Amen.

If Obama wins Tx & Ohio its over.

Its a good news/bad news deal on the nature of the blogs.The good news is the blogs are raw real time unedited expression..the bad news is raw real time unedited expression can be offensive.

This nomination fight has stirred real emotion & its evident on Knoxviews.This was also true in the '06 US Senate campaign.Read what was said about Corker & Ford.

I am big supporter of Harold Ford & I'm here to tell you there are folks around this blog that dont think to highly of the fellow...even those that voted for him have posted they really dont like the guy.I may not always like it but I understand it

Given this is a presidential election & the historical nature of the candidates & huge the turn out its no suprise that there would be a bare knuckles fight on Knoxviews.

As far as the media's concerned..if Clinton wins Ohio & Texas..Us Obama folks will be sick of hearing..Boy its going to be real tough for Obama to go on if he cant win Pa..& it dont look to good.

In the days after Wis,nobody expected such a big win for Obama, I got the feeling the Clinton camp felt they must win Tx & Ohio to stay in.Didn't Bill say something like that?

But I'm starting here a little noise about if she just wins one she should stay in till Pa.We will see..Both are very close & Clinton's got the money for a turn out the vote ground game Tuesday.In high turn out elections ground game can be the difference between winning & losing.

With respect to Mich & Fla,it's the rule of law that the political parties can set the method of nomination.If & only if Fla & Mich are in compliance can they be seated without a ruling by the convention.Like in the '72 Cal.challenge where you stand on this depends on who you're for.

Three things can happen Tuesday

1.Clinton wins both..we keep smashing each other

2.Obama wins both..we start smashing McCain

3.Split..??????????

I'll tell you who deserves a little more respect and its we the voter, by expecting us to believe that because you slept with the former President for 8 years and being a U.S. Senator for a few years longer than Senator Obama, Senator Clinton has the experience from day to be POUS as opposed to Senator Obama. Voting to go to war in Iraq is the type of EXPERIENCE American can do without.

Voting to go to war in Iraq is the type of EXPERIENCE American can do without.

I have never really understood why this has been a big issue with Obama people. Obama wasn't a U.S. Senator at the time. Who knows how he would have voted.

According to a New Yorker article from November 6, 2006, Obama says:

"I think what people might point to is our different assessments of the war in Iraq, although I’m always careful to say that I was not in the Senate, so perhaps the reason I thought it was such a bad idea was that I didn’t have the benefit of U.S. intelligence. And, for those who did, it might have led to a different set of choices. So that might be something that sort of is obvious. But, again, we were in different circumstances at that time: I was running for the U.S. Senate, she had to take a vote, and casting votes is always a difficult test. "

Thanks to TGW.

Obama's running for President. He'll say a lot of things contradictory to what he has said in the past. He campaigned for John Kerry who also voted for the war. There is not and cannot be a record of what he would have done in 2003 because he was not a U.S. Senator and could not put his vote on the record.

Personally, I don’t' think any of the candidates deserve our respect. But Clinton (and her followers) simultaneously playing dirty politics (Terror and Fear, Obama's 'black' church, Obama's a sleeper cell Muslim etc) and then claiming there the victim is getting old.

Of course Hillary bloggers are above all that:

(link...)

"Do these idiots ever look in the mirror? Don't they ever watch themselves singing praises to Obama 24/7 and slinging ridicule and hate at Hillary? Do they really think they don't shape public opinion? This lunatic country doesn't deserve anyone as smart and classy as Hillary Rodham Clinton."

Voting to go to war in Iraq is the type of EXPERIENCE American can do without.

If Obama's slogan for the general campaign is "I won't go to war," with the implication "...no matter what!" he's setting himself up for a lot of heartache if a situation arises in his presidential term that requires the deployment of troops for combat.

Being President also includes being Commander-in-Chief. It's difficult to see how he can credibly campaign in the general if his campaign platform rests on the slogan that "I won't deploy troops," but I want to be your Commander-in-Chief.

You can argue about the strategy and the reasons stated for going to war, but the simple mantra "I won't go to war," will seem simplistic and unrealistic in the general election. That's what a lot of Obama's supporters tend to be saying, while Obama himself mentions possible intervention in Pakistan and other places in the war on terror. And that will inevitably bring up the question "Well Sen. Obama, just what would you base a decision to go to war on?"

And that's a legitimate question.

As someone who voted for Obama in the primary, I agree that Clinton deserves more respect and that the repeated media narratives begin to construct a certain reality, usually unfairly so. Obama himself has repeated that this race is far from over--he was quoted this week telling reporters, "Remember New Hampshire." I would also point out, though, that so-called "Obama bloggers" are also fellow Democrats. And I confess to not understanding at all the logic behind the argument that, if Clinton is winning more blue states, that makes her a more viable candidate in the general election. Is the argument that Obama won't carry the blue states if he's the Dem candidate? I personally like the idea of a candidate who at least has a shot at winning over some red or purple states (Missouri, Virginia, Ohio, Colorado) and getting some crossover or independent votes. If we stick with the blue state strategy, don't we end up with a repeat of 2000 and 2004--a close race open to Republican vote tampering? It's Gore and Kerry all over again.
MJ

Was that "respect" Hillary showed the Democratic voters (every last one of us) when she backed Lieberman against the wishes of the vast majority?

Where was the respect for our privacy and the concept of freedom when she supported the Patriot Act and the Real ID?
Where was the respect for what is right when she staunchly supported the criminal invasion of Iraq? You think respect means anything to an Iraqi that watched his child get blown to bits?

A Rovian, fear monger ad? Respect??

No one that wielded the rubber stamp for the Bush Regime is worthy of respect. No one who failed to stand up and shed apathy for activism is worthy of respect.
Especially when that apathy is intentionally applied in a self-serving, protect one's political prospects fashion. Such a public servant is worthy only of being shown the door.

Respect is a two way street and no politician is entitled to it until they earn it.

As far as insulting Clinton groupies goes, is anyone that willingly turns a blind eye to those that willingly and knowingly helped the Bushco agenda along really deserving?
Pro Clinton bloggers that for years railed against BushCo and all who supported them now flip flop and support one of those they whined about being "spineless" are deserving of respect?
Sure, the average respect you show a complete stranger on the street. Other than that, they're just hypocrites in the tradition of BushBots that refuse to see the wrong, any wrong that they're Man-God has done.

Sorry, but Democrats that have abandoned their outrage over what's been done in the last seven years in the interest of the Clinton name or a vagina in the plush leather seat in the Oval Office, have let this party down.
Thank God there's a slightly greater number of us that are true to our convictions about gov't injustice and misconduct.

When a Clinton does what a Bush does, it's still wrong.

"The mind is like a parachute, it only works when it's open."

NYT today..front page story..by Neela Banerjee

"Obama walks a difficult path as he courts Jewish voters."

read it & see who gets the last word.

Now, some of those "Jews" he's courting are Zionist Pigs.

Mysoginist...and anti-Semitic? It's one thing to have problems with the state of Israel's foreign policy, but calling people Zionist Pigs is clearly anti-Semitic, and no matter how much you try to justify being labled a mysoginist, it looks like you're two for two.

Randy, are you going to give him three strikes?

From Andrew Sullivan:

"...If Clinton had won ten primaries or caucuses in a row, do you think the MSM would have regarded Obama as still viable? And where are their fricking tax returns? Basic transparency on tax returns is a no-brainer for a presidential candidate. And yet she still hasn't done it and has absolutely no good reason for the delay, except to avoid scrutiny of her husband's post-presidential corporate whoring."

Wow.

(link...)

I mean, wow. Seriously. How could her campaign not see this question coming?

Goodbye, Hillary.

"continuously refer to Clinton supporters as "uneducated" (or "hillbillies," "knuckledraggers," etc.)."

heh, Clinton's being treated like a republican by the vast progressive conspiracy. Delicious on so many levels.

"Finally, it's frustrating how the news media, liberal talk radio pundits, and Obama bloggers continuously refer to Clinton supporters as "uneducated" (or "hillbillies," "knuckledraggers," etc.)."

Well, now those Clinton supporters get to experience a minute fraction of what we conservatives and Republicans have been wading through every day for 30 g.d. years.

Welcome to the party, pal!

the way they count votes in ohio

we may know the winner in Pa.

before we know the winner in ohio

letting MSNBC and CNN pick the Democratic nominee.

There is nothing new in this. The media has been picking the frontrunner (presumptive nominee) early on for the last 2-3 decades, just as they have had large influence on the general by calling states so early that people wondered 'Why should I bother to go to the trouble to vote? It's a done deal.'.

Can't remember the last time I voted in a primary and the nominee wasn't already decided because everyone else had dropped out. The media said it was over after New Hampshire or South Carolina and their funding dried up. I'd agree they should butt the hell out. The only thing different this time is there is actually a horse race through out the primary cycle for Dems.

Well, now those Clinton supporters get to experience a minute fraction of what we conservatives and Republicans have been wading through every day for 30 g.d. years.

Except in the latter case, it was oftentimes deserved (see support of W the rPezinent and shielding W from responsibility of 9/11 and the Iraq war, for some quick recent examples).

And a little bit of name-calling from the peanut gallery hardly counterbalances the GOP Mighty Wurlitzer in name-calling and smears against the left over the last 35 years.

"Finally, it's frustrating how the news media, liberal talk radio pundits, and Obama bloggers continuously refer to Clinton supporters as "uneducated" (or "hillbillies," "knuckledraggers," etc.)."

No one is doing or has done that. It's not possible to even think of that, it's absurd and made up out of thin air.

I too think Hillary deserves more respect.

Agreed. So here's a question: will you guys have the same sense of fair play when the media (finally) turns on John McCain and tries to lean the election toward The Obama?

Agreed. So here's a question: will you guys have the same sense of fair play when the media (finally) turns on John McCain and tries to lean the election toward The Obama?