Comments for en-gb 30 Fri 26 Dec 2014 10:53:56 GMT+1 A feed of user comments from the page found at mary gravitt Instead of Geraldine Ferraro playing the Race Card she should have remembered what the Republicans did to her and her reputation when she ran for Vice President in 1984. They connected her and her entire family to the Mofia because she is of Italian decent. This Good Fellows connection was also to Mario Cuomo when he ran against Bill Clinton in the 1990s. Cuomo was the better more experience candidate, but he is Italian and the Mofia labeling stuck.Now Ferraro like the White Feminist in the Election of 1878 wants to relive what was done in that election where they sued in the Supreme Court for protection under the 14th Amendment to the US Constitution. Perhaps Obama can sue Nature for making him both Black and White, since I don't believe he or his family, like both Ferraro and Coumo, have connections to the MOB. The mindset of the American peoples have changed, except for a few.Martin Luther King said we should judge each other on the content of the Character, not the Color of the Skin. Let ignorant people go beyond this admonition and they will be exposed. Wed 04 Jun 2008 19:31:01 GMT+1 DianneB You know better than most Justin, just how biggoted the media has were one of the worst! If you'd done your research you'd also know that Obama is one of Howard Dean's hand picked "Dean's Dozen".Last Saturdays so called public meeting by DNC was a con' and everyone knows it! I hope Hillary fights this at the Credentials Committee in August and if they still can't be honest, she should run as INDEPENDANT! Wed 04 Jun 2008 12:53:42 GMT+1 jacksforge I on the other hand believe we have a responsibility to Iraq, regardless of the US motives for going in, to but it back on its feet. No matter the cost, it's call responsibility. I agree chew.But I think that means getting serious and accepting the rest of the world's opinion.After all it is they that could form a UN mission. This would relieve the burden the US finds it'self under.But in order for anything to be done the USA has to come out and admit to the world its faults.and ask for help ,recognise the misshandlling.And prosecute the people that lied to bring us this war. and america is too weak to do that. Mon 02 Jun 2008 16:45:44 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense Ed:If anyone needs to crawl back in a hole it is you. You can use all the excuses for cutting and running you like. Personally I think this is cowardly. I on the other hand believe we have a responsibility to Iraq, regardless of the US motives for going in, to but it back on its feet. No matter the cost, it's call responsibility. In short the argument whether or not we should be there is over and moot. All that remains is to do the job and get the boys home. However, do the job we will or suffer the consequences of our lack of character. I was ashamed at what the US and UK did in Iran, which ironically led to the current government of Iran. Yes Ed this is our (US and UK's) fault, we did this. Have we learnt nothing from history or are we going to repeat it again. Ed in reality your opinions matter little to me as I see them for what they are populist JUNK. You have little concept of how events precipitate other events. So in the words of Tony Blair in the house of commons (which he took from a comedy show). Ed, I'm not bothered, bothered, I'm not bother. If you wish to live in delusion so be it, that is your right. I have more important things to do than waste my valuable time on you. Mon 02 Jun 2008 15:59:51 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Chew,Haven't you worked it out that I don't lie? I worked (past tense - learn to read English carefully)) on nerve agents in the sixties on government contracts (that's what I was doing when JFK was shot). I had a security clearance (pretty low level, I'm sure).I swallowed the line that we only did this sort of work so we could have the antidotes in case the evil enemy ever used these things against us. Of course, WE would NEVER do such a thing! I was young and gullible."The fact remains we have a responsibility to put Iraq back on its feet. "I couldn't agree more. It would be better had we not destroyed the place first, but it was extremely profitable for Lockheed and others not unconnected with the White House, and the money just keeps rolling in.You're the one who descends to personal slurs, if you haven't noticed. Crawl back in your hole. Sun 01 Jun 2008 23:25:52 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense Ed:I doubt you work on nerve agents. If so where? There are only a few sites in the US working on these agents. Which agent are you working on. I will assume since the US can not work on new agents you work on treatments. Chemistry is a very small world at my level Ed (if this is your real name) and of that chemical weapons research even smaller so if you do work on nerve agents I'll be able to find out. As for rubbish, do you read your own posts. All you have shown is you're a sheep unable to think for yourself etc.... Decisions only matter when they matter after that we are discussing history. The fact remains we have a responsibility to put Iraq back on its feet. Not to walk away when it gets tough. As for the rest of your comment I think we see the real Ed there don't we. When you lose the argument you resort to abuse.Ed your superiors may be very interested to hear what you have been saying in regard to your work. Which is one of the reasons that I'm very skeptical that you do work on chemical weapons. Sun 01 Jun 2008 22:08:30 GMT+1 Highlander1874 Justin com’on! Just a slip of the tongue! Please! Have you turned into a Clinton apologist as well!She has mentioned the assassination a number of times – in print and caught on tape.These statements are rehearsed, pre meditated media ‘plants’ to see who will mindlessly repeat them and send out the message to a crazed white supremist or unbalanced loner with ‘Catcher in the Rye’ tucked under his am and a 38 in his pocket.Thankfully the liberal media has regained it’s credibility with Oberman’s wonderful characterization of her – well done, and about time we had some fair and balanced commentary from the left. Sat 31 May 2008 18:04:48 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Chew,I quoted you accurately. What's the beef?Six more paragraphs of rubbish. I actually worked on nerve agents for the US government - so what? 20 Democratic Senators (among others) voted against Shrub's Folly - they read the facts available. From way over here, I could see it was a snow job. Are you just embarrassed that you didn't? Poor thing!Salaam, etc.ed Fri 30 May 2008 15:47:16 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense Ed:If your going to quote me then do it properly "As for Iraq if you did not have to make the decision you have not right to comment. It's easy to say after the fact the better course of action, ask my students. For the record I was against going in. However, I didn't see the evidence. If it was 50:50 I'd have gone in. Better to have gone in and be wrong than to stay out and be wrong. When the pressure is on that's when it matters. Ask John Terry. Now we are there we stay until the job is done period, no matter how many of our lads die. It's call responsibility." You're clueless aren't you. Clearly you live in your ideal little world. What if Bush had not gone in and there was a chemical attack in the US or against a US target. People like you would be saying why didn't he go in. Simply clueless. When will people in the US grow up and accept responsibility for their mistakes. We stay in Iraq until the job is done whatever the cost. Again it's call responsibility. On the evidence given to Bush which neither you or I have seen he made the call. As I said on the evidence the media had at the time and with the benefit of the fact I am a chemist I could see through the lies he was probably told. The fact remains if you are not in a pressure situation it's easier.Ed this may interest you: If I was charge with making a nerve agent, it would take about ONE week to set up a lab to do it. The fact their were not labs is pretty irrelevant, in this business it's the practical knowledge that is key. This is on paper and easily hidden. VX gas is not a nice way to go out and its synthesis is trivial, the only problem is to ensure zero exposure to the person making it. The delivery system is the greater challenge. If it was 50:50 and I couldn't be sure either way the risks are too high to stay on the side lines. Ed your logic is clouded by what we know now, that is not the point. I bet Bush would have stay out if he knew what we know now. I bet Napoleon would have liked to take back his decision to leave the field at waterloo in the charge of his subordinates and go for a nap. The point is, decisions of this nature are made in REAL-TIME and REAL people die, from INACTION the same as ACTION. The question always is are their less losses from action or inaction in the longer term. Iraq is improving and we have a responsibility to not cut-and-run like children and stay and accept we have a job to do like adults. I'm not going to get into the mediocre planning. In this case both OB and HC are promising something they would be tactically unwise to deliver. The region is to fluid to pull out. Two wrongs do not make a right. To be frank the decision to go in or not is over and offers no real purpose from a solution generation point of view. We have to role up our sleeves and get to it. Fri 30 May 2008 14:53:16 GMT+1 mary gravitt St. James said "The tongue is a dangerous thing because it reveals what is in the heart." Mrs. Clinton seems to think that the position of President of the United States is her Devine Right. She is even willing to lose to the Republicans and drag the Democratic Party down with her.Joe Lieberman has already shown her with his support of McCain what is in store for her. And her remarks about Robert Kennedy as to why she is STAYING THE COURSE were very inappropriate. It shows that she has poor judgement in a series of bad judgements.Obama is allowing her to go unchallenged in some states to allow her to bow out gracefully. People say this is a weakness on his part. But I say no. Maybe it is a play so that he will not have to select her for his VP or perhaps it is a play for such a conclusion.Whatever, the election season is almost over and the long she stays in digging her political grave with her own tongue, the better for Obama. Two Clintons serving as Co-Vice Presidents may be too much. Thu 29 May 2008 18:55:59 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Streathamite,I remember it well! ;-(("We're gonnae win the wurruld cup!" Thu 29 May 2008 18:40:43 GMT+1 Streathamite @ ed iglehart #124tbh Ed, the old rivalry always mattered more to the scots than us lot.Having said that, everyone I know laughed like a drain during the 1978 world cup.If you want to make the more senior neighbours of yours weep, just ask them about Peru, Iran, and the scotland manager who said his team were going to win the world cup Thu 29 May 2008 18:05:47 GMT+1 jacksforge but the flower girl could have been the sniper or worse:) could have brought out hillary's heyfever. Thu 29 May 2008 16:59:49 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey Even as spring changes to summer in the southwest, it gets blustery on BBC.I made no comment about the national affordability of health care plans. I implied that 3/4 or 4/5 of a loaf of health care, as proposed by Obama, is better than either the flawed status quo that is rigged against most consumers, or a 'perfect' plan that doesn't pass thanks to lobbying by the "insurance-pharmaceutical complex". Speaking of half loaves, the arc of the Clinton campaign's regard for Florida is worth considering. Harold Ickes voted to punish Florida when the primary was held early, along with party leadership. The DNC is apparently considering taking the Republican approach of seating 1/2 the delegates. But now that is not enough, and both the Clinton Campaign and Florida are threatening lawsuits to drag this to the convention rather than settle for the precedent of half-seating. This puts the Kennedy 'gaffe' in better context - I think the insight to Clinton campaing thinking from the disingenuous comparison of 1960s and 1990s March to June contests with the present January to ? contest is worse than the tired mistake of mentioning RFK by way of his assassination. The apples to oranges compariosn is part of the overall no-holds-barred, no precedent ungrasped or unstretched campaign approach. The controversy over the RFK wording, which sounds insensitive in hindsight, but probably just came out that way instead of being better phrased (she may remember the shock of RFK's death more than his preceding campaign), may be a product of how 'loaded' 1963 and 1968 are in the American consciousness, even for those too young to remember firsthand.I finally read the story of how Obama confused which Nazi death camp his great-uncle (?) helped liberate. He mentioned the iconic Aushwitz rather than the equally horrific Dachau or Buchenwald that American troops really liberated. For someone so well versed in current events, his historical mistake is slightly surprising, but is not much of a 'gaffe' either. If someone born a decade or more after WWII mentioned a distant relative's Marine heroism at Iwo Jima (the iconic, and largest USMC engagement) but later corrected that it was really at at equally horrific Tarawa or Bougainville - I would be glad they got the right theatre and war, given how much most people know or appreciate history. That's not like confusing a flower girl with a sniper. Thu 29 May 2008 16:48:14 GMT+1 Streathamite This post has been Removed Thu 29 May 2008 15:26:57 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart From the internet:What will the Obama girls name their new puppy that they will receive when they move into the White House?It really depends on the dog's actions.If it licks their faces and then tries to piss on them, they should name it Hillary.If it barks a lot but does nothing useful, they should name it McCain.If it chases it's tail with a puzzled look on it's face, they should name it Bush.If it viscously attacks them without provocation, they should name it Fox.And finally, if it tries to hump their legs, they should name it Bill.;-)ed Thu 29 May 2008 14:16:53 GMT+1 ronaine Two fab posts there Ed.Murdoch, would you credit it...And last night - I always consider watching England to be like watching a tragic comedy. The best bit for me was the national anthems - from the sublime to the ridiculous. Performance-wise. Thu 29 May 2008 13:01:20 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Talk about unwelcome endorsements!;-)ed Thu 29 May 2008 12:37:55 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart With no particular relevance, except that we all seem to be cheerleaders for our favourite candidate, a wee tale.It's a well-worn joke that Scottish folk will always support Scotland in any sporting contest, and if Scotland isn't playing, they'll support "whoever's playing against England".I have to admit that I conform exactly to the stereotype, if anything more closely than true native Scots, so it was a surprise to find myself unconsciously cheering England last night. Who were they playing? USA!;-)ed Thu 29 May 2008 12:32:19 GMT+1 ronaine erankewI have had no reply either, in my protracted discussion about semantics - was Sen. Clinton solely emphasising the Juneness of her rationale for continuing?Perhaps your point is difficult to answer - beyond the obvious conclusion... Thu 29 May 2008 12:00:20 GMT+1 erankew Pro Clinton...Please refer #44.... Still no reply :( Thu 29 May 2008 11:30:02 GMT+1 SlashDashUnderscore Why are we still arguing about the primary? Obama will win the nomination, unless the unmentionable does happen.Whereas the general election looks like it will probably go down to the wire.../-_ Thu 29 May 2008 10:58:36 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Chew,"As for Iraq if you did not have to make the decision you have not right to comment."[B.S.!]" It's easy to say after the fact the better course of action,"[platitude]...Better to have gone in and be wrong than to stay out and be wrong." [serious B.S.]What a load of rubbish in one paragraph!Then, to Jaybird:"Again statement three has no factual basis."immediately followed by:"Both of you are going to be so very very disappointed if he is elected. He'll be a one term disaster."Irony anyone?;-)ed Thu 29 May 2008 09:22:29 GMT+1 ronaine "Vote for McCain or you'll be getting the Democratic version of GWB. Ok OB speaks better, but is equally as clueless."Hmmm, and McCain has a clue I suppose... it sounds like a bleak choice for you - which is a common problem for democracy. Thu 29 May 2008 09:09:01 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense My advise if it's McCain or OB. Vote for McCain or you'll be getting the Democratic version of GWB. Ok OB speaks better, but is equally as clueless. Thu 29 May 2008 05:25:58 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense MMarcelo and bluejay60:I have never hear such *S about OB. Firstly the US can easily afford a health care system like the UK and Canada. Let's look at the evidence the UK has a population of 60-70 Million, with the USA close to 300 million. The GDP of the UK (2 Trillion) is not a quarter of the US (13 Trillion). It's not a question of is it doable, but more do you want to do it. However, MDs in the UK do not have a the same relative pay as in the US. There is also a lot of unnecessary fat in the US system. So MMarcelo you're first statement is way off. HC's system can be easily implemented from a resource point of view. That said MDs won't like it as they will take a pay cut and quite a big one at that. In the UK the average house price is 180,000 GBP (could be a bit less now). With the average salary for an MD 80.000 GBP. The average for the US is 100,000 GBP (200,000 USD-ish) with the average US house price 132,278 GBP. As you see there is quite a standard of live gap. A US house has generally more in it at the start so we aren't really comparing like with like. The take-home-message is that the US can easily afford it however root and branch reform of health care is needed with less spending on defense. One other point MDs in the UK do not have the same status as in the US, they are basically seen as car mechanics for bodies. Mine is simply a drug giver.See: for Iraq if you did not have to make the decision you have not right to comment. It's easy to say after the fact the better course of action, ask my students. For the record I was against going in. However, I didn't see the evidence. If it was 50:50 I'd have gone in. Better to have gone in and be wrong than to stay out and be wrong. When the pressure is on that's when it matters. Ask John Terry. Now we are there we stay until the job is done period, no matter how many of our lads die. It's call responsibility. The he was all up to invade/bomb Pakistan, but that didn't get much air time did it! The tax holiday is a sideshow on both sides. Both positions are smoke screens. However OBs policy of forcing companies to remain in the US even though it is not competitive, in certain areas is very dangerous. The US cannot survive as a low wage economy. Here he is way off. Furthermore if you're basing your economic trust because of his gas tax position then that is scary.Ok Bluejay:Statement one means nothing so I'll move onOn statement two he has no integrity, Wright showed this all too clearly, he is a politician after all.Again statement three has no factual basis.Both of you are going to be so very very disappointed if he is elected. He'll be a one term disaster. Thu 29 May 2008 05:18:56 GMT+1 Grrrlie Hilrod has consistently presented herself with wide-open bulging eyes, a gigantic wide-open mouth smiling in an outlandish manner, and hands reaching out as if to grab everything in sight. The only fitting comparison is to a greedy child or some fictional greedy monster. (Michelle Pfeiffer playing the senior witch in Neil Gaiman's "Stardust" leaps to mind!) Throughout this campaign Hilrod has behaved as if the USA Presidency is a gigantic bauble promised and owed to herself and herself alone. Hilrod's insensitivity and self-obsessed behaviors show her to be narcissistic in the extreme - everything's always about HER - even if she has to fabricate a fable to get the level of attention she demands. On the flipside, Obama seems sobered by the responsibilities involved in being a USA President. He's clearly concerned about how best to be able to work with others and to learn from the country's past mistakes. He's clearly wanting to share credit and to work as part of a team. Not Hilrod. She's reaching for a gem-encrusted crown, one she's "lusted after in her heart" [to steal Jimmy Carter's odd phrase] for ages, perhaps ever since she was a little girl. Hilrod is completely out of control now - and she hasn't even grabbed that imaginary sceptre yet! With her outright nuclear threats to Iran and her delusional statements about having the most right to the Presidency and the most public support, Hilrod has convinced me that she is not merely a demagogue but a Stalin wannabe. WATCH OUT WORLD - HILROD IS COMPLETELY AND TOTALLY INSANE. And in many of the latest photos with Bill, it looks as if he's realized that little Hillary is completely out of her mind. Thu 29 May 2008 03:23:49 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey I thought Electrolux was a US fixture in the 50s - 70s - unless my memories of a heavily chromed jet age example are faulty too. Not to mention the notorious jingle - "nothing sucks like an Electrolux". Your new brand perception may be rebranding now replacing the old original manufacturer (like Polaroid has become)What, me worry about being on topic? Thu 29 May 2008 01:05:33 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart David,"Electrolux has only very, very recently been marketed in the US under that name,"My mother must have experienced time travel then, because what she called the "vacuum" some sixty years ago in Florida and Canada was an Electrolux.Auschwitz is the commonest and best-known name for any of the death camps - so much so that I reckon it's pretty much like "hoover" (in the UK) - a once-proper noun which has come to stand for a class of objects. I call the glass i work pyrex because folk recognise it, but it's actually borosilicate glass carrying the trade name Duran - which name I use in Germany.As to "uncle" instead of "great uncle", Really!is a great uncle not an uncle? In my family we refer to Uncle George, whose face appears on the one dollar bill. I don't even know how many greats, but he's still Uncle George.Now, if it was a quarrel about which brand name was on the sniper bullets.... Thu 29 May 2008 00:51:57 GMT+1 David Cunard #97 Ed - "When was the last time you called an Electrolux a Hoover?" Never, which goes to show how out of touch you are with what goes on in your former home. Although well-known in Britain and Europe, Electrolux has only very, very recently been marketed in the US under that name, and is now the "prestige" brand for the company which, incidentally, owns Frigidaire. I could never confuse one relative with another and certainly not one concentration camp with another. His great uncle would have been his grandfather's brother, a great difference in age, perhaps as many as forty years, so it seems to me highly unlikely the two could have been confused. Possibly, since he seemed unsure of the facts, the story was handed down from others in his family, but before quoting something like that, he really should have checked any of his relatives who are still living. I don't for one moment suppose that it was deliberate, just as I do not believe that Mrs Clinton deliberately mis-stated her visit to Bosnia. Memory is a strange thing and we can "remember" events which we have never seen or encountered, just because they've been seen on television or films or even read about in a magazine, the name for this is, simply enough, False memory. Wed 28 May 2008 23:56:04 GMT+1 turningblueandgrey Thanks MMarcelo, I'll add that what distinguishes Obama from an empty suit is 1) the intelligence to see through pandering falsehoods such as gas tax holidays, 'if we drill we won't have to conserve', etc.2) the integrity to say it, and 3) the pragmatism to unify and reach solutions that will get approved and start to makes things better, rather than continue to preach uncompromising plans that won't get a chance. Your health care example is good. Wed 28 May 2008 23:52:08 GMT+1 jacksforge "I never denied anything" bodo you did .you denied being a racist.unless your agreeing that you are? As to burdening brains. That i think is a worry you should be more concerned about.And for a guy that doesn't like name calling you do a lot of it.At least I'm consistent .I challenge you to publish all your letters here and see if it is not considered the work of a racist. Those reading this that have not read your previous posts might say from what you have written here this is reading too much into what you say. But I have read many and noticed the angle , and it was rather obtuse. Wed 28 May 2008 22:35:43 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Newbodo,"What I refer to in my posts is easily locatable using "the google"."Thankfully, though I do have time, I have better uses for it than looking up anything which might interest you." It's just that as #37 stated you may choose to avoid those not to overly burden your brains with conflicting opinions"or pure rubbish.One death camp (or vacuum cleaner) is as good as another, in my opinion. ;-) Wed 28 May 2008 22:25:35 GMT+1 lordmarbury I agree with Justin. She didn't mean it. It was just a clumsy comment, and just another example of how she lacks the skill of her husband when it comes to making these points. At this point, even she must be asking herself, would it have been better to exit gracefully after Indiana? Wed 28 May 2008 22:20:16 GMT+1 ukcowgirl hey, if hilLIARy gets the nomination, out goes my democratic support. Ron Paul is looking good as a second choice. have always been an independent anyway. Wed 28 May 2008 22:13:05 GMT+1 MMarcelo chewbaccadefense (#99) - I was responding to newBodo #87, not #61. There are certainly Obama supporters who are being swept up in the ideal of change, but I would like to say I made my decision after careful deliberation. Why I support Obama (an obviously truncated list):1) Healthcare - universal healthcare of the HC and JE variety is what the U.S. should work towards, but it is not feasible with the current system or the current economy. Universal coverage similar to the U.K. or even Canada is only applicable on a state level (think CA) - just look at the relative populations. Also, as it is right now, Medicare and Medicaid do not even reimburse doctors for the cost of the visit. Working with the market by making healthcare more affordable is what the U.S. economy is all about - it's not that people do not want coverage, it's that people can't afford coverage.2) Foreign Policy - no, Obama did not have a say in going to Iraq, but HC did and she did not choose wisely. Her excuses - implying a misunderstanding of the facts or worse, a failure to read legislation that sends American troops to war do not recommend her to me as the next POTUS. Additionally, Obama is right about opening dialogues. The U.S. has a horrible reputation over-seas and it needs to exchange its rebel cowboy policies for those of an international leader.3) The Economy - Obama does not support the gas tax holiday. He understands Macroeconomics and doesn't pander to gas-addicted constituents.Well - those are my big three. I guess I didn't really get into details - it's not exactly the forum. But I did want to let you know that Obama supporters are not simply voting for an empty suit. Wed 28 May 2008 22:12:12 GMT+1 uza001 Hillary is really doing everything to win a big shame on you Hillary. You and your family have lost the respect of honest people around the world.shame on you Hillary shame on u. you are a big loser shut up and get out Wed 28 May 2008 22:02:25 GMT+1 ronaine "I think you will find it was MSNBC's Keith O and similar that emphasized assassination."Don't you think the Senator managed that herself through its repeated referencing? Wed 28 May 2008 21:47:56 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Chew,"The devil as they say, is in the detail..."IF you can be bothered. Wed 28 May 2008 21:41:17 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart The fish was this big!Trust me!xxed Wed 28 May 2008 21:37:27 GMT+1 newBodo EdIt seems like you are one fact checker here. So perhaps you can use your obviously abundant time and dig out some evidence of opinion other than yours. What I refer to in my posts is easily locatable using "the google". It's just that as #37 stated you may choose to avoid those not to overly burden your brains with conflicting opinions. The likening of uncle in a concentration camp concept to confusing vacuum cleaners is a bright one. Keep up the good work. And MMarcelo if you read the post carefully I said that it's not her "blackness" it's those other qualities. The latter are supported by her statements publicized in the media and the nice description of her thesis which is also found online with minor efforts. I won't put links in, we have Ed for that. Wed 28 May 2008 21:36:39 GMT+1 jacksforge cant figure out what your talking about bodo. 61? what about it.95. At 9:55 pm on 28 May 2008, MMarcelo wrote:newBodo - about links to support blanket statements, I think you need to supply your own to cover "dumb, snobby and aggressive" - individual examples of how you perceive Mrs. Obama to exemplify these characteristics should do, or if you're simply going to cite the fact that she is black you should give up trying to convince anyone you have anything legitimate to say about anything. well said. Q:why do all debates turn to discussions of racism when Bodo is on line.A: because bodo is a very thinly veiled racistwho will always end up being called a racist until there is some sign otherwise. Wed 28 May 2008 21:33:08 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense Ronaine: I think you will find it was MSNBC's Keith O and similar that emphasized assassination.To divert attention away from OB. Wed 28 May 2008 21:20:33 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense MMarcelo: IMHO the facts speak for themselves and comments made by newBodo #61 are correct. 'Classic Obama supporter. All emotional and no content.' How is this incorrect? Perhaps you would like to propose a detailed rational reasoning for voting for Obama. Just a few points, avoid the work CHANGE and replace with DETAIL. The devil as they say, is in the detail..... Obviously I'm asking for a first here with OB supporters, my bad, followers but someone has to be first. Wed 28 May 2008 21:14:25 GMT+1 ronaine Ptrsin and David_CunardMy apologies for the truncated quote - my point was simply that she wasn't just emphasising June, it was that she was also emphasising assassination. Wasn't she? Isn't that what all the fuss is about?So I was simply proposing the idea that if she just wanted to point out her rationale for staying in the election, she only needed to use precedent, rather than evoking an event.Yes I'm from the UK. Wed 28 May 2008 21:11:46 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Newbodo (61, 71, 87),Nice to have such really coherent comments from you, and at 92, a prize example of a pot calling kettle black (read it alongside 61).David (68),He told the story in some detail and got ONE thing wrong - the name of the death camp. When was the last time you called an Electrolux a Hoover? As to meetings with the enemy, there's a world of difference between "preparation", which was in his earliest remarks and (no) "conditions".(93), 'Primaries used to last longer, and often went on into June' (paraphrase) - NO! They used to start later, and THUS often went on into June (But 1992's was over by April, according to Bill Clinton's "My Life") AND WJC's 'camp' had been 'suggesting' opponents withdraw early (as noted in previous posts)Andrea(76), Strike two! ;-)ed Wed 28 May 2008 21:04:01 GMT+1 chewbaccadefense I propose a new way to pick the president, let the media decided. They basically do this anyway with their biased coverage. This way the millions we spend on voting could be used for good courses.As for OBs comment: This is clearly a POLITICAL maneuver to make him appeal more to the Jews. Would this make him just another politician. Let me think, YES!As for OB changing washington. Ask yourself this question, if at work the bosses said we are going change the working practices top to bottom what would happen. Precisely, strikes, work to rule etc.... So what do you think will happen in washington? Precisely the same. However, this time he's not dealing with workers/amateurs who don't know how to play the system, he's going to be dealing with professionals. Professionals who know how do little and look like their doing a lot, yes other politicians. I predict total failure, however I'm sure he will trumpet success like any other politician. In short far to many people in washington have far to much invested for it to change. They will do a great deal for it not to change. That is the problem with power. Hence the OB dream is exactly that a DREAM! I on the other hand prefer reality. Wed 28 May 2008 21:03:27 GMT+1 MMarcelo newBodo - about links to support blanket statements, I think you need to supply your own to cover "dumb, snobby and aggressive" - individual examples of how you perceive Mrs. Obama to exemplify these characteristics should do, or if you're simply going to cite the fact that she is black you should give up trying to convince anyone you have anything legitimate to say about anything. Wed 28 May 2008 20:55:54 GMT+1 Streathamite points;1) given how badly ahmedinejad AND iran have been misrepresented and demonised in the US press (and that the US has a far worse record for dodgy allies/linkages and acts of aggression) talking to him is sound sense2) capitalism + plus an un-levelling education/state system + a past of slavery, discrimination and racial supremacy = blacks, all other things being equal, start off economically handicapped (as only rightwing racists hereabout are too dim and unimaginative to get). Poverty is inherited, ditto poor schools and fewer opportunities.3) even if what Hillary said has been blown out of proportion, anyone who didn't realise just how that remark would turn against here is too naive and politically inept to get the top job.I mean, a kennedy and assassination - what PLANET, petal? Wed 28 May 2008 20:13:04 GMT+1 David Cunard #75 ronaine writes "The exact quote from the weekend is:" which carefully missed the rest of the statement, which as #88 Ptrsln points out, was "My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. Having a primary contest go through June is nothing particularly unusual." - and Ptrsin, our thanks.I gather ronaine is from outside the USA since h/she asks "do Americans need the association somehow to understand her point?" I think the answer would be affirmative. I didn't recall that the month was June and I would not think many others would either - it was forty years ago! I don't even remember the day either of my parents died, and that was far more recent.#74 AAlvinTwiningham wrote: "If either of you had even been under fire, you would know. It is not something soon forgotten." In point of fact I have been under fire by bombs and also within the sound of gunfire on the far side of the English Channel - it is not easily forgotten, but neither do I confuse my uncles with my great uncles or one place with another. It's analogous to what Mrs Clinton had said. Both agreed they made a mistake, but the media didn't seize on Mr Obama's remarks in the same way that they did with those made by Mrs Clinton. Apart from the Daily Telegraph, I also have not seen a mention of Mr Obama's endorsement by Fidel Castro, but you can be sure that had he endorsed Mrs Clinton, it would have received extensive coverage. Wed 28 May 2008 20:11:18 GMT+1 newBodo jacksgorgeSee comment #61.Care to provide any links, support to your blanket statements, or do you rely on Ed for that? Sounds like your next comment will be "you're stupid". Wed 28 May 2008 20:03:26 GMT+1 Pawel M This man is the embodiment of political correctness gone mad. Wed 28 May 2008 19:52:56 GMT+1 jacksforge you talk of digging holes .which you do a lot of"I also do not like Michelle Obama because she is dumb, snobby, and aggressive not because she is black." why would a snob want to give money to those that have none?Them unemployed because ....oh we went through this once or twice before.I'm sure the BBC will not censor a simple statement of fact(don't use offensive language) or you can carry on spending time writing long winded ways of proving what you are. Wed 28 May 2008 19:34:15 GMT+1 jacksforge 86 keep it up 85 so right. bodo says "they both missrepresent the truth."really and GW ?= WAR,WMD or mc cain?= lobbyist Iran ,Iraq. or aipac? = everything(just about)all of whom you'de seem to like. as to this "lie" in particular. there is a huge difference between hillary ducking the fire on the stage and obama talking about events when he was not born .Family history. but you see the two as the same? suspect reasons for that I would think. Wed 28 May 2008 19:23:21 GMT+1 Ptrsln ronaine (75): The exact quote, question and answer, from Time wasTIME: Can you envision a point at which--if the race stays this close--Democratic Party elders would step in and say, "This is now hurting the party and whoever will be the nominee in the fall"?CLINTON: No, I really can't. I think people have short memories. PRIMARY CONTESTS USED TO LAST A LOT LONGER. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A. My husband didn't wrap up the nomination in 1992 until June. HAVING A PRIMARY CONTEST GO THROUGH JUNE IS NOTHING PARTICULARLY UNUSUAL. (caps added)Purposely removing this part of the quote while claiming to be reprinting it exactly, and then having the gall to write that she wasn't emphasizing June is shameful, to say the least.newBodo (79): For once we actually agree. Unfortunately, policy discussions will never make it into news articles while sensationalist crap like this generates the news cycle. Wed 28 May 2008 19:10:31 GMT+1 newBodo Alvin, I see every politician's lying as unacceptable. Unfortunately they all do it to some extent so what differentiates them is what they intend to do (not that promises mean that much either). But I'd rather go with someone who makes sense in terms of my future. The problem with talking to Muslim nations and that it's fruitless. Many don't understand the depth of cultural and religious differences between west and Muslim world. I don't claim I do, but what I do know is that these differences preclude any understanding in this day and age. We've dug the whole so deep we can't get out. And to jacksforge:I never denied anything. I do not like blacks who are unemployed and feel entitled to damages for slavery. It just so happens that there are more of them unemployed that of other race here in America. I also do not like the reverse racism and affirmative action. What lefties like you don't get is that the reason I don't like them is because they don't work and demand much, not because they are black. Yet you are quick to cry "racism". I also do not like Michelle Obama because she is dumb, snobby, and aggressive not because she is black. However, what unites many blacks in this country is their sense of entitlement for something they haven't done and their unjustified demands for labor the fruits of which I have yet to see. There was never a denial in any of my posts, unfortunately I have to traverse around the "sensitive" words in order to make the point and not be moderated. Although I'm sure this post will. We all know free speech is just an illusion. Wed 28 May 2008 19:08:40 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham Oh, and I'm sure you know that Obama's relative did participate in the liberation of Buchenwald, so he really did just get a name wrong, not lie outright. Wed 28 May 2008 18:51:51 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham So Bodo I guess you see McCain's lying about wanting to limit lobbyist power as unacceptable also, right? I don't see what is so problematical about Obama wanting to talk to Ahmadinajad and others before engaging in another war our military can NOT handle right now. Then again, TR said walk softly and carry a big stick, not a broken one. Wed 28 May 2008 18:46:39 GMT+1 jacksforge taxing those who work to offer welfare to those who don't (I'm sure Michelle Obama loves the idea). bodo does this go along with earlier post by you that because of his Obama and michelle's colour they must be , how did you put it , something like "unemployed , criminal and lazy" watch it, the reason people bring up racism when you write is because often you let the truth leak out. and it generally seems to be well just a little bit racially bias, no RACIST on their own most of your comments (like hillary's ) don't seem overtly racist. but as someone who has read quite a few of you gems it is real obvious. but that is the subtle racism that is so prevalent now.that is why the other comment was rejected probably. because I asked you just to admit it. no need to deny what you believe right? maybe you just misspoke in those earlier blogs. I prefer to admit i'm a leftie. and I'm proud of what I believe. as to Mc C monitor spending and saving the nation. he'll probably start another war, then I fear clinton will too. Wed 28 May 2008 18:41:40 GMT+1 jacksforge 79 the policies were not that different until Obama started winning then, Clinton started saying whatever she needed to to win, to show her fighting fight tough ,with that she showed things that go beyond the issues and to the root of why some do not get why Clinton should not be nominated. she showed total disregard for the truth , she was divisive, she was supremely arrogant , she was rude. she showed serious flawed judgement and lack of understanding of reality. She proved herself wrong at every turn. no one else had to say a thing,though bill helped. All of which is just personal stuff right, not issues. The issues got GW elected. but he is not very popular now . How does that happen. Because He LIED. Had he campaigned with "i'm planning on bankrupting the nation and getting us into a war more protracted than vietnam" I doubt he would have won that election.But he lied then went off on his agenda and Don and Dick.Energy bill in secret. weeee it's all ours.Some think Hillary thinks it should all be hers.It's not and personallity does make a difference. hillary will promise you anything any policy to get elected.but after that she's on her own.all for me and all for me. Wed 28 May 2008 18:23:15 GMT+1 Streathamite I didn't see anger in Eugene robinson's article AT ALL - in fact, it is summed up perfectly by the piece "more in sorrow than in anger" Wed 28 May 2008 18:20:51 GMT+1 newBodo AAlvinI see both as equally unacceptable lies. And I would like to see them both out of the picture. Like I said I'm sure all three of them are no saints and it is sad when one gets depicted as flawless while HE is as messed up if not more.However what matters to me most is not how and when they lied about some personal history but what their programs and proposals are. And while McCain will try to defend the country, monitor spending and address health care in a reasonable manner, the other two propose absurdities on par with bending over for terrorism and taxing those who work to offer welfare to those who don't (I'm sure Michelle Obama loves the idea). So you can see where my reservations come from. Wed 28 May 2008 18:18:31 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham Uh huh, so you see it equally likely that one would misremember something a relative once told them and whether or not the other was fired at? Really?My point is that while Obama might make the occasional accidental blunder, Clinton has repeatedly and consistantly proven herself a liar. I'm still trying to give McCain the benefit of the doubt, but all of the lobbyists on his team aren't making it easy for me. Wed 28 May 2008 18:05:15 GMT+1 newBodo #74 Who cares what the difference is? The point is they both misrepresent the truth. Both are guilty in their own way just as every politician. What gets me is not that people suggest one is better than the other but that people choose to ignore the flaws of one and emphasize the flaws and mishaps of the other exclusively. Like AndreainNY said in #76, the examples are plentiful as long as you're willing to acknowledge them. If you choose to sift through facts selectively that only shows the superficiality of your perspective. Had the discussion been based around whose policies are more beneficial for the country it would have been acceptable but look what you're all discussing here. Perhaps next we can focus on the each candidate’s choice of clothing. Wed 28 May 2008 17:48:48 GMT+1 dmbuddingh Unfortunately, the specter of political assassination has wielded significant influence on the history of the United States. Many opportunities missed and the "what ifs" abound.The Kennedy what ifs (Vietnam)? The Lincoln what ifs (Reconstruction)? The Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. what ifs (Civil Rights Movement)?Hillary Clinton, despicably, cited the possibility of another election decided by bullet and not ballot. This is offensive to most Americans whom realize the numerous opportunities for a better future missed, throughout our history, due to political assassination.I would not except outsiders to understand the outrage. Wed 28 May 2008 17:42:28 GMT+1 AlThyPal The inconvenient history and math (or maths) issue about 1992 that Hillary glosses over is that Bill Clinton's inaugural speech should have begun "Thank you, Ross Perot." For example, he won West Virginia with 43%, George Bush Sr. had 37%, Ross Perot 18%. But she fails to mention that democratic victory in this state, and perhaps the entire first Clinton presidency, would not have occurred if Mr. Perot had not been such an enormous spoiler for the Republican vote.(Offtopic: Gov. Crist, interesting choice for McCain VP since entering his name in a search engine brings up rumors about his sexual orientation quite near the top of the list.) Wed 28 May 2008 17:23:02 GMT+1 AndreainNY Ed, #37:Obama's gaffes are all over the internet and available to anyone willing to acknowledge them. Wed 28 May 2008 17:15:11 GMT+1 ronaine Hi David_CunardThe exact quote from the weekend is:"My husband did not wrap up the nomination in 1992 until he won the California primary somewhere in the middle of June, right?" she continued. "We all remember Bobby Kennedy was assassinated in June in California."And from the Time interview in March:"Primary contests used to last a lot longer. We all remember the great tragedy of Bobby Kennedy being assassinated in June in L.A."More than just an emphasis on June I think.The obvious question is why mention Kennedy at all - or do Americans need the association somehow to understand her point? Wouldn't it suffice just to say that the '68 primaries ran through June?So my puzzle with your posting was this: You were suggesting Sen. Clinton is as likely a target as Sen Obama - which I don't particularly dispute - but in the context of her need to mention Kennedy repeatedly as part of her rationale for staying in the election through June, your argument suggests that HER likely assassination is her motive. Wed 28 May 2008 17:09:07 GMT+1 AAlvinTwiningham Cunard and Bodo wonder how a reference to family history is different from "imagining" one was under fire. If either of you had even been under fire, you would know. It is not something soon forgotten. Wed 28 May 2008 17:08:13 GMT+1 vagueofgodalming Olbermann shows that synthetic outrage isn't a monopoly of the right.It is noteworthy, though, that in the two examples of Clinton's unconsciously dodgy references to the past, violence plays such a large part: snipers at Tuzla, and Robert Kennedy's assassination. That feels like a disrecommendation for the Presidency right now. Wed 28 May 2008 16:53:27 GMT+1 thomas_paine Good to see Keith Olbermann on the BBC.However this was not a good introduction to him.But. anyone who has watched KO over the years can see how increasingly exasperated he feels about the state of his nation.He cares about the country.He cares about The Constitution.He cares about the future.He just simply cares and is not afraid to show it.His point is the reference or allusion about assassination.This does not add to the debate but debases it.HRC knows exactly what she is doing and has referenced the point several times.She has even joined with Fox in their fight against Obama and her own party! Wed 28 May 2008 16:42:16 GMT+1 newBodo To David CunardYou are right on the Obama section. Unfortunately, I think that people on this blog conveniently avoid Obama's blunders like Auschwitz lies (how is that different from Hilary’s Bosnia statement?); his meetings with Hezbollah leader in US; and his "no preconditions" talks with Iran. That's without bringing up his weird friends. But they surely don't seem weird to people here who endorse Sharpton and Wright. Then of course there is his wife who wrote a thesis on the black/white situation in America, which by itself is such a failsafe and "old news" topic that it shows no originality of thought whatsoever. Moreover she had consistently stated that as a first lady she will "first and foremost address the needs of black community". Welcome more affirmative action nonsense, like let's hire incompetent black candidates just because of the race. In other words "no depth of thought" liberals will vote US into "nothing but social policies and taxations" four years after which a new president will have to clean up the international relations mess left unattended. Granted we have international challenges these days to but at least we are addressing them and not bending over. Wed 28 May 2008 16:28:39 GMT+1 jacksforge well well ne bodo woke up. bodo are you talking about me. because I always call you a racist.But then I call a cow a cow and a pig a pig.If you wish people to not call you a racist then do a better job of hiding it.Now on this thread I was in agreement with wadesworld 35 and he and I have had a skirmish on issues here ,true, but as someone that understands reasoned debate I am always willing to concede. a reasonable arguement. You however just say." You all call me names.I'm right."And when challenged rarely manage to do anything but dig that hole deeper. as for spelling WHO CARES we left school. teachers out on vacation. Some I disagree with are not racist though I always disagree with racism. On some point I even agree with some racists. As long as it is not an issue that involves race.As for agreeing with ed. YES he make a lot of good points is way more articulate than you, he has a good sense of humour. so fine I'll agree with him until he says something that I do not agree with. or do you wish for me to disagree just for the sake of it.sorry that is OLD Politics. that is what clinton does. Strangely when I hear Obama I also agree with him. and if he were to join this blog we could all have a good laugh at you posts. as to my "invectives" as you say, again this is the pot calling the mirror black. You have consistently been offensive to all with any sense of decency or morals. you share much in common with Hillary(i bet you love that) .you take your own faults and try to shift them to others. If one is a proud racist than scream it to the hills and stand with pride for what reason is there to hide. Don't use slurs or racial stereotypes,just say I am a racist. I wont like you but will admit your honest. Hiding racism just means that you know somewhere in your mind that it is WRONG. Wed 28 May 2008 16:13:11 GMT+1 jbwood Perhaps she knows that this is the only way she will make President!We trusted her husband and look how he truned out to be a liar and she must have known what was going on!What does that say about her!As for Clint Eastwood's comments of support she is looking more like Sly Stallone's "Rocky" refusing to throw the towel in even though she is outclassed and out-pointed.Perhaps ahe really is saying "If you dont want me then I dont want the Democrats win this time" otherwise she would have quit for the sake of her party and the sake of her country!I bet she really got on with Cherie Blair, they seem to have a lot in common! Wed 28 May 2008 16:12:09 GMT+1 David Cunard #36 ronaine asks me "So you're saying that Sen. Clinton is staying in the race in case SHE gets assasinated?" Apparently you didn't listen carefully to what Mrs Clinton said; she simply mentioned her husband, and RFK, with the spoken emphasis on the word 'June'. That's why she remains in the race. There was no implication whatsoever that her remark was aimed at Mr Obama. Although many of us can recall that evening I wouldn't have remembered exactly what month it was in. I cannot see why anyone thinks it concerned Mr Obama, perhaps someone would explain.#37 Ed - Mr Obama described the supposed incident at some length - if he can't get his own family history right, something he's probably known for 30 years or more, how do we know whatever else he says is correct? He's already changed gears over meeting the president of Iran, forgetting his earlier statement about meetings with with America's adversaries with "no preconditions." I'd say he has a very convenient memory. You may notice that for all his vaunted oratory, he's not terribly good with extemporaneous remarks, unlike Mrs Clinton who, generally speaking, articulates her positions very well wherever she is. If nothing else, he could take lessons from her. Wed 28 May 2008 16:09:00 GMT+1 JuanLazcano You know if you want really crap leaders and politicians come over to the EU and borrow a few. As ridiculous as this sounds i'd have a ranting Hiliary, an Obama or another doorstop like GWH any day as our leader. Wed 28 May 2008 15:59:23 GMT+1 Adrian_Evitts "Nice" President not "Vice" President!Well, any doubt that compromise might be possible between Sen. Obama and Hillary has surely been removed. Assuming Obama gets the nomination, it would take trust tantamount to saintliness on his part to want someone so desperate for his job that she would spend part of her own imagining the consequences of his demise. In fact, a whole new take on the expression "Vice President"!And how much respect does Hillary really have for Obama, to seriously want him even as her under-study, in the unlikely event that she prevails?Justin, I have a few days free to give voice to some serious thought about an alternative to conflict in Afghanistan. It's all well and good being a peacenik - but how do we stop this silly-killyness? My idea is taking shape, but I need a little help from my friends! I'd be submitting a handful of chunks (problem, reasoning process, solution), but need a headline blog. Have you covered the candidates' Afghanistan policies yet? And did you listen to that Pogues' song about Gallipoli?!Considering that George is such a fan of old Churchill, he seemed to have overlooked Gallipoli as a terrible Churchillian blunder. Shame he didn't contemplate it more before he went into the Arab world with all guns ablazin', don't you think?There is method in my madness, mate! Wed 28 May 2008 15:57:46 GMT+1 JuanLazcano Yikes. Get over it! So what... What's the issue with referencing assassination? I mean you're seriously hammering this point home here but maybe i'm missing something. I don't see the issue.Are you to just forget the past and not talk about it? She was clearly talking about the fact that people were still in the race up until June. I'm unsure but i'm willing to bet those are the only two recent cases of a candidate not been chosen until June. She's not looking for Obama to be shot. She's pointing out that primaries can go on until June. Let's be realistic here.I'm happy there's a candidate that's just willing to say what she feels. Stop getting hung up over this.I mean watch some of the crap and ridiculous stuff you show on the TV. Wed 28 May 2008 15:55:01 GMT+1 possumpam This post has been Removed Wed 28 May 2008 15:47:04 GMT+1 Ian_the_chopper As an outsider, a UK citizen, I find two things very worrying re the US democratic race.The first is that two large states have effectively been disenfranchised and as one of them Florida may be one of the few States that decides the election the democrats cannot have a true victor. Had Obama won Florida then I think it would have been all over long ago. Had Clinton won then many of the subsequent elections could have been much different.By denying a view from Florida it then allows Hillary Clinton to claim victim hood.Her claims that Obama cannot win big states and cannot win over the white working classes sits unanswered.I fear the Democratic Party could have handled this all much better. Wed 28 May 2008 15:36:22 GMT+1 jacksforge now this is totally irrelevant but has anyone noticed the strange times listed for the postings now is 4 30 PM? Wed 28 May 2008 15:33:35 GMT+1 newBodo Here we go again. "Everyone I disagree with is a racist". You have yet to write up something intelligent (and without spelling errors), all you do is agree with Ed and disagree (with invectives) to what others say. Classic Obama supporter. All emotional and no content. Wed 28 May 2008 15:30:24 GMT+1 jacksforge so my comment moderated was off topic, yet for once it was actually on topic . i'm confused(ok happens).I was saying that I believe she has been trying her hardest to get a message out without actually saying it. much as the racial jabs of her campaign. that she may have been trying not to say as much as she said ,without not saying it.confusing but not half as confused as some of her supporters. Wed 28 May 2008 15:21:26 GMT+1 jacksforge That guy in the first video needs to stop ranting..true, but so does hillary.As to marcus arillious the unwise.looking through some post i see you think McCain will be serving Oreos for dessert.Is that not a racially offensive term that you " I'm not really racist" put in to get by the BBC moderators. By any chance were you talking of more than the cookie here. But you don't use racial slurs do you? Wed 28 May 2008 15:09:09 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Good analysis of Clinton's Win or destroy attitude.McChip and Co. will be loving every minute of it. :-(xxedHanging onto bitterness and resentment is like eating poison and expecting somebody else to die. Wed 28 May 2008 15:05:53 GMT+1 jacksforge the mc cain link shows the gop mentality.after ejecting the hecklers he says we don't interupt peoples free speech. no just kick them out. how a presidential cantidate with media broadcasting all his speeches can complain because someone wanted a few moments to express themselves is rich. free speech in this country is guarenteed to more than presidential cantidates. Oh but we live in an authoritarian state. I forgot for a second.Oh and I like the if she is this bad a 10 wait till 3 am,comment. Wed 28 May 2008 14:46:52 GMT+1 Open Book There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton is desperate and will do anything to remain focus of attention. What she said with regards to Robert Kennedy is not only very childish, but outright stupid. Politicians' credibility is already at an all time low. What is she trying to prove? Hillary, so far, has done more damage than good to reverse the negative perceptions people have about politicians. Her statements are very general, ambiguous, lacking vital credibility a leader needs. Hillary should tell people what she will do and how she will go about improving lives of people, as opposed Barack Obama or John McCain. In addition, Hillary would be very wise in making it clear that she does not believe "do not ask - do not tell" is a good policy when facing challenging circumstances as her husband Bill Clinton did. People are sick and tired of everything they've seen and heard, so far, and want vital changes, as opposed to business as usual. Wed 28 May 2008 14:43:29 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart More embarrassing connections for McChiplobbying disclosure forms, filed by the giant Swiss bank UBS, list McCain's campaign co-chair, former Texas Sen. Phil Gramm, as a lobbyist dealing specifically with legislation regarding the mortgage crisis as recently as Dec. 31, 2007.And, right now, on Wall Street, UBS shares are trading downwards gently after losing about 15% of their value in a few minutes yesterday....This is made more embarrassing because Gramm is a FINANCIAL advisor to McChip, and not un-connected with major participants (culprits?) in the whole sub-prime credit crisis.If Obama can contrive to such a bunch of losers, he'll deserve it, but I doubt that'll be the result.;-)ed Wed 28 May 2008 14:29:09 GMT+1 jacksforge lol scott Mc Clellan's out of the liars closet.(white house)Now did clinton know what he knew, I suspect a fair amount , including the hype to war. as to all that say impeachment is over talked (though hardly discussed) now is the time to start, . it seems a few more might be willing to speak the truth. and if we are lucky hilleery might feature in these trials . for her part in reading the SIC and not saying WAIT this war is Bull. Wed 28 May 2008 14:27:09 GMT+1 Candace9839 Rules committee says legally no full seating for Florida and Michigan Wed 28 May 2008 14:18:19 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Her Royal Clintoness speaks:"I'm The Better Candidate 'Based On Every Analysis, Every Poll'"Delusional?Certifiable, IMOxxed Wed 28 May 2008 13:53:34 GMT+1 TomGilchrist That guy in the first video needs to stop ranting... it's not like he's invited Hillary to give her views on what was said. In fact, he is like so many in the US media using his show as a platform for more anti-Hillary sentiment.Hillary for President :) Wed 28 May 2008 13:51:29 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart McChip heckled at non-proliferation speech.Free-speakers ejected, of course.;-)ed Wed 28 May 2008 13:38:39 GMT+1 ronaine A completely theoretical question here, so therefore probably irrelevant.Imagine if the primary and caucus results had been exactly reversed - do people here think that Sen. Obama would have approached it all similarly to Sen. Clinton? Would he have stayed in the race this long, and employed similar arguments for doing so?My hunch is that he would have withdrawn by now. Whatever you may feel about his politics, Obama has set his stall out as a man of integrity and as such would have gained little and lost a lot pursuing a Clinton-type strategy.Sen. Clinton's campaign mistakes have been gone through with a fine toothcomb in the US media and here in the UK. And her campaign's assertion of media bias and sexism isn't too wide of the mark. I have noticed hints of misogyny in some of the postings here - never mind the blatant stuff you read in the US media blogs.But my feeling is that the real cause for her sensitivities stems from a notion of age and entitlement, rather than a gender bias. The same sense of entitlement which justifies her tactics lately. Wed 28 May 2008 12:38:11 GMT+1 Candace9839 Not only were her timeline examples poor ones, she first made the reference on March 6. Hence, her argument about Ted Kennedy being on her mind was bogus as well. She has three key dates coming up - the DNC rules meeting on May 31, and the three remaining primaries on June 1 and 3. She is already calling Puerto Rico a mandate from the Hispanic vote. Right. Anything that would favour her always is. Enough is enough. Hopefully Jimmy Carter will make good on his promise to have a quiet word with her on June 3. Wed 28 May 2008 12:37:13 GMT+1 Scotcom Of course, Hillary doing this sort of thing might not be the worst for Obama"Whoa, at least I'm not that nutcase," seems as good a starting point as any for a presidential candidate.That said, it was the same basis both Dukakis and Mondale used, and look where it got them.If Clinton/Obama don't win, then it'll be the first three-term administration since the war - although it's also the first election since the war where neither the sitting president, or vice president has been a candidate. Wed 28 May 2008 12:36:58 GMT+1 newMacfarlane An extraordinary journey in US elections. Clinton was clearly referring to instances where nominations had not been secured before this time. Reference to an assasination has been blown out of all proportions but what else do we expect. The "Special Comment" piece is hilarious, what a muppet......just one long burble! Wed 28 May 2008 12:04:34 GMT+1 robsonrobstar I think Obama might as well just get used to these dirty tricks and view them as practice for the future. If he wins the nomination I'm sure they will be nothing compared to the ones the Republicans will use when the fight goes head-to-head with McCain.Just think back to the last election when Bush somehow managed to get back in. I really believe there will be another 4 years of Republican government in the US and I feel the NeoCons are getting very excited about a resurgence. Wed 28 May 2008 11:35:50 GMT+1 erankew This latest Gaffe is just that; a gaffe, I'm sure she wouldnt be foolish enough to plan such a comment. She has nothing to gain, especially considering how popular the Kennedy's are. But shes dragging the Dem party down with her, party interests are obviously not on her mind. Shes still pressing for the votes from Michigan and Florida to be counted. Its ridiculous. It may be wrong for people to ask her to drop out, that is after all, her choice. But all this trying to get the votes from those states counted and the delegates seated is ridiculous. HRC SUPPORTERS ANSWER ME THIS.WHY NOW?All candidates endorsed stripping Michigan and Florida of their vote and delegates, including HRC.She once even said those states wouldnt matter cause they broke the rules. Many of her supporters on the DNC Rules committee supported the decision to strip the states of their votes. Her chief supporter in michigan was the one that signed the bill into law that moved up the primary for that state.PLEASE EXPLAIN YOURSELF.Politicians are opportunistic by nature, but THIS is ridiculous. Wed 28 May 2008 11:23:38 GMT+1 Ed Iglehart Another rat behaving like rats do?No surprises.xxed Wed 28 May 2008 10:40:52 GMT+1