Goddessa—Buffing the Clinton label is their entire MO, and in this race THEY trashed it like nothing else could.

My Alias—The proof is in the results that you do not wish to see. Obama has taken the election away from the entitlement clan. “Obama is a talker. Clinton is a doer.” This is too absurd to respond to. Hillary supporters don’t like it when someone turns their/her nasty tactics against them. But she’ll be gone in 3 weeks and then it won’t matter.

Countrywoman- “As I watched Ms. Clinton campaign I began to feel uneasy, and offended by her tactics. Then I tried to think up excuses for her.” ME TOO. “she didn’t give a damn about her Party OR the country. For her, it seems to be all about winning, whereas Obama wants the office as a means to make things better.” They are block-think. This thread was heavily weighted in Hillary, and very nasty against Obama—-I evened out BY THEIR tactics and they just lower the bar to the standards….you’re crazy…you must drink. Imply Renata is going plagerize—-the ONLY reason for ONE user of the site to remind ANOTHER USER of the site of the COPYRIGHT LAWS. They can be as smary as they want about Senator Obama. They can used veiled racists comments, imply his supporters are crazy, that they drink and steal, really lovely…the fact is he is a GREAT MAN and HE is going to be the 44th President. So they might as well get used to it.

Peg O My Heart—-Doesn’t take much to delight a Hillary supporter, does it? Hope you’re as thrilled when Senator Obama is the nom within 2-3 weeks and she is the race-baiting, ar mongering has-been that she is.

Deni G—That’s the level of discourse here. When I saw the write-up on a new site it sounded inelligent and get here and nothing different than the typical, just a glossier look. They can attack and attack Senator Obama, a GREAT MAN, and then when receive it back resorts to veiled racist remarks, calling someone crazy, implying that they drink, or are crazy, or are going to plagerize from the site and thus a reminder to another ADULT about copyright laws. That’s the ONLY reason to mention something that is known law and also printed at the bottom of each page. No, I don’t drink, take drugs, nor am I crazy—-I am defending my candidate after I came here thinking it was as billed an intelligent site for discourse on politics. It isn’t. Just more of the Clampets and the McCoys.

Eleanor- “Please tell me I am not the only one here who has made this connection: BHStarlet/Suzanne—same crazy person.” I don’t know what this means, but it sounds crazy—that’s for sure. But then I’ve gotten used to CRAZY since I found this place and am here to DEFEND MY CANDIDATE. Ms. Peabody most certainly DOES deserve vitirol for implying that another INTELLIGENT user of this site might not be aware of copyright law. SHE doesn’t need to be instructing other ADULTS in the USE of ANYTHING.

Eleanor- ““BeverlyHillsStarlet/Suzanne/Princess/nutjob” Excuse ME?? And this means what and is NOT insane??? Another lunatic.

Lorraine—that’s exactly how I read it. “Oh we can’t have him because he’ll just get assassinated” as in, foregone conclusion because he’s black. That is a terrible thing to say and if they don’t get it, it’s because they have a race-baiting leader and their sensibilities have been thrown off kilter. Even the NYT’s wants the superdelegates to step in and decide and end this thing because of her “low-ball” “race-baiting” tactics. And that’s coming from the paper that endorsed her. “The Low Road to VictoryBack to Article » It is past time for Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton to acknowledge that the campaign’s negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election…..It is getting to be time for the superdelegates to do what the Democrats had in mind when they created superdelegates: settle a bloody race that cannot be won at the ballot box. Mrs. Clinton once had a big lead among the party elders, but has been steadily losing it, in large part because of her negative campaign” entire editorial FROM THe PAPER THAT ENDORSED HER http://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/23/opinion/23wed1.html?_r=1&oref=slogin

My Alias- The point ISN’T that it was a slam-dunk for HIM, but that SHE thought it would be over by Super Tues and a slam-dunk for HER. It hasn’t been. And it isn’t neck-in-neck. This is as of 11:30AM Bev Hills time: Obama 1,888 total delegates, 137 more needed to cinch the nom Clinton 1,717 total with 308 more needed. He can lose half the following races and still win. The DNC Rules Committee could ad back in Michigan and Fl that SHE and all the other cadidates then agreed to forego, and he’d STILL be up 100. It’s so over.

No Lorraine it couldn’t be more heartless, cruel, outrageous or in the worst of taste….they can dis it out but doesn’t like it when heaped back on them.

You are so right lorraine bringing up assasination in reference to Obama and NOT HRC was a thinly coded message no matter how they wish to deny it once called on it. It is massively offensive. But massively offensive doesn’t matter when they’re doing it. I’m giving them a dose of pay-back and just look how they cry. Can dish it out but can’t take it just like their leader.

Lady Gator—Yes you should be so proud voting for a race-baiting candidate that even the NTY that endorsed her is so sickened with that in an editorial called for the superdelegates to make the decision and end it because she was so divisive. Oh and there’s the war she voted for that has killed over a million innocent people. Give me a break about being on the moral high ground because you’re NOT.

MEOW…….Meow……meowowow

What do you mean ‘if’ he gets the nom? Clintstone thought the nom would be wrapped-up for her by Super Tuesday. Today Obama is 138 delegates away with an unbeatable lead. Open your own eyes.

Clintstone supporters are sooooo concerned about fair fighting except when it comes to the Clintstones who are the dirtiest….they can’ts stand it when others do the same.