Obama extends lead over Clinton — This is getting better and better. Clinton is going to have to cheat like crazy now to pull this off.

Barack Obama has gained more ground over his rival, Hillary Clinton, in the contest to win the Democratic nomination to run for US president.

Mr Obama, the senator for Illinois, has won the primary in Wisconsin, and is also projected to take victory in Hawaii – his 10th win in a row.

  1. MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

    #25 – That’s a good idea. Send Bill to the UN. The UN is a hilarious joke and complete lacking in credibility as it is. Good place for him.

  2. MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

    Actually if you really want to know what’s going on with Obama it was predicted:

  3. patrick says:


    Clinton actually lost control of Congress shortly after becoming Pres. After that he had policies forced on him by congress that led to a booming economy. Low taxes, reduced welfare spending, etc.

  4. Dallas says:

    #33 Ummm, yeah, that’s it.

  5. Phillep says:

    qsabe, #27, Take another look at the unemployment levels by year. Clinton’s numbers were pretty good, but his highest were just before the Republicans took Congress. Bush II numbers are about the same as the early Clinton years.

    Bobbo, I did say “sane Democrat”.

  6. Greg Allen says:

    I don’t buy for a minute that Clinton is any more power hungry or cynical than the other candidates.

    C’mon… this is the right wing talking point about every Dem candidate and you suckers buy it every time.

    Remember how in 2000, the cynical shameless conservatives accused Gore of, well, being shameless and cynical? They went so far as to LIE that Gore was a liar about inventing the Internet!

    Remember how in 2004, the shameless cynical cons said the same about John Kerry — they LIED claiming he LIED about his military service!

    Now they are saying the same about Hillary Clinton.

    Sucker me once… maybe even twice but even I have my limits to how much I’ll believe the Right’s crap.

  7. Greg Allen says:

    # 33 patrick said,

    Clinton actually lost control of Congress shortly after becoming Pres. After that he had policies forced on him by congress that led to a booming economy. Low taxes, reduced welfare spending, etc.

    Ha! One has to love history revisionism.

    We all remember that the conservatives beat the hell out of Clinton for his initiative to balance the budget and end the economic anchor of Republican borrow-and-spend fiscal policy.

  8. pedro says:

    I’ll agree with something: Obama will bring change.

    Question is, a change to what? Everytime people go like sheeples looking after the one who brings a change are unlucky enough to see that change happen.

    Change for the sake of change is the worst exucse there is. I know Bush’s government has been quite toxic, but don’t get blinded by empty words

  9. Charbax says:

    I prefer Hillary.

    Saying someone needs to cheat when a whole bunch of people haven’t even voted yet is pretty stupid.

    Should Iowa determine who should be the president? No. Should Wisconsin and Hawaii determine who should be the next president of the worlds largest and only super power? No. I don’t think so.

    Let people vote. Respect Democracy and do not become like some of those stupid TV anchors who spend their time on air argumenting that it doesn’t even matter that people should have the right to vote. Shall we let the TV and media anchors vote or shall we let the people vote?

    Should Issues, propositions and politics matter? Or the media BS should matter more?

  10. littleshadow says:

    “Shall we let the TV and media anchors vote or shall we let the people vote?” – #39

    Assuming you lean a bit to the liberal side, shouldn’t your principles compel you share whatever amazing substance it is that your smoking with the rest of us? Please?

  11. Hmeyers says:

    #37 “Ha! One has to love history revisionism.”

    Was what #33 Patrick said revisionist history?

    Do you remember Bill Clinton trying to pass a national value-added tax, aka a national sales tax?

    I don’t recall welfare reform being on Clinton’s agenda. He signed it in 1996, an election year, because he knew he must do it to be re-elected.

    I think the Clinton years were a prime example of how divided government can work well. No one was able to waste money or pass unnecessary laws. None of Clinton’s vetos were ever overridden, but also none of his budgets were passed.

    Washington is a worthless place and the less they get done, the better.

  12. IT Mercenary says:

    Bro’s before Hoes

  13. szg says:

    I feel there is a high probability that Obama presidencey will be a disaster for our country, even the one term presidency it would likely be. I am encouraged to see, on this site and in few other places, that people are afraid of an Obama Presidency.
    I see a man of little accomplishment, with some oratorical skills of the evangalistic variety, bordering on demagoguery, being pushed forward by what looks like a huge cult
    movement who the media is is trying to make look inevitable. Obama has become full of himself: Obama the great linconesque orator.
    I think he is peddling smoke and celebrity. He is no MLK. He is clever, but an empty suit and will lead us to even deeper economic geopolitcal crises. I am deathly afraid of this man, who is, to be sure an American Phenomenon: the gifted demagogue. Maybe if Hillary can formulate this case some people who are abondoning her left and right will stop in time and quit drinking the gatorade. God Help us.

  14. Hmeyers says:

    A really good question no one is asking:

    If you assume the only reason Hillary ran for the Senate was to set up running for president a few years later, if she loses to Obama, what is she going to do.

    I don’t think he life-long ambition was to be a senator and she doesn’t need the $$$$. Seems like a boring job sitting in meetings and so forth.

    Does she quit so she can do whatever she wants like Bill does? Or does she stay because it gives her something to do?

  15. pedro says:

    #43 that’s a very good description of current-day “leaders”

    That was a letter-by-letter description of Kuzco back when on ’98.

    Once he gets elected, it’ll be a horror for those that can see thru it now and a nightmare for those who root for him and have at least 3cc’s of brain. The sheeple will always be happy to get their master’s scraps, specially if those that are doing better than them are hurt in the process.

    Doesn’t matter if they get down in the process, what matters is that those who live better than them must be doing so by taking the “goods” from them.

    Again, I’d be more than happy to be proven wrong about him. Question is, is it worth the chance?

    Everybody seems to be forgetting a great rule of life: A known evil is better than an unknown good.

  16. MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

    Hillary’s best chance is to drop out now, join the Republican party and run as McCain’s VP. The combined ticket could probably beat Obama. Then she could find come way to shock McCain into cardiac arrest because he’s an “old guy”. Then Hillary is President.

  17. Steve-O says:

    Might I ask a stupid question? How in the hell can we afford the kind of programs Obomba is touting?

    He touts universal health care and wants to give over 800 billion dollars to the UN for poverty stricken areas. (The bill in the Senate has not passed thank goodness.)

    Just curious.

  18. MrBloedumpSpladderschitt says:

    #47 – That’s easy: tax the evil rich people that stole all the money while standing on the necks of the poor common man.

  19. RTaylor says:

    For better or worse the country is wanting something new and fresh. The Kennedys have resurrected Camelot, and seated Obama as JFK. Oprah has turned many of the female voters. McCain will eventually put his foot in his mouth and come across mean and hateful.

  20. grog says:

    #48 — or, just choke the economy by running budget deficits so large as to defy comprehension the way republicans do

    (then blame the democrats when the economy tanks)

    but as to the original post —
    1.) i’ve always held that hillary is a poison pill for the dem’s
    2.) as a liberal, i must give respect to mitt romny who for the sake of his party bowed out gracefully (a very pleasant contrast to the desperation shown by the clintons)

  21. pedro says:

    #47 Obama is a guy who has been forced to say anything in order to achieve the nomination. Is working, but is just words. Just saying what people wants to hear. No more, no less.


  22. bobbo says:

    #50–grog===pulease. Romney dropped out only for his own self interest. The fact that it could be spun as a benefit to the party was only a happy coincidence.

    He should see this result as gods judgment on his poor choice of religions. – – -HaH!!!

  23. MikeN says:

    What is she going to do? She’ll leak all her stuff to the media and McCain, and let McCain win. Then she is a shoo-in for 2012, with the slogan of I told you so!

    She isn’t a lock to lose either, despite John’s cheering. Figure she’s down by 150-200 delegates. Then she wins Texas, maybe picks up another 10, wins Ohio, and Pennsylvania. She also has good chance s to pick up a few delegates in the remaining states like Kentucky and West Virginia. So she has the lead down to 100-120 when Puerto Rico has its 63 delegates winner take all, and she wins that. Suddenly it’s a very small lead for Obama, and Hillary has the recent momentum, and she has won all of the big states. She can make a legit case that she is more deserving.

  24. MikeN says:

    Delegates vote for whoever they want. They are pledged, but that doesn’t meant hey can’t switch.


Bad Behavior has blocked 12905 access attempts in the last 7 days.