Forum Klix.ba

evo i naske...kod vaske...

----------------------

Primie Minister Kevin Rudd has empathised with the US Democrats Senator Hillary Clinton as she battles to stay in the race for the White House.

Mr Rudd and Senator Clinton met in Washington this morning and afterwards, while posing for photographers, Mr Rudd said he knew from firsthand experience how tough campaigns were.

"I have every, every sympathy for what Hillary has ahead," he said.

Senator Clinton is under growing pressure from fellow Democrats to throw in the towel and cede the party's presidential nomination to Barack Obama.

"I appreciate that, I need all the sympathy I can get," she said. "We're hanging in there."

The former US president and Senator Clinton's husband Bill Clinton, told Democrats wanting his wife to withdraw to "chill out".

Democrats fear the battle beween the two Senators will damage the party in the presidential race. Mr Clinton said it was strengthening the party.

Mr Rudd backed Ms Clinton on Rove Live last year as his pick for the Democrats nominee.

This morning, he told her to get in touch should she need anything.

"Let us know if we can help with anything," he said.

She expressed her appreciation for the offer.

Later today, Mr Rudd is expcted to talk by phone to Senator Obama who is in Pennsylvania campaigning for that State's primary election on April 22.

Tomorrow morning, Mr Rudd is scheduled to meet the Republican presumptive nominee, John McCain.

Mr Rudd has made it clear he will work with whomever wins the election, regardless of their political flavour.

A MUST READ!!! Za hikmetu i ostale kojima je Hillary mozak isprala. Evo kako nas je Hillary voljela i kako nas je prodala za dobrobit njenog propalog HillaryCare . Christopher Hitchens odlican kao i uvijek




fighting words
The Tall Tale of Tuzla
Hillary Clinton's Bosnian misadventure should disqualify her from the presidency, but the airport landing is the least of it.
By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.

I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.

I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

Yet this is only to underline the YouTube version of events and the farcical or stupid or Howard Wolfson (take your pick) aspects of the story. But here is the historical rather than personal aspect, which is what you should keep your eye on. Note the date of Sen. Clinton's visit to Tuzla. She went there in March 1996. By that time, the critical and tragic phase of the Bosnia war was effectively over, as was the greater part of her husband's first term. What had happened in the interim? In particular, what had happened to the 1992 promise, four years earlier, that genocide in Bosnia would be opposed by a Clinton administration?

In the event, President Bill Clinton had not found it convenient to keep this promise. Let me quote from Sally Bedell Smith's admirable book on the happy couple, For Love of Politics:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

I can personally witness to the truth of this, too. I can remember, first, one of the Clintons' closest personal advisers—Sidney Blumenthal—referring with acid contempt to Warren Christopher as "a blend of Pontius Pilate with Ichabod Crane." I can remember, second, a meeting with Clinton's then-Secretary of Defense Les Aspin at the British Embassy. When I challenged him on the sellout of the Bosnians, he drew me aside and told me that he had asked the White House for permission to land his own plane at Sarajevo airport, if only as a gesture of reassurance that the United States had not forgotten its commitments. The response from the happy couple was unambiguous: He was to do no such thing, lest it distract attention from the first lady's health care "initiative."

It's hardly necessary for me to point out that the United States did not receive national health care in return for its acquiescence in the murder of tens of thousands of European civilians. But perhaps that is the least of it. Were I to be asked if Sen. Clinton has ever lost any sleep over those heaps of casualties, I have the distinct feeling that I could guess the answer. She has no tears for anyone but herself. In the end, and over her strenuous objections, the United States and its allies did rescue our honor and did put an end to Slobodan Milosevic and his state-supported terrorism. Yet instead of preserving a polite reticence about this, or at least an appropriate reserve, Sen. Clinton now has the obscene urge to claim the raped and slaughtered people of Bosnia as if their misery and death were somehow to be credited to her account! Words begin to fail one at this point. Is there no such thing as shame? Is there no decency at last? Let the memory of the truth, and the exposure of the lie, at least make us resolve that no Clinton ever sees the inside of the White House again.

Christopher Hitchens is a columnist for Vanity Fair and the author of God Is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything.

Article URL: http://www.slate.com/id/2187780/


Copyright 2008 Washingtonpost.Newsweek Interactive Co. LLC

Dobar clanak!

Dobar je clanak....AKO je to sto tvrdi tacno.

sta fali sto je malo slagala, to svi politicari rade, bez obzira na politicki sistem ili historijski period, od starogrka do danas. samo je htjela pokazati da je za razliku od obame isla i u opasne dijelove svijeta, pa malo pretjerala. oprastam joj.
ona barem ima neku emocionalnu vezu sa Bosnom, sto i obami i mccainu nedostaje.
a obamu ce koknuti cia prije novembra kad/ako dobije nominaciju, mi cemo dobiti jos jedan praznik a la mlk day , pa hillary vs. mccain utrka moze poceti.

hikmeta izgleda da nisi procitala tekst:

Taking the advice of Al Gore and National Security Advisor Tony Lake, Bill agreed to a proposal to bomb Serbian military positions while helping the Muslims acquire weapons to defend themselves—the fulfillment of a pledge he had made during the 1992 campaign. But instead of pushing European leaders, he directed Secretary of State Warren Christopher merely to consult with them. When they balked at the plan, Bill quickly retreated, creating a "perception of drift." The key factor in Bill's policy reversal was Hillary, who was said to have "deep misgivings" and viewed the situation as "a Vietnam that would compromise health-care reform." The United States took no further action in Bosnia, and the "ethnic cleansing" by the Serbs was to continue for four more years, resulting in the deaths of more than 250,000 people.

Cisto sumnjam da bi CH lagao o ovome ili bilo cemu drugom. Ako malo pogledas cinjenice itekako ima smisla.....Hillary Care se bas poklopila sa krizom na nashim prostorima.

Ha, bre stručnjaci kanite se trača , nego de mi prokomentarišite ove brojke, ili da ja možda vama postavim pitanje, koliko god Barama izazvao euforiju na jednoj strani (sinoć gledam RTS,Srbi k'o ma'niti za njim ,jedan kaže bolja polovina svijeta ide za njim ) čini mi se da ta euforija donosi i negativne posljedice, odnosno izaziva jednu psihološku reakciju kod drugih koji jednostavno iz inata neće za njega da glasaju.

March 26, 2008
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCainIf McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCainUSA Democrats Election 2008 Government and Politics Americas Northern America by Frank Newport
PRINCETON, NJ -- A sizable proportion of Democrats would vote for John McCain next November if he is matched against the candidate they do not support for the Democratic nomination. This is particularly true for Hillary Clinton supporters, more than a quarter of whom currently say they would vote for McCain if Barack Obama is the Democratic nominee.

These conclusions are based on an analysis of Democratic voters' responses to separate voting questions in March 7-22 Gallup Poll Daily election tracking. In each day's survey, respondents are asked for their general election preferences in McCain-Clinton and McCain-Obama pairings. Democratic voters are then asked whom they support for their party's nomination.

The accompanying graph displays the results of the relationship between support for the Democratic Party's nomination and the general election vote between Obama and McCain.

As would be expected, almost all Democratic voters who say they support Obama for their party's nomination also say they would vote for him in a general election matchup against McCain. But only 59% of Democratic voters who support Clinton say they would vote for Obama against McCain, while 28% say they would vote for the Republican McCain. This suggests that some Clinton supporters are so strongly opposed to Obama (or so loyal to Clinton) that they would go so far as to vote for the "other" party's candidate next November if Obama is the Democratic nominee.

The results follow the same pattern, but not to quite the same extent, when the relationship between Democratic support and a general election matchup between Clinton and McCain is examined.

Here again, as expected, almost all of those who support Clinton for the Democratic Party's nomination say they would vote for her against McCain. Seventy-two percent of those who support Obama for the party's nomination would vote for Clinton against McCain, while 19% would desert and vote for the Republican.

Implications

The data suggest that the continuing and sometimes fractious Democratic nomination fight could have a negative impact for the Democratic Party in next November's election. A not insignificant percentage of both Obama and Clinton supporters currently say they would vote for McCain if he ends up running against the candidate they do not support.

Clinton supporters appear to be somewhat more reactive than Obama supporters. Twenty-eight percent of the former indicate that if Clinton is not the nominee -- and Obama is -- they would support McCain. That compares to 19% of Obama supporters who would support McCain if Obama is not the nominee -- and Clinton is.

It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated.

Additionally, some threat of deserting the party always takes place as party nomination battles are waged, and this threat can dissipate. For example, in answer to a recent Gallup question, 11% of Republicans said they would vote for the Democratic candidate or a third-party candidate next fall if McCain does not choose a vice president who is considerably more conservative than he is. (And another 9% said they just wouldn't vote.) These results suggest that it may be normal for some voters to claim early on in the process -- perhaps out of frustration -- that they will desert their party if certain things do not happen to their liking. And it may be equally likely that they fall back into line by the time of the general election. It is worth noting that in Gallup's historical final pre-election polls from 1992 to 2004, 10% or less of Republicans and Democrats typically vote for the other party's presidential candidate.

Still, when almost 3 out of 10 Clinton supporters say they would vote for McCain over Obama, it suggests that divisions are running deep within the Democratic Party. If the fight for the party's nomination were to continue until the Denver convention in late August, the Democratic Party could suffer some damage as it tries to regroup for the November general election.

Survey Methods
Results are based on telephone interviews with 6,657 national Democratic voters, aged 18 and older, conducted March 7-22, 2008. For results based on the total sample of national adults, one can say with 95% confidence that the maximum margin of sampling error is ±2 percentage points.

Interviews are conducted with respondents on land-line telephones (for respondents with a land-line telephone) and cellular phones (for respondents who are cell-phone only).

In addition to sampling error, question wording and practical difficulties in conducting surveys can introduce error or bias into the findings of public opinion polls.

pitt wrote:Cisto sumnjam da bi CH lagao o ovome ili bilo cemu drugom. Ako malo pogledas cinjenice itekako ima smisla.....Hillary Care se bas poklopila sa krizom na nashim prostorima.

Ma znam, ali je toliko morbidno da ne mogu lako svariti.


Nego, ko je ono izbacivao ankete prije neki dan? Nek izbaci ponovo.

jeza u ledja wrote:

pitt wrote:Cisto sumnjam da bi CH lagao o ovome ili bilo cemu drugom. Ako malo pogledas cinjenice itekako ima smisla.....Hillary Care se bas poklopila sa krizom na nashim prostorima.

Ma znam, ali je toliko morbidno da ne mogu lako svariti.


Nego, ko je ono izbacivao ankete prije neki dan? Nek izbaci ponovo.

hebiga.....takva ti je politika. Ona je jos od prije bila poznata kao oportunista koja ne preze ni od cega (dok je jos bila prva dama arkanzasa).
hebo ankete.....ne vjerujem ja tome vise nista. Ja znam da ako obama ne bude kandidat ja ne glasam. ne bih za nju glasao nema boga....a vala ne dam ni glas onom doratu matorom.

@ palermo, takva pitanja u anketama ne piju puno vode.

U trenutku kad je tvoja kandidatkinja jos aktivna (Clinton) tvoje 'neprijateljstvo' je usmjereno na njenog direktnog protivnika (Obama), a ne na nekog ko bi tek dosao poslije toga. Isto vazi i za Obamine sljedbenike (mada, garantujem da je mnogo veci broj ljudi koji podrzavaju njega, a ne bi nikad podrzali Clintonovu nego obratno).
Prije nekoliko mjeseci kada su Romney i Huckabee jos bili u igri protiv McCaina pola ljudi koji su podrzavali prvu dvojicu (izraziti konzervativci) su rekli da ne bi glasali nikad za McCaina, koji vazi za centristu. Danas, svi ti ljudi staju iza McCaina. Tako to hoda.

jeza u ledja wrote:@ palermo, takva pitanja u anketama ne piju puno vode.

U trenutku kad je tvoja kandidatkinja jos aktivna (Clinton) tvoje 'neprijateljstvo' je usmjereno na njenog direktnog protivnika (Obama), a ne na nekog ko bi tek dosao poslije toga. Isto vazi i za Obamine sljedbenike (mada, garantujem da je mnogo veci broj ljudi koji podrzavaju njega, a ne bi nikad podrzali Clintonovu nego obratno).
Prije nekoliko mjeseci kada su Romney i Huckabee jos bili u igri protiv McCaina pola ljudi koji su podrzavali prvu dvojicu (izraziti konzervativci) su rekli da ne bi glasali nikad za McCaina, koji vazi za centristu. Danas, svi ti ljudi staju iza McCaina. Tako to hoda.

Može biti da je istina to što ti kažeš, ja stvarno iz Bosne ne vidim dobro, al ova anketa drugačije kaže............mada moram priznati da mi nije nikako jasna ta vrsta zanosa kod nekih ljudi za Obamom, iskreno govoreći kad vidim sa kakvim zanosom se o njemu priča (na ovom forumu,na nekim drugim forumima, neki novinari itd) počinje me bivati strah (ovo strah naravno uslovno,daleko je amerika ) nekako mi sve to počinje ličiti na populizam........iako možda Obama nije ni kriv za to.

ne znam za sve ljude,a li ako procitas temu od pocetka vidjet ces sto nas ovdje vecina podrzava obamu. Dopizdilo je vise svima i bush i clinton klana i njihovih spletki i zezancija....kao i ostalih mudonja matorih iz senata i kongresa. Obama je poprilicno svjez i nije ga jos (nadam se) vasington pokvario.

ankete su prilicno tacne, 5% tamo-ovamo. mada se slazem da ce se demokrate vjerovatno relativno ujediniti sto se nivoa cijele nacije tice.
ali ovdje na jugu, tesko.
ja recimo nisam jedna od onih koji bi glasali za mccaina protiv huse, ali vecina bijelih ljudi koje ovdje poznajem i koji su independents vjerujem da bi. tako je barem ovdje kad pricas s ljudima o politici i glasanju, moze i crni djavo, samo da nije crni covjek.
ista stvar je cak i u skoli gdje radim, gdje svaki dan trunimo o izborima, a gdje su ljudi s kojim a radim uglavnom manje-vise pravo "liberal", za usa pojmove liberalnosti kod bjelaca. samo ne govore to glasno pred par crnkinja koje ovdje rade, nego kad su sami.
bas ti bijelci koji su independent su najvazniji faktor u novembru.
a crnci u novembarskim izborima nemaju ni izbliza veliku ulogu kao u democratic primaries, njih je 13% od ukupne populacije, i hispanjolci su ih nedavno presisali po broju ljudi koji imaju pravo glasa, mada ce 95% crnaca nationwide, a usudjujem se reci 99% ovdje na jugu, glasati za svog obamu u novembru, ako huso pozivi do tada.

mati mila..........home schooling mi ne gine

pitt wrote:mati mila..........home schooling mi ne gine

hik--meta wrote:ankete su prilicno tacne, 5% tamo-ovamo. mada se slazem da ce se demokrate vjerovatno relativno ujediniti sto se nivoa cijele nacije tice.
ali ovdje na jugu, tesko.
ja recimo nisam jedna od onih koji bi glasali za mccaina protiv huse, ali vecina bijelih ljudi koje ovdje poznajem i koji su independents vjerujem da bi. tako je barem ovdje kad pricas s ljudima o politici i glasanju, moze i crni djavo, samo da nije crni covjek.
ista stvar je cak i u skoli gdje radim, gdje svaki dan trunimo o izborima, a gdje su ljudi s kojim a radim uglavnom manje-vise pravo "liberal", za usa pojmove liberalnosti kod bjelaca. samo ne govore to glasno pred par crnkinja koje ovdje rade, nego kad su sami.
bas ti bijelci koji su independent su najvazniji faktor u novembru.
a crnci u novembarskim izborima nemaju ni izbliza veliku ulogu kao u democratic primaries, njih je 13% od ukupne populacije, i hispanjolci su ih nedavno presisali po broju ljudi koji imaju pravo glasa, mada ce 95% crnaca nationwide, a usudjujem se reci 99% ovdje na jugu, glasati za svog obamu u novembru, ako huso pozivi do tada.

Ne znam sta ti smatras pod pojmom 'liberal' tamo u Dzordziji, Alabami, gdje li vec, ali bojim se da rasizam i liberalnost ne idu nikako zajedno. Mislim da su tvoja shvatanja o misljenju bijelaca o crnackom predsjedniku izrazito, sto bi rekli 'biased' zivljenjem na Deep South.

Sto se tice crnaca, tacno, nisu oni neka velika brojka, ali ti ne shvatas jednu stvar - izbori se ne dobijaju pridobijanjem nezavisnih glasaca, izbori se dobijaju pridobijanjem ljudi koji inace ne glasaju. 40-50% Amerikanaca uopste ne glasa na predsjednickim izborima, a dajem glavu da je kod crnaca taj broj jos veci (malo ovdje rasisticki stereotipisem al hajde ). Samim pokretanjem velikog broja crnacke populacije da samo izadju na izbore je velika stvar, kontas? Isto vrijedi za mladu populaciju (18-29 godina), koja u prajmariz u ogromnom broju izlazi i glasa za Obamu.
Dakle, cilj je pokrenuti grupacije ljudi na vecu izlaznost. Tu je najveca dobit na izborima. Tako je Bush dobio, pokrecuci evandjeliste.

Mislim da se previse daje vaznosti i moci predsjednika US-a. Svi znamo sta je lutka na koncu - sto se tice US predsjednika rekao bih da on od 10 prstiju ima samo 2-3 slobodna...

Bush nije dobio izbore - njemu su izbori dati (mozete koristiti i rijec ukradeni ako hocete)...mocni tata Bush i njegovi jarani, vojni kompleks, potpomognuti medijima su prevagnuli, mimo volje vecine glasaca u Ameriki...

Jedna od prvih izjava sto je Bush mladji dao je bila "I am war president!" - neobicno je za bilo kojeg lidera da objasnjava (nama?) svoju ulogu...

A sta je bilo od 2000-te do danas, svi smo vidjeli...neko kroz naocale medija a neko bez njih...

Nego, je li Hillary josh shta uprskala u medjuvremenu...jadan Bill...

PS. Hikmeta crna, nemoj vishe o ubijanju Obame - ako se zaista desi ti cesh da bidnesh prva sumljiva...

walkabout wrote:Mislim da se previse daje vaznosti i moci predsjednika US-a. Svi znamo sta je lutka na koncu - sto se tice US predsjednika rekao bih da on od 10 prstiju ima samo 2-3 slobodna...

Bush nije dobio izbore - njemu su izbori dati (mozete koristiti i rijec ukradeni ako hocete)...mocni tata Bush i njegovi jarani, vojni kompleks, potpomognuti medijima su prevagnuli, mimo volje vecine glasaca u Ameriki...

Jedna od prvih izjava sto je Bush mladji dao je bila "I am war president!" - neobicno je za bilo kojeg lidera da objasnjava (nama?) svoju ulogu...

A sta je bilo od 2000-te do danas, svi smo vidjeli...neko kroz naocale medija a neko bez njih...

Nego, je li Hillary josh shta uprskala u medjuvremenu...jadan Bill...

PS. Hikmeta crna, nemoj vishe o ubijanju Obame - ako se zaista desi ti cesh da bidnesh prva sumljiva...

Samo cu jos jednom primjetiti da je interesantno kako protivnici Obame imaju cinicna i rezignirana shvatanja o americkom politickom procesu i o demokraciji uopste, i kako upravo Obama budi kod ljudi nadu da to mozda ipak ne mora biti tako.

jeza u ledja wrote:

walkabout wrote:Mislim da se previse daje vaznosti i moci predsjednika US-a. Svi znamo sta je lutka na koncu - sto se tice US predsjednika rekao bih da on od 10 prstiju ima samo 2-3 slobodna...

Bush nije dobio izbore - njemu su izbori dati (mozete koristiti i rijec ukradeni ako hocete)...mocni tata Bush i njegovi jarani, vojni kompleks, potpomognuti medijima su prevagnuli, mimo volje vecine glasaca u Ameriki...

Jedna od prvih izjava sto je Bush mladji dao je bila "I am war president!" - neobicno je za bilo kojeg lidera da objasnjava (nama?) svoju ulogu...

A sta je bilo od 2000-te do danas, svi smo vidjeli...neko kroz naocale medija a neko bez njih...

Nego, je li Hillary josh shta uprskala u medjuvremenu...jadan Bill...

PS. Hikmeta crna, nemoj vishe o ubijanju Obame - ako se zaista desi ti cesh da bidnesh prva sumljiva...

Samo cu jos jednom primjetiti da je interesantno kako protivnici Obame imaju cinicna i rezignirana shvatanja o americkom politickom procesu i o demokraciji uopste, i kako upravo Obama budi kod ljudi nadu da to mozda ipak ne mora biti tako.

Evo vec nekoliko puta moj post je djelimicno shvacen i shodno tome odgovoreno...
Izgleda da sam svrstan u protivnike Obame, sto ja nigdje ne mogu da pronadjem u mojim postovima...
Ako sam za to da Bill udje u Bijelu kucu opet (preko Hillary) to ne znaci da sam protiv Obame i onoga sto on govori i zastupa...
Ili da podrzavam Hillary zbog nje same...
Ocekivao sam da ce ovo biti shvaceno do sada...

A cinik jesam...jedan od gorih, narocito kada nadjem plodno tlo...pa dobijem inspiraciju...

Glede US demokracije...jedna od uspjesnijih, kako kod kuce tako i kod sirenja iste po svijetu...
I da ponovim...demokracija je dobra onoliko koliko se vjeruje u nju (pa sad svako moze da prepozna sebe gdje se nalazi na osi vjerovanja)...

Obama budi nadu...svaka cast, i ja sam licno impresioniran njegovim pojedinim govorima i stavovima...a i svako od nas zna da se od NADE (ne)zivi...

I za kraj posta...stara narodna izreka...NADAM SE, DAKLE POSTOJIM...

walkabout wrote:

jeza u ledja wrote:

walkabout wrote:Mislim da se previse daje vaznosti i moci predsjednika US-a. Svi znamo sta je lutka na koncu - sto se tice US predsjednika rekao bih da on od 10 prstiju ima samo 2-3 slobodna...

Bush nije dobio izbore - njemu su izbori dati (mozete koristiti i rijec ukradeni ako hocete)...mocni tata Bush i njegovi jarani, vojni kompleks, potpomognuti medijima su prevagnuli, mimo volje vecine glasaca u Ameriki...

Jedna od prvih izjava sto je Bush mladji dao je bila "I am war president!" - neobicno je za bilo kojeg lidera da objasnjava (nama?) svoju ulogu...

A sta je bilo od 2000-te do danas, svi smo vidjeli...neko kroz naocale medija a neko bez njih...

Nego, je li Hillary josh shta uprskala u medjuvremenu...jadan Bill...

PS. Hikmeta crna, nemoj vishe o ubijanju Obame - ako se zaista desi ti cesh da bidnesh prva sumljiva...

Samo cu jos jednom primjetiti da je interesantno kako protivnici Obame imaju cinicna i rezignirana shvatanja o americkom politickom procesu i o demokraciji uopste, i kako upravo Obama budi kod ljudi nadu da to mozda ipak ne mora biti tako.

Evo vec nekoliko puta moj post je djelimicno shvacen i shodno tome odgovoreno...
Izgleda da sam svrstan u protivnike Obame, sto ja nigdje ne mogu da pronadjem u mojim postovima...
Ako sam za to da Bill udje u Bijelu kucu opet (preko Hillary) to ne znaci da sam protiv Obame i onoga sto on govori i zastupa...
Ili da podrzavam Hillary zbog nje same...
Ocekivao sam da ce ovo biti shvaceno do sada...

A cinik jesam...jedan od gorih, narocito kada nadjem plodno tlo...pa dobijem inspiraciju...

Glede US demokracije...jedna od uspjesnijih, kako kod kuce tako i kod sirenja iste po svijetu...
I da ponovim...demokracija je dobra onoliko koliko se vjeruje u nju (pa sad svako moze da prepozna sebe gdje se nalazi na osi vjerovanja)...

Obama budi nadu...svaka cast, i ja sam licno impresioniran njegovim pojedinim govorima i stavovima...a i svako od nas zna da se od NADE (ne)zivi...

I za kraj posta...stara narodna izreka...NADAM SE, DAKLE POSTOJIM...

Pa iz ovog sto govoris potvrdjujes da ti on nije omiljeni kandidat. Slazem se, to ne znaci da si nuzno 'protiv' njega, ali shvatio si sta sam htio reci.

mislim da ce McCain pobijediti.....

Updated Thursday, April 3, 2008, at 1:52 PM ET

The last time PPP (Public Policy Polling) polled Pennsylvania, Barack Obama was down by 26 points. That was two and a half weeks ago, after the Rev. Wright controversy but before Obama's speech about race in America. PPP did another sweep through the state this week and found drastically different results.

According to PPP (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/ ... 040208.pdf), Obama is leading Clinton in Pennsylvania by two points. That's a 28 point shift in the margin between the two Democrats, and it's one that was unexpected. Pollster.com's polling average shows Obama trailing Clinton by 10 points in the state—far from PPP's numbers. No other poll has ever shown Obama in the lead in the state.

Obama's lead comes from a shift in support from demographics across the board. His numbers with men, women, African-Americans, baby boomers, and seniors are all up. He's made double-digit increases among voters who care most about health care, the economy, and the war in Iraq.

But again, these are numbers we haven't seen anywhere else before. Two other polls taken during a similar time span—but using different methodologies—both had Obama trailing Clinton.

ma (ja se nadam da grijesim) vjestica sigurno dobija mahalu. guverner, gradonacelnici,.....s.vi joj se u dupe uvlace.