about Bill Clinton's pardons of Weather Underground members who actually committed murders, which Ayers never did?

Bound to have overlapped, crossed paths. But you and others (Hannity) engage in the politics of character assassination when it comes to Obama, so it's in your interest to assert that because they shared a boardroom and crossed paths in Chicago democratic circles, then presto! - Obama = Ayers.

This kind of calculus is beneath thinking people.  

It's in there. Go back and reread it. It's one of the bullet points.

A neighborhood 'coffee" for Obama is a fund raiser? a $200 donation to Obama from Ayers helping to 'organize' his state campaign? Or is Mayor Daily also a LIAR since he testified to this?

Give it a rest.

You mean like, "screw the middle class" 1995?

Okay then.

People who care about getting health care would be far better off voting for Clinton if they have the chance. I just read an excellent comment by a health economist on TalkLeft, which succintly explain's why Clinton's paln is better than Obama's:

Spot on Petey (5.00 / 1) (#56)
by Rainsong on Sat Apr 19, 2008 at 04:19:09 PM EST

I'm a health economist, though working in Europe and Australia for much of the last 20 years.

The Obama plan doesn't get to universal coverage, via mandates or any other means.

True. Its actually corporate welfare. The subsidies do nothing by give companies more, and some more people have the same crap coverage that everybody who is insured, are already whining about.

Universal coverage means you also have leverage to put mandates or regulation on the industry. Obama's plan, is all "voluntary compliance" with vague "standards" on industry, like he did with the nuclear leak stuff - all voluntary.

universal mandates on clients, is also applied mandates to the industry under Edwards/Clinton plans - which is what the companies really, really dislike. They will have to comply with standards like "no cherrypicking".

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/4/19/ 16389/3809

I also believe that her plan to help sub-prime mortgage holders is also better than Obama's, but I'm not quite as familiar with the differences in their plans.

Of course.

But peddling McCarthyistic lies under the guise of "Rove will do this" is Swiftboating. Why would a Democrat do that to another Democrat?

..it's Hillary and her campaign folks who are deciding who is and is not a Democrat who "counts." So far, it's

--MoveOn, and its supporters
--black voters
--voters in red states
--young voters
--Prius owners
--Birkenstock-wearers
--people who drink lattes
--tree huggers
--educated people
--Kerry and Gore
--San Franciscans
--people who vote in caucuses
--people who crossed over in the MI election
--people who didn't turn out for the supposedly not-counting MI and FL elections
--"bitter" working class folks

..who will it be tomorrow, I wonder?

Really, that's your response?  So it's okay to just keep tit-tatting.  What are you, five yeards old?

less. bush only disenfranchised one state.

Bull crap.  The intricacies of the primary process have little to nothing to do with the general election.

Can't you just get over your sour f*cking grapes?  How long do you have to drag this bitterness out?

Seat that one, where Obama polls ahead of Hillary?

Wow, what a champion of the people you guys are.

# The long, long list of scumbag-pardons (and thus obvious nefarious associations) Clinton made

# Norman Hsu and his bundling of money for her campaign?

# How "dishwashers, waiters and others" poured "$1,000 and $2,000 contributions into Clinton's campaign treasury?"

# Bill's trip to Kazakhstan with Canadian magnate, Frank Giustra, that netted Giustra $3 billion and Bill's foundation a $131 million contribution from Giustra?

# How powerful foreign donors to Bill's presidential library, such as the Saudis, may pose a serious conflict of interest to Hillary's foreign policy actions as president?

# How Bill's tangled ties to an investment concern of Clinton friend, Ron Burkle, and it's dealings with Dubai may yet, again, threaten to compromise Hillary Clinton's execution of foreign policy as president?

# "Screw the middle class, Bill."

# "We took sniper fire in Bosnia." (Saying "oh, yeah, I lied about that. I'm embarrassed I got caught" is not cleaning it up.)

the math is fundamentally different in the general than in the primary. Anyone with any sense knew the primary was the toughest battle for Clinton.

The math is different but IMO and the opinion of the majority of Democrats (and Republicans overwhelmingly) is that Obama is the better candidate to beat McCain. Why do you think Clinton is getting the Limbaugh bump? Why do you think Bill Clinton actually appeared on the Rush Limbaugh show, a man who referred to his daughter as the "whitehouse dog"? This was AFTER Rush set his campaign for (R) spoiler votes for Clinton.

The mistake the Obama supporters are making is in assuming that anything Clinton hasn't used is something the GOP can't use.

Absolutely nobody... NOBODY has said or even implied as much. We many of is are saying is Clinton needs to stop acting like SHE is the GOP. And stop throwing the kitchen sink at the clear front runner. That is why, by and large, the liberal media outlets like Air America and Moveon.org have turned against her. They are interested in the good of the party, and in my opinion Clinton is not.

But the GOP has already written their vote off so they can run non-stop Wright tv if they'd like.

First of all Hillary Clinton has NOT backed off that issue, so it's not like she can't either. Second of all the GOP can also run non-stop videos of Hillary's fake sniper fire vs McCain's REAL war record. They can run videos her flip-flopping on NAFTA. They can run videos of her carrying on about her shooting a gun as a little girl, and previously raising NOT raising her hand when the candidates were told, "raise your hand if you've ever had a gun in the home". That and her extensive anti-gun vote. The list goes on and on.

And BTW, they can run that Obama knows Ayers just as well as they can run Clinton giving pardons to two Weathermen members.

the reason to vote against Clinton is how bad the right wing wants to run against her, because they see her as the weaker candidate. McCain has all but endorsed her, and Limbaugh has been campaigning for her for months now--even helping GOPs register Dem for the primary so they can cast faux votes for her.

Oh and also? She trails Obama by 20 in the national polls.

I totally agree Otter. What the poster doesn't seem to understand is that, in the GE, the African American vote is only half as important as it is in the Democratic nomination battle. Actually, it is worth even less than that, because African Americans live diproportionately in Deep South, unshakeably Red, States. All of those voters--which translated into all of those Obama delegates--in SC, Mississippi, Georgia, etc., are going to be wasted in the General Election. African Americans are actually underrepresented in the battleground, swing states. In addition, in the GE there is no special reward for winning certain, loyally Democratic Congressional districts, as opposed to other CDs. This practice in the Dem. primaries has also magnified the importance of the African American vote.

Obama will sweep this vote in the GE, come hell or high water. The GOP knows this, and, while McCain will probably take the "high road" personally, the "independent" groups and the right wing media will focus on Wright to their hearts' content.

A similar dynamic could be put in play over the Ayers thing. The liberal, urban, white voters Obama has been succeeding with (call them "Academics," call them yuppies, whatever, the label is not important), are also going to count for much less in the GE. They may not mind "bittergate," or that Obama has ties to Ayers, or Wright, but they are only a small portion of the overall white electorate. And, they are concentrated in the safely Blue States (CA, NY, Ill., etc.) anyway.

Ohio, WV, PA, Ark, Tenn, KY, Fl, MO--these are battle ground states where Obama's failure to connect with the rest of the white electorate may cost him, and us, dearly. OK, maybe he has a shot in VA, and probably has more of a shot in Iowa than Hillary. But is that enough to compensate for these weaknesses?

The whole "Obama changes the map" thing seems to have quieted down quite a bit lately. Obama has failed to connect with many Latino voters, a group that McCain does pretty well with--for a Republican. McCain is not seen as anti-immigrant, and is from the Southwest. These factors seem to point to Obama NOT flipping CO, NM and Nevada. And, I see know evidence for the "game" that Obama supposedly had in the Moutain West and Great Plains.

To put it crudely, the African Americans and the yuppies have no where else to go in the GE. They will vote for Obama OR Hillary over McCain. The non-yuppie whites and the Latinos, on the other hand, DO have somewhere else to go, they will vote for Hillary, but many of them will desert to McCain if Obama is the Democratic nominee. This is precisely the opposite of what Obama predicted.

The poster claims that Obama has "handed" Bill and Hillary "their asses" in the nomination battle. But, look at the numbers. His lead is not that great among delegates, and is even less among actual votes. OK, fine, I understand that the delegate "math" makes him the overwhelmingly likely nominee, but that "math" hides Obama's weaknesses. Whether because he played the race card, or, simply because of his racial identity, Obama basically locked up 20% plus of the voters for himself before the first African American had voted in SC. Even with that advantage, which Hillary was hamstrung from attacking head on--for the reasons Otter suggests--Obama has not been able to put her away. She HAS won most of the big states, and, she certainly looks stronger overall in the battleground states. That is because Obama is weak with non-yuppie white voters--of whom there will be many, many more in the GE than in the Democratic primaries. Because of the way the delegates are apportioned (including the aforementioned "bonus" points for certain CDs), these wins have not translated into big delegate swings for Hillary. But, in the Fall, they will be winner take all. In addition, Obama dominated the western State caucases. I'm not saying that these States, and their delegates, "don't count," and I'm not letting Hillary off the hook for not contesting them more rigorously. But, the fact remains that the delegate contribution from these mostly Red States is another mask of Obama's GE weakness. These States won't be having caucases in November, they'll be having elections, and it looks McCain will be winning them.

None of this is to suggest that Obama can't win, and, still less that we should let the GOP pick our candidate for us on the basis of fear. As has been pointed out, the GOP will hammer any candidate we select. But, "electablity" was always supposed to be one of Obama's strong points. He, his campaign, and his supporters have stated over and over again that he is more electable than Hillary. But, this may not be the case now, the little maps in the upper corners of the front page certainly show no sign of it.