it turns out that one particular candidate is extremely popular in Obama, Japan:

http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5hVjChkBupyywASEUQVxA9Uzf__OwD8UQ0KKG0

all of these negative nellies. I like your mug.

I think the relevant issue is that Clinton has been drubbing Obama for a bill that she cosponsored (!). Further, neither she nor the newspaper that endorsed her has proof of a backroom deal. The New York story about Exelon has been over these boards dozens of times in the past few days alone.

So far, I'm glad to know that each smoking gun on Obama seems to be more of a squirt gun than a real gun. Yes, he may have faults. He exaggerated if he said he passed the bill instead of merely trying to get it passed.

But the meat of this story is not only Clinton's exaggerated criticisms, but why are there so many Republicans or pro-Republican Democrats on the Environmental Committee that a simple piece of legislation like this--a mandatory notification to citizens in a community when there is a leak--cannot get passed? This country has been under a stranglehold of anti-regulatory, pro business welfare government that is neglecting citizens of communities that deserve better protection.

I hope that if there are people who have supported Republicans in the past few elections reading these boards that they will consider voting for a Democrat (a real one: not a Bush Democrat) this year for the white house. The Republican party (and a good half of the Democratic Party) needs a timeout to reorganize its commitment to the public well being. The Iraq war and the lack of regulation when it comes to environmental problems with the nuclear industry only being two significant examples of what we are up against.

I have looked up your story about Obama and the Peru agreement. Neither Clinton nor Obama voted in favor of it in the senate. You can look it up. Your only source is a blog where someone quotes part of Obama's speech during one of the debates months ago. You don't state that Clinton has voted for more trade agreements than Obama has, although to be fair, this is primarily because she has been in the senate longer.

But I should ignore you in order to create a more peaceful atmosphere on these boards. It just depresses me to see you repeating the same unverified story day after day.

But here's a place online to send support to Pelosi for keeping the fight going and "defying" Bush on FISA

https://secure.aclu.org/site/SPageServer?pagename=Pelosi_Hoyer_FISA_thankyou&s_s=taf

sign it...send it to your friends....why not? Every little bit we can make a difference we should try.

and the member of a messianic cult I have to say that the Leader is without fault. I should say our Great Leader is Without Fault.

* * *

Seriously, I will say that when I read the comment it struck me as slightly sexist, and a slight attempt at humor. And slightly condescending.

But it's true that I didn't find the comment deeply offensive toward women, and I haven't read a lot into it. Maybe he would have been better off saying something like what Clinton said in the Nevada debates. "I don't think they're attacking me because I'm a woman. They're attacking me because I'm ahead." But then again, if he claimed to be ahead, he could easily fall into the category of arrogance. And claiming to be ahead has not been a prescription for winning in this election.

I do think that its interesting and that when Michelle Obama tried using humor in her speeches, talking about Barack being stinky or not putting up the butter, she got knocked down by Democrats like Maureen Dowd for being castrating. I think the fact that the Obamas try to use humor in their approach (even when it falls a little short like here) is overall a not a bad thing. Politics are far too serious to be taken too seriously.

I agree, lateagain. There's also this

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=8113

analyzing differences between policy advisors on both Democratic foreign policy teams. Samantha Power has been intriguing to me for a long time, and I'm glad that she's interested in formulating policies for peace and the prevention of genocide.

I disagree that Obama is being disingenuous. If Clinton won all the remaining primaries and led in the pledged delegate count, then that would be a different situation. Currently Obama leads in pledged delegates by over ten percent. If he maintains or increases this lead, then Clinton's strategy starts to get worrisome.

If she wins this nomination through both 1) pulling superdelegates to her side event though Obama maintains a clear lead in the pledged delegates, AND 2) using the Florida and Michigan delegates to put herself over the top, then she will divide the party. Particularly strategy number TWO is an ugly strategy and will remind voters of a side of politics than we's rather not deal with this election year.

Whoever wins the majority of pledged delegates, unless there is a strong reason not to (a large scandal or fumble on the side of one candidate) should be the winner. I think the superdelegates realize this and don't want to risk dividing the party for either candidate. I just hope that the will of the people makes itself clearly known in the next group of contests, so things don't have to get worse than they are now. If Clinton can win the majority of delegates, not including her "wins" in Michigan against uncontested and Florida, then I will vote for her in the general election. I will even respect the decisions of party superdelegates. But I'm not ready to deal with her breaking Democratic Party rules for Clinton to win the nomination.

I wonder if others feel the way I do.