CJKatl

Lately, when I've tried to enter certain web sites, the page will start to load onto my computer, and then, usually right before it's completely loaded, go to an error page. The error page shows this: http://pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/ads%3F...

What's going on? How do I fix it?

Thanks for your help.

In the past several days, several unpledged superdelegates have come out and said it's time for Hillary to drop out. Add to that all the superdelegates that have started to publicly pledge to Obama.

How can Hillary claim the superdelegates are going to bail her out when Lahey, Dean, Pelosi, Brazile, and several other unpledged superdelegates are telling her it's time to leave the race?

Is telling you to leave the race the new way of showing support?

Just out: http://www.gallup.com/poll/105814/Gallup-Daily-Oba...

Obama has the biggest lead over Clinton since the race began - 8 points! And yesterday's WSJ/NBC Poll showed similarly falling numbers for Clinton.

So when is this Clinton surge gonna kick in? She needs to keep up with the kitchen-sink strategy. As an Obama support, I'm liking the results when she goes negative!

So how is she going to turn this around?

How bad will the fallout be for Hillary over her donors threatening Pelosi? What were they thinking when they did it?

Hillary's donors gave her about a quarter of what Obama's donors gave him.

Hill's donors want the Democratic party to encourage the superdelegates to choose a candidate who lost all vote totals, or else Hill's donors threaten not to donate to the party anymore. But wouldn't the party be more worried about Obama's donors, since they give much more money?

The donors threaten Pelosi, who is in charge of the House, in which sit many superdelegates. But doesn't that encourage Congresspeople to make sure Hill is not elected so they don't have to be threatened for the next four years?

Pelosi is chairperson of the rules committee at the DNC Convention. Why upset her? Do they think you win friends through threats?

Whose boneheaded idea was it to threaten Nancy Pelosi? Obviously, Hillary supporters. They're just daft.

How bad will the fallout be?

The Chicago Sun-Times and other papers are reporting today that once again, Hillary Clinton's campaign is out of money and has massive unpaid bills.

Of course, she has limited, if any, media buys in PA right now and the article indicates that staffers are about to either have to work without pay or leave the campaign.

Given she has not gotten any superdelgate support since Super Tuesday (net loss of three, Obama picked up another one today in the form of Senator Casey) and cannot be mathematically ahead by any count at the end of the primary, the paper stated it was unlikely she was going to bail the campaign out again with her own money.

So how long is she gonna stay in? A week? Until after PA but before NC/IN? Or will she pull a Huckabee and stay in but in a very one-person-in-a-car campaign?

Yesterday, Hillary claimed she would be the best person on the other end of the phone if there was an economic crisis at three in the morning. Guess she had to give up on the foreign affairs crisis, now that all her examples (Bosnia, Northern Ireland, Macedonia, and China) have been shown to be a stretched farther than Joan Rivers' face...

So what economic policy experience has she had? OK, we all know she has had about none. But that won't stop her from making something up!!!

So are we going to start hearing that she actually told Greenspan what to do? Or that she was actually the one who decided how much money the mint should print?

What whopper will Hillary tell to claim she has economic policy experience??

(*Prizes awarded for anything that makes me fall off my chair!! I need the laugh this morning. *"Prizes Awarded" promise as valid any of Cinton's foreign policy claims.)

Yep, a new WSJ/NBC Poll shows that only 37% of Americans view Hillary in a positive light. And those numbers came from polls taken to Hillary's admission that being tired caused her to make up details of the Bosnia trip, repeat them over and over again, and organize attacks against people like Sinbad who pointed out the truth.

Will this extremely low personal rating be just the thing to convice superdelegates to suddenly run to her support? Will this stop the steady flow of superdelegates to Obama? Are the superdelegates going to say it's worth suffering the wrath of overturning the primary results because Hillary is so electable in November?

Obama's positives have kept up in the 60+% range. So where is the common political sense in pushing him aside in favor of an extremely disliked Clinton?

Does is scare people that 20 wealthy Clinton backers have DEMANDED that Nancy Pelosi change her stance and come out in favor of the superdelegates picking the nominee who might not be the vote leader?

Their claim is listening to the voters is contrary to the reason the superdelegates were created. Her reasoning is that the superdelegates should not overturn the vote of the people.

Is it scary to anyone that the Democratic Party is turning into a party of a small, wealthy elite who are even questioning not listening to the vote of the people?

Don't people in other countries die trying to get a government where their voices are heard, votes counted, and the interests of a small, elite group don't rule?

Doesn't it scare everyone that this small group thinks they should be the only voices heard?

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Clinto...

For many of us, the biggest issues with the Clintons center around how they disregard the truth and have no problem tearing down anyone who may disagree with them. Even when they are not telling the truth and the person attacked is being honest. (Gennifer Flowers, Sinbad, and yes, even Ken Starr.)

In the past day, we've seen both of these traits alive and well in Hillary and her campaign.

Does anyone really want to go back to that kind of politics in the White House? Can anything be accomplished when you're working with someone in the White House who is habitually dishonest and doesn't understand that negotiation and compromise makes better politics than slash, tear, and burn?

Even if you are a Hillary supporter and don't see this, can you at least see how the people who don't like the Clintons have arrived at that conclusion?

We now know the Bosnia trip was a hoax - like anyone thought if it were a dangerous situation Bill would have let Hillary take Cheslea! Unless the poem read by the 8-year-old was a dangerous poem.

And her claims of doing anything important in Northern Ireland have been branded "a wee bit silly" by those awarded the Nobel Prize for actually facilitating the peace process.

And Macedonia. And her China speech that the woman who claims speeches are meaningless points to as somehow changing that nation.

Heck, rather than list all the lies, here's the link to the non-partisan Annenberg report: http://www.factcheck.org/elections-2008/hillarys_a... (For those that don't know, it's part of Penn University and is unbiased.)

When Hillary admitted to bending the truth yesterday (The the Philly papers), did she mean just the Bosnia trip or her entire claim to foreign experience?

Can anyone offer a single, concrete example of Hillary's foreign affairs experience?

If less than half of the currently unpledged superdelegates pledged to Hillary right now, she'd be even with or ahead of Barack Obama. But the superdelegates aren't doing this. In fact, she's lost three since Super Tuesday while Obama has picked up ~50.

If the superdelegates wanted to support Hillary, they'd be doing it now. Like they are with Obama by slowly trickling - about one or two a day so as to not be noticed - into her camp. But they are not doing anything to help her out.

How can people think the superdelegates are going to help Hillary when not only are they not helping her now when she needs it, but they are slowly, consistenly ensuring Obama wins? How does it make sense that they're going to go to Hillary when the steady stream to Obama has been going on for six weeks and isn't letting up?

So far, Hillary has claimed to bring peace to Northern Ireland and to have had dangerous high level talks with Bosnia, in a very dangerous trip with Chelsea, Sinbad, and Cheryl Crow.

The people that won Nobel Prizes for bringing peace to Northern Ireland said Hillary was not involved and labeled her claim "a wee bit silly."

Today, Hillary's campaign admitted her claims about Bosnia were a lie.

So the two things Hillary pointed to as her foreign experience have both been shown to be lies.

Why would she make these things up if she has a wealth of foreign experience? If she has so much experience, why didn't she use something real as an example? Why two lies?

Can anyone point to some foreign affairs thing that Hillary Clinton really did?

Today, Hillary admitted that she lied about the Bosnia trip. Of course, we knew Bill would not have sent Chelsea to somewhere that had any significant danger, but that didn't stop Hillary from trashing Sinbad when he pointed out Hillary's lies last week.

Can anyone defend what Hillary did? Anyone?

Hillary Clinton knew she was not telling the truth about her Bosnia trip. She knew there was no danger. She knew there was not fire. She knew there was a welcoming ceremony. She knew that nobody believed that it was determined the trip was too dangerous for Bill but Bill sent his wife and DAUGHTER instead.

Nonetheless, when Sindbad spoke the truth last week, Hillary and her campaign trashed him. Yes, I realize that's the way Clinton operates. Yes, I know she has always trashed those that speak the truth in the hopes she will get the upper hand and people will believe her lies. But doesn't she owe Sindbad an apology?

Wouldn't it be better if she just came clean, apologized outright, and promised not to trash people who are telling the truth anymore? Does the fact that she trashed Sinbad, who was telling the truth, because the lie would make her look better, bother anyone else?

How should she make this up to Sinbad?

Chris Matthews just ranted about how politics has gotten away from being about the people.

He extolled the excitement of the American people in both the Richardson endorsement and the Obama candidacy. He slammed people for concentrating on the sitcom that is the Clintons and Clinton candidacy.

Do you think the press is finally waking up to the fact that Hillary is toxic, her campaign is toxic, and that they are being used by the Clintons to continue her quest to be President even after she has mathematically lost in pledged delegates and the superdelegates by handing her a net loss of three delegates since Super Tuesday while giving Obama ~50 have shown they are not supporting Hillary, either? Has the press finally gotten that HIllary lost the primary?

With all the noise from the Clinton campaign about momentum being on her side, did anyone notice that Obama is up to a 142 delegate lead?

Here's a quote from an article on cnn.com:

"CNN estimates that Obama has 1,413 pledged delegates and 208 superdelegates for a total of 1,621. Clinton has 1,242 pledged delegates and 237 superdelegates, a total of 1,479. A candidate must have 2,024 delegates to win the Democratic nomination."

Should we ask the Hillary people to keep up the noise, since it's doing wonders to Obama's delegate count? The more they shrill the higher the difference in delegate count gets?

Since Super Tuesday, five pledged superdelegates have announced that they were no longer planning to support Hillary and are supporting Obama instead. Up until this week, no new superdelegates pledged support to Hillary. This week, two pledged to her, giving her a net loss of three since Super Tuesday.

If the superdelegates wanted Hillary to win, they would support her now and put an end to the contest. But that isn't happening. Actually, the opposite is as ~50 have come out against her since Super Tuesday and pledged to Obama.

So how can people think Hillary will be given the nomination by the superdelegates when they've shown they don't support her?

Even those unpledged delegates have been vocal that they will support the candidate leading in pledged delegates at the end of the process, which mathematically has to be Obama at this point. Even the head of the Rules Committee for the convention, Pelosi, has made this clear.

So where will Hillary's support come from?

Hillary and Bill worked hard for Bill Richardson's endorsement. Richardson himself said Clinton got upset with him when he called to tell her that he was endorsing Obama. But now her campaign is downplaying her not getting the endorsement as not being important. Anyone believe that?

You don't get upset about things that aren't important. If I told you Mary Jones of Montreal is writing with a blue pencil, you wouldn't care. That's something that's not important. You only get upset about things that matter.

The Clinton campaign appears to be saying Richardson's endorsement only matters to Hispanics because he's Hispanic. He's also a former Clinton cabinet member, so it speaks additional volumes.

And it's yet another superdelegate not going to Clinton. Since Super Tuesday, she's lost five and only picked up two superdelegates, while Obama has picked up ~50. One more in his column has to hurt.

Does anyone believe her when she says it doesn't matter??

Democrats don't appear to have a central vision. There doesn't seem to be anything unifying them as one party. It's almost like the only thing you need to believe to be a Dem is that you're not a Republican.

Right now, there are two candidates running for President, but most voters are aligned with one of the candidates and threaten to vote for McCain if their candidate doesn't win.

It's almost as though the Democratic party is just the vehicle to get their candidate in the November race, whereas the Republicans were having a contest to see who would carry the party banner in November.

It's almost like Republicans understand you have a contest and then come together around Republican principles, whereas the Democrats seem to lack those central unifying principles, so their voters aren't held together.

Does anyone else see that? Is there any reason for the Dems to stay in business if all they are is a catch-all for non-Republicans?

Today's Politico quotes a sr. Clinton official who admits there is no way Hillary will be ahead in pledged or total delegates when the primary season ends.

A NYTimes article polled unpledged superdelegates. Almost all indicated whoever is ahead in pledge delegates would get their support in Denver. Mathematically, that will be Obama.

The only number the superdelegates pay attention to in either article is delegate count. They state that primary vote totals and caucus vote totals are so different that they cannot be added together. In other words, there is no such thing as popular vote in a primary.

Plus, the net loss of 3 superdelegates since Feb 5 shows Hillary does not have any support from the supers.

If Hillary is given the nom over Obama when he has a pledged delegate lead, the 23% of Democratic voters who are African-American, 90% of whom supported Obama in Mississippi, will mostly stay home, making it impossible for Hillary to win.

Why is she staying in the race?