Comments on: Which Democrat Has Bigger Coattails?

CBSNews.com Reports: Eventual Nominee Charged With Boosting Slim Majorities In Congress

[kstar42]

Or two, he''''s flat out lying, which is more likely since it was his law firm that helped get the money for the slums in Mr. Obama''''s own district. Which is also a gross misuse of his statesmanship.



--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by RowdyTexan2 at 08:17 PM : Mar 11, 2008

Good one rowdy I''ll back you up on that one!!!! :)

[rowdytexan2]

This may surprise you but Obama is not responsible in anyway for the state of any city in Illinois.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Posted by b-easy63 at 06:26 PM : Mar 11, 2008

This will obviously surprise you, because you have no done one bit of research on Mr. Obama, or two, you are a flat out liar, but one of Chicago''s biggest slums was in Mr. Obama''s district, and it was built by his slumlord friend of many years, Mr. Rezko. Mr. Obama''s law firm was responsible for Mr. Rezko''s ability to get taxpayer money to build those slums. But of course, now, Mr. Obama wink wink wink knows nothing about it and refuses to answer questions about it.

Now, his claim that he didn''t know about these slums in his district, means one of two things. One, he had no clue what was going on in his own district, which means means that he was totally incompetent in his representation of those people.

Or two, he''s flat out lying, which is more likely since it was his law firm that helped get the money for the slums in Mr. Obama''s own district. Which is also a gross misuse of his statesmanship.

[vet_sk]

jack99123. We are the democratic party and winner take all is republican. If you like that way of thought, then you liked it when Bush said after his second election by 51% that he "Had political capital and I expect to spend it." Remember that. It is about leading and forming a better decisions by bringing people together - not by dividing them. That is 20th Century Politics. We won''t something new and something we can be proud of. I can be proud of Hillary as my spokewoman sorry. And it has nothing to do with her bring a woman. There are plenty of woman I would vote for. Govs of Alaska and Kansas are perfect examples. But Hillary is just mean spirited and will do anything to win and then take her winning and do what she wants.

[vet_sk]

jack99123 I voted in a caucus and never saw any Obama or Clinton volunteers other then the ones who were handing out the brochures at the door.

We voted for Obama because the US and the world needs someone new who can talk to the world again. Hillary voted for the war and now continues to saber rattle with Iran. I am tired of having to fight bogus wars and make out country look like a bunch of ... war mongers. Hillary vote is the ultimate example of wagging the dog.

Then on health care. She tried 15 years ago (with backroom dealing) and failed, and she has not tried again. I don''t get why people are supporting her?

[jack99123]

Caucuses can easily be manipulated by hiring a lot of volunteers for $100 to $1000 for one or two week period. These paid volunteers then bring all their friends to come to attend the Caucus and the candidate who spent the most money for hiring paid volunteers wins the Caucus. Since Obama raised more money , he spent more on hiring these paid volunteers mostly university students and unemployed workers and this is why he won most of the caucus states. He also won other primary states where there was a large percentage of African Americans and other states where he was able to outspend Hillary 4 to 1, like in Wisconsin.
Hillary won all the big states except Illinois , which count towards victory in the general election. Getting delegates was just a game to get more people registered as democrats..Obama won a whole bunch of small states and that also Caucus states. Thanks Obama for registering a lot of African Americans and voters below the age of 30. Those new registered voters will be very useful in the general election There are no Caucuses in the general election. The electoral vote method is used in the General Election.
Caucus votes are totally manipulated that is why Obama won because of the Caucus votes but the real thing is the Primary . We are not playing GAMES anymore. General Election is like the Primary election with WINNER TAKE ALL like the Republicans are doing. They have a winner and if we use the same method , we have a winner.

[jack99123]

The GAMES are now over. The election in November is the real thing .The winner takes all the electoral votes in any state even though he wins by only one vote in that state. No more Caucuses and no more 4 to 1 money advantage to one candidate over the other. Hillary Clinton, has already won all the big states . Obama''''s inexperience clearly shows here but it is too late for him. Hillary has 267 electoral votes from all the states she has won. Obama has 202 electoral vote including Wyoming & Missisipi. If we give Pennsylvania to Clinton and all the remaining states to Obama , Clinton will have 288 electoral votes while Obama will have 254. You tell me now who should be on top of the ticket?

[jack99123]

DNC Chairman, Speaker of the House and some others, unknowingly devised the most ridiculous method for allocation of delegates rather than using a simple method where WINNER TAKES ALL the delegates in a state . That is the method which was used by the Republicans and they have a winner. Democrats need to use the same method for picking our winner and that is NO ROCKET SCIENCE to understand. The general Election in November will be run like that. The General Election is the Super Bowl and current primaries are the Playoffs. Have you ever heard that the rules for the Playoffs should be different from the rules for the Super Bowl?So let us take the count with WINNER TAKE ALL method. Hillary has already 1741 delegates from the states she has won and Obama has 1218 delegates . If she wins only Pennsylvania out of the remaining states, she will have 1892 delegates and Obama will have 1580. Now tell me who should be on top of the ticket?

[jack99123]

Why are Hillary and Obama spending $300 million more in the next 3 months to find this out ? Will it not be better if we could spend that against the Republicans to get Fillibuster %u2013 proof majorities in the Congress?It is about time the Super Delegates intervene and put some sense into heads of Supporters of Obama & Hillary? No matter what you or Hillary do now, neither of you will get 2208 delegates no matter how many primaries you win . The total number of delegates is 4414 . To win each of you needs at least 2208 delegates. Neither of you will get that number before the convention no matter how many of these super delegates you bribe by offering them financial help in their election efforts directly or indirectly or promising them ( wink, wink) VP spot on your ticket. (This kind of BRIBING in elections is illegal in all other civilized countries )If either of you is not willing to listen , we have a TRAIN WRECK in the making, if we do not have a nominee till the Convention in August. The MEDIA will continue to instigate you to go on because that is the only way they will earn the $300 million from both of you in advertising etc.. Please wake up and go for the DREAM TICKET !!!

[jack99123]

I see that the TV media finally has started thinking that Clinton is the better candidate than Obama after bashing her since Jan 1. Also notice that all the Afro American commentators side with Obama all the time. How racist can you get ?CNN specially is anti Clinton. Donna Brazille, Kelli Goff , Roland Martin, Dan Lothian and Amy Holmes ( who is supposed to be representing the Republicans) always talk against Clinton. Similarly Gwen Ifill ( another Afro American) on PBS and Meet The Press always talks against Clinton. Shame on you all. 50% of the commentators on CNN are Afro Americans and are 100% of the time talking against Clinton.These are the same commentators who would not have any jobs if they were not Afro Americans. Obama should not be made President because he has only 14 months experience in US senate out of which he spent 14 months running for presidency
Executive Level experience is what is needed. and to be president national level experience is what is important. Obama has none. Hillary has been in the Senate for 86 month. Also Hillary was Governor''''s wife in Arkansas for 8 years and later for 8 years'''' President''''s wife. She was not just a housewife. Being an attorney herself and a smart politician she was constantly advising Clinton and was his right hand person. Bill was named the best Governor and he was the best President with no deficits and strong economy under his administration and you have to give a lot of credit to her as well for this .

[tibu987]

Ferraro is right. Obama is where he is because of his color. No other reason
Posted by phillysage at 04:58 PM : Mar 11, 2008"

How ridiculous.
Hillary has gotten as far as she has because she is a woman. We would not even know who Hillary is if it weren''t for her being married to Slick Willie.

Ferraro and Hillary are sexists who will champion any womans cause, qualified or not. It is called politics and anything goes. Unfortunately, Hillary is a sleazy lawyer from Arkansas the second most backward State in the U.S. And, Slick Willie got to be President by a fluke, not for any qualifications he had. Both were beset with scandals from Arkansas to the White House.
I''ll stick with Obama.