know enough about the ways of washington.

Hillary has bragged about her familiarities and battles with scumbags both here and abroad.

Then, when they find that he KNOWS the scumbags
that is a problem too?

When the issues regarding Hillary and Hsu (or whatever his name is) the Hillary folks cried out "no wrong doing by Hillary" and condemned everyone for considering that issue--slapping hands for the naught 'guilt by association'

I don't recall a discussion here regarding Edwards illegal contributions from Geoffery Fieger, but it certainly played in the papers here in michigan enough---once again with Edwards defenders (myself included) yelled to the rafters about Edwards NOT having knowledge of the illegalities AND the problems/unfairness with guilt by association.

So which way EXACTLY are people going to go with this??

Are you guilty because you know scumbags OR are we going to assume that politicians know many, many scumbags and judge them ONLY by whether they somehow were negatively influenced by them?

As for your article about the 1996 race---is anyone here willing to argue that candidates should be allowed to register with bogus petitions? Is asking that the rule of law be upheld a "bad" thing if someone you don't like does it?

You have posted things that show no substantial problems with Obama or his dealings as far as I can see---if you see it otherwise please point it out to me.

JD keeps yelling about no one taking a look at Obama--I think your articles are evidence to the contrary!