Of course I realize that all you care about is how this affects the Obama campaign.

She was trying to make Obama look like he was out of his league and would be the wrong choice. It’s called politics, an as Mickey Redmond likes to say, “It’s no place for a nervous person.”

And for those of us who are offended at the attack it definitely was a strategic mistake if she wants our support. She assumes she “owns us”.

And Obama wants to create a different type of politics…so maybe what Hillary did should be called “Burnt Field” Politics…destroy all your competitors so the voters are forced to support the one left standing, as nasty as they are.

But I will say that the attack is going to come back and bite her. If she was “so experienced” then why did she trust Bush and Cheney and give them carte blanche to invade Iraq? There were several limiting Resolutions to prevent just that before the Senate…she did not vote for them. All that experience as the “Second President” didn’t help her see THAT. And when she tries to show that issue of experience…Ted Kennedy and 17 other Democratic Senators, and over fifty Representatives voted against the Authorization to Use Force in Iraq.

Sorry. Hillary has no right to bring up the experience issue when she has made such “wrong decisions”. And in any case, she CAN’T use the “experience card” against McCain. He’s been in politics since the last Ice Age. She will have to go against him on POLICY…and McCain can simply point out that she VOTED for the Iraq War Resolution…she’s guilty of allowing Bush to make the decision. That’s what it was about.

Or have I been misinterpreting you?

So what’s this about holding Richardson to a different standard than you hold? Or does this only apply to Obama delegates?

We must needs be quite careful what we ‘trash’ on the long, frustrating road to sanity and a sustainable future. If you catch my drift?
reply

Yeah, we should cool the trash talk. I think I’ve made some progress on that front. I think we will all unite around our candidate in the end.

I’m not totally happy with either candidate.

But, Barack Obama is ‘growing’ on me, his ‘Philadelphia’ speech is one of the finest calls to the needs of the time which I have ever seen a politician express. Beyond that, Obama appears educable. In my opinion, Clinton, not so much.

I reached these conclusions, Riesz, on my own, as has most everyone else, I hope, but sometimes I think that perhaps we all lose sight of courtesy and tolerance.

After the election, unless we all must choose to leave the country because worthwhile life has become untenable here, we shall still have to live in the same country, with some degree of mutual respect.

We must needs be quite careful what we ‘trash’ on the long, frustrating road to sanity and a sustainable future. If you catch my drift?

Obama would have voted for the war faster than anyone if he would have been in the senate at the time. He’s the biggest weasel in America for pretending otherwise.

I prefer to stick to facts vs. conjecture.

She voted for this war; he didn’t.

And your “biggest weasel in America” comment is uncalled for and ridiculous.

I restrict my criticisms of Sen. Clinton to her actions, not what I think she might do, or the clothes she wears, or her hairstyles.

I suggest you consider doing the same re: Sen Obama.

The polls you depend on for your continued delusion donot even call cell-phones, which are the phone-of-choice for the MILLIONS of new voters flocking to the caucuses and primaries to support Obama.

So when you quote Rassmussen or Zogby, go check and see just who they are calling. Their old dbases are from the 20th Century.

Obama’s support in the general election will never be expressed by the existing polls, and as long as you are willing to believe an arcane standard without questioning it methodology, you will always be a bit short on substance when you form an opinion.