ncawley wrote:

"@AlecsMom: KNOW WHAT YOU WRITE OR DON'T WRITE AT ALL......

KNOW WHAT YOU WRITE OR DON’T WRITE AT ALL & NEVER COMPARE THE GWB ADMINISTRATION TO THAT OF PRESIDENT CLINTON."

________________________

First, I see that you conveniently dodge the fact that I never wrote that Bill Clinton didn't do anything for our country. You did. So I do know what I am writing about and you, quite obviously, don't.

Secondly, I can and will compare the Bush and Clinton tenures in office and who cares if you don't like it. Since a Clinton is running for office it's both an obvious and appropriate comparison. Just because Clinton wasn't nearly as bad as Bush doesn't make him great either. And he wasn't. NAFTA wasn't and isn't great. Welfare to work wasn't and isn't great. Don't ask don't tell wasn't and isn't great. Failure to reform our educational or health care system wasn't and isn't great.

You want to see the Clinton years with nostalgic, rose-colored glasses. Unfortunately, most of the population of the U.S. has far clearer vision and better recall of events.

You stated that I "insinuated" that the Bush presidency was better than Clinton's. Wrong. I stated that Clinton failed to rally people behind big issues during his tenure and Bush was able to do just that. My example (which I know well as a teacher), is NCLB.

NCLB was a flawed federal mandate from the start, flawed in its implementation, a burden for many poorer districts with few remedies and many constraints. And yet, this legislation was passed and has, for better or worse, transformed schools and districts across the nation. Criticize Bush all you want, but he got what he asked for and then some. That's what happens when you are able to stand in front of the American people and call them to your side. Perhaps if the Clintons weren't so busy putting out fires (some of their own making)during his administration, they might have been able to pass more ambitious and progressive legislation.

That was just aired on the news. Patty Solis-Doyle resigns from Clinton campaign. Perhaps this is fallout from the recent losses.

I can't help but see this as something in the works for some time. Iowa was most likely the catalyst as the Clintons watched Hillary's big lead totally evaporate and then proceed to eke out a win in NH. Solis-Doyle hung in there but the writing has been on the wall. I think the results from Saturday just sealed her fate.

My 2 cents: I don't think the big problem has been the campaign manager. Lately, it's been Bill's gaffe's.

you wrote:

"others have said it but it bears repeating: in states with a lot of dem VOTERS Hillary is winning. Obama is winning dem caususes in REPUBLICAN states and states where the Dem electorate is mostly black, some states are neither reliably Dem nor Republican and obama is doing ok in some of them but the trend is clear."

__________________________________________________________

Oh really? Barack Obama has now won more than twice as many states as Hillary Clinton, all over the map. He's doing very well overall among his own party. I also find it funny that you dismiss black voters...are they lesser democrats than white democrat voters?

More importantly: Exactly which states do you think Hillary will have to be competetive in to win against John McCain? That's the big point you're missing. Hillary NEEDS to be able to sway voters all over the map, not just a few big states on the coasts. That kind of thinking is what has resulted in Dubya's 2000 win. I can't fathom why you think it is beneficial for a candidate to be nearly-exclusively appealing to their own party.

I think the author got it wrong on this one. I haven't read the book through...only leafed through it in the store. The verbal harrassment is supposed to be funny/sarcastic. It's bitchy talk not meant to be mean-spirited. Personally, I couldn't go on any diet where I couldn't eat sushi or coffee so this out for me. But if you wanted to, you could adopt a couple of the suggestions on diet and probably improve your overall health. My biggest caveat though is, as the author points out, neither writer has a real clue about nutrition and that will hurt their cause, since most people are buying the book as a diet device.

Number six wrote:

"I find it strange for people here to argue or at least imply that because Obama didn't win CA, NY, MA, NJ, and other big states, that somehow means that he wouldn't win them in a general election. Does anyone really think that four of the most liberal states in this nation are somehow not going to go for whoever is the democratic nominee?"

________________________________________________________

Thank you! That's the part I don't get too. These states are already in the democratic camp. CA go for McCain? Really?

I live in NJ and I wish more of my fellow citizens had voted Obama but so what? We have a Dem governor and a strongly democratic population. They will go for virtually any democrat over a right-wing reincarnation from John McCain. The more he beefs up his right-wing cred, the more votes he loses in places like PA and NJ. I'm not enamored of HRC but I won't vote for anyone who spouts Reagan-era nonsense right up to the general election. Of course, I predict a strong flip-flop from McCain after the dems select a nominee. Sad really.