Closing Arguments Before Super Tuesday

Updated 6:20 p.m.
By Zachary A. Goldfarb
Sen. John McCain (Ariz.) said Sunday that he can unite the Republican Party, but Mitt Romney, the former governor of Massachusetts, said McCain was only wearing "conservative garb."

On the Democratic side, Sen. Barack Obama (Ill.) said that Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (N.Y.) had a "history" of galvanizing Republicans in opposition, while Clinton said she is experienced both in policy and in taking fire from the right.

The leading candidates for each party's presidential nomination used appearances on the Sunday talk shows both to underscore why they should be elected and to portray their rival in starkly different terms. The stakes were high for the candidates just ahead of Super Tuesday, when nearly half of the United States will cast votes.

Romney portrayed the GOP contest as "a battle, in some respects, for the heart and soul of the Republican Party."

"[I]f we want a party that is indistinguishable from Hillary Clinton on an issue like illegal immigration, that we're going to have John McCain as a nominee," Romney said, pointing to a number of issues -- including campaign finance and global warming -- where McCain has been at odds with some members of the GOP.

Romney claimed that "the voices of conservatives across the country, radio talk show hosts, magazine columnists and so forth, ... are coming out for me in record numbers."

But the most recent Washington Post-ABC News poll shows McCain leading Romney among Republicans nationally by a 2 to 1 margin, and the Arizona senator said that he is hopeful he can wrap up the nomination Tuesday. "We got a lot of good momentum and a lot of endorsements, and crowds who are enthusiastic, and we're working hard, and I'm guardedly optimistic," McCain said.

"We've got to unite the party," McCain said. "And I think you can reach out to all parts of the party and not, quote, pander."

McCain said he would have trouble winning in November if conservatives were to turn their backs on him.

"But I am confident we are already seeing many of the conservatives. ... [W]e carried Florida in a Republican-only primary. We got very large percentage of the, quote, conservative vote," McCain said. "I'm confident that, once they examine my record and as we unite against a common opponent, that we'll do fine with that. "

The Post-ABC poll showed McCain ahead of Romney among conservatives, but a number of the senator's positions have alarmed some prominent Republicans. Pressed on those Sunday, McCain said he would veto any tax increase passed by a Democratic Congress and would appoint Supreme Court justices without any litmus test.

Responding to calls he should drop out of the race, former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee said that it's Romney who should exit.

"I'm leading in the states that are going to be real critical on Super Tuesday throughout the South, substantially ahead of Mitt Romney in these states," he said. "And I think it's ludicrous for him to suggest that, with only 8 percent of the delegates counted and us being very close to the same delegate count, that somehow that makes me irrelevant?

"The fact is, he spent $100 million to have the same market share that I have for $7 million," Huckabee added. "Now, anybody with a Harvard MBA ought to know what the business model on that is. It's time to pull the plug on a business that is just not selling that well."

In the Democratic race, Obama said Clinton is a "polarizing figure" among Republicans. By contrast, he said, "what we have found ... is that the tone that I take, the ability to disagree without being disagreeable, the willingness to listen to Republicans about some of their ideas, ... creates a different climate ... [that] can attract independents and Republicans in a way that Senator Clinton cannot."

"That broadens the political map," Obama said. "I think it bodes well for the election."

Clinton, meanwhile, said she was more than ready for the fight with Republicans. "I've been taking the incoming fire from Republicans for about 16 years now, and I'm still here, because I have been vetted, I have been tested," she said.

She added, "The question is, who has the strength and experience to change America for the better, to put us on the right path."

Clinton said there isn't "any doubt" that former president Bill Clinton would not be a co-president, "just as there wasn't any doubt" about her role when her husband "was the president and the commander-in-chief."

And she belittled Obama's stance favoring possible talks between the president and the leaders of regimes such as Iran and Syria.

While "it's imperative" to have open talks with those regimes, she said, it's foolish to pledge that the president would engage directly in those talks. She accused Obama of distorting history in claiming that, as a presidential candidate in 1960, then-Sen. John F. Kennedy (D-Mass.) favored such an approach.

"I'm always a little amused when Senator Obama goes around quoting President Kennedy, when he was running for the presidency, about how you should never be afraid to negotiate," Clinton said. "But then if you look at the actual transcript of what President Kennedy said in the debates with Vice President Nixon, he said he would not meet with [Soviet leader] Khrushchev unless there had been a lot of groundwork laid."

Obama was asked whether he thinks an Obama-Clinton - or Clinton-Obama - ticket is possible. He did not exactly challenge the notion.

"I think it would be presumptuous for me to think that Senator Clinton was interested in taking a vice presidential slot at this point. And I think she is running actively for the presidency, as I am. But I think that there's no doubt that Democrats are eager to unify against the Republicans," Obama said.

McCain and Clinton both were on "Fox News Sunday," and they had a brief encounter, in which they agreed that, should they face each other in the general election, they would disagree.

"I think we'll have a very respectful but very spirited debate," McCain said. "I think that Senator Clinton would be the first to acknowledge, as she's already mentioned in several appearances and debates with the Democrats, that we'll have very significant differences. And I think the American people will see those differences and make a judgment."

"I agree with that," Clinton said. "John and I will have a respectful debate, but we do have serious differences about the direction of the country and what we think should be done.

McCain also appeared on CBS's "Face the Nation," and Clinton was also on ABC's "This Week." Romney appeared on ABC and CNN's "Late Edition," and Obama appeared on CBS.

By Post Editor |  February 3, 2008; 2:00 PM ET
Previous: Romney Lashes McCain Over Washington Record | Next: Bush Calls McCain a 'True Conservative'

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



Campaign Diaries has just completed a state-by-state look at Romney's viability post-Tuesday. His chances are very slim, but he could survive if he does well in Missouri, California and Georgia. Full analysis: http://www.campaigndiaries.com/2008/02/gop-delegate-race-romneys-survival.html

Posted by: Campaign Diaries, Taniel | February 3, 2008 2:59 PM

HILLARY HANDS REPUBLICANS DEVASTATING SOUNDBITE FOR FALL ELECTION ...

Feb 3, 11:40 AM EST

Clinton health plan may mean tapping pay

By CHARLES BABINGTON
Associated Press Writer

WASHINGTON (AP) -- Democrat Hillary Rodham Clinton said Sunday she might be willing to garnish the wages of workers who refuse to buy health insurance to achieve coverage for all Americans.

The New York senator has criticized presidential rival Barack Obama for pushing a health plan that would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified the enforcement measures she would embrace, but when pressed on ABC's "This Week," she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages ..."

"GOING AFTER PEOPLE'S WAGES" ...

IS THAT THE WAY REAL DEMOCRATS TALK? ...

THE REPUBLICANS WILL KILL THE DEMOCRATS WITH THAT KIND OF ANTI-WORKER, ANTI-FREE CHOICE RHETORIC ...

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 3:24 PM

Hillary Clinton has lately been loudly proclaiming her fealty to the Democratic Party's best traditions on human rights.

However, just two years ago, Hillary--the purported "expert" on international relations--said there should be "lawful authority" for torture in some cases.

(See, for example, www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0907/Hillary_and_torture_audio_version.html)

Her stand was opposite to that of every other major Democratic presidential candidate in 2007-2008, and the heat she took for it caused her to make one of her famous "flip flops."

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 3:26 PM

There is no incentive for Sen. Obama to accept an offer of the vice presidency from Hillary Clinton, as unlikely a prospect as that is anyway.

Hillary Clinton in the White House means a co-presidency with Bill.

Why would anyone what to take a position that, while it may be a heartbeat from the presidency, is also third fiddle in influence and power?

Who with any self-respect would accept being second-guessed and undercut by Bill Clinton?

The Clinton-Obama ticket idea is being floated by Hillary's trained seals in part to create a sense of moral equivalency between the two candidates--to the enormous detriment of Barack Obama.

The Clintons have nothing to say to a generation of young people looking for authenticity, honesty and transparency in their leaders and in their government.

That's why more and more, young people are turning to Barack Obama.

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 3:30 PM

McCain For President!!
Do you want to see how clear his message is?
Do you want to learn how much of a straight talk is he?
Do you want to learn how much Honesty this man has to share with everyone?
Then watch this video and learn..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ioy90nF2anI

and if there is any doubt then watch this one also

http://www.youtube.com/v/BPyKpcivQYQ&rel

McCain For PRESIDENT!!!

Posted by: Roger | February 3, 2008 3:30 PM

There is a Huckster Born Every Minute

To paraphrase the Jews, this is "bad for the evangelicals."

http://www.israelenews.com/view.asp?ID=895

As far as I can tell, it's mostly secular liberals swooning over Huckabee. Liberals adore Huckabee because he fits their image of what an evangelical should be: fat, stupid and easily led.

Hey! How about adults privately smoking cigarettes in their homes? Huckabee wants a federal law banning smoking!

Huckabee claims he opposes gay marriage and says Scalia is his favorite justice, but The Huckster supports a Supreme Court decision denounced by Scalia for paving the way to a "constitutional right" to gay marriage. I guess The Huckster is one of those pro-sodomy, pro-gay marriage, pro-evolution evangelical Christians.

No wonder Huckabee is the evangelical liberals like.

Huckster's been cavorting with the legacy of the White Citizens' Council -- the Council of Conservative Citizens, a group listed as a white supremacist organization by the Southern Poverty Law Center. That's why the South thinks Huckster is the best candidate if Obama is nominated. Rumours are that McCain will pick The Huckster for VP.

"In the 1930s, the socialist intellectual H.G. Wells called for the creation of a "liberal fascism," which he envisioned as a totalitarian state governed by an oligarchy of benevolent experts. In Liberal Fascism, Jonah Goldberg brilliantly traces the intellectual roots of fascism to their surprising source, showing not only that its motivating ideas derive from the left but that the liberal fascist impulse is alive and well among contemporary progressives-and is even a temptation for compassionate conservatives."

"With someone like Huckabee; with someone who actually takes compassionate conservatism seriously, you've got this vision that the government can do anything it sets its mind to, and that the measure of good public policy is how much you care. That, to me, is a very scary turn of events in American politics."

http://richmedia.pajamasmedia.com/audio/politicscentral/glenn_helen_show/20071227-Goldberg.mp3
http://caster.wgnradio.com/podcasts/x720full-012-080128.mp3

Posted by: Fllash | February 3, 2008 3:33 PM

If McCain is nominated I will vote for the Democrat.

Posted by: Fred | February 3, 2008 3:35 PM

Mr. Babington appears to be clueless. Hiaray never mentioned garnishing wages but did say subsidizing those who cannot afford. It is evident Mr. Babington has never been a democrat. Stop pretending. Many Obama supporter seems to advertise:

"Hey, I'm not a racist."  

"Look at me!  No prejudice here."

"Feminism?  What's that?"

Other than that man has not offered any substance. Don't believe he was even born when JFK was president.

Posted by: DR | February 3, 2008 3:37 PM

The Clinton Legacy:
As a life-long liberal Democrat, what I remember about the Bill Clinton era is a President who was impeached by the House because he lied under oath about having sex in the Oval Office with a 22 year old intern while conducting official business on the phone. Moreover, the Democrats lost control of Congress under his reign, and the Party literally fell apart- which lead to Gore's defeat in 2000. Yes, quite a legacy for Hillary to tout.

Posted by: Munir | February 3, 2008 3:38 PM

How does this sound for a Dem ticket? - Barack Obama and Kathleen Sebelius. I haven't seen that mentioned in blogs anywhere but IMO it would certainly be attractive, getting the female vote yet not presenting a divisive candidate. Opinions, anyone?

Posted by: Gabrielle | February 3, 2008 3:39 PM

I would love to see McCain speak the truth and re-board the straight-talk express.

Unfortunately he jumped off of it and set fire to it when he decided to begin lying about Romney. The man won't apologize for the completey mis-leading statements made about Romney's Iraq policies. He then has the gall to call Romney a flip-flopper when he now stumps stating "I'm for the tax-cuts even though I voted against the". The man is a complete stranger to the truth. When asked to state why he could fix the economy, McCain proceeded to talk about leading a military group like that has anything to do with the economy. He is completely clueless about all things financial.

He proclaims that he is a leader yet the only things that he as led for the last 20 years have been McCain-Feingold, McCain-Kennedy and the Gang of 14. Is this where we want to be led?

I will vote for democrat for the first time in my life before I vote for McCain.

Posted by: DCWill | February 3, 2008 3:43 PM

I'm an independent and if McCain wins the GOP nomination, I will vote democrat. If Romney wins the GOP nomination and Obama winds the democratic nomination, I would have a tough decision to make. I just can't stand John McCain. I think he's a hypocrite in every sense of the word. His "straight talk" express has derailed and I wish the country would take notice.

Posted by: Jane Watkins | February 3, 2008 3:45 PM

If Mr. Obama is unsuccessful in his presidential bid it would be in his best interest to not remain in the Senate, and take either a vice-president or cabinet position, or perhaps run for Governor somewhere, preferably not Illinois, maybe somewhere in the South, or maybe California. This would put him in an excellent position to run in 2016. Hanging out in the Senate casting votes is political fuel for the furnace if you want to run for president. Just as John Kerry and Ted Kennedy. McCain, Clinton, and Obama are all routinely forced to defend various votes that they have cast as Senators over the years. Governors have a clear advantage over Senators in this regard. McCain if he doesn't win will probably stay in the Senate because of his age. Hillary Clinton will probably do something in the private sector, or perhaps run for Governor of New York. However my bet would be that a Clinton/Obama ticket is a distinct possibility. An Obama/Clinton ticket seems about as likely as a McCain/Feingold ticket. I have also heard that Al Gore will endorse Hillary Clinton after Super Tuesday.

Posted by: blake | February 3, 2008 3:47 PM

The two democratic candidates are like Crack and Subutext; which would you rather take?

Here is a question: John McCain?
Answer: 44.

Posted by: toldber123 | February 3, 2008 4:01 PM

It seems some pople are deluded with respect to the fact Senator Obama is not just as big a political animal as Hillary Clinton as well as the idea possibillity there could be a Cliton/Obama or Obama/Clinton ticket. The events of the past seeral weeks during which Senator Obama has accepted the endorsement of some of the Kennedy clan in the hopes of builidng upon the mythology of President Kennedy and his brother Robert were totally scripted and yes even calcutated -- it provides the Kennedy's with a means of further extending their dynasty and provides Senator Obama with a much needed boost amongst certain voting blocks but does nothing with respect to answer the lingerig question some f us have with respect to wheher or not there is anything behind the rhetoric.
The intensity of the debate between them with respect to matters of substance not to mention his out right disain for her candidacy preclude the possiblity of their running together -- for either one that would be like repeating the error John Kerry made in selecting John Edwards.

Posted by: gerry | February 3, 2008 4:10 PM

Mitt "I'll flip flop on any issue" Romney and Anne "I'm too smart for my own good" Coulter are both GONERS!

http://osi-speaks.blogspot.com/2008/02/steve-flat-tax-forbes-endorses-john.html#links

Posted by: KYJurisDoctor | February 3, 2008 4:20 PM

Hillary states that she has been tested. She states that she has been exposed and survived the toughest of the Republican accusations. How about this one:
Hillary stood by idly while Bill committed numerous transgression against their marriage. This leads to a assessment on her character that needs to be conducted to understand if in fact she really is fit to hold the highest office in the free world. To start, I am not against a women for President, in fact there are numerous women out there who would easily become a suitable President, if they could be encourage to run. Hillary is not one of them.

To summarize my question on Hillary's capabilities to lead, I ask:
When Hillary stood by while Bill was cheating on her, not once, but numerous times, was it because:
A. She lacks sufficient self esteem, that she is unable to unshackle herself from a man whom would treat their marriage in such a farcical way. If she does have self esteem issues, does that not make her too weak to advance Americas interests against worthy opponents?;
B. That she put up with these transgressions because she has a complete disdain for the institute of Marriage, and does not care how other women see her in how she conducts personal relationships? If this is the case, then is this what Americans wants in a leader, one who doesn't hold dear the institutions and traditions that define the existential American existence of truth, and honor?; or
C. Hillary possesses a pathological condition that precludes her from anything that doesn't benefit herself personally. That the reason she stays in this relationship is because she has coldly calculated that it is in her benefit to maintain it so that she can achieve what it is she so dearly seeks, and that is the Presidency? If this is the case, does that not make her a user, one that can not be trusted to work for the greater good instead of what can benefit herself personally?

These are legitimate questions to ask, because the mentality of the individual that seeks office has to be taking into account to ensure, that if elected, they will go about in ensuring that their decisions take into account the needs of the very people that elected them into office vice what they alone benefit from. Myself personally, she would have possessed more integrity, more desirability as a potential President, had she, once both had left the White House, had proceeded to divorce Bill.

I await the responses from Hillary supporters as to what description, a, b, or c, best describes their candidate.

And no, to detail my comments as being sexist is only avoiding the fact that this question will be asked by Republicans during an election. One of many that will be asked, calling into account her reputation, dealings, and agenda.

Posted by: Larry M. | February 3, 2008 4:22 PM

Actually Blake, I have heard that because of the way the Bill Clinton purposely went about to derail America's signing of the Kyoto Accord, and the subsequent rejections of alternative policies, that he will be coming out in Obama's corner on Tuesday morning. Hmmmm. Who do you suppose is right?

Posted by: Larry M. | February 3, 2008 4:31 PM

A vote for Hillary = a vote for McCain.

Hillary as nominee = a McCain presidency.

Why? Fairly or not, she carries too much baggage and cannot get the necessary Independent, crossover and swing votes required to win the White House. You need these to win!!

DEMS NEED TO THINK VICTORY. If Dems do not want another four years of Republican rule, they must VOTE OBAMA in the primaries. This strategic thinking is how Repubs have won again and again.

Both Obama and Hillary are capable and brilliant. Their platforms very similar. We need change if we're to get out of the quicksand Bush has sunk us into. WE NEED TO WIN IN NOVEMBER.

Dems can only win with Obama. THINK ABOUT IT. VOTE OBAMA.

Posted by: Voice of Reason | February 3, 2008 4:53 PM

Larry. M, your questions demonstrate the callous disregard for objectivity that makes it difficult to take you seriously. Your questions are in the "Have you stopped beating your wife?" type, as you do not allow the person to have an answer that is anything other than confriming of your pre-planned position. If you actually do want a genuine answer, do not frame it so she can only condemn herself regardless of the answer. That's not questioning, that's the type of cynical politics that Obama supporters claim they are rising above.

Will the Republicans be that underhand? Possibly. Does that justify your use of the same despicable rhetoric? Not in my play book. And - at least according to his public statements - not in Obama's either.

Posted by: Anthony Rimell | February 3, 2008 5:07 PM

The NY Times article today about Nuclear Leaks in Illinois shows Obama as a hypocrit not CHANGE. Obama is really all elegant words. More of the same not real change. Change that will help ordinary Americans will only come with Hillary Clinton. Wake up America!

Posted by: wiser | February 3, 2008 5:12 PM

DR - I would recheck your facts. I believe Hillary did indeed say she would push the garnishing of wages for health care.

Gabrielle - I see an Obama/Sebelius ticket as OUTSTANDING!

Posted by: NanD | February 3, 2008 5:16 PM

WASHINGTON (Associated Press):

Also Sunday, Clinton said she might be willing to have workers' wages garnisheed if they refuse to buy health insurance.

The New York senator has criticized Obama for pushing a health plan that she says would not require universal coverage. Clinton has not always specified how she would enforce 100 percent enrollment. But when pressed during a television interview, she said: "I think there are a number of mechanisms" that are possible, including "going after people's wages, automatic enrollment."

DR - There it is - a quote from the lady herself!

Posted by: Anonymous | February 3, 2008 5:31 PM

I don't like McCain because he only offers the same old strategy for foreign policy. I don't like Clinton because everyone says she is no good. And Obama seems like he is just full of a lot of hot air. The more I see this election and find out about these people, the more disappointed I feel.

Posted by: jamie | February 3, 2008 5:45 PM

Dear Larry M and other angry and brainwashed people,

I was joking at the end of my post about the Gore endorsement. I obviously don't have that information. This is only a rumor that has been circulating around. Obviously Al Gore will back someone when there is a clear frontrunner. He is someone who has positioned himself above politics and I am sure that he will not risk his holier than thou aura over endorsing someone who is not the nominee. He is after all still a democrat, and a high rpofile one as well. That said, I am always amazed at how these online discussions always turn into the kind of negative accusatory bickering that Mr. Obama claims he is above and Mrs. Clinton claims she is not involved in. Obviously both of the candidates are going at it as shown by the fact that most of the people who post on these things are just volunteers for the various campaigns re-stating the line that their particular candidate is telling them is reality. And of course, all the angry posts are even more amusing, it is like verbal road rage. TTYL -Blake

Posted by: blake | February 3, 2008 5:49 PM

What is wrong with the electorate? Has America been dumbed down so much that it is possible to be duped by an utter thug like McCain? Let me guess; McCain is being hailed because he ripped off the American taxpayer more than 1 trillion dollars to bail out his fellow crooks in the S&L scandal (Keating 5). Or do so many like McCain because of his lawlessness in sponsoring a bill to give amnesty to 10s of millions of illegal aliens? Or do so many trust McCain's sterling character, seeing the way he committed adultery against his first wife? Wake up America, before we end up with another tyrant bent on destroying the Constitution and our nation as a whole, just to usurp and abuse power for his own gain. If anyone represents what is wrong in Washington, it is certainly McCain. He is an utter arrogant thug that can be seen from 200 miles away, if Americans would only open their eyes half way. Romney is the only one of the remaining candidates that is half-way decent.

Posted by: Aver | February 3, 2008 5:54 PM

blake
Obama has to stay in the Senate because he owes that to his constituency. Anything else would rightly be perceived as carpetbagging. Sorry...right analysis, but it can't work.

Posted by: mike s | February 3, 2008 6:26 PM

The debate brought forward what is, to me,
the essential difference between Obama and Clinton.
It was barely covered by any of the news organizations -
the only one I saw mention it was Frank Rich in the Times -
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/opinion/03rich.html?_r=2&ref=opinion&oref=slogin&oref=slogin

When they were discussing HOW to get health care
reform enacted - Obama put it all on the table - have
the entire negotiations with the insurance companies,
the pharmaceutical companies, and the HMOs broadcast
live on CSPAN so everyone can see what's going on.

That's the key - it's what is wrong with the process - both
Republicans and "status quo" Democrats operate behind
closed doors - and special interests thus rule the day.
Daylight on the process - and the inherent education of
the electorate is the key - it is the first step in a process
toward single payer state healthcare, which is what we
should have, and what all other western societies have.
Once people realize HOW they are getting ripped off,
they will DEMAND a single payer system. Why is the
insurance industry involved in this AT ALL? It's a scam...

Clinton was against this - saying "I don't think Congress
would agree to that..."

Which is a bunch of crap. Use simple deductive reasoning here -
the only reason to hide the process is if you have something
to hide. I am not surprised at this response from Hillary,
as her campaign (and the Clinton foundation) has taken
massive campaign contributions from these industries -
as she also has from the Oil, Coal and Weapons industries.

This exemplifies what I've been saying all along - the
Clintons are part of the system - they play slightly to the left -
enough to placate the traditional Democratic base - without
really substantially changing anything. They are "our side"
of the crooked coin - a coin wholly-owned by corporate
and super-wealthy interests. They feign toward change -
minor tweaks - yet accomplish nothing long lasting.
That pretty much defines Bill's presidency. I voted for
him twice, but what good did it do us? Health care is still
screwed up. Trickle down economics still trickling. Carbon
pollution is still killing the planet. Education is worse
off than ever.

The stinking Republicans are the worse side of the coin -
blatantly fulfilling the will of the Aristocracy and the
Corporate Oligarchy - but the status quo Democrats -
the Clintons - are just the other side of that coin -
a mere breather, a slight loosening of the strangle hold,
temporarily holding the fort until the next Republican
regime while somewhat placating - but mostly paying
lip service to - the leftist element of the electorate.

If we are to survive as a democracy, and for that matter,
survive as a species, this must change now. Obama is
the best bet we have. He might fail. Bill Clinton was
right when he said he's a throw of the dice. But if we
throw the dice, we might win. With Hillary, the dice
stays firmly in the pocket of the corporate and aristocratic
powers, and we continue to lose, and not too far down
the road, we die.

And, you have to ask yourself, why did Hillary vote
for the war? Why does she accept contributions from
the weapons industry? The oil industry? It's as easy
as two plus two.

Posted by: Walden Greenwood | February 3, 2008 6:30 PM

The only way McCain will unite the Party, will be by realizing he is a Qualified VICE PRESIDENT, and taking his back seat to Romney.
Huckster and Dr. NO, are simply out to be Spoilers to detract from Romney in favor of McPain.

McClown has BLOWN it on the Amnesty Issue and many others. He is just another version of what the Dims are selling, just as "Socialism Light".

Mitt Romney is the only chance this Country has of effecting real Change, and that is why the entire Status Quo has rallied against him!

However, reality is, Mitt will need an insider. McPain as the VP could be that Bridge. He is, as I said, a very Formidible VICE PRESIDENT Choice!

Posted by: RAT-The | February 3, 2008 6:42 PM

Author Garrison Keillor, former NARAL pro-choice America president Michelman endorse Obama

AP
Updated: 5:25 PM ET Feb 3, 2008

Garrison Keillor, host of public radio's "A Prairie Home Companion," has endorsed Democratic Sen. Barack Obama for president, Obama's campaign announced Sunday.

Obama also won backing from a key backer of former candidate John Edwards.

"I'm happy to support your candidacy, which is so full of promise for our country," Keillor, the best-selling author and humorist wrote in a letter declaring his support. "Seven years of a failed presidency is a depressing thing, and the country is pressing for a change and looking for someone with clear vision who is determined to break through the rhetorical logjam and find sensible ways to move our country forward. That's you, friend."

Obama's campaign provided excerpts of the letter; Minnesota holds its caucuses on Super Tuesday.

In the letter, Keillor, whose books are set in the fictional town of Lake Wobegon, said seeing Obama and his family in front of the U.S. Capitol next January is a happy prospect that would "bring an end to a long sour chapter in our history."

"And of course it will be exciting to have a president who can speak with grace and power to the American people," Keillor wrote.

Obama addressed a crowd of nearly 20,000 at the Target Center in downtown Minneapolis on Saturday. A poll by Minnesota Public Radio and the Humphrey Institute released last week showed slightly behind rival Hillary Rodham Clinton, 40 percent to 33 percent.

Separately, Kate Michelman, former president of NARAL Pro-Choice America who was a top supporter of Democrat John Edwards, endorsed Obama.

In a blog entry on huffingtonpost.com, Michelman said she decided to back Obama because he is prepared "to lead in a different way than we have seen for decades. Not out in front with us behind him, but rather with us beside him."

That difference, she said, "separates just any president from a great president; and right now, we need a great president."

Edwards suspended his campaign for the Democratic presidential nomination last week.

Obama said he was proud to have Keillor's and Michelman's support.

URL: http://www.newsweek.com/id/107788

Posted by: Martinedwinandersen | February 3, 2008 6:46 PM

IF Obama is elected President, you won't be able to find any of these endorsing Far Lefties once Obama starts screwing up the country. And he will.

The Democrats nominated two complete Duds to run in 2000 and 2004. If they nominate Obama, it will be three for three.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

IF Obama is elected President, you won't be able to find any of these endorsing Far Lefties once Obama starts screwing up the country. And he will.

The Democrats nominated two complete Duds to run in 2000 and 2004. If they nominate Obama, it will be three for three.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

IF Obama is elected President, you won't be able to find any of these endorsing Far Lefties once Obama starts screwing up the country. And he will.

The Democrats nominated two complete Duds to run in 2000 and 2004. If they nominate Obama, it will be three for three.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

IF Obama is elected President, you won't be able to find any of these endorsing Far Lefties once Obama starts screwing up the country. And he will.

The Democrats nominated two complete Duds to run in 2000 and 2004. If they nominate Obama, it will be three for three.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

IF Obama is elected President, you won't be able to find any of these endorsing Far Lefties once Obama starts screwing up the country. And he will.

The Democrats nominated two complete Duds to run in 2000 and 2004. If they nominate Obama, it will be three for three.

Posted by: PoliticalPuck | February 3, 2008 7:17 PM

Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius would indeed be a great running mate for Obama. She was in fact raised as a possibility in a recent Washington Post column on the developing v-p competition.

Posted by: oldhonky | February 3, 2008 9:45 PM

Next attack to Iran is ready to go.
I found the book The shell game.
http://www.stevealten.com/Shell_excerpt.pdf
also I found unfair broad casting for republican debate on CNN
( MSNBC is also suggested )
Why Giuliani dropped out ?
http://www.prisonplanet.com/articles/february2008/010208_giuliani.htm
We can not ignore those all facts.

Why MacCain goes to middle eastern ?
Because he's like Ciuliani who on part of plan?

Posted by: pora | February 3, 2008 11:38 PM

New York Times reporting:

February 4, 2008
Obama, Cultivating California Spirit, Eases Clinton's Grip on State
By JOHN HARWOOD
LOS ANGELES -- In the iconography of American politics, California more than anyplace is where candidates, in Mario M. Cuomo's words, "campaign in poetry." Odes to the state's embrace of youth, change and possibility linger in Democratic presidential lore.

Like Robert F. Kennedy, George McGovern and Gary Hart in races past, Senator Barack Obama has embraced that imagery in his effort to upset Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton in the Democratic primary here Tuesday, a prize that polls over the weekend suggested was suddenly within his reach. "California has always represented the future in this country," Mr. Obama, of Illinois, said here. "I've got a little piece of California in me." ...

Posted by: MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN | February 3, 2008 11:52 PM

In answer to Gabrielle's question - no I will not vote for Obama at the top of the ticket. I'll take John McCain before I'd take him. And I'm a 43-year-old white female, mother of two. I have never voted Republican in my life. But if Obama is the Dem nominee, I will not cast my vote for another Jimmy Carter. If Hillary is at the top, she has my vote.

Posted by: Christina | February 4, 2008 12:39 AM

Capitol Punishment
And
Current Corrective Laws Revisited.

The Eternal Battle for Good over Evil continues. It's Time to dust of Sparky, crank up the dial and cook some really hurtful criminals. I'll do the Job, just offer.
Life, Liberty and the Pursuits Towards Happiness. Roughly translated, Civilized Society Governed by Laws established by Our Countries Founding Fathers, written in The Constitution of The United States of America.
These Laws and Implied Protections are granted to Any Lawful Citizen of said Lands.

Flash forward to Today year Two-Thousand Eight;

The current Nation Wide Governing Elected Officials have become hog tied, blow hards, frightened, submissive, inept, fat, lazy, greedy and corrupt and generally self centered from enacting out of Fear of Condemnation from certain subversive organizations, who's Objective and Focus appears to be for the continuation of confusion, chaos and fostering of fear in Society.

Take any example of a criminal action resulting in the murder/death of any other Human being. That is not right.
Therefore, someone is surely Guilty of this action and no one rides through life free. Everyone pays in some form.
The perpetrators of deadly crimes have to be accountable and no longer allowed to victimize Civilized Society. Groups multiple times champion, loyal to One , their own egos using the criminal as a tool. Generally these criminals are lifers in the craft of Evil doings.

The Death Penalty is not barbaric, It the capturing of the Evil Spirits that escaped and returning them to Our Natural Creator. Either that or what? Place them in prisons to learn how to commit more Deadly and Sadistic acts? I say NFW!!!

My point is not to change or amend into uselessness the Judicial Systems. It's to Fine Tune and Tweak our current laws and grow new teeth to better Protect Our Law biding Citizens. Society has become to submissive, inept, fat, lazy, greedy, corrupt and generally self centered. So we turn to Our Elected Officials.

Talk, talk, talk when will you all be true of your Words?

I wrote this sincerely, in the hope collectively, maybe one day soon, it will be done.


PJF
02-04-08

Posted by: A True Crime | February 4, 2008 11:30 PM

The Dallas Morning News is reporting that the Clinton campaign is instructing its volunteers to elbow their way into controlling the caucus voting procedure in each Texas precinct on Primary night. The Obama campaign does not use that tactic according to its volunteers. Read for yourself at

http://trailblazers.beloblog.com/archives/2008/03/caucus-strategy.html

Posted by: Felipe Mendez | March 2, 2008 11:29 PM

Hello, of course I came to visit your site and thanks for letting me know about it.
I just read this post and wanted to say it is full of number one resources. Some I am familiar with. For those who don't know these other sites they are in for a treat as there is a lot to learn there.

Posted by: Male Enhancement | March 4, 2008 11:08 PM

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM

MESSAGE

Posted by: ISHMAel back | March 5, 2008 12:15 AM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2010 The Washington Post Company