Yes, this is still very much a free country. Has anyone appeared at your door for making political statements? I know some people who grew up in Romania and they can tell you lots about Soviet "dead souls" - the kind that make you dead for speaking your mind.

Your brand of bright-eyed idealism is what brought us to this sorry state of affairs. Where might we be today if Gore, also a DNC hack by Salon Obama fan standards, was President?

Hillary Clinton is not perfect, and she cannot compare to the saintly status that Obama has achieved without much basis in his fan's minds. I tell you this tho - she has a 92% liberal voting record and would make an amazing president. She has fantastic chances of being elected against McCain. She does not deserve the vicious bashing she gets here. You should all be ashamed of yourselves.

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.

he is the type to spend pages on Ethics and Faith. I am surprised he is not a 'reverend.'

I’m not sure if this has come up before here, but a good argument can be made that if Hillary doesn’t win the nomination, it was because of her decision to run for Senate from New York in 2002.

When the Clintons left the White House, I remember there was speculation that they considered moving to either California, New York or Illinois. All three are also major media markets, though NY and Los Angeles have a larger reach than Chicago, nationally. California because of their ties to the entertainment community and their popularity there, Illinois because Hillary could legitimately call it “home” (and because the Clintons were extremely popular there, too), and New York because, well, because New York has a lot of delegates and its media reaches into several other states with a large number of delegates.

California was a non-starter politically because of its two popular Democratic Senators. Illinois looked good, because a very conservative Republican, Pete Fitzgerald held one Senate seat in a Blue state. Problem is that seat wasn’t up until 2004, giving Hillary less lead time into the 2008 election. New York, on the other hand, had an open Senate seat in 2002. She could also point to Bobby Kennedy moving to New York to run for the Senate and winning.

Had Hillary chosen to return to Illinois, she would have avoided the “carpetbagger” label and otherwise countered the perception that every move she makes is a calculated political move (as if all successful politicians aren't calculating). Her popularity and her native daughter status would have gotten her past any "but you were just elected a Senator" criticism." But more significantly, if she had moved to Illinois in 2001, taken a high profile public job, and then announced for the 2004 Senate race early, she likely would have (1) pushed Obama into running for Governor, or, (2) beat him in the primary, as the Obama the country is seeing right now is a much more polished candidate than the 2004 Obama. No Obama in this current race, and Hillary easily beats John Edwards.

The decision looked right at the time, as no one had even heard of Barack Obama in 2001. But its increasingly looking like the wrong choice for her.

Fortunately for this country, presidents are not exactly absolute monarchs. Though it seems close during the elections years. Many Clinton's 'sins' had more to do with the Clinton's republican Congress. Who was electing this republican congress, anyway? Clinton?

If Obama is the nominee, all of the Western states are in play. That's where McCain is from. Time and money will have to spent there, and that takes time and money away from other regions.

Are you being serious? This has to be the most fantastical argument ever. I don't even know where people are getting this stuff.

can your guy survive, Shapiro? The wave out of Iowa was unstoppable--until it stopped in New Hampshire. The wave out of South Carolina was overwhelming--until it got whelmed in New Jersey, Massachusetts and California. Now, watch out--here comes that tsunami again! If your fella doesn't win Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania now, what will your story be? Oops, we scheduled a coronation but we dropped the crown--three times?

"Enjoy your Hillary-hating. The silent majority still exists."

Well, recent primaries have shown that the "majority" is not a majority, but roughly 50 %. And of those, how many would vote McCain? A VERY small number.

Take your chicken-shit threats out of here, asshole. You're no democrat. You're just a stupid jerk.

I could vote for either of them and sleep at night so it's a matter of which one convinces enough of the other 300 million Americans that he or she can better run the country. I will vote for either of them in November. I would like to see either of them reach out to people like Bill Richardson as a running mate because his resume is so rich that he would reassure people but that's up to the nominee.