The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Ten years after the Republican-led impeachment farce, it's sad to see so-called Democrats parroting old-style Republican Clinton-bashing.

If people would rather vote for McCain than Clinton, I say let them. If Democrats can't stand up for their own, we deserve to lose.

Clinton continues to lead in the actual popular vote, not that the opinions of mere voters matter.

Not quite sure why we're all bickering. I think they are both great candidates and the Democrats are lucky to have 2 strong candidates this year. Can't we save all this criticism for the general elections when there is a Republican we can pick on?

Last evening ABC-Channel 7's Charlie Gibson along with Georgie Porgie, and Diane reported Sen. Clinton as the winner in Missouri-but when the smoke cleared-Obama had won the state. They never recanted their claim. How biased. Who wins in Missouri it is said usually wins the presidency.

dhayjones,

I agree with your comments!

Sorry, I meant to say, we dont have to worry about our wages being garnished, because...

So, (alterego1 | February 6, 2008 10:41 AM) what your saying is that though Clinton claims she will bring universal coverage, we don't have to worry, because she will probably fail? Seems cynical.
If she is finessing the truth on this issue, what other issues do we need to worry about?

OmegaPrime,

I agree with all you said about Hillary, smart, shrewd, popular, strong, etc, please explain why you think Barrack is brilliant. I think he's intelligent, but billiant is far fetch. I don't think Barrack is brillant when he speaks of visiting oppose leaders within the first 100 days of his presidency. However, I think he has ran a smart campaign in raising money, perhaps that is brillant to you. If you belive that Barrack is going to get the republicans hold hands and sing cum ba ya and sign off on his health plan or other policies he has, then you are delusional. Now, that would be brilliant. Honesty and integrity are good attributes in any leader, but until Washington change, you will have to be shrewd, intelligent, popular, strong, wise, etc. That's the culture of Washington and that is how you get things done. Washington will not change over night. We have too many problems facing us to have on the job training. Experince, intellect, and brillancy is what's going it is gong to take in order to get get things done. Hillary record shows she had pass great legislation with republican and knows how to get things done. As much as she's hated, she has great accomplishments such as the providing healthcare all chilfren in California and providing bonus check for the veterans. Hillary is a doer and make things happen. Barrack is a dreamer and hope things happen. My money is on the doer.

I am another person who absolutely does not want the Clintons anywhere NEAR the White House, much less living in it again. Bill showed his truly nasty side pre South Carolina and Hillary wants it both ways. She wants to cry and tear up but be tough as armor. "I said I wouldn't tear up again". Yeah, right. She's smart but it's all about Hillary. We need to galvanize the young people in this country and Obama is the only way that's going to happen. If Hillary is nominated, McCain will win. Her nomination is a guarantee for the hate vote coming out in full force.

Anything that comes out of Washington that includes the word "MANDATORY" for all as Ms. Clinton suggests for her health care plan, will end up costing the people more than predicted or will benefit one politician or another. At least Mr. Obama's plan is not "Mandatory" for all

--Oh yeah,

and if Hillary wins, the only thing she's going to do "on day 1" is immediately become a candidate for 2012 and start doing more politically correct unimaginative status quo BS akin to voting for this stupid war, just to keep her power.

butterfly2,
Your "explaining away" of any Obama victory is like the republicans "explaining" that any current problem we have is due to liberals--never mind repubs' prolonged domination of all 3 branches of govt plus major broadcast media in FOX--and anything good is due to something Reagan did in 1983.
I was committed to working on Hillary's campaign years before she ever announced, but I will not vote for her now under any circumstances. I will vote Republican for the 1st time in my life if she is the nominee. Spin like yours won't change that.

For me Obama is clearly the superior candidate.

Here is a very nice article on NY times

http://fish.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/02/03/all-you-need-is-hate/?em&ex=1202446800&en=4bc11f3dff531f89&ei=5087%0A

Eight years ago, after watching the class and composure HRC showed as the GOP was crucifying her husband, the President of the United States of America, for getting a blow job, I said to myself, if she ever ran for President, I would support her. Now, eight years later I find myself in a position where I am faced with a dilemma of mammoth proportions. I respect and admire Hillary Clinton. She is on point with her take on America; she is well organized and has carefully laid out a plan for governing. She knows all the world leaders. She knows how government works. After 8 years of W, she should be the best thing since sliced bread. And she was. That was until Barack Obama. Even the racists, who can't let their mind believe what their eyes and ears are perceiving, know that this guy is for real.
Hillary is smart. This guy is brilliant. Hillary is experienced. This guy is wise.
Hillary is well connected. This guy is someone most of us in this world would like to spend some time with. Hillary is shrewd. This guy is honest. Hillary is strong. This guy is fearless. Hillary is popular. This guy is charismatic and charming. Hillary is pragmatic. This guy is borderline clarvoiyant. I am torn between to great candidates. I think I am leaning towards.............Obama.

Black South Carolinians voted overwhelmingly for John Edwards and then John Kerry before Al Sharpton in 2004.

Black Marylanders chose white Barbara Mikulski over her black opponent in her senate race and they chose white and Jewish Ben Cardin over black Lt Gov Michael Steel in the last senate race. In Ohio, black voters overwhelmingly chose white Ted Strickland in the gubernotrial race over the black Sec of State Ken Blackwell. In Michigan, blacks voted for white James Blanchard in overwhelming numbers against the Wayne County Executive, the African American William Lucas, in the 1986 gubernatorial election.

Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

Should that actual choice present itself (check), and a *good* black candidate to get behind (in other words, not Alan Keyes; check).. those are the only times we are "more likely to vote" that way.

Obama recieved a lot of the red states because Republicans crossed over to vote against Hillary as oppose to voting for him. In the general election, they will be not vote for Obama, they will vote republican as they always have. The reason why it appears as though democrats are coming out 2 to 1 is because republicans are helping to elevate the number. This is a false/positive result. I will continue to support Hillary who did not campaign in state such as Idaho, ND, and Utah, because no matter whose the democrate nominee is, they will not get the vote. Hillary intellect kicked in and thought why waste her time, effort and resourses and focus on real posibilities and not give false hope.

http://www.sbe.virginia.gov/cms/Deadlines,_News,_Events/Press_Releases/Index.html

"The presidential primaries are scheduled to be held February 12, 2008. All registered voters may vote in either party's primary, but not both. Voters will be able to cast their votes in their normal polling place. "

Whoever said that they would not be able to vote in Virginia's primary because they are a registered independent is wrong.

Troyboi is referring to the "general" election.

To troyboi20:

The reddest of Reds is Mississippi, not TX.

"I'm astounded at the number of people who say that if Clinton eventually wins the nomination they would rather vote for a Republican than a Democrat."

It comes down to a matter of character on the part of the candidate and a desire to reduce cronyism in government. Hillary is old school politics. I am sick of it.

Barack gets my vote. If not Barack, then John McCain.

Contrary to the Clinton brag, Obama actually has the experience I'd value in a president: time actually living and working with very ordinary people, including those who truly hurt in our society, urban organizing in a Chicago housing project (grass-root politics at its grittiest), 12 years state and national legislative experience (giving useful practical knowledge of how to pursue goals, work with legislators), and personal living in or intimate connection with countries/cultures quite different from our own. In contrast, Clinton's life has largely been spent as one form or another of privileged, no matter how charitable some of her activities were: growing up in nice Chicago suburb, attending an Ivy League-type school, working on the Hill, then in Arkansas, first lady, working for a well-connected law firm, on board of Wal-Mart. Then back to Washington as first lady, then as a senator. As first lady, she did get to visit abroad and meet dignitaries, but that doesn't give a person the same kind of awareness or feel for the basic realities of other peoples and lives.

Yeah, "the last democrat to win the presidency was a Clinton", and they were so yummy that even with a surplus, peace and a strong economy, ANOTHER democrat couldn't even leverage that LAST democrat's capital and lost to a horror show and testicle named W.

thecrisis, that's the best articulated analysis I've read yet. Thanks.

I caucused in Idaho last night, which Obama won by the largest percent margin of any state.

1,100 people came out. I saw two black people. 76% Obama, 14% Clinton. Even Democrats who say "we're not ready for a black president" or "jittery white voters won't vote for him" are as good as racist.

You know when you apply for a job and it says "do you think most people steal from their employers?" They ask that because they know that if you think most people steal, then you'll probably be okay with stealing. It's the same thing here. If you think most people will judge him for his race, that means you are judging him by his race. The only people that are not judging him are those that aren't considering his race as a part of this battle for the nomination. It's simply not on the table for me, and clearly for about 16,000 other white Idahoans.

the last democrat to win the presidency was not just a Clinton ... it was BILL CLINTON... lets not mistake one for the other... she was NOT the president i dont care how many lil cute stories they tell about co-presidency... she has the most experience being a first lady...not the president or governor... yes she has done a lot of grassroots organizing...she has worked on a lot of policy... but she wasnt in charge of anything until she got to the Senate... i like the choices we have and i think either candidate can win (it would be easier for Obama) but the whole experience and from day one crap is getting old...

"Clinton is a fighter - she went upstate and listened to her constituents and addressed their concerns. There is an irrational hatred toward her. Her actions define her as well, and I find her somewhat admirable."

My Fiancee's family is from upstate. They hate her guts. She came through and lied to all of them how she was going to do everything she can to help them because the economy there right now sucks. She hasn't done a damn thing.

She's your average, dirty, lying politician. Nothing more.

I am not charmed, convinced, or carried away by Obama's rhetoric. Change for what, to what, about what? This is politics. It's policy, deals, power. I don't want my leader to sound like a fired-up preacher spouting platitudes and buzzwords. Because of Obama, millions of young people are going to have their first taste of political disillusionment and disappointment, just as young people did before them with Kennedy, Bill Clinton, and Blair. Obama is promising the earth, and will deliver nothing. I am going with Hillary Clinton because she's about action, details, power and influence. She knows politics is a hard, dirty game. She's not promising us heaven, unlike Obama. Get real, Obama will fire you up, then fall flat on his face.

For all of you geniuses who thinks McCain is "almost a Democrat" or "close to a liberal", you truly need to get a grip on reality and quit listening to Rush and the gang! Here's a nugget of reality for you: he states he would appoint Supreme Court judges (three possible upcoming!) just like Alito, Scalia, and Thomas. My point? Get over the blood sport of vowing not to vote for either Barak or Hilary (which either is your knight or princess) if one or the other is the candidate, and vote for McCain. He would be another Bush, you want four more years of that trash? Not me!

As someone who supports Ron Paul, I could vote for Obama but not Clinton for the following reasons.

She voted for the war in Iraq. Day one in Senate her most important vote and it was wrong.

She supported President Clinton signing NAFTA and cost jobs and manufacturing in this country.

The economy is bad to a large extent because of deficit spending and funding the war and occupation of Iraq. She will keep a large force in Iraq. Obama would be more likely to remove the US presence in Iraq. The lowering of occupation costs would help the economy.

She would mandate health insurance and fine and garnish wages of those that cannot afford it. That only helps the insurance companies.

She is owned By corporate interests.

McCain vs Obama I vote Obama.
McCain vs Clinton Either vote third party or hold my nose and vote McCain.
I don't like McCain but I don't like Clinton more and don't see a whole lot difference between McCain and Clinton on many issues. I don't trust Clinton, she says one thing and does another, could NEVER vote for her.

To clawrence35: Doesn't Hillary Clinton have constituents she should be serving? I think all of them have current constituents except Romney... so what's your point? Check your facts on Obama and stop pulling things out of your ass, it's embarrassing..as a Democrat, for one.

An earlier poster commented that it "makes no sense" that some Obama supporters would vote McCain in a Clinton-McCain race. I one such Obama supporter, and I have to agree that it makes no sense.

But my dislike for Hillary Clinton is that deep. I live in Fayetteville, Arkansas, her one-time home town in the state where she was twice first lady. I cannot get past her politicking Bill's 'doing' an intern in the oval office into Moynihan's safe senate seat. The sleeze just won't wash off.

It's interesting (but typically of the kinds of arguments that they put forth)that the Billary crowd is advancing an argument that discounts Obama'a victories in states not often won by Democrats. I'm certainly not a political junkie, but I think they are ignoring the larger and more significant point: every poll, without exception shows that Obama will poll better than the Clintons against the Republicans in November. People have seen the Clinton movie and are tired of the divisiveness and the sleaze and the lack of vision.

'Jittery white voters'

There weren't any in Iowa, North Dakota, Minnesota, Utah etc.

People that are racist(Even subconsciously) see Obama as a Black man. The fact is his mother is white and his father is black and that makes his as much white as it does black. People in states with few blacks didn't see him as a black man, they saw him as a qualified man and that is why he won them.

"I don't think it helps Obama in the long run to run up 8-2 and 9-1 pluralities in the African American vote. It feeds into the perception that his success in big states depends on the size of the African American population."

Oh, you mean like the way you just feed into it? Why doesn't their collective vote count? Why is it so marginal if they vote for him overwhelmingly? Obviously, if he can win in states like ID, UT, CO, ND, MN, KS, AK, etc... where there aren't a heckuva lot of black people (at all), your hypothesis does not stand.

What does it say about Hillary that she could only carry the so-called elitist states, a landfill (NJ), and a few states that are "Hick-rich"? By the way, it was the Latino vote that saved Clinton, not whites. The fact that Obama split on the so-called white vote should not be too much of a surprise, as he is half white, which is downplayed because you (et al.) want to only see him as black.

"In a general election against John McCain, Obama's reliance on a strong African American turnout weakens him across a 50-state canopy, especially among jittery white voters.

'Jittery white voters', otherwise known as 'white voters'? I don't think Hillary beats McCain, as easy as a decision as it should be. I'm not so much anti-Hillary as I am pro-Obama... I'd rather see him MoveOn this country a little bit, pun intended, and not see the status quo. Hillary is definitely to the right of him, and their both moderates, to be frank. If it were McCain, you'd see him take parts of the south and a big swath of scenery, if he went up against Hillary, and that's unfortunate, as we need a Democrat.

"I don't think it helps Obama in the long run to run up 8-2 and 9-1 pluralities in the African American vote. It feeds into the perception that his success in big states depends on the size of the African American population."

Oh, you mean like the way you just feed into it? Why doesn't their collective vote count? Why is it so marginal if they vote for him overwhelmingly? Obviously, if he can win in states like ID, UT, CO, ND, MN, KS, AK, etc... where there aren't a heckuva lot of black people (at all), your hypothesis does not stand.

What does it say about Hillary that she could only carry the so-called elitist states, a landfill (NJ), and a few states that are "Hick-rich"? By the way, it was the Latino vote that saved Clinton, not whites. The fact that Obama split on the so-called white vote should not be too much of a surprise, as he is half white, which is downplayed because you (et al.) want to only see him as black.

"In a general election against John McCain, Obama's reliance on a strong African American turnout weakens him across a 50-state canopy, especially among jittery white voters.

'Jittery white voters', otherwise known as 'white voters'? I don't think Hillary beats McCain, as easy as a decision as it should be. I'm not so much anti-Hillary as I am pro-Obama... I'd rather see him MoveOn this country a little bit, pun intended, and not see the status quo. Hillary is definitely to the right of him, and their both moderates, to be frank. If it were McCain, you'd see him take parts of the south and a big swath of scenery, if he went up against Hillary, and that's unfortunate, as we need a Democrat.

In Senator Clinton's Real Home State, Ark, She won by over a 40%, a Much larger precentage than Obama won Ill. Of course every Obama supporter knows that Ark, and not NY is Hillary's Home state, but just like the Press they all seem to unable to be honest about anything.
I guess they are tried from all the voter intimindation at every Causcas, and from getting out the 1/100 of voters who are Democrats in the Deepest Red of the the Red States. That was a major victory in Alaska wasn't it, Obama won 302 votes!!!!!

As democrats, I think we can all agree that we're looking for similar ends. Realistically, the differences in the health care plans of Clinton and Obama are not too great. Moreover, whatever plans they have proposed will differ greatly from the final outcome. Remember, Clinton proposed mandates in 1992, and it did not work. There is little reason to suspect that politicians will go for mandates now.

However, the underlying point is that we are all after the same things. Regardless of whether it's Clinton or Obama, we will have a better health care system. Both candidates will re-prioritize our nation's resources to concentrate more on benefitting more of the middle class than the upper.

If that's true, then the real question, it seems to me, is one of means - how we get to the ends we want. For this reason, I think that Obama is the better choice. Regardless of how we feel about Clinton, we have to acknowledge that there is a fervent, if irrational, hatred of her and her husband out there. What that means, practically, is that there are people in office and who vote who are unwilling to compromise with her. If elected, I have little doubt that she will bring some of the reforms she has promised, but I think that each accomplishment will be accompanied by bitter and possibly needless battles. Obama does not come with the same amount of baggage. Sure, he'll be "vetted" by the opposition, but they already have enough and more against Clinton to stoke the flames.

So when you are deciding for whom to vote, think about how you want to get things done, not which things need to be done. If you like partisan wrangling and all-out battles and bitterness, then Clinton is probably your woman. She'll get things done, but at much higher cost in both dollars and political capital. Obama has many of the same ideas, but will likely have to expend much less energy to advance them.

Both candidates have the same goals - the bigger question is how they will accomplish them.

I don't see how Democrats could vote for Hillary. She supported NAFTA when Bill Clinton signed it into law. NAFTA sent jobs overseas and those that were to be retrained live in India not here. She supported to go to war with Iraq and now uses the excuse, "If I knew then what I know now," when Al Gore, Barack Obama Howard Dean knew then and Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul knew enough then to vote against it. She wants to mandate everyone buy health insurance and those that can't afford it will be fined and have their wages garnished. She would be terrible on day one. She is the least qualified to be president her track record is one many mistakes in judgment. We don't need that on day one.

You Hillarybots are unbelievable. Every time I resign myself to voting for her in the general election if she's the nominee, I read some of your posts and it makes me think maybe I'll just stay home that day all over again.

In other words--you're not helping your candidate.

Here in Colorado, the caucuses were overwhelmed...standing room only...because of the excitement for Obama. In my 50 years, I've never seen such enthusiasm. Of course, I fully expect Hillary to be selected. I mean, we voted for Bush...twice. It's not Hillary bashing, she's fine; I'd vote for her over McCain. But there's an anonymous quote, "All men are born equal, except for the great ones," America has that once in a lifetime opportunity that even has young Americans excited for the first time in years.

What I find interesting, that I have not heard mentioned yet, is that Clinton was only able to win NY with 57% of the vote. You would think that she would have won a little more decisively in her "home state". With Obama picking up 40% of the vote there, and thereby picking up 40% of the delegates, I would think that would be a little embarrassing on home turf.

atstern wrote:

"Hillary Haters-
Sorry to say, but Barak is every bit as much of a fact-twisting, race-baiting, slick politician as anyone. George Bush portrayed himself as a uniter who worked across party lines to bring together Texas. It's a promise as old as the hills. Don't be suckers for a dream unlikely to be attained in this fractured society. Obama is going to get the Republicans to go along with affordable health care, reasonable immigration laws and a woman's right to abortion? Please. At least take him for what he is- maybe the lesser of a few evils, but a phony politician. And would anyone vote for a candidate belonging to a church that billed itself as "unashamedly white"? I think not... I wouldn't."

what's wrong with belonging to a black church? Is that worse than a jewish synagogue or muslim mosque?

Nice negativity displayed throughout the rest of you post though. I think you slipped a bit at the end with the "unashamedly white" thing. It really did not measure up to the rest of your rant.

To those who are claiming that Obama is splitting democrats along racial lines,I offer this counter-example. I voted last night in a MN caucus where the demographics are 97% white, 2% Native American, 1% other. Obama took 75% of the vote. We are talking about young, old, long time participants and new participants. Don't let the press, HRC supporters or Republicans lead you down the racial path when it comes to Obama's wins last night.

Hillary Haters-
Sorry to say, but Barak is every bit as much of a fact-twisting, race-baiting, slick politician as anyone. George Bush portrayed himself as a uniter who worked across party lines to bring together Texas. It's a promise as old as the hills. Don't be suckers for a dream unlikely to be attained in this fractured society. Obama is going to get the Republicans to go along with affordable health care, reasonable immigration laws and a woman's right to abortion? Please. At least take him for what he is- maybe the lesser of a few evils, but a phony politician. And would anyone vote for a candidate belonging to a church that billed itself as "unashamedly white"? I think not... I wouldn't.

This is how this turns out.

There will be a near tie at the convention. Super delegates will decide the nomination.

Florida and Michigan delegates cannot be seated by Hillary as a way to "one-up" Obama. There would be two much outrage.

But they can be seated if Hillary was in position to win anyway. Seating them would appear merely symbolic.

Thus, Super Delegates vote for Hillary to give her the edge over Obama.

The Florida and Michigan voters are seated.

The party is unified.

McCain gets a boot in his .....

Lets not fool ourselves McCain is a conservative- what he is not is a hypocritical conservative. I have never voted for a Republican but if its a Mc Cain- Clinton contest I will vote for McCain. I would rather have a President with whom I disagree but but is driven by what he believes is best for the country than a President with whom I might agree but is driven by expediency and what is best for her.

I accept that there are many paths to same goal- liberal moderate and conservative. I don't believe that Senator McCain spent six years in a N.Vietnamese prison to believe this is about him.

Sad how some candidates supporters 'go negative'

If they would stop and think for a moment, they may understand why people are mysteriously bashing their candidate: She's Negative.

And worse: What she represents in the hypothetical event she were to win the White House...is a divided, Negative nation.

Think Positive: Vote Obama.

"All those RED States want Obama to win so he can be trashed by Republicans in the Fall and secure Presidency for McCain--------
100 years in Iraq war in Iran and Pakistan
Wars that our Great grand children will pay for

Wake Up America- read between the lines and watch republican tactics and money behind Obama Campaign."

In response:

Frankly, the Democrats have also dared to be different.

Both Clinton and Obama open themselves up to get trashed by the Republicans.

It is funny, after Bush, democrats are so scarred of Republicans.

If you vote on fear, you should have kept Biden in the race.

One comment cited the Dewey wins headline of 60 years ago - an error of total Chicago tribune embarrassment. Another comment complained about Wash Post bias, which I don't see as clearly.

But the Associated Press was the decider awarding Missouri to Sen. Clinton first on Tuesday, then retracting its decision - after the Clinton campaign echoed its premature headline.

Nothing in "Lead Flips After Clinton Claimed It" on Wednesday hints at the media role causing that mistaken claim.

"That may well be in Missouri (although it looks to me as though it was evenly split) - but in states were Dem's live (CA, NY, MA, NJ) the Democratic voters have supported Clinton"

I think it is quite an accomplishment that HC won the above states. However, I think what is important to point out is that the states that HC won are going to go blue regardless of whether it is Clinton or Obama.

I think what democrats really need to focus on now, that we have two awsome candidates, is who can win the White House and beat McCain. I am sorry, I just don't see Clinton beating McCain. I think Obama matches up much better.

I think Obama pulls the voters that count. He can pull people who don't agree with McCain's position on the war. He can pull some white male voters away from McCain.

The voters that Clinton brings are just traditional blue voters. Low income, white collar workers and women. Sorry, Clinton people, as much as I respect her, I just don't think Clinton can do it. She will mobilize the Republican base, and they aren't that mobilized now and we need to keep that way. It is possible for Obama to win some Red States especially close ones like Ohio and Indiana in the General Election, because he might keep anti-Clinton republicans at home.

Marks1153 said: Frankly, I think this race-baiting thing is worse than revolting.

Race baiting is the term for an act of using racially derisive language, actions or other forms of communication, to anger, intimidate or incite a person or groups of people, or to make those persons behave in ways that are inimical to their personal or group interests. This can also be accomplished by implying that there is an underlying race based motive in the actions of others towards the group baited, where none in fact exists. The term "race" in this context can be construed very broadly to include the social constructs which define race or racial difference, as well as ethnic, religious, gender and economic differences. Thus the use of any language or actions perceived to be for the purpose of exploiting weaknesses in persons who can be identified as members of certain groups, or to reinforce a group's perceived victimhood, can be contained within the concept of "race baiting." Many people who practice race baiting often believe in racism, or have an interest in making the group believe that racism is what motivates the actions of others.

The term "race baiting" is often a critique of anti-racist actions and communications implying that those who criticize apparent racism are themselves guilty of either a form of racism or of simple manipulation.

Of what do you speak?

Please get off of the Hillary Bandwagon. She is not going to be good for this country. Please look deep into her "plans" and pay more attention. The states that she won were simply because you have people who think they will get what they got with Bill. But let's look at Bill's record (Rwanda, NAFTA, 3 Strike Rule, Blacks in Jail, and Monica) so let's not be so quick to say it's going to be another Clinton in the White house. What good can change be when the same people who have been in there for years are still there. Bring Obama in and really see some change.

My first time on this board. It is easy to spot the Clintonites. One wonders why they are deeply committed to the politics of personal destruction. Frankly, I think this race-baiting thing is worse than revolting. I am a Democrat and think the Party should nominate a real Democrat, not a former Wal-Mart board member whose key Senate votes were for the Patriot Act and the Iraq War.

One question I would like to ask Hillary, and I am surprised no one has asked this yet. How is garnishing a low-earner's wage to pay for health insurance a good way of providing universal health insurance? This seems to imply that people are able to afford it but dont want to get it. What this will achieve is take away money for food, clothes and maybe mortgages and spend it on insurance. Wouldn't a better way of solving this problem be to talk to the insurance companies and the medical community to lower the costs? Isn't this mandate that you have proposed essentially punishing the low-income workers while letting the actual causes for high-insurance costs remain?

All those RED States want Obama to win so he can be trashed by Republicans in the Fall and secure Presidency for McCain--------
100 years in Iraq war in Iran and Pakistan
Wars that our Great grand children will pay for

Wake Up America- read between the lines and watch republican tactics and money behind Obama Campaign.

The press should stop fawning over Barack.

Then it should begin by asking him the really hard questions regarding his foreign policy positions starting with Islam, Muslims and al Qaeda.

Pin him down on his view of America's role in the world relative to spreading democracy, policing actions against al Qaeda in countries other than Afghanistan and Pakistan, and support for unpopular and oppressive governments currently supported by our government. See what his positions are on protecting oil supplies in the mid-East and how he would manifest these protections if needed. Does he see the war on terrorists as a job for international police or the Army. If the Army, what governments would he try to either undermine or overthrow.

Barack is 47 years old and reports that he has attended the same church for 22 years. What church did he attend from age 4 to 15? Did he attend Sunday School then? What version of the Bible did he study? The Republicans will inform us if he is nominated.

Addressing these questions would be good start. The Republicans will define his positions if he doesn't.

As a resident of Missouri, I find it particularly interesting that the only counties won by Obama were ones that contain large African-American and/or college student populations. Clinton won all the tradional Republican (rural, white)counties. In the general election, one can expect St. Louis city, St. Louis county and Kansas City to go Democratic...they always do. And despite those votes, the state goes Republican.

So, despite Obama's 1% victory over Clinton in the primary, is she not the most electable in November?

Spin this any way you want based on who you support but the bottom line is that it is a jump ball for the Democratic Nomination and this will probably go to the convention.

Each candidate has their strengths and weaknesses and I suspect this will be decided by brokered deals at the convention.

Very interesting political study.

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have had an idiot in the White House for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have had an idiot in the White House for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

I cannot understand the dislike of Mrs. Clinton!! She has a lot to offer, has anyone ever taken a good look at her credentials?? She is a bright, intelligent woman with a vision for this country and here is one person who will vote for her if she receives the nomination. The press ruined Al Gore, who, in my opinion would have made a fine president. Instead we have an idiot in the Whitehouse for almost 8 years!! Shame on the folks in this country if they listen to those bias commentators and newspaper editorials who continually slam anyone from the Democratic party. My parents were Democrats all of their lives; they were two of the most CONSERVATIVE people I knew!! Liberal, conservative, who cares, we want our country on track again. Obama with his sleze and fancy speeches is not the answer, he has accomplished nothing!! Unfortunaly I cannot vote in the VA primary next week because I am a registered Independent, but one can be sure, Mrs. Clinton would get my vote!!!

TeiaHarper said: Are you talking about a head to head match-up between a black and white candidate?

Yes. Given two equally attractive candidages the data suggests that. I've posted the link to MSNBC's national 'exit poll' results. It's a bit overwhelming. I wish the WaPo had something similar. If it does, it's not obvious.

Of course this should change, hopefully, during the next few decads if more blacks run for the presidency. But, the polling data are not promising.

PhilTR said

"Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

Posted by: PhilTR | February 6, 2008 07:41 AM "

Are you talking about a head to head match-up between a black and white candidate? The last time I checked, every democratic president has been white and black people have voted for every single one of them (after the whole republican/democratic party switch of course).

Let's also not forget that Jessie Jackson may have won more black votes in some states, but definitely not in most. Finally, back in December, the black vote was split 50/50 between Hilary and Barack. While I didn't put too much into Bill's fairy tale or MLK remark, he definitely bugged me with his "Jessie Jackson won SC too" remark. That's not the reason I support Barack, but I'm sure that turned a lot of black people off from Hilary.

What I don't understand is why the media is harping on that so much more than Hilary getting a huge percentage of white women. Some ppl will vote based on race/gender and some people won't. Either don't report it at all, or focus on it all.

Mr. Anderson...there should be more debates. See that would mean Obama (the pied piper) would actually have to talk to specifics...instead of filling up the room with empty hot air and nice sounding speaches.

I actually think Hillary would be a good President, and I originally supported Edwards but I am supporting Obama for two reasons. 1) Look at the map. Hillary does nothing to put additional states into play whereas Obama can make border states more competitive. NY and MA will support whoever the DEM is, MO, OH, IA maybe not. What Obama said is right - let's go into the general with the Independents with us. 2) Obama has brought in the young voters in a way that is very important for the future growth of the party. These young voters will be demoralized if Hillary wins, particularly via the shady superdelegate route. I will work my butt off on behalf of whoever is the nominee, but I'm just sayin'.............

"The arrogance of dominance." - or how to count your eggs before they jatch.Senator Clinton is living out her worse nightmare-a highly educated, assertive, oratorically gifted, american who looks like it, sounds like it, and acts presidential. Oh yes, how many of us would vote for a candidate who wears a wig to hide baldness? Some would say you can't trust such a person. Why wear only pant suits-is Hillsry hiding something?

Dewey Defeats Truman. Not.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21660890

Whites are more likely to vote for a black than a black voting for a white. Of course this is only the second time in our histroy that a viable black man has run for the presidency. With time this may change.

"Are you better of today or were you better off after 8 years with Bill Clinton as president?"

I think we were better off 8 years ago, before a certain NY senator helped give us the Patriot Act and war in Iraq.

Bill must be salivating at the thought of returning to familiar digs in the WH. Good luck to them, but I fear we will not see the return to the days of yore when things were better, in the next 5 years. Bush has devastated the economy--everything he touches turns rancid. Perhaps we've reached the tipping point and the 'cons have managed to shackle the American people with so much debt that we will can not recover. Hillary claims to have a plan, perhaps that plan will be unearthed in her administration. Meet the new boss, same as the old boss, only difference is gender.

Obama: mediocre, middle-of-the road platform surging from behind on the power of an energetic, idealistic youth movement.

Clinton: mediocre, middle-of-the-road platform propped up by geriatrics who vote on habit and name recognition.

The young own the future (whether they want it or not). The geriatrics owe the young (and not yet born) some truly massive debts, which they're going to default on -- national debt, climate crisis, social security, medicare.

Time for the young to wake up and take direction of our future. BA and HRC platforms look similar now, but politicians always know who put them in office.

So Give to Obama -- Make calls for Obama -- and talk to your parents and grandparents in upcoming states. Make sure they vote for Obama.

Grandparents are wonderful people. I loved mine and I love my parents too. But the future isn't theirs. The future belongs to the kids. Go Obama!

What is going on with the Hillary / Hispanic love in?

Is there something to this? I mean like a reason.

Also, Hillary enjoys strong support from Asian voters, especially the elderly ones. Who'd have thought they would like Hirrary Crinton. Strange.

Are you better of today or were you better off after 8 years with Bill Clinton as president? Bill certainly had his flaws, but the bottom line is the bottom line and most people are pretty confident that Hillary is not going to have an affair with Monica. All the other Whitewater stuff is old news. Even Ken Starr and $50 million in Federal investigations couldn't make anything of it at the time. Bringing it up will backfire, not that the Swift Boaters won't try. And do note think that the Swift Boat crowd is going to give Barak a free pass. "Educated in a madrasa...", "Accepted payoffs from a slum lord...", "Flip flopped on nuclear power regulation..." and of course the Harold Ford line "Hey Barak, ...". Dirty politics are just that, dirty. But whoever gets the Democratic nomination is going to face a whole deceptive and despicable boat load of it.

He's referring to McCain.

Obama will not win Texas, but he might get close.

Still, he has a shot at winning every primary in the run-up to Texas. That will close the gap on the deleguate count, but I fear this race will, in the end, not be decided by democratic vote but instead by the Democratic Party's vote- which is why, I think, the Clintons feel safe.

By the way, Troyboi, since when did we start calling Hillary the General?

yeah, truthseeker, but she's been running for 16 years.

I'm very disturbed by the huge bias I am seeing in the Washington Post reporting.

Hillary is AHEAD nationally in the polls, has won more delegates, and won the populous states of California and New York.

But try and get an honest article out of the Washington Post. I am going to other news sources just to get the basic facts and analysis.

Shameful!

Obama is strongly positioned for the Feb contests and is likely to turn the tide in TX and OH given a month in which to introduce himself to an expanded dem electorate.

Dems in '08!!

Posted by: garael | February 6, 2008 02:28 AM
-----------------------------------------

Im not sure about Ohio, but, speaking as someone from Texas, i would not count on Obama "taking" anything in Texas.

And even if you turn out to be right, the General is going to bury him in this state. He will not carry the Reddest of Reds and i fear this will prove out in the other Red states that he is claiming victory in.

Hillary, on the other hand, will get the Hispanic vote here in both the primary and general election, which will be the difference.

Texas has never been in a position to be a factor in a primary before, so this is going to be extremely important come March 4th and Edwards supporters in Texas have yet to decide between between the two remaining candidates. They will be key in the primary. If they go to Obama, Obama will lose the General in this state. At this point most still plan to cast a vote for Edwards as a protest.

The media decides who we vote for as much as the candidates do. People started off not wanting to "waste a vote" on Obama, but with him neck and neck with Clintons at this advanced stage, people will believe more and more in his chances, listen to him, listen to her, and vote for real change.

By the way, what is going on with the Hispanics? Are they getting some mistranslated message that the rest of us are missing? They like Hillary? I hate to be racist, but are they just more racist? I mean, I know the seniors are, and that's Hillary's groups right: the seniors and the hispanics. Anyway, just wondering.

Beren is laying it down.

Correction: Columbia and Jeff City have been split into different districts; Columbia in the 9th and Jeff City in the 4th. an unfortunate political compromise or maneuver. but I was just poring through 2010 reapportionment data the other day, and MO is slated to lose its 9th House seat and fall to 8 for the 2012 elections. that will lead to all kinds of interestingness. MO's current population is 5.9M (http://factfinder.census.gov/servlet/SAFFPopulation?_event=Search&_name=&_state=04000US29&_county=&_cityTown=&_zip=&_sse=on&_lang=en&pctxt=fph), so each district would have to include about 734,750 people each.

Analyzing Missouri on the Democratic side:

Clinton won St. Charles county, but look how close it is given their overt racism and overwhelming whiteness. A slightly worse result in STC and Hillary could've won the state. the overall win in MO was about 405,000 to 395,000. (after Hillary sent out a press release crowing about their MO victory--clearly they didn't know the historic patterns of the state--STL city and county are strongly Democratic and report last. we were down 14 points earlier on, but those two jurisdictions turned the state from -14 to +1) http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/county/#val=MODEM10

of course we won the state with big margins in STL. we got a 29,000 vote plurality out of the City and 50,000 out of the County. Also a 15,000 vote plurality in Jackson (KC). The only other counties we won were Boone, Cole, and Nodaway. that's about 109-5 we lost in counties, but we had enough votes to win by a full percentage point after the networks unfamiliar with MO politics called it for Clinton.

if the delegates are allocated by US House seats, we won the 1st (Clay) and 3rd (Carnahan) districts, and the 5th (Cleaver), possibly the 2nd (Akin!). I don't know where Boone, Cole, or Nodaway are. the totals according to CNN right now are that each got 30 delegates from MO. Russ Carnahan and Claire McCaskill are superdelegates supporting Obama.

Boone and Cole are adjacent--Columbia and Jeff City. Those are in the 9th CD which we held until 1996. And could pick up again with Kenny Hulshof retiring to run for Governor. But that district is much bigger, taking in everything north and east of there in the state. so we probably didn't win the 9th I'm thinking (though those 2 cities would be its population centers). Nodaway is in NW MO near St. Joseph, so no real help there.

I think Barack comes across as much more sincere than Hillary. I feel like she and McCain have been running for President for about 8 years now. Barack has sure closed a lot of ground in just a few months, and many people just don't like her. She is a liability in a National election, because of her husband. A lot of people who just plain dislike her will be energized against her. Live by the sword, die by the sword. Remember, she would have been unknown without Willy.
And what experience does she have? Supposedly Bush tricked her on her Iraq vote. That's scary. Experience? I guess Monica Lewinsky would then qualify for a cabinet position by that standard.

Political Punk-

With the exception of TN, AZ & her "home state" of AR, she won states that any Democratic candidate would have won. How'd she make out in her real home state of IL?
As for Barack's overwhelming support in the Black community, the Clintons always took it for granted and can now forever kiss it good-bye. You and your "jittery white" friends can also forget about an Obama/Clinton ticket. Barack certainly doesn't need the spunk splattered blue dress baggage that she and the Big Dog would bring to a ticket.

If you look at just the votes which were cast yesterday, as opposed to the mail-in votes, Barack Obama won California handily.

If you look at the votes by county with the mail-in votes, however, it's glaringly obvious that the big upset of the night was that John Edwards got up to 18% of the final vote in some areas, and probably averaged about 7% statewide.

That shows you how old those votes were. Pre-South Carolina. This will not be the case for the rest of the election. Americans today know our candidate much better than last week... and they like what they see.

So, was Obama's surge last week real? Absolutely! Is it still real? Yes! And it will be even more clear after he sweeps the next several states. He will also have the clear financial advantage too.

We have watched Hillary Clinton spend her corporate lobbyist money to slander a fellow Democrat and to mislead American voters. We have taken every low blow that she and her husband could throw at us... and now, they're punched out, hoping that they can bribe our candidate out of the race with the Vice Presidency. Now they're low on funds, coming to our candidate, and pleading for debates so that they can get some free air time.

It's pretty clear who's in a strong position now. After this point, all the momentum and support leans heavily to Barack Obama in the upcoming races.

What we have witnessed tonight is the high water mark for Hillary Clinton's presumptuous, overbearing quest for power.

Last week, her people were talking about Super Tuesday as if it were the end of the road for Barack Obama's campaign. But as Churchill said after the British people bravely turned back the great strength of Hitler's air force:

"This is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning."

Beren:

You have it all figured out. In a nutshell, Hillary is "toxic". The Republicans are in disarray. The ONLY thing that can possibly unite them in November is having Hillary as the Democratic nominee. We (Dems) nominate anybody-but-Hillary ... we win. We nominate Hillary ... ??? QED.

Thanks for your series of cogent, respectful, and persuasive comments.

I only wish I had a vote- I'm watching from afar, in Britain, jealous, envious of this political movement coming out of the US, envious of the quality of this candidate. Really. I voted once in the UK general election, in 2002, and never voted again. What's the point?

Now, if we had someone like Obama (don't care what skin colour)...

I hope y'all feel very proud of your support for him, and remember that America is being watched all over the world, and if he loses, I hope you all back Mrs Clinton who will favour a more orthodox approach to foreign policy. I like McCain as a person but remember the guy is a warrior, and he supports intensified operations in Iraq, he jokes about bombing Iran, and America deserves a better image than it's got- my God it does, just look at your festival of democracy that this primary campaign turned out to be!

Good luck, wish I was with you!

Nicely, and succinctly put, henni.

Beren

clawrence 35:

Obama's point is that he has a shot at the red states. He will win the democratic vote in the blue states. And he will compete in the marginals.

That's why he's getting endorsements from red state politicos.

To use Obama's popularity in the red states "where no dems live" (lol) is to get the wrong end of the stick. The Dems would be in more trouble if Clinton won the nomination only essentially to replicate the results in 2004, and hoping maybe to win Ohio, New Hampshire, maybe have a shot at Florida. That would have been a safer shot against a Romney, or a Giuliani, or a Bush-ite. But against McCain she'll have a fight.

Obama's race for presidency is predicated on his ablity to give the Dems as many shots in as many places as possible. That has been proven in the red state. The question is, will trad democrats support him? I think most would, but I may be wrong. And if I am, then the only plausible explanation is that nasty one: race. Then I suppose America's not ready, and people will wait a little longer for a radical, unity president.

clawrence35:

In response to a couple of your other comments (which were interesting, and which I respect):

1. I live in South Bend, Indiana, less than four miles from the Michigan border (and not that fr from you, I guess, if you live in Chicagoland), and I'm pretty sure Obama has a _much_ better chance of carrying our side of Lake Michigan than Hillary does. I mean, it's important to grasp that for a lot of Republicans and even some independents here, "Hillary" is almost the secular word for "Satan". That's not fair to her, I know. But it is how a lot of people feel. Remember the Republican debates? When it came to healthcare, the candidates who didn't have anything substantive to say could still score cheap points by saying, "We don't need Hillary-care." That's how toxic she already is in swing-districts. And she did deal with healthcare rather like Cheney dealt with energy (i.e. behind closed doors). This isn't a good way to build consensus for national change.

2. Just look at the polls. Obama does better, in a hypothetical match-up against McCain than Hillary does. (In part because of the dynamic mentioned in #1.)

3. When you talk about proven leadership, what accomplishments are you referring to? She was first lady, not president. As first lady, her main political quest (healthcare) was a disaster. (Because it should have passed, but didn't because of bad political judgment.) She certainly has had an honorable career in the Senate, but how exactly does she have more experience than Obama, who has also served in the Senate and done good work there?

4. Yes, the last Democrat you remember winning was Clinton. That's because he was really a (clever) defensive campaigner. That was his genius. He ran in an era dominated by Reagan. So much so that he even found it necessary to declare, "The era of Big Government is over." But Democrats don't need to do that anymore. Bush has so damaged the Republican brand (if you will) that Democrats can now campaign on their own principles and proudly so, so long as they aren't actively insulting to the other side. This is part of what is so behind-the-times about Hillary. She acts like she believes in her bones that if the American public at large really knew what she believed, they would never vote for her. One sees this in a lot of older Dems. But I think younger ones understand that their time has come.

Regards,
Beren

djstates,

Just because people are voting along racial lines, doesn't make Obama a divider. If you'd pay attention you'd notice that the vast majority of voters say they'd be relatively satisfied with either candidate. And who do you think actually has the skill to embrace voters who originally voted against him? Clinton? Ha! Her (and her husband's) primary tactic has always been to demonize anyone who disagrees with them, even other democrats, then divide and conquer.

Personally I can't imagine why in the world anyone would be satisfied with another sleazy Clinton in office. I've never voted Republican in my life (I'm 39), but if Hillary is the democratic candidate, that's precisely what I'll do.

Okay, to paixetjoie (good name, btw):

If you want to know about specifics, look at:

http://obsidianwings.blogs.com/obsidian_wings/2008/02/obama-actually.html

and Obama's own 'issues' pages. Seriously. Look, he can give a great speech, but actually, I think he's more impressive on the specifics. Google his 45 minute long interview with a Nevada newspaper and you'll see what I mean. I think the MSM has allowed this idea that Obama doesn't have specifics to spread, just because that's our stereotype of people who have soaring rhetoric: we think it must be because they ignore the details. But Obama doesn't at all. And unless _we_ ignore the details, we should do a bit of research, which would show that Obama pays plenty of attention to policy specifics. Really. If you're going to talk specifics, then go and do real research on them.

to clawrence35 all I can say is this: How many independent/Republican friends and acquaintances do you have? Because I have lots. About half the people I know lean Republican, but more than half of them would be really excited to vote for Obama. I often encounter people who mostly live in a Dem. community who really can't understand how much I's and R's dislike Hillary Clinton. I don't mean to denigrate them. I think they're trying hard to understand people that they don't normally meet. But they really don't understand how Republicans think. Those of us that do know lots of Republicans can only say, look, for the Democratic party, this is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. We know people who never before considered the Democratic party who are now seriously thinking of voting Democratic