The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Suppose McCain isn't the GOP Presidential nominee but instead it's Dick Cheney?2008
Obama vs. Cheney
Clinton vs. Cheney?

I read the last sentence and immediately scrolled back to see who had written this piece of biased fluff. Sure enough, it was Alec McGillis, who has yet to write an unbiased piece on Senator Obama. That's three for three this weekend alone. BTW, Alec McGillis, one of the reasons that we discourage children from drinking soda is because it leads to obesity. Senator Obama hardly looks as if he suffers from that problem. What is more important is the lack of substance in your articles.

Perhaps news of Nader's run should finally draw attention to our out-of-date electoral system, where the candidate with the most votes wins even if no one has a majority. We could solve this problem by adopting instant runoff voting (IRV). IRV is a simple and more fair way to vote: First, you rank your choices in order of preference. Then, the first choices are counted, and if someone gets a majority, they win; but if no candidate gets a majority, the candidate with the fewest votes is eliminated, and their supporters' votes count for their second choices instead. IRV is so simple, common-sense, and democratic that both the major parties' front-runners, McCain and Obama, publicly support it. You can learn more at: www.fairvote.org.

I've been an Obama supporter since March 2007 and at first he made me impatient with his slow, deliberative style. Now, I see his style as such a plus.

I notice how he did not mention obesity when he answered about soda machines in school. Most politicians would go right for obesity; its right on the top of their head as a healthcare answer to go for obesity, especially childhood obesity, as "preventive medicine." But common sense-wise, I'm sure it always antagonizes at least 50% of the American public because they don't like being hectored and lectured about being overweight. That answer of his yesterday was a nice little example of why Barack Obama is an effective leader who can keep gathering people behind him.

.

WHY ISN'T CHELSEA FIGHTING IN IRAQ ??

Hillary voted for the WAR.

So, Why isn't Chelsea fighting in Iraq?

The Clintons (like Bush) seem to think it's OK to vote for wars
(as long as other parents' children die in them!)

.

Ralph Nader, a self-serving wart on the ass of history.

I think Barrack is deceitful in his campaigning. He lies and copies others ideas to enhance his position on several issues. The more I listen to him the more I distrust him because I keep hearing other candidates positions being embraced as his own. That is not to say he cannot share similiar positions with others but that he takes them on once those issues/positions plays well in the polls. As a black man I am disgusted with that behavior. To me he is for everything that is likely to get him the nomination. Let's hope the Democrats see the joker for what he is and don't nominate him and in the process blow the November ELECTION. This man to my mind is a capital fraud.

Obama: "He [Nader] seems to have a pretty high opinion of his own work."

So would Obama, if he had helped created The Clean Air Act, The Clean Water Act, The Freedom of Information, OSHA, Public Citizen...

Jurgen Vsych
Author "What Was Ralph Nader Thinking?"
San Francisco, CA

The only way Nader knows how to work is from the outside, throwing rocks at windows.

It would take more courage and conviction to actually try to influence legislation from the inside.

He is a tired, bitter, vain and thoroughly boring man. He is the type of person who destroys, not one who builds.

To me the whole thing with Nader is iconic of the Democratic party's shift from the 70's to today. At one point Nader was a strong contender for the VP spot in the early 70's, and he turned it down. Then the Democrats changed their tactics to being pro-corporate so that they could get the money from the same sources the GOP had. Ever since then the Democrats have stubbled to win each election and it takes a Ross Perot to get them the white house & 6 years of George Bush to get the the House and Senate.

Now you hear party loyalists who blame Nader for it but I look at that and blame the party for selling out and Nader staying the same.

Unfortunately for the Democrats, the Obama tide (like that of Dukakis and McGovern) had reached its height at the point where Clinton may not be able to get her footing in time to pull together delegates she needs for the convention. But we are already seeing the foam at the head of the tide as it starts to pull away from the shore. We are starting to see the beginnings of buyer's remorse among Democrats, but probably too late. It looks like the Democrats have missed a golden opportunity to take back the White House. Instead, on 1/20/09 it's Pres. McCain time.

Mcgish--Amen! Obama could win NY by 25% without EVER setting foot in the state! Last thing he needs is to fully motivate the R's. She would be a horrible pick.

Dude, Clinton's lost 11 in a row by staggering margins. Her campaign is in diseray and has become a laughingstock. Obama is set to sweep every remaining primary. Yet you want to clamor for a Clinton/Obama ticket? Who in the Obama campaign is dumb enough to go for that? There won't be a Clinton/Obama ticket nor an Obama/Clinton ticket. Wake up.

Michelle Obama is a vocal asset to her husband's campaign or is she? Her lack of patriotism aside, Mrs. Obama has been less than truthful with American voters in retelling her history.

Michelle Robinson Obama claims to have grown up in 'a one bedroom tenement on Chicago's south side'. This does not square with the facts of her Father's US$42000 plus a year salary in the late 1960's-80's (More than US$150000 in today's dollars) as an engineer with Chicago Water or the lst floor 4 bedroom apartment on Euclid Avenue, Chicago in which she was raised--an area of spacious homes in tree lined garden streets! Nor with the fact that Mrs. Robinson did not work but spent her time ensuring that her son and daughter has the best that could be offered to comfortably middle class children--the magnet school for giftd children, home cooked nightly family dinners, music lessons, sports and vacations that were all taken for granted by the young Michelle.

It is sad that for political gain, Michelle Obama now lies about her background and her father's achievements in providing so well for his family.

"I'd like to teach the world to sing in perfect harmony. . ." Barack is "the real thing, in the back of your mind, what you're hoping to find." BO is a human being first. He happens to be a man with the gift of the language and because of his age, not jaded, the hope boiled out of him. He cuts his own kids some slack but is not slack in avoiding compelling people to do what they don't want such as manditory purchasing of health insurance.
He believes in education and love as tools to raise children. Now whether a voluntary system made up of choices to participate will bring about less expenisve coverage for all to those who want it will miss the mark of "universal" coverage is unknown. Yet it seems a better fit in our republican-democracy of choice. "Things go better with" Barack.

Historically, putting Clinton and Obama on the same ticket that will win in November would be a perfect way to cap off the 20th century and it's historic struggles. It would bring to symbolic climax the suffrage struggles of African Americans and Women and the moral causes behind the civil rights and sexual liberties movements - i.e. no more 'glass ceilings' or lower pay for equally talented people. It would be the crowning evidence that affirmative action does have impact in breaking thru barriers of social and power exclusivity and allows for the best and smartest to rise to their highest potential - regardless of race or gender. 



We are at a tremendous moment, America, this decision in 2008 - AFTER a reign (8 years?) of such a duo, we could THEN enter into the necessary paradigm shift truly appropriate for the 21st century. Reagan/Eisenhower, clean-Christian GOP politcs are dead and no longer relavent. Now let's get on with it and bury the 20th century idealism of FDR, JFK, RFK and MLK with one sweep! Clinton/Obama 2008!



(Our children and grandchildren will need a smarter, more agile, more globally connected and culturally saavy administration in 2020 than any of these candidates could ever begin to deliver, but we have to have a political evolution in order to get there. 21st century America is no longer Black & White on so many levels.)



Let's get on with it! Democrats start making the call for a unified ticket that will truly transform America for a positive future! United NOT divided!

It's amusing to see how the Red Bushies - the party of the 19 percenters - the party that gives to the top 0.1 percent of America while lowering the actual take home pay of 99 percent of America - the Republicant party that sends our US tax dollars overseas to their comrades in Saudi Arabia and China, instead of spending them in America where they could create more American jobs - hate the fact that they can't attack Obama.

They try - but it doesn't work.

Just as it didn't work for Clinton.

America has had enough of your Fear.

We will not live in Fear.

We are Americans - we will never live in Fear! We are made of sterner stuff than that!

ebubuk2004, Obama didn't say "black people don't vote for Hillary". Furthermore, the Rev. Wright isn't running for President, Obama is. If you think everyone agrees 100% with their minister, think again. (For that matter, you've been pretty creative with your snips and clips.)

You've been posting this same stuff over and over - why don't you give it a rest?

Obama is in some ways a far-leftie, but he's also given hints that the "limits to his liberalism" kick in when globalism is involved. For instance, consider this bit of dog-whistling:

http://lonewacko.com/blog/archives/007494.html

Note that the program he says he'll continue (without naming) is the SPP, a White House initiative (spp.gov).

See Bush lie about that initiative here:

http://youtube.com/watch?v=Br31mdP8-Ug

That's what Obama supports.

Obama is damging the Democratic party. He is the one who said black people dont vote for Hillary.

Hillary wants to damage Obama so that he will lose to McCain. This way, it's easier for her to run in 2012. She and her ego are hurting the democratic party, just like she did in 1994--Remember the elections? Were it not for Hillary, none of us would know Newt Gingrich's name! We just recovered from that debacle in 2006. Here's a thought: Let's not tempt fate by motivating the R's!! Enough Hillary, you have been beaten fair and square!