<p>Yes indeed, I did say that, and I meant it. Staying in the race with the understanding that you still have a very real shot at the nomination is one thing. Waging the dirtiest, bloodiest battle against a fellow party member, no matter what the cost to your party’s ability to ultimately prevail in the general election, is something else altogether. The Clintons have a well established reputation for employing “win at all cost” tactics. I respect the ability to put up a strong fight, right up to, but not exceding the point where you cross the line into no-holds-barred dirty politics.</p>
<p>I don’t think it’s actually come to that point yet, and I mightily hope it won’t.</p>
<p>I have no complaint with the way either candidate has campaigned to date. They’re doing what they’re supposed to do - present what they think are their best qualifications vis a vis their opponent to the voters. The fact that it’s a real contest is a tribute to the quality of both candidates. We haven’t seen anything like what the RNC did to Ford in Tennessee, or the slimeboat crew, or any of the other things I assume we’ll see before November.</p>
<p>I voted for Obama, but as someone who was the victim of a June primary in years past I have no problem with this race being competitive till the last primary. I also have no problem with FL and MI running a second primary or caucus.</p>
<p>Sokkermom, one reason that Hillary could be considered more qualified is that she sits on the Armed Service Committee. First NY senator ever to do so. </p>
<p>(Obama has Vetaran’s Affairs and Foreign Relations.)</p>
<p>This is unbelievable. Hillary’s campaign is comparing Obama to Kenneth Starr. Why is it ok for the Clinton’s to fabricate stories and smear an opponent, yet when an opponent asks legitimate questions, the opponent is wrong?</p>
<p>Once again, the Clintons are trying to manipulate the media! :eek:</p>
<p>The comparison to Kenneth Starr may be correct in that the Clintons were able to avoid the truth then too.</p>
<p>From the article: “Many Democrats feel the Starr investigation was politically motivated. Injecting Starr into the debate is a way for Clinton to depict herself as a victim of enemies out to get her. She’s already complained about the media being against her.”</p>
<p>Oh Pleeeze… Does she have no dignity at all? :mad:
The Obama conspiracy has teamed with the right wing conspiracy in Hillaryland.</p>
<p>“We f***** up in Ohio,” she admitted. "In Ohio, they are obsessed and Hillary is going to town on it, because she knows Ohio’s the only place they can win. </p>
<p>“She is a monster, too – that is off the record – she is stooping to anything,” Ms Power said, hastily trying to withdraw her remark.</p>
<p>Quote: "It’s pretty unbelievable that Obama’s campaign is comparing Clinton to a monster. "</p>
<p>Not really. :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Hillary’s campaign had a conference call about future attacks on Obama.</p>
<p>(from NBC), "in response to this conference call, Obama spokesman Bill Burton replied with this statement: “It is absurd that after weeks of badgering the media to ‘vet’ Senator Obama, the Clinton campaign believes that they should be held to an entirely different standard. We don’t believe that expecting candidates for the presidency to disclose their tax returns somehow constitutes Ken Starr-tactics… And if Senator Clinton doesn’t think that the Republicans will ask these very same questions, then she’s not as ready to go toe-to-toe with John McCain as she claims.”</p>
<p>McCain just saved a few millions in advertising costs. The Republicans are licking their chops as they see the scenario penned by Rush Limbaugh unfold. </p>
<p>The conservative crowd probably goes to bed praying for a brokered convention and a subsequent legal challenge by the crushed loser.</p>
<p>She is lucky that the word monster was the only derogatory term used by the Obama campaign. She is so ruthless. Her true colors are coming out. Shame on her. </p>
<p>At this point, the whole world should be shouting, “SHAME ON YOU HILLARY, SHAME ON YOU” !!! :rolleyes:</p>
<p>Hey, Lax. I have no candidate. I have said that before. I am just sick of the Clinton lies. It could be that your smug comment about “my” candidate means nothing. I may be voting for the same man as you.</p>
<p>“Hey, Lax. I have no candidate. I have said that before. I am just sick of the Clinton lies. It could be that your smug comment about “my” candidate means nothing. I may be voting for the same man as you.”</p>
<p>That is funny simba, because I have never voted for a republican for President. You must be psychic. I still don’t know. I guess if Hillary wins the primary, the decision will be very easy for me.</p>
<p>Frankly, after the recent deaths of young people on our campuses, I’ll vote for the candidate who decides, once and for all, to take on the NRA. Something needs to be done now about the ease with which we allow people to walk around armed and dangerous in this country. From my research, Hillary is more firm on gun control than any of the rest still standing, including Ralph Nader. We need to have some serious gun control in this country–a country that has more people in prison than any other country in the world-- even if it means completely re-writing the second Amendment. My 2 cents.</p>
<p>I’m afraid we need to do more than simply “dream and hope.” I saw a bumper sticker today: GET INVOLVED: The world is run by those who show up.</p>
<p>Dream and hope your way to a gun-free society by writing to your Congressman/woman demanding changes; elect people who vow to do something about it; march in protest; run for office-- whatever works. Personally, I’d rather see our candidates seriously take on the gun issue (and the NRA) than take on universal health care.</p>