Has everyone seen This Modern World this morning. If not, be sure to do so. I promise that regardless of which candidate you support, you will find it on the mark.

And not just a visual. Patrick is a second superdelegate.

Matthew: Please provide a link to Senator Obama "whining about dynasties." Thank you.

Trying to jump start the coronation again? Sorry, don't find the "Vote for the Demogogue so your kids can have hope" line of argument very inspiring.

No, just Obama's supporters were whining about dynasties.

And when I heard Obama had the crossover appeal and charisma of Kennedy, I mistakenly thought they were talking about Bobby. Maybe we can bring back Sinatra and Sammy Davis Jr. as well.

So let me get this straight. Obama is going to be endorsed by the most "status quo" senator in politics. But Obama is for change right? Shouldn't he refuse the endorsement? Wait, unless he is just saying and doing anything to get elected. Hold on here, that's the line to pull out against Clinton. Sorry.

Coyote, I'm talking about all of the blog commentators that constantly rant about their opposition to dynasties like the envision Clinton to become. Heck, talking about dynasties has to begin with the Kennedys. Clintons and even the Bushes have nothing on this family.

Jeremy, I'm sorry but I don't have time to get into long discussions about experience between the different candidates today. Hillary has a much longer and stronger track record in all aspects than does Obama. He also makes hard choices, instead of safe Present votes. I seriously doubt a slum lord is not one of her life-long friends and funding sources.

Yes, Obama can be inspiring, put peel away your desire for change and a new face, what you are left with is a small-time politician from Chicago with no experience and baggage that is poised to serious hurt him and the Democratic party. Short of Rezko's charges being dismissed, everything about the upcoming trial is bad news. Top this off with Obama not wanting to address any of it. BTW, did you see Sunday's Chicago Tribune? Even their endorsement was contingent on Obama fessing up to his past and relationship with Rezko. This wasn't some limit, long ago thing as Obama and Rezko are long-time friends.

Anyway, the desire for change is too easily whitewashing lots of problems that will sink the party. Plus, the Clintons have ran circles around him politically, just as the Republicans would in the fall. Obama, as an individual and as a candidate, is not ready for this.

"So let me get this straight. Obama is going to be endorsed by the most "status quo" senator in politics. But Obama is for change right? Shouldn't he refuse the endorsement?"

This is how people embarrass themselves in their hatred for Obama - how is an endorsement in stark opposition with what you plan to accomplish as a president? Since Bob Johnson(BET) endorsed Hillary, does that mean that when she's president she will set the Civil Rights Movement back 20 years?..lol

I thought Obama was all about "tomorrow." Dragging out these chestnuts, alongside the likes of John Kerry and Bioll Bradley, isn't exactly "new generation" politics. And do you think closeness to Teddy will really help in a general election? I find Obama empty and uninspiring, and no endorsement can change that ... if anything, lining himself up with the (elder generation of) Kennedys only underscores his lack of subtsance.

Matthew. You've shown yourself to be nothing but a hack. Obama has in fact held public office longer than Clinton and delivered more progressive legislation. As far as your smear, Obama has been accused of nothing illegal or unethical and it's been repeatedly noted that he voted against Rezko's interests (e.g., on casino legislation in 99), though he's admitted making mistakes in even knowing the guy. In my opinion, he hasn't made a mistake half as bad as voting for war and against diplomact without even reading the NIE. Your negative attack and sleazy innuendo just makes my point, but since you brought it up maybe Rezko can bribe one of Hillary's brothers and get a pardon. To Obama's credit, he has not trudged up any of the stuff that the Reps would throw at Clinton, who would enter a GE campaign with high negatives already. Unlike Hillary, Obama has worked to deliver legislation at both the state and federal level making government more open, accountable, and democratic.

Massachusetts will now fall to Obama. Hillary just lost Massachusetts. And this means Rhode Island also, will now fall to Obama. Hillary will be in Springfield, MA this morning. Hillary just lost Massachusetts. And it's now likely she will lose Connecticut.

I am hearing from key fund-raisers in Brooklyn that the sentiment shift and the money shift is now to Obama. It's possible that Hillary may actually have to spend time in NJ and NY this week. That would have previously been unthinkable.

Colorado is falling to Obama. The big kahuna of course remains California. But the newspapers are starting to fall--to Obama. The Clinton's were eviscerated in this weekend's LA Times, in addition to the severe and well deserved beating they got in the Op-Ed and front page news stories of the NYT.

The Liberal Press has turned on the Clintons. Not because of anything Obama supporters said. Not because of anything Obama said.

Nope.

Because of what Bill and Hillary have been saying, and doing.

"Sure, Mark ... things like substance and experience and big yawners, aren't they?"

Its rather yawn-worthy when the rhetoric has no substance, just regurgitated talking points.

Matthew: A dynasty is "a sequence of rulers from the same family, stock, or group." I fail to see how Obama is from the same family, stock, or group as the Kennedys.

I think people see empty rhetoric of inexperience and lack of substance, without specific instances - somewhat of a yawner. Its pretty rich how you never get specifics from Obama detractors, just cowardly talking points.

Meanwhile, it's rich any time someone supporting Obama complains about "rhetoric." That's all your candidate has, folks, and we've finally reached the stage of the process where that will start to matter.

Please characterize the 1980 race for President, being specific about which candidates were running on broad themes, and which were running on specifics, and then comment on the winner, and, how he balanced a broad message with specifics.

You might also do the same for the 1992 race.

Let's see how your thesis about Obama, "at this stage of the race" compares.

Gregor wrote:

"The real tragedy is that Hillary's friends did not talk her out of running for President"

How true. In my view there was always a conflict on interest in hillary running. It is simply impossible to extract bill from the mix and that makes for so many, many conflicts of interest here. A former president, who can't run for office any longer, now running through a surrogate. She is stuck in the "surrogate" role - via bill - and simply can't get out of the corner her spousal relationship paints her into.

It's an ethics issues. Conflict of interest. Prevents objectivity.

Ah... it's deflection time yet again.... Should Senator Kennedy have chosen to endorse Hillary, the shoes would be on other feet. The HRC supporters would be talking about what a great and positive endorsement it is and the Obama people would be talking establishment this and establishment that.

Me personally, I have three candidates in the primary. They are all good people and I will support the eventual nominee. But I am certainly not going to disparage Sen. Kennedy's record. He has accomplished more legislatively than all three primary candidates combined. He is a clarion voice for the progressive movement and is not referred to as a "Liberal Lion" for nothing. As for Caroline's endorsement, that is truly the telling one for me. She does not tend to publicly endorse candidates in the primary. That she does so now is uncharacteristic and notable.

Truly though, I will be happy once the nomination is decided one way or another. All of our hatred and vitriol is much better used against the Republicans rather than each other.

Here is hoping that time will lessen the wounds that have been inflicted during this contentious primary battle.

This point has been made, but bears repeating. Hillary has ridden high in the polls for more than a year on the basis of name recognition alone. Now that things have become retail, she's losing ground. Wherever Obama has an opportunity to introduce himself he bridges or overcomes the gap.

The fact is Hillary isn't inevitable.

I have said that I would vote for McCain over Hillary if she got the nomination. After McCain's "more wars" campaign speech, I will gladly and happily pull the lever for Hillary if she gets the nomination.

Truthfully though, I do think the tide has changed. I sincerely think that O has the Big Mo, whereas Hillary is trying to staunch the attrition.

We'll see soon enough though.

Rezko arrested due to "bond" violation. Not Bama violation!

Here is hoping that time will lessen the wounds that have been inflicted during this contentious primary battle.

Indeed. The damage and poison injected by the Clinton Goon Squad has been fast and furious over the past 12 weeks. Mark Penn. Howard Wolfson. The reptilian Terry McAullife.

These guys came to the profession at a time when Lee Atwater was on the other side of the equation.

Like so many aspects of the Clinton Campaign, they are all fighting the last war.

It's more than a little hilarious that the Obama campaign and its supporters who have ranted against dynastic politics have embraced one of the most politically dynastic families this nation has ever know.

I love the smell of Obamypocisy in the morning, it smells like . . . a mentiroso pretending to embrace change.

Of course Mrs. Clinton would like to have the Kennedy endorsement. But that was never likely, because she and Kennedy were on opposite sides of the authorization to use force vote. Watch for Kennedy to go after her on that vote today. Obama should have done that instead of playing the race card when she brought up LBJ. This gives the Obama campaign another chance to raise the issue. Kennedy and Obama are aligned on the invasion. It's disingenuous for Kennedy to pretend his endorsement is about anything the Clintons may have said.

It was not too terribly long ago that Imelda Blahnik and other Clinton entheusiasts on this board were touting the number of Kennedys that had endorsed Sen Clinton and were anxiously anticipating Sen Kennedy's endorsement of their own man. I will be the first to agree that endorsements are of rather limited worth, but the sour-grapes of the Clinton folks on this thread is both 1) staggering, and 2) totally unconvincing. I can see the sun with my eyes open at noon, and I know that Sen Kennedy's endorsement is a good thing, not a bad thing as some of the more unhinged Clinton supporters here are trying to make out. Give us a break, do.

That said...

Massachusetts will now fall to Obama. Hillary just lost Massachusetts. And this means Rhode Island also, will now fall to Obama. Hillary will be in Springfield, MA this morning. Hillary just lost Massachusetts. And it's now likely she will lose Connecticut.

Whoa there, buddy. I am as entheusiastic for Obama as you are, but let us not get carried away. The best plausible scenario for us right now (as I see it, at any rate) is that the recent spate of good news serves to narrow these various races to draws. I think it is profoundly unlikely that we can win them all outright. There is still a lot of work ahead of us.

Obama wants to wear the mantle of a liberal hawk.

Apparently, he really does want to be more like Hillary Clinton, but lacks the balls (or maybe it's his misogyny at work).

Almost too funny for words!

"he claims he is against the war and any of its supporters, then endorses and seeks to take the heat off Kerry and Edwards for his own political gain"

How is doing so for his political gain? I see it as Obama not trying to throw Kerry and Edwards(two people who voted for the war) under the proverbial bus.

"but lacks the balls (or maybe it's his misogyny at work). Almost too funny for words!"

That response is too funny for words, an aroma of desperation oozing from your nonsensical drivel.

"I love the smell of Obamypocisy in the morning, it smells like . . . a mentiroso pretending to embrace change."

I still don't see how any rational person, one not a product of inbreeding - can see an endorsement of Ted Kennedy being a smoking gun to how Obama can't be an agent of change.

"a man who has no scruples, just like Bush, in promoting himself above the good of the country and worse"

Somebody needs a Quaalude.

"Then you are an idiot."

Just pretend that you aren't a coward for one minute and back up your argument for once in your life - he was asked by Tim Russert, in relation to Edwards and Kerry - about how he could support them when they voted for the war. He decided not to throw them under the bus.

Jay: "That response is too funny for words, an aroma of desperation oozing from your nonsensical drivel."

Signs of desperation?

You would know about that.

It's why Obama was the first to break the DNC rules about Florida and why he lied about it to a national audience.

"I still don't see how any rational person, one not a product of inbreeding - can see an endorsement of Ted Kennedy being a smoking gun to how Obama can't be an agent of change."

George W. Bush campaigned as an agent of change also - and the Obama campaign and its supporters have routinely mimicked a boatload of Bush paradigms and tactics; the "change" mantle is just one.

Being a so-called "agent of change" is not always what it's cracked up to be and Obama is and will be if elected proof of that.

Obama and his supporters are continually ranting about Bill's infidelity, Hillary's liberal hawkishness, and the outrageousness of political dynasties; it is uproariously funny that Obama and his supporters have now embraced the mantle of a liberal hawk, the mantle of the liberal hawk's dynastic family, and the Man of Chappaquiddick.

Gee, I wonder which is worse: leaving a woman to drown or leaving a woman with a stained dress?

I bet Ted Kennedy's endorsement will play well with members of the GOP Obama plans to reach out to!

ROFL!

Texie, I think you lost your way. The website is hillaryis44.org. You're at the wrong place.

NCSteve: "What, exactly, is it that you guys say Obama did vis a vis Rezko that was illegal?"

What exactly is it that you guys say Clinton (Bill) did vis a vis Marc Rich that was illegal?

Please point to a specific law that Bill broke.

What exactly is it that you guys say Clinton (Hillary) did vis a vis Marc Rich that was illegal?

Please point to a specific law that Hillary broke.

Jay: "..and so far, Obama has backed that up rather beautifully."

I didn't know that dirty tricks ("D - Punjab") and lying (DNC approved ad) were the tactics of Obama's "new type of politician" - perhaps you can explain how those are different from the "old type of politician" - especially difficult after Obama supporters have ranted continuously about how "lying" and "dirty tricks" are the very essence of old style politics!

I can wait . . .

Just like I'm still waiting for answers to why Obama hasn't used his great bipartisan consensus building skills to push through legislation to bring the troops home, get health care reform passed, or Bush impeached and convicted or why Obama, since experience is unnecessary, didn't run in 2004 when the need for change was even greater, but instead chose to embrace two "war supporters."

Waiting . . . waiting . . . waiting . . .

"I didn't know that dirty tricks ("D - Punjab")"

Apparently Hillary is into the same type of Humor(i.e ghandi) http://youtube.com/watch?v=e1Mq8kOXV_E

"and lying (DNC approved ad)"

..something you can't prove.

"were the tactics of Obama's "new type of politician""

..but so far you have yet to explain how he isn't a "new type" of politician. Sad.

So, are you saying that you can't prove that the Obama camp called hillary "Hitlery?"

...still..waiting..still..waiting...

So, Hillary would win Texas in the general election, and what the hell is a Texmod? Someone who only foams at the mouth every other day?

I am commenting about Obama's deliberate and subtle way of making people think he voted against the Iraq war. I kept hearing him say that "he has always been against the war and Hillary voted for it." When I never heard the words "he VOTED against it", I got suspicious. I did some fact checking, I found out that Obama was not a member of the U. S. Senate when the vote was taken. The Senate voted on the Iraq resolution Oct. 11, 2002, and Obama didn't become a U. S. Senator until Jan. 3, 2005. I have been wondering why he has never been honest and told us that although he wasn't in the U. S. Senate when the vote was taken, he would have voted no if he were there. The obvious omission of this important fact on such an important issue should make voters wonder why he is so comfortable letting people THINK that he voted against the war.

Jay: "..but so far you have yet to explain how he isn't a "new type" of politician."

If you are the "old type of politician" then you can't be the "new type of politician."

I apologize for having to reduce the argument to such elemental levels for those like Jay who can't parse logic.

But he does need small, easily understood sentences . . .

Liam: "Someone who only foams at the mouth every other day?"

As opposed to an Obama supporter who foams (koolaid no less) at the mouth every day?

ROFL!

Jay: "You are just retarded, of the glass licking variety - because the same thing would be true if he endorsed Hillary."

Hillary isn't trying to appeal to members of the GOP nor is she claiming any special talent for doing so - Obama is.

Again, you Obama supporters are so enveloped in his alleged paradigm that you insist that others be measured by the talents and skills OBAMA SAYS ARE IMPORTANT as if his pronouncements come directly from heaven.

Sorry, but they don't.

Obama is held to his own standards (and the claims regarding his talents and skills by those promotiing him).

Whether Clinton has or needs those skills is irrelevant to whether Obama has the skills that HE AND HIS SUPPORTERS deem important.

I know that is pretty complex logic for people living in a Peter Pan world, but do try to follow along.

Jay: "That was one of the claims you made earlier, don't run from that.."

I said his "goon squad" had used that term.

I have no idea what you mean by "camp," but clearly I didn't use "camp" so I didn't say what you said I said.

But this is typical mendacity by Obama supporters.

Just like they restructured Clinton quotes to say something that was never said - pretty much a Bush tactic and I'm glad to see Obama's supporters using the Bush administration as their model, since it shows who they truly are.

"I said his "goon squad" had used that term."

Great backpeddle.

"But this is typical mendacity by Obama supporters."

I love how you can't prove this claim. Great.

Jay: "No you can't."

I can and I did.

Are you calling Josh a liar?

Simple question.

Of course, Obama supporters can't be bothered with simple questions; the righteous can never be diverted from their goals, by facts or anything else.

Just. Like. Bush.

Mary: "The Robert Kennedy side of the family is supporting Hillary Clinton."

The side of the family of the brother who didn't leave a woman to drown.

Jay: "So you admit that Hillary is polarizing?"

No, I admit Clinton isn't campaigning on her ability to appeal to the Right or her need to appeal to Republicans in order to win.

Obama is.

Again, however, you prove my point that Obama supporters are routinely mendacious about what people have said, by falsely and tendentiously misinterpreting what I wrote.

Keep giving me the proof - it means I don't have to go back through the many equally mendacious Obama supporter posts for that proof - I can find it right here!

Jay: "I agree, because Obama has proven himself to be a "new type of politician".."

And yet, you cannot supply any proof of that!

That's what koolaid drinking is all about, Jay!

Belief without evidence; faith without reason.

That's what the Bush administration was all about.

I can't believe how lucky I am to find a single Obama supporter who can demonstrate so effectively the Obamaite propensity to lie and to place political faith above all else, just like the GOP!

Thank you so much!

"And yet, you cannot supply any proof of that!"

You were supposed to prove that he was different, you didn't, you failed badly.

"I can't believe how lucky I am to find a single Obama supporter who can demonstrate so effectively the Obamaite propensity to lie and to place political faith above all else, just like the GOP!"

I'm just fortunate to come across a Hillary supporter, who doesn't seem to fully understand why they are supporting the senator - who's only counter arguments are "I know my candidate is corrupt, whats your point?" Sweet..lol

Jay: "..this coming from a mental midget."

And I thought Obama supporters were all about the "new politics" where Obama and his supporters would not stoop to name-calling and dirty tricks!

Guess the "new politics" is simply the "old politics" with deceptive labeling.

Jay: ". . . your cowardice knows no bounds."

ROFL!

Says the man whose only tactic seems to be deliberate mischaracterizations and rewrites of the comments of others so he will have some strawmen to knock down!

Too. Funny.

Really.

Democrats fighting is so lame - quit it guys.

Jay: "You were supposed to prove that he was different, you didn't, you failed badly."

What Bush said to the UN inspectors when asked to prove that Saddam had no WMDs.

Bush lied and so have you.

Par for the course from Obama supporters, both their lying and their resemblance to Bush and his buddies.

"I'm just fortunate to come across a Hillary supporter, who doesn't seem to fully understand why they are supporting the senator . . ."

Since I don't support Clinton, there is nothing there that requires "understanding."

More lies by you.

More proof of my claim that Obama supporters are liars.

"Guess seems to be why you've been looking rather foolish lately."

As if the opinion of an Obama supporter, who apparently are all inveterate liars, has any meaning whatsoever.

Jay: "You didn't, you came across like a geriatric pair of boobs."

Ahhhh, more misogyny from the Obama crowd.

Really, this is too choice.

Keep it coming.

Jay: ..so says the man under a "Anonymous" moniker. lol"

So says the Obama supporter under an anonymous moniker.

LOL at your hypocrisy.

Jay: "So she is polarizing, negating her ability to cross party lines is admitting as much . . ."

Didn't say that either.

Again with the misrepresentations.

Just like Obama misrepresenting Clinton's comments on LBJ and MLK.

I guess Obama liars of a feather DO flock together!

"Keep it coming."

I've been doing so, try to keep up.

"So says the Obama supporter under an anonymous moniker."

Jay is anonymous?

LOL at your hypocrisy.

"Didn't say that either."

You didn't have to.

"Just like Obama misrepresenting Clinton's comments on LBJ and MLK."

..just like how you can never find a link where Obama himself made an issue out of either one.

"Ahhhh, more misogyny from the Obama crowd."

Geriatric boobs do exist right? Or on another level - is someone being sexist if they call a person a "dick"? Inquiring minds would like to know.

Jay: "Jay is anonymous?"

Yes.

Clearly you don't know the meaning of 'anonymous.'

Jay: "You didn't have to."

Thanks for admitting you misrepresented what I wrote.

First reasonble thing you've written.

"Yes."

..whatever gets you through the night scooter.

"Thanks for admitting you misrepresented what I wrote."

..you fumble your own words better than I can.

"So airhead women."

huh?

"Using a specific condition of certain females as a generic insult, however, is not a factual assertion, but a misogynistic degradation of women."

..but both are body parts, no matter the age of said body parts - so that's why your logic falls pretty flat.

"When frustrated and caught in lies"

..you resort to lame spelling & grammar flames - got it!

Jay: "..you fumble your own words better than I can."

Even if that were so, it is far better than fumbling the truth like you.

"..whatever gets you through the night scooter."

What gets me through the night is understanding words like "anonymous" which you clearly are unable to comprehend - it gives me comfort that Obama supporters are so devoid of any intellectual integrity or capacity.

Jay: "..but both are body parts, no matter the age of said body parts - so that's why your logic falls pretty flat."

Now you are artificially introducing age into an issue revolving around gender.

Sweet!

More proof that Obama supporters are perfectly willing to misrepresent and lie in a continual fashion.

"..you resort to lame spelling & grammar flames - got it!"

Another Obamaite tactic: endless repetition of lame retorts.

Sweet!

"..but calling someone a "dick", according to your logic - is more damaging to males because it focuses on all males and not any specific group."

It has nothing to do with whom the comment is focused on, but whether the comment is disparaging to a group of people based on their gender.

According to YOUR logic, as long as you call everyone, including whites, "n*gger" when you are mad at them, then it's okay to use the term, even though it's offensive to blacks to have that term used as an insult.

I bet Obama would appreciate your logic.

LOL!

Jay: "By the looks of it, you are the one who refuses to grasp a clear understanding of that word - don't take out your frustrations out on me."

Your inability to "look" at something and see the truth of it or view a term and understand it's meaning is not my concern.

"What does this have to do with Barack Obama exactly?"

What does this have to do with Hillary Clinton exactly?

"More incoherent rambling and fumbling."

There was no need to provide a description of your own comment - I already was aware that it was incoherent rambling and fumbling, but then again I won't stop you from disparaging your own words, since that disparagement is well-earned.

Jay: "I'd say the only thing artificial is your argument - nice try at diversion though."

It worked on you, so being effective, it was a "nice try."

"Don't run from the fact that you got frustrated, got called on it - and now are scrambling to respond."

I'd say don't run from the fact that you got caught lying, got called on it, and are now trying to divert attention from it, but we know a featured character of Obamaites is to run from the truth and from civil discourse.

"So you are saying that women are the only group that could be discriminated against - that doesn't make sense.

So, you are still engaging in willful misrepresentation of the others' comments.

The Obamaite tactic of lying continues.

"Nope, that's your hamfisted logic . . ."

It is clear that your frustration is turning you into a raging lunatic who doesn't make sense and can't use any form of logic to come to rational conclusions except to deny your obvious lies and to equally deny your inability to grasp the fundamental principles of analogy.

Have at it and post all the inanity you want - I have better things to do than continue to read your lies and dissemblings.

Most.Useless.Thread.Ever.

Hey texi, I got a great website for you to play at. hillaryis44.org. Go there and play. I am sure the rest of the clinton people will welcome you with open arms. Spout off for the third term of the clintons.