Obama never pledged any such thing. He only promised to sit down and try to work something out with the republican nominee IF he becomes the dem nominee. I think the author is a Hillary shill (surprise, surprise from a Salon article)or just a coward who is afraid to go after McCain's indiscretions without being "fair and balanced" and going after a dem. too.

Reasons to believe?? "In 1933, 24 percent of the work force was unemployed. In February 2008, according to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the U.S. unemployment rate was 4.8 percent (though there are reasons to believe that number significantly underestimates the true picture)."

There are statements of fact. Unemployment--along with inflation--is one of many tortured statistics employed by the Gov, and especially the Fed. Real inflation is more likely 11-15% so we are not as far off as people think.

Meant "These" instead of "There" and "unemployment" instead of "inflation." DOH!

Well, since people don't like to look for previous letters I'll just repost his letter:

"Hillary Clinton signed a pledge that specifically addressed the issues in Michigan and Florida.

She pledged, and I quote:

Four State Pledge Letter 2008

Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, South Carolina

August 31, 2007

WHEREAS, Over a year ago, the Democratic National Committee established a 2008 nominating calendar;

WHEREAS, this calendar honors the racial, ethnic, economic and geographic diversity of our party and our country;

WHEREAS, the DNC also honored the traditional role of retail politics early in the nominating process, to insure that money alone will not determine our

presidential nominee;

WHEREAS, it is the desire of Presidential campaigns, the DNC, the states and the American people to bring finality, predictability and common sense to the

nominating calendar.

THEREFORE, I _____________, Democratic Candidate for President, pledge I shall not campaign or participate in any state which schedules a presidential election primary or caucus before Feb. 5, 2008, except for the states of Iowa, Nevada, New Hampshire and South Carolina, as "campaigning" is defined by rules and regulations of the DNC.

My dictionary says the meaning of participate is:

par·tic·i·pate (pär-ts-pt)

v. par·tic·i·pat·ed, par·tic·i·pat·ing, par·tic·i·pates

v.intr.

To take part in something: participated in the festivities.

To share in something: If only I could participate in your good fortune.v.tr.

The clear meaning of Hillary's pledge is that she would not only NOT campaign in Florida or Michigan, she would not participate, i.e., take part in OR share in the outcome of those primaries.

Look - she's allegedly a lawyer. Did she not READ what she signed, like she didn't read the NIE before voting for AUMF?? Or is she simply a simpleton? LEARN TO READ, HILLARY . .. before you sign something.

Or is this just one more "depends on what the definition of IS is" moment for the Clintons??"

Thank you Robert. Of course, I expect Hillary supporters to fully ignore it--again.

You do realize that 16 months from Obama taking office will be the middle of 2010? And that 60,000 to 80,000 troops by the end of 2010 is a significant reduction?

Clinton was-is targeting the 50-50 segment of society: Over 50 or making under $50,000. My guess is they that wanted to not reveal how rich they are so as not to alienate the under 50k group. Just my suspicion.

While I do support Obama, there is nothing astounding about that meteoric rise in the Clintons' income. BC gets 250k for EACH DAY he does a speaking engagement. Plus he had a big best seller--ask J.K. Rowling how rich you can get off writing books. The problem isn't that they are rich, it's that they "triangulate" every single move they make. That lack of triangulation is one of the things that makes Obama so refreshing.

Reality-based Liberal and chhalibi, I was trying to be fair to the Clintons but the fact they "mischecked" their financial disclosure form--which I guess is like "misspeaking"--by a couple orders of magnitude, well, it's not just wrong but seems borderline illegal. Man, fool me once shame on you, fool me twice shame on me.

was discussed yesterday and it has to do with payments from Ron Burkle. Everything else seems straightforward but this issue is going to be dug into plenty more, I would bet.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/04/04/what-did-bill-do-to-get-1_n_95189.html

No Shit, Sherlock!

"We're fighting about the same things..." No Shit, Sherlock.

"I've found evidence of him drinking..." No Shit, Sherlock.

"He hasn't saved any money to move out..." No Shit, Sherlock.

"I can't trust him..." No Shit, Sherlock.

Etc, etc, etc.

Everyone would like to reduce the number of abortions, and reasoning people realize contraceptives and education are the best way to achieve that. But why are you so opposed to abortion in the first place if you are not a fundie?

I don't think we can compare abortion rates in the 50's with now since they didn't keep track of it back then. Comparing rates from the 70's, 80's, and 90's would be more insightful. Plus the fact that "abstinence only" is the only thing being taught now days. One thing I am curious about, though: Why shouldn't a woman be allowed to use abortion as a birth control method? Albeit, it will probably be one of last resort but it still is a viable option. Why do you think it shouldn't be allowed?

Did anyone watch ol' Jowls today? Either dem will destroy jowls in a debate. Jowls' flip flopping makes Kerry look like a two ton piece of granite. I'm waiting for someone to ask him about his stance on abortion.

The only question is whether it's intentional or not. Intentional would mean she's purposefully trying to rankle Obama supporters. Unintentionally means she has no understanding of the black community or doesn't care and is just trying to knee-cap Obama. Either way, she is not objective and, unknowingly, is working to undermine a woman's right to choose. Way to go, Joan!