For the correct words of Clinton, see the CBS transcription here and scroll down to “Hillary Clinton.”

You can go back to supporting Clinton again.

Anyone who supports Federalist Papers will never get my support since it is their goal to “transform the American legal system by developing and promoting conservative positions and influencing who will become judges, top government officials, and decision-makers.” It is their goal to make sure non-conservative folks will have no voices or right to make or amend any political policies in this country. It sounds like communist party and smells likes communist party.

Go Obama!

It is interesting to see the primaries confirm what I have always thought; there is a significant anti-Hillary vote on the Democratic side, and to presume that there will be none in the general is deluding yourself. She has a ceiling of 40 to 50 percent in the general.

As a result of such voting, we’ll have another four years of Republican “prosperity” and 100 years of war in Iraq. And, yes, a permanent restructuring of the Supreme Court.

Truly something to look forward to.

The people who vote for Hillary deserve what they get.

Most Republicans would consider voting for Obama but NEVER for Clinton. Here’s an interesting question: will you vote for her even if it’s suicidal for democrats?

1) In 2003 Clinton voted to authorize Bush to go to war in Iraq, which for me counts as very poor judgement. While Obama wasn’t in the U.S. Senate yet when that vote took place, he was speaking out very publicly against it at the time (even though it was not a popular position then), which to me shows good judgement.

2) While John Edwards admitted that his Iraq war vote was a mistake, Clinton refuses to admit that her vote for authorizing Bush to go to war with Iraq was wrong. To me (and several analysts on the Democrats’ side) this suggests that she has a problem admitting when she is wrong, and we’ve already had 7 years of a president who can’t seem to admit when he’s wrong or correct mistakes (look where it got us).

3) Clinton’s health care plan would require individuals to purchase health insurance, even if they cannot afford it, and would pubish those that do not buy insurance. This makes absolutely no sense to me. Obama’s health care plan is very similar to Clinton’s except for one major difference: he would not require individuals to purchase insurance or penalize those who don’t buy insurance.

4) Clinton knows the issues a well as Obama, but she is a polarizing figure that many Republicans hate, and she will not be able to beat John McCain; Obama on the other hand appeals to the same independent voters that McCain appeals to, and most analysts (MSNBC, CNN, Fox News) agree that Obama and McCain would split the independent vote (and current polls show that Obama would beat McCain, while Clinton would lose to McCain).

5) Clinton is widely accused of using win-at-all-costs tactics in her campaign against Obama - tactics that are almost shamelessly divisive (for example, she has been accused of sending out materials misleading voters to believe Obama is a Muslim, even though he is a Christian. Also, in the the last debate she was accused by liberals of unconstructively trying to stir up black voters’ fears of Latinos and drive a wedge between blacks and Latinos to benefit politically). Meanwhile Obama, while he has counter-attacked Clinton following attacks by Bill Clinton, he has arguably stayed above the fray to a greater extent than Clinton, and he is seen as a much more unifying force by the electorate in general (according to polls).

6) A Hillary presidency would leave Bill in the White House with nothing to do, and we saw where that led (Bill’s impeachment). After seven years with a largely unaccountable Vice President (Dick Cheney) running the country, I would not prefer to have Bill filling a similarly unaccountable role in the White House, perhaps pulling the strings from behind Hillary and using the White House to settle scores with his Republican opponents from his days as president. To me it seems that Obama would be the more democratic figure, offering more transparency in governance.

Classic Clintonian spin, inflation and revision.

Time to turn the page.

http://www.dailyherald.com/story/?id=123090

Vote for Obama!

He would amend the Constitution to impose his Biblical beliefs on others.

After what George Bush has done to harm the image of what a Christian President would be like, he has no chance at all. None. 30% of the vote is the maximum he could get.

Only a Christian that has shown by the way they live that they swear to uphold and defend the Constitution [which includes allowing the Biblical Christians to live the way they wish, without imposing it on others] has a chance of making it.

Huckabee is not that type of Christian.

Platform: he supports universal healthcare just like Edwards and Clinton (Edwards was the one who started it) with one difference: no mandates because he feels they are unaffordable for the poor. I can list much more examples.

Positiveness: “Mudslinging?” Now, I see contradictions in your column and other comments up above. I would argue that the Clintons has done far more mudslinging and triangulation as pointed out in the example.

If you wish to vote for Hillary as the nominee, that’s your right and privilege. However, your argument about the superficiality of Obama’s campaign is dead wrong. In fact, both candidates has run substantive campaigns. I just choose to support Obama.