The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

roikue fgszkib qtliamsn bseakdq ivglsb wguhby rmklpw

yvougmjk pinrhxw qlafzx xsejywa vcdr iosr jgpoth

This long-time Republican has some advice for you Democratic folks commenting on this article:

I do not think you want any ticket with Hillery on it.

Reason? After eight years of unchecked Bush-bashing, I don't know any Republican that feels there are any civil limits to bashing a liberal Democrat. The Scorched Earth, anti-president politics of 2000-2008 will be followed by the same towards you Dems. Congratulations.

Maybe, just maybe, Obama could avoid that reaction; It is certain, though, that Hillery would only provide more combustibles for the scorched-earth fire to come.

WE need to demand NOW that both Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama take a pledge that the superdelegate votes will be split pro-rata, based on the primary results in actual elections. This will avoid any backroom deals and an unfair result that would make meaningless all the hard work, months of effort and votes cast by all the party's supporters in the primaries, not to mention risking losing in the general election all the new young and African-American voters that have turned out.

Ironically, while Obama is running on a theme of "inspiration," "unification," "compromise," "bringing the country together," his candidacy has managed to create a serious schism in the Democratic Party where one never existed. Democrats used to be united, now they are dividing. Intentionally or not, the Obama candidacy is dividing Democrats between the young and the elderly, the working class and the wealthy, black and Latino, male and female. If the battle for the nomination continues in this manner, this schism could tear the Democratic Party apart. If Obama is truly committed to "unifying America", if it's not just empty campaign rhetoric, then Obama should end his campaign against Hilary and join her in a Clinton/Obama ticket.

Why should Obama take second seat to Hilary? Because Hilary is the stronger candidate. Hilary has more experience, she is better prepared, and she has proven she is a "unifier" by reaching out across the isle and working with Republican leaders in the Senate. For those reasons Hilary stands a better chance of winning in November. Further, a Clinton/Obama ticket affords the possibility of 16 years of Democratic leadership in the presidency.

No matter how much we like Obama, he does not have the experience that a president needs to lead the country - a point the Republicans are sure to hammer in the Fall. Obama is not JFK. JFK served 6 years in Congress, 8 years in the Senate, and ran for VP before running for President. Obama has served less than one term the Senate and most of that time he has been running for president. Because of his lack of experience, Obama, like Bush, will have to rely on advisers - think Rumsfeld, Perle, Wolfolwitz, Card, Libby...- to help him understand and confront the issues. That didn't work out so well for America.

Moreover, Obama is running his candidacy solely on this ideal that he is a unifier. He's not running on his experience or the issues, he's running despite of them. But he hasn't united, he has divided - a point the Republicans are sure to make. Bush ran as "a uniter not a divider;" the candidate who would "change the tone" in Washington. Bush was the "outsider," who would change Washington politics. But it was all just words. If Obama truly is a uniter not a divider, it's time for him to unite.

Folks (mostly Clinton supporters) are missing the point when stating Obama would be VP for Hillary. They state policies are nearly the same (yet still say he has no substance which makes no sense). Obama has declared he will not have lobbyists in the White House and does not take PAC money. How can he then join Hillary who exemplifies both lobbyists and PAC money? He would have absolutely no credibility to run for president later on. The second area that he is totally different from Hillary is foreign policy. He sees us as part of the world where Hillary is more in line with Republicans. This is not only the vote on Iraq. There is the vote where she states that Iranian Army is a terrorist organization. The vote that Hillary had against banning mines and cluster bombs in heavily populated civilian areas. Obama disagrees with each of those. Then there is distinct possibility that Hillary loses to McCain. Clintonites think this is spin but many of us Obama supporters do not see great differences between Hillary and McCain. The idea that she is completely vetted is ridiculous just look at Bill's 31 million dollar donation for helping a guy get uranium mine deal abroad. Clintons have not been vetted since his presidency and questions on white house papers concerning Hillary's healthcare plan not being released, their ties to Burkle, and who exactly are donors to Bills library are still open questions let alone any other BS not known yet. Then look at how Clinton politics are Rove like. Every primary and caucus has seen push poll calls against edwards and obama but none against hillary. Clintonites forget obama for VP instead if hillary wins just hope we actually will vote for her against McCain.

"The mere absence of war is not peace."

-JFK

Ask anyone who knows either candidate. Neither Clinton nor Obama would nominate the other as/ accept the offer of vice president on the ticket. Let's get real. We need to be thinking about the Bob Grahams, Dick Gephardts, Bill Richardsons, Janet Napolitanos and Tom Daschles of the world.

If Clinton becomes President then I doubt Obama would want to be Vice-President though after W won in 2004 I was going to have a bumper sticker made that would have stated "Clinton/Obama 2008, the future is now."

Really though, if you were Obama would you want to be Vice-President? I think if Clinton is elected then she would be wise to make Obama the United States' ambassador to the United Nations and give him a seat on the National Security Council. Then, in her second term she might consider making him a special envoy to the Middle East to help broker a regional solution including the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

These posts would give Obama a solid foundation to become president later when he has gained more experience, especially in the international arena.

If Obama is elected, I doubt Clinton would want to be Secretary of Health & Human Services simply because she would have to advocate for Obama's health care plan which is the antithesis of what she has advocated for these many years.

I like Obama but his ascending to the top of the ticket is fairly tale. Unlike supporters of Obama, I have not hatred of Obama. On the other hand, supporters of Obama appear to be self-righteous and mean spirited. I doubt that that these well educated in the right sense. I have no idea what Obama stand for so many issues. The constant refrain of 'hope' and 'change' are meaningless to me signifying nothing. I also suspect that Obama is not as progressive as many of his supporters think he is. He is an unknown quantity to me...as he probably to his supporters as well.

As a French Californian who left the US when Bush came, I am praying my US friends will elect a democrat for president. If Mc Cain is the GOP nominee, he might be tough to defeat, and I fear that Obama's lack of national and international experience can then be a drawback. That's why I am looking the democrat party in its wisdom to impose the ticket Clinton/Obama, which should ensure victory against Mc Cain.

As a French Californian who left the US when Bush came, I am praying my US friends will elect a democrat for president. If Mc Cain is the GOP nominee, he might be tough to defeat, and I fear that Obama's lack of national and international experience can then be a drawback. That's why I am looking the democrat party in its wisdom to impose the ticket Clinton/Obama, which should ensure victory against Mc Cain.

Barack Obama has fractured the Democratic Party in a way not seen since the disastrous bid for the Presidency by Ted Kennedy in 1980. The Kennedy insurgency put an end to hopes of the Democratic Party to win the White House until Bill Clinton came along to famously rescue it.

Just so with the divisive Obama. His arrogant, mean-spirited, careless, reckless, devil-take-the-hindmost campaign has succeeded in stripping the Democratic Party of its Grand Coalition and much of its good will and reducing it thereby to tatters. Obama chooses feckless and overriding ambition to decency and good sense when he with malice and forethought rips off 80 percent of the black vote so crucial to Democratic wins while at the same time he deserts the majority of whites, Latinos and Asians and even some blacks who remain loyal to the coalition and its vision and hope for so many.

The fact that a goodly number of his wins on Super Tuesday came in states that despite large African-American populations nevertheless are firmly in the GOP column undoubtedly has not escaped the notice of Party heads. Nor, presumably, has it escaped the notice of the GOP which can now predict with somewhat more certainty happy days in November.

It is time Obama leaves the race for the good of the Democratic Party, its Grand Coalition and for the good of the nation. It is time he gets out of the race and spends his time instead attempting to repair the damage he and his campaign have wrought.

Obama cynically played the race card after Nevada and his campaign in true fairy-tale mode created the notion of a "surge" by luring an astounding 80 percent of African-American voters to his side. And the point is -- that's pretty much all he got. It was a huge price to be paid for a collapse of the unity of the great political organization he has such ambitions to dominate and which hold such promise for America. A huge price and one that should not, cannot be ignored.

It's up to him to do the right thing.

One of the people commenting called Hillary supporters low I.Q. minions.

I remember Obama saying that his supporters are the more educated voters.

He also said he got $32,000,000 in campaign contributions on the internet. He also said that the range of donations were from $5 to $25, usually.

$5 to $25 donations don't seem to be to me what the highly education people would contribute - they would make enough money to send more than that.

Giving Obama the benefit of the doubt, he is saying that 1,280,000 people donated money to his campaign alone, if you use the $25 figure. That is a lot of individual donors for one month.

I wonder if Obama is sure that this isn't money from Rezko, the guy in Illinois that is under indictment for influence peddling and has been his friend and financial associate for 17 years.

It is my opinion that Rezko is trying to buy the election for Obama. Whoever is supposed to check these things out -- should ! ! !

I am serious. It bothers me that Rezko is an Arab from Syria. It bothers me that Obama knew him for 17 years and lied at a recent debate and said he had done only about 5 hours worth of work for Rezko.

It bothers me that Rezko has received huge amounts of money from the middle east.

It concerns the FBI, also, because they picked Rezko up last week and he will be going to trial Feb. 17th. See the Chicago Tribune articles about Rezko/Obama dated Jan. 27th, article by investigative reporter, John Kass.gw.

Sen. Obama got it exactly right last night.

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 immoral 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."

So much for her being "ready to go on Day 1."

More like not ready for prime time ...

A "dream" ticket combining Obama and Clinton would be more like a nightmare shotgun wedding than anything else.

It would not be credible because one calls us to higher ground and the other offers a siren call from the swamp.

A speech given by President John F. Kennedy is perhaps the best refutation of the Clinton approach to politics, and an endorsement of the Obama magic...

"When power leads man toward arrogance, poetry reminds him of his limitations. When power narrows the area of man's concern, poetry reminds him of the richness and diversity of existence. When power corrupts, poetry cleanses."

America is tired of the arrogance, corruption and lack of that elusive thing called grace that characterized Bill Clinton's "co-presidency" with Hillary.

America is on the move again.

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

Hillary is scary with her healthcare propositions. I see her plan costing American Taxpayers an enormous annual cost. The people who will be paying for it are the same ones who pay for everything else, the American taxpayers. I would be irritated if those who are subsidized obtain better healthcare than I have. I don't mind helping the poor and impoverished, but there are limits.

The Defense Budget costs us 10 billion dollars a week.
The War In Iraq costs us 4 billion dollars a week.
Free Benefits for Illegal Immigrants costs us 3 billion dollars a week.
Hillary's Healthcare would cost us 2 billion dollars a week. (??)

Just think if Hillary grants amnesty to the 20 million illegals, another 20 million to insure.

I seriously doubt Obama supporters would be happy about any Obama/Hillary or Hillary/Obama ticket. That's not a snub at Hillary. There's a good reason we like Obama over Hillary and it's because we don't want her anywhere near the white house. It would ruin a lot of the Obama movement if he won and then ended up adding her on as a running mate.
I'm sure Hillary would LOVE to have Obama on as a running mate if she were to win... try to grab some of his mojo. But I HOPE he doesn't go there.

I honestly don't know if I could bring my self to vote for her in November even if Obama was VP. Honestly does Hillary vs. McCain really sound like much of a difference? I wouldn't want to associate myself with either one of those two.

Regarding this joint ticket stuff: I don't think so. Both need the other's consituency to consolidate the party following nomination. Clinton, however, would have to re-make her platform to grab his base; Obama, meanwhile, has the passive ability to grasp hers. A young voter has a REASON to abandon her in the general, as does an African-American, as does an upper-income progressive voter. Should he grab the nomination, however, it is hard to envision why and how women, Hispanic Americans or lower-income voters would actively evade his ticket. She is not speaking to the constituencies she doesn't have: youths don't believe she emodies change and dynamism; African-Americans are duly turned-off by the tenor of her campaign; and upper-income and progressive liberals aren't engaged and/or fear her politics and Clinton politics in general. Meanwhile, I've never meant: a woman who says he's a candidate she would avoid; a Hispanic who is alienated by him; a lower-income voter who doesn't believe he would work for their needs. In fact, his victories in small, Midwest states prove he can pick up women and low-income folks with some level of ease. The only constituency he might actively 'scare' off are older voters, who are the 'experience' block. Lastly, the small number of Hispanic voters who have active cause to leave his court are those caught up in the racial tensions of today; I, amongst many (I hope), do not want these people inside the Democratic party, and wish them luck finding representation elsewhere. The massive majority of Hispanics, however, could meld quickly into the economics implicit in his message that attracts many race-blind Americans. In short, Clinton NEEDS the Obama coalition, and could only get it by co-opting him, assuming she doesn't drastically alter her platform. He, however, has a message and platform that honestly doesn't require her presence. In fact, he would look compromised, having run a campaign of change, only to grasp ahold of a potent symbol of the political past after gaining the nomination. She could only gain from grafting his voters into her coalition, but I'm one voter that would certainly come being dragged tooth and nail. We've had the problem of losing democratic voters to youth apathy, poor African-American vote mobilisation and Ralph Nader progressive politics. Rove and Clinton taught politicans a lesson: turn political weakness into a strength. If you're an electability/horse-race voter, why not choose Obama, and transform the cracks and crevices of the democratic coalition into the working core of a platform that would ROLL the Republicans in the general? Women, Hispanics, and 'average' Americans have no compelling reason to stay home and not vote Obama, even if he's got Chuck Hagel as a VP. Again, the only folks who actively lose out in the Obama platform are older voters; his verve is a little off-putting and un-trustworthy to that set, I think. But, if you were trying to win elections for years to come, would you start a party movement with 65+ voters, or these You-Tube crazies who view Obama's videos more Britney Spears papparazi tapes? Finally, to end with a healthy dose of cynicism, I don't feel Bill Clinton would play a minor, passive role in her administration, and that's not healthy for the Executive branch as a constitutional entity. If you're tired of a Vice President that pulls the levers of power without your say, try when it's someone who's not even on the ballot. Considering Obama's perspective, I couldn't imagine a less edifying vice presidency, and would refuse her offer. For the good of the party, we should put the fantasy ticket to rest, and have the courage to vote our heart in primary, by choosing the ONE candidate best suited to be America's next president.

Representative democracy is obsolete.

Government of the people, by the people and for the people.

Direct Democracy

"I'm a Democrat and I don't want either of them either! We've blown this opportunity big time because we let the loony liberal wing of our party drive the nominee recruitment and culling process."

This post made me realize that the Dems really did blow a significant opportunity with this nomination process. If ever there was a time to nominate a moderate, it's now. I'm a libertarian with an independent streak. I've consistently voted Republican, albeit sometimes holding my nose. If McCain were less hawkish, pro-choice, I could vote for him with no big reservations. But those are big reservations. If Democrats had put out a fiscal-moderate, I'd probably jump the fence along with a lot of other libertarian-leaning individuals. Instead, Dems put out two candidates that want more government regulation, less personal freedom and huge spending increases. These characteristics will invariably outweigh any amount of socially-liberal policies that would otherwise draw in libs.
The only candidate I would choose Hillary over is Huckabee, but I would LOVE to vote for Obama. If he were less of an extremist, for lack of a better term, I'd be in his camp in a heartbeat. As it is, I'll be holding one nostril and going with McCain.

I see zero synergy between Obama and Clinton. They might as well be in two different parties. I doubt if Obama would accept VP, and think he would probably either (a) let Hillary get defeated and run again or (b) go independent.

(b) Obama can take the independents by storm. Look at how he did in Connecticut! Hillary is a smokestack Democrat...Obama is suburban cable tv Democrat. Two very different animals that don't like each other very much.

The bottom line is that the Democrat Party itself is fractured and the Obama Clinton schism is just the visible sign of that.

The rules for nominating the democratic nominee was partially written by Jesse Jackson?!?!? *Spitting coffee all over the screen*

I like one commentator's lasting impression in my mind, has been since Hilliary ever had the notion to run, She will never be a good president in standing with the middle east because 'she' represents alienation from their mind set
with that said, that commentator resonates with me "Clinton nomination means a republican win." for me also.

tallman2short: You must not know that Obama and Oprah and Michelle Obama are the ones who brought out the race card.

They got 80% of the black vote in SC and other places, but it only fractured the Democratic party in a way that is going to be difficult to repair.

Black people are definitely voting along racial lines now, and you have to know that.

The black people used to love the Clintons before Obama decided to turn them against the Clintons for his own self-serving purposes. He only put a bigger wedge between black and white people, when, before he did that, the two races seemed to be getting along very well.

Now, we're back to black and white issues, when we should be looking at the American people issues.

Obama is a divider - not a uniter.

Obama is not the "hope" candidate, Obama is the dash the Democrat's hope of ever getting Bush, and McCain (who is Bush like), out of the White House.

The way Obama is working it - if he gets the nomination, or if he is even the v.p. attached to Hillary, McCain will treat Obama like so much red meat. Why? Because Obama has not been vetted yet, and the swooning biased media won't vet him.

But I can guarantee you that ruthless McCain will. McCain will crush anyone that gets in his way.

gw.

Was I dreaming (that's the thing to do these days, I guess) but did I hear someone say that Michelle Obama criticized Hillary
Clinton for her spouse, Bill Clinton, that if she can't control him, how is she going to manage the White House?

The more I see of Michelle Obama, the less I like her. She and Barack are both very aggressive, self-serving, pompous people.

I saw Michelle Obama on C-SPAN giving speeches and she always have this dark furrowed brow look, leaning on the lecturn and chastizine her audience. It is very unpleasant and I feel uncomfortable watching her. gw.

ben2: You and many others like you refer to people who support Hillary as low I.Q. minions.

I have two daughters, in California, one is a registered nurse and the other is a controller of a corporation. (They both worked very hard to get their college degrees).

They are strong supporters of Hillary Clinton, as am I, and my grand daughter who is 18 and attends college.

Hillary is compassionate, considerate, mannerly, educated, experienced and is a trajectory figure in America in ways that you, quite frankly, are not. gw.

bigguysgym said:

Lots of Obama supporters have pledged to NOT vote for Hillary Clinton if she gets the nomination.
* * * * * *

Where did you learn this from? Is this factual?

If this is true, maybe that is why Obama said Hillary's supporters would vote for him, but his (Obama) supporters would not vote for Hillary.

So much for Obama's rhetoric about unity and hope. gw.

Hillary can't choose Obama as a running mate.

Obama has not been fully vetted about his 17 year association with Tony Rezko.

Tony Rezko was arrested by the FBI last week and his trial to begin Feb. 27th, for influence peddling.

Obama has had a long and extensive close friendship and financial relationship with Rezko, who is an Arab from Syria, who receives huge amounts of money from people in the middle east.

Rezko has held fund raisers at Rezko's mansion for Obama. They have close ties and it would be foolish for Hillary to take a chance on an "unknown quantity," like Obama.

Plus, don't you think, after a rigorous campaign for a year and a half, that the nominee should have the right to choose their own running mate. It is a judgement call - that strictly belongs to the nominee.

The pundits are already speculating on the super delegates, pushing people into declaring their loyalties - not to the candidate but to their friends, associates and influential people in the political business.

There are jillions of calls being made by
candidates and their supporters to the super delegates. The super delegates, also, should be left alone to make their own decisions based on what they know and learn about the presidential candidates.

This whole media intrusion into our political system is bothersome, to say the least.

You know, and I know, that the media gave us the guy they most wanted to have a beer with and what did that get us? A war and an insurmountable debt.

What is the biased, swooning media trying to give us now? An unvetted candidate because he knows how to read a speech eloquently and movingly. What is that going to get us?

An unknown quantity, "roll of the dice," President that we don't know where his loyalties lie. gw.

Here's a site that has a list of where superdelegates are currently pledged:
http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/

The only way Barack will see the inside of the White House is as VP to Hillary. If you think the Clintons play dirty, just wait till the Republicans get through with him. BTW, who has vetted him yet? He seems to skate right through the press and just last week his confidant was arrested! Why the kids' gloves? Every week in these blogs, we keep seeing Monica Lewinsky showing up. Mudslingers for change, I love it.

svreader, you better give up hope for the HillBillys. They are out of money, out of votes and out of time.

We don't need another DINO HillBilly in the White HOuse, and apparently, most of the Democrats agree, both with their votes and with their campaign donations.

Obama/AnyoneButHillBilly 08

President Bill Clinton, should apologize for playing the race-card in South Carolinia.

It does not matter how many African-American Churches he visits, he needs to be honest about his conduct.

African-American Pastors should not allow the Clinton's to appear at there Churches to speak until he apologizes to the African-American Community.

Clinton/Obama.. OTFL

Nice try Terry McAuliffe-- corrupt hack thug extraordinaire, and his pathetic low double digit IQ minions.

You are the complete idiot, svreader, as this ticket, which would could have never appeared, because Obama is too much ambitious to gepardize his entire political career by the association with Clinton, would not be able to apper simply because Obama would win nomintion fare and square.

Time for the party leaders to tell Billary it is time to do the right thing for the party and the nation and withdraw from the race.

Buy all standards Billary, the inevitable juggernaut, has been crushed by the Obama insurgency.

With the Clinton name recognition and all their advantages, this is a repudiation of massive proportions. Stop the ego parade, cut your losses, and chose party and the nation over your self deluded, self indulgent, self pitying arrogance.

PatrickFrancis:

You say you attended the Summit, Colorado caucus last night - in a room intended for 600 but there were 1,000 people there.

I would love for you to give us a narrative about how that caucus went - did the people have to register before hand or just that night, the way they did in Iowa - Iowa trusted people to be honest that they really lived in the state.

How many votes did it take to win a delegate. Were campaign workers allowed to register and vote that night?

Were there trade deals that went on, like in Iowa? Tell us - we never hear how these things go. gw.

switak3: I enjoyed your comments. I hope others will take the time to really read it.

By the way, does anybody know how many people read this and other boards in a day? gw.

Chinese people love Hillary Clinton forever!!

Can Obama deliver once he gets into the White House?

Martin:

No, Obama doesn't have the big "mo."

Obama knows how to use deceptive practices to win caucuses. We watched him in Iowa. His campaign workers from other states come there to work, register to vote, and go to the caucuses to vote and influence other voters.

Think about how clever Obama is.

22 people in a caucus voting for Obama get 1 delegate.

9,000 people who vote in a California primary get 1 delegate.

As they say in NY, go figure.

With Obama so closely associated with Tony Rezko for 17 years, the Arab that came here from Syria, who receives huge amounts of money from the middle east - who has been arrested by the FBI last week, and trial set soon for his influence peddling, who has held many fund raisers in his (Rezko's) mansion for Obama, it does beg the question, "Just who is buying all those bumper stickers" and contributing cash on line at the tune of $60,000,000 when Obama was an unknown in Iowa (which made the media swoon), and in Jan. another $32,000,000 in internet contributions and more bumper sticker sales, that also made the media swoon.

What makes me curious about the contributions was a question asked of Obama - saying that Obama had received a large contribution from a drug company - and Obama, in his usual "na na na" style said that they weren't contributions from the company, they were contributions from the employees of that drug company.

Just saying . . . . .

If Clinton wins the nomination and forms a Clinton/Obama ticket, Senator Obama's role will be purely ceremonial leaving Bill Clintion to become the first Black Vice-President.

If Obama is worried about the super delegate votes deciding the nominee, why not decide right now that instead of spliting the votes as they have been doing, just have winner take all? If you win a state you get 100% of the delegates.

Not sure but I think he would come up holding the short end of the stick now because Hillary took what was called the big enchillada or the biggest prize (California)up until she won it, then it became no big deal. As it is Obama has the MSM reporting every small thing he does like he is a saint and beating up on Hillary at every opportunity.

People can not call all the shots and nothing is ever completely fair. If he is going to whine about the way the super delegates place their votes, then he should agree right now to divy up the voter delegates on a winner take all basis. (I know of atleast one super delegate that is committed to Hillary that told Chris Matthews last night that his state knows he is committed and no matter how the vote comes out they know he will honor his commitment). Wonder if that is what has Obama concerned? He thinks nothing of trotting out the Kennedy's and Oprah and then taking the credit for bringing out the crowds. (I have seen him give the same speech day after day and no matter how good it was at first it still gets boring the second, third or forth time around). I wonder if the crowds are coming out to hear him or simply because Bush has them fired up and they just want a change from him?

Whatever happens they need to resolve the issue now so there won't be hard feelings at the convention.

Don't hack at me because I called Obama, Barack Hussein Obama. I didn't name him that - his mother did. gw.

sroberts: I have been waiting for you.

You are complaining about relatives in the
White House: Bush, Clinton, Bush, Clinton.

Obama is related to Cheney. How does Bush, Clinton, Bush/Cheney. Barack Hussein Obama - Cheney, - sound to you?

Just asking . . . . gw.

I think for Obama to capture more votes from women voters he should send signals now that he understands how important it is to many Democratic voters that a woman be in line for the presidency, and he'd pick a woman for his vice presidential slot.

That, and underlining his positions on the economy, education and health, would signal that he's taking voters now supporting Clinton seriously.

obee1 said:

I honestly believe Hispanics are not voting for Barak Obama because he is a black man. This is very dangerous for America because it shows ignorance on the part of a very large population and a fast growing population at that.

What is the future for America if the fastest growing ethnic group is so racist against another group?

* * * * * * * * * * *

I say: Where have you been lately? Obama used the race card before he got to SC in a very big way - Obama's rhetoric on the stump, Michelle Obama's speaking on morning shows (they need to know this is possible), and Oprah Winfrey stumping in SC and speaking about MLK.

That was the way the Obama camp played the race card, and in usual Obama fashion played "reverse dirty tricks" and blamed Bill Clinton. Of course now Obama is back to playing his hope and unity card

But Obama playing the race card has created an 80% of the black people voting against Hillary Clinton.

I am asking you, how is that different than the latino people voting so heavily for Hillary Clinton.

I saw an hispanic on cable t.v. defending the latinos preferring Hillary to Obama. That man said that the latinos remember how much the Clintons did for them for the past 20 years, and they are going to remain loyal to Hillary Clinton. - That didn't sound too much like a racial problem, although I have heard that blacks don't like latinos, and latinos don't like blacks.

I don't know what their problem is, but if latinos vote for Hillary because she has looked out for them in the past - I don't think your criticism is warranted. gw.

The Clinton camp's claims of a victory today, after spending weeks retreating from a much stronger position vis-a-vis her other competitors, reminds of the story told by John Kenneth Galbraith of the debriefing of the German Albert Speer at the close of World War II.

How was it, Galbraith asked, that Speer knew his Germans were losing?

It was, Speer replied, because the glorious victories of the Fatherland were growing ever closer to Berlin.

Let's liberate the Democratic Party from the occupation forces of corruption and moral relativism!

The Big "O" has got the Big Mo !!!
Go Obama !!!

MARTIN EDWIN ANDERSEN

The idea of a Clinton/Obama ticket is very repulsive to me.

If Obama was the nice guy he portends to be, I would endorse the idea.

Fact is, he isn't. gw.

jcrozier1:

President 2008 = Dems all the way!

I honestly believe Hispanics are not voting for Barak Obama because he is a black man. This is very dangerous for America because it shows ignorance on the part of a very large population and a fast growing population at that.

What is the future for America is the fastest growing ethnic group is so racist against another group? Hispanic population is exploding and I also believe this is one reason why we must not legalize illegal Hispanics as a large number of them are uneducated and we should only legalize those illegals who have at least a 2 year college degree.

I would also legalize all European people who are here illegally because of their work ethics and civil background.

I sure hope McCain does not legalize these hispanics.

ccjenkins:

Good comment there amigo. I like the way you think, even if I'm not supporting the same candidate as you. Go Democrats!

Did anyone really look at the vote totals from Super Tuesday? If so, you will see that the actual vote numbers were higher, for Clinton and Obama in almost every state compared to the Republicans all together. This is a strong indication that either Hillary or Obama can win in November. Look at Hillary's, especially in California and Massachusetts it totals more than the Republicans put together. Simply put, if the election were held today, either Clinton or Obama could win. That's incredible. One more note. Some of you bloggers are very accurate in your projections. I read a few comments on this and other sites, that were 'on the money' for the outcome. Keep up your accurate research and do share it. It gave me a lot of peace these past few days. Go Hillary!

Cash on hand is what counts today. Despite Clinton's loan and despite Obama's January fundraising, what counts is what can be spent. No one will say that.

If Obama can pull off the wins on Saturday and next tuesday he's very much on his way to the nomination. This boost he'll get from those wins will give him momentum going into Texas and Ohio. As an Obama supporter I can say I'm starting to feel very good.

Obama/Clinton would be the only thing that would work. Having Billy as a "first spouse" would completely overshadow Obama's role as VP. He would want to set up "his and hers" desks in the Oval Office. Not cool.

Obama is the only president that can unite the WHOLE COUNTRY. Not just the Democratic Party. The Democrats don't need uniting. The country does. Look at what Bush has done to his party - it's in tattered ruins. He won West Virginia in 2004 but right now there are almost 10% more registered Democrats in WV than Republicans. Florida has 4% more Democrats than Republicans. States that were red in 2004 are not even going to slightly resemble a Republican stronghold in 2008.

And Obama is the man to guarantee that. Hillary Clinton's financially-ruined campaign has become the debacle of the 2008 election season.

Vote Obama. Donate today.

www.barackobama.com

Mcfield:

I'll agree with you on your final point: Hillary is the underdog now. She needed to win Super Tuesday dramatically because the upcoming contests don't favor her. She didn't do that. In fact, when the dust settles she's likely to be behind in delegates after Super Tuesday.

Let's think for a moment about what that means. How prepared can she be to "be ready to lead on day one" if she cannot even manage to hold onto a 40 point national lead when she had every single advantage going for her before she lost that lead and went from undisputed frontrunner to underdog status?

Conversely, how is it that people think Obama is not ready to lead after everything he's accomplished? He's built a national campaign against an all but inevitable candidate and is now the frontrunner? To me, that shows he's ready to lead.

Who are these 'white males' going massively to Obama?? Are we talking male chauvenist pigs here, who won't vote for a woman?? How terrible. This is an election about ideas, you guys, not sex.

I'm a white male from New York who voted for Hillary twice when she ran for Senate. I don't regret those votes at all. But
I believe Barack Obama would be a far better President. In addition to the less substantial issues for supporting him (inspirational, a clean break from the past, etc), he's a big picture thinker, has more integrity and took a principled stand against this disastrous war when others in his party couldn't or didn't. I've never believed in a candidate more than I do Barack Obama. It's why I voted for him during yesterday's primary and hope to do so in November.

And it has nothing to do with gender.

Great analysis!
It is good to see a media analysis from the WAPO that is not biased towards Obama.

The funny part is that many African Americans love the Clintons but once Obama was seen as being "black enough" (ironically thanks to the media spin of non-racist remarks by both Bill and Hillary) it is hard for African Americans not to line up behind Obama ( trust me I know). HRC needs to do a better job of reaching out to young college students. HRC needs to also speak to African Americans and say that if we really are moving beyond race, then it is important that African Americans can feel free to vote for either candidate. Of course the media will say that this is somehow racist and again put the Clintons in a box...if they say anything to peal away votes or attack Obama then someone will lable them as being overtly or covertly racist.

also, can we now stop with the "HRC lead by 40 points last Fall so she was not an underdog..." Remember Rudy also lead by 20 points or so but NOW he is out of the race. The two candidates are now well matched with Obama having a money advantage. The states coming up also favor Obama. This implies that Hillary is the underdog for now.

While neither Obama or Clinton can claim real victory when you look at where the votes came from- particularly in Ca with the Hispanic vote going to Clinton, it is clear to see that she can not win the general election based on Hispanic votes alone. Obama seems to have a broader base of voters in favor of him, hense a better chance of winning a general election.

And you wonder why Hillary has won all of the true and historic democratic states.... who is more republican now?....

Even with the Kennedy's backing him he could not pull off Massachusetts's.

I love how people think that in the dissolved state that our country is in right now... we could vote for a man that:
1) says he will unite both parties....and yet only has democratic backers.... (Hill even has Ann Coulter...if she can get her...HELLO!)
2) does not support universal healthcare: this will result in millions that are not insured. (Hillary's plan will insure everyone under the congressional plan that will have insurance companies fighting for your business, and Americans would be able to choose what plan they want...) - Obama's does this: The government chooses the plan and you; the American people either use it, or have no health insurance....hmmmm
3) About the Iraq war... umm he wasn't in the senate when they voted on it so of course he didn't vote for it! He probably would have if he had been in the senate... because he pretty much copies everything that the other democrats do. Plus if you actually read the piece of legislation about the war that they are talking about and look at the media coverage at that time...all of us were tricked and lied to. WMD my fanny! Haha. Um the legislation proposed allowing INSPECTORS.... Repeat....INSPECTORS! Into Iraq, (that means people protected by a small military convoy go into the little Iraqi bases and labs and poke around under the surveillance of the UN). That is what the people who voted on it believed it would be, that is what they were told... that is what we the people were told... remember Colin Powell? I do. This of course as we know did not happen... and Americans at the time remember, had just witnessed terrorists on 9/11 and the things that they could do, so yes sending the INSPECTORS in I think would have been a very smart and safe thing to do... So I would have voted for it too like many other democrats did as well.
4) he has no opinion at all. There were over 100 pieces of legislation he voted PRESENT for instead of yes or no that Edwards, Clinton and a sea of other Democrats have all pointed out. These included about 9 on ABORTION which if I can remember is a very controversial issue. I can understand trying to look good for the media... but having no stance at all to support the people of Illinois and represent their voices, really tells me what kind of a president he will be... allowing other people to make decisions for him. I want a President that will hear my voice and allow me to be heard... act on my behalf... because that is what this government is about... please someone correct me if I am wrong...
5) has no foreign relations as of now.... Hillary has 100's and international people from around the world support her much more than Obama. Just look at the comments and pictures from Europe to Asia, to Africa and South America...oh yeah and Aussies like her too.
6) he accuses others of mudslinging (especially on the MLK issue- where he accused Hillary of being a racist.....um do you know the Clinton's? HA! Even the founder of BET called him out on that one....She said that MLK of course was the leader of the Civil Rights Movement... duh.... but that she wants to follow the examples of president's LIKE LBJ and give voices to leaders with an important cause such as this one by signing it into law... this MLK could not do by himself...I hate ignorance...) After this crazy race stuff that OBAMA started by spinning words (which he has done very often in this campaign...) Clinton and he decided to call a truce. Two days after, however he was at it again on a talk show laughing making jokes about and accusing both of the Clinton's of racial profiling, slander and a slue of other typical mud slinging actions that very inexperienced politicians get into... dirrrrrty! Haha. And he talks about change....
7) after this he expects Clinton to stay quiet... umm she has been fighting nonsense like this from the Republicans for 30 years... so of course not. Haha. So yes if you are going to dish it out you gotta take some too. "Can't stand the heat...then get out of the kitchen"
On a second note I am soooo tired of the media targeting Bill Clinton. Of course he is going to stand up for his wife... Michelle does it too...but she isn't popular so... no coverage! Popularity sells people! Yes he is defensive, but I think that Michelle is worse... just the other week she said this about Hillary: If she can't control her husband and his infidelity than how is she going to control the republicans and the government? Hahahahahahahahahaha WOW! Umm really personal. The Clinton's only pointed out his continued drug use...sound familiar? (Cough* George W Bush...)
8) also....wasn't it GW who stressed that experience didn't matter... "uniter not a divider"...haha... I think that having another inexperienced guy in office will really hurt in the long run.. I don't think that someone who can't even speak without a teleprompter should be allowed in office... yes he is eloquent because he reads from a screen people... when he is debating see the difference! (You can tell when someone is reading from a teleprompter when there chin is raised slightly more than normal... kind of giving them a look of arrogance...)

I don't want to make it sound like I dislike Obama because I don't, I think that his want for change is real... as was GW's... but do I think he can actually deliver on that change without an actual platform or stance on important issues... no... do I think he is ready to become President of the United States? NO. Maybe in 8 years...
Being a person of words and eloquence is great... when you are a professor. Not when you are a president... you actually need to vote and act.

Plus he kind of freaks me out when someone does not agree with him...he gets testy and accusatory... I have a feeling he doesn't like to share and is a yeller, probably will make rash and impulsive decisions (again reminds me of someone else...)....haha

Who are these 'white males' going massively to Obama?? Are we talking male chauvenist pigs here, who won't vote for a woman?? How terrible. This is an election about ideas, you guys, not sex.

yes yes yes!!!! MC Vain"s OUTFIT WILL SMEAR THE DEVIL OUT OF THE QUEEN OF BS.

Ummm Dan....

Why do you say it's unfair for a 9% Obama victory in Connecticut to yield 4 delegates out of 48 available?

4 divided by 48 is 8.3%. This is almost exactly equal to the 9% margin. Actually sounds much more fair than most parts of the primary/caucus process. For example is it fair when one candidate gets the most popular vote but fewer delegates. Is Winner-take All Fair?

You example is a poor one. Is it only unfair because it happened to Obama?

Would Clinton supporters stop painting the fact that Hillary is still in this race as an astonishing accomplishment?

Lucille, it isn't an amazing thing that Hillary has "survived" to this point. She was hardly the underdog at the beginning of this. She was the undisputed frontrunner and a 20 point leader in every single poll in America. She has the most popular currently living ex-president as her hatchet man and HAD a huge money advantage, name recognition advantage and establishment advantage.

If you want to tout Hillary's virtues, such as her singularly brilliant mind and her command of the issues, then DO THAT. Please don't post disingenuous comments about how she is the insurgent now that Obama has caught up to her.

Obama will not select Hillary for VP, despite being on the "short list." It undermines his whole "Change" message. As for Hillary, I think it quite likely that she would ask Obama simply because he would do the most to increase her chances to win. Plus, though it is fashinable to be more cynical I truely think that the Clinton's personally regret the loss of blacks as part of the Clinton coalition and would want to try and repair the damage done.

The next few states work in Obama's favor but I doubt Obama will be strong in Texas. I think the whole MI FA thing will be a huge disaster.

Frighten a NeoConMan today with just two simple words.

DREAM TICKET.

Tuesdays results make the Dream Ticket a forgone conclusion. The vote told the candidates what the voters want.

Anyone who is against the Dream Ticket is against a united democratic party. And the Democrats DREAM TICKET is a uniting ticket for the whole of the USA that will result in a Democratic landslide.

Voters showed in New Hampshire and Michigan what can happen to a candidate or camp who is not out to unite.

A united Democratic party will unite America.

That is why the GOP have nightmares about it.

Any loyal Democrat does not just want a single candidate or a mere 4 or 8 years of presidency; they want a raft of candidates for both presidency congress and senate and the time in office that will bring about change and a New Democratic American Age.

They want to be standing up at the democratic convention with two winning candidates shouting "16 years, Sixteen Years, SIXTEEN YEARS!"

"Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket." is the Ticket that gives the NeoConMen nightmares; certainly no bad thing.

I think all Americans now know that ticket gives NeoConMen nightmares.

A united Democratic party is a shoo-in.

George Stephanopoulos and an increasing number of other Obama and Clinton insiders are saying the Democrats DREAM TICKET is now a done deal!

Howard Dean said last night also hinted the Ticket has deal has been done.

Check the Democrat blogs and forums. Insiders in both camps have said the deal has been already been struck.

The California Debate at the Kodak theatre was the public seal on it.

The message was clear from the start of the California debate, in the tels and the body language of Obama and Clinton.

Clinton and Obama were constantly agreeing with each other and emphasizing that the Democrats are united on all the key issues. The only attacks were reserved for the Republicans.

Candidates only do that when the deal is in the bag.

The pair burst into knowing smiles and gave each other the nod when the question was finally put to them; that them running for president and vice president on an "Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket." would be a Democratic Dream Ticket!

Clinton nodded vigorously when the question was asked and Obama went over to give her a hug at the end.

It is going to be an Obama-Clinton or a Clinton-Obama ticket for the democrats.

The democrats now have started printing and selling the T shirts, bumper stickers, buttons and yard signs.

The Democrats DREAM TICKET is now a certainty and it is the only ticket that will unite America!

If Super Tuesday was a heavy weight fight....Obama Wins 13 to 8

It seems like just yesterday when Hillary dismissed Obamas win in South Carolina and proclaimed ...Now onto Super Tuesday where "millions" ( code word for not just black people in South Carolina) will be able to let their voice be heard.... But in reality what happened in Iowa happened again in state after state. In electorates with negligible African American voters Obama beat Hillary. North Dakota? Colorado? Kansas? Delaware? Connecticut? Alaska?

Ok look at it like this (laughing as write) Obama won more "Square Miles" of America last night that Hillary... and that can't be disputed.........

Anyone know the rules of voting in primaries? If you are an independent and you vote in a Democrat primary are you allowed to go back to the Republican party to vote in the general election?

If you can cross over, I hope the extra white male votes the polls claim Obama got are not just votes for him so Republicans will be able to run against him rather than Hillary.

Susan9:

The talk of Clinton as VP is silly. He will choose someone with less baggage.

And, it would have been more honest if the article had mentioned that Clinton left her name on the Michigan ballot when everyone else took their name off of it, and she still almost lost to the "Undecided/None of the Above" voters. I think winning in red states like Georgia, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, in blue states like Deleware, Conneticut, and in bellweather states like Missouri that Clinton incorrectly claimed victory early in.

I think coming from out of nowhere to be in a tie with Clinton for delegates, with an overall lead in the number of states is a big deal. Obama has momentum, the kind that erases a 20 point national lead in a single month. Clinton will waste a lot more of her own money since she's currently reduced to loaning her campaign money ala Mitt Romney out of her own personal bank account and then fade out.

See? I can do patronizing too.

Someone asked if there's a way to see the list of superdelegates so that they can be held accountable. Here it is: http://demconwatch.blogspot.com/2008/01/superdelegate-list.html

I will be attending the Democratic caucus here in Bellevue, Washington, this weekend, where I will caucus for Kucinich as a vote of my conscience. If he doesn't get enough caucus-goers to secure a delegate, then I will move to the group of "uncommitteds".

I am truly torn about Clinton and Obama. They are both beholden to too many corporations and their health care plan proposals suck. We need single-payer health care. And they are both too hawkish for me, with Hillary being worse on this score. Obama is a bit too inexperienced to convince me that he's got the required maturity and stability, which Hillary definitely DOES have.

In the end, one of the two of them will get the nomination and I will hold my nose a bit and vote for them.. and then will stay on them to keep them accountable. They must reduce the troop numbers in Iraq, they must not go to war in Iran, they must reduce the military budget and the deficit. We really do need single-payer health care -- Medicare for all, if you must call it that.

What's amazing is that depite the onslaught of the media, the Obama Chicago Machine (Daly/Oprah) and the Republican Candidates, Hillary has survived and is ready to continue her campaign to the Presidency. This campaign is proving she has the fortitude, the smarts, and the charisma to be our COMMANDER-IN-CHIEF.

The talk of Obama as VP is silly. She will choose someone with more depth.

And, it would have been more honest if the article had also mentioned that Clinton "crushed" Obama in Florida where no one campaigned but he ran national ads. So, in terms of stride and winning in November, I think winning CA, NY, and FL are a pretty big deal. Clinton has momentum - the steady kind. Obama will sizzle in the pan for a bit and waste a lot of people's money.

To JakeD:

You're hardly an Independent, unless the polical spectrum middle move way, way to the right, then you can make that claim.

The likely reality is that you just love to troll the forums with baseless arguments. Or are a right wing "nut" with nothing better to do. Enjoy!

And yes, before anyone asks, I will definitely support Hillary Clinton in a general election if she wins the party ticket. I'm pragmatic enough to know that she shares my positions a lot better than any Republican would.

But god almighty it would be painful watching her and that smug smile and shrill voice on TV for the next 8 years as she triangulates each issue rather than speaking with the courage of her convictions like a certain alternative I know.

Sen. Obama may become the nominee but to think he will be voted president is just wishful thinking and devoid of reality.

The problem of Sen. Obama is the great racial divide between the african-americans and hispanics. He may get 80% of african-american votes but they are mostly in red states that vote republican so it is nothing. On the other hand, He may not get the latino votes because of this racial divide so it will not help him in the swing states like Florida and Nevada. We must remember that latinos are mostly predominant in blue states. It will even be a disaster if he loses California because of this latino votes.

That he has not been vetted thorougly. You can be sure that he will be scrutized completely and problems like the Rezco connnection will on the air almost daily.

"The only solution which will unite the Democratic Party is Clinton/Obama.

If Obama is the VP, he will have a very powerful role in the administration."

What a load of horse manure.

This is nothing more than a clever way for Clinton supporters to insinuate, yet again, that Obama isn't ready to for the bigtime and/or to join the grown up table in the Democratic party.

Clinton supporters should look very closely in the mirror as they continue to tout how Obama is not ready to lead. This is a man who has come out of nowhere, knocked an all but annointed frontrunner with every concievable foundational advantage off her horse and put her on the defensive.

Think about it for a moment. Barack Hussein Obama is now at a money advantage with Hillary CLINTON. She has the most popular currently living ex-president in her corner, started out with universal name recognition, a huge money advantage, decades of favors owed by establishment Democrats and, at the end of Super Tuesday with