Seriously WES, HRC going after repub cross over vote is only going to offend repubs and dems.

I don't think the issue of the ad is it's 'fairness'. I think we all agree that we expect each candidate to do compete as hard as they can.

That being said, I think the issue is whether its a good ad or a smart ad. Whether the ad will help her beat Obama. The answer to that is debatable of course depending on who you are, but I think a lot of Dems, sick of Bush's fear mongering for the last 7 years won't like it. And of course there is the little matter of Bill's quote that dkmoorhead thankfully provided settles the issue quite nicely for me.

Or is HRC's spin just insulting? Do they think we're all idiots?

Lets see, if HRC doesn't win, she's effectively out of the race. Bill and other HRC staff have stated these are MUST WIN states for HRC. Obama has won 11 states in a a row. I think he can afford to lose a couple. And yes he has spent more money than HRC, BECAUSE HE IS RAISING MORE MONEY THAN HRC and campaigned hard, and the result is he has closed big gaps in the polls in which HRC has led.

Yet I'm expected to believe that somehow Obama's campaign is on the line here.

Sheesh. HRC, you can if you have to risk losing gracelessly in order to win, I'd say its not worth it to win. But thats just me.

Actually because of the proportional nature of the Dem primaries, HRC needs to win Ohio and Texas by like 20% points to make up enough delegates to close the gap with Obama. What do you think the chances of that are happening?

If she wins but just by a little, Obama still wins.

About that 25$ contribution, it seems like a waste anyway. HRC is providing all the anti-HRC advertising Obama needs. Save your 25$ for the General.

Yes, but Obama raised $50 Million.

Also. as I wrote about HRC's '2 to 1 spending' line, I did question it, but decided to let it slide because it is illustrative of how her campaign is doing when her own 'facts' portray her as being out funded, out spent, and out organized on the ground.

First of all, penalizing the children of people serving in the military is just insane. (although republicans seem eager to penalize the actual members of the military. But thats a different issue)

Secondly, you know Obama is drooling to run against McCain in the General election.

How HRC would have handled it... if she'd thought of it.

I could be wrong, but based on the way she's campaigned, this seems like the kind of thing she would have used against McCain rather than be gracious and smart about it.

Just say EVERYTHING and hope something sticks I guess.

I think the big problem for HRC now is that the more things she tries, the more she dilutes her core message. The more she dilutes her core message, the harder it is to rally her supporters or gain new ones.

RE: loss of anon & lack of trolls.

I wouldn't swear it's true, but good catch.

Well I was trying to be fair and comment without saying what I thought of her core message. Though it seems like her core message wasn't doing it for her anyway.

Ya, when that Times article came out last week about her finances and how much money she was spending on consultants, etc... the thought that popped into my head was: Looks like people took advantage of her 'inevitability' to score some dough

Crook rejects criminal charge in crime.

I believe in the initial article I read about this, they quoted a NY CBS exec not only denying a tech prob in NY but saying as far as he knew this could only be an editorial decision on Alabama's end.

Hagee doesn't want Allah killing jews. He wants HIS god to kill all the jews.

I was never an HRC supporter so I'm probably not a good source, but I'd say it was: "I'm not a republican + Experience" as opposed to Obama's "I'm not a republican + Hope & Change"

Problem was her 'experience' was either either seen as misrepresented by a lot of people (certainly I saw it that way), OR even more unfortunate, her 'experience' is what Obama was offering 'change' from.

I would say Obama's success is based on his campaign being designed to run against HRC whereas HRC's wasn't designed to run against anyone in particular because of the 'inevitability' thing.

I think Obama should answer all pertinent questions, but I can't believe HRC is the one to ask them. You'd think someone that avoided answering so many questions about her own past scandals would want to keep clear of this. Oh well, I hope its exciting.

Of course the race isn't over but when a senior member of one team is distancing himself from that team you can take that as a pretty good hint where to lay your money.

That she was 'just getting warmed up' (lol)

And she said that she had momentum on her side. Well I hope she gets to be pres in the fantasy world she's living in. Not saying she won't win, but jeez, what a stupid comment.

And worst of all, she pointed out that this is a 'war-time election' *shudder* PLEASE DON'T USE BUSHISMS!!!

All the times I've heard people call her bush-lite I thought it was silly, but after the war-election comment, and following her accusing Obama of rove-like tactics when he attacked her POSITIONS on ISSUES, then went ahead and released a total fear-based ad, meant to attack Obama's character I must say I think the bush-lite comment not to be too far off base.