to paint Hillary Clinton as "inauthentic" while Obama is allowed to speak quite eloquently from both sides of his mouth on trade, on Social Security, on health care, on his Iraq War votes, on the influence of special interests and lobbyists, and numerous other issues?

And why is it not acceptable for Hillary Clinton to "bridge the gap with the right" but to laud the same thing when Obama touts it?

I see and hear a tremendous amount of doublespeak from Obama and his followers and a lot of justification for his actions. This to me is not a good sign.

This goes to Hillary's experience, judgment and leadership. Hillary claims that she should be President because of her "experience" including her 8 years in the White House where she claims was more "co-President" than First Lady.

Let me say up front that I am in no way blaming the Clinton administration for 9/11 - we all know there is plenty of blame to go around. The news in August 1998 was all-Monica, all the time. But something else much more important and more tragic happened that summer - our embassies in Kenya and Tanzania were bombed by al Qaeda. That August Bill Clinton ordered air strikes on a target in Afghanistan (intelligence indicated that Osama bin Laden was there) and a factory in the Sudan (intelligence indiated that the factory was a biological weapons lab). The strike in Afghanistan failed. The strike in the Sudan was successful in that it severely damaged the facility but I can't remember if the biological weapons intelligence was confirmed. [All this can be googled.] Well, the Clinton haters began screaming that he was "wagging the dog" and that the whole thing was calculated to draw attention away from the Monica Lewinsky scandal. In the face of all that screaming what did Clinton do - he backed down. He did not pursue al Qaeda any further. Clinton valued his political hide far more than he did protecting the U.S. and the world (cf. Rwanda and Somalia). This is cowardly. And if, as her claims to the co-Presidency might lead one to believe, Hillary was involved in the decision to back off from any further action against al Qaeda, well, paint her with the same brush. I know that I said I did not blame the Clinton administration but one can't help but wonder about what might have been if... .

http://www.newsweek.com/id/117151

then don't look first at Al Quaida. "The BaSE" that we should all be worried about is armed and dangerous and protected by the constitution and they are the gun totin (hillary has dropped her rs - what a waste of money to have journalists making this observation when there are real problems to be solved in our communities) young angry dispossessed people. Both of the dem candidates talk about health care and whether it should be for the young and the old or just for the young. It's all uninformed talk. If you're afraid do this : demand universal child care. Take care of the children unconditionally and solve almost all of your problems.

...the hundreds of millions of campaign dollars that stand to be gained amongst the final three, (i.e. Clinton, Obama, and McCain) will only be showered upon the ignorant, those who can't be bothered to learn anything about the candidates except from the vapid commercials these millions will yield. If one doesn't know who's most worthy to run this country amongst these folks by now , one has forfeited their right to decide such.

ignorant of what?

Lots of talk about whether its Hillary or Obama. Most of the talk seems to be from Hillary supporters who think that she was the Democrats only shot at salvation, only she could lead us out of the wilderness that has been the Bush administration. They may be resigned to her defeat but they are really pissed off. The glee with which they predict that Obama can't possibly beat McCain and, boy, "won't we be sorry then" is childish. And scary: if she isn't the next Democratic President there won't be one. That they would rather see McCain become President than Obama is remarkable - and they see the "cult of personality" as an Obama thing?!! Look in the mirror guys. (But chin up, Clinton supporters, as it is said "it ain't over 'til it's over" - who knows? HRC, She Who Must Be President, has no intention of losing - so, hang in there.)

So, who beats McCain? Well, if the Democrats are destroyed before they even get to the general election, McCain wins. Unfortunately, that could happen.

The Republicans will (as always) run a dirty, ugly, nasty, and bloody campaign - it will make Hillary and Barack seem like Sam and Diane on "Cheers." And it will be that way whether Clinton or Obama is the Democratic nominee. The Republicans are more than prepared to fight either one of them tooth and nail - they have already stockpiled their "anti-Clinton" weapons and their "anti-Obama" weapons. They're just waiting to see which to bring out. Really, what matters at this point is not who can beat McCain but how to beat McCain. That is the question that everyone who believes that the Bush administration has been a disaster for this country should be focussed on. Republicans obviously think (hope?) that Obama will be the nominee and have started to attack him. I am encouraged by the way he has not backed down from these attacks and has answered them convincingly and forcefully.

www.buzzflash.com

Sen. Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. "This is by far, hands down, the worst case I've ever experienced," said Diane Smason, one of the EEOC lawyers handling the lawsuit. "Every woman there experienced sex harassment, they were part of a hostile work environment of sex harassment." Senator Clinton is keeping the money.