Archie, why'd you leave out the very last sentence of the article?

Okay why I hate her, well I never used to honestly. She was never my favorite though (I was a big Edwards supporter). First she is bought and paid for by Corporate American. Politicians like her are what is wrong with this country. I hate her hate campaign that seems to come right out of the Karl Rove playbook. I also hate her health care plan. The truth is you have to join. She will make everybody buy it, so I guess a poor person who can't afford to buy it will be forced too, to me that is just plain wrong. Finally, she voted for the war, and unlike Edwards never apologized for it and said was the wrong decision. She also seems to be helping to beat the war drums for Iran a place we shouldn't be going into. I dislike all her plans. I am only going with Obama because there doesn't seem to be another choice for me. I think Edwards could have changed this country too bad he couldn't get the financial backing to become president.

On Saturday, the Obama campaign released this statement: "The Obama campaign appreciates her support and all of her efforts on behalf of our campaign for change."

Despite all of this, Casey Knowles admits if Clinton wins the party's nomination, she will vote for her.

Hah I didn't on purpose. I was just going to quote a few lines and then ended up copying most of it at the last minute. I wish I could say I paid close enough attention to what I was doing to single some lines out for not being included.

The response from the Obama camp sounds robotic, I don't like it.

How can you possibly support someone who would need a miracle to win a NOMINATION?

Poll after poll has showed that Obama will have an easier time of defeating McCain.

I think some hillary supporters are stuck in a red state blue state mentality. Where they see Ohio and Florida as the main states that matter. But liberal republicans who are disenchanted with their own party are a swing vote now, the map can be changed if Dems nominate someone appealing to them.

This is too funny, because if Hillary is the nominee its not a significant number of people not supporting her, its the MAJORITY.

donzens but that wasn't the point. You just contradicted yourself because you says its ok for your candidate to win without the majority of the votes, but if obama wins withthe majority of the votes its still worse because hed ahve a"significant" amount against him.

"majority" is more than "significant" so while the argument works against obama, why dont you use against hillary because it works far more effectivly against her.

yeah, the best way to stop it would be the less likely winner to acknowledge defeat....so uh yeah, clinton can gtfo.

seriously though, obamas undeniebly in the best position to hit the ground running against mcain...they COULDNT be more different. And Clinton is saying hes better than Obama for christs sake, if hillary n mccain debate thatll come back to bite her in the ass

I never liked Edwards plan either, actually Hillary stole it from him (she did announce it after he did). That is another reason I dislike her she kept taking Edwards's ideas away. She acts like she is the fighter for the poor now which is crap because the corporation and lobbyist own her. I am not sure if Obama is really clean of this either. Edwards was the only major candidate who probably was against that.

Obama passed on jobs at the best law firms in the nation to personally help ghetto crackheads find jobs...i wouldnt question his morals.

True but that doesn't tell you about how he feels towards lobbyists. I know he took some of their money. Edwards was the only candidate who didn't.

Can you elaborate with concrete information about this?

its widely known she has taken the most money from lobbysts of any candidate in the election by far

ok, so it shouldn't be a problem to present links to something. please.

K Street's Not Far from the White House (02/03/08, 5:15 pm)
Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain maintained their status as lobbyists' favorite candidates all through 2007. By the end of the year, Clinton had collected $823,000 from lobbyists—more than anyone else—while McCain's haul totaled $416,000.

http://www.capitaleye.org/inside.asp?ID=332

And while we're on the subject:

Top fundraisers for the presidential campaigns of Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican John McCain lobby on behalf of foreign governments and sometimes helped their clients gain access to the senators, according to a Center for Investigative Reporting and ABCNews.com review of records.

Campaign finance experts and political scholars say the connection between foreign lobbying and presidential campaign fundraising deserves scrutiny because of concerns as to whether the lobbyist will have undue influence if his candidate reaches the Oval Office.

The review found that six Clinton "Hillraisers," designated donors who have raised at least $100,000 for the senator's presidential campaign, are registered with the Justice Department to lobby for foreign governments.

http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/Story?id=4228113

i would expect no country for old sam to behave like his candidate and simply avoid a response

No, I always intedended to respond. And as expected, here is what was left out from the same blurb (which by the way arguably dones't really merit ther statement that Hillary is "paid for" by corproate America") :



The point being that special interest are a reality. Should there be reform? Yes. Should Hillary maybe be smarter about it. Probably. Does it really take away from her ability to lead this contry? hardly.

lead? hillarys the most divisive figure in politics today, she is the last person in washingotn will be able to "lead" us or bring us together shes too love/hate.

"should hillary maybe be smarter about it? probably".

nope, fixing....

"should hillarty be smarter about it? defiently"

Something else to consider: If Hillary becomes president, it's virtually a guarantee that the republicans will take back the house and senate not long after. And then you can wave goodbye to dreams of filling the Supreme Court with judges you like. By not being a lightning rod for conservative opposition, Obama is your best chance of being able to have more liberal judges.

Now, that doesn't affect me personally very much. I prefer my judges relatively centrist. But a number of people here might be upset at the supreme court and other judges under a Hillary administration that has to negotiation with Mitch McConnell when he's Senate majority leader, and it's something to consider.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... n-191.html

Well that "Hillarys back on top" takl was short lived.

It also doesn't help her that Spitzer was one of her superdelegates.