Similarly, they [Apple] will never capture 10% of the cellphone market without allowing the iPhone to be used on other cell carriers.

Huh? They've already captured more smartphone market share than that in North America:

----------

In its first full quarter of sales, the iPhone has already climbed past Microsoft’s entire lineup of Windows Mobile smartphones in North America, according to figures compiled by Canalys and published by Symbian. That puts the iPhone ahead of smartphones running Symbian, Linux, and the Palm OS, but behind the first place RIM BlackBerry.

Source: http://www.roughlydrafted.com/2007/12/14/canalys-symbian-apple-iphone-already-leads-windows-mobile-in-us-market-share-q3-2007/

Barack Obama is a charismatic cult leader in the mode of Jim Jones, make no mistake about it.

You are joking, right? That's so nuts I'd expect to see it coming from the Freepers, or maybe Ann Coulter, not a Hillary booster.

Oh, wait a minute . . .

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1963046/posts

Ann, is that you?

I can't imagine a single person believing in, or acting on the advice of, someone as seriously screwed up as Ann Coulter. Even Dittoheads' credibility has limits.

If it does, we haven't found it, yet. If you go over to Free Republic you'll see that plenty of the Dittoheads are saying they'll either skip the election or vote for Hillary. Don't know if that'll hold 'till November, but I wouldn't put it past them.

A huge percentage of the Republican base absolutely hates McCain - the Bushes, Cheney, Rove and figures like Rush and Coulter have been working to ensure that for about a decade now. I don't think they'll be able to unscramble that omelet over the next 9 months, but we'll see.

Am I the only one who finds this more than a little bizarre? Are these separate individuals, or just one or two loons posting the same discredited BS in every thread?

The wheels are coming off the Clinton bus.

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/vote2008/story?id=4269776&page=1

You can pretend that Obama has momentum, but he's winning the sorts of states he's been winning all along. Southern states, plains states, and small rich white states.

You can pretend that Obama doesn't have any momentum, but the facts say otherwise. He was far behind Clinton just 3 months ago in the polls in most states - that gap has closed nationwide since Iowa. He's raising more money than her, and from smaller donors. He also just won Maine, a state which is neither Southern, nor in the Plains, nor rich (37th in the nation in 2005 per-capita income).

So far, Hillary has spent $80 million plus on her campaign, and she's in the fight of her life with Obama, who has spent only half that, around $40 million. Obama currently holds a significant fundraising advantage over Clinton, one that isn't likely to go away over the next two months. For the first time in this race, he can afford to outspend her, as opposed to being outspent 2:1.

Maybe it isn't over for Hillary yet, but none of this bodes well for her. Even states like Texas which were once considered a lock for Clinton are now gonna be in play. If Obama goes on winning the smaller states, he probably only needs to pull off a victory in Texas, Ohio or Pennsylvania to clinch the nomination.

He and his supporters may be right, he may be the future, but he is NOT the present. The current world is just too *darn* dangerous for inexperience.

Obama has more experience in office than Lincoln had when he became President of the United States. Are you seriously suggesting that Lincoln shouldn't have been elected, due to his "lack of experience"? Because I wouldn't trade Lincoln for a thousand Hillary Clintons.

Experience counts, but there are plenty of people in this country who have more experience in elective office than Hillary or Obama. Like Dick Cheney. That doesn't mean they'd be any good as President. I want someone with leadership skills and good judgment, and my experience with the Clintons over the past 16 years suggests they're sadly lacking on both fronts. You only need to look at the shambles she's made of her campaign - one which has outspent Obama 2:1 - for a demonstration of how ineffective a leader she is.

Yes, I did, in that Obama has more experience as an elected official than Lincoln did when he was elected President. So if "experience" is your sole criteria, I'd say that alone is a pretty inadequate way to judge candidate, judged by this country's own history.

If you think this country is mismanaged and falling apart now, wait until some know-nothing who never stood for a damn thing in his life and is a mainstream media MIRAGE gets done with it.

You know, Obama didn't just drop off of some turnip truck and bounce into the Senate. The guy worked as a community organizer for years in Chicago, before entering Harvard Law School, where he graduated magna cum laude. That's, um, something of an accomplishment.

He served two successful terms in the Illinois State Senate before running for the US Senate in 2004. Unlike the current Resident of the White House, nobody bought this guy his station in life. Obama earned it the old fashioned American way, through brains and hard work. I'm not sure why anybody on the Left would be resentful or dismissive of that.

How could this neophyte democrat ever believe he is capable or experienced enough to govern?

Gee, I dunno . . . how could that neophyte Republican Lincoln believe he was capable or experienced enough to govern? That guy had less experience in Federal office than Obama!

The nerve of some politicians!