Clinton Campaign Dirty Trick Against Obama on Choice Will Backfire

speaker cablecorrection level cosmetic packaging be. security tags eas

This was my conclusion: Like all extension cordcrises there will be a period where solar water heaterwill face a downward momentum, probably solar collector below where the power cable

I've been following very closely the various candidates and noticing the different standards being set for them by the media pundits, bloggers and the public. At this time, I still haven't decided whom I'm going to vote for yet. However, I do hope to render a "fair and equal" assessement of each candidate's individual qualifications and experiences in making that final decision.

Interestingly, what I am seeing happening a little more each day is that Hillary is being held to what's beginning to look to me as an impossible standard, that no one could meet. On the other hand, these same standards are not expected of her opponents though. She is also being scruntized by the media with a fine tooth comb more so than any of the other candidates -- particularly Obama.

My question to Buzzflash is this: "If Obama were a black woman and she had the the exact same credentials, charisma and could also give the same kind of "feel good" speeches talking about all the grand things she intended to do for America (as Obama is professing); but who, like Obama, had not done anything in her political past that is indicative that she is actually capable of delivering on all the things she says she's going to do, would you be as outraged as you are now and defend her with the same passion and commitment?"

Hillary and Bill are republican corporate hacks. They need to go back to Arkansas and hide under a rock.

I appreciate that BuzzFlash admits their bias . . . unlike the MSM, TPM and FOX. And especially unlike that terminal bag of hot gas Chris Matthews. That said, BuzzFlash, you are wrong. Hillary won Saturday's debate because she clearly made the case for experience and pointed out her admirable record of getting things done. Obama had some lame legislation he got passed that said, in essence, you could only bribe Senators if you feed them standing up. Hooahh!
Obama said (under his breath) that Hillary was wrong last night when she charged that O's (Obama's not Oprah's - sorry for the confusion) NH campaign manager is a lobbyist. I checked it out and guess what?? It's true!
C'mon BuzzFlash! Stop shilling and start investigating. Get back to what I loved about you in the beginning. Be independent! Point out scoundrels where you find them and don't excuse the charlatans. In short, don't get turned by the pretty turn of a phrase. Investigate the substance and then decide! No campaign is perfect but you should expose the hypocracy on all sides!

Among the things we are trying to "change" are dirty Rovian politics and spin. She is stuck in the Rove age. If Democrats are stupid enough to nominate her, we get what we deserve. (Not to mention that she is the only one of the three remaining Dems that will lose the general election.) Hellary! Go back to the senate and vote for more war and LIEberman Kyl amendments! Maybe you can run as an independent next time. Just please don't rob us of a chance for real change in American politics.

"What does?"

"Whether or not a candidate pledges that if elected he or she will end the Iraq war STAT."

"OK, but if a candidate who has made that pledge is elected president next November, how can we be sure he or she actually fulfills that pledge?"

"We see to it, that's how."

I am sorry to see Buzzflash join the media feeding frenzy on Hillary Clinton. It all began with Brian Williams and Tim Russert who set out to help Obama and Edwards mug Hillary Clinton, and they were only too willing to oblige.

Obama speaks in eloquent generalities, but there is nothing to back it up. I agree he would probably be better than the incumbent and if he is the nominee, I will vote for him, but he is my fourth choice after Richardson.

I am very disappointed at John Edwards. He was my first choice, but if I get a chance, I will vote for Hillary.

A big wag of the finger for Buzzflash.

fyi, I'm not affiliated with the campaign, but I do live in NH...

video at:

http://tinypic.com/player.php?v=6x7cso6&s=1

There is no one more enthusiastic for Barack Obama or for a change from this dreadfully vicious administration that I am (or most members of my extended family). But there is one thing we are ALL agreed upon and quite adamantly so. There is no way that Hillary (and more correctly, Bill - remember the co-presidency?) gets a second bite at the apple. With her votes for the war, her sense of privilege and the Democratic version of the Bush viciousness we see all too evident in her and those around her, she is in no way "qualified" to be president. I would think any woman aware of how she has come to her present "position" would be ashamed to have to see her carrying the banner of an honorable and hard-fought feminist independence. The voters have an opportunity to take two presidential administrations to the woodshed with their votes this term. The Clintons had the watch during the crucial years before 9/11 and Bush has been on watch ever since. The record speaks for itself.

Were there 130 planned parenthood votes - no - the analysis show something else. Your point in http://www.buzzflash.com/articles/editorblog/027 "Clinton Campaign Dirty Trick Against Obama on Choice Will Backfire" is effectively a smear of Clinton in support of the most conservative of the remaining 4 candidates who is also the one that has shown the least ability to get get things through Congress. The "according to the head of Planned Parenthood of Illinois at that time, Obama was doing what they asked of him" - only is true of the planned parenthood votes - and is not true of the 130 times he voted present - most of which were to duck the political fallout that either a yea, or a nay, would bring. I did not expect this kind of con job from Buzzflash - perhaps Mark needs a vacation until after 2/5.

I am not nor have I ever been "crazy" about either one of the Clintons. Neither are true "liberals", and I believe the centrist crap most everybody uses to describe either is just bullshit to cloud that they are both what a lot are now describing as "center right". I'll close here by saying that in my mind I trully believe that Eisenhower, Nixon, Romney (the "dad", not Williard) were actually more "liberal" than either Clinton. My belief is the same as in the 2004 election, if Hillary is the Dem nomineee, I'll vote for her, but she is definitely not even my 3rd choice at this time.

I hope OBama gets the nomination and Huckabee gets the REPUGNANT nod. They get what they deserve - 8 more years of hatred and racism. I am a Black female and live in Tennessee and know exactly what RACISM is. There will be those who will say that I am a racist (RACISM = RACE PREJUDICE + POWER). I don't have any power to change anything, but I can be a bigot and accept it. I have bigotry towards those who look in face and just because they don't use the N word - it means they are not racist. Listen when Harold Ford ran for the senate in TN - all the stops were pulled out and IT showed us one thing. Jim Crow went underground and became JAMES CROW, ESQ. ask George Bush and his following. A part of me want you to get another REPUGNICAN. Gas will be $4.00 and more poor people will die for the rich man's war (Mark my word).

That is all I can say about Hillary Clinton's tactics! If I could vote, I'd vote for either Obama or Edwards! I saw Clinton losing her nerves about change, and also claiming she has more experience than Obama - because she was First Lady for 8 yrs? Come on, I am quite sure that Obama has enough experience and certainly far more than the cretin now in the White House.-