If you keep OIL in the center of the picture, everything makes sense.

McCain and GOP wins til the last drop is gone.

Hillary and Obama are diversions.

People mainly want gas in their pump.

I am saddened by, some of the venomous and hateful remarks spewed by some of my white brothers and sisters that mask their disdain and racism toward blacks (democrats no less. who woulda thought it ) as justification for not voting for Obama. By that, I don't assume you are racist if you are not voting for Obama, or an anti-feminist if not casting your vote for Hilary. But I am keenly aware that looking in the mirror and seeing who you truly are, takes guts. Whomever your choice may be, hopefully it is honest and based on your desire to see this country regain it's respectability in the world. Needless to say, there are women who are less concerned whether Hilary should be president, but that she is a woman and it should be bestowed upon her because "it's time". Certainly that same sentiment holds true for some black voters regarding Obama.
It's time for us to find a way out of Iraq. It's time for us to remember the millions of Iraqis driven from their homes and the thousands upon thousands of dead Iraqi men, women, and children. it's time for us to regain compassion for our fellow human being. It's time to remember the thousands of american soldiers, dead and wounded, who will never raise a family, who will be physically and mentally crippled for the rest of their lives. Sadly, Many of us have elected to concentrate on race and gender as our priorities in this election. Another sad time in america!!
The Rev.Wright is voicing what Martin Luther king stated forty years ago. Rev.Wright, like myself is a product of that time, and it is a part of our history and heritage. As it is important for me to recognize that side of America, it is important for the Obamas and others of his generation to hear it. We carry that frustation and shouldn't have to apologize to anyone. We live in two different worlds and whites certainly don't want to live in ours. It is no wonder that Sunday's are the most segregated. Our Sunday morning rhetoric is different than your rhetoric. America has a dark side. We blacks are aware of that dark side and we talk about it. We don't pretend it doesn't exist.
When I speak with native Americans they still cry for the genocide of past generations. when I speak to Japanese Americans, they still cry for past injustices and the concentration camps of WWll. Racism is alive and well and they continue to cry!
I served in the military during the Vietnam War. It took all of my humanity to resist becoming bitter. It is only through my white friends I was able to resist the temptation of joining some black radical group, recognizing so much good in them. Many blacks did not have white friends
(and this is certainly true of whites, then and now) that they could look to and know all whites are not racist. I am fortunate, I did and those whites remain my friends today. I am more than aware of many whites who gave their lives because of a deep seated beleif in the equality of mankind.
I could have easily become bitter at the death and degradation of blacks, as I watched them being beaten, spat on, murdered, and brutalized by whites, while I fought and wore the uniform of my country.
One cannot help but question their place in this society and what this society stands for, often forgotten and overlooked by the ethnocentric majority.
There is something very deep and sick,
( I'm aware racism is a sickness till death,like a malignant cancer that ultimately consumes its host ) that eventually will destroy us if we don't receive treatment
But there is "hope" which comes with the awareness of our youth. And as the "old foggies" fade away, we will hopefully be left with forward thinkers like the Obamas and others, who truly believe we can transcend race and gender. I am empowered by those citizens, (white, black, latino, Asian,) who have chosen to look beyond race, and it gives me "hope". Because sometimes that's all one has.
Obama is winning because many of those, "experienced politicians" see in him something they haven't witnessed for many years. He did not begin his candidacy with pledged delegates, but had to earn them from the gound up. If one can run a successful election campaign as he has, by chosing the right people, having the most diversified and cross section of Americans, young and old,one can only think he has "unparalled judgement".

It is interesting how the Obama's supporters are saying that if Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the party, she is the one that steals the votes. I think they forget that millions of people voted for her - i think they deserve some respect, no?!

I was thinking why all these senators and congressmen and whatever "big" supporters are coming on big screen as endorsing the "wonderful" and "greatest" thing on earth - remember that modesty is the most important thing in life, now - let's see: John Kerry - why now?! Cause was decided that Edwards and Al Gore will not be VP ...so Kerry will be Obama's choice for VP. Normally he is endorsing Obama

But why now?! Why not from the beggining?! ... because they are just looking for the candidate that may give them something from the big bone. This is the way America will look like?! I hope not ... i really hope not.

And all about this story about Hillary being under fire ... well she was in that country, protected as was normal. She pushed it a lil too far, but that doesn't make her a liar.

I wonder how many times Obama left the country for Senate's and country interests?! I don't think to remember somebody saying something about it - but yet those supporters think he will be very good at foreign policy ...

Maybe yes...but i think is more maybe not.

This campaign in democratic race made me decide not to get involved with the party. I am really dissapointed and i will for a long time. How can people erase so easily Hillary and Edwards, people that in their own way did something for this country more than 20 years ... and put instead someone that did something for 2 years, was left by his black father and all his family for years and years - his white family helped him and carried for him. Yet he is coming with a speech that actually insulted his grandmother and all the people that actually helped him through years of education.

Too many questions and no answers.

It is interesting how the Obama's supporters are saying that if Hillary Clinton will be the nominee of the party, she is the one that steals the votes. I think they forget that millions of people voted for her - i think they deserve some respect, no?!

I was thinking why all these senators and congressmen and whatever "big" supporters are coming on big screen as endorsing the "wonderful" and "greatest" thing on earth - remember that modesty is the most important thing in life, now - let's see: John Kerry - why now?! Cause was decided that Edwards and Al Gore will not be VP ...so Kerry will be Obama's choice for VP. Normally he is endorsing Obama

But why now?! Why not from the beggining?! ... because they are just looking for the candidate that may give them something from the big bone. This is the way America will look like?! I hope not ... i really hope not.

And all about this story about Hillary being under fire ... well she was in that country, protected as was normal. She pushed it a lil too far, but that doesn't make her a liar.

I wonder how many times Obama left the country for Senate's and country interests?! I don't think to remember somebody saying something about it - but yet those supporters think he will be very good at foreign policy ...

Maybe yes...but i think is more maybe not.

This campaign in democratic race made me decide not to get involved with the party. I am really dissapointed and i will for a long time. How can people erase so easily Hillary and Edwards, people that in their own way did something for this country more than 20 years ... and put instead someone that did something for 2 years, was left by his black father and all his family for years and years - his white family helped him and carried for him. Yet he is coming with a speech that actually insulted his grandmother and all the people that actually helped him through years of education.

Too many questions and no answers.

Senator Hillary Clinton is receiving calls from Senator Patrick Leahy, Senator Chris Dodd and others to drop out of the Presidential Primary even though the difference between the two candidates in both popular vote and pledged delegates is minimal and the fact that neither candidate can win the nomination without the Super Delegates. The question no one is asking is, if the fortunes of the two candidates were reversed, would there be calls for Senator Obama to withdraw? Frankly, I doubt it. The DNC would be afraid of alienating the loyal and highly vocal African American base. More than likely any attempt to push Senator Obama out of the race would be met with charges of racism.
Women comprise fifty-one percent of the population and an even greater percentage of the voting electorate. Yet, women are vastly underrepresented in all three branches of government, from the congress to the cabinet, and there has never been a female President or Vice President. On a personal level, I am reminded daily of the subtle yet significant government sponsored sexism that permeates my life. Not a single piece of paper currency has a picture of a woman on it and the vast majority of pictures on stamps are of men. Pick up any newspaper and compare the number of photos of men vs. women, and you'll be astonished by the results. From Wall Street to the White House, we are in many ways still a nation of "men and girls." Women are undoubtedly still the second sex.
Hillary's candidacy is significant to me as a woman. She knows what it is to be a woman, to be marginalized and sidelined. I want the Obama supporters who are trying to push Hillary out of the race to know to me a woman in the White House is CHANGE, REAL CHANGE and the most significant political event of my lifetime. I want the woman and girls of America to see a woman in the White House. I am a registered democrat, but if Hillary is pushed out of the race, I will not vote and I urge other women to do the same. Why should I be loyal to a party where a group of white men try to shame the first female candidate for the Presidency out of the race?

I ACTUALLY saw the corruption at the texas caucus from CAMP OBAMA. I couldn't believe this was AMERICA. THE BETTER PERSON WILL PREVAIL.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cCG5Tp4ZwZI

HILLIARY CLINTON IS A LIAR! Plain and simple. WE ALL KNOW BILL CLINTON IS A LIAR. If she steals this election America will have a one-party system for the next 30 years because the split will be permanent and a Republican will be in the Whitehouse for 30 years. I would have voted for her is she had won the nomination legitimatly. After the slew of filty, nasty, low-down gutter tricks her campaign has pushed for the last year...I will do my best to defeat ANY POLITICIAN ASSOCIATED WITH THE CLINTON MACHINE. Any local politician who was part of this campaign...count on it.
THE CLINTONS ARE POLITICAL POISON.

Why does no one speak of the "great marshmellow roast" that will take place if Obama wins and his victory is then taken away by the "superdelegates" or the Democratic Party. Remember back to the riots of Detroit and L.A.? But then in Detroit there is not much left to burn ! The will of the people MUST prevail..........

The reason the CNN poles are so positive toward Obama relates to how much free time they are giving to Obama, they love him. Everytime i turn CNN on they are running one of his speeches. I have quit watching them because of this.
It seems that even with CNN and MSNBC's free tv timefor BObama, Sen Clinton is still doing well.
I was a co-captain in one of the Prec. in Tx and I had first hand experience with the Obama camps tactics. They brought in people from out of state to work at the Caucus sign-in tables even thou they were only supposed to be observers. Being new to the process i questioned the Chair who was an Obama supporter if this was illegal and he questioned me back and got me on the defensive.
There were inconsistencys that we caught mainly because we(clinton supporters) had read about these very things happening in other caucus states. So we made some aggreements prior to the caucus and then contested the outcome. I still dont know what will happen with it but I have to say before our primary I would have voted for Obama if Sen Clinton had'nt succeeded but now I will never support him. He will not unite people-he will be the worst thing that ever happens to this country if he gets in.
And this is true because if his supporters are as corrupt as I have seen and heard , he is their leader and he will bring more of the same to all of us. When this stuff was happening Sen clintons people who were helping us keep things straight just kept telling us, " do everything by the book, the right way-dont stoop to the other camps level" . I just found this to be refreshing, honorable and proud that I choose to believe in Sen Clinton.
Nobody is perfect in this world but we have to really be sure we aren't going from the frying pan into the fire and picking a person that has not been sufficiently made ready for the highest position in Our country.

The reason the CNN poles are so positive toward Obama relates to how much free time they are giving to Obama, they love him. Everytime i turn CNN on they are running one of his speeches. I have quit watching them because of this.
It seems that even with CNN and MSNBC's free tv timefor BObama, Sen Clinton is still doing well.
I was a co-captain in one of the Prec. in Tx and I had first hand experience with the Obama camps tactics. They brought in people from out of state to work at the Caucus sign-in tables even thou they were only supposed to be observers. Being new to the process i questioned the Chair who was an Obama supporter if this was illegal and he questioned me back and got me on the defensive.
There were inconsistencys that we caught mainly because we(clinton supporters) had read about these very things happening in other caucus states. So we made some aggreements prior to the caucus and then contested the outcome. I still dont know what will happen with it but I have to say before our primary I would have voted for Obama if Sen Clinton had'nt succeeded but now I will never support him. He will not unite people-he will be the worst thing that ever happens to this country if he gets in.
And this is true because if his supporters are as corrupt as I have seen and heard , he is their leader and he will bring more of the same to all of us. When this stuff was happening Sen clintons people who were helping us keep things straight just kept telling us, " do everything by the book, the right way-dont stoop to the other camps level" . I just found this to be refreshing, honorable and proud that I choose to believe in Sen Clinton.
Nobody is perfect in this world but we have to really be sure we aren't going from the frying pan into the fire and picking a person that has not been sufficiently made ready for the highest position in Our country.

Well it just goes to show that some godfathers are not as wise as Don Corleone. Obviously this godfather(?) has absolutely no knowledge about the causus system in this country. It's amazing how ignorant this guy seems to be. I wonder just whose "godfather" he is?

Hillary wins the "big" states with fake Republican votes. They will not vote for her in November. The Republicans are not willing to spend half the afternoon at a caucus, and that's why Barack wins them. Because his voters are determined for a new kind of politics in Washington, and are willing to stand up for something. Hillary is prepared to cheat and steal her way to the convention.

Hillary is also the one behind the nudging and winking on NAFTA. Didn't anybody bother to question why Barack was being accused of this? It just didn't make sense that Barack would do such a thing. It's Hillary who has those connections and NAFTA is her baby. She set the whole thing up right before Ohio. The finger pointer is almost always the guilty party.

Hillary wins the "big" states with fake Republican votes. They will not vote for her in November. The Republicans are not willing to spend half the afternoon at a caucus, and that's why Barack wins them. Because his voters are determined for a new kind of politics in Washington, and are willing to stand up for something. Hillary is prepared to cheat and steal her way to the convention.

Hillary is also the one behind the nudging and winking on NAFTA. Didn't anybody bother to question why Barack was being accused of this? It just didn't make sense that Barack would do such a thing. It's Hillary who has those connections and NAFTA is her baby. She set the whole thing up right before Ohio/ The finger pointer is almost always the guilty party.

It seems to me that in spite of Senator Obama's eloquent delivery on race, relationships and the Church many folks continue to miss the point. Yesterday, Obama presented America with a gaze into the complex intricacies of relationships, particularly as it relates to an African American's relationship with their respective church families. The peep inside and subsequent dialogue as presented should not be taken out of its context and reduced to a point for condemnation but more so received as a lens into the social journey and pedagogy of ones experience as an African American. Unfortunately, some desire to continue to harp on the disbelieve and aghast of the pastor/parishioner relationship as oppose to incorporate this insight as a new found intimate understanding of the culture, which in my view should no more be condemn than ones introduction to a foreign country. It's most unlikely that a first venture into a foreign culture and custom that intelligent persons would later condemn new foreign acquaintances lifestyles on the bases of its distinction from ones personal way of living. My long held thoughts of Americans were that we were bigger than that.

I respect Senator Obama's candor as well as his loyalty to a friend. I believe that aspect is unique in a political culture where individuals readily abandon old friends, acquaintances and past colleagues at the drop of a hat when threaten with the possibility of losing an election. As an African American I know that ones affiliation to a church is not exclusive to ones relationship with the pastor but more broadly with the fellowship of the flock and the works/ministry thereof. Indeed, fellow church members often times become much closer, sometimes more so than family, particularly when family ties are often distant. And as is true with family one never agrees 100% with every positions or perspectives held but you certainly in love allow generously their ability to express freely their views. In my family that's how we grow and analyze issues as well as embrace the wonderful bases of this democracy.

I can never excuse or agree with the words expressed by Reverend Wright but I absolutely respect his right to say them It aids us in thinking critically about issues, advance a deeper dialogue, and guides out introspective examination of America's behavior in the open world. Perhaps it is painful to hear in some cases the flip side of America, because some folks want to applaud/defend America's poor actions in the broader world community without apology, without regard to its implication to the other communities. In the words of my Harvard Professor "it's the story that makes them feel good about themselves" "it's the thing that helps them get up in the morning". Moreover, it justifies America's imperia standing and dominance among world leaders, even if it means maligning others. Such justifications over the centuries allowed the perpetuation of slavery, the destruction of Native American civilization, and the Jim Crow policies that Rev. Wright came of age under. Plausibly no other American can best be America's critic more so than Black men of his generation and before. Rev. Wright and his generational cohorts' unique experience and encounters in the heated decades behind us shaped their perspective and contain the ugly truths of the past. Sadly, they are haunted with these bitter stories of old and may carry this baggage for the rest of their lives. However, the true measure of America is --will they allow it his history paint the future of America during this historic moment?

It's amusing that the Washington Post doesn't want to talk about our US dollar being devalued by the $35 BILLION in US Tax Dollars spent today to bail out Bear-Stearns.

Money that allows them to let their CEO and Senior Execs keep the "bonus" payments they got in December 2007.

We were just taken to the cleaners today by McCain/Bush 08 and the MSM didn't bother reporting on it ...

Obama "wins" the caucuses by means of elbowing women and elderly out of the way. Obama's so called "victories" in caucuses mean nothing in the general election. He squandered people's money in places where only a few hundreds of people decide the winner, and places that will never vote democrat. The only purpose of his campaign is to detail the Clinton candidacy and hand the presidency to McCain.

One of the main reasons why Obama, in spite of his biracial background and his relatively junior seniority within the establishment (both parties), has become a prominent candidate is because of the Bush factor. Bush's disastrous 8 years awoke the normally politically apathetic younger, better-educated generations (all races and sexes) who suddenly realize that their very own future might go down the drain if they don't change their ways and become active in helping select their leaders. They are naturally passionate in their belief in Obama who comes out as more moral and intellectual than the ESTABLISed candidates. Obama's easy wins in caucuses are definitely the work of these younger generations' determination and should not be sneered at or ignored. Afterall, they are the future of America. Hillary is still sort of in it only because of the need for so many women (especially traditional, older white women) to try to put a symbolic figurehead up there (it's so close!). We all know Hillary will never be able to bring the country together and out of the mess we are in right now (she is very much part of the problem!).

Caucuses are most certainly NOT representative of general support.

First of all, they tend to exclude large portions of the citizenry from participating. I find it interesting that no one has discussed that Clinton's difficulty in caucuses may very well be due to the fact that large numbers of her supporters are blue-collar workers.

How many parents working the late shift at a factory, or 2 jobs to send their kids to school do you think have the time to go and participate in a 3-hour meeting to decide who their candidate will be. Clinton also does extremely well with older voters. How many 80 year olds do you know that have the energy and stamina, let alone over-all health to stand and debate for hours on end?? These people DO participate in ballot votes...but when you require drawn-out caucus style votes, you tend to disenfranchise Clinton's core constituency.

And pepole say that the Superdelegates are undemocratic??? Get real!

Mixed motives from the outset differentiated our occupation of Iraq from K and G. In all three, our troops were initially recognized as friends despite, or because, we dissolved their armies. In Iraq alone was there an Abu Ghraib, our indifference to looting, a green zone built, and mounting pressures to give up their natural resources to foreigners. In other words, the comparisons disserve our debate, being a whitewash.

Wolfcastle, what you say about Korea is absolutely true, that Americans don't care. This is owed to our troops being in no special danger there, because their presence does not engender an insurgency, much less work against our goals there by abet the recruitment of local and foreign terrorists, which is their case is Asian communists. Plus, we are not rebuilding Korea by borrowing from communists, an irony about Iraq too dreadful apparently to be a campaign issure.

Andres has fallen prey to campaign propaganda that makes of consistency a virtue. McCain no more "deserves credit for his consistency on the war [sic]" than did southern senators who stood firm on segregation and before that, slavery. Well, at least those senators were merely stubborn. What to make of McCain and Andres' failure to apprehend the war IS over? McCain benefits from denying the existence of a wholly unwarranted and unpopular Republican enterprise correctly termed an occupation. Andres politely buys into the fiction.

100 Years in Iraq is certainly one of the more likely scenarios. We've had 30,000 troops in S. Korea since the 1950s and few Americans complain about them being there...heck, most Americans probably don't know there are that many US soldiers there.

"Caucuses, open primary and closed primaries measure very different things and should all be part of the nominating process. Caucuses measure the depth of support. . ."

This statement is only true if the caucuses were representative. The caucus PROCESS might be meant to measure depth of support, but when only 1% of the eligible population participates, it only represents the depth of support by those who attend. And those who attend are the most committed voters for those candidates with the best organization for getting out caucus members. Caucuses are not representative of anything but how a small percentage of the potential voters feel.

100 years in Iraq? We've had troops in Germany and elsewhere in western Europe since 1945. And I suspect that even if a Democrat wins in November and follows through with a plan to pull troops out, a residual force will remain. In fact, both Clinton and Obama have hinted that this may be the case.

dear sweet goddess of reason, please tell obama that he must disavow his pastor's comments and farrakhan's politics. tell clinton she must disclose her finances. tell mccain he must bone up on economics and also realize that the terrorist threat is not going to be solved by 100 years in iraq. this election, which once seemed to promise a hope for our future is becoming another disaster for our republic. only the hope for change keeps us sane. perhaps it is not too late for a 3rd party candidate to enter the race, and i don't mean nader. please provide some insights.

jaykay221: I truly believe that if the unexpected happens and Clinton is nominated, she has a much better shot at winning than Obama. She can run against the Republican recession, and not have to worry about the security issue, even when it inevitably bubbles up again by November. Obama has no such luxury- his past actions and inactions have placed him, from a security and patriotism standpoint, at odds with most Americans, as they did McGovern. with Clinton it's a non-issue.

First of all, Obama did not have a NAFTA gaffe. The Canadian press reported the comments of Clinton not Obama. It was wrong for her to take advantage of the lag in clearing up the initial false reporting by accusing him of a flip-flop, when it was she all along who has been lying, misleading, and changing positions back and forth - as usual -- from the beginning of her political career. As the Canadian government stated, Obama has been faithful to his position on NAFTA.

Getting involved in Iraq is like driving a school bus into a ditch. In regard to which presidential candidate can make the best foreign policy decisions as President, the question is not necessarily which candidate can best decide how to get us out of the ditch, but which candidate would have prevented the bus driving into the ditch in the first place. The answer is obvious....Obama.

"McCain will have to hope that, as they did in 1952 and in 1968 when confronted with an unpopular war, Americans will turn to the more conservative candidate to extricate the country from the mess."

So McCain is relying on American voters' world-famous stupidity?

Now that sounds like a plan with a chance of success.

Obama will not win the general election especially with his association with Wright. It don't matter if he attended these particular sermons. He had to know that what was said was wrong and discountinued his association with Wright. Instead we are suppose to believe he is just a spiritual advisor. It goes right to character, he cannot and will not bring this country together.

Stumped should have pointed out that McCain is not for a hundred year war in Iraq, just as Truman was not for a hundred year war with Japan. Keeping troops in other countries, where they can easily deploy to where they're needed, is an age-old American practice.

The dems have succesfully assinated each other, Obama OR HRC will not win in November, but but they own collective fault. Failing to realize that change is what is being asked for, but instead - both campaigns drifted backwards to the "good ol days" and what people will see is the best person for the good ol days, will be the good old man - Jimmy Mac. Talk about self inflicted wounds....Obama and the pastor, but wait theres more - when HRC finances and taxes are released she will be done as well. All teh foreign money will be extremely hard to explain away to the zealots and the BIG fear campaign will resume from the right.

This is going to get ugly, when the GOP candidate is revealed to have all his money from lobbyist, AND they will play up his wifes embezzlement conviction and drug addiction......ol it will be a slugfest - and teh world will look at us and say....they want us to e more like them. That freedom thing is great - it is all about sex, drugs, power and money.

I could care less, and so should all Americans care about the Empty words of this Bum! He is not a true American and does not deserve the honor representing our country. His Pastor, and all of Islim hav poisoned his mind, body and soul.

A VOTE FOR HILLARY IS A VOTE FOR AMERICA BY AN AMERICAN!

JOE is right. I read most recently that "being the muslim party" the Democrats "will surly loose in November". Eliot Spitzer has proved both surly and loose, but his party? Dems uphold the banner of proud American Puritanism if only for the sake of tradition.

I will admit, that when I saw the video of "pastor"WrightI feared what the public would think.Not that I thought that Mr. Obama had did anything wrong. But I knew that it could be made to appear that way. He is still standing. My Fellow Americans,WE HAVE EVOLVED!WE ARE THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA "ONE AND ALL!"

This whole Obama situtation is crazy. First the guy attends a church that preaches the opression of blakc Americans by rich white people. Then you have supporters of Obama running around saying you should vote for him because he is black. John Kerry feels that you should vote for Obama because he is African America:

http://conservativewomenspeak.blogspot.com/2008/03/john-kerry-plays-race-card.html

I have to say, Obama and the dem. party are sending really mixed messages

As the primary season advances, Barack has proved more and more popular and Hillary less and less so, to the extent if trends hold, Barack is headed toward a landslide in the general, whereas Hillary would face certain defeat. Hillary's fans are finding it hard to concede her good qualities have been bested by a superior candidate.

dyinglikeflies: I wonder what you will say when - if Clinton gets the nomination - she loses to McCain?

All, and please pass this on; "loose" is not the proper term for "lose," as in "(s)he will LOSE the general." Strangely, I have seen this error more than most other spelling errors in posts, both here an on other blogs. To "loose" is to let something go; i.e. "I let my dog loose at the park," or "I loosened my grip on the rope and fell." Failing to use even remotely correct grammer hurts your points, whatever they may be. Pass it on.

Caucuses, open primary and closed primaries measure very different things and should all be part of the nominating process.

Caucuses measure the depth of support, an open primary the cross over appeal and a closed primary the breadth of support within the party.To disparage one and elevate the other misses the whole point.

The reason that Democrats have lost elections to Republicans is that they have great breadth but little depth of support. The generic democrat always leads and the Democratic agenda (when not identified as Democratic) garners majority support. The reason Democrats fail is that they don't have the committed volunteers to get out the vote.

Saying that John McCain deserves credit for sticking to his policy on Iraq is incredibly STUPID!

After 8 years of this rigid president who has cost our country trillions of dollars and millions of lives in blood and sacrifice because he STUCK TO HIS POSITION, only an idiot would think that it's somehow a good thing to stay consistent.

McCain could NOT go to his favorite Iraqi market on this visit--Why? it was deemed too UNSAFE. Not the helicopters, the 100 soldiers etc. could even protect this time!

Just how dumb are you?

Mar-15, 2008, OBAMA STANDS BEHIND SPIRITAL ADVISOR WRIGHT!
"Wright is like an uncle you love and respect"
How does Obama consider someone a Mentor and friend for 20 years and not know their hateful racist values and character? Obama said he had no plans to leave the South Side church. Wright is like an uncle you love and respect ! he highly respects the opinions of Rev. Wright said Obama, who brings hope to many and agrees with giving the man of year award to the notorious Louis Farrakhan. Nation of Islam Minister who said we are witnessing the phenomenal rise of a man of color in a country that has persecuted us! Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe. A number of Jewish and pro-Israel voters have concerns and raised questions about Barack Obama. In case you haven't followed this ongoing issue, here's a brief summary of the complaints:Obama has called for engaging Iran. Daniel Ayalon, Israel's former ambassador to the United States, told the New York Sun he is concerned Obama would want to negotiate with a "Hitler-like" regime. Some of Obama's policy advisors of various stripes, such as Samantha Power, Robert Malley, and Zbigniew Brzezinski, have come under attack for their views on Israel. World Jewish Congress President Ronald Lauder fears, it's only a matter of time before the president becomes anti-Israel Howard Friedman, the president of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, said the leading presidential candidate are all interested in continuing close ties with Israel. Obama in traditional muslim garb brought these questions back to the fore Obama is a closet Muslim. Obama hasn't distanced himself from Farraklhan as he wants the media to believe, Obamas and his church said Farrakhan "epitomized greatness. For Americans, Farrakhan epitomizes racism, particularly in the form of anti-Semitism. Over the years, he has compiled an awesome record of offensive statements, even denigrating the Holocaust by falsely attributing it to Jewish cooperation with Hitler "They helped him get the Third Reich on the road." His history is a rancid stew of lies. Any praise of Farrakhan heightens the prestige of the leader of the Nation of Islam. His anti-Semitism and particularly his false insistence that Jews have played an inordinate role in victimizing African Americans. Farrakhan's dream has vilified whites and singled out Jews to blame for crimes large and small. He talks of Jewish conspiracies to set a media line for the whole nation. He has reviled Jews in a manner that brings Hitler to mind. And yet Obama and Rev Wright heaped praise on Farrakhan. He applauds his "depth of analysis when it comes to the racial ills of this nation." He praised "his integrity and honesty." He called him "an unforgettable force, a catalyst for change and a religious leader who is sincere about his faith and his purpose." These words of the black man who touts change and claims to be a uniter of all people? DO NOT VOTE FOR OBAMANATION!

Bottom line is-if Obama wins the democratic nomination. The democrat can forget taking the White House again in this favorable season for the party. Because, Obama, like George Bush, is all noise and loud mouth. He is phony too. Also, he is a divider and not a uniter. He has bring polarity to the party's white, black and hispanic voters. If anybody contributed intelligently to the debate, his camp is quick to characterize it as racist remark. Is that the best of the democratic party?. Do you think Mccain will come this far to loose to Obama. It is ferry tales. Al Shapton should go and sit down permanently somewhere with his assumed role of the defender of black victims. I'm a Regan democrat. But it is possible that the democrat will loose my vote and the votes of others like me including the spanish colonies if they are not careful with their chioce of nominee.

Since it has become clear that Obama has no chance in the swing states of Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania (which shouldn't even BE a swing state), this election is all but over now. The Democratic leadership seems intent on nominating Obama out of some sense of misguided "respect for the vote" as if Florida never existed, and based on a vote that was totally skewed. They won't figure out (is it THAT hard?) how to enfranchise Florida, and Pelosi won't let the "superdelegates" buck the "will" of delegations that come from places like Utah and Kansas, which never go Democratic anyway. The Democrats have less of a party and more of a circular firing squad. Pres. McCain, practice your ballroom dancing steps.

Obama will never win in a General Election. One because I'm a white democrat that will not vote for him because obviously he likes to go to church and hear his pastor talk about how my white ass runs the country and keeps the black man down. Second, in a general the 527 groups are going to pound home that message that Obama isn't actually a uniter but more of a phony, up in the clouds liberal that either hates white people or really likes to hang out with people that does. The Wright thing is a bigger problem than most would care to talk about. I really didn't care who won although I support Hillary but now that the media has FINALLY shown us some insight into Mr. Obama, I didn't like what I saw. Obama needs to step out of the way so that a Democrat can take the white house in November

Steve and DJ's points are unsound. It's a specious argument to attempt to compare the Primary with General Election. When Obama wins the primary he will not loose the Democrat vote to McCain. He will just as easily carry California and New York as Clinton would. He will loose some independents, sure, but Clinton would also loose as many, some polls say more, if she got the nomination. Also, what's being left out of this pro-Clinton media spin is that the vast number of NEW voters that are taking part are doing so for Obama, not Clinton. These people will probably not vote at all if Obama were not to get the nomination. Lastly, it speaks to a strength, not a weakness, that Obama appeals to young and Educated voters. It would be nice if our nation might be led by our educated populace for a change.

Why does Obama win nearly all caucuses? You can't fix a caucus. Every vote is out in the open. You can fix a primary election...and a general election, too.

The caucus wins are ususally reflect the will of the established party (that's why the parties like them), however, if a candidate has enthusiastic supporters they can easily overwealm the establishment and seem to win the State (this is what Obama supporters have done.) Caucuses do not reflect the will of the people in that state but only reflect the degree of commitment of the very small minority that happen to show up. You can be sure that if Obama wins the nomination, he will lose in the general election. McCain will win in the same way that Lieberman won in Conneticut. He will carry the Republicans and the Democrats will split.

The reason Obama does better than Clinton in caucuses has everything to do with the self-selection among caucus attendees. Young, energetic, liberal, alternative lifestyle, affluent, socially active people attend and dominate these caucuses. Older, hourly working, blue collar, more conservative, socially isolated people (i.e. the other 65% of us) are far less likely to either attend caucuses or actively participate in them. That leaves the process subject to distortion. The loud, more engaged minority dominates, and the more subdued majority is not heard. (Yes, the "Silent Majority" has shifted to the Dems . . . ).

This is further borne out by the consistency with which Clinton outpaces Obama in large voting states, where her more conservative constiutuency is free to show up at the voting booth according to their work schedule and register their choice in private. (Things that a caucus does not allow). And that is why Clinton and her supporters are largely correct in arguing that she will garner greater support in a general election than will Obama.

Of course the youthful enthusiasts and the progressive liberals choose not to recognize this uncomfortable fact. And for good reason. They understandably hunger for fundamental change and they know that Clinton will only be a conservative steward -- not an advocate for change. So they ignore the glaring evidence of Clinton's broader appeal in large voting states.

That is certainly understandable. Clearly, Clinton will be a competent but predictable middle of the road executive, and not a force for fundamental change.ll change. But compared to the current occupant of that office, a competent steward will be a vast improvement. At the moment, fundamental change is a silly pipe dream. Fundamental competency is what we have been lackiung. That is our undoing. And Clinton will at least provide that.

This not to say that Obama could not also be a good steward. He most certainly would be. Afterall, he, like Clinton, is a vetted Ivy Leaguer, with deeply traditional, heavily financed political bindings. (He does give better speeches . . . but as an executive his actions would be largely the same as Clinton's.)

So what's the difference? It's big, and it's this: The general election is not a collection of all day caucuses. It's a series of quick, private, voting booth decisions -- held nationwide -- with the biggest states dominating the electoral college. All of those circumstances are where Clinton has proven to be the favored candidate. That is why we would be wise to largely ignore the caucuses, and ignore the demographically skewed, lightly poplulated northeast states. We need to look at the bread and butter states that bring home the prize. California, Texas, Ohio, Florida, New York, . . .

If we dump the candidate who brings that to the table, we won't end up with a progressive, democrate. We'll end up with McCain.

Keep that in mind . . .

B.OBAMA won more Delegates in TEXAS - that is the the bottom line - Texas is a big state remember

I applaud Obama's openness and transparency. I would be very, very suprised if Clinton did the same. I don't see how someone who is so much a part of the status quo and is so associated with 'insider trading' as Clinton is, can be a serious agent of change. If Obama gets the nomination, I'll vote for him. If Clinton gets the nomination, I'll vote for McCain.

"Obama=Wright, racist appalling people. Would you elect Reverend Wright as President?"

Obama does not equal Wright. No one agrees with everything their pastor says, and Rev. Wright is a very good speaker when it comes to the Bible. And if Obama is racist against white or black people, something I sincerely doubt, then he must be self hating because he is just as much white as he is black.

Please Hillary if Ralph Nader can run as an independent, please do so for your country. The democratic party cannot help annoint Obama otherwise there will be rioting in the streets by his supporters, led by Reverend Wright in all major US cities. Obama and Wright have ignited the torch of racial hatred in this country in this election season.

Obama=Wright, racist appalling people. Would you elect Reverend Wright as President?

Regarding Clinton's inability to win caucuses, I think there's an issue you failed to mention.

If you look at exit polls, it is clear that voters who chose their candidate at the last minute (i.e., in the three days prior to the primary/caucus) favor Clinton. By contrast, voters who made up their minds long ago tend to favor Obama.

I take this to mean that Obama's support may run a bit deeper, and that his people might be more willing to commit the time and effort required to attend a caucus. I do not mean to imply that Clinton has no hardcore supporters: she most certainly does. My point is that many of those who vote for her have only recently committed to her candidacy. It seems reasonable to believe that someone who wavered for months (or simply didn't care to follow politics) and then chose a candidate only at the last moment would be less likely to attend a long caucus than someone who has supported a candidate for an extended period of time.

This greater depth of committment among Obama supporters, if in fact it exists, could be a significant asset when it comes time to campaign for the November election.

Clinton's problem is that her transparent BS doesn't play well with high-information voters, and high-information voters are the people who caucus.

To JamesK:

Please go to Hillaryclinton.com site and use whatever contact list you can find there to report what you experienced. The Hillaryclinton campaign was gathering information about problems at the Texas Caucus. I hope that you can report this and take the time to do so.

Having been at a caucus I saw first hand why Obama wins them. His supporters are younger and louder and intimidating in numbers. The older Clinton supporters are intimidated by thhem and usually leave in enough numbers to let the Obama supporters out vote them. I have friends and relatives in other caucus states that have seen the same thing. It got to the point in Texas that the police were called to several Caucus locations to quiet the "Campaigning" down. While in the event I witnessed no "overt" threats were not made. There was the feel that things could get out of control at any moment. Many Clinton supporters either stopped talking or got up and left. The thing I don't understand is how this was left out of the news? I only saw one local news story on one event in Texas and it was greatly minimized, uncharacteristic of normal news reporting.

TO Eveln:

Who reported her experience at Texas Caucus. EVELYN: Please go to the hillaryclinton.com website. There is a location on their to report issues with the Texas Caucus - if it was taken down - send email to the contact email there about what you experience.

There have been many people who stated the same as you. Some bad things going down in Texas Caucus relating to Obama supporters doing funny things.... SO PLEASE PLEASE report it on the hillarycliton.com site.

I voted for Senator Clinton in the Texas Two Step Primary/Caucus. At my caucus- Obama suppoerters came in really trained, committed and focused to be the leaders in the caucus. Almost militant in their manner. Hillary supporters and Obama supporters seemsed evenly split- but it seemed it was going to be a very long night. Once I signed in--I was told I could leave---my guess is most Hillary supporters signed in and left- Obama supporters stayed on...and there you have it...

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

THE HUFFINGTON POST IS REPORTING ...

Obama Prepares For Full Assault On Clinton's Ethics

The Chicago Tribune reports that Barack Obama's is pushing this week for greater transparency in his campaign as part of a plan to launch a head-on attack against his opponent Sen. Clinton.

Sen. Barack Obama is trying to air his dirty laundry -- even some items that might appear just a little wrinkled -- as he prepares a full assault on Sen. Hillary Clinton over ethics and transparency.

On Saturday he invoked Robert F. Kennedy as he continued to try to distance himself from controversial statements made by his former Chicago pastor that are circulating on the Internet.

With a gap between campaign contests, Obama is trying to unload controversies. On Friday he held extended conversations with the Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times about his longtime relationship with indicted developer and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko.

The Illinois Democrat is also expected to make public his tax returns for several years before 2006, documents he previously has provided to the Tribune and other news organizations.

The plan seems to be yielding dividends, if the Tribune is to be believed. After sitting with the papers editorial board to answer every question asked about his relationship with Tony Rezko, the Chicago Tribune had this to say:

When we endorsed Obama for the Democratic presidential nomination Jan. 27, we said we had formed our opinions of him during 12 years of scrutiny. We concluded that the professional judgment and personal decency with which he has managed himself and his ambition distinguish him.

Nothing Obama said in our editorial board room Friday diminishes that verdict.
We said in that same editorial that Obama had been too self-exculpatory in explaining away his ties to Tony Rezko. And we've been saying since Nov. 3, 2006 -- shortly after the Tribune broke the story of Obama's house purchase -- that Obama needed to fully explain his Rezko connection. He also needed to realize how susceptible he had been to someone who wanted a piece of him -- and how his skill at recognizing that covetousness needed to rise to the same stature as his popular appeal.

Friday's session evidently fulfills both obligations. Might we all be surprised by some future disclosure? Obama's critics have waited 16 months for some new and cataclysmic Rezko moment to implicate and doom Obama. It hasn't happened....
...Barack Obama now has spoken about his ties to Tony Rezko in uncommon detail.

That's a standard for candor by which other presidential candidates facing serious inquiries now can be judged.
________________________________________

ALSO ON THE HUFFINGTON POST ...

Arianna Huffington:

On Clinton's Tax Returns, a "Frankly Disturbing" Lack of Transparency, and Surrogate-ancholy

The Clintons have done very well during the Bush years -- well enough that she was able to loan her campaign $5 million at a critical moment.

Is it really "imitating Ken Starr" to want to see her tax returns so we can know where that money came from -- and have them "vetted" now by Democratic voters rather than later by GOP hit squads?

Or to ask for a list of the donors who have contributed $500 million to her husband's library?

Or to ask what her policy as president would be regarding the transparency of huge donations from foreign interests to her husband's charitable fund (such as the $31.3 million donation to Bill Clinton's foundation after he helped a Canadian mining mogul secure a massive uranium deal with Kazakhstan)?
_______________________________________
NOTE: AS I HAVE SAID BEFORE, THE PARTY OF CHANGE CANNOT BE A PARTY TO CORRUPTION.

INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY IS THE CORNERSTONE TO GOVERNMENT ACCOUNTABILITY.

TIME TO RESTORE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY TO ITS PRE-CLINTON STANDARD OF ETHICS AND TRANSPARENCY.

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

CNN IS REPORTING ...

Poll: Majority of Democrats prefer Obama

CNN/Opinion Research Corp. Poll finds enthusiasm for Obama's candidacy

52% of registered Democrats say they'd like to see Obama get the nomination

About a quarter of Democrats say they would be dissatisfied if Clinton won

From Paul Steinhauser
CNN Washington Bureau
(CNN) -- A majority of Democrats would like to see Barack Obama rather than Hillary Clinton win their party's presidential nomination, according to a national poll out Monday.

Fifty-two percent of registered Democrats questioned in a new CNN/Opinion Research Corporation survey say the senator from Illinois is their choice for president, with 45 percent supporting Clinton.

The poll also suggests Democrats are more enthusiastic about an Obama victory (45 percent) than for a victory by the senator from New York (38 percent). ...

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.