Maybe if you actually READ the posts, you'd know that I was an Edwards supporter who sees both as EQUALLY problematic. I DON'T SUPPORT OBAMA.

I complimented BOTH Obama and Clinton. You promptly proved my premise in the AKA post- you masqueraded as a Clintonite, called me an unjustified name, made a racially offensive remark, hit the FOX talking points, AND tried to make me mad at Clintonites.

I predicted a mole would be the one to pop up, and you did, right along with the FOX talking points and FULLY OVER THE TOP in disproportion to what I wrote. Limbaugh himself probably cringed at your attempt.

Must you moles make this SO easy? That had to be the MOST transparent attempt at baiting on the face of the earth. Two down. Hhatchet, Carol, want to lend a hand with the mole hunt? This is pretty easy.

domini:

to the board's most articulate and reasoned posters:

Operation Chaos moles want JUST THIS. You are doing Rush Limbaugh's work. Rosevalier, Rambling Rose 22, AKA Smith, GThrasher, etc YOU ARE MAKING LIMBAUGH HAPPY. Think about it. Is THAT what you really want?

I see. These logical and intelligent people are "doing Limbaugh's work" whereas YOU so obviously aren't all as you try to shove a half-Muslim, inexperienced, divisive schister-connected idiot named HUSSEIN-OBAMA who has lost every major Democratic state by double digits.

Let's talk about this latest assertion by Obama that his and Michelle's life more closley "approximates" (a word the average voter NEVER uses) the life of the average voter than any other candidate. Please don't even GO there, Barrack. The average voter didn't go to Princeton and Harvard, doesn't live in a million dollar house (obtained through the good graces of a sleazeball political operative), and didn't earn a million bucks last year.

Compare where Bill and Hillary were economically when they were at the stage of life the Obamas are at now. They had no book royalties coming in at that point, and they were certainly no better off than the Obamas are today. Yes, the Clintons have earned over $100 million dollars -- but they earned it all since he left office, a period during which she has continued to work in public service.

The Clintons have done well financially, but it's a stretch to claim they are out of touch with average Americans because of the money they've earned in the past 7 years.

Will Obama pledge not to earn big money after he's president on the strength of his name? I doubt it.

You are right. I've been hitting a couple of boards and the Republicans are worries. $5 gas tends to make race and gender less important. Pick up truck fill ups are at $92-5 in Georgia for Dodge Rams and Ford F-150s. They are over $100+ and heading north for the duallies and the F-350s. Gas prices, energy prices and inflation are worrying people.

The primary is not as important as the general. McCain is still courting the social conservatives, and the emerging influence scandal is still brewing. They are scared alright.

The real Democrats will vote for the nominee in the fall. The Operation Chaos moles will be done June 6th, no matter what. The people who fell into their traps and are being divisive will have to deal with friends and family telling them to stuff it from sheer disgust.

DON'T FEED THE TROLLS, PEOPLE. If they claim to be a Clintonite and the stuff they are saying is sounds like FOX news they are moles.("all Obamaites" or "all Clintonites" are dead giveaways. Real Democrats and Independants will know plenty of sane people who may not agree with them Civil disagreement is a progressive tenent.) Unreasonable anger, calling people "stupid", "racist", "sexist", "unpatriotic" etc are also giveaways.

As for the longtime posters falling for the scam, STEP BACK and BREATHE. HOW do you KNOW the person who called you a name is REALLY an Obamaite or a Clintonite? You don't. So back up and CALM DOWN. We have no evidence any of the "supposed" crazies out here are really supporting the people they claim. They are yanking chains and laughing at you.

Operation Chaos moles want JUST THIS. You are doing Rush Limbaugh's work. Rosevalier, Rambling Rose 22, AKA Smith, GThrasher, etc YOU ARE MAKING LIMBAUGH HAPPY. Think about it. Is THAT what you really want?

Back up people and calm down. Oh, yeah, the moles will attack this post. Watch who goes over the top and make note.

Some people have experience with trolls. How they are falling for this escapes me.

The drip, drip, drip about who Obama is, his connection to Rev. Wright, to Revko, his remarks about the bitter country people, have cost him dearly. Now as the Revko trial continues, there is speculation that someone will "sing" to save their own skin and point the finger at Obama as being part of the corrupt politicians that have brought him to this point in his life. It is being rumored that Karl Rove has reconstructed that "missing" information that Obama says never existed but will hold on to it until Obama becomes the nominee. If that happens, McCain will be the next president of the United States.

the pick in his hair was a nice touch. your posts are high quality in an otherwise horrid thread. if we all care about the country, we all need to promise to vote for whomever the dem nominee is. to all HRC and BHO bashers, i'm afraid there is absolutely no merit to the argument that McCain is better than the one you oppose. Either is better than four more years of this nonsense. i mean, policy-wise, they are nearly identical - so whoever wins will have just about the same agenda if the get sworn in. so it basically comes down to only three things:

1) personality

2) electability

3) baggage

the conventional wisdom was that HRC had a lot more baggage and higher negatives when this started, but this stupid pastor non-issue is not leaving us, because of the lazy media's inability to focus on important things. (and HRC people, most of the crap that makes up HRC's negatives is just as vapid - aka killing vince foster, whitewater, billing, etc, etc.) if the reverend wright thing has got legs, it could cause a lot of problems if BHO was the nominee. The real question is whether HRC can win over the irrational dislike many americans have for her, and whether BHO can mollify those afraid of the unknown. THe irony is HRC's problems are because she is too well known (i.e. people have preconceived impressions of her, based on facts or lies) and BHO is too unknown (so people can just lie to constituents, and they'll believe it, since the stories have not been vetted - not that that necessarily matters, just ask HRC).

Arguably, BHO has a better, more charismatic persona than HRC, who is not as easy going as him or her husband. but, while i do like to be inspired, i prefer competence to empty, reagan-esque feel-goodery. HRC would be an excellent administrator. Of course, on the flip side, BHO is a very smart, introspective man, who has a lot of substance and wonkishness. so he also would be an excellent administrator. McCain, on the other hand, does not seem to know (or intentionally tries to confuse) the difference between sunnis and shias, has more warmongering tendencies than W, and obviously knows nothing about the economy and will follow the absolutely laughable standard republican fiscal policy. Now i know HRC opponents will point out she has supported the mind-numbingly dumb gas tax holiday, and said she'd nuke iran, but let's be honest - she was pandering to create a difference b/w her and BHO to try and make up some ground in the primaries. disagree with the tactic, but let's not pretend she actually means it seriously. not like McCain. HRC wants to win, and contrary to her supporters in this thread, she has very little chance of pulling it off. since her and BHO are so close on policy, distinctions must be created, and this is what we get.

i've said before and i'll say again, i actually think this race is good for the dems. i support the 50 state plan, i think new registrations are good for the party, and i think getting this crap out now probably is better than later. i like invading traditional republican territory, and i think states like nevada, texas, montana, missouri, indiana, and virginia have a lot of potential. combine that with the death grip the dems have on the mortheast and the west coast, and that's a majority without the weird fickleness of my home state of ohio. (goddammmit ohio, what is the matter with you already?) BHO has more appeal in these states, and HRC seems to have more appeal in ohio, penn, mich and fla, so i don't know which is the right decision - all i know is we need to stop claiming that if our candidate does not win the nomination, we are gonna take our ball and go home. this is a historic year - the republicans have effed around with reality so long they can no longer pull the wool over most people's eyes, and people are ready to hear that tough problems may actually call for tough solutions (read: real solutions instead of "tax cuts will solve everything!")

we need to work together, and everybody needs to push for the dem nominee. i don't understand why the dem always gets knocked down on these personality/morals issues. BHO and HRC have both been married only once, have relatively ethical records (i live in illinois - BHO's "connection" to Rezko is just a solid as whitewater and the billing scandals that HRC has suffered through) and both are caring individuals who actually want to govern this country. the republican candidate left his wife after she raised his kids while he was in a pow camp for five years (who was disfigured in a car accident while he was gone) to marry a rich heiress he had been sleeping with while married. He was involved in the Keating five for crying out loud, which was the gold standard of financial corruption for the time between the teapot dome and enron. and republicans have shown that they have zero interest in actually governing this country. so put aside the stupid sniping and agree to support either candidate. i understand he or she may not be your first choice, but that's life.