Well, it seems like the Republicans are succeeding at bending facts again, while we level-headed Dems sit and roll our eyes going "the American people aren't going to buy these lies". Well, frankly, the American people are buying the truth-bending from the McCain camp and the Democrats are again looking like wimps instead of what we look at ourselves as, which is level-headed.

What I'm calling for is Clinton as VP. I've been an Obama supporter this whole time, and definately got very annoyed with Hillary during her campaign, just as the Hill supporters were getting annoyed with Obama. But we all know Hill can go negative, and really what she needs is just a green light to do it. Her campaign insides were really messed up, otherwise her smear campaign woulda beat McCain to the punch. Hill can be that attack dog, tout her economic credentials, and we could get Bill's reputation back as the non-racist he is. It would unify this party and give us the momentum we need to finally overtake the Republican powerhouse. We need the face of the old Democratic strength (Bill), and the faces of a progressive nation (a woman and a black guy) to show that we're tired of being pushed around and lied about. While Biden would be a great attack dog, so would Hill, but the surprise choice would generate so much positive momentum the McCain camp would be put in a tough spot (what does he do, pick Romney?? hahaha....)

Yeah, Barack wanted/wants her supporters.
She wants money from his.

But i really do honestly believe they both want a democrat in the oval office. If you don't think Hillary wants Obama in the oval office, than was she running for president just because of long-held personal ambitions? No.

I know politics oftentimes becomes personal, but honestly, can't we all agree that they were both trying to get into office to make our lives better...regardless of if they secretly hate each others guts and were fake...?

I'm an Obama supporter. But all the Obama supporters need to stop telling Hillary and her supporters to shut up and go away. The reason she's still running and they're still supporting her is the same reason Ron Paul is still running. They want to be listened to. So when you tell them to go away you're doing the one biggest thing they hate. So, even if she isn't going to be the nominee, let them talk??

As an Obama supporter, what can we do for you Hillary supporters who are considering John McCain to make up for your loss??

Even those who aren't, I'm kinda lost as to what to say or do for you guys because it seems like there is nothing that can prevent some of you from voting for McCain if Hillary loses. I wish there didn't have to be a loser?

Before you talk about how racist he is, listen to one of his full speeches. Then look into the references he makes. Its funny cause every time someone brings up one of his speeches to him he's always like, "did you hear the whole speech?" the answer is always no.

its because people are like, "why waste my time with that? i don't need context! i'll make it up!" this is literally the reason why Obama distanced himself. not because the man is evil, but rather because there are just too many idiots who don't get facts from reliable sources (like the actual full speech) but rather people who spin things for ratings. seriously, sit and listen to a whole speech

i know i'm going to get a whole bunch of "oh, i listened to a full one and its just as hateful" from people who haven't so since whether you watch or not and comment or not, i'm just telling you, you aren't making up your mind for yourself, you're letting other people tell you whats up.

"different is not deficient"

when he says we created brought 9/11 on ourselves it is because we make up 5% of the world's population but are using up 25% of the world's resources. and the he's not making shit up when he says that the CIA was supplying Ricky Ross with cocaine to fund a war that they started in Nicaragua. take the time to look for yourself!

I love the posts that are saying how Obama won't take certain states in the general election.

They cite all these polls of different demographics as reasons why he's going to lose to McCain in the fall.

Don't they see that they're the reason that Obama is going to lose to McCain in the fall?

If the democrats fall apart as a party before the general election, either candidate will lose? For anyone who plays sports, have you ever won a game when you and you're teammates are frustrated with each other?

Yes, it concerns me as an Obama supporter about his current standing with blue-collar voters, but I always thought most of that demographic voted Republican, at least in the South where most of the talks that Obama won't win are centered.

What concerns me more though, is people who are Democrats saying they will vote for McCain in the fall. Yes, Hillary supporters I am talking to you. If Hillary wins, you can bet that I will vote for her. Frankly, I wish she had already won if it could mean that we started realizing that Rev. Wright is not a threat to our national security, but a candidate running on behalf of a party who doesn't believe in a woman's right to choose is very dangerous to our national security.

I know losings not fun and that even worse people are looking at making steps forward on race because of this and women are still being ignored. But, I think everyone needs to take some time after a nominee is chosen to act as if the primaries never happened and stop thinking about politics for a little bit. Then we can all restart from scratch and examine who of the general election will act in our best interest. We can't let our natural human emotions of disappointment and resentment cloud our judgment.

Also, maybe if Hillary loses this would be a good time to talk about if women are being viewed as inferior for jobs of great importance. I think a good discussion on it would raise the issue that to a lot of women is paramount. But voting for McCain isn't going to make that point one bit, and once he appoints judges who take out Rowe v Wade, you are going to see which side really is out of touch with women.

I have a confession to make. I used to be addicted to blogging. It took me a while to cure myself, but I haven't blogged in over a month. Reading some of the articles today made me feel I need to say just a couple things.

If this is really about issues, than why are so many democrats willing to vote McCain if their candidate loses? Clinton and Obama have almost the same view on things. This to me is more like when the Packers (I'm from Green Bay) lost to the Giants I wanted the Patriots to win the Super Bowl.

Secondly, Obama fans who say that Hillary should quit aren't being fair. She is right, she can run until the magic number is reached.

Thirdly, Clinton fans who are upset about all this talk about Clinton being asked to stop running are all so negative towards Obama in their response to this request that if they only had a mirror they could see why the Obama fans want her to stop running. They see this thing as a sports match and they want to injure the other team's star player so they don't win either. Most of the people who are of this sentiment will be bitching about McCain once he's president.

Finally, as a college student I resent being grouped into this new "elitist college-graduate liberal intellectual type" and even moreso resent the fact that people have actually managed to make a college education look like a bad thing. The reason college kids are democrats is because we have hearts. We finally see that Republicans are putting you down and then convincing you that guns and Jesus are what will save you. People aren't religious because they're bitter, but should your religion be a crutch? I mean why is everyone asking God for something but never thanking him for things. Its not because people don't remember God if they're up, its just that most of you guys don't have much to be up about when as a middle-class suburbanite I can barely afford gas myself.

And when you hear that we are athiests, that's not true. The athiests just get all the attention. Also, when you take a class on things like evolution and the origin of the world then you can make your mind up on your own. But from our point of view (at least mine as a University of Wisconsin student), you just don't see the fact that creationists know that creationism isn't real (the facts are so overwhelming if you only took the time to see for yourself) and that people who are saying it is are rich because of it.

I will further elaborate on how they're rich because of it. Republicans know that religion has been used as a tool to control people (not all cases, but it happens alot!) for a long time. Think religious cults (guys who use religion to get little boys and girls) or guys who say the end is coming so that you worry a lot less about holding onto your money because heaven's coming anyway. Also, religion is oftentimes cited as an explanation for things that already have explanations (complexity of birds flying actually comes from the fact that late dinosaurs had feathers to help regulate their body temperatures...they evolved from cold-blooded lizards who didn't have a metabolism that heated them up so they evolved feathers....later used for flying in birds...).

So when we say the gas tax holiday is a bad idea in the long run, its because we took economics class. We all know nothing's free, but in this case, since you decrease the supply you will increase the price even more.

Now I know some of you are saying, well I need a break? We all do, but its kinda like a sub-prime loan, or the equivalent of me saying well, I'll give you five bucks now but in a year you have to give me 9. (same problem with Bush's economic stimulus idea).

Anywho, my point is, if you are blue-collar and you think that we college kids/grads are democrats because we hate god or guns or whatever, you see us wrong. We are democrats because we have hearts and we see that you need our help. Hollywood notoriously is taking tax cuts (the actors and such...probably not the corporation execs.) for you and when we say we aren't in favor of the tax cuts, we are literally paying more taxes for you. So, maybe listen to us when we suggest something might be in your best interest, because if we were looking out just for our own, we'd be Republicans.

Why is everyone so ruffled about this guy? I mean frankly, if you asked me, black people really have been through enough. This is their first shot at having a black president, and so I'm GLAD that there's someone that is capitalizing on this.

Before I go any farther, I want to make the distinction between Ferraro and Rev. Wright. Some people missed it but I guess you make the details as you want them? Ferraro said something about black people in a negative light (could've very well said he's our first affirmative action president, meant the same thing). Wright didn't say anything about white folks who are racially fair. He spoke of people who are racially unfair. And he wasn't reminding the congregation of something they forgot, or saying something they didn't already know. It's like being upset that at the several women's organizations who are for Hillary.

You know what, I'm an Obama supporter, but if you support Hillary because you're a woman and she's a woman, and you like the idea of what a woman president would mean for American women, I'm glad that you have a good reason for voting who you are voting for. It'd be nice to hear something positive from your camp anyway, since all we seem to hear is how the Obama camp is playing the race card.

When Wright gave his speech, he didn't know he was being taped. If you look around that church, everyone is black. And as I sit here and try to pretend what I would be thinking if I was indeed black, I would be thinking, "This guy might help make my life better" because Barack Obama would in fact make life better for black folks, because he is black. And unless you think black folks don't deserve to take another step up, I think it is unfair to say that Wright was out of line when he just recalled instances that are realities for Black Americans.

Look at the comment "Hillary ain't never been called a (n-word)." A good response (I'll start helping you out Hillary since you haven't been good with this...) for Hillary is, "No, I haven't, but I have been prejudiced against because I am a woman." All true, and just from an objective stand-point, don't you think that that sounds better than random race-card baiting, which in the end is only convincing undecided Democrats that Hillary is being unfair (not saying that with opinion of what should or shouldn't happen, but rather an opinion of what I think is happening/ why Obama is winning)

I just wanted to briefly summarize the situation that people have been talking about from this weekend in case any one has missed this. The Clinton camp is now starting to allude to a "dream ticket" with Clinton as president and Obama as vice president. Though an interesting strategy, I think we are getting into what has ruined Hillary Clinton in the eyes of many Democrats and its that SHE has made the race between the two about Obama defending himself instead of what is the biggest issue on the plate for many Democrats, which is the economy. In a situation where she could be touting her "economy was great when Bill and I were in the White House" she is trying to pull "Karl Rovian" political techniques.

THE REASON THIS IS SO RIDICULOUS IS THAT SHE IS LOSING IN BOTH THE POPULAR VOTE AND IN DELEGATES! And after using the 3 am phone call advertisement to suggest he wasn't ready to be president, she is being ILLOGICAL by coming out an alluding that he would be a great president. She is saying two things that exactly contradict each other?!

Finally, I found it interesting that the way Obama addressed the issue was as follows:

Obama had a scheduled rally in Mississippi today. The meeting was held in a town hall, so he said that he would open this rally up for discussion after making a bit of a speech.

In his speech, Obama mentioned nothing about the Clinton campaign, not even alluding to it. This was in stark contrast to Hillary, who did speak today as well, and would address her issues in a little bit different way. She would say pretty much the same things that Barack would say needed fixing with our country. They differed however in that Obama said things such as "I know that when we work together, ordinary people can achieve extraordinary things" (no mention of Clinton campaign), while Hillary would say something and follow it up with "We aren't going to achieve this with speeches, we are going to achieve this with realistic action."

I've never felt so inspired by a politician in my life in Obama, and yet I'm insulted for it by Clinton.

Anyway, Obama didn't even address the issue of the "dream ticket" until he was asked by someone in the crowd during the forum section of his rally. He answered it truthfully, logically, and respectfully giving the same reasoning I use above to address it clearly for what it was, "bamboozling" or "hood-winking". With her holding less than half the amount of states he has, less popular vote, and less delegates, it marks the FIRST TIME A LOSING CAMPAIGN HAS OFFERED THE VICE PRESIDENCY TO THE WINNER. It is an insult to all un-biased rational thinkers out there (by unbiased I mean the counter argument from the Clinton camp will be "we're trying to unite the party," yet I know they would be insulted if the offer was put to them. In fact, if that is indeed their argument, why wouldn't Hillary just take the high road since it was her idea??)

In 5 degree weather (I was out in it), Obama received more votes than all of Republican candidates combined.

When doing a job she's elected to do, the only one she has or will be elected to do, as senator, we must look at her experience. Has everyone forgotten how much of a mistake it was to go to Iraq in the first place?? Hillary, like John Kerry, voted for the Iraqi war. Although this is old news, I would like to analyze the decision a little further. If she voted for the war, it could have been for one of two reasons. When the war started, even at the tender age of 16 I knew we were going to the wrong place in Iraq instead of Afghanistan. I had no privileged access to top secret information. I have a feeling a lot of people reading this knew it was a bad idea from the start. But didn't Hillary?

The only two possible reasons for Hillary's vote in authorization of the war are as follows:

1) She was simply not smart enough to make the right decision.

I fail to believe that this option is even possible. I was 16, I'm no genius, and I knew it was a bad idea, I have got to think that Hillary knew that we had taken our eye off the ball. Maybe not, but if this option is the case, do we really want our new president to be dumber than our current one??

2) It was a bad political calculation.

Just like it was for John Kerry and many other Democratic Senators, this is the reason I must believe is true. The reasoning for this is simple: Hillary knew her run in the senate was her political stepping stone, and the political atmosphere at the time suggested that a vote against the war would have alienated her too much from what she thought her potential 2008 votes. It is the same reason John Kerry voted for it, and the same reason he lost in 2004. Because the vote wasn't based on personal conviction, but rather the assumption that the members of our country would've liked to see someone who is "tough on terrorism."

And shouldn't deciding whether or not thousands of families will lose a son or daughter be something that depends on the political atmosphere?? Not only that, but what a horrible political calculation. If you could not foresee that a lone vote (well not exactly, you would have been in a group of two) against the war in Iraq would have been monumentally beneficial to your 2008 campaign, you got outsmarted by a 16 year old. Can we have another president who is outsmarted by a 16 year old?

everyone uses the word rhetoric and speeches to denounce obama. in fact, they will say that words and speeches are simply that, just bits of sound that float through the air or are read on a page and have no meaning without the actions they propose. thats simply not true. history is words. i've heard from the second i started school "ask not what you're country can do for you, but what you can do for your country." and i may not know what every president has done for our country, but i know that john kennedy said those words. and i know what those words mean, and they inspire me to love a country that is at the time so hideous.

in logic class i learned that the the assertion "i exist" must be true because it performs the action it states. one must exist to say something, or conversely, one can't say something if it doesn't exist. Or in linguistics class I learned about (no lie, really learned about these two specific things in my specific classes) verbs that are the action they state, such as "i allow you to _____." words are not simply sounds. and i want words. i want someone who will not only inspire me to make the world a better place, but said it so well that he inspired the people around me to make the world a better place so that i knew that when i was going to act, it wouldn't be alone, and that the world could be changed by not one, but a whole group. i want your words, obama, and history is written with the words of the great people and the actions those words inspired.

I used to think of Democrats as the American free-thinkers. When I came to Madison I became strongly disillusioned by this idea. And although the Democrats I've met do all earnestly hope for the common good of the common people, I find that many go so far beyond what is rational. Mr. Bill is calling me a troll for saying I would vote McCain over Clinton if Clinton beats Obama. He is insulting me and my mother for it even. He even is an Obama supporter it looks like from his blogs? I simply tried to point out the fact that if Clinton gets nominated, it will turn a lot of Democrats against the party, and if the Democrats fail to secure an easy presidential competition, it will be a worse disaster than 4 years ago.

Mr. Bill-

Incompetence? I'm sorry, but I thought it was asking for MY website, as many websites will ask for that. I tried leaving it blank because I didn't have one and it wouldn't let me so I put in my school's website. Furthermore, I would like to point out the quality of students that attend here in my defense, and conclude by saying directly to mr. bill

"mr. bill,

for one, very mature naming yourself after a famous claymation character. I'm sorry that I didn't put the right address for my first ever blog on any website, but I was just to excited to write. I have a physics test on monday for particle collisions (you know those tiny things we're made up of, atoms?? or how about light? are you familiar with Planck??) and so I'm a bit preoccupied with moron studies and calculations using idiot calculus. but i will be damned if you try and use what i like to call the Republican terrorism strategy and start name calling (like you love to do with "republican" and "racist")."

Haha apparently I'm republican now because I joined the site to make a post and didn't have a website so my wisc.edu school website that I put is invalid?? Thats about as fair as me calling him racist. I must say though, living in Madison, it is weird to hear from a real Clinton supporter. Must be a real health insurance company-run universal health care supporter too...

After the election of 2004's disappointment, I'm sure we're all looking for a chance to fix the error that was made in nominating John Kerry. Here was an election that was giving to us on a silver platter, with many independents upset about the war even back in 2004. The task left to us as democrats was to nominate a competitor for a disliked George W Bush. As we can all remember, we ended up nominating Kerry instead of the young, handsome John Edwards. This crucial mistake cost us an election as many independents (like my mom, for example) vote based strictly on personality.

Now, more and more it seems like Hillary Clinton is getting shoved down our throats by our party when many of us don't want it by the super delegates and the heads of this party. Although there is a noticeable downward trend in super delegates for Clinton (these are all projected, as none of this has been decided yet), the thought of these "super delegates" telling us we're wrong and that Hillary is right has made me lose enough sleep to write my first ever blog. Furthermore, the future is starting to seem vaguely familiar...

What will happen if Clinton gets the nod?? Well, a lot more Obama supporters would jump Republican/McCain than I believe Clinton supporters. From my experience, Obama's base involves college-aged kids (and free thinkers of all ages) who are old enough to see how dirty Washington is and young enough to think it can still be cleaned up. And frankly, we see Clinton as dirtier than McCain, especially as you hear McCain say he will not be using special interest money for the Presidential race if Obama doesn't and you see Clinton attacking Obama from all sides. We know that McCain isn't dirty (this website is so shameful trying to play politics on him so bad---loses credibility for Dems more than McCain i feel) and we are excited for the fact that we might have TWO good candidates (we haven't gotten to vote for one yet in the general election-- Bush/Kerry??). I can say with full certainty that if Clinton is nominated, I will vote McCain, and I'm sure theres many of you reading this who feel the same. And if McCain wins, would that not be the "death of the Democratic party" as much as Reagan was the birth of the Republican party?? Two shoe-in presidencies lost?? And this year we won't be going up against a candidate with such a horrible record of being president as we did last time, so we must make sure to not assume that either (Obama or Clinton) will win, because I don't think its that easy.