« New Deal Projects that just keep pooping along | Main | Let's Host a Debate »

February 05, 2008


my sentiments exactly. A year ago, I was in the "anyone but Hillary" camp. I wanted to like richardson ("historic" candidacy, killer resume) but in the first couple of debates he gave me no reason to support him. So, I looked at the rest of the field, and settled on Edwards.

When it became evident that Edwards was not making the necessary adjustments in his campaign to deal with the media's obsession with "Hillbama", I looked for second choices. But there was no "there" there with Obama. And if you strip away the media onslaught against Hillary, what you see is a competent, intelligent, pragmatic progressive.


I'm still extremely disappointed with the Edwards campaign. Edwards had a lot of progressive support, but it was lukewarm -- if he'd endorsed a few of the "better Democrats" running against Blue Dogs, that support would have become red hot. And Edwards didn't understand the media dynamic at work in this campaign... the media needed an anti-Hillary, and chose Obama. If Edwards had challenged Obama instead of Hillary in the Philadelphia debate, he could have stopped O-Mentum, and emerged as the media's "not Hillary" candidate.

Thank you for a reasoned argument. Thank god, no nastiness. You echo my sentiments.

p lukasiak, I feel the same way actually. I'm not sure what the correct post-mortem is on the Edwards campaign, and I didn't see any compelling ones written so far. My hope is that he dropped out when he did (which was a strange time to do so) because he had struck some agreement with both of the other campaigns (something more concrete than their pledges to work to end poverty). We'll see.

But in the end, I think the times were against him -- I think the nation is just not ready for a white male president.

If Obama is successful at winning the Presidency, he had better deliver on all that hope and change he is promising. There are going to be a whole lot of pissed-off progressives if we slump back into the same-old,same-old....

It only takes 41 Senators to gum up the works, and I worry that the Republicans will be delighted to resume their role as professional obstructionists and make it difficult for Obama to follow through with any sort of significant changes. But I guess with Hillary, the problem gets even worse....

Exactly. There is no "there" there. And I base that not on my fellow bloggers' comments, but on careful reading of debate transcripts and a review of Senate records (one of which is extremely short, so it was an easy review). Obama can float like a butterfly, but he has yet to learn to sting like a bee. Hillary, on the other hand -- well, I just hope she's elected and can pick the battles wisely.

Last night, the husband (a true undecided) asked me to give him one reason to vote for Hillary. I told him that, whoever walks into the White House next January is going to have an awful mess to clean up, like the Aegean stables. Hillary, like her or hate her, has her plans made, knows what she wants, and will be able to at least begin the work.

Obama is a one-term senator. We would have to trust that he will be able to use his awesome powers of change and unity to begin to undo the damage. Maybe he can; if he's the nominee I'll vote for him. But I feel more comfortable with the idea of an experienced policy wonk than with another cult of personality.

And I'm in p. luk's camp, I was an "anybody but Hillary" voter last year. But these are my choices, and I feel good about my decision.

After Edwards dropped out, it was an easy decision - form vs substance - no brainer, Hillary is my girl.

Thank you for this well-reasoned post. No doubt Hillary is the best candidate, just keeping my fingers crossed that there are enough voters ready to use their brains to make the decision, not their emotions. I too am concerned that if Barack makes it all the way, there could be a whole new generation of voters who become disillusioned when the "hope" and rhetoric is tempered by the reality of trying to get the job done and the compromises and pragmatism that will entail. The media didn't push Barack on any policy issues that may have redressed the balance towards Hillary.

Hillary has an ironic power shared by no other candidate: From the wreckage of a broken, dysfunctional Republican Party with deep rifts among its factions, she would create sudden GOP unity. If Clinton is the Democratic candidate, the Republican base will come out in numbers that have nothing to do with John McCain and everything to do with Hillary and Bill Clinton. As GOP pundits are now openly admitting, they want Clinton this November. They fear Barack Obama.

Even in a year when Democrats are in great position to win in November, if Clinton unifies the Republicans, loses independents and loses the progressive left, her chances of winning the general election are slim indeed.

Let’s look at the alternative. Obama inspires Americans across the political spectrum, with his greatest strengths supplanting Hillary’s greatest weaknesses. He unites independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike. He will not unify the GOP, and indeed will take Republican votes. That same Time magazine poll shows that among those who have an opinion, he has astounding 70 percent positives. Yet 51 percent of voters don’t yet know him enough to even have formed an opinion. With his power of ideas and remarkable personal charisma yet to be fully seen, his upside is enormous.

Obama can unite progressives, independents and Democrats, and discourage rather than unify Republicans.

I'm sorry, I forgot to say which Time poll. Time magazine’s most recent polling indicates Hillary has the deadly combination of very high negatives (41 percent unfavorable) plus a deeply fixed voter impression (91 percent say they know enough about her to form an opinion). McCain’s greatest appeal will be to independent voters, a large vital block of the electorate that is Clinton’s great weakness. Clinton is a highly polarizing candidate, which damages her among independents. The latter figure means those numbers are not going to change substantially, and McCain will almost surely win independents. This should be a deafening alarm bell for Democrats.

Bravo, emptypockets!!

Your process was exactly like mine.

I don't dislike Obama, and frankly, after Clinton's 8 years, I'd LOVE to vote for him for 8 MORE years, after he gains more experience in the actual details. He could be of great help to Clinton in the Senate. :)

But I compliment you on your conclusions.

They were exactly the same as mine.

Welcome aboard!

greenhouse, in light of the closeness of the race and based on my own gut feelings, any analysis pegging one of our candidates as a saint and the other as a demon -- in either order -- rings hollow for me

I agree. I think Clinton/Obama would be the ideal Dem ticket this year. It would keep the Obama supporters in the fold, and give Obama the time he needs to be really ready to be President. Like Clinton/Gore, but more successful this time around.


I don't remember pegging either as good or evil, "saint or demon" in your words. My point was electability in a general election. But by all means go with your gut.

Nothing -- I repeat, nothing -- will unite Republicans and get them to the polls more than an African American Democratic candidate. Today's Republican party is the home of racism in America. Does that mean we should not nominate Obama? No, of course not. Neither does the uniting of Republicans that a Clinton nomination will produce mean that we should not nominate her. Of all the bogus arguments inveighed against Clinton -- dynasty, Republican-lite, DLC , and so on -- this one strikes me as the lamest.

The most important difference between the two candidate's foreign policy concerns Iraq. Given the similarities in the proposed Iraq policies of Senator Hillary Clinton and Senator Barack Obama, Obama had the better judgment in opposing the invasion beforehand. Indeed, in the critical months prior to the launch of the war in 2003, Obama openly challenged the Bush administration’s exaggerated claims of an Iraqi threat and presciently warned that a war would lead to an increase in Islamic extremism, terrorism, and regional instability, as well as a decline in America’s standing in the world.

Senator Clinton, meanwhile, was repeating as fact the administration’s false claims of an imminent Iraqi threat. She voted to authorize President Bush to invade that oil-rich country at the time and circumstances of his own choosing and confidently predicted success. Despite this record and Clinton’s refusal to apologize for her war authorization vote, however, her supporters argue that it is no longer relevant and voters need to focus on the present and future.

Indeed, whatever choices the next president makes with regard to Iraq are going to be problematic, and there are no clear answers at this point. Yet one’s position regarding the invasion of Iraq at that time says a lot about how a future president would address such questions as the use of force, international law, relations with allies, and the use of intelligence information.

Folks, isn't that what we've been talking about here at TNH for the last 4-5 years? Yet in spite of that, you're more impressed with her experience regardless of her record. Am I missing something?

And here's an interesting quote for all:

Pat Buchanan on MSNBC 2/4/08:

"The GOP will tear Obama to shreds....He's the freshest meat on the political chopping block since 1972 George McGovern."

And frankly, if we see Frank Luntz on Bill Maher's show praising Obama, we gotta know something's up.

Vico, it's not lame and it's backed by polling analysis. Whether that it is true or not remains to be seen, if Obama does in fact become the front runner against presumably McCain in a general election. And as far as Republican Racists, that may be but they represent at most 30% of Bush's true believers. As far as Obama's electability amongst white voters, I think he proved that overwhelmingly in Iowa, a predominantly white state. That result goes totally against the grain of your cynicism and veiled race bating. Obama does unite independents, the young, minorities and progressives alike and he will take Republican voters sick and tired of being bogged down in Iraq away from McCain who wants a 100 year war. So who's talking lame here?

Pat Buchanan, a credible pundit? Hmm, a republican conspiracy to get a black man to be front runner?? ROLF!

Oh, and this just in from:

Julianna Goldman Tue Feb 5, 12:06 AM ET

Feb. 5 (Bloomberg) -- Kansas hasn't backed a Democrat for U.S. president since Lyndon Johnson in 1964. Governor Kathleen Sebelius says Barack Obama may break that streak.

``People are clearly willing to vote outside their party lines if they believe in the vision and in the person,'' Sebelius, who endorsed Obama last week, said in an interview. Obama brings in voters from all parties and is encouraging young people to ``come to the table as Democrats,'' she said.

As Democratic voters in 22 states go to the polls today, Obama's support in Republican-leaning ``Red States'' will give him more ammunition to challenge Senator Hillary Clinton for a majority of the 1,681 delegates at stake, experts say. Obama, 46, of Illinois, who last week was rated the Senate's most liberal member by National Journal magazine, is favored to win most of the five Republican strongholds -- Alaska, Idaho, North Dakota, Colorado and Kansas -- holding caucuses.

Democratic Party chairmen in counties throughout Kansas, where Obama's mother was from, say they're getting dozens of calls a day from Republicans and independents asking how to register as Democrats.

``I've had some Republicans that for the first time are interested in voting for a Democratic president because of Barack,'' said Glenn Staab, Democratic chairman of Ellis County.

Staab, an Obama supporter, receives almost nightly calls from the campaign and said he hasn't gotten a single one from Clinton's people. (End of article)

Tell me the last time there was a democratic presidential nominee who inspired and appealed to Republican voters, not to mention independents. If that doesn't spell kicking McCain's ass in November and not boding so well for Hillary, I don't know what.

The "saint and demon" crack overstated it, and I'm sorry for that. But the idea that the candidates are at two extremes in terms of electability or the Republican attacks they will engender don't sound accurate. The race is simply too tight for me to believe that either of them is unelectable. It's correct that Obama has been less of a target in the past, and another way to say that is to say he has not faced a really vicious high-level campaign. Clinton has been a target for years, and one can assume that means she will continue to excite attacks or one can assume that she has by now learned how to defuse them effectively (one can even assume both).

The only thing I would put money on is that no matter who our nominee is, we will face a unified Republican base ready for the most shameless, nastiest attacks any of us have ever seen. To think that any Democratic candidate can avoid having to face those knives is, to me, to ignore the last 8 years.

Tell me the last time there was a democratic presidential nominee who inspired and appealed to Republican voters

Lieberman? :)

Lieberman. Funny pockets.

Besides, last I heard he was still a Senator against Lamont.

Guess what -- Clinton is strong with self-identified Democrats. Obama is stronger with Independents. Why is everyone assuming that Obama will get all the Clinton votes come November? Since I think Obama is rather a light-weight, I can imagine lots of Democrats seeing McCain as an alternative. I think we just don't know yet, but I don't buy the argument that Obama is more electable at this time.

Try joining the crowd and chanting "Yes we can" for 15 minutes. It will cut off your thought processes and you'll be just fine. If three words is too much, try one syllable words like "hope". Get the word "what" out of your vocabulary, as in "yes we can...WHAT?". The Leader will unite us, put an end to political parties and ideology, and lead us .....somewhere.

Well, I made my decision early this morning, and in half an hour I have to go down the block to the Church on the corner, and caucus.

I have always been firm that I would support Al Franken for the Senate, so what I did was mentally walk both Obama and Clinton around Minnesota to the usual campaign venues, and think hard about what gets votes in those kinds of events. This is a state where rural and small town DFL'ers do politics daily in the cafes, they are reasonably well informed, and take positions. I see Franken doing his stump persona -- a joke or two to warm up the audience, and then a rapid fire attack on a maze of issues people are debating. Obama doesn't come off all that well in my imagined joint appearance, Hillary just adds debating points nicely paired up with Franken's list.

It solved my problem, but it sure was a strange way to do it.

Wasab, um guess what, most self-identified dems want out of Iraq, not 100-year war in Iraq McCain. Why do you think they voted in the present batch of numbskull dems, (blue dog especially) we got running Congress now? And that's precisely what McCain will use against no credibility Hillary's vote for the war. Can't do that with Obama and I think that will be pretty clear to most dems come November if Obama is the front runner.

I'm not sure I understand, in a McCain-Clinton matchup, how having two candidates who voted us into Iraq, and one who wants to get us out, will put her at a disadvantage. What I can tell you, is that there are only two candidates one of my ultraliberal, social worker relatives likes -- one is Clinton and the other is McCain

OMFG! You CAN NOT be serious.

Clinton has done her homework. I don't agree with her on many policy issues, but I know where she stands, I can recognize it as an informed and reasonable viewpoint although on some issues I happen to differ -- and I can respect her for holding to it.

That?!? That is what you base your vote on? Oh, let me see, Rush Limbaugh has done his homework. He resolutely points out his position and why he believes the way he believes. Does that make him a potential candidate for you?

PUUUUU-LEEEEEZE... Put the prescription medication away.

Hilary is "concretely" a rubber stamp of what we have all been complaining about for the last 8 years! She voted for the war in Iraq. She supported the Patriot Act. She has done nothing in congress to set herself apart from the republicans. Now, because at time when she needs all the votes she can get, she starts spewing bullshit about how she is FINALLY going to come around to doing what she should have been doing for the last eight years and you just "empirically" consider that to be enough for you to prove that you don't want to vote for Obama, simply because he is smart enough not to tack himself down to tightly.

Let me ask you this. What is worse, an undeniably good leader (you admit that yourself) with a general agenda and a positive direction or a proven "lickspittle" politician who will say what you want to hear during the campaign only to tell you to go f*ck yourself after she is elected?

She did it to get into the Senate and she is doing it again now.

Get a clue.

Emptypockets, We channeled each other. Nice post.

It's the old distinction between the lover and the fighter. I think Obama's a lover -- the unity schtick.

But the country needs a fighter.

Uh, Patrick? Colonel Mustard in the library?

Judging by turnout and media coverage, I think either candidate will go into the general election with an advantage so tremendous it can only be overturned by the kind of self-destructive attacks that the commenter above has illustrated. I can't refute his points any better than has already been done by the embrace of half the Democratic party, on the emotional side, and the entire vote-by-vote comparison of Obama and Clinton's Senate record, on the rational side.

Precinct was "packed" to the rafters. Back in 68 in the McCarthy-Humphrey Vietnam War fight, the precinct turned out about 270 for caucus -- tonight they were lined up around the block, and apparently about 750 or so showed up. It went solidly for Obama.

Lots of parents brought their kids who gathered on the snowbanks along the curb putting on a demo for Obama -- they probably attended the big rally last Saturday, got the idea as to how to wave a sign, and reprised it tonight -- but good to see the 6-10 year olds getting the spirit. The Republicans met across the street -- all ten of them. They were done before we finish signing in.

Emptypockets, her disadvantage is that she's waffled on the issue of Iraq, once for it and now against out of political expediency and McCain can and will use that against her if she's the nominee.

It would be interesting to see Republicans trying to run on Iraq -- I expected they'd run from it.

Maybe not, what with the surge going "so well" as they're trying to have us believe. I expect McCain will welcome any debate on Iraq as he's been so steadfast in support of it especially when chips were so down before the surge. He'll continue to drill the successes since then with reduced troop casualties. Of course it's another ballgame if those figures change for the worse even though Iraq is taking backseat to the economy. But if Hillary's the nominee her waffle could come back to bite her.

I was undecided too. The story of Exelon being the biggest conributor to Obama's campaign (after he rewrote the legislation against their poisoning the ground water to make disclosure voluntary) and the conservative think tanks giving highest scores to Obama was troubling to me too.
The thing that made me NOT vote for Hillary was
Gary Hart's post at Huffington Post reminding me of how angry and betrayed I felt when Hillary voted to give Bush the power to attack Iraq.
IN the end, we had two pro-corporate "choices" (with Hillary's health care plan being superior to Obama's) and I was very disappointed that Edwards did not stay in for Super Tuesday.
Who can best beat McCain? I really can't see the military voting for Hillary, and sadly enough, sexism is way more acceptable by main stream America.


Emptypockets, I'm not a frequent commenter. I'm a 76 year old long time observer of national politics and in that time (I remember the depression years, but was too young to appreicate those desparate times) and did not understand or appreciate the wonderful things accomplished by the
FDR administrations until years later. I know how he was responsible for building the middle class (there wasn't one before him)through the NLRA to set up a more even playing field between owner and employee, wpa and ccc programs to give dignity to family, TVA, REA and dozens of other developments by governmant which private enterprise could not or would not do. In 1943 the FDR administration, being convinced that there were way too many unskilled laborers for the number of unskilled jobs available and enacted the GI Education Bill. The rest is history. (By the way, I understand FDR wasn't completely happy with the bill, as he wanted a mechanism where EVERYONE could get a college education). My father had only an 8th grade education, my mother an 11th. Their idea for my education was to get one that kept me out of the bad weather. After a couple of false starts and 4 years in the military, I went to college on the GI Bill and eventually obtained a masters degree in engineering and then Law.

I know I'm rambling, so will try to make a point. FDR had been in government for a number of years when first elected President in 1932. He had a lot of good ideas, as reflected the well known "first 100 days" of his administration, reforming the banking system (still in place today) creading the Securities and Exchange Commission. which has served the investing industry well, and on and on. While JFK has beeen touted as the agent of idealogical change, I submit that, although he started the Apollo (race to the moon) project, it was LBJ who really got it funded.
I've watched as the young americans were smitten by Bobby Kennedy, Eugene McCarthy, and others but ended up watching from the sidelines and "dropping out" as the Nixons and Humphries of the nation held the reins of government. I understand today's young americans frustration and easy movement to Obama. But, in my view, the task ahead is much more difficult than described by him. The Republicans will not work with the Democrats. The whole mantra of the Republicans since the death of Everett Dirksen has been one of attack, demean and conquer. The Republicans must be reformed, by force or overwhelming majorities of Democrats. I don't mean we should play "who's on top" games, although there is a lot of feelings of wanting to get even for the disastrous way the Republicans have governed, but we must provide the american people what they demand and need, fiscal responsibility, a return to a more progressive tax system,universal and free healthcare that works (why do we not hear of the other industrial nations either going broke due to health care costs or the population complaining of poor health care?), a return to a foreign policy which reflects our country's stated daspirations, educational opportunities wich will allow ANYONE with the intelligence and desire obtain a college education without a mountain of debt on graduation.
While Obama has the charisma to excite us, especially those 18 to 35, I believe his stated view that we are not Red and Blue, but only Americans, suggesting he can "bring Americans together" is idealistic sop. Tell that to the Karl Roves of the world. Nixon and his ilk are given credit for the "Southern Strategy", which was perfected by Lee Atwater, and superperfected by his proteje, Rove.+++++++++++++++++++++++
While I worry about all the Presidential votes which will go Republican if Hillary is nominated, as she has been their target for many years, I believe she is the most competent and clear visioned candidate. I think she fully shares Obama's idealism (hope?) but is much much better equipped to turn it into reality. She knows what the country craves, what the country needs, and how to make it happen. I voted for Hillary yesterday in the Oklahoma primary, which she easily won; I sincerely hope I have the opportunity to vote for her in November.

Great comments Hanging Judge and I think for the most part I agree with your analysis regarding FDR and the first hundred days and his previus experience in Congress. In fact I just got finished watching the PBS documentary on FDR and am currently reading the Truman book by David McCollough. Unfortunately in terms of perspective, I am quite shy of 70 (more like 30) so the only personal historical perspective into that period comes from limited conversations with my grandparents about days gone by. Your point,
"The Republicans must be reformed, by force or overwhelming majorities of Democrats. I don't mean we should play "who's on top" games, although there is a lot of feelings of wanting to get even for the disastrous way the Republicans have governed, but we must provide the american people what they demand and need, fiscal responsibility, a return to a more progressive tax system,universal and free healthcare that works (why do we not hear of the other industrial nations either going broke due to health care costs or the population complaining of poor health care?), a return to a foreign policy which reflects our country's stated daspirations, educational opportunities wich will allow ANYONE with the intelligence and desire obtain a college education without a mountain of debt on graduation."
I think this point exactly is where my conclusions differ but I believe that both of our analysis our similar. I am from the south and most of my friends and their parents have grown up Republican. I disagreed with them about GWB because one of his platforms was education (from which my mother is a 35 year educator) by introducing NCLB. His state, my state was judged to be 49th in the nation in education when he took Governorship and when he left it was 48th. Yeah certainly an education guru to say the least. I disagreed because he wanted to deregulate the State Higher education system, deregualte the energy sector and deregulate highways and toll roads and in all cases these cost the Tax payer's more money while at the same time his platform was about raising taxes. So instead of raising taxes they deregulate so your tax dollars can go into private corporate hands. It would not be so bad but many of the business which fill in these gaps are private corporations which a)do not employ a large chunk of local workers b) many are foreign corporations (especially in the toll road side of things)in which our profits, which would have been national, instead go oversees. How does this help the average taxpayer and citizen? It gives them the false perseption that they are in fact paying lower taxes, but in essence they are paying the same or more. The difference is that Republican's have built a broad support network that feels that the government should not and can not solve their problems.
So with what you stated above "the Republicans need to be reformed," I beleive we need to expose these type of fallacies. Our government is not the enemey of the American people, and those that choose to believe that ignore the obvious of bad governance and bad policy. The entire republican voting block needs to be less apathetic and less afraid that the government is their enemy and start helping working to make it better. They need to realize that many of them that struggle meeting the needs of themselves or their families problems are born out of the governance of both parties but especially the Republicans. I say this because many southerners that I know do not make a bunch of money but rather live a very middle of the road existance and their financial situations has not improved under GWB but rather it has gotten worse. To me whether you are a Clinton supporter or and Obama supporter the democrats must appeal to every american, and those in Washington are going to have to diligently work to stem the growing trend of fraud, waste, and the lack of faith the average American voter feels towards governance. We have to work hard to change the playing field fro both parties by using the grassroots against upper-class hedgemony and power.

Greenhouse: Given all your posts here, I have to ask: Have you considered how many folks Obama turned off by saying that Hillary's voters would vote for him, but the reverse wasn't true? That one comment where he made it clear he wouldn't support her; if he lost, made me question his judgment and his loyalty. Yes, I can see it spun as that's not what he meant--but I'm not buying it. It was clearly a crass way to say to Hillary's supporters "I'm the only choice if you don't want a Republican and no, I won't support the party's nominee if it's not me". If he's going to put himself before his party and his country, then what we have is not ready for what awaits him. I agree with the overall theme here that there is more rhetoric than reality, but what Obama substance there is, seems to be "market based solutions" that got us in the mess we are in now. I keep going back to his health care plan and his willingness to "bring the Insurance Companies to the table". This tells me we never will have Universal Health Care--as that's definitely not in their interests. Aside from that, I again go to that comment that he's repeatedly used (and upset me with). If he'd only said it once, that would be one thing--but he's said it repeatedly. If he's going to take his marbles home if he looses, then we will be stuck with another spoiled brat, like we have now. In reality, it was this statement that made me vote for Hillary on February 5th--despite my resentment towards her. I genuinely opposed her war voteS and am still angry about Kyle/Lieberman, but at least she is the opposite of what we have at the White House now.

Obama represents the future now. Clinton drags the weight of the past as much as the stature from it. Obama can get far more R's to vote for him... he fits in with what usually sells in R territory - a positive, optimistic image, and what the D's like -- intelligence and balance.

Russell, you've got to be kidding me. You're gonna tell me that Obama saying "vote for me" is a sign that he's selfish and won't support Hillarious if she's the nominee? Talk about twisting speeches. When did he ever say his supporters would not support Hillary if she ever were the nominee? Please direct me to the quote. Now if you want to talk about a candidate putting her selfish before the party, let's look at Hillary and her unilateral decision of including MI and FL delegates when they went against party rules and decided they to hold their primaries early. That my friend is not party building. That is purely selfish Clinton politics. I still haven't heard Hillary talking about Universal Health Care either for that matter. But again, please post a link to the Obama quote saying he won't support her and urging his supporters not to do the same if she's the nominee.

im aaucasian south african any yank voting for mrs c must be a bugger for punishment

Please. Hillary Clinton will bend with the prevailing political winds until she winds up in charge, and then she'll be Bush/Rove from the center-left. Obama is running with the knowledge that he'll need support from many many Americans to effect the changes he seeks, while Hillary would prefer to tilt against Republican windmills. Also, why would someone vote for a pale McCain lite as opposed to McCain himself? Obama will pull the independents in a way that Clinton would not and thus actually win in November.

Ditto for me. I thought I disliked Hillary but as I listened to her more and more, I realized that my opinion was based on media bias and meme that had absolutely nothing to do with jer.

And it didn't help when Obama fans started calling Hillary supporters racists. Although I was starting to lean toward Hillary, comments by Jessie Jackson Jr., and Jim Clyburn took me over the edge.

Equal to all the phony outrage over Hillary's remark about RFK, I knew when someone was being railroaded by the media and blogosphere. And I'm just such a contrarian that whatever most people are against, I'm usually for or at least I give it a good look. I hate nothing worst than herd mentality. It's dangerous to country.

http://www.batteryfast.com/acer/travelmate-3200.htm acer travelmate 3200 battery,

asus a3 battery

toshiba satellite m30 battery

The comments to this entry are closed.

Where We Met

Blog powered by Typepad