The Qs are, once again, poorly worded. A word is missing -- best POSSIBLE or PROBABLE outcome?

Posted by sloper at 02/6/2008

I'm sorry but dream ticket? Hell no. Having Hillary on a ballot in any capacity will polarize and bring the GOP out in record numbers. Obama doesn't need to be weighted down with the past, and he definitely wouldn't accept Hillary as his VP after the nasty tactics and lies they have used to try to beat him. There is no way in hell, so this talk of "dream tickets" needs to just pass, because it makes no sense and isn't going to happen. We can't change just part way, we can't just half move on, no, we need a clean break, we need an end to the Clinton era and their shameless brand of politics, we need a new beginning and a new direction, and we can only get that with Obama, and no Hillary.

Posted by bridoc at 02/6/2008

If we want a new direction, we can only hope for it with Obama -- hope, not bet -- whereas we know what the Pardon Sellers Billary stand for. Billary would bring nothing to an Obama ticket but divisiveness & deviousness. Moreover, Billary wouldn't accept 2nd banana. OTH, Richardson would accept it from either & add something to either.

Posted by sloper at 02/6/2008

The last option is laughable --Hillary as VP? Fuh'get aboudit.

The first option is most likely --Obama will now be on a bigtime roll with bundles of cash and favorable contests all the way until the last showdown. Texas.

And he'll barbecue Hillary's behind right smack in Dubya's backyard. I can smell the sweet smell of mesquite already.

Get your tickets now.

By the way, based on the Hispanic vote tallies as Obama's most obvious obstacle, it's a virtual slam-dunk --gotta be careful with that term, but it fits-- that Obama takes Bill Richardson as his running mate.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/6/2008

Obama wins quickly? - Doubtful

Hilllary wins quickly? - Even more doubtful

Duke it out until convention - probable although not the best outcome.

Team up? - Oh please no!

If you are anti-war, you simply cannot vote for Clinton. All other issues are pretty darn close between them.

Posted by FritztheCat at 02/6/2008

I agree that Hillary would not agree to be Barack's VP, even if he would ask her; in fact she would serve us best in her Senate position in that scenario. But I do think that should she happen to win, he would be a great VP and would be all set to run for the Presidency after her 8 years. That would be a dream team.

Posted by mebackman at 02/6/2008

But I do think that should she happen to win, he would be a great VP and would be all set to run for the Presidency after her 8 years. That would be a dream team. Posted by MEBACKMAN 02/06/2008 @ 3:43pm

Not for Obama. Bill would be the unaccountable de facto veep. And from Billary's POV, Obama brings less to to ticket than Richardson.

Posted by sloper at 02/6/2008

my dream team would be obama/edwards by far, like most people above said hillary is a divider, and with edwards you get a white male, which can only help with the old and republican vote

Posted by quiksliver at 02/6/2008

There's nothing dreamy about this ticket. Clinton seems to be under the impression that she's already been VP and Obama cannot afford to damage his reputation by associating with the dirty and divisive Clintons.

Posted by Be Good at 02/6/2008

Unless the fix is in, Obama wins, picks Richardson for VP, Edwards gets to be AG but Obama grants a Presidential Pardon to both Bush and Chaney to keep him from having too much fun and distracting the country from the serious stuff like finding our Constitution (where the fuck did George put it)and re-staffing all of those government agencies with people who actually know something about the job at hand. I must be on drugs - that sounds like a nice place to live.

Posted by kelpcowboy at 02/6/2008

After seeing Super Tuesday's results, how could anyone expect either of them to wrap it up quickly? And only Liberals could see the two of them together as a dream ticket. Even if Hillary would take the number two spot, why would Obama want Bill Clinton shooting his mouth off every day. And there is too much chance that if Hillary picked Obama as her veep, which she would never do, he would eclipse her in a campaign. In a brokered convention, especially a deadlocked convention, anything can happen. The delegates, once released, could turn to Edwards or even form a draft Gore movement. In a deadlocked convention, all bets are off.

Posted by bean22 at 02/7/2008

Obama and Clinton. An historical mticket. As far as Bubba goes? Secretary of State,we need his tact and popularity around the world to straighten out the mess that Bush and his idiotic team of buffoons have made.

Posted by walkman56 at 02/7/2008

I bet with B_Kool that Obama gets Texas, but with the proportional cashing of delegates, it should go to the convention. If we do get a caucus re-run in Florida, I will surely go.

Hillary would not consent to being O'Bama's veep and O'Bama knows he has the wee people on his side, so my guess is that he will not run as her veep, but will instead come back strong in 4 years, since Clinton is gonna win the nod with her super-delegates and will lose the national election to warmonger McCain.

as far as being anti-war goes, well, neither of these candidates is explicitly anti-war, and Clinton's awareness has evolved about Iraq, not unlike my own evolved awareness about Vietnam, from gung-ho to doubtful participant, to angry venomous dissent. I believe her, that she will begin a process of withdrawal from Iraq. So I am not drawing distinctions here between her and him, but definitely between them and McCain.

Still, I did see Obama being quite the gentleman at his one-on-one debate with Clinton. He was very courteous with her in seating her, gentleman to lady, and am sure that he would behave the same way in a Clinton-Obama administration.

But I would bet that Richardson, if he shows up on the stage again, will shave his beard.

I am having flashbacks to hearing Bill's campaign rhetoric and surely hope for more tangible progress than he gave us, merely the absence of idiocy not good enough.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/7/2008

ps i am hoping for any combo of these two, but i think that obama has more options, including the senate, possibly a run for illinois governor, and re-runs for the presidency, as well as the veep. for clinton, well, she is either top dawg or a senator.

how is edwards spozed to be the attorney general when his expressed concern is poverty?

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/7/2008

In view of teaming up, it would be good if they didn't trash each other. I think a ticket of both of them would be by far the strongest we could get, especially if they don't let their campaigns trash each other.

Posted by auntgranny at 02/7/2008

Everyone speaks of the prophet obams's vision, but, i have yet to hear it articulated. I hear him speak of hope, but, whom among us unmedicated people don't already hope? Also, he speaks of change from old political ways, but, his response to voting 130 times present is, "that is a long time political strategy in Illinois". And finally, his "vote" against the war before being a US Senator and actually voting every time to fund it. I must need glasses because I cant see the vision.

Posted by Blome at 02/7/2008

FROM THE RADICAL LEFT SITE:

Obama Is Deeply Conservative & Reactionary

Beneath peaceful and populist-sounding claims to the contrary, Obama is largely on the dark side of power when it comes to each of what King called "the triple evils that are interrelated:" racism, economic exploitation/inequality (capitalism), and militarism.

It's not for nothing that Obama was tellingly portrayed last May as "deeply conservative" in a supposedly flattering New Yorker write-up titled "The Conciliator".

It’s an accurate description, but you probably wouldn’t know it from a speech he gives to black voters he’s courting in a South Carolina church... or to deluded, star-struck progressives in predominantly white Super Tuesday college towns.

Such is the harsh, cold, and cynical underlying reality of the Obama phenomenon, deeply reflective of the corporate, imperial and “winner-take-all” political institutions and culture its standard bearer falsely claims to have risen above.

I believe that, if Hillary loses, it'll have been media that struck the final blow. Media, especially the media gas bags, the whores, Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Wolf Blitzer, etc., are the true causes.

It was Russert, in CNN's pretense of a debate, that was the first successful effort to draw blood. Hillary was hounded by Russert to an astonishing degree.

He placed her in the most embarrassing possible circumstances, by asking her a question, about driver's licenses for immigrants, that could not have been answered in a half hour, let alone the 1 or 2 minutes alloted to candidates.

He then proceeded to attack her over and over again, to such a degree that he seemed to lose touch with the debate entirely, or that other candidates existed, so feverish and maniacal was his attack on her.

CNN has been running a non-stop attack on Hillary. Last night, during the Iowa caucuses, Wolf Blitzer, kept Hillary off his program entirely, refusing to show a promotional clip from her campaign, even though he showed clips from all the other campaigns.

During the caucus evening, he would not mention her name, he would not show a picture of her, he blacked her out completely. The only time she got attention, was when it was to demean and insult her.

Whatever people were on Wolf's coverage of the caucuses, were also Hillary haters, that directed their venom on her nonstop.

How on earth can a candidate run a campaign on a level playing field with powerful media networks working constantly to insult and demean her?

This, on top of the attacks from the other candidates, and from the right-wing nut jobs, that are constantly feeding us their twisted lunacy about her.

This was done, so that she would have as little influence on this campaign as a media network could produce against her.

The job of the 'left-gatekeepers' like HuffPo and AlterNet is to pretend to fight the 'establishment', while in actuality they're supporting the same "everything is fine" fantasy as the PTB.

Obama fits very well into this mold by giving some of the disaffected the illusion that America is becoming a more "progressive" place because a half-black man is a major political figure.

Don't believe the hype. Not only is he just as "bought" as the rest of them, but he'll never be 'elected' anyway.

What change does Obama represent? Other then the fact he is black and is doing very well in the presidential primaries, he is almost identical to Hillary Clinton politically.

########

Might have to add The Nation, MoveOn and Jack and Jill to the list of the media who have been infected by the Obamamania virus.

Posted by BBFmail at 02/7/2008

Obama would be a fool to select Hillary as his running mate. The cross-party support he enjoys now would vaporize. Just the mention of the name Clinton will mobilize the Republicans to come out in record numbers, even to support McCain. The loyal voting independents would be split and there we go into an extension of George Bush's foriegn policies.

Of course having Hillary at the top of the ticket would do all of the above, so why would Obama want to associate himself with that?

Best outcome would be for Obama to choose a woman running mate like Claire McCaskill or Janet Napolitano to satisfy those who want to see a woman being groomed for the presidency. I say McCaskill or Napolitano because they both are Dems from Red states, meaning they have some moderate appeal further helping Barack's cross-party appeal.

Posted by freedomjunkie at 02/7/2008

BBFMAIL: Are you suggesting Hillary is LIBERAL?????

Voted for the resolution to go to war in Iraq. Voted to fund it. NAFTA PAC,and lobbyist donors. Should I go on??????

Posted by freedomjunkie at 02/7/2008

"Bneath peaceful and populist-sounding claims to the contrary, Obama is largely on the dark side of power when it comes to each of what King called "the triple evils that are interrelated: racism, economic exploitation/inequality (capitalism), and militarism."

BBFMAIL, mercy

i mean anybody can say anything they want, it does not have to make sense, anymore than that posted rant does. then it goes on to say: "Such is the harsh, cold, and cynical underlying reality of the Obama phenomenon, deeply reflective of the corporate, imperial and “winner-take-all” political institutions and culture its standard bearer falsely claims to have risen above."

This is pure hype, irrational and bogus. Then it gets distracted by a perceived maltreatment of Clinton by two news people, who are at least in the center, not rabid reactionaries.

Sorry, I kinna agree, hootmon! Obamamamania?

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/7/2008

OMG I hate progressives! I can't believe I just said that. sad sad sad how we are finding a way to kill our chances of gaining the Presidency. the "progressive" opinion appears to be "Move out of the way Hillary,you old bag, you are blocking our messiah, and if he doesn't win, we will take the Country down with us!"

Okay fine. petulant and crazy. must be only a few crazies on the internet, right? who don't care about the Country or the party if their guy doesn't win, right?

The sad part is that people that should know better, like Katrina are cheerleading this story and this very potential outcome.

Had Oboma not run, he could have simply been the catalyst to the most unified Democratic ticket ever, but he had to have it all now. And EVERYONE be damned, like hillary who paid her dues as first lady and with much dignity in the wake of what happened and then went on to be a strong and well respected Senator.

But you all would throw HER under the bus, along with President Clinton. For what? for someone that is green, who is exciting, yes, but could have united all of us and then been ready to go in 8 years ACTUALLY bringing DEMOCRATS together. I dont want someone to "Bring together" good people and Repugs like Tom Delay. These people are criminals. wake up. Obama is destroying our party, NOT Hillary. This is what will happen unless Obama starts his campaign of unity right now: Unite the Democratic Party.

Posted by vibarama at 02/7/2008

The new math:

Kennedy + Kerry + Leahy + Obama = Change?

Posted by Blome at 02/7/2008

what I did not like about Bill was that he triangulated - something Obama is planning to do and talking out loud about it. Only now we call it "a new synthesis" instead of selling out to the right wing. I want no part of this and I have a problem with the Nation drinking the same empty Kool-Aid the kids and the MSM are drunk on, just because we must have Camelot back, whether it's real or not.

I was not for Hillary until after this Obamamania started and I "got to know him better." I find his charm, vagueness, charisma and immense egotism to be manipulative and vaguely sociopathic. Fine if the sociopath (after all, not uncommon in politicians) shares our goals, but he doesn't share mine. He wants to move us even farther to the right than we already are.

I want someone willing to be clear and accountable. I know where Clinton stands and have seen the results she gets, including bipartisanship. Her positions are more progressive than his. She will no more take us to war than he will. She will do more for regular people and the working stiffs than he will, supported as he is mostly by the "educated" latte-drinking class. Obama is a Baby Boomer and he is loved by the Boomers at the top of this society.

Well, I'm educated too but I nevertheless was a working stiff. I got 740 Verbal on my GREs and I made my living as a writer and editor. I know what words mean, whether they have content or not, and I can see beyond high-flown rhetoric. People think he's giving them something but he's hypnotizing them with phony, alluringly rhythmic populist rhetoric that brings the longing for a benign, wise leader to a fever pitch. And he tells us he is that. But where's the proof? His big rallies are not proof of that; only that he has gained a rock star fan base.

I want Hillary's straightforward message, which is more progressive than his. My only fear is that she will move to the right but Obama has already told us he will.

I think the right wing protests too much that they want to run against her. I think it shows clearly that they want to run against him. No way they would try so hard to get us NOT to run her if in fact they wanted us to run her.

Posted by sallywally at 02/7/2008

It is amazing to me that everyone is on the Obama Bandwagon -- Hillary is a woman tested for her strength and intelligence. Against amazing odds she has survived!!! Obama should be her VP and in 8 years he will be truly ready to be President. Great speechmaking is a great skill -- but it doesn't lead nations, formulate policy nor repair the horrors of the past. Together they are a GREAT team -- It is time for Hillary -- I loathe all the criticism -- dishonest, most of it. There is no Clinton era -- her name is Rodham -- it is truly NOT progressive to think that Hillary walks in Bill's shoes. This is the shortsightedness of this out of control "progressive" bandwagon for Obama -- if I remember correctly he said he would use force in Iran -- come on people -- anti war is anti war -- you don't grab on to the next war. There is NO guarantee that Obama gives you a NEW WAY -- look at his record -- not just his wonderful speeches full of platitude and promise -- there also must be action. It is time for savored experience. Don't be duped by the media smear -- Hillary has stood up to it -- that is a real test.

Posted by jeanettecool at 02/7/2008

With five states: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska, Having ballot initiative to ban affirmative action this year, what is Balack Obama's position on it?

Posted by Blome at 02/7/2008

Interesting, that when the Pardon Selling Billary machine is losing strength, new mouthpieces with prepped talk points pop up in these posts. Flailing away.

Yawn, what a great amount of energy expended over the obvious.

The Big Money has zipped the wallets for Billary, they know where the wind is blowing & will wait, wait. Billary wanna play, they have to use their own marbles now.

And as NYTIMES owners also flail in vain, it's just a matter of time.

Posted by sloper at 02/8/2008

Obama will never win the '08 election. There is a snobbiness about him that is very disturbing. When he looks at Hillary there is a look of contempt on his face as if he thinks he is superior than she. He is brash and egotistic.

He no sooner becomes a senator then he thinks he is qualified to be the president. What audacity and bravado. He is good at rhetoric but that won't cut the cake. He needs many more years of experience before he can lead our country. He will be a wimp when the real pressure is placed upon him.

All the media talks about is how he excites a crowd with his practiced speeches---especially the young. Well even Hitler and other dictators have done the same through history, especially the young---does anyone remember the young brownshirts of Germany? Talk will not solve our huge problems, only dedicated and hard work will, and I don't believe he has it in him. It will take a Hillary to turn this country around--she is tougher than Obama and bested him in nearly all the debates.

WAKE UP OUT OF YOUR STUPOR FOLKS. WE DON'T NEED A DREAMER IN THE WHITE HOUSE AT THIS TIME. WE NEED AN EXPERIENCED TOUGH DOER.

Posted by MOKIETOTO at 02/8/2008

I voted for their "duking it out" until August because I believe "iron sharpeneth iron" and premature consensus between them will oh, so quickly change to complacency.

Check out my website's message board to see the complete "Loose Change Final Cut" FREE (bless 'em) at www.home.bellsouth.net/p/pwp-megusto (cut and paste, please; no hyperlink funtion available).

Feliz Vienes amigos.

Posted by lewwelge at 02/8/2008

Er...Feliz Viernes (Happy Friday). For the lucky, like us, "wage slavery" is abated.

Posted by lewwelge at 02/8/2008

I don't know.

Posted by rtoth at 02/8/2008

Interesting the varied responses, yet I am heartened by those who are saying don't discount Hillary, and also find it interesting the negative spin on Obama,

mercy, he got 10,000 folks in Omaha, not slim pickins.

will be at th raucus caucus in Florita, we should've never mover up our initial primary, duh.

listen to Mitt, saying that these two candidates wanna retreat in the face of evil extremism, which would continue onward our . going-for-broke militarism [mondediplo.com]

an McCain will continue the tax breaks to the wealthy, continue to subsidise the wealthy, the whole Republican medeival routine.

Someday we had better start talking consensus.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/8/2008

Here is a good blog post I found that lays out the case for how Hillary can't win against John McCain. That obviously shouldn't be breaking news to anyone, but it is amazingly rarely mentioned.

http://thepersonalispolitical.tumblr.com/post/25882167

Posted by bridoc at 02/8/2008

Mokietoto is absolutely right. The only thing Obama has going for him is the fact that he is Black. There are 20 of him in the senate but they have the disadvantage of being the wrong color for our time. Any white senator with so little experience would be ridiculed thinking they were ready to run for the highest office in the land. It's a form of reverse racism and The Nation has elevated it to the level of an art form.

Posted by bean22 at 02/8/2008

Sorry Obama and Hillary would be another Cheney pulling the strings. I like a Barak Obama and Martha Stewart ticket.

Posted by Rese at 02/9/2008

Why can't we have balanced questions? Why can't Senator Clinton work towards a transpartisan movement, or Senator Obama direct his energy towards the GOP? We would all like to see an end to the bitter divisiveness that has marked the past few decades, but I wonder if Senator Obama can fulfill that pledge. In the past week, I've read that Illinois NOW disputes his version of his "present" vote on an abortion rights bill, that people he has listed as part of his GLBT task force deny they were ever contacted and, having initially favored Senator Obama are now supporting Senator Clinton. Senator Obama's health care proposal is to the right of the Edwards/Clinton plan. So far, all I've seen is a person of charm and eloquence, who has not been subjected to much in the way of scutiny. The phrasing of this question seems biased, and while, by its nature, The Nation is entitled to bias, I really prefer it when the bias is clearly labeled as such.

Posted by Samphire at 02/9/2008

Bean22 is right. BO is the best thing for the Republicans. Has not been fully vetted and will be chewed up by the right wing. McCain will be our next president.

Posted by glm2p4 at 02/9/2008

If this poll is still up after Tuesday's Potomac Primaries, I predict that 52% for choice A starts to rise markedly.

Where is Hillary going to find a win before the Ohio/Texas shootout? And after those two defeats she'll be forced to read 'em and weep. And there won't be any doubt about the authenticity of the tears.

Hillary's praying for Maine right now. Bet on it.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/9/2008

"Bean22 is right. BO is the best thing for the Republicans. Has not been fully vetted and will be chewed up by the right wing."

Hmmm, you mean the way he's being chewed up & crushed by the Billary machine now?

Obama will be far harder for the GOP to chew than Billary, the latter a proven morsel.

Posted by sloper at 02/10/2008

You are quite the observer Mokietoto, you sound like you loathe the man Obama. My suggestion is to keep you personal feelings out of it and concentrate on the issues, that is what matters the most. I am not voting for him, although I have never seen him look the hateful way inwhich you describe him, on the contrary, he has been quite the gentleman You sound like a person that needs some time to self-evaluate.

Posted by tedsgirl10 at 02/10/2008

Hillary's praying for Maine right now. Bet on it.

~b kool 2/9/08 @ 11:26pm

So much for Maine.

It looks like a long term drought for Hillary. Her thirsty hopes are now resting primarily with Texas. Sadly, that's likely just a mirage.

Good luck, Hill......Not.

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/11/2008

It looks like Obama is on a roll, so the stupor-delegates will step in to help the less radical candidate and will usher in Clinton, because that is what party stupor-delegates are supposed to do. The proportional accounting of delegates will not be enough to carry B.O. because of exactly the fear of a reactionary antipathy towards a perceived change-agent.

Obama is polling well in every single remaining state in the upcoming primaries.

There's got to be a way to fuck up this election, one more time. when the Repubz are unseated and the Demz have a solid majority in both houses and the Casa Blanca, i will believe it. Til then, don't underestimate the masses of silent reactionaries waiting to blow their cool in November.

Posted by Jim Willingham at 02/11/2008

I am really upset that the Nation, Air America, etc. have joined the Obama bandwagon. Yes, he has some good ideas and personality. People liked W because they wanted to have a beer with him. Now the Democrats are doing the same thing. Obama's charisma is wonderful but it doesn't solve the serious problems facing the country. We need Hillary's experience, dedication, and leadership now. If we really want to be the "change" party, she is the one. Obama is still a man; change is putting a woman's face and touch to our party and country.

Posted by wave at 02/11/2008

Are there no other Demos left in the race? Dodd was eloquent tonight on not giving retro-immunity to corporate spies. and Mike Gravels' newly released book "CITIZEN POWER a Mandate for Change" is so relavent and intelligent that it should be a script for their debates. In fact I'd like to see Gravel moderate a debate between Senators Obama and Clinton. They should be able to handle that, right? Not looking forward to another dog and pony show scripted debate with candidates deciding the topics for themselves. Good idea or not...?

Posted by Cranston at 02/11/2008

With five states: Arizona, Colorado, Missouri, Oklahoma and Nebraska, Having ballot initiative to ban affirmative action this year, what is Balack Obama's position on it?

Posted by Blome at 02/11/2008

Prediction markets now see Obama defeating Clinton

Mon Feb 11, 12:54 PM ET

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Traders wagering on the outcome of the U.S. presidential vote were overwhelmingly betting on Monday that Illinois Sen. Barack Obama will defeat former first lady Hillary Clinton for the Democratic nomination and ultimately win the presidency.

Obama, whose campaign swept four state Democratic presidential contests against Clinton over the weekend, was trading at about 70 on Monday on the Dublin, Ireland-based Intrade predictions market, meaning traders gave him a 70 percent chance of being the Democrats' presidential candidate in the November election.

Clinton, who replaced her campaign manager in a staff shake-up, was selling at about 30, meaning traders gave her a 30 percent chance of winning the Democratic nomination, data on the Intrade web site showed.

Traders on the Iowa Electronic Markets, a nonprofit exchange run by researchers at the University of Iowa, had similar expectations, giving Obama a 70 percent chance of winning the nomination and Clinton about a 27 percent chance.

---Yep, after crushing defeats by eye-popping margins in the Potomac Primaries and the following week in Wisconsin and Hawaii, Hillary's campaign is gonna be pretty much Post Toastee'd.

Just add a little milk and enjoy the sweet taste.

;-)

Posted by b_kool_66 at 02/12/2008

Obahma wins and creates trans partisan administrations. Picks Martha Stewart for Vice President to create the Best dream ticket. Appoints Hillary to Secretary of Education to improve graduation rate in inner cities.

Appoints Michael Moore as Secretary for Health.

Investigates Cheney's inside trading and Bush's profiteering from Bin Laden family and jails them.http://www.911conspiracy.tv/ over 150 videoes [911conspiracy.tv]

http://www.911conspiracy.tv/

http://portland.indymedia.org/en/2008/02/372027.shtml

INFRGUARD: FBI prepares corporations for martial law author: George Orwell Since 1996, the FBI has been preparing corporations for implementation of martial law with a government program called InfraGuard. The only questions is when will martial law be fully implemented?

http://www.progressive.org/mag_rothschild0308

Exclusive! The FBI Deputizes Business By Matthew Rothschild, February 7, 2008

Today, more than 23,000 representatives of private industry are working quietly with the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. The members of this rapidly growing group, called InfraGard, receive secret warnings of terrorist threats before the public does—and, at least on one occasion, before elected officials. In return, they provide information to the government, which alarms the ACLU. But there may be more to it than that. One business executive, who showed me his InfraGard card, told me they have permission to “shoot to kill” in the event of martial law. InfraGard is “a child of the FBI,” says Michael Hershman, the chairman of the advisory board of the InfraGard National Members Alliance and CEO of the Fairfax Group, an international consulting firm.

Corporations have more rights than people [progressive.org]

Posted by Rese at 02/12/2008

Anybody notice that Obama seems to do much better than Clinton in caucuses but not primaries. That's because with caucuses, everyone knows how you are voting. You can't hide your racism like you can in a primary voting booth.

As for the odds makers giving Obama a 70% chance of winning vs. Clinton's 30%, they are probably the same geniuses that gave the Patriots an 80% chance of beating the Giants.

And what moron would believe that anyone who is a member of InfraGard would have a "shoot to kill" order in the event of martial law, just because some jerk told him so. You people spew out more crap on these pages. Aren't Liberals supposed to be at least a little more intelligent than the average chimp!!

Posted by bean22 at 02/12/2008