The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

OBAMA IS A COPT CATTER .HE HAS COPIED JFK,RFK AND DR KING IN HIS ADS AND SPEECHES.HE CHANGES FEW WORDS ,MAKES TURNS AND TWISTS.WHY PRESS HAS NOT NOTICED THIS MASSIVE COPYING ? HILLARY WORKS HER DETAILS AND BACKS UP WHAT SHE SAYS. ASK TIM RUSSERT. HE REPEATEDLY AND SHAMELESSLY
KEPT ON TALKING ABOUT HER VOTE ON WAR AND WOULD STOP HER FROM TALKING THE DETAILS OF ISSUES ON HAND JUST TO EMBARRASS THE LADY. MAN,IF YOU LIKE OBAMA SO MUCH WHY DON'T YOU GET HIM IN TO A SBSTANTIAL DEBATE. LET NON NBC PERSONNEL MODERATE THE DEBATE TO BE FAIR. LET'S TALK ABOUT ISSUES GUYS ,SHE WILL SHOW YOU THE DEPTH OF HER PLANS FOR ECNOMY ,HEALTHCARE,WAR, FINANCIAL FIASCO CALLED SUB PRIME.
GET OFF THE COPYING AND TALK ABOUT ISSUES.

DJC

The fat lady sure hasn't sung yet, boys. I know this because I am one of the phat ladies in this country. When we sing, we'll be heralding in the first Madam President.

http://www.freedomsenemies.com/_more/obama.htm give you the back ground and a better understanding of what is there.
Take a minute and check it out.
Thanks

djstates - nice, pulling out the "present" vote to claim Obama isn't a bold candidate. Do you have any idea of what the situation surrounding that vote was? It blows me away the crap that people will throw up here in their effort to paint Obama as unacceptable. The writing is on the wall, Obama will be our Democratic nominee, and no amount of wining or dirty tricks will change it. And next time, do some research before posting (it's called Google).

shrestbin - Hilllary would never be where she was without the Hispanic vote, so what's your point? people are people and they each get one vote. geez.

I agree with everyone here that Obama is a gifted orator. There is no doubt in my mind that he could sway a crowd with his beautiful poetic rhetoric (which unfortunately does not seem to rub off on his supporters - I have never in my life read so many nasty blogs as I have from Obama followers!). My concern, as so many of us have already stated, is that talk is cheap and doesn't get the work done. Honestly ask yourselves, WHY does he not go into specifics? WHY does he not want to debate? WHY does he refuse to answer detailed questions? Yes, his policies are on his website, but who's to say his staff writers didn't post that on there for him, and he can't back it up because he isn't exactly sure what they are?
I want someone who can roll up their sleeves and make a better life for my family - not look pretty on a pedastal. I am uninsurable due to a pre-existing condition so I am for EVERYONE getting the chance to have healthcare. I live overseas part of each year so I know what we look like to other countries and I am sick of defending our people and WHY they vote like they do. I own a house and I don't want it taken away from me. I am female and I want to know that I am considered an equal in this society, and not a second class citizen. I am offended when Obama says that all Clinton supporters will vote for him, but not the other way around. I don't want to be preached at - I want results. The only choice in my mind is Hillary Clinton. Period.

Lou Dobbs called him "Precious Obama" and, undoubtedly, he's been getting a free ride from all media who'd rather support a Showhorse than a Workhorse anytime! But Hussein's flimsy resume and arrogant emptiness will be no match for McCain, who'll make minced-meat patties out of His precious rhetoric come Election Day! Not to mention that convicted slumlandlord Rezko gave the deed of the house next to his own to Michele O. The media will have a field day.

The Republicanos will not be as kind to 'precious' OBama as the talking heads! It's only the foreign media that dare ask questions of Obama's lack of policy substance and capabilities.

His Universal Health Care plan that leaves 15 million Americans out in the cold, is no match for Hillary's pragmatic UNIVERSAL health care that's similar to Canada's most successful national Health Care since 1965. And in Canada, it's a joke that Americans' primary cause of Bankruptcies is...Medical bills! Electing the media's darling 'Showhorse' over the brave 'Workhorse' [HRC dared say to the shocked Chinese officials in 1995 'WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS'] is like...giving the keys of your new car to your mouthy-but-convincing testosterone-fueled teenager who's got no sense of direction! And the American ship of state will inevitably become the Titanic in the hands of yet another Republican catastrophic presidency.

Too bad a country's direction has to be compromised, sacrificed to the CNN/NBC/Fox media's inherent misogynist policies. Woman-bashing is the blood sport of choise to these media morons--but watch them tear apart the Wonder Boy so that the Old Boys Club leader McCain gets his way! Maybe the dogmatic Ann Coulter has a right to feel more confident voting for Hillary, as she said, than supporting McCain. At least she knows which side of the Democratic Party's nomination is buttered for the Reppublicans!! Good Luck.

Mary Sakel

Lou Dobbs called him "Precious Obama" and, undoubtedly, he's been getting a free ride from all media who'd rather support a Showhorse than a Workhorse anytime! But Hussein's flimsy resume and arrogant emptiness will be no match for McCain, who'll make minced-meat patties out of His precious rhetoric come Election Day! Not to mention that convicted slumlandlord Rezko gave the deed of the house next to his own to Michele O. The media will have a field day.

The Republicanos will not be as kind to 'precious' OBama as the talking heads! It's only the foreign media that dare ask questions of Obama's lack of policy substance and capabilities.

His Universal Health Care plan that leaves 15 million Americans out in the cold, is no match for Hillary's pragmatic UNIVERSAL health care that's similar to Canada's most successful national Health Care since 1965. And in Canada, it's a joke that Americans' primary cause of Bankruptcies is...Medical bills! Electing the media's darling 'Showhorse' over the brave 'Workhorse' [HRC dared say to the shocked Chinese officials in 1995 'WOMEN'S RIGHTS ARE HUMAN RIGHTS'] is like...giving the keys of your new car to your mouthy-but-convincing testosterone-fueled teenager who's got no sense of direction! And the American ship of state will inevitably become the Titanic in the hands of yet another Republican catastrophic presidency.

Too bad a country's direction has to be compromised, sacrificed to the CNN/NBC/Fox media's inherent misogynist policies. Woman-bashing is the blood sport of choise to these media morons--but watch them tear apart the Wonder Boy so that the Old Boys Club leader McCain gets his way! Maybe the dogmatic Ann Coulter has a right to feel more confident voting for Hillary, as she said, than supporting McCain. At least she knows which side of the Democratic Party's nomination is buttered for the Reppublicans!! Good Luck.

Mary Sakel

omg Blissbloom! I've noticed the same thing (and my household is split, so this is not a pro-Clinton statement)... There is high feedback, no pic to voice syn, and multiple disruptions during Clinton's speeches on TV.

Sadly, I think that the media feel that they will sell more commercial time because more products will sell when Obama is speaking. He's a great speaker, but does this also say something about his target audience having generally 'more money' than Hillary's audience???

Dan

Finally, an objective analysis of the primary season. The real culprit in this messy race is the DNC. They have disenfranchised the voters of FLA and MI.

Obama won the Potomac primaries decisively. There is no doubt about that. However, if you look closely at some of his earlier victories from Idaho, Nebraska, and other states, the numbers tell a different story.

In Idaho 22,000 Democrats participated in the caucus. Nebraska has 320,000 registered Democrats and only 13% took part, 38,670. The numbers are from the D. Party from each state. With the exception of the Potomac races, he is winning with a very small percentage of voters.

Also, because of the DNC's proportional rule, he has benefitted by receiving more delegates. Out of California's 53 districts, Clinton won 42 of them. However, she received 207 delegates to Obama's 163. If we had a winner take all, Hillary would have 316 to Obama's 54. She has won in most of the big population states. But, there is no question, she has to win in Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

The media is a player in this race. Her victories are downplayed, her supporters belittled, and her name vilified. On the other side, many negative comments about Obama are dismissed as racism. As the front runner, the scrutiny on him will intensify and he can't hide behind the racism firewall.

People love a dumb blonde, but, increasingly -- sadly -- I'm not sure they're ready for a smart one... to lead. I've observed, for example, how even CNN slants towards Obama -- the way they have been talking for a month, he is closing in on the nomination -- but it's only this week after the Potomac primaries that he actually surpassed Clinton in delegates. Yet, to hear them talk over recent weeks, she's going down. Or the way, on Super Tuesday, for all the other candidates' speeches at the end of the long night, we got beautiful reception -- but suddenly when Hillary is speaking -- the picture and sound are mysteriously not synced up -- so she didn't get to shine as she should have on that night. And you can argue me down some other time -- the way the Kennedy men have treated their women -- the implicit misogyny involved -- I am sure that Ted Kennedy was only too happy to find someone besides Hillary who so "inspired."

Even on 60 minutes on Sunday, Hill keeps getting asked by Katie Couric, "well, what if you lose, Hillary?" but what if you lose, if you lose, if you lose? Why is she asking that now? It sends a message that she is losing and that she will lose -- again -- at a moment when Clinton was actually ahead in delegates. And we have Obama waxing eloquent in his interview, and what makes it into Hill's interview is how she drinks water and no more diet soda and eats chili peppers to stay well on the campaign trail! I had to laugh at this.

And then, then, my eye glances to a National Enquirer in the store with a headline that Bill plans to divorce Hill if she loses the election! How come they get to do that -- Hillary is tabloid gossip and Obama is, well, Saint Obama.

Finally, I agree with the first person who posted here -- I marvel at Obama's audacity -- his oh i'm so much holier than thou about Hillary's vote for the resolution which led to war in Iraq. He didn't even vote! Let him talk when he has actually had more experience in the Senate. How can he compare her vote to his non-existent vote as a sign that he will be "right on day one."

Finally, I think it's interesting he has turned down debates with Clinton recently. He knows he loses in those. His forte is standing up and delivering rousing monologues -- and I tell you, I give him my vote for Best Monologuist. I don't doubt his idealism (nor did I doubt Jimmy Carter's). I doubt his ability to be effective, and am wary of the day when his idealism runs smack into REALITY on day one.

I hope the people in the States remaining wise up and quit confusing eloquent oratory with an ability to lead our country on day one.

Hillary Clinton knows what she is talking about. She conveys knowledge, action, and specifics about how she is going to make change happen. She has a proven track record of success. Barack Obama talks in hopes and dreams, which is indeed uplitfing, but will not create change, nor does he have a track record of creating change. He has a track record of not being able make decisions during critical legislation, and thus voted "present" , which does not support change. It shows how weak he can be. This should be discussed.

So many of the comments posted here are naive. I am a Democrat, and have been one all of my life. I am a Hillary supporter, because I feel confident she can get our economy BACK ON TRACK. The fact that the value of our dollar is so low makes me sick to my stomache!!

If George Bush had not done so much damage, then the stakes would not be so high. But they are, and this is not a time to bring in someone who will need on the job training. NO THANK YOU!

I absolutely believe the Republicans will verbally execute Mr.Obama if he wins the Democratic Primary. McCAIN will take the White House if he does. There is no doubt in my mind!!

Hillary can go up against McCain and win this thing. Here's hoping that things turn around before it is too late. This is not a popularity contest, or running for High School President. We are talking about the President of the United States Of America!!

We cannot afford to blow it this time around. WAKE UP PEOPLE!!Please, before it is too late...

vishlag_99: Brilliant comment! Finally soneone has the courage the say the truth. I know people get angry because they don't want to hear the truth but sooner or later they will learn the hard way. Unfortunately, it might be too late.

vishalg_99: Excellent comment! Obama will be eaten up alive by the GOP attack machine and McCain. I am also right of movon.org and left of center. And I also can't see myself voting for the drawn out hope and inspiration rhetoric.

HILLARY '08

I actually meant also bravo to vishalg_99

Bravo to Jake D, your comments are right on the money. To everyone else please Pay Attention to the Following Names. Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, Dwight David Eisenhower, John Fitzgerald Kennedy, Lindon Banes Johnson, Richard Mihouse Nixon, Gerald R. Ford, George Herbert Walker Bush, William Jefferson Clinton, George Walker Bush. Why is it acceptable to mention the middle names of all of these presidents but when someone says Barak "Hussein" Obama they are racist and or drawing a divide? This is only one example of how from the very beginning Obama has been getting a free pass from the press because they are so afraid of being accused of anything that could border on racism, it is too bad they don't feel the same way about sexism. I don't think gender or race is any reason to vote against a candidate, however I also don't think it is any reason to vote for them either. Everyone seems to forget that Obama now has more experience running for President then he had as a Senator before his bid. The press is treating this contest as if it has no significance on the world around us when we are talking about the leader of the free world. Everything about every candidate running for President should be open for discussion from their experience to their name, to their church, to their upbringing, because all of those things add up to a person's ideology.

Many Democrats forget this is not an election for the Presidency but for the Democratic nominee. They also forget that the only person to beat the Republicans in a general election since 1976 (32 years) is Bill Clinton. If Obama wins the nomination he will get my vote however the Democrats are not doing him any favors sparring with kid gloves. This is John McCain's last chance and he has been waiting for this moment all of his life. After seeing what was done to him by "W" in 2000 and what he just did to Romney in Florida, I can imagine that he will use every trick in the book in order to fulfill what he feels is his destiny. Mr. McCain will certainly adhere to the old adage that the ends justify the means.

While the present popularity contest to crown the king or queen of the liberals is being run between Hillary Clinton and Barak Obama, you can bet that the Big Military Commander, Daddy Protector McCain will be running against the weak kneed, inexperienced, bleeding heart African American liberal, Barak "Hussein" Obama in the general election.

it is really electrifying when you hear obama speaks. very inspirational too. the last time i heard somebody speak like that was when i was in high school. but honestly at the end of the day, when the chants and the dances are over, you realize the biggest responsibility in the world will be in junior's hands. i wonder, wouldn't that be too much for 'junior'? maybe we need to outsource the job too, huh?

How many Obama supporters have lived in the state he's been a senator for are posting comments to this article? Under his so-called "heath care reforms", health care coverage for my then 6 year old daughter was so expensive (at a time when I was unemployed, mind you), that I still could not afford to purchase the insurance for her. Barack Obama is not perfect, folks. Rezko is a slum. The property his house is on here in Chicago was purchased from Rezko, that's how closely connected he is to that bum. All successful politicians are touched by dirt (Hillary included). Obama is getting an easy pass from the media to boot. This is his moment, and he'll seize it. But when the smoke from his beautifully rousing, poetic speeches clears... we might be looking at a different picture.

vishalg99-
There were a million people marching in protest in NYC when the congress authorized war...so forget that one man in a corn field story. Wake up! She has blown it.
I heard things were really great when Ike was president too.
Looking forward to more deep thoughts from you.

I agree with vishalg_99. Look at the Obama web site - the image of the savior rising arms spread from the clouds is straight out of a religious revival. And the Obamanites attack any deviation from the faith as heresy. If the Obama supporters are upset that Hillary wants to give LBJ a little credit for getting civil rights legislation through Congress and signed into law, how are they going to respond to the Swift Boat crowd and their scurrilous attacks unrestrained by truth or civility. Part of Obama's appeal is that he is a largely blank page and his supporters imagine he supports whatever it is that they support. Voting "present" is such a bold statement; it really defines the candidate. The Republican attack machine will be only to happy to fill the Obama vacuum with distortions and vitriol. Think McCain is such a principled and decent man that he would never resort to such tactics? First, talk to his opponents, and second talk to the Swift Boat crowd. McCain won't be able to reign them in even if he wants to.

where DO the "undecided" look to get answers? I believe the media pulls them in and they walk away...with a dazed...starry eyed look on their faces as they chant "O-Ba-Ma"....and when asked why they favor him they once again begin to chant..with a slight variance in the wording ---"Change,Change"...and when asked...what change might you be hoping for...they simply stare at you blankly for a few moments...and return to the safety of their chant ..."O-Ba-Ma...O-Ba-Ma".

nalao467: many people I know agree with that.
btw, LOL was for what Tim1979 said. The Obamamania 'chanting' is something else!

I agree with vishalg_99.

nala0467...
you gotta be kidding! Could you honestly sleep better with Mr. "bam-bam-bam bam-bam iran" McCain, the guy who thinks we should have stayed longer in Vietnam, and says he will stay in Iraq for 20, 60, 100 years if necessary to win. (Whatever the definition of "win" is????)

If Hillary loses, I'll just vote for McCain, I can sleep better in that scenario.

wow jbleenyc. So let's see, I fall into the educated (post-graduate) category, so I voted for Obama because I think it's "cool". Hmm, I haven't been accused of doing things just to be "cool" for 30 years or so! I'm also in the career woman category, so I'm envious of Hillary! Honestly. As a woman, I am proud of Hillary's accomplishments and I think it is great that gender is not a barrier to her being a very competitive candidate. I liked Vishalg_99's post, but I side with junkmail and ovwang. The prism though which you see Hillary is very different than mine.

I decided that Obama was my preferred candidate long before Obamamania started, but on the eve of our caucuses, I was still on the fence. Not because I wanted
Clinton to be president, but because I wasn't sure Obama could win. He had an uphill battle from the beginning against an overwhelming favorite with infinitely more name recognition. To win against against Clinton's name-recognition, he would need to be one of those 1 in a century people who are able to electrify the public. He had to be one those people, like Bill Clinton, who bring people to tears. So the night before our vote, I watched the rallies. I became convinced, like many others, that he is one of those 1 in century people who can inspire a nation. Then again maybe he'll crash, either in the election or as a president, and you then can happily gloat. But, unlike you, I put high odds on a Clinton presidency being a nightmare, so Obama seems like the wiser choice.

Anadromous2:

Is the "smoke" an allusion to Obama's drug abuse vs. Clinton "not inhaling"?

To vishaig_99: I almost fell asleep at your third sentence. Get a life.

To Mr. Balz: Are pro-Hilary hack jobs necessary on Potomac Promary Election Day. Shame on you.

And, to everyone else:

GO OBAMA

If Hillary can't win the nomination outright , she should go back to Senate and focus on co-sponsoring with Ted Kennedy a solid healthcare bill that can get through the Congress and onto President Obama's desk. If she loses her bid to be president, she will not be on the Democratic ticket. Here's why.

Hillary draws negative ads like a garbage dump draws flies. She and Bill have not been "fully vetted;" there are many serious fundraising and ethics issues upon which the GOP will focus. Questions linger from the Clinton presidency concerning the connections between their zealous pursuit of contributions from foreign corporations and the breaching of national security by the Chinese military. Hillary still needs to answer about Bill's steering potential Tsunami relief donors to his own foundation, as well as his influence peddling and contravening US foreign policy in Kazakhstan. Since the elder Bush was working with Bill on Tsunami Relief, he can provide McCain and the swift-boaters with information that will energize and unite the GOP voters. Also Hillary's withholding of her tax and archival records spells trouble, for as we have seen with the Clinton: "Where there's lots of smoke, there is fire. The Clintons are magnets that attract the GOP. So why would Obama want to have that kind of taint and drag on his general election run?

Bill has said he will continue to be directly involved with his Foundation. Barack does not need a loose cannon like Bill on the lower decks of the ship of state. Does anyone remember that Roger Clinton had to be pardoned ?

I don't trust Hillary to carry water for Obama's candidacy. The Clintons do need to prove that they will work for another presidential nominee; but Hillary didn't work for Gore; Bill went under the knife rather than work for Kerry. Are they self-interested saboteurs? Why should Obama need to worry if his message and candidacy are being undermined when he can choose a running mate who demonstrates that he is leading us tin a fundamentally new direction?

The two hidden issues that lay at the bottom of the political barrel are race and Iraq. Hillary has little credibility on either issue. In both cases, when it came time to make decisions, she chose a path that exacerbated the problems instead of offering positive, healing solutions. By acts of omission or commission, Hillary and Bill have undermined her credibility and good judgment.

Hillary had best win the nomination outright this spring; otherwise, she's heading back to the Senate.

LOL!
Thanks for the chuckle!

As usual.. Reporters push the goal post back for Hillary..
Here are some examples

Hillary's Goal to out raise Obama..
That failed.. Obama out raised her.

Win Iowa
Terry McAuliffe, "We've got an unprecedented field operation in Iowa, [Our] field is very good [and] we're prepared for the long haul."

Hillary's goal to make NH and NV her "firewall"
Obama wins SC big.

Hillary's goal per Terry McAuliffe on the Democratic nomination. He said it will be"done on the evening of February 5th."
2/5/2008 Obama wins more states and more delegates.

Hillary's goal to win Maine.
Hillary loses. It didn't count because it was a caucus..

Hillary's goal to skip "red states and other states in February and win in Texas and OH..

In the end Obama has more states, more delegates and more votes and the media still covers for Clinton. Had the reverse been true the media would be urging Obama to get out the race.

Sure, our nation faces a whole range of problems. But not to worry! Senator Obama has promised that if he's elected President, he'll chant our way out of it. Yes we can! Yes we can! Yes we can!

Or perhaps he'll use his new chant, inspired by the article in Monday's WSJ: "On a conference call to prepare for a recent debate, Barack Obama brainstormed with his top advisers on the fine points of his positions. Michelle Obama had dialed in to listen, but finally couldn't stay silent any longer.'Barack,' she interjected,'Feel -- don't think!'"

Kind of sums up Senator Obama's message to Dem voters. All together now, children: Feel! Don't think! Feel! Don't think!

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

ANOTHER TOP CLINTON SUPPORTER ENGAGES IN RACE MONGERING ...

TPM Election Central reports:

Gov. Ed "Don't Call Me 'Fast Eddie' " Rendell met with the editorial board of the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette last week to talk about his latest budget. But before turning the meeting over to his number-crunchers, our voluble governor weighed in on the primary fight between Hillary Rodham Clinton and Barack Obama and what the Illinois senator could expect from the good people of Pennsylvania at the polls:

"You've got conservative whites here, and I think there are some whites who are probably not ready to vote for an African-American candidate," he said bluntly. ...

There will be a majority of 'center' (NOT liberal) voters who will vote for the GOP candidate in the general election. It will be the safe choice for them. Too bad you don't understand the general electorate of this country. It's much different than the primary electorate. And it's also too bad you didn't want to vet your candidate before the GOP had a chance to do it.

All of these comments seemm to lack the undeniable class that Obama exudes in h is writing and in every choice, every statement. I'm voting for him because he expresses what this country ought to be about better than anyone in print or on television. And because he had the remarkable sense to recognize a winner when he met Michelle and marry a strong, articulate woman. Maybe a moment or two of meditation would help us all. Yes, we can. L. Clark

Brilliant post, vishalg_99. Too bad most people use emotion rather than reason when they make their choice (which is how we ended up with George W. Bush, of course).

vish, give me a break. You couldn't be more conscending and contemptuous of voters if you were behind a desk with a mike and the MSNBC logo was behind you.

amadeus and wilkins, anytime you want to jump ship and vote for the 71 year old with the same 'ole ideas as Bush, have at it. Although something tells me you already have. Bye now!

Sorry Dan - but first, applause for poster Vishalg_99! Thanks for trying - but some of the Obama folks will not be swayed. Just be glad some of them were interested enough to read your remarks!

And Dan - I also agree with you. No matter the momentum - the Clintons are not quitters, and I have hopes that they will prevail in the end. The fact is that Hillary will be better for our country. Sure she has faults - like Obama and others who have aspired or who have been presidents - but in this serious time, we need someone who can come right out and get things done. She is the one.

I have always liked Barack Obama. I admire him. But I don't trust him to see us though the next four years. And the problem with his fans is that they are regarding his campaign as something like an American Idol contest - he is regarded in many places more as a celebrity rock star than as a serious candidate for the highest office in the land. This goes for his youth vote. For his educated/affluent vote - it is "cool" to support him. For the black vote - it is justifiable pride. For the white male - it is more an anti-Hillary (and Bill) vote, maybe a bit sexist. And for the career women - it may be a bit of all of the above, including a touch of envy or jealousy.

So may the best person for the job win. Don't count anyone out just yet!

joy2:

You are assuming that Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Inouye, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone, and Wyden read the entire 92-page classified intelligence report -- I cannot find any assertion that they did (although Biden did read it and voted for the war) -- rather than simply voted against Bush regardless.

Obama is going to win...get over it

IT'S THE POLITICS, STUPID.

The best politician wins.

Guess who that is?

Obama will win the nomination and make crone drones like vishalg_99 like it.

Obama will win the election and make the rightards of this country like it.

vishalg_99 that was a very cute letter you wrote. It was oozing with conventional wisdom! My question to you, is haven't you figured out that conventional wisdom means nothing in this race? Obama will be the nominee and the president. The only way McCain will win, is matched up against HRC!

Remember these words: no star, no matter how shiny, is about to jump straight from a state legislature to the White House."
Oh, do you recall where Abrahm Lincoln was before his election to the White House?
MV1984

vishalg_99
Senator Clinton tested the political winds and voted to authorize the Iraq war. Period. Why didn't she read the intelligence that convinced Senators Akaka, Bingaman, Boxer, Byrd, Conrad, Corzine, Dayton, Durbin, Feingold, Graham, Inouye, Kennedy, Leahy, Levin, Mikulski, Murray, Reed, Sarbanes, Stabenow, Wellstone, and Wyden, that the invasion of Iraq wasn't a priority? Given her "years of experience" in the whitehouse, Hillary should have known the Iraq invasion was being pushed by the same neocons that tried repeatedly to get Bill to invade Iraq. (reference PNAC)

Jeff, you're quoting the number of pledged delegates, not the number of individual voters.

"California was where Bobby Kennedy won in 1968, a victory that likely would have given him the nomination over Eugene McCarthy had he not been assassinated leaving his victory celebration."

Not to be picky, by historical accuracy is important. Actually, by the June California primary, McCarthy had faded badly and was no longer a serious contender for the nomination. Hubert Humphrey was Kennedy's main challenger and had some significant institutional advantages under the way delegates were pledged in those days. Kennedy, had he lived, would still have had a rough road to the nomination.

The total number of votes cast in the Maine Democratic caucus was 3476. The total number of registerd Democrats in the state is 309,525 (source: http://maine.gov/sos/cec/elec/enr/enr06g.html. So 1.123% of Democrats voted. It is true that of these, 59% voted for Obama. But it is difficult to belive that this small sample of committed voters is represenative of the entire Democratic voting population. To say that there is a groundswell of movement in Obama's direction is ludicrous in the face of these numbers. The same is true of Washington state. Of the 3,281,428 registered voters (I could not find the number of registered Democrats), 31,621 cast votes in the Democratic caucus.

We should all take credit for our husband's accomplishments. That's true feminism.

where would obama be without the african american vote? what a lame statement. where would hillary be without the women's and latino vote? should we keep marginalizing certain segments of society to come up with a "true" winner?

Perhaps this close contest has acheived what DNC rules couldn't--the fact that no ONE or TWO primaries/caucuses will decide the nominee. In my book, that is progress.

Dear vishalg_99 :

What are you on?

Balz's takes, and mine:

DB: "The new calendar this year has generated a new dynamic, which is now playing to Obama's benefit."
M_I_A: McAuliffe made this calendar for HRC.

DB: "...she avoided what could have been a devastating blow by capturing four of the five biggest states voting that day."
M_I_A: A misstatement by DB, as described here by others.

DB: "...Michigan and Florida have been turned into contests that do not count -- at least not yet."
M_I_A: Does DB know something about the DNC that would lead him to suggest the DNC might count MI and FL? Of course not.

-------
From a first rate journalist, which DB is, this was a disappointment.
-------
It would have been more accurate to simply state that the McGovern Rules force an otherwise close race to be, well, closer. Most of us would consider a 57-43 split to be a landslide. But under the McGovern Rules, 57-43 typically equals 50-50. It's that simple.

No, she must be all tea/coffee only. ...What the heck does this mean? Vishal g brevity please and does being a first lady and a corporate lawyer in Wall mart count also? What about all those monsters in clintons closet from Monica to iraq vote???

Vishalg_99:
What a bizarre prism through which to see reality: your glorification of Bill Clinton's presidency as the "Best Presidential Years in Recent History" is illustrative of how the HRC campaign is built on bad faith. You say it as if that were a reason to support Hillary Clinton over Barack Obama. Let's cut to the chase: if you (or anyone) would cast a vote for Hillary because Bill was a good president, you should be ashamed of yourself. Bill cannot be elected President again, per the Constitution, and Bill should not have any unofficial presidential power via his wife, per general common sense. On the other hand, if you believe Hillary, on her own, has the goods to run the White House, who cares how Bill's presidency was - he's not on the ticket... but we all know how much mileage Hillary gets from her husband in this campaign - after all, the only way Hillary has more "experience" than Obama is if you count her years in the White House as "experience" - Obama has many more years as an elected official than Hillary does and anyone with a bit of brains can figure that one out. That is why to vote for Clinton is to vote in bad faith.

On the other hand, I find your critique of Obama fascinating: Obama has done nothing since arriving at Washington? Actually, he has been quite active and successful since his arrival in DC. And your attack on his "present" votes is shallow and stupid (assuming you are neither, you were probably red in the face when you wrote that). Any perusal of other IL state senators will reveal that ALL IL senators use "present" - it is an institutional feature of the IL Senate. Further, normal homo sapien cognitive activity can determine that a "present" is the same as a "no".
But more disturbing than your dumb comments are your symptoms of halucination: the thought that there is a massive conspiracy the seedling from the forces of nature, that there is some social agenda advanced by the "Media" that demonizes HRC for criticising Obama is laughable. Some of us just recognize a sucker punch when we see one and we've seen a few lately.

Obama has put together a very competent campaign team; I am really looking forward to seeing who his cabinet and other administration choices will be. I am confident that their performance will be on par with the campaign that he has run.

Yes we can....Yes we will

GObama - OEight

Lot of Obama supporters who talk of Obamamania seem to forget that the "mania" has been limited to the extreme left leaning democrats, African Americans and party insiders who go to the caucuses. Most of Obama's wins have been in states with caucuses or predominantly African American voters. That is not called creating a "wave", Momentum or "mania". Caucasuses are inherently undemocratic and all fair minded people should agree that they should be banned. They disenfranchise the common voter. And the only wave that Obama is really riding is the one that has been imorally and unethically created by the television media outlets and its pundits: almost everyone of them backing him or Mccain unconditionally. In this election cycle it has been difficult to differentiate between Fox's O'Reilly and MSNBC or CNN or NBC. If Obama cannot win decisively with all that media support and free publicity he cannot be really running a very strong campaign. And imagine him without 85 percent of African American vote. Where would he be?

Obama will never win the general! Ask around to the older voters you know. The middle of road to slightly right majority of voters. The ones who don't care about primaries, or the people who vote in them. They are never going to hand it to an inexperienced rookie like Obama. You people really aren't thinking clearly, or know anything about politics in this country, and who wins, and who puts them in.

I'm an independent.

I voted for Obama and will vote for him again in the general election unless hillary is installed as the nominee by dinasaur party insiders - then I'm voting McCain.

hillary is a GUARANTEED LOSER in the general election because 1/2 of dems don't like her and independent voters like me will NEVER vote for her.

I simply cannot support someone who is opaque. hillary will not answer difficult questions clearly because she runs via fear of swiftboating.

I simply will not support a party-dynasty insider who twists arms in an attempt to be the presumed candidate in the face of overwhelming voter preference for the other candidate.

I simply will not support a lobbiest funded/tied campaign.

VOTE FRONT RUNNER OBAMA FOR PRESIDENT!

If you want a real perspective of how the world is looking at our Presidential election process and the candidates, go to www.bbc.com and click on "The Americas." I think you'll find it interesting. Whether we like it or not, the world has a huge stake in our Presidential outcome. This isn't a popularity contest. This is real stuff. And it frightens me that I keep hearing the word "change" over and over again." I'm asking myself, "Who is better equipped to take us through a critical time of transition?" The "change" can come after the "transition."

Vishalg,

Well thought out post...sorry all the Obamaniacs can't stand the thought that their dream candidate has a lot of holes in him. I am a right of center voter...and you posted all of the things that I have been thinking.

Honestly, Obama has done nothing to work with the other side of the aisle in all his time in any legislature. He could have joined the Gang of 14, but didn't. He did not vote on the Iran resolution, yet excoriated Clinton for doing so. I give Obama a lot of credit, he is a brilliant man and a brilliant orator. No one who becomes President is stupid (despite what detractors say).

At the end of the day, Obama is just another old-fashioned left wing Senator. Well packaged yes, but still the same as McCarthy or McGovern. He doesn't want to move to the right, he wants the country to move to the left. McCain has reached across the aisle and worked with some of the most liberal senators on legislation. Has Obama done the same with the conservatives? No.

I disagree with his political views, but I respect the people who share them. I would join vishalg in warning the people in the center of the political spectrum to take a long hard look at where he wants to go before you decide to follow him.

Nice to see that some folks in the press are slowing their rather one-sided stampede, just a little. It would be great to hear more debate about substance. Isn't it just a little weird that Obama -- the less known and less experienced candidate -- wouldn't take the opportunity to debate last night? In theory, debates should be his strength. Isn't he supposed to be the man of oratory, vision and lift? Why doesn't it seem to work out that way? Great campaigns in the past have gone the distance -- we should avoid coronation-by-pundit and let the voters decide.

vishalg_99

Know this about Obama supporters: They do not vote out of fear.

Experince means the expertise and ability to do the following:

Clinton clan: Whitewater, Travelgate, Filegate, MONICA etc., etc. More to come.

McCain's clan:
CINDY MCCAIN : Although a WEALTHY HEIRESS, stole drugs from the childrens charity she worked for!!!

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9A03E7D6163BF937A25757C0A9629C8B63

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/02/03/wuspols303.xml

JOHN McCAIN: (Lordy, lord!!)
Lest we forget the KEATING FIVE - Those of us in Arizona will never forget!!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Keating_Five

BAM BAM 2008 (BA"ROCK" OBAMA!!)
It's time to clean the slate in the USA- We're the bossess and we say when it's quitting time. IT'S QUITTING TIME ESTABLSIMENT CRONIES!!

Dear vishalg_99,

I understand that you're one of those cynics that must be having a hard time dealing with Obamania.

I don't think any of the Obama supporters think that Republicans will be soft/careful with him. We all know that they'll massacre him in every way possible. But they'll do the same with Clinton and she is already starting with strong/high negatives.

Your definition of "experience" is very narrow, which I completely understand. There is no denying that Clinton has more Washington experience...what is it again, 20 years? I don't know about you but having Washington experience has not been something to brag about in the last four or five elections (Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush). Do you see a pattern here? All Washington outsiders.

In fact, this is the first time in a long time that a Senator will get the nomination no matter who wins. There is one thing that McCain has that will going against him. He's the only candidate who wants to continue Bush's policy.

As much as you highlight the Republican attack machine, Democrats also have one that they can count on. I feel extremely confident that the majority of the people in this country are just exhausted with Bush and his policies and want to move on. And unfortunately for McCain, he can't run away from it.

Maybe you and others are not but most people are just sick and tired of the same old, same old. And that's something that Obamania has captured. Whether you like it or not, it is what it is.

GGreeneVA

Good job doing the population research!

I'd love to say I'm surprised WashPost got this wrong, but I can't say it's too surprising.

Clearly this has been an interesting year. Clinton's invincibility has been shown not to be the case and Obama has made great strides and won many states.

But beyond all that we have to look at the reality of how Obama has won so far. He has had a free ride in the Press and has been hailed by one and all in the press as a conquering hero with magic. Clinton has been subjected to unending attacks by the press and even to the point where commentators on MSNBC have had to apologize on air twice. But that is only the agregious nastiness- they are getting away with the sexism- on a daily basis.

Everytime that Clinton has tried to bring up issues against Obama- someone in the press or Obama himself yells racist. It is like running a campaign with one hand tied behind your back. But let us not forget that the Republicans won't be afraid to attack Obama with everything they have. From his drug use to Rezko, to his missing the Iran vote to his "present" votes in the Illinois Senate. The commercials will be hard hitting and will be unending.

They won't worry about being called racist because they will see that as getting them more votes.

I think that it is time for the press to vet Obama before it is too late for him. Air out the issues now and they will not be able to be used against him if he is the candidate.

But in reality after all the negative attacks on Hillary by the press and even after Obama is being given a free ride- we still are facing Texas, Ohio and PA.

These three states will make the nominee. If Clinton wins two out of the three she will be the nominee if Obama wins two out of three he will be.

The super delegates want to win in the fall. They realize that all the small states that Obama has won will go Republican anyway. The Democrats need to win only two additional states beyond what Kerry won in 2004. With Clinton they will win Florida and Arkansas and maybe even Ohio with a real chance at New Mexico. With Obama we will most likely not win Florida, New Mexico or most likely Ohio.

I think for a change that Dan Balz has it right. The Potomac primary with its very few delegates won't matter much in the end. Remember that in DC we are only fighting for 15 delegates total today. It will come down to the 600 delegates at stake in Texas, Ohio and PA.

Momentum has meant nothing in this election year and after today- it's a new game with those three states the big enchilada.

A correction to my correction (d'oh): I meant to say that the Clinton campaign did not win four of the five biggest states contested on Super Tuesday. It did, in fact, win three.

Dan:
I've made this correction in a few places: the Clinton campaign did not, in fact, win three of the biggest five states on February 5. Georgia is larger by population than New Jersey -- which, in turn, is larger by population than Massachusetts.

The five largest states with primaries on Super Tuesday were, in descending order of population, California, New York, Illinois, Georgia, and New Jersey. Barack Obama won two of them.

Source for population data:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_U.S._states_by_population

Census Bureau data:
www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

Vishalg_99

You realize Truman said John F. Kennedy lacked the "experience" necessary to be President, don't you?

If only the nation had listened, right? (?!)

vishalg_99, you post the same words over and over again all over The Trail. Please consider writing something new. If you can't come up with something new, at least edit your essay for grammar, because in places it does not make sense.

Clinton has little integrity, thus has lost credibility. She has demonstrated questionable judgment more than once and on the most critical of issues.

There are many, many good arguments why Senator Obama is a better candidate. This time, however, let's talk about why Senator Clinton is not a good candidate for the Democratic Party, despite her experience (which she inflates quite a bit) and being "vetted" and "battle-tested", which just means she and her husband have had a lot of their dirty laundry exposed... and that there's an awful lot of laundry.

Let's talk about credibility in dealing with foreign nations. We all know the rest of the world hates our policies and do not trust us to act in the best interests of the world in which we all live. That is mainly Bush's fault.

Now, the citizens of those countries get reports of our political race, and see that one candidate will break the rules for selfish gain. The leaders of those countries also see that. If that candidate becomes President, they will not want to negotiate with her. Why? Because nobody trusts someone who makes public promises and then breaks them. Clinton lacks credibility, and that attribute does not have to come from her utter failure to reform healthcare in 1993 or from her vote in 2002 to engage in a needless, senseless war that is the problem. It is the despicable things she is doing today.

What is this object lesson?

Well, in August 2007, Clinton, Edwards, Obama, all signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in Michigan or Florida. Then, in December, Clinton told New Hampshire Public Radio that the votes of Michigan would not count.

In January she refused to remove her name from the Michigan ballot, even though John Edwards and Barack Obama, honoring the pledge all three signed in August, removed their names. On January 15, she "won" the Michigan Democratic primary. On January 25, she released a statement urging that the delegates pledged by Michigan's primary be seated.

Here is the statement: http://www.hillaryclinton.com/news/release/view/?id=5492

This isn't about the votes of Michigan Democrats being unheard-- if this was a problem Clinton could have taken issue with this BEFORE THE PRIMARY and WITHOUT HER NAME ON THE BALLOT. She wants Michigan to count only because it favors her, not because it is the fair thing to do, nor because it is the right thing to do. But it sure is the Clinton thing to do.

We Americans have a notion of fair play, of sportsmanship. If one team can't show up to play because of a good reason, then the other team does trumpet its victory. Clinton is not just trumpeting her victory, she wants the prize money that is being withheld. That's not something to proud about. It's unfair and un-American.

Hillary Clinton is playing dirty, and hoping we won't notice. She is also hoping we don't notice that the reason her campaign ran out of money was because the lobbyists and special interests that have given her money already gave the maximum they are allowed to give and could not give any more. Every day, she gives us an additional reason not to trust her. The rest of the world is watching too.

Lucky for us we have someone else to vote for, whose integrity is impressive. He's someone who doesn't accept money from lobbyists and special interests and so is not beholden to them. He is only responsible to us, the American people. As part of his legislative achivements, he championed and passed comprehensive ethics bills in Illinois and Washington, D.C.

If you're American and you have a vote, and you want somebody with integrity to run for President, it is easy, really quite easy, to Vote for Senator Barack Obama.

vishalg_99

With all due respect, Barack Obama was a constitutional law professor before he was a community organizer, and representative in the State Legislature.

Obama is not a policy or constitutional lightweight. He is a lot younger than John McCain, and much more attractive, and a much better speaker; those are all true.

Furthermore, Presidents don't make legislation, they enact it. The funny thing about all the HRC supporters claiming her policy proposals are better, is that domestic policy Presidential proposals are nothing more than starting points and fodder for Congress to play with (esp. Dem Presidents and Dem. congresses, btw), and bear only minimal relation to the final bills that will actually be enacted.

Hillary supporters seem to believe Hillary Clinton will pass her Health Care adult mandate by fiat (Hillary Care sailed through in 1993, didn't it?). I'm sure the Senate will have nothing to say on the matter...

blah blah blah blah ... it's called brevity vishalg, you should give it a try.

Hey vishalg_99 - I've never read so much crap in my life. Get a job or something to keep you occupied, otherwise you're dangerous.

My letter to earth-loving Democrats:

Let's first perspectify the Clinton legacy. Obama supporters are very tearful about Clinton's affair with Lewinsky and his hurtful lying. There are politicians, you know, who are both, pristine in private life and make competent presidents. Let's take a historical shot at this Audacity of Hope. JFK was a serial philanderer, poking every hole in sight. He gave us Bay of Piglets and near Apocalypto. Then, LBJ fatally perpetuated Vietnam. Nixon - criminal. Carter - exquisitely incompetent. Reagan of soaring national debt/Iran Contra/S&L crises. George Recession Sr - no, he was in bed only with the Saudis. Then, Bill Clinton. Wipe away the scum thrown at your faces by the republican propaganda, and if you attained puberty a bit before 90s, you will see quite easily, Bill Clinton's were the best presidential years in recent history. Who compares?

Let's get to near history and Hillary's vote for the Iraq war resolution. Our country had just been devastatingly attacked. Such was the patriotism that a Democratic Senator who left most of his body parts in the fields of Vietnam was knocked out of the senate for not being patriotic enough! 29 Democratic senators voted for the resolution. Many of them, like Kerry, were finally persuaded that the vote will be used primarily for getting Saddam Hussein to come clean. They might not have trusted Bush but he was going to war anyway. Only, we might have given Republicans a 60 vote senate. Friends, Hillary Haters, Monday Morning Quarterbacks, Backseat Drivers, what would have happened then?
Meanwhile, on a hilltop, far away from the battlefield, there was a Senator in the safe confines of a very blue state. His state not devastated like New York. Sears Tower still towering. He made a fine anti-war speech. Simultaneously, he was lustily voting Present in his state legislature instead of taking a stand on radioactive issues to avoid providing propaganda material to the Republicans. Political expediency, it's called. Clinton haters are very intimate with this phrase. If Obama had to be politically expedient in the Bluest of Blue states, what, you must think, he would have done in the jingoistic pressure cooker of the 2002/03 senate? When we did not know where and when again we might be hit again. One anti-war commentary given from the distant, safe, liberal confines of IL should not a president make!
Predictably, once Obama was in Senate, his voting was identical to democrats like Clinton. He raised no hell, showed no leadership. Why should he? You see, voting against war funding is a somewhat unpopular thing. You can't do that and hope to become President. And you can't just say Present, you know. You have to vote.

So now we have a tight race. Hillary might very well lose. No doubt, Hillary supporters will have to show up.

Obama supporters also feel about his electability. Good night, good luck and sweet dreams. We wouldn't let Hillary lay a hand on Obama. No, she must be all tea/coffee only. If you criticize - you are racist. Dearest, I am going to go out on a very dangerous limb here. I have a feeling, Republicans won't be so sensitive. No, I think they will have a thing or two to say about that. *Despite* all the hype, Obama is not doing dramatically better than Hillary against McCain. How will it look after Republicans have worked him over? To those who insist that our gem, Obama is still unknown - he has spent aver $120 million dollar introducing himself. Media has been all ga-ga about him. Can it really get better for him? You know, Fox, i.e., conservative media won't keep giving him a pass. They won't mind asking him about his drug use. Pox on them but they will - and much more. Though, in my personal opinion they ought not to bother with that. McCain's strong, maverick character and years of experience will be quite enough. To a left of center and right of MoveOn org type of a person like me, when I put Obama next to McCain, I see a shrub next to a Titan. Obama's experience? He has organized in Chicago - shame on me if I deny him that. In a general election, Comrades, that only works if the public has a seizure while rolling on the floor in laughter. Bird flu, global warming have nothing on the effect Obama's record-setting lack of experience might have on the general population.

Remember these words: no star, no matter how shiny, is about to jump straight from a state legislature to the White House. If I as a Democrat cannot imagine it, think about all the Republicans out there.

No, wrong, I am not a purple Democrat. I thought Howard Dean was a better candidate than Al Gore/John Kerry. I was devastated when he was knocked out because he dared to be emotional/spontaneous. He had such a strong executive experience but the media didn't like his laughter. He had no style. In America we must have Style.

I doubt if an undecided voter comes all the way here. And I don't have the Audacity of Hope to believe I can make any impression on those who love Obama. But try I must.

It ain't over til the fat lady sings!