Political science test

Dennis — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 02:59:51 GMT

So Sen. Clinton has earned enough to pay back the debt she's incurred from her miserable management of her campaign. Well, that's good. But I think people should know whether, after paying all the people she's stiffed for months, she's going to shell out another bundle from hers and Bill's account. That's important, because it points to the fact that so few people are willing to give her money that she'd have a miserable time competing if she manages to steal the nomination. So so many of us wish she would just go away now.

Political science test

Syllogod, Denton, TX — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:03:16 GMT

Wow. Wouldn't it be great if both candidates actually addressed "hard" issues? Why won't the candidates agree to what seems a substantive debate? Anyone out there with either of the parties that knows the answer to that question? I understand them not participating in another ABC/CNN/MSNBC style debate but ScienceDebate2008 would be a great opportunity for the Dems to showcase a progressive, engaged relationship with science. What a shame.

Political science test

Berhe — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 03:05:53 GMT

Obama knows how to run the campaign and Clinton is not. One indicator for that is Obama has excellent political infrastructure than Clinton.

Political science test

jacksmith, Dallas, Texas. — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:13:16 GMT

IT'S TIME AMERICA:

It’s time for everyone to face the truth. Barack Obama has no real chance of winning the national election in November at this time. His crushing defeat in Pennsylvania makes that fact crystal clear. His best, and only real chance of winning in November is on a ticket with Hillary Clinton as her VP.

Hillary Clinton seemed almost somber at her victory speech. As if part of her was hoping Obama could have defeated her. And proved he had some chance of winning against the republican attack machine, and their unlimited money, and resources. In all honesty. I felt some of that too.

But it is absolutely essential that the democrats take back the Whitehouse in November. America, and the American people are in a very desperate condition now. And the whole World has been doing all that they can to help keep us propped up.

Hillary Clinton say’s that the heat, and decisions in the Whitehouse are much tougher than the ones on the campaign trail. But I think Mr. Obama faces a test of whether he has what it takes to be a commander and chief by facing the difficult facts, and the truth before him. And by doing what is best for the American people by dropping out of the race, and offering his whole hearted assistance to Hillary Clinton to help her take back the Whitehouse for the American people, and the World.

Mr. Obama is a great speaker. And I am confident he can explain to the American people the need, and wisdom of such a personal sacrifice for them. It should be clear to everyone by now that Hillary Clinton is fighting her heart out for the American people. She has known for a long time that Mr. Obama can not win this November. You have to remember that the Clinton’s have won the Whitehouse twice before. They know what it takes.

If Mr. Obama fails his test of commander and chief we can only hope that Hillary Clinton can continue her heroic fight for the American people. And that she prevails. She will need all the continual support and help we can give her. She may fight like a superhuman. But she is only human.

Sincerely

Jacksmith... Working Class :-)

Political science test

Scott — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 04:32:25 GMT

With the presumed nominee from the Democratic party carrying mostly traditionally red states, I'm gonna' have to bet on McCain.

Political science test

The Unshrub — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 05:05:36 GMT

Those people who claim that if Hillary wins a state in the primary Obama won't win that state in the general have to be idiots. Does anyone really believe that Obama will not carry NY, CA, or MS? Come on and get real. This argument that Hillary and Clinton Cult members use just does not make any sense. If this is their strongest argument Hillary should, for once, do the decent thing and drop out of the race. Hillary should be ashamed of herself by taking money from contributors who are too stupid to figure this out. I just hope Dean is smart enough to grasp that concept before it’s too late.

Clinton's lead was cut by 1/2 in six weeks and PA is her home state, and it's impossible for her to catch up, HOW does this mean the tide has turned????? Shouldn't Hillary be winning by a larger majority since this was her home state? Other candidates win their home state by a lot bigger majority. The only way Hillary can win is to cheat, Obama is winning by the rules and so Hillary and her cult want to come up with other imaginary ways to calculate how she could win. If the DNC weren't such a bunch of cowards, they would have stopped her draconian style of campaigning.

Political science test

Joe, Seattle, WA — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 08:43:07 GMT

People who are willing to put their money where their mouths are are wise enough to know that Clinton is dead lost. It's that simple.

Political science test

Looey Munn, Roundup, Montana — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 15:43:05 GMT

I agree that Hillary won PA, but it was really a defeat since she won by a smaller margin than might have been expected...and in her home state, with her machine cranking full blast!

But I do hope she stays in, just so people can see what she does when totally desperate, and the next President will be falling into some pretty desperate times, created by corruption and greed at the higher levels of both parties, and the enemies without.

I am seeing Hillary riding an emotional rollercoaster, and not doing too well. That is frightening in terms of wht happens when the weight of the whole US problems, generated partly by Democrats, including Hillary, in Congress over the last decade or so, would hit her, as a new President. She will not be able to duck them, or hide in the crowd, or vote them out of existence.

Could she take it, based on her performance in the more minor election trials? Can she set her own ego aside and be a good President, guiding us by the Constitution, through the perils ahead?

After some of the shenanigans she has tried to pull for special interest groups as a Congresswoman, I really wonder.

Obama is untried, and has managed to be absent or merely present on votes I find of interest. I think it is going to take a lot more than a big smile to bring the USA thru the perilous waters ahead, and he cannot "vote 'Present'" as President.

Sounds to me like a Scylla-Charybdis situation!

I agree the Republican candidate does not look promnising either.

So my vote will go to the the 3rd party candidate who shows the best plan to get the USA back on track in our original Constitutional manner that worked so well for so long. I don't think it was ever broken, and I know the quick popular fixes did not improve things in the long run.

Political science test

David, Greensboro, NC — Thu, 24 Apr 2008 18:13:47 GMT

McCain in 08!!

Political science test

steve — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 04:09:50 GMT

Why is David Axelrod advising any of his surrogates to attack Bill Clinton (again) after his candidate drew 97% of the black vote in PA.

David Axelrod is not only tarnishing the legacy of Bill Clinton but he is ripping the country apart by playing the race card too many times.

It seems to me that Axelrod is threatening the superdeligates with the argument that if you take this nomination away from Obama, it will be your fault for igniting a racial war (causing possible riots?) in America.

Political science test

Jennnifer Hunt, Spokane, WA — Fri, 25 Apr 2008 15:37:03 GMT

hmmm....

We need alot more understanding than we have at all times.

Pick and choose...a little of this a little of that.

Not enough of the puzzle is available to us on all issues.

How does using corn based fuels affect the balance of food supply and demand.
The cause and effect of the evil roots on both side of the political parties power house and what could happen when they are "melded" more and more for the sake of "so called peace" in America.

Socialism,humanism, and the gross greed of ungodly big buisness.
Spin spin spin...all over the world.

Political science test

AFS, Ny, Ny — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:20:37 GMT

At www.bet2give.com you can trade Clinton/Obama "stocks" and give to charity at the same time. Bet2Give is a charity driven prediction market.

Political science test

Kearn Larkin — Sun, 27 Apr 2008 23:34:05 GMT

I fear the next four years show little chance of being beneficent ones for the people or for the nation.
Hillary wants to raise taxes on the petroleum companies. As if we weren’t paying enough for fuel now? Who, after all, do you believe will bear the brunt of these taxes – in our own fuel costs, our energy costs in gas and electricity, the cost of manufacturing and in shipping costs? Add to that her campaign statement that she has plans for more programs than we can afford…
Barack wants to raise taxes on those having high incomes and on capital gains, those who even now bear the brunt of the costs of government. It has been pointed out to him that this has historically lowered revenue to the federal government. His response: “It’s an issue of fairness.” The obvious follow up question, which was not asked, would be “and how do you make up the resulting shortfall in revenue?” Given that we may be teetering on the brink of a recession (despite what Bush says), increasing taxes could be just the push we do not need.
McCain: Remember McCain/Feingold? McCain/Kennedy? Opposition to the Bush tax cuts? This chap could run just as well as a Democrat, and it won’t be surprising if he garners a substantial percentage of the Democrat votes.
In short, the probability we will see any improvement in our fiscal situation is virtually nil and I think no candidate is promising to make such improvements; indeed, two of them are promising to make it worse. At issue is the question of how much control of our own lives, of the economic destiny of ourselves and our nation, are we prepared to surrender to government? To what degree of socialism are we willing to commit ourselves?
In the words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.” Learn the past. Learn from it. We have seen the decline, even the fall of nations that have adopted socialism and communism. We have seen the rapidly emerging economic power of China as it struggles into the early stages of a free enterprise economy. We are losing the advantage in the game of world competition, and we are debasing our currency and foreign credit by using low interest rates to support an economy bled to weakness by taxation and inept government control increasingly oriented to process and increasingly blind to result.
Social security is an excellent example of the socialist elements of government at work. It has been called by many economists, and validly so, a pyramid scheme. It should be pointed out at the outset that there are no painless solutions to a pyramid scheme, and this is known by the initiators of such a scheme from the outset. It may be compared to stepping off a high cliff: Everything will be OK – until you reach the point where travelling through the air is no longer sustainable.
As it stands, Social Security receives more in worker “donations” (voluntary or else – you can always not work… or become a member of Congress) than it pays in benefits. The surplus goes to general revenues; it is “borrowed” from Social Security – at a very low rate of interest (fortunately – as you will see). When the amount Social Security can reasonably extort from the wage earner no longer covers the obligations it has contracted to fulfill, one assumes it will begin to draw upon the “investment” it has made in federal paper to make up the shortfall.
This amount will be paid out of your taxes – for the federal government to repay to Social Security the money you paid to Social Security in the first place.
Do not try this in the public sector. It will result in your indictment, conviction, and imprisonment.
Is this hotly debated by the candidates? It is not. It is the “third rail” of politics – because, as I said, there is no painless solution.