Nevada Caucus...

[souvlaki]

Yep I just heard that on the news Ed, I figured that is how it would go since it had the blessing of the DNC....




Late last year, you do realize it is only January right?

Um... it was in August. That's four months that they had a chance to protest this decision. This wasn't even brought up until last week. If you cant see a connection between the endorsement and the lawsuit, I don't know what to tell you.

 

[Kelly]

Um... it was in August. That's four months that they had a chance to protest this decision. This wasn't even brought up until last week. If you cant see a connection between the endorsement and the lawsuit, I don't know what to tell you.

Of course I see it.....HEEEELLLLLOOOO.......I've said there is politics being played on both sides.....that is kinda obvious.

I'm simply saying......to take the politics out of it, they should either

1. do this in several areas, not just the hotel population...
2. change to a primary....

#2, would be the best way, because the caucus form sucks.....*smiles*

 

[souvlaki]

And I agree it smells on both sides......but its politics, and that always has an odor.

Missed this. I do agree to a certain extant. I can understand the basis for the argument against the decision, but I am of the opinion that if they had a problem with it they should have made their case months ago. Doing it now just makes it look like bitter Clinton supporters trying to stop Obama supporters from voting. And really, at the end of the day, that really is what this lawsuit is all about. If Hillary won the endorsement do you really believe the teachers union would have filed this lawsuit?

 

[Kelly]

Missed this. I do agree to a certain extant. I can understand the basis for the argument against the decision, but I am of the opinion that if they had a problem with it they should have made their case months ago. Doing it now just makes it look like bitter Clinton supporters trying to stop Obama supporters from voting. And really, at the end of the day, that really is what this lawsuit is all about. If Hillary won the endorsement do you really believe the teachers union would have filed this lawsuit?

If the teacher's union was supporting Obama, hell yeah they would have. Another reason why I am a member of a Teacher's Association that does not support any particular person.....they let us make our own decisions.

 

[souvlaki]

If the teacher's union was supporting Obama, hell yeah they would have.

Touche.

 

[souvlaki]

Of course I see it.....HEEEELLLLLOOOO.......I've said there is politics being played on both sides.....that is kinda obvious.

I'm simply saying......to take the politics out of it, they should either

1. do this in several areas, not just the hotel population...
2. change to a primary....

#2, would be the best way, because the caucus form sucks.....*smiles*

btw, in regards to the first option, I agree. But this is a debate they should have been having last August when something could have been done about it. There was no debate over this then so really it's a case of "you snooze, you lose". I dont have a problem with letting as many people possible participate in the caucus. What I do have a problem with is taking away the chances of certain people participating in voting because of their work schedules. All overruling this decision would do is not allow a certain group of people participate and that is wrong.

 

[Kelly]

btw, in regards to the first option, I agree. But this is a debate they should have been having last August when something could have been done about it. There was no debate over this then so really it's a case of "you snooze, you lose". I dont have a problem with letting as many people possible participate in the caucus. What I do have a problem with is taking away the chances of certain people participating in voting because of their work schedules. All overruling this decision would do is not allow a certain group of people participate and that is wrong.

The Nevada Democratic Party can set its own rules, it had the blessing of the DNC.......wouldn't have mattered in August either.....I don't believe a judge would have overruled it.

 

[souvlaki]

The Nevada Democratic Party can set its own rules, it had the blessing of the DNC.......wouldn't have mattered in August either.....I don't believe a judge would have overruled it.

Probably not. My bitterness has less to do with the actual decision itself, but more so the timing. This just looks really bad for Hillary Clinton and for the teachers union regardless of who is in the right and who is in the wrong. They should have made their case months ago, or shut up about it. In the end all this lawsuit is going to do is backfire on Hillary Clinton whether she had a direct hand in this or not (which I believe she did, regardless of what her husband said).

 

[The Senator]

This party is dividing in two, and we will lose this election-- again.

I love how Obama supporters have all their cannons drawn on Hillary Clinton. Everything questionable which pops up in this campaign is automatically her fault.

Barrack Obama isn't on the ballot in Michigan-- must be a Clinton conspiracy!

Hillary won New Hampshire-- her and her racist supporters must have rigged the machines!

Some stupid lawsuit is filed which would prevent assumed Obama supporters from voting-- she must have filed it!

This is getting old. Actually, it's been old. All of this mudslinging on both sides, and for what?

If Hillary Clinton gets the nomination or wins Nevada, is that going to be incredibly horrible? Will Obama's supporters not vote because of it? Because at the rate this fight is going, people are starting to treat Hillary like a goddamn Republican. They're going to fight this until every last limb has been torn off and every drop of blood has been had.

So what happens if Hillary wins Nevada? Will it be because of a fluke, inaccurate polling, or some racist conspiracy? Because God knows Hillary won't win this because she earned it. Oh, no, she'll rig whatever victory she gets-- despite the fact that she's led in Nevada up until the past week, when she's still in a statistical dead heat with Obama.

Get a grip. If Obama wins, I won't make some sort of outlandish statement. If Obama wins, he will have earned it. And if he wins the nomination, then he will have earned that, too. If Hillary wins, I'd better hear the same damn praise on the other side, or else everyone who hopes the Democrats will win next year ought to face this stone cold truth: This party is crumbling. The Republicans won't kill our chances of winning next year; people within our own party will shoot our chances right in the foot. And personally, a President Huckabee who thinks gay sex is equivalent to beastiality, or a President McCain who wants to keep our soldiers in Iraq for a million years, or a President Romney who wants to keep taxes raised for the poor and lower middle classes, or a President Thompson who wants to sleep through the next terrorist attack, or a President Giuliani who wants to turn this country into a fascist authoritarian state, are all more frightening than the Democrat who wants to continue the cliched "status quo."

 

[souvlaki]

Barrack Obama isn't on the ballot in Michigan-- must be a Clinton conspiracy!

Who has made this claim? Everyone knows why Obama wasn't on the ballot, there is nothing suspicious about this.

 

[souvlaki]

This party is dividing in two, and we will lose this election-- again.

Also, to be fair, the same can be said about the Republican party. I agree that this fighting within the party lines is getting old, but right now I would say the Republican party is in far worse shape. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and moderate conservatives all fighting amongst eachother. If Hillary were to get the nomination, despite the hate being spewed toward her currently I still think the Democratic party will rally behind her. I don't think the same can be said for any of the Republican candidates. Really, the problem isn't the Democratic Party, or the GOP, but with politicians in general.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Been checking the feeds.... imo, Edwards is destroying himself. He will no doubt stay in the race until at least after Super Tuesday, if not til the Convention. He is trying to stay relevant, for a delegate power play. The Demo Party is not falling apart like the pundits are saying. I do think some fractions of the party will refuse to support the eventual nominee in the General Election. You all know who I think that will be.

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

 

[Matt]

Y'know, if the Democrats keep having all this in-fighting and squabbling (especially Obama and Hillary), they are both going to end up dragging their names through the mud so much and getting lower and lower that people will vote Republican in November out of frustration. And while it may not be him in this certain case, he has been just as guilty as Hillary of these sly little political tricks. People are eventually going to get frustrated with him saying one thing ("I'm fresh, I'm new, I'm an outsider, etc") while doing another thing (mudslinging with Hillary down in the trenches). I firmly believe the reason Hillary is getting tremendous backlash is because she is seen as a typical, Washington insider politican. If Obama keeps sinking to her level, the independents he depends on will become exasperated and just quit voting.

 

[The Senator]

Who has made this claim? Everyone knows why Obama wasn't on the ballot, there is nothing suspicious about this.

It happened in the "Hillary wins Michigan" thread. I'm not naming names, but they're there if you want to find the exact post:

I Haven't paid too much attention to the Demacrat Primaries, but why did they boycott Michigan?

I think it was because of Hillary and not all canidates were going to be on the ballot.

So obviously, some people didn't know that, and scapegoated her instead of researching the issue and coming up with the correct answer.

 

[The Senator]

Also, to be fair, the same can be said about the Republican party. I agree that this fighting within the party lines is getting old, but right now I would say the Republican party is in far worse shape. You have social conservatives, fiscal conservatives, and moderate conservatives all fighting amongst eachother. If Hillary were to get the nomination, despite the hate being spewed toward her currently I still think the Democratic party will rally behind her. I don't think the same can be said for any of the Republican candidates. Really, the problem isn't the Democratic Party, or the GOP, but with politicians in general.

Funny thing is, the Republicans are ALWAYS better at organizing themselves around their candidates. Their get out the vote effort is huge in comparison to the Democrats, and their voters care more about their values than the Democratic constituency.

You don't even have to look at Presidential elections as an indicator of this. Look at years in centrist states where gay marriage amendments were on the ballot. They organized and overwhelmingly voted to define marriage as between a man and a woman. The only exception to this thus far has been Arizona, which barely rejected such an amendment.

I have a feeling that Republicans will consider this more of a do or die election than the Democrats. The Democrats will act incredibly cocky throughout, assuming that the Republicans will fail miserably on the campaign trail, not expecting them to win at all. But as long as Rudy isn't the nominee, I would bet money that they will set aside differences over their candidate's record and support him throughout the election season.

On our side... we're bickering over how "liberal" a candidate is, and how much "change" he or she will install as president. Both of them will bring change to the Presidency; they will be near polar-opposites of Bush, they will reject many of his policies... and yet, because Hillary voted for the war in Iraq and continues to defend aspects of her decision, and because she allows lobbyists to donate to her campaign, and because she discusses her experience on the trail, she is perceived as the bad guy. I know Obama supporters who would vote for Huckabee, who is the exact opposite of Obama in almost every single way, instead of Clinton, which I find distressing.

 

[Gilpesh]

So obviously, some people didn't know that, and scapegoated her instead of researching the issue and coming up with the correct answer.

Too be fair to me, who did change my mind after someone explained it, Hillary has been far and above the dirtest campaigner in this election. She's blasted Obama on being weak on crime... because he held the same position she did. She said that Obama might not stand up for a woman's right to choose... when that group came out and said he is 100% in line with their abortion policies.

But this little thing about the lawsuit stinks of Hillary... who was expected to get the backing of the union.

 

[Venom'sDad]

Just found this on CNN.

 

[StorminNorman]

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

This assessment of the Republican party is incredibly inaccurate, unless this post was suppose to be made... several months ago.

Romney and McCain could both be National Supported Candidates. Fred Thompson to should hell freeze.

 

[The Senator]

Too be fair to me, who did change my mind after someone explained it, Hillary has been far and above the dirtest campaigner in this election. She's blasted Obama on being weak on crime... because he held the same position she did. She said that Obama might not stand up for a woman's right to choose... when that group came out and said he is 100% in line with their abortion policies.

Obama's been pretty dirty, too. There's that whole "I won't take money from lobbyists" spat he got into with her... in which he may or may not have taken money from lobbyists, but-- gasp-- he made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the head of his New Hampshire campaign operations. Then there's that tricky bill he co-sponsored, which made it illegal for lobbyists to pay for dinner or lunch for senators... however, they could still pay for that meal, as long as it was conducted standing up. So he wasn't the great lobbyist crusader he and his supporters make him out to be. If you're interested in the facts, you can check out the Obama thread, where I posted the direct articles from various sources of the issue.

Then Obama not only criticized Clinton's vote in favor of invading Iraq, but he criticized her for voting to continue war funding and not voting to withdraw troops sooner. Of course, what Barrack Obama's supporters don't know is that his Iraq war record in the Senate is almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Someone made this nifty chart, and if you are as fluent in Senate bill-speak as I am, you'll see the hypocrisy in black and white:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/20080115_votes.pdf

(and yes, it's from Hillary's campaign site; but, you can also look up each individual bill number at Thomas.Loc.Gov to see both Senators' voting records)

Plus, here are some articles to back up the story:

In 2004, Sen. Obama said he was willing to support more troops in Iraq, said withdrawal from Iraq would be 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there." "Democratic Senate candidate Barack Obama said Saturday he would be willing to send more soldiers to Iraq if it is part of a strategy that the president and military leaders believe will stabilize the country…'A quick withdrawal would add to the chaos there and make it 'an extraordinary hotbed of terrorist activity,' [Obama] said. It would also damage America's international prestige and amount to 'a slap in the face' to the troops fighting there, he said." [Christopher Wills, "Obama Willing To Support More Troops In Iraq," The Associated Press, 9/19/04]

In 2005, Sen. Obama said that 'U.S. forces are still a part of the solution.'" "I believe that U.S. forces are still a part of the solution in Iraq….First and foremost, after the December 15 elections and during the course of next year, we need to focus our attention on how reduce the U.S. military footprint in Iraq. Notice that I say 'reduce,' and not 'fully withdraw.'" [Obama speech to the Chicago Council on Foreign Relations, 11/22/05]

In 2006, Sen. Obama opposed Sen. Kerry's amendment to withdraw troops, saying he opposed 'a precipitous withdrawal of troops.' Sen. Obama voted against an amendment by Senator Kerry requiring the president to begin withdrawing troops from Iraq in 2006 and have complete withdrawal by July 1, 2007. "But having visited Iraq, I am also acutely aware that a precipitous withdrawal of our troops, driven by congressional edict rather than the realities on the ground, will not undo the mistakes made by this administration. It could compound them… A hard and fast, arbitrary deadline for withdrawal offers our commanders in the field, and our diplomats in the region, insufficient flexibility" [2006 Vote # 181, S2766, 6/22/06; Obama Remarks, Congressional Record, 06/21/06]

Recently, at the Nevada debate, he called for removing all that waste from Yucca Mountain, and criticized Senator Clinton for not doing anything about it. Well, isn't it funny that his top donor lobbied to keep and store nuclear waste there?

One of Sen. Obama's biggest donors is the energy giant Exelon:

Exelon is the sixth largest donor to Sen. Obama's presidential campaign and the fourth largest career donor to Obama’s federal campaigns. Exelon employees have donated over $269,100 to his federal campaigns and over $194,750 in 2008. [opensecrets.org, 2008, 2004-2008]

Exelon's CEO is a key advocate for storing nuclear waste at Yucca:

Exelon CEO John Rowe calls Yucca mountain project ‘linchpin’ to solving waste problem and building new plants. "So what does Exelon Chief Executive Officer John Rowe want? Fortune magazine, in a May 15, 2006, article titled 'Meet Mr. Nuke,' details Rowe's call to solve the waste problem before additional nuclear power plants are built. "We have to be able to look the public in the eye and say, 'If we build a plant, here's where the waste will go,' " Rowe told Fortune. The Yucca Mountain Project is the 'linchpin' to solving the waste problem and building new plants.”[Las Vegas Review Journal, 5/15/07]

Exelon has spent millions lobbying to open up Yucca mountain

In 2002, Exelon spent $2,172,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2003, Exelon spent $2,864,400 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2004, Exelon spent over $1,000,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including 'Yucca Mountain Project Management' [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year; year-end]

In 2005, Exelon spent $1,815,000 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2006, Exelon spent $1,329,014 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including ‘the Department of Energy’s Yucca Mountain Project.’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year, year-end]

In 2007, Exelon spent $1,732,321 dollars on lobbying the federal government on issues including the ‘Yucca Mountain National Interest…’ [sopr.senate.gov, mid-year]

So, Obama is quite the negative campaigner himself. But because he has a cute face, and a hot, booming voice and a message every liberal can float high on, his errors and attacks get overlooked, while Hillary's "attacks" are criticized left and right, over and over again. This really a shows a double-standard, I think.

 

[The Senator]

Been checking the feeds.... imo, Edwards is destroying himself. He will no doubt stay in the race until at least after Super Tuesday, if not til the Convention. He is trying to stay relevant, for a delegate power play. The Demo Party is not falling apart like the pundits are saying. I do think some fractions of the party will refuse to support the eventual nominee in the General Election. You all know who I think that will be.

As far as the Repubs are concern.... the party is beginning to collapse if the continue down this road of looking for a Reagan Clone. That candidate does not exist. Sadly, the Repubs will only unite for RudyG and that is only when he run against hillary. They will not unite behind any of the other candidates, even McCain should he win the nomination. Regardless of the Demos nominee. The Repubs are trying to find an ideology that does not FULLY exist anymore; and it is recking the party.

Seriously, like Norman said, this is completely false. Giuliani is polling in single-digits in some nationwide polls. He has yet to finish in fifth place in the early states, let alone first, and these big losses will probably hurt him in the big states he had hoped to win at a later date. Recent polls show McCain winning not only Florida, but Pennsylvania and California-- two huge, delegate-rich states Rudy had banked on winning. He's almost neck and neck with McCain in New York-- his homestate. If he can't win there, how can he be expected to win the whole thing?

Also, the party has a history of uniting behind people they have been divided over, such as Ronald Reagan (who was largely rejected in 1976 before winning the nod in 1980 after quite the uphill battle), and Bob Dole (who had been trashed throughout every one of his Presidential campaigns, though he was most prominently attacked in 1996-- which was the year he won his party's nomination and had pretty good Republican voter turnout, despite his loss).

If McCain becomes the nominee, the party will unite behind him, not only because they want to win the election, but because they desperately need to. They are also better at organizing and supporting a candidate, as long as they have similar values which mirror those of the Republican Party. If Romney is the nominee, they'll support him, and if Huckabee is the nominee, they'll support him, too.

Finally, your assessment that they'll only select Rudy because he beats Hillary Clinton is false. Hillary Clinton beats Rudy in several Republican states by upwards of ten points. He's not a lock for the win by any means, and I have a feeling that's a big part of the reason as to why Republicans aren't uniting behind him anymore.

 

[Gilpesh]

Obama's been pretty dirty, too. There's that whole "I won't take money from lobbyists" spat he got into with her... in which he may or may not have taken money from lobbyists, but-- gasp-- he made a pharmaceutical lobbyist the head of his New Hampshire campaign operations. Then there's that tricky bill he co-sponsored, which made it illegal for lobbyists to pay for dinner or lunch for senators... however, they could still pay for that meal, as long as it was conducted standing up. So he wasn't the great lobbyist crusader he and his supporters make him out to be. If you're interested in the facts, you can check out the Obama thread, where I posted the direct articles from various sources of the issue.

I'll take a look.

Then Obama not only criticized Clinton's vote in favor of invading Iraq, but he criticized her for voting to continue war funding and not voting to withdraw troops sooner. Of course, what Barrack Obama's supporters don't know is that his Iraq war record in the Senate is almost identical to Hillary Clinton's. Someone made this nifty chart, and if you are as fluent in Senate bill-speak as I am, you'll see the hypocrisy in black and white:

http://www.hillaryclinton.com/files/pdf/20080115_votes.pdf

(and yes, it's from Hillary's campaign site; but, you can also look up each individual bill number at Thomas.Loc.Gov to see both Senators' voting records).

Um... Hillary also said the exact same thing about Obama and supporting the war. Saw the ad on television during dinner a week or two ago.

Recently, at the Nevada debate, he called for removing all that waste from Yucca Mountain, and criticized Senator Clinton for not doing anything about it. Well, isn't it funny that his top donor lobbied to keep and store nuclear waste there?

So... your problem is that he was against storing the waste there and a lobbyist that pays him is for it? Wouldn't that mean he didn't let a lobbyist buy his opinion?

And maybe if people were more educated about the storing of that waste there... this wouldn't be an issue. Cause if Penn and Teller can cover it in half an hour, it really isn't.

So, Obama is quite the negative campaigner himself. But because he has a cute face, and a hot, booming voice and a message every liberal can float high on, his errors and attacks get overlooked, while Hillary's "attacks" are criticized left and right, over and over again. This really a shows a double-standard, I think.

Hillary is blantantly lying about experience and attacking Obama on his inexperience... I think she wins the dirtest title.

And if someone wants to say that it is because she is a woman... who else is complaining about her being able to cry a little and pull support out of thin air. Of course the crying wasn't too much of a boost, the polling whoopsy was most of it.

 

[Venom'sDad]

This assessment of the Republican party is incredibly inaccurate, unless this post was suppose to be made... several months ago.

Romney and McCain could both be National Supported Candidates.

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.


On a side note:

Here is the complete uneditted interview with Bill. He is trying to imply that those voters vote will came five times what it is worth. He keeps hammering on that implication. Also, trying to portray the reporter position when he is doing his job, asking a legitiment question. The reporter took no position. He tried to distance the Clinton campaign from the lawsuit filed by the Teachers Union. We know better. However, where was the Union 10 months ago and ever since.

He also call the State Democratic Party "Stupid" twice, by implying they didn't know what they were doing or understood....further casting stone at their own Party, if they do get in line and play ball.... which they did when it was assume hillary would get the endorsement and waltz to the nomination. There is so much here, he said he is not concern about the house mortgage market but that voters vote count 5 times... which they don't.

 

[StorminNorman]

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

This is, of course, inarguable. But that doesn't mean the Republicans wouldn't unite behind him against a common, more serious enemy: Hillary or Obama.

For you to make the argument that the Conservatives wont support McCain, but would Rudy - a man far more liberal than the Senator - is a bit curious. Especially when McCain's support dwarfs Rudy's.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.

The party wont be united until after the argument. I have seen most reflect the sentiment that he is the GOP's best candidate against the GOP. Romney's reputation is not one of a weak candidate - he is the one that was viewed upon as a bully in Iowa. He is a candidate that will take it to Hillary and Obama.

 

[The Senator]

I'm sorry dude, but that is a myth. Many Conservatives are very unhappy with McCain's numerous positions against the Bush Whitehouse. Everyone don't hate Bush like Demos/Libs and some Mods and Repubs, particular Conservatives which is his strogest supporters still. They have not forgotten McCain and his Moderate attitude and partnership with high ranking Democrats.

Romney is gain some traction, but not enough to unite a party who feels he can not compete with hillary. They do believe he waffles, and will buckle against a brute like hillary, who will do anything it takes, to rip their(bill & hill) opponent apart and win the WhiteHouse.

You know nothing of politics.

History doesn't repeat itself, but it rhymes.

You ought to study the history of the modern Republican part from 1960-present. You'll understand that, even though a candidate is disliked by a good percentage of the Republican Party for whatever reasons, if that candidate received the nomination, he is supported by a vast majority of the party none the less. Again, use Reagan and Dole as case studies.

 

[The Senator]

Um... Hillary also said the exact same thing about Obama and supporting the war. Saw the ad on television during dinner a week or two ago.

If you're being attacked left and right by your opponent over your war record, then what are you left to do? She had to defend herself, and rightfully so, considering Obama's attacks were held to the same double-standard he's based his campaign on.

So... your problem is that he was against storing the waste there and a lobbyist that pays him is for it? Wouldn't that mean he didn't let a lobbyist buy his opinion?

No, my problem is that he attacked Senator Clinton for two things: Taking large donations from lobbyists and corporations, and for not supporting action against waste storage at Yucca Mountain. Not only did Obama himself not take any action against Yucca mountain, but he accepted donations from a man whose job it was to make sure the waste storage continued there.

Hypocrisy all around.

And maybe if people were more educated about the storing of that waste there... this wouldn't be an issue. Cause if Penn and Teller can cover it in half an hour, it really isn't.

Exactly. But the American people outside of Nevada aren't educated in this, so they are forced to form an opinion based on heresay from other candidates. When you have handsome people talking about an issue, they seem to get their point across better than all those objective, scholarly articles and government releases which have covered the issue for decades.

Hillary is blantantly lying about experience and attacking Obama on his inexperience... I think she wins the dirtest title.

No, Obama is not only trying to butter up his inexperience into an impressive resume, but he's lying about his Senate career in the process. He's lied about being consistently against the war in Iraq, and he's wrongfully attacked Hillary Clinton for supporting the same legislation he voted in favor of. Certainly, he didn't vote to authorize the war in Iraq, and he was an early vocal opponent; but why did he vote in favor of funding and appropriations measures? He was overwhelmingly popular in his homestate, so it wouldn't have affected his election chances-- could it be because he was positioning himself to run for president, and on the off chance he did run and get the nomination, he might look like a wuss on defense and a troop hater for voting against them? Of course, he can attack Hillary for political positioning, because you know, she didn't vote the right way. How hypocritical.

And there's far more dirt, which I don't feel like typing again... but a good point is, he fired the first shot about her being a corporate hag; she fired the second shot over his inexperience.

They're both guilty of slinging the mud. But let he who is without sin cast the first stone...

And if someone wants to say that it is because she is a woman... who else is complaining about her being able to cry a little and pull support out of thin air. Of course the crying wasn't too much of a boost, the polling whoopsy was most of it.

Well, I don't think her sex has anything to do with it, but of course, people just enjoy making it something bigger than it should be... kind of like her opponent's race.