Do the Clintons know something the rest of the world doesn't?

[The Outsider]

What's the point really now if you look at it logically - behind Obama in all possible ways - delegates, votes, states, money etc. and no chance of overtaking him in the delegates race. She is slightly ahead in the super delegates but the gap is narrowing every day. Are there major behind the scene manipulations going on to subterfuge Obama's nomination - super delegates overturning the elected delegates, some arbitrary ruling on Michigan and Florida. What's going on? Am I just being paranoid here?

[Cricketics]

clinton looks so fake. like a typical Indian minister. when she gives speach during campaigning, she looks so fake. "In my america, we will do this/that" OBAMA - HIS PERSONALITY SPEAKS ITSELF. HE IS THE REAL LEADER. BEST Democrat for PRESIDENCY..

[cybervickey]

clinton looks so fake. like a typical Indian minister. when she gives speach during campaigning, she looks so fake. "In my america, we will do this/that" OBAMA - HIS PERSONALITY SPEAKS ITSELF. HE IS THE REAL LEADER. BEST REPUBLICAN DELEGATE FOR PRESIDENCY..

:hysterical: obama is a dem!

[Guest Hiten.]

clinton looks so fake. like a typical Indian minister. when she gives speach during campaigning, she looks so fake. "In my america, we will do this/that" OBAMA - HIS PERSONALITY SPEAKS ITSELF. HE IS THE REAL LEADER. BEST REPUBLICAN DELEGATE FOR PRESIDENCY..

Cricks ratta maar ke aaya tha... aur party ke naam mein gadbadd kar diya :hysterical:

[Cricketics]

my bad, i wanted to write Democrat

[Gambit]

Cricks ratta maar ke aaya tha... aur party ke naam mein gadbadd kar diya :hysterical:

:hysterical::D

[Lurker]

Cricks ratta maar ke aaya tha... aur party ke naam mein gadbadd kar diya :hysterical:

:hysterical::hysterical: Coming to Hillary she does come across as one big mo-fo. I wonder why many people/experts think of her efforts as that of an "ambitious" woman? Ambition, to me, is surely all the hard work that a person does to reach his goals. What exactly has Hillary done? Even to reach to current position she has shamelessly used the Clinton name and now that she is here she is making sure either she gets elected or Democrats go to the pooper.

[cybervickey]

:hysterical::hysterical: Coming to Hillary she does come across as one big mo-fo. I wonder why many people/experts think of her efforts as that of an "ambitious" woman? Ambition, to me, is surely all the hard work that a person does to reach his goals. What exactly has Hillary done? Even to reach to current position she has shamelessly used the Clinton name and now that she is here she is making sure either she gets elected or Democrats go to the pooper.

hillray is a proper diplomat, and got knows that America can do with a bit of diplomacy right now, we certainly dont need another war lord like bush or different versions of bush!

[cybervickey]

plus anybody who has bill clintons backing has my support for president !

[Rajiv]

Supporting Clinton!

[CC1981]

and now that she is here she is making sure either she gets elected or Democrats go to the pooper.

And that makes total sense. The Clintons are probably one of the most consumate politicians in the world and they will do anything/say anything to get into power(which is okay by me,since the Clintons have proven to be excellent administrators). Think on this for a minute: If Obama wins the nomination, he sure as hell isnt going to nominate Hillary as his VP,given the bad blood between them. Now, if Obama gets the nomination and goes on to win the presidency, there is NO CHANCE for Hillary to become president ever again: The Americans have notoriously short attention span and no candidate has come to the white house after competing for it the first time 8 years ago in the modern times. If Obama wins, then in 2012, Obama will be the democratic nominee by default (as the incumbent President). Therefore, the ONLY chance for Hillary, if she doesn't win now, is for the Democrats NOT to win and bid again in 2012. She has more longetivity than Obama due to the 'Clinton name' and because Obama is a black man in what still remains a deeply racist white country. If he doesnt win now, he sure as hell isnt gonna win in 2012. So the logical option for Hillary is to either win the Democratic nomination now or scuttle the democrat ship. Given that America is dancing on the precipice of economic recession, is mired in war on two fronts and the republican nominee is a war-vet staunchly in support of the ongoing wars, if the dems dont win this year, their chances are extremely good in the next election...i think thats what Hillary is counting on.

[varun]

Obama 08 !! All you Clintonistas, stay safe from the sniper fire ! :P

[Rajiv]

either way, jokes apart..u think obama will be god to USA and fix everything, I mean seriously..cut the mesmerizing effec out

[varun]

either way' date=' jokes apart..u think obama will be god to USA and fix everything, I mean seriously..cut the mesmerizing effec out[/quote'] God ? I just know that banda solid hai and I like his ideas. Check out this detailed interview with Google (1 hour) just after he announced his candidacy : [ame=

- Candidates@Google: Barack Obama[/ame]

[varun]

Also, I'm sure you would've heard about his 2002 speech before the Iraq war. Here is an excerpt from that speech:

I know that even a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences. I know that an invasion of Iraq without a clear rationale and without strong international support will only fan the flames of the Middle East, and encourage the worst, rather than best, impulses of the Arab world, and strengthen the recruitment arm of al-Qaeda. I am not opposed to all wars. I’m opposed to dumb wars.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9wPTn9yHEE0]YouTube - Obama's 2002 Speech against the War delivered by Supporters[/ame]

[Rajiv]

..difference between leading and giving a good speech varun! but he's gonna win eitherway

[Brainfade]

..difference between leading and giving a good speech varun! but he's gonna win eitherway

Couldn't agree more. I spoke out against the war, too in 2002. As did anyone who remembered Vietnam. BHO wasn't a US Senator, he wasn't privy to the "intelligence" that was given to the Congress then, and it was easy to make a speech like that. Several Democratic Senators spoke up against the war; but given the "intelligence" provided, voted to give the President the power to declare war if needed. Little did they realize that their trust would be violated. On the other hand, Dr. Ron Paul, Republican Congressman actually voted against the war. Unfortunately, men of substance like him who lack charisma, stand no chance. BHO, reminds me of Jawaharlal Nehru. Popular and charismatic, full of populist socialism, but extremely naive. This guy believes that one can shake hands with Ahmedinejad and stop the lunacy. Reminds me of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai," and the next thing we knew, the Red Army was in the NE territories.

[CC1981]

BHO, reminds me of Jawaharlal Nehru. Popular and charismatic, full of populist socialism, but extremely naive. This guy believes that one can shake hands with Ahmedinejad and stop the lunacy. Reminds me of "Hindi-Chini Bhai Bhai," and the next thing we knew, the Red Army was in the NE territories.

You've been reading too much anti-congress propaganda if you think Nehru was naive. He was anything but naive. Read up on some neutral history on this topic, since Indian history/sites are notoriously biassed and lack any credibility on this issue. From what i've read through credible sources, this is the sequence of events ( Russian and American and they both agreed on this issue...which you should realize automatically overrules propaganda/bias, because if America and Russia actually agree on something in the 1960s era, it *MUST* be true, given their absolute hatred of each other and the height of cold war). When Kashmir acceeded to the British Paramountcy, the borders of Ladakh and Qing empire was NOT demarcated. The communist government in China stressed this fact when india gained independence and Kashmir aceeded to India. However, the causus beli of the war(and THIS is where both Russian and American sources agree) was when Nehru sent BSF personnel to demarcate the border and put up border markers. In certain areas (such as Demchok), the BSF personnel were instructed to take the 'most liberal' interpretation of the terrain, ie, place markers as far inside tibet as possible while still maintaining the 'this is kashmir' facade. Nehru played a very suave political game, drumming up 'Indo-chini bhai bhai' on the media and keeping this BSF border demarcation mission classified. This was a master-stroke from him, since it was win-win both ways for him : If China doesn't show any spine and lets the mission go unchallenged, India wins. If China takes exception to it and does attack, then China is the bad guy as it is made to seem that China is attacking unprovoked. And as we know, China attacked and Nehru got to play the 'China is attacking us without reason!' card to the public. All this speaks of an extremely suave and well read politician, not a ninny, which is pretty much modern day anti-congressi propaganda. What Nehru miscalculated was the scale of China's response ( he didnt expect China to go into full war, he expected China would intercept his border force, hold them hostage and he'd negotiate for their release) and he lacked the intelligence agencies that'd point out to him that China had ALREADY build a road into Aksai Chin using it as a connector piece with Xinjiang and Tibet. but that is not Nehru's fault- India has a laughable intelligence service and those were the days where India neither had a high speed recon fighter or satelllites. And lastly, before calling Nehru naive, do read his book (Discovery of India) and do read biographies/comments from other leaders such as Stallin,Khrushchev,Churchill, deGaulle, etc- you will find it a shock, but fact is, Nehru was (and still remains) the MOST RESPECTED elected Indian politician in its history and several of those names are on record praising Nehru for his intellect and his suave political game. Not to mention, his book makes it pretty obvious that this is a man of keen insights rather than naive idealism. Where Nehru was naive and idealistic was his home policies and he grossly overestimated the Indian public's education and moral level of trying to see the bigger picture instead of being self-serving corrupt b@stards in general.

[Lurker]

hillray is a proper diplomat' date=' and got knows that [b']America can do with a bit of diplomacy right now, we certainly dont need another war lord like bush or different versions of bush!

If you dont want another war then put your support behind Obama. Hillary is hardly a proper diplomat(not sure where you got that impression from) and amongst the 3 leading Presidential candidatest(Obama, Hillary & McCain) it is she who is the most bullish on starting another war with Iran. It is Obama who has made it clear he will diplomacy a chance and has so far as gone to suggest he will talk to Iran/Hamas etc.

[Lurker]

Now' date=' if Obama gets the nomination and goes on to win the presidency, there is NO CHANCE for Hillary to become president ever again: [/quote'] I would have no problems if Hillary thinks that and gives her candidature her best shot. Instead what has progressively happened is that she has lost her marbles and went completly against her party's interest. The way I look at it is rather simple. Hillary Clinton had the easiest Presidential election in decades. A year or so ago it was sealed, wrapped in gift paper and ready to be handed over to her. George Bush was/is having the least favorable rating of any US President ever(almost 20%). US economy had started to feel recession, gas prices were off the roof, Republican parties was being with scandals from Florida to Minneappolis men's room. US being a 2 party country it was given Democrat will win 2008. Hillary Clinton was overwhelming Democrat nominee and Obama, a first time Senator, was not even a top 3 candidate(John Edwards and Bill Richardsom always scored more). Instead when the debate started and people started to be put off by Hillary. She never came across, atleast to me, as this intelligent/suave nominee who was up for it. She would keep switching positions, as evidenced in the discussion about New York giving driving license to illegal immigrants, would have no concrete plans whatsoever, would keep talking of her experience when she had none, and cook up false stories(like sniper incident). Obama on the other hand had no baggage to carry. If anything his record only helped him, as witnessed by his anti-Iraq war vote. His knack of giving speeches made people sit up and take notice. The man came across as most intelligent Democrat nominee(after Joe Biden but Biden never had a chance) and when push came to shove he took stance, as witnessed in the latest Gas-tax holiday. I would have no issues if Hillary played the game fair and square but she has absolutely nothing to offer but behaves as if this nomination is her right.