You said you are not a great fan of Obama. I was wondering if you have gotten a chance to read the article he wrote in Foreign Affairs Magazine back in July? It is a wonderful read. I really think this is the approach we need to take if we are to restore our reputation in the world. Give it a look:
http://www.foreignaffairs.org/20070701faessay86401/barack-obama/renewing-american-leadership.html

McCain has come out for private accounts.
This mechanism will allow the financial types to take a fee out of each person's social security transactions. They will invent new and better accounts and trade the public's assets ad infinitum in a manner quite similar to getting their hands on the mortgage industry.
After they take their cut and their fees out of all social security transactions it will also inevitably occur that they have hyped certain assets or acount types and a large per centage of Americans will lose significant chunks of their retirement monies.
This outcome is written in stone. The presumed worth of private accounts is premised on the stock market always increasing in value. At it's base it has the same premise as that housing values will never suffer reversals. Creating private accounts will hugely decrease at various times the total asset value under management and the security feature now embodied in social security.
If McCain has a shred of integrity he will not trade aging and elderly American's retirement monies and security to attract the Wall Street votes and financial backing.
He stands for nothing if he perseveres in calling for privatized social security accounts.
cognitorex

RS -

Watch the video - she did in fact tacitly endorse McCain - by including him in the '6-ring-red- phone-club' while excluding Obama. No pretending - except her feigning being a Democrat.

She would endorse anyone who is not now currently handing her arse to her. These are her loyalties -self, first and foremost.

Are we doing a running tally of all the clips McKZ can paste into his adds at no cost to his campaign?

Hil - run w/ McKZ - or pull a Lieberman indie when you lose - as that's where you're clearly headed.

If she thinks her resume compares to McCains then she is more delusional than we thought. He would beat her like a drum. Our choice is Obama or McCain. Hillary would loose even some blue states because she has packaged herself arguing that McCains greatest strength is the most important qualification.

But that's NOT how she said it THIS time. She basically compared the three remaining valid candidates and ranked a fellow Democrat below the Republican opponent.

Wouldn't HRC fans be pissed off if Obama said something like:

I think I bring a certain amount of elected experience (11 years) to the White House, John McCain brings a certain amount of elected experience (28 years).

Hillary brings her husband's experiecnce.

Rachel Maddow has been VERY careful to be neutral or even slightly pro-Hillary until last night's Countdown with Keith Olbermann where she nailed Hillary's statement.

"that's what you say when you want to be John McCain's Vice Presidential choice".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3-4mJLqW4Y4

ricosuave said:

OK...this is just stupid. Clearly she was making the argument that she has experience to counter McCain and Obama does not. You are just being silly here to say she is choosing McCain over Obama, and you probably know it.

She has been making this comment all over the place, and here is a representative example (from the other hyperventilating dishonest post on this topic here):

“I think you'll be able to imagine many things Senator McCain will be able to say,” she said. “He’s never been the president, but he will put forth his lifetime of experience. I will put forth my lifetime of experience. Senator Obama will put forth a speech he made in 2002.”

But let's all pretend she endorsed McCain and then bitch about how awful it is that she did that.

Frankly, it doesn't matter whether people call it an endorsement, or "chooing McCain," or whatever they want. Because the fact still remains that clear meaning is that only she and McCain have enough experience to be President and Obama does not. That she makes that statement under the cover of what McCain himself might say is irrelevant.

Shame on you, Hillary Clinton!

She wasnt endorsing McCain, but she certainly made a statement that reflected sarcasm without the wit. She just appears bitter.

I remember back in the 90's when I would defend the Clinton's. I guess I am older and wiser now, and I am seeing them for who they really are. As a life-long democrat, it has been really sad and disappointing to witness this. It just isnt what I expected to happen after 7 years of Bush, and I am angry that the Clintons have decided to go down this path.

I think he's a cheap hustler who played you like a violin. But what do I know? Let's let Texas decide. He can beat her there if people buy his argument that he's the one to pick up that phone. Or he can beat her there if his ground organization overpowers hers. He can beat her if his base turns out and hers doesn't. He has a lot of ways to win. Never lose hope. Feelings of hopelessness make you an easy mark. Don't they?

I started working for the Clintons in '92. And you?

Since then, how many Democratic presidents have you had the pleasure of watching be sworn in?

Did I miss one?

I am sure she does not see it as endorsing McCain. She thinks that she is making an argument for her own campaign. The reason she believes this is that she has bought her own BS. She thinks her experience trumps McCain's. This is delusional. If the Democratic nominee makes this election about experience then they LOSE. Sen Obama can win by running the same campaign in the general that he has run in the primary.