Clinton thread
- Started
- Last post
- 442 Responses
- DUKIE08220
why I like Clinton...
1)She voted for the war based on the intelligence information she had in front of her...don't forget that obama once said that he might have voted for the war had he seen the senate intelligence report on Iraq
2)She is much more involved than barack, when it comes to her extracurricular activities in the senate
3)She has seen the stress that a president must face, and the toll it takes on a person
why I don't like Clinton...
1) I don't agree with her stance on abortion
2) I don't agree with her stance immigration
3) I don't agree with her approach to medical care
4) I don't agree with her approach to taxation
5) I don't agree with her stance on the min. wage
I could go on...but remember that her and barack have pretty similar viewpoints when it comes to many of these issues...so if I were forced to have a democrat in office I would rather have someone who has been around the block, someone who backs up their ideas with well thought out plans, and someone who is active in their current role in the gov't rather than a key word candidate like obama- Everyone new that intelligence was bullshit. When Colin Powell went to the UN with that thin gruel, it was obvious bullshit.AndyRoss
- I can understand typing that shit, but I can't understand believing it.AndyRoss
- You think Hillary has been around the block when she spent 10 years in the Governor's Mansion, and 8 in the White House?AndyRoss
- andy tell me why you like who you likeDUKIE0822
- mrdobolina0
ok, just to pick one out... so you dont think the minimum wage should keep up with inflation? The cost of everything goes up, but the minimum wage does what? stays the same forever? it was static for years.
I could go on forever about what you posted but I really dont feel it is worth my time.
- DUKIE08220
no I don't...the minimum wage was never meant to be a living wage. making it increase with inflation is just the an attempt to evolve the minimum wage into becoming a living wage
if this evolution is complete then it serves as a tool to keep the average worker content with simply scraping by and heightens their reliance on the gov't for providing basic needs such as health care...creating a viscous cycle which keeps the poor poorer and rich richer.
if someone wants to better themselves, they should demand an increased availability of nsa educational assistance from the gov't not an increase in meager wages that will not harm big business but the smaller businesses that really keep our economy going
- the world needs ditch diggers and burger flippers, dumbass.mrdobolina
- yeah they are called hs students, college students, and people who need second jobs...these jobs are not meant to provide liveable wagesDUKIE0822
- to provide liveable wages...DUKIE0822
- thing is, people are working them because manual labor jobs are no longer here.mrdobolina
- demand more american made goods from your retailers...buy american apparel for instanceDUKIE0822
- ukit0
Here's a great reason to vote for Obama if you think they are the same on the issues: we live in a meritocracy, not an aristocracy. We could keep voting the Clintons and the Bushes in forever and they would always be the most experienced. How about Jeb Bush in 2016? Chelsea in 2024? Fuck it, why not just have a monarchy? You can't beat growing up and living your entire life in the White House for experience.
- if that is really your reason for not voting for clinton...then our country has been doomed since the beginning- remember the Adams father and son duo, and they weren't the only onesDUKIE0822
- the Adams duo, and they weren't the only family members to hold the officeDUKIE0822
- it's not the only reason, but one that I thought would resonate with your libertarian leanings.ukit
- concentration of power is something we should always try to move away from, no matter what has happened in the past.ukit
- ********0
"With recent rumblings of the possibility of a revote in Florida and Michigan, Hillary supporters are starting to sense the beginnings of a Clinton comeback. But there is little evidence that new votes in Florida and Michigan will be valuable enough to put Clinton back on a trajectory that leads to the nomination.
Clinton currently trails Obama in pledged delegates by 156. She leads Obama among superdelegates by 38, a lead that has been cut by more than half since Super Tuesday. Florida has 185 pledged delegates. Michigan has 128.
In January, Hillary won Florida with 50% of the vote, seventeen points higher than Obama. But at the time, Edwards and Kucinich were still in the race, and received a combined 17% of the vote. Thus far, exit polls have suggested that Edwards and Kucinich supporters have trended toward Obama.
But let's assume Hillary's dream scenario. We will assume that more than 60% of those Edwards and Kucinich voters cast votes for Hillary. We will assume that, despite all evidence to the contrary, Obama's aggressive campaigning in the state won't see any other increase in support. In such a situation, Hillary would win Florida 60-40, netting, at most, 37 delegates.
In Michigan, a state with demographics highly favorable to Obama, we will also assume that Clinton wins 60-40, an amount she wasn't even able to achieve when hers was the only name on the ballot. In such a situation, she would net, at most, 24 delegates.
Between the two states, she will see a net gain of 61 delegates, but Barack Obama will continue to maintain a pledged delegate lead of more than 95. In that best case scenario, she would still have to win two-thirds of the remaining pledged delegates to regain the lead, a feat that will require far more than two-thirds of the votes.
As a result, Hillary has turned her attention to the superdelegates. But even among them, she is seeing a number of pitfalls. Since Super Tuesday, Obama has gained 45 superdelegates while Clinton has lost 6. There are approximately 320 superdelegates that remain unpledged. If Clinton's comeback continues to be as dramatic as we assumed in Florida and Michigan, if she manages to cut Obama's remaining delegate lead in half, he will still have a nearly 50 pledged delegate lead. Clinton will have to then convince almost sixty percent of the remaining superdelegates to ignore the will of the people, tear the party in half, and hand her the nomination.
Such an outcome is truly inconceivable, and the strongest argument the Clinton campaign is making to those superdelegates is markedly unpersuasive.
Hillary Clinton has aimed her sights at painting Obama as unable to defeat John McCain. She argues first that she has won big states like New York, California, New Jersey, and Ohio, all states that are necessary for a Democrat to win in November. Her argument, plainly, is that her primary wins are somehow predictive of her general election outcomes. This argument is ridiculous in terms of its intellectual dishonesty.
The voting population of a Democratic primary is vastly different than that of a general election. Winning the Ohio primary suggests only that the Democratic base prefers one candidate over the other. But in the general election, Democrats, including many who don't vote in primaries, as well as Republicans and Independents will be voting. The voting population is entirely different, and the coalition for victory must include a combination of Democrats, Independents, and some Republicans. Hillary's win among Democratic voters says absolutely nothing about her ability to attract other voters. In fact, Obama has consistently faired dramatically better among Independents and Republicans than has Clinton. A recent Survey USA poll shows both Obama and Clinton ahead of McCain by double digits in Ohio.
Moreover, the notion that Obama would be unable to win California and New York in a general election is insultingly ludicrous. Both states have been consistently Democratic, and no public polling data suggests otherwise.
In terms of electoral strategy, Hillary Clinton is in a far weaker position, and is using misleading data to bolster her claims. It is true that Hillary Clinton cannot win the general election without New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Florida. She is still playing on a traditional field, the same on which Kerry and Gore served up painful losses. But, as those same Survey USA numbers show, Obama is playing on an entirely different field. Obama's victory will not require Florida, Pennsylvania, or New Jersey. He can build a broader coalition, with states like Colorado, New Mexico, Iowa, Nevada, and Virginia. Obama's success in those states means the party will not have to depend on states like Florida, many of which have been tragically unreliable.
The weakness of Clinton's arguments should say something about the likelihood of her victory. But even if her arguments were logically sound, they are consistently undercut by national polling which has consistently shown Barack Obama beating John McCain. In most polls, Hillary Clinton loses or is within the margin of error.
Her rationale might work with the average voter, but it will not work with politicians and party insiders who are familiar with presidential elections. She has no realistic path to the pledged delegate lead, and lacks any persuasive argument to convince superdelegates to fall in line.
And yet, she continues.
- these are the hard calculations that force decisions. Why does she persist? She, like all of us, hopes. We for Obama, she for herself.********
- herself********
- these are the hard calculations that force decisions. Why does she persist? She, like all of us, hopes. We for Obama, she for herself.
- ********0
But there's one more crucial way in which Barack Obama can inspire, distinct from how Hillary Clinton could ever hope to inspire, and that's the inspiration he would offer towards peace. We in this country need to acknowledge to the world a certain mistake that most of us understand we made. At the height of insanity, after this extraordinary and horrible bombing, of our own citizens on our own territory, we were led into war by a president who didn't care to pay attention to the facts.
This was the biggest political blunder, perhaps ever, that an American president engaged. It was extraordinarily destructive — destructive to us and to them. If we're going to find peace here, then that peace will only come if we can signal our own change. A change that they understand is a change in who we are, a change that they can see.
So I want you to shut your eyes and imagine what it will seem like to a young man in Iraq or in Iran, who wakes up on January 21st, 2009, and sees the picture of this man as the president of the United States. A man who opposed the war at the beginning, a man who worked his way up from almost nothing, a man who came from a mother and a father of mixed cultures and mixed societies, who came from a broken home to overcome all of that to become the leader in his class, at the Harvard Law Review, and an extraordinary success as a politician. How can they see us when they see us as having chosen this man as our president?
There can be no clearer way that we could say, that we could say that the United States could say, that we have changed, than by electing this man. There is no way we could more clearly move on toward peace than this. He represents the very best of who we are, the best of character, of integrity and ideals. And someone who opposed the war from the start.
- mrdobolina0
Dukie, I cannot for the life of mee understand why you are not attacking Randd.
- he don't bait, brother********
- fact: you like obama because he has a pretty face and can read someone else's speech off a teleprompterDUKIE0822
- enjoy the next four years under obama...because while I don't like him I recognize the fact that he will probably be our next presidentDUKIE0822
- next president....maybe/h... I am wrong and you are right about him...but I think you will be calling out hillary's name in 8yrsDUKIE0822
- I'm done nowDUKIE0822
- she fails to cross the character threshold********
- Obama should have said I haven't asked her yet to be my vice-president. Discussion now premature.********
- she fails to cross the character threshold for vp********
- he don't bait, brother
- ********0
I think he originally was addressing me, but I didn't start this thread to defend obama. I couldn't care less if he doesn't like obama, and it doesn't surprise me that a republican would prefer Hillary
- Although, it is very jesuitical of them after many years of demonizing her, finally embracing her as one of them********
- Although, it is very jesuitical of them after many years of demonizing her, finally embracing her as one of them
- ********0
PS, Obama has erased the temporary lead Clinton had regained in national tracking polls during the texas/Ohio week, when she used her kitchen sink strategy of negative campaigning
- TheBlueOne0
I think Obama should of said: "While I'm busy winning the nomination for the presidency, Hillary is having problems with basic arithmetic."
- Of course, being Obama, he's precede it with "With all due respect..."TheBlueOne
- Drno0
she lost, she should quit, because she's only hurting her party
- ********0
To: Interested Parties
From: Greg Craig, former director, Policy Planning Office, U.S. State Department
RE: Senator Clinton’s claim to be experienced in foreign policy: Just words?
DA: March 11, 2008
When your entire campaign is based upon a claim of experience, it is important that you have evidence to support that claim. Hillary Clinton’s argument that she has passed "the Commander- in-Chief test" is simply not supported by her record.
There is no doubt that Hillary Clinton played an important domestic policy role when she was First Lady. It is well known, for example, that she led the failed effort to pass universal health insurance. There is no reason to believe, however, that she was a key player in foreign policy at any time during the Clinton Administration. She did not sit in on National Security Council meetings. She did not have a security clearance. She did not attend meetings in the Situation Room. She did not manage any part of the national security bureaucracy, nor did she have her own national security staff. She did not do any heavy-lifting with foreign governments, whether they were friendly or not. She never managed a foreign policy crisis, and there is no evidence to suggest that she participated in the decision-making that occurred in connection with any such crisis. As far as the record shows, Senator Clinton never answered the phone either to make a decision on any pressing national security issue – not at 3 AM or at any other time of day.
When asked to describe her experience, Senator Clinton has cited a handful of international incidents where she says she played a central role. But any fair-minded and objective judge of these claims – i.e., by someone not affiliated with the Clinton campaign – would conclude that Senator Clinton’s claims of foreign policy experience are exaggerated.
Northern Ireland:
Senator Clinton has said, "I helped to bring peace to Northern Ireland." It is a gross overstatement of the facts for her to claim even partial credit for bringing peace to Northern Ireland. She did travel to Northern Ireland, it is true. First Ladies often travel to places that are a focus of U.S. foreign policy. But at no time did she play any role in the critical negotiations that ultimately produced the peace. As the Associated Press recently reported, "[S]he was not directly involved in negotiating the Good Friday peace accord." With regard to her main claim that she helped bring women together, she did participate in a meeting with women, but, according to those who know best, she did not play a pivotal role. The person in charge of the negotiations, former Senator George Mitchell, said that "[The First Lady] was one of many people who participated in encouraging women to get involved, not the only one."
News of Senator Clinton’s claims has raised eyebrows across the ocean. Her reference to an important meeting at the Belfast town hall was debunked. Her only appearance at the Belfast City Hall was to see Christmas lights turned on. She also attended a 50-minute meeting which, according to the Belfast Daily Telegraph’s report at the time, "[was] a little bit stilted, a little prepared at times." Brian Feeney, an Irish author and former politician, sums it up: "The road to peace was carefully documented, and she wasn’t on it."
Bosnia:
Senator Clinton has pointed to a March 1996 trip to Bosnia as proof that her foreign travel involved a life-risking mission into a war zone. She has described dodging sniper fire. While she did travel to Bosnia in March 1996, the visit was not a high-stakes mission to a war zone. On March 26, 1996, the New York Times reported that "Hillary Rodham Clinton charmed American troops at a U.S.O. show here, but it didn’t hurt that the singer Sheryl Crow and the comedian Sinbad were also on the stage."
Kosovo:
Senator Clinton has said, "I negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo." It is true that, as First Lady, she traveled to Macedonia and visited a Kosovar refugee camp. It is also true that she met with government officials while she was there. First Ladies frequently meet with government officials. Her claim to have "negotiated open borders to let fleeing refugees into safety from Kosovo," however, is not true. Her trip to Macedonia took place on May 14, 1999. The borders were opened the day before, on May 13, 1999.
The negotiations that led to the opening of the borders were accomplished by the people who ordinarily conduct negotiations with foreign governments – U.S. diplomats. President Clinton’s top envoy to the Balkans, former Ambassador Robert Gelbard, said, "I cannot recall any involvement by Senator Clinton in this issue." Ivo Daalder worked on the Clinton Administration’s National Security Council and wrote a definitive history of the Kosovo conflict. He recalls that "she had absolutely no role in the dirty work of negotiations."
Rwanda:
Last year, former President Clinton asserted that his wife pressed him to intervene with U.S. troops to stop the Rwandan genocide. When asked about this assertion, Hillary Clinton said it was true. There is no evidence, however, to suggest that this ever happened. Even those individuals who were advocating a much more robust U.S. effort to stop the genocide did not argue for the use of U.S. troops. No one recalls hearing that Hillary Clinton had any interest in this course of action. Based on a fair and thorough review of National Security Council deliberations during those tragic months, there is no evidence to suggest that U.S. military intervention was ever discussed. Prudence Bushnell, the Assistant Secretary of State with responsibility for Africa, has recalled that there was no consideration of U.S. military intervention.
At no time prior to her campaign for the presidency did Senator Clinton ever make the claim that she supported intervening militarily to stop the Rwandan genocide. It is noteworthy that she failed to mention this anecdote – urging President Clinton to intervene militarily in Rwanda – in her memoirs. President Clinton makes no mention of such a conversation with his wife in his memoirs. And Madeline Albright, who was Ambassador to the United Nations at the time, makes no mention of any such event in her memoirs.
Hillary Clinton did visit Rwanda in March 1998 and, during that visit, her husband apologized for America’s failure to do more to prevent the genocide.
China
Senator Clinton also points to a speech that she delivered in Beijing in 1995 as proof of her ability to answer a 3 AM crisis phone call. It is strange that Senator Clinton would base her own foreign policy experience on a speech that she gave over a decade ago, since she so frequently belittles Barack Obama’s speeches opposing the Iraq War six years ago. Let there be no doubt: she gave a good speech in Beijing, and she stood up for women’s rights. But Senator Obama’s opposition to the War in Iraq in 2002 is relevant to the question of whether he, as Commander-in-Chief, will make wise judgments about the use of military force. Senator Clinton’s speech in Beijing is not.
Senator Obama’s speech opposing the war in Iraq shows independence and courage as well as good judgment. In the speech that Senator Clinton says does not qualify him to be Commander in Chief, Obama criticized what he called "a rash war . . . a war based not on reason, but on passion, not on principle, but on politics." In that speech, he said prophetically: "[E]ven a successful war against Iraq will require a US occupation of undetermined length, at undetermined cost, with undetermined consequences." He predicted that a U.S. invasion of Iraq would "fan the flames of the Middle East," and "strengthen the recruitment arm of al Qaeda." He urged the United States first to "finish the fight with Bin Laden and al Qaeda."
If the U.S. government had followed Barack Obama’s advice in 2002, we would have avoided one of the greatest foreign policy catastrophes in our nation’s history. Some of the most "experienced" men in national security affairs – Vice President Cheney and Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and others – led this nation into that catastrophe. That lesson should teach us something about the value of judgment over experience. Longevity in Washington, D.C. does not guarantee either wisdom of judgment.
Conclusion:
The Clinton campaign’s argument is nothing more than mere assertion, dramatized in a scary television commercial with a telephone ringing in the middle of the night. There is no support for or substance in the claim that Senator Clinton has passed "the Commander-in-Chief test." That claim – as the TV ad – consists of nothing more than making the assertion, repeating it frequently to the voters and hoping that they will believe it.
On the most critical foreign policy judgment of our generation – the War in Iraq – Senator Clinton voted in support of a resolution entitled "The Joint Resolution to Authorize the Use of U.S. Military Force Against Iraq." As she cast that vote, she said: "This is probably the hardest decision I have ever had to make — any vote that may lead to war should be hard — but I cast it with conviction." In this campaign, Senator Clinton has argued – remarkably – that she wasn’t actually voting for war, she was voting for diplomacy. That claim is no more credible than her other claims of foreign policy experience. The real tragedy is that we are still living with the terrible consequences of her misjudgment. The Bush Administration continues to cite that resolution as its authorization – like a blank check – to fight on with no end in sight.
Barack Obama has a very simple case. On the most important commander in chief test of our generation, he got it right, and Senator Clinton got it wrong. In truth, Senator Obama has much more foreign policy experience than either Bill Clinton or Ronald Reagan had when they were elected. Senator Obama has worked to confront 21st century challenges like proliferation and genocide on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. He possesses the personal attributes of a great leader – an even temperament, an open-minded approach to even the most challenging problems, a willingness to listen to all views, clarity of vision, the ability to inspire, conviction and courage.
And Barack Obama does not use false charges and exaggerated claims to play politics with national security.
- Clinton political appointee to DOS ?********
- Good stuff. I wish she would go away already.mg33
- Clinton political appointee to DOS ?
- TheBlueOne0
Obama: Not The Antichrist
This has been another exciting Episode of "America: Your Serious Media Asks the Burning Questions You Need To Know"
- who were those yahoos?********
- Don't know, but they're on CNN and we're not.TheBlueOne
- Glenn, get off the bottle already, asswipe.utopian
- wonder why other countries hate us....OSFA
- id love to punch that asshole's face offBonSeff
- who were those yahoos?
- ukit0
Oh man this is rich,,,
http://blog.washingtonpost.com/s…
Sinbad Unloads on Hillary Clinton
Finally, the Barack Obama campaign has found a big gun to help shoot down Hillary Rodham Clinton's self-proclaimed foreign policy experience. And he may be the wackiest gun of all: Sinbad, the actor, who has come out from under a rock to defend Obama in the war over foreign policy credentials.
Sinbad, along with singer Sheryl Crow, was on that 1996 trip to Bosnia that Clinton has described as a harrowing international experience that makes her tested and ready to answer a 3 a.m. phone call at the White House on day one, a claim for which she's taking much grief on the campaign trail.
Sinbad
Sinbad, performing in 2007 for shareholders of Wal-Mart. Hillary Rodham Clinton served on the board of Wal-Mart from 1986 to 1992. (Spencer Tirey -- The Associated Press)Harrowing? Not that Sinbad recalls. He just remembers it being a USO tour to buck up the troops amid a much worse situation than he had imagined between the Bosnians and Serbs.
In an interview with the Sleuth Monday, he said the "scariest" part of the trip was wondering where he'd eat next. "I think the only 'red-phone' moment was: 'Do we eat here or at the next place.'"
Clinton, during a late December campaign appearance in Iowa, described a hair-raising corkscrew landing in war-torn Bosnia, a trip she took with her then-teenage daughter, Chelsea. "They said there might be sniper fire," Clinton said.
Threat of bullets? Sinbad doesn't remember that, either.
"I never felt that I was in a dangerous position. I never felt being in a sense of peril, or 'Oh, God, I hope I'm going to be OK when I get out of this helicopter or when I get out of his tank.'"
In her Iowa stump speech, Clinton also said, "We used to say in the White House that if a place is too dangerous, too small or too poor, send the First Lady."
Say what? As Sinbad put it: "What kind of president would say, 'Hey, man, I can't go 'cause I might get shot so I'm going to send my wife...oh, and take a guitar player and a comedian with you.'"
- SIGNS YOUR CAMPAIGN IS IN TAILSPIN: Early 90's has-been comics pwning you.TheBlueOne
- HILLariousukit
- ********0
Geraldine Ferraro: "Any time anybody does anything that in any way pulls this campaign down and says let's address reality and the problems we're facing in this world, you're accused of being racist, so you have to shut up. Racism works in two different directions. I really think they're attacking me because I'm white. How's that?"
Ferraro is unhappy that people are calling b.s. on her suggestion that Obama is winning only because he's black (which clearly was a huge advantage for Presidents Jackson and Sharpton).
This is officially really bad for Clinton.
The Obama campaign quickly removed a relatively obscure adviser for calling Clinton the apparently dreaded and beyond-the-pale "M" word. How does Clinton react to Ferraro's race baiting? She turns around and accuses Obama of playing the race card.
- ukit0
What a fucking crock. If Obama was white and just as intelligent, charismatic, and as good of a speaker, he wouldn't be losing, he would have put the nomination away by now. Screw Ferraro and her "I'm just being honest" BS.
- she can go fuck herself********
- Seriously, Normally, I try to ignore shit like this, being mixed race myself, but this is beyond the pale.ukit
- Either way but REALLY dumb thing to say before the Mississippi primary...TheBlueOne
- why does his colour has to be a positive or a negative asset? I thought you were past that issue, but it's always there...********
- that leaves you wondering too. I see a man making a speech - I don't see a black man making a speech.********
- maybe I'm naïve and I'm not getting that that really matters to people.********
- she can go fuck herself
- ********0
As just another foreigner interested in US politics (go figure) - I have thought of late that the Clinton family were a fair deal to you: mainly because the US did so well in the late nineties and pushed everybody on at the West of the Danube. That was mainly because (at that time) Bill Clinton represented the fair, educated ideal american that everybody likes around here and he surely played his part well. But that sordid piece of campaign known as the "3am ready" commercial and also Hillary's latest speeches really leaves you wondering about what those people have turned to. It's such a low blow on a fellow campaigner - that we wonder why wouldn't she use the same line of reasoning to every trouble the US has got into.
I think I was wrong in my judgement. So, I hereby withdraw my support to Hillary Clinton (not that it counts, silly me) and say good riddance folks and good luck. In the end, I just wish you could rescue Stevens back from Islam - because... Cat Stevens... James Taylor... Cat Power... that's the freedom in America that I like, just to mention a few. Good riddance!
- ********0
It's really weird why we in Europe, thousands of miles away from the States, should care about what goes on in America - it's not like you in US undergo the same process. But fact is, we (I at least) do care.
- Hey when you elect a son of salazar we'll talk********
- ;) good point. But Salazar did not have any children. Probably, he didn't even know how that works :P********
- Nah j/k. He did have 8 million kids... It's not easy to be in our "skin" my friend. Good thing: he cared about landscape.********
- Hey when you elect a son of salazar we'll talk
- ukit0
Corvo, the 3AM ad was just the tip of the iceberg. The Clinton people have been using dirty tactics this whole campaign. Whether it's saying that Obama is only winning because he's black or even saying John McCain is more credible than Obama or threatening to sue states where it looked like they wouldn't win.
I agree with the Clintons on a lot of policy, but their tactics and their ethics are just disgusting. Let's say Hillary gets elected. Would anyone be surprised if there was some huge scandal during her presidency? I wouldn't.
- true. but i never understood all the money gathering in US elections - is that to be returned in favours ...********
- or sympathy? I reckon they do the same here (at least you're not having it under the bush) but it's really boggling as to...********
- often, yeah. but now it is getting to the point where they raise most of it off the web from small donations, which is good.ukit
- ... so much words depends on money and corporate interest. Is that true politics, I ask? Are those really new ideas?********
- lol. Is all that money going to Shepard Fairy? j/k. I know you have a long electoral campaign :)********
- honestly, I understand - but I'm also suspicious about campaigns - esp. coz ppl in design ind know how it works.********
- true. but i never understood all the money gathering in US elections - is that to be returned in favours ...
