"...we would be able to totally obliterate [Iran]"

[Steve Gardner]

I was slack-jawed when I read the following:

Source and full article: BBC

As the candidates appeared on the US talk show circuit on Tuesday morning, Mrs Clinton was asked how she would respond if Iran launched a nuclear attack on Israel, and replied with a stark warning.

"If I'm the president, we will attack Iran... we would be able to totally obliterate them," she said.

And the really scary thing is this preposterous reply probably won her votes.

I'm getting increasingly sick of these cretins. And that label isn't aimed only at the Presidential candidates but at the fucktard who posed the question - a question designed, no doubt, to elicit the very response it did because that's the kind of bullshit America apparently wants to hear.

With McCain's eagerness to wage war already firmly established and much appreciated by a country that seems to have completely forgotten it's already tangled up in one fucked-up conflict, here comes Clinton, attempting to prove she's no less of a warmonger.

If there is such a thing as reincarnation, then Clinton was a Spotted Hyena in a former life. Anyone who knows a little about the physiology of a female Spotted Hyena will understand.

[teddy]

If they keep talking about "what will we do if Iran attacks Israel", many will actually believe that it is highly likely. I bet the next false flag attack will be in Israel, blamed on Iran. Hilary Clinton is an evil evil women. She also has absolutely no personality. Therefore it's amazing she's still in the race. It's talk like this that has kept her there.

[Steve Gardner]

I agree. All this talk about "what if...?" is designed to endear Clinton et al to the American people and, at the same time, lend some credence to the claim Iran wants to wipe Israel off the map by constant repetition.

It's so desperately sad that candidates like Paul or Cucinich were marginalised.

We are in for a very, very difficult 4 - or more likely 8 - years..

[Steve Gardner]

...Pennsylvania win

So, on the back of a threat to obliterate Iran, Clinton picks up Pennsylvania. All the talk today suggests she's still the underdog, but that she's trying to whip up support amongst the super delegates. These super delegates are free to choose their candidate and are not bound by the outcome of the primaries themselves. I wonder what that means about their susceptibility to, shall we say, undemocratic forms of persuasion.

Also, Clinton is making some noise about the disadvantage she faces due to a lack of funding relative to Obama. Maybe this is why she so obviously made a plea to the Jewish community yesterday. History shows that when they rally behind a candidate, that candidate usually triumphs.

Source: Reuters

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - Hillary Clinton said Wednesday her victory over rival Barack Obama in Pennsylvania showed she had the broad support needed to recapture the White House for Democrats in November's presidential election.

Latest official figures from Tuesday's Pennsylvania contest pared back the margin of her victory slightly, but she could still claim a strong win as the two took their increasingly negative battle into its final states.

Obama emerged from the latest, and most acrimonious, bout in the state-by-state contest still holding a narrow lead in popular votes and in delegates who select the party's nominee at its August convention.

"I've won the states we have to win -- Ohio, now Pennsylvania," Clinton told CNN. "If you look at the broad base of support that I have accumulated it really is the foundation on which we build our victory come the fall."

The Pennsylvania Department of State said that with more than 99.1 percent of the vote counted Clinton was beating Obama by 54.3 percent to 45.7 percent. Earlier figures had showed a margin of about 10 percent.

The win paid immediate dividends for the cash-strapped New York senator, who said she took in $3 million in the following hours.

Both candidates immediately looked to the next round of contests on May 6 in North Carolina, where Obama is favored, and Indiana, which is considered a toss-up.

Clinton survived a heavy advertising onslaught in Pennsylvania by Obama, who outspent her by more than 2-to-1.

In television interviews on Wednesday, Clinton brushed off suggestions that she was running a negative campaign.

She dismissed an editorial in The New York Times which called on her to acknowledge that "the negativity, for which she is mostly responsible, does nothing but harm to her, her opponent, her party and the 2008 election."

"That's part of campaigns, and you know it goes back and forth. That's the way campaigns are," she said.

The contest in Pennsylvania, where 158 delegates were at stake, opened the final phase of the Democratic duel for the right to face Republican John McCain. Nine more contests are scheduled before the voting ends on June 3.

Obama, who narrowed a 20-point Clinton lead in opinion polls before falling short, already was looking ahead. He left Pennsylvania before the polls closed for an evening rally in Indiana.

"There were a lot of folks who didn't think we could make this a close race when it started," Obama said in Evansville. "Six weeks later, we closed the gap. We rallied people of every age and race and background to our cause."