Information has recently been leaked by a Clinton campaign staffer describing in more detail what Senators Obama and Clinton were talking about during their meeting in DC at the home of Dianne Feinstein. This staffer, who asked to remain anonymous, says that “Senator Clinton respectfully asked Senator Obama whether he would like to be her vice president. After declining, Obama challenged Clinton to a hide-and-seek match. Clinton, unbeknownst to most as the 1995 & 1996 world hide-and-seek champion, welcomed Obama’s challenge. The rules of the contest dictate that if Senator Obama finds Senator Clinton on or before November 4th, he wins. If not, she wins.”

According to this same staffer, Obama has agreed to pay off Clinton’s campaign debt in the case that she wins. Oddly enough, he never asked for a reward if he wins. “If these are the kinds of deals Barack Obama makes, then whats gonna happen with foreign policy? Will he make a deal with the Arabs to give them back Iraq and not get anything back?” Says Andrew Forner, a loyal Clinton supporter.

The Obama campaign has announced an exploratory committee to find Clinton, but as of now says they are “too strapped financially to devote any funds and/or staff to such a worthy opponent”. One can only guess what the Obama campaign may have up their sleeves in an event such as this.

As of now, the clock is ticking and the question on everyones mind is, “where in the world is Hillary Clinton?” Only time will tell, but recent evidence seems to say that she may be in Bosnia.

In other news: After learning about the hide-and-seek competition, Bill Clinton has reportedly planned multiple parties at his mansion throughout the months of June and July. So far, the only invited guests include: the Playboy bunnies, Senator Clinton’s female campaign staff across the entire country, and the infamous Monica Lewinsky. Clearly, the Former President has full confidence in his wife’s hiding ability and thus has found reason to celebrate before her victory…

All biases aside, Barack Obama is simply the better General Election candidate against John McCain. If you like Clinton and want to vote for her, thats fine, but don’t be fooled into believing that she is more likely to win…

Obama is the more electable candidate for 3 reasons:

1) Obama will have an easier time explaining his position on the Iraq War. Clinton initially voted for the war and later against. Now I’m not trying to demean Clinton, only to give the facts that with McCain as the nominee national defense and specifically the Iraq War will be a huge issue and Obama has the advantage of always having been against the war. Thus with Obama as the nominee, the two candidates will have views as different as black and white. This will really help the Democrats get all the anti-war voters, which are the majority.

2) Hilary Clinton is currently viewed as the “experience” candidate, while Obama is the “change” candidate. Since Obama has 12 years in elected office compared to Clinton’s 8, I don’t much appreciate the simple stereotype (even though I do give her some credit for her years in the White House). However, we must deal in facts and those are the current stereotypes. But in the General Election, McCain is BY FAR the experience candidate as he was virtually born in the Senate and while not in the Senate he was fighting for his country and was a POW. McCain’s strengths trump Clinton’s! So what would the new stereotypes be? McCain – “the experienced in foreign and domestic affairs” : and Clinton – “the Democrat”… However, with Obama as the candidate it will be once again Change vs. Experience, and I like those odds considering the advantage Democrats automatically have over Republicans.

3) MOST IMPORTANTLY! Clinton is a glass ceiling. She is winning not so much by gaining votes but by keeping them. Those who support her have done so the whole time because everybody knows her name, Obama is not as well known and must simply continue to take voters away from her. The more time given, the less people will be voting for her – which is the opposite of Obama. This correlates into McCain, whose OBVIOUS deficiency is his own conservative base. McCain does well with independents and even some Dems. but he is having a terrible time with his own base and will not be able to energize them (although I guarantee Clinton will, just not in the way she would want). So come General Election time, the best Democratic candidate will be one who has a strong support among Dems. (which Obama does/will), one who does REALLY well with independents (which ONLY Obama does), and one who can even challenge the Republican base (which ONLY Obama can possibly do). The last part is key, because if McCain can’t win the conservative base, that leaves many Republicans who would truly consider voting for Obama. Also, as was seen on Super Tuesday, Obama did really well in the South! However, they would never vote for Clinton, whose name is virtually burned in effigy in the South…

Such arguments used for Clinton’s better electability are such ambiguous statements as “I’ve been through this before”. Whatever that means… Its called an election versus a Republican, all Dems. have been through “that” before. I agree she has been through it worse and more often, but that doesn’t guarantee a win by any means, especially when compared to the 3 logical reasons as stated above.

Thus, whether you want to vote for him or not, Obama is logically the best General Election candidate the Democrats have, Period. To be completely honest, a win by Barack Obama would be a nightmare for John McCain…

(CNN) – Bill Clinton’s former Secretary of Labor issued a blistering criticism of the former president’s wife on Monday, accusing her of “not telling the truth” on Social Security and taking marching orders from her top pollster.

Reich, who has not endorsed a candidate but has written glowingly of Illinois Sen. Barack Obama in recent months, ripped Hillary Clinton for saying Sunday that Iowa voters will have a choice “between someone who talks the talk, and somebody who’s walked the walk.”

“I don’t get it,” Reich wrote on his blog. “If there’s anyone in the race whose history shows unique courage and character, it’s Barack Obama. HRC’s campaign, by contrast, is singularly lacking in conviction about anything. Her pollster, Mark Penn, has advised her to take no bold positions and continuously seek the political center, which is exactly what she’s been doing.”
________________________________________________

I just thought this was an incredible critique of Hilary Clinton. No less from a previous Clinton administrator! Although Secretary of Labor isn’t exactly VP or Secretary of Defense or Deputy Chief of Staff…

WASHINGTON (CNN) — After a tense weekend that saw a marked escalation in an already brutal war of words between the two Democratic frontrunners, Barack Obama’s campaign launched a new salvo Monday with a Web site designed to track and respond to attacks by Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

“We’re asking all of you to be vigilant and notify us immediately of any attacks from Sen. Clinton or her supporters as soon as you see them so that we can respond with the truth swiftly and forcefully,” campaign spokesman Bill Burton wrote supporters. “[These] attacks could be phone calls, literature drops, blog posts, mail pieces as well as radio and TV ads. Some could even be anonymous or designed to be.”
__________________________________________________

I’ve got to admit that I’m not impressed with this move…. Maybe it will help politically, but Obama, with good cause, continually fought back at Clinton’s accusations about his own campaign. And I agreed that many of these attacks were ridiculous, citing him for making all of these mistakes that were realistically very small (if they happened at all), and usually the fault of campaign staffers who are VERY low on the food chain. After all, with such a HUGE campaign, how can he stop over-zealous supporters from trying to intimidate other people???

And yet this website is the exact same thing. Its citing Hilary for examples of abuse that many-a-times are not her fault. At least he’s not screaming them on the top of his lungs as Clinton is though…

Recently Presidential candidate has been talking about his past, specifically he has mentioned his past drug use. I commend him for his honesty, but I also found his comments on Bill Clinton HILARIOUS.

If you remember, Bill Clinton commented years ago that he DID smoke marijuana, but he “didn’t inhale”. This has become somewhat of a common saying nowadays…

To this past comment Obama said: “I never understood that line, the point was to inhale. That was the point.”

For such a smart man Bill Clinton is, he definitely needs to work on his common sense…

WASHINGTON (CNN) — Clinton and former North Carolina Sen. John Edwards both support a plan that mandates Americans to have healthcare. Clinton’s plan requires insurance companies to offer coverage to anyone who applies.

Obama, who does not support a mandated plan, says the reason people don’t have health care is because it’s too expensive, not because they don’t want it. His plan would create a national health insurance program for those who do not have employer-provided health care and who do not qualify for other existing federal programs. It does not mandate individual coverage for all Americans, although it requires coverage for all children.

“He’s been saying there’s no difference between our plans,” said Clinton Wednesday. “But his plan would leave 15 million Americans uninsured – including more than 100,000 people right here in Iowa.”

Meanwhile, in a conference call with Iowa reporters, Obama criticized Clinton for calling for a healthcare mandate while not saying how it would be enforced.

“Until she clarifies what exactly she intends to do to enforce this mandate — is she going to fine people, is she going to take other steps to enforce it — this is more of a political point that she’s trying to make than a real point,” he said. The Illinois senator also repeated his claim that his health care plan would do more to than those of his opponents to reduce costs.
__________________________________________________________

How the HECK do you make Health Care mandatory for all Americans???

1) It is fiscally/logically impossible – Trying to insure EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN just isn’t gonna happen… It would cost WAY too much money and it logically just doesn’t make sense. Auto insurance is mandatory, yet there are still those who don’t have it…

2) It is politically impossible – Must I remind Democrats that although they may currently be the majority, there is still the Republican party who will fight such a socialist agenda? I think having health care is great! But MANDATING it is very different… Democrats would have to convince enough people that its a good plan (which is isn’t) and that they can get it through congress (which includes the threat of a veto, getting it off the debate floor, getting it through the Senate AND House, AND getting past a SURE filibuster). Its NEVER going to happen. If you’re so stupid and naive to think it could, you shouldn’t be running for President because you don’t know enough about politics. And if you do know, then stop lying to Americans because it sounds good – you know it will NEVER HAPPEN!

3) Its stupid – People aren’t mad about the thousands of people who CAN afford health care and choose not to have it! They’re mad about the thousands of people who simply CAN’T afford health care! Why would you by law HAVE to get health care? It doesn’t even make sense… Such an idea definitely crosses the line into socialism…

Obama’s plan make the most sense and has the best ability to succeed! Only children are mandated to get health care (because they’re minors so they don’t have the ability to make these decisions on their own yet), and everyone else has the choice. His main goal though is to lower health care costs so those who can’t afford it will be able to in the future. With good reason he doesn’t care about those who can afford but don’t want it. They have the choice if they don’t want to spend money on health care! To think otherwise seems logically ridiculous…

Clinton and Edwards have their heads in the sky or they’re just being deceptive. Their plans would never pass nor should they. They don’t even focus on the most important issue: those who want health care but can’t afford it!

 This was a GREAT article! Do the math everyone!!! Obama 11 – Clinton 7!

____________________________________________________________
WASHINGTON (CNN) — I just finished watching the Monday night piece on Sen. Barack Obama that aired on ABC’s Nightline. During the broadcast, anchor Terry Moran read a comment from the Clinton campaign that said if the junior senator from Illinois was elected president, he would have less experience than any president in the 20th century.

Here is what Deputy Communications Director Phil Singer wrote Tuesday after an Obama foreign policy speech:

“With the critical foreign policy challenges America faces in the world today, voters will decide whether Senator Obama, who served in the Illinois State Senate just three years ago and would have less experience than any President since World War II, has the strength and experience to be the next president. Sen. Clinton, who has traveled to 82 countries as a representative of the United States and serves on the Armed Services Committee, is ready to lead starting on Day One.”

Really?

George W. Bush only held elected office for six years before becoming president. He was elected governor of Texas in 1994 and won the presidency – OK, liberal bloggers, the Supreme Court ruled in his favor – in 2000.

Obama is in his 11th year as an elected officeholder – eight years in the Illinois state senate, followed by three as a U.S. senator. Clinton is in her seventh year of elected office.

Asked if Clinton was warranted in criticizing Obama’s comments that his strongest foreign relations experience comes from spending four years as a child in Indonesia, Edwards said, “Can I honestly tell you…I spend not a nanosecond listening to what each of them are saying sniping toward each other, so I have no idea what you’re talking about.”

After a brief rundown given by reporters on the day’s back and forth between the two, Edwards continued, “I don’t want any part of any of that. I think Senator Obama is completely entitled to talk about his whole life experience to allow people to judge whether he’s prepared to be president.” (CNN)

___________________________________________________________

No offense, but I HIGHLY doubt you pay no attention to the 2 people who are above you in the Presidential polls and what they say. ESPECIALLY if its throwing mud at each other… And if you don’t, I know for a fact your lead staffers do!

I like John Edwards a lot, he’s my second pick, and I think he’s done a good job of sticking to issues. On the other hand, I think Clinton and Obama have as well. Only recently has Clinton started attacking Obama since its taken till now to get worried, but as long as the attacks stay on the issues and don’t become personal: ISN’T THAT CALLED DEBATE?

Since when did arguing the issues become a bad thing???

(CNN) – The results are in for the turkey primary in the 2008 White House race.

Sens. Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama and former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani are the 2008 presidential contenders that voters would most like to have as guests for Thanksgiving dinner, according to a Quinnipiac University poll released Tuesday.

________________________________________________________

We seriously spend time and money on polling such ridiculous topics as who would you want at your house for Thanksgiving? WHO GIVES A CRAP???