Barack Obama's team say that Hillary Clinton cannot catch their man now »
Posted by: TechnologyExpert 6 months, 1 week agoBarack Obama donned the mantle of front-runner yesterday and claimed that it was now virtually impossible for Hillary Clinton to catch him in their Democratic presidential contest.
Read Full Story at timesonline.co.uk
Join the Discussion 
+ Add Comment
Comments So Far: 52
-
0%
ProudBlueTexan6 months, 1 week ago
How many times have I heard someone say they would like a woman president, JUST NOT HILLARY!
(From the comments below the story: "And when would the women folk realise that they may never get the chance to lead America again if they allow Obama to trump Clinton? Obama can win in 8years but Clinton wont be there by then. Its your choice Ladies of America, you can stand up for the right of a woman to lead a country where sexism is center stage or allow your selves to be rail roaded by the social engineering process of "change" that Obama is.
You choose!
Egu, London"
...and not even a nod toward qualification, will of the electorate, or numbers that speak for themselves...)
Reply-
0%
ETproductions6 months, 1 week ago
If either Obama or Clinton win the White House -- a thing that looks now like a foregone conclusion -- it will make history. Given that, I hope NO voter decides which to elect simply by ethnicity or gender. Voters who make such a momentous decision based on such a supercilious reason shouldn't be allowed to vote.
Reply-
0%
JoseMadre6 months, 1 week ago
"If either Obama or Clinton win the White House -- a thing that looks now like a foregone conclusion."
Foregone conclusion? You are joking, right? The Right is against McCain, the media is having a lovefest with Obama, and yet in current state-by-state polling (not meaningless national polls), he isn't even close to beating McCain. Normally Democratic Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, and New Jersey are in play and McCain leads in Florida and Ohio. In fact the only Bush 2004 state where McCain trails is Arkansas, and that is only to Hillary. Nothing is foregone.
Reply -
0%
EDWARDIII6 months, 1 week ago
Obama beat Clinton in many mostly-white districts which suggests white voters as a whole are ready to drop race as an issue. However many exit polls show a strong trend in Afro-American communities to vote for Obama becaus he is black.
How would you enforce your "shouldn't be allowed to vote" rule?
Reply
-
-
0%
nightschase6 months, 1 week ago
I agree, it would be nice to have a woman president, but you shouldn't vote for HIlary just because she's a woman. Besides, If Obama wins, he'll be the first African American/minority to be the president. That's a bigger change from the rich aristocracy of America than Clinton is, that's for sure.
Reply -
-
0%
Will13136 months ago
here's Obama's response...what you imply is simply CRAP...
----
This is a volunteer office that is not in any way controlled by the Obama campaign. We were disappointed to see this picture because it is both offensive to many Cuban-Americans -- and Americans of all backgrounds -- and because it does not reflect Senator Obama's views. Barack Obama has been very clear in putting forward a Cuba policy that is based on one principle: freedom for the Cuban people.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
EDWARDIII6 months, 1 week ago
I think his intentions are good. I fear the corruption-by-addoration phenomenon-- a cult hero becomes extremely powerful and begins to see himself as savior of humanity. Soon everyone who opposes him is guilty of a crime. It's happened many times. Robbespierre in particular comes to mind.
Reply -
0%
Rayman6 months, 1 week ago
Obama should NOT be counting his chicks before they hatch! This guy is good at one thing: giving powerful speeches with zero substance. Action speaks louder than words. Obama does NOT have the much needed experience to run this great nation of ours. Obama is a junior league ballplayer who must go through the political 'bootcamp' to run for president. He is giving false hopes and pipe dreams to his supporters who seem hypnotized by his message of 'change'. Hillary Clinton could be the most powerful woman president if given the opportunity. Hillary has similar qualities as the former 'Iron Lady', Margaret Tatcher of the UK. Obama is taking the presidency of the U.S.A. as if it was a corporate job. Obama's time is NOT today! Perhaps, in 2012 or later, he then could make a great presidential candidate.
Reply-
-
0%
DanmLiberals6 months, 1 week ago
Obama, asked the other night about what he thought of our economy, state "Our Economy is cool, and Im have hope for the future".
This is starting to sound like Boxers or Briefs. No one gives a ****** what the guy thinks about how he will fix things.
Reply -
0%
Rayman6 months, 1 week ago
'His speeches make you feel soooooo good'?
So does a cold 'BudLite'!!! Why don't you ask Dr. Obama how he is going to fix our nation's problems before we all start speaking Chinese? Barak Hussein Obama needs to spend more time in the senate to gain experience and not jump ahead of others who are more qualified to save this nation!!! Are you still feeling soooooo good about empty speeches?
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions6 months, 1 week ago
Can you point out to me ONE transformational leader who couldn't speak?
Let's look at the list:
Washington
Lincoln
Churchill
FDR
JFK
Name a similar list of transformational leaders who were gimps in giving an inspirational speech.
THAT'S what it takes to inspire people, for goodness sake! Being lousy in front of a microphone is NOT a claim to glory when we are facing the crisis in leadership that got us into two interminable 100-year wars and 10 trillion dollars in debt.
Reply -
0%
doppich6 months, 1 week ago
Just another campaign tactic. They are trying to send a message to Hillary voters for the upcoming primaries: "You may as well stay home, Obama's got it in the bag." If they succeed, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.
Reply
-
-
0%
ETproductions6 months, 1 week ago
FTA: "In the highly unpredictable race she has twice blunted Mr Obama's momentum â;; against the prevailing wisdom â;; with her comeback wins in New Hampshire and in big states across America on Super Tuesday."
Winning New Hampshire was a legitimate comeback for Hillary. Winning New York (her home state) and California (a state where up to half the voters voted early -- before Obama's first victory in Iowa) was not a comeback. It was a couple of predictable high points in an otherwise dismal night of losses.
Reply-
0%
1-2-Oscar6 months, 1 week ago
Actually, it was Obama's Iowa victory that was regarded as an aberration--Clinton had been expected to sweep them all. She held on in New Hampshire, but that was before Obama got his message clearly defined, and her "comeback" in California and New York was more a matter of money and the backing of the established political organization than any exceptional efforts of her own. Besides, she lost 13 other states that day.
I think that Sen. Clinton's hopes now exist only in her own "fantasy" (to borrow a word so badly used by her husband). The Democratic Party intends to win this November, and it is becoming increasingly apparent that Sen. Obama is the candidate who can not only win, but provide an enthusiastic following which can sweep more Democrats into office than Clinton ever dreamed.
Do you want a "filibuster-proof" Congress to support your next President? Then get on board--the Obama-wagon can take you there.
Reply-
0%
ETproductions6 months, 1 week ago
I couldn't agree more. But in the meantime I hear the MSM theorizing that if Hillary looses Wisconsin by only 5 points, that will be as good as a win for her, and her momentum will be back. They always slant the story to keep the story going, because the conflict translates into $$$ for them.
Reply
-
-
-
0%
DLee41446 months, 1 week ago
Obama, and for that matter all of the candidates, have reams of information on their websites that outline their positions on everything anyone could possibly care about.
If you don't know what they think about an issue, read it.
Anyone who is voting for a president based on what they look like instead of what they think is too dumb to be allowed to vote for anyone.
That's how we wound up with a guy everyone thought they'd like to have a beer with who then had a 30% approval rating within a couple years. It's not Bush's fault he's an awful president. It's the fault of people who voted for him without doing enough research to KNOW that he'd be an awful president.
Reply-
0%
GHOSTWHOWALKS6 months, 1 week ago
Some good advice but no where on these site does it say anything about Obama's $854 BILLION DOLLAR gift to the UN to give to the poor in AFRICA, nor does it explain how much SHRILLERY's health is going to cost, except she expects $1500 from every american in the form of a tax, nor how they are going to pay for their grandiose schemes.
McCain wants to spend the next 100 years fighting a war in IRAQ and wherever else he deems. Huckabee is just a plain NUT case.
But in one instance you are right. People should read better voting.
Reply -
0%
doppich6 months, 1 week ago
Nonetheless, the candidates should discuss the issues, if only to show they've read and agree with the issue papers generated by their staff and posted on their website. I didn't read Bush's web pages (his incompetence was too obvious) but, I say confidently, neither did he.
Reply
-
-
0%
joey-evans6 months, 1 week ago
"...except she expects $1500 from every American in the form of a tax,.."
I am not certain that this is correct, but if she is giving me my healthcare for $1500, then she can have it and I will deliver it happily. Seeing that $1500 currently only pays for less than four months of my health insurance.
JOEY EVANS
Reply -
0%
Rinty6 months, 1 week ago
I can't help but feel that the Clinton's want the presidency for all the wrong reasons. To the point, that if she were a true patriot she'd stand down.
Reply -
0%
ghengisghan6 months, 1 week ago
I cant stand the Clintons but dont underestimate them, Obama better watch his six because there is nothing Hillary wont do to get power!
Reply -
-
0%
mtgmanfl736 months ago
While I whole heartedly believe that we have reached a point in our country where we can have either a female president (several nations around the world currently have female leaders) or an African American President, why does that seem to be the only argument between the two. Wouldn't it be better for the country if we chose a leader that we could get behind based on who is best for the job, rather than the politically correct popularity contest that it has become? Just a thought.
Reply -
0%
vvv63vvv6 months ago
the media is promoting that superdelegates support whoever won their district so that the will of the people will prevail
in that case they have to count michigan and florida if they aren't be biased hypocrites
Reply -
0%
aniokly6 months ago
McCain is tough, and aggressive toward National Security. Barak is weak, and naive. First thing he did after being elected U S Senator was go to Kenya, and confer with his relatives. It is just now coming out he is a cousin of Raila Odinga, the rebel chief fighting the incumbent elected leaders. The are both descended from the Luo tribe. The same tribe that burned a church full of Christians in Eldorget, that had sought sanctuary. Democrats better vett this lad. I guarantee the Republicans will know him as well as his Kenyan Granny by Labor Day.
Reply
Submitted By:
TechnologyExpert
I am Editor-in-Chief at Alice Hill's RealTechNews (http://www.realtechnews.com). I also have my own blog (Tech-Ex) at http://TechnologyExpert.Blogspot.com. Finally ...
Also submitted:
- 1.0 - Study: Large Earthquake Could Strike New York City
- 1.0 - Face transplants can work, studies show
- 1.0 - Alabama workers to pay for extra pounds
- 1.0 - Melting Arctic Ocean opens shipping frontier
Related Articles:
Why not submit a story?
Also Propping This Article
Groups Watching This
No groups are watching this story. Why not share it with your group?
