Do you not remember Clinton throwing Kerry under the bus before the midterm elections for his stupid "get (us) sent to Iraq" joke?

No,I don't and I'm not particularly interested in hearing your version of it either since you sound just like a filthy Republican.

Obama has been disingenous about his Senate record on Iraq, has willfully refused to delude the nutty neolibs of their delusion of him as an anti-war savior, and basically has a resume which in no way matches the size of his ego.

He joined the Dem party in Chicago for connections to get rich, and milked them well tossing aside anyone who got in the way, his constituents, public housing tenants, indicted slumlords and so forth and then decided he was qualified to be President without even finishing a single term in the presidency. He and his fawning neolibs who should bloody damned well know better by now have crippled our strongest candidate. Obama has done this for his own ambitions knowing damned well he doesn't have a chance against McCain once the press turns on his resume and colorful history which they will assuredly do the moment they are sure Hillary really is done.

He is a Democrat with a commitment to Democratic values the same way Ralph Nader was a Green committed to Green values and you'll have to examine your own reasons for refusing to admit that reality to yourself if you really ARE a Democrat, which I doubt.

should have read w/o finishing a single term in the Senate.

You're right, I'm not a Democrat. I'm a socialist.

:)

Yep, Sebelius won over a lot of GOP moderates, but she didn't win over 450,000 of them.

I didn't say she did. I said that your using currently registered Democrats after the unification of Republican oligarchs with Dems in Kansas scews average number of Democrats in Kansas over the past 6 years - which was the point you originally took issue with as I recall.

It's quite obvious that these "Seblius Dems" and former Republicans will vote McCain, once they have the option of voting for a moderate Republican again even if you believe their aren't cons tampering with the Dem primary in Kansas, which I don't. It's a favorite tactic of the Religious Right and Kansas has plenty of that.

It is unfortuante that the only thing you always hear out of the supporters of the Obama cult is how much Hillary is disliked.

Well if you ever met Hillary Clinton you would be very impressed by her.

It is the media and the so called "unity" supporters who have forced this "dislike".

I just wish that all of the voters could come on this site and read the spew of hatred from the "Yes we can" supporters.

At this point just based on the supporters of Obama, we are headed back into the hate filled world we have already been in for the past seven years, if he gets the nomination.

Hopefully, I will not have to say "I told you so", like I did say to the supporters of Bush.

I just hope the remaining states wake up and vote for the candidate who will get our country back for all of us and that candidate for me is; Hillary Clinton.

You're making my point for me. The surge in Dem primary participation in Kansas due to the repub mod and dem unification in the state politics are actually McCain voters. (and cons).

anonymous maybe you should take a break. Every time I go away and come back to read here I find you as hate-filled as before.

You write:

He joined the Dem party in Chicago for connections to get rich,

How does his decision to accept a $10,000 per year job community organizing after graduating from Columbia and Occidental fit in with your assessment of him?

and milked them well tossing aside anyone who got in the way,

Do you mean Alan Keyes?

his constituents, public housing tenants, indicted slumlords and so forth and then decided he was qualified to be President without even finishing a single term in the presidency.

John Edwards ran for President after finishing less than one term his first try too. Are you also angry at him?

He and his fawning neolibs who should bloody damned well know better by now have crippled our strongest candidate.

So you are trying to cripple our second strongest candidate? If you don't want to vote for him, don't vote for him, but I don't think that the strong language and anger toward Obama is helping your cause with anyone who isn't already committed.

Obama has done this for his own ambitions knowing damned well he doesn't have a chance against McCain once the press turns on his resume and colorful history which they will assuredly do the moment they are sure Hillary really is done.

Anonymous, what you're talking about could happen to either of the candidates. Hillary will probably be attacked for her finances and I find it troubling that she hasn't released her tax forms. Bill's post presidency work will be examined ad nauseum. There's no reprieve if Clinton is the nominee.

He is a Democrat with a commitment to Democratic values the same way Ralph Nader was a Green committed to Green values and you'll have to examine your own reasons for refusing to admit that reality to yourself if you really ARE a Democrat, which I doubt.

So if a person reaches a different conclusion than you do, they are no longer a Democrat?

Anonymous, Nader ran as an independent and he "took" only a small percentage of the voters. Most people didn't bother to show up. Why don't you acknowledge that no one knows for sure how this is going to turn out. Clinton, Obama and McCain are all strong candidates who have shown more tenacity and ingenuity than their detractors have acknowledged. If you're wrong about Obama's chances, then you're just here all day long tearing him down for no reason at all. And that would be a shame for you to waste your valuable time doing something like that.

Especially if you are a true Democrat, as you say that you are.

Peace.