This tells me more about Hillary.

What people forget about Clinton is that she is basically a Republican at heart. She campaigned for Barry Goldwater once upon a time and even canvassed poor neighborhoods in Chicago looking for “vote fraud” by Democrats. She was president of the College Republicans at Wellesley. In 1968, at the height of America’s most intense cultural debate in a century, she only abandoned the Republican Party because it backed Dick Nixon instead of her favorite, Nelson Rockefeller.

Which is ironic, because as a presidential candidate herself, Hillary has basically run exactly Nixon’s 1968 campaign. Her stump speech from the get-go was all about the “invisible Americans,” a nearly word-for-word echo of Nixon’s revolutionary “forgotten Americans” strategy of that year. Like Nixon, she was targeting a slice of the electorate that had chosen to stay on the sidelines during a cultural war and secretly yearned for someone in the political center to restore order; it’s no accident that Hillary was on the opposite side of every issue that sent lefties to the streets in the Bush years, from the war to free trade to the Patriot Act.

Her much-reported line about Martin Luther King needing LBJ to complete his “dream” was just another salvo in that effort, a subtle message to the public that the “change” she talks about so incessantly is only legitimate when it comes from the inside. Lest anyone think this is a fanciful analysis, listen to what Hillary wrote back in the day, in her senior thesis at Wellesley, which looked at the work of a Chicago community organizer named Saul Alinsky, who had offered her a job. “I agreed with some of Alinsky’s ideas,” she wrote, “but we had a fundamental disagreement. He believed you could change the system only from the outside. I didn’t.”

Ironically, after Alinsky’s death, the man who carried on his legacy as a community organizer on the South Side of Chicago was none other than Barack Obama, who took a $13,000-a-year gig similar to the one that Hillary turned down.

http://www.alternet.org/election08/75233/?page=entire

He didn’t vote for the war and spoke out against it. I’m finding more and more that I won’t post here that makes me think we’d see a different policy.
That and the cheap shots from the opposition have influenced my choice.

“Warning her off. Turning my back. Looking the other way. Whatever it took.”

Well, you’d last about 30 seconds in the Congress or in any other government position.

Have I ever said I would run for office?

Is there any more nauseating cable news television than Mike Brzezinski and Joe Scarborough piling it on for Obama and dissing Clinton at every opportunity?

You obviously aren’t watching CNN, which seems to stand for Clinton? No! No!

You have to scroll down and look in the left sidebar frame under “Settings And Services”.

Once you do that, you can get the story for four bucks or put your trust the nice folks at the Haiti Democracy Project.

Haiti Democracy Project?

That ugly derisive, prolonged laugh that Hillary has unleashed a few times on Obama and others is far more potent a poison than anything anyone has said to date.

This is electoral politics. Neither Hillary’s nor Obama’s side has been above reproach.

We only dispute the remark of Bill Clinton as being nasty or racist. It was just political in the most mundane way. So what! It shouldn’t engender the nasty, mean spirited attacks by Obama and supporters that it has. They are the dividing element in the process. Not the Clintons.

It’s really a poor tactic to make every little thing about sexism (or racism). It diminishes the credibility of complaints when there really IS serious sexism.

As for Obama’s remark that Hillary is “likable enough” what evidence do you have that this was a sexist remark? As I recall the context of that remark there was nothing sexist about it.

And on what do you base the idea that if Hillary doesn’t win it will take another 50 years before another woman will run? I see no basis for that at all.

Unable to recognize personal bias is very telling, the press loves to gaze upon itself through the candidates.

Whining about media treatment of Bush, the bloggers turn around, join the party, and do the same for Obama, white wash.

Did he use laundered money, too?

Good work, John, and thank you for refocusing the debate, highlighting the plight of the poor, and reminding us of our priorities, the voiceless are at the very least, acknowledged. I hope there is a role for you in democratic politics, you help rebuild our faith in government, the next democratic administration will need you. It was a relief to finally have a place to discuss issues, as opposed to watching the press gaze upon itself through Obama, say, and Clinton.

I’ll continue to donate, FWIW, the debt must be enormous.

So I guess I need me a Clinton ’08 bumper sticker.

Working voters need a candidate who can empathize with them, and we all need a candidate capable of understanding geopolitical complexities. That ain’t Obama.