The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON.

Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK.

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

It's over, even with a Florida and Michigan do-over. In fact, that scenario speeds up Obama's nomination.

Davestickler,

This is old news.

They have already investigated all this and they found she did nothing wrong.

Well, it is only fair that he gets scrutinized and investigated just like Hillary did.

Davestickler,

This is old news.

They have already investigated all this and they found she did nothing wrong.

Well, it is only fair that he gets scrutinized and investigated just like Hillary did.

Davestickler,

This is old news.

They have already investigated all this and they found she did nothing wrong?

Well, it is only fair that he gets scrutinized and investigated just like Hillary did.

Davestickler,

This is old news.

They have already investigated all this and they found she did nothing wrong.

Well, it is only fair that he gets scrutinized and investigated just like Hillary did.

Davestickler,

This is old news.

They have already investigated all this and they found she did nothing wrong.

Well, it is only fair that he gets scrutinized and investigated just like Hillary did.

The Rezko case is a non-case, because there's no evidence of wrong-doing. The property was purchased by Obama for *above the market rate*. But, if you want a cash-for-favors corruption case, as a poster mentioned above, having your husband issue a pardon to someone who funds your Senate campaign to the tune of $70,000 is a pretty blatant example. If your brother receives thousands of dollars from people who he lobbied your husband to pardon, that's corruption. If you use your clout as a former president to arrange a meeting between a businessman and the leader of Kazakhstan in return for substantial donations to your foundation, that's corruption -- especially if the money you raise in your post-presidency is needed to prop up your wife's presidential campaign.

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/

I look forward to seeing the media vigorously cover these cases, -- provided the media hasn't been so intimidated by the Clinton campaign's lobbying that they're no longer willing to call her out on anything.

Are you kidding me? Obama Hussein has done nothing but attack Hillary from the very beginning of this contest. Lets not forget the Hitler-like video.

When Hillary has praised him; he has done nothing but attack her.

And on the NAFTA scandal; how is Hillary responsible for this? He got in to this scandal all on his own.

And why should Hillary be responsible for his money laundering dealings with Tony Rezco? NO one told him to accept huge campaign contributions from the Sybirian Tony Rezco and oil billioniare from Iraq, Mr Auchi.

There are a lot of questions that have been left unanswered and he has just brushed it off. Some voters are not as stupid as you think, Mr Obama Hussein.

Obama won his delegate in mostly caucus states which are attended by less than 1% of the voters in those states.

Clintons lead in actual people voting by 2 to 1. All were primaries attended by 40 to 60% of the voters in those states.

Popular vote will trump delegates at the convention.

Obama knows he's by the numbers that he's not as popular as the media portrays.

Without a popular mandate he is just another Bush.

Here is a twist that Obama could use for an AD:

Asked on the CBS "Early Show" about Democrats who want to see her and Obama on the same ticket, Clinton said: "Well, that may, you know, be where this is headed. But, of course, we have to decide who's on top of the ticket."

At the end of that statement Obama should add, "If Hillary thinks I am good enough to take over during a Presidential crisis then I'm good enough to be the President on day one."

The phone rings at the Obama household at 3 a.m. and it is Hillary on the line.

"Okay, so you won. Can I be your vice presidential running mate?

"You know the slash and burn, hack-type politics expected of the No. 2 person comes naturally to me."

Obama: "Hillary, I said you should believe in hope, not miracles.

"No thanks, no way."

I hope the Obama campaign reads these blogs. The collective wisdom of Obama supporters is for Obama to get tough and have a moment of indignation.

I thought she gave him a perfect opportunity when she murked her answer about whether she believed him to be a muslim on 60 Minutes. he could have came out a said he was stunned and dimayed by her answer. Cite the times they have been in the same faith venues and assure voters she knows that he is a devout Christian. Then accuse her of trying to use religion to create fear and division. Condemn it as "old politics". This would have also helped to blunt whatever charges are forthcoming about his pastor and church. Take religion off the campaign trail. There will be another opportunity for indignation. Obama must seize it when it comes.

Three things I counsel Obama to do in the next 7 weeks:

1)Remind people again why they don't want Hillary and Bill in the White House. She has of recent been creating the "next door" Hillary through SNL,Letterman, and The Daily Show. She is the consummate Washington insider who uses the same old models of politics and calls them "solutions". The Clintons want of a political dynasty (at all cost) is the 900lb gorilla that Obama must address.

2)Remind the super-delegates what kind of candidate they will have if Hillary is nominated. The Republicans are going to refight the 90's only to remind us of the drama, divisions and distractions of the Clintons years, that no doubt got in the way of the people's work.

3)Remind the voters that the Clintons have been tried already and we need a better and brighter leader. From now on refer to "the Clintons" and not just Hillary. Hillary looks even less desirable tied to Bill.

In the end Obama must forcefully present himself as the only leader who can unite people for change. Hillary wants to be the fighter. She has made a career out of dividing people for her own political interest or good. That is exactly what the people can expect if she is president. A lot of fights with Republicans is expected from the Clintons but not much effective government.

He must tell the electorate, "I will lead...". The contrast is "I lead an anti war platform when I ran for Senate, Hillary followed George Bush and McCain into Iraqi". "I lead the Senate to pass the most sweeping Ethics Reform laws since Watergate, Hillary followed lobbyists into this campaign and is being funded by them." "I lead a Chicago community with some of the most vunerable people in society to get community services, job training and economic empowerment, Hillary followed the Wal Mart Board in keeping workers from organizing unions".

There is plenty to deal with when it concerns Hillary. By the way, if Obama wants to use any of my lines I give him express permission.

Superb column. I couldn't agree more with the columnist's analysis of what has happened. Having watched political campaigns for years, it is probable that the campaign will get less friendly as it progresses toward Denver, but this is Democracy in action.

I don't believe the young people have any interest in what happened 20 years ago and the shenanigans of Judge Starr and how he wasted $45 million to put Ms.McDougal in jail.The one thing they detest is digging up people's past to score points.

Ahh svreader, we miss your rantings and lies. It feels so normal to have you around again.

Advice to Obama: I'd agree to give up all the details of Rezko if Clinton also gives up all the details of her and her brothers' and her husbands deals with Marc and Denise Rich.

For a refresher, from the Boston Globe:

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/articles/2007/02/28/pardons_reemerge_as_issue_in_clinton_run/

Obama's history of drug abuse will sink his campaign. The vast majority of Americans will not elect someone who has repeatedly abused "hard drugs" like cocaine or heroin.

Most Americans don't know about Obama's history of repeatedly abusing cocaine.

McCain and the Republicans will make sure that voters know his real history.

To paraphrase Huey Lewis, Obama is "simply unelectable"

No person who has a history of abusing "hard drugs" like cocaine or heroin should be President of the United States of America.

Its a major moral failing.

Electing Obama would send the wrong message to our children.

Rejecting him because of his cocaine abuse sends the right messsage to our kids, namely that there are serious consequences of using hard drugs like cocaine or heroin, even if the person isn't caught at the time, so don't try them in the first place.

The Obama supporters are talking as though the contest is over already. It's not. Clinton has a good chance of winning the nomination, and it won't be done by bending rules or dirty dealing. Why do the Obama crowd think there is only one rightful outcome to this? It's a long campaign, with many twists and turns. What one side calls negative campaigning can equally be considered putting the spotlight on a candidate's weaknesses. Many of the Obama supporters are so young they haven't been through this before. Politics is about power; you have to get used to the fact that it's gets dirty sometimes. The best candidate will win.

wj_phillips ,

You are quite wrong. I am a conservative.
But, I still strongly believe that Obama's reformist ideas are sound and solid. I also believe he is going to be the strong, yet compassionate President of America, who will restore respect and more congenial relationship with other countries in Asia, Europe, South America & Africa.

Do you think Democrats are sobering up to the fact that OBama is all hat and no cattle? Or all hot air and no substance?

This country has never elected a liberal Democrat president. Obama is not going to be the first. Obama and his supporters are far more liberal than the vast majority of Americans.

Obama's supporters under the spell of his air cannot deal with reality, but it appears that more Democrats are shaking off intoxication of his snake oil.

Obama as nominee guarantees McCain will become president.

I now see a certain pattern of the Hillary campaign strategy. They start throwing mud and employing dirty, negative tactics just a few days before the actual day of voting, to make sure that the Obama camp is forced to appear being defensive.

Some quarters of the media backing the Republicans and special interests/lobbyists with whom the Clintons have a close tie are doing the same.

If the present political movement by the Obama camp is to be defeated by the corrupt power of the Washington establishment, the spineless Democratic Party deserves to be in ruin. What America needs then is a revolution.

"Although he gained considerable ground on Clinton, the late-deciders broke decisively for her."

He closed a 20% gap. Yes, that IS considerable. I think it's more accurate to say that the "late-deciders" broke for him, but the early deciders just outweighed them. Wouldn't that be more fair?

Will Hillary kill hope as she enjoys her reinvigorated spoiler role?

Here she is, a tool of the lobbyists, claiming she is the "people's" choice.

Hillary even refuses to release her tax returns for the past two years, which would reveal the source of her sudden wealth.

If Hillary claims experience in foreign affairs, then let her share responsibility for her husband's immoral inaction on Rwanda, when hundreds of millions of black Africans were slaughtered while the Clinton White House refused to act.

(According to the British Guardian newspaper: "President Bill Clinton's administration knew Rwanda was being engulfed by genocide in April 1994 but buried the information to justify its inaction, according to classified documents made available for the first time. ...

"It took Hutu death squads three months from April 6 to murder an estimated 800,000 Tutsis and moderate Hutus and at each stage accurate, detailed reports were reaching Washington's top policymakers." [http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2004/mar/31/usa.rwanda])

For every comment the Clinton trained seals make about Hillary's favorite target--Rezko--it is important that people remember the reason Jimmy Carter's chief of staff, Hamilton Jordan, called the Clintons our "First Grifters."

Remember their ties to disgraced fugitive financier Norman Hsu?

Remember Bill's supping at the trough of the emir of Dubai?

Speaking of the Middle East, remember Hillary's silence when Yassir Arafat's wife libeled the state of Israel?

Of course, the media bends over trying to accommodate Hillary, today the MSNBC talking heads explained that they have to tread softly because it is hard to criticise a woman.

National security and the fate of the country are apparently tied to some moronic political correctness from a media that did not exactly cover itself with glory when America was about to go to war.

Of course, today's media establishment cares as much about access to the red carpet as anyone else.

The legendary journalist Edward Murrow would have liked Barack Obama, beause he also believed, like Obama himself has said, that cynicism is a sorry kind of wisdom.

Fight back America!

Believe in yourself!

Thanks "Chouteau" for a well written analyses. I couldn't agree more. I, too, have donated more money to the Obama campaign today, and have told the DNC that if HRC tries to steal the nomination, I will vote for McCain.

Go Obama! 2008

Exit polls in Texas: Republicans were 10% of the electorate and they broke for Obama, 54%-46%.

Obama outspent Hillary by two to four times in all four states.

"In the overall race for the nomination, Obama had 1,567 delegates after picking up five new superdelegate endorsements Wednesday. Clinton had 1,462. It takes 2,025 delegates to secure the Democratic nomination."------------

Not bad for a guy that got blindsided, sucker-punched and lynched in Ohio. What doesn't kill you has to make you stronger.

Dear Anna, you managed to leave out the fact that Obama was NOT on the ticket in Michigan, Clinton was.

Having "Oprah" endorse and winning Iowa obviously is not the same as campaigning in a state. If it was that easy then I guess all the candidates could just sit home and assume that voters all pay keen attention to their positions. From some of the comments I see here, it is painfully obvious that there are vast numbers of folks out there that either are totally clueless or too lazy to read a newspaper.

The FACT is that the DNC set the rules for Michigan & Florida. All the candidates agreed to the rules, including Sen. Clinton who stated herself that the results "would not matter". It was okay with her then because she assumed the race would be over after February 5 and that she was the "inevitable" nominee.

Bummer. To late to play the victim card on this one.

The caucus in Texas is a shame that disenfranchises all the voters who can't go vote twice in one day. And there are quite a few... The primary represents the will of the people. The caucus represents the people who have transportation and jobs and personal lives that allow them to get out to vote twice, and that feel safe and able to go out "after dark," possibly alone, and possibly wait for hours. I spoke to quite a few elderly folks who just weren't able to caucus. They shouldn't be disenfranchised, but they are.

Texas Update
AUSTIN -- Obama Texas State Director Adrian Saenz issued a statement on the projected primary and caucus results that show Senator Obama won more Texas delegates than Senator Clinton.

"By fighting the primary to a near-draw and earning a resounding victory in the caucus, the people of Texas have moved Barack Obama one step closer to claiming the Democratic nomination for president," said Adrian Saenz. "Texans in both parties and of all ages sent a clear message that the American people are ready for the kind of change that Barack Obama will bring to Washington, DC as our 44th President."

Because of the close finish, Senator Clinton will likely net only two delegates up-for-grabs in the Texas Primary. Based on a large sample of caucus results in all 31 state senate districts, Senator Obama is projected to post a substantial victory in the Texas caucus and, thereby, net at least seven delegates. This means that Senator Obama will win at least five more pledged delegates from Texas than Senator Clinton.

Aren't we seeing that when it comes to details rather than hot-air speeches, Obama comes unstuck? Look at how he and his team handled the NAFTA question. Is he for free trade or not? We no longer know. Would he have a no-conditions meeting with Raul Castro? We don't know. Over the next few weeks, Obama is going to get torn to pieces by Clinton and the Press. The honeymoon is over. Welcome to the real world.

The biggest shame is the lack of representation of the individual voters in Michigan and Florida. These voters didn't make decisions that disentitled them from having a say in choosing their candidate. But they are being disentitled. Wonder if they will want to vote for a member of the Democratic Party, that so disenfranchised them, in November.

obama knows very well how to take the gloves off, he has had a good teacher tony rezko. Syrian mafia man. In the debate obama claims he worked for him only five months, now the relationship goes back to 1990. He does not care about the poor, he left the poor people of chicago live in the middle of winter with no heat. I believe there is a whole other side of obama we do not know about. It will come out people. We need a strong leader.

The whole point of the superdelegates is to hold sway above and beyond the vote of the people. Think about it, why else have them? If they are to vote strictly as their constituents vote, what is the point? The point of having them is that they have experiences with the candidates and the part beyond the scope of voters. They are supposed to use that experience, that insider info, that knowledge, to vote solely on who they believe is most qualified to run for president, and become president. That's all. But it is a huge responsibility. Particularly among the emerging culture of pressuring them to disregard that huge but necessary responsibility and instead vote at their constituent's will.

"Posted by: mburkel | March 5, 2008 06:31 PM

Gee, Anna_rc, I don't think it is very "democratic" when only one candidate has their name on the ballot and none of the candidates even campaigned in Michigan or Florida. And, the one candidate with their name on the ballot happens to have the same last name as two-term President."

Please check your facts:
1)In Fla ALL candidates were on the ballot
2) They all agreed not to campaign but Obama ran his adds on cable TV, Clinton did not.
3) By this time, everybody in Fla knew about Oprah, about Iowa, about "Yes we can" and so on
If anyone broke the rules it is Obama by running the ads

Gee, Anna_rc, I don't think it is very "democratic" when only one candidate has their name on the ballot and none of the candidates even campaigned in Michigan or Florida. And, the one candidate with their name on the ballot happens to have the same last name as two-term President.

Please take your argument up with the Florida and Michigan Democratic Parties who decided to push the early primaries.
All the candidates agreed with the DNC so it is a little gross for Hillary to change the rules that she agreed to just because she thinks it will help her win.

I'm looking forward to how Obama is going to 'sharpen' his attacks on Hillary. How many ways can he misrepresent her vote giving Bush military power to negotiate with Hussein, as a vote to go to war. Bush abused his power plain and simple, and this is Hillary's fault? Let's not forget that Bush demanded Hussein leave Iraq to avoid an invasion, and we find out later that the administration worked behind the scenes with countries such as Saudi Arabia to deny Hussein any refuge. I suppose that Obama would have voted 'present'.

Neither Hillary nor Obama are going to have enough delegates to clinch the nomination, but from Pew Research:

A quarter of Democrats (25%) who back Clinton for the nomination say they would favor McCain in a general election test against Obama. The "defection" rate among Obama's supporters if Clinton wins the nomination is far lower; just 10% say they would vote for McCain in November, while 86% say they would back Clinton.

So which candidate is better for the party?

joep1, well I suppose the Canadian Embassy verifying the NAFTA thing to be FALSE just blew right over your head. Bill Clinton pushed HARD to get NAFTA enacted, so it is laughable that Hillary now tries to us it as a bludgeon against Obama. And although she takes boatloads of cash from lobbyists she has the moral high ground on campaign finance? If you are seeking another opaque White House after 8 years of that with Bush, then vote Clinton! She can loan her campaign 5 million dollars but she can't hire a CPA to release her tax returns?

If you can use the internet to do your own "research" on Rezko then use the link I posted above and READ the article and then go try and find what Greenwald didn't- any evidence of ANYTHING that could even be called illegal or nefarious. We are all waiting. I am sure the press in Chicago just didn't ever manage to bother looking into this (ha ha).

If your candidate can not run a campaign without resorting to the smear tactics of Karl Rove and Lee Atwater then that is just sad.

"Posted by: martha.a.coats | March 5, 2008 02:37 PM

Florida's delegates will have to be seated as is. "

Agree! I am a Florida voter and I witnessed how Florida primary was well organized and the volunteers worked around the clock and how the voters were enthusiastic. The DNC punished 1.7 millions voters. Shame! If they must, they could reprimand the Fla dems leadership, but punish the voters? Not very democratic, is not it? I feel very sad about the direction of the dems party. I do not want to be a member of a party that is democratic in name only.

have a questions I need answered. Hillary is winning all these big states. I believe all of them. Would that mean that most of the super delegates would be from these states?
How will these super delegates explain voting for Obama, when their followers voted for Hillary?

Posted by: bnw173 | March 5, 2008 03:50 PM

That is what I'd like to know too!

Obama will of course get tougher on Clinton. And so should the news media, who, despite the Clintons' sniveling wad of ailments and grievances, have NOT been especially tough on her in this campaign. (The Obama camp is right: if he'd lost 11 straight, he'd have been pushed out by now.) The conservative media especially is doing everything possible to help Hillary. Rush Limbaugh was overt about it, but Pat Buchanan and Joe Scarborough and the other conservatives are transparently doing the same thing. They know the Republicans want to run against Clinton, not Obama, and they are trying to help her win with their commentary, and having some impact.

The math isn't a campaign message, true -- but it is nevertheless a fact that Obama does indeed still lead in votes, states and delegates -- even after Clinton had the very best night she could possibly have imagined. Her boost is PR which is not nothing, of course, but is also not delegates.

I disagree with the Clinton supporters who say this is good for the party. It might be good for Clinton, but not the party. Today the DNC asked me for money. I would love to give to the DNC but I can't right now - my money is still going to Sen. Obama, because he is still having to finish off Sen. Clinton. Plus, I won't give to the DNC until I know they will play fair with Florida and Michigan. With this effort to change the rules with respect to Florida and Michigan in the middle of the process, Clinton is clearly willing to destroy the party -- not just its chances in November, but the party itself. Is that hyperbole? Just envision what will happen to this party if Sen. Obama wins the most states, the most votes and the most delegates, and yet is somehow denied this nomination because the Clintons pull a fast one and the DNC goes along for the ride? Will the 8 out of 10 blacks who support Obama feel like voting for Hillary now -- or for the Dems ever again? I don't think so. And now imagine what will become of the hundreds of thousands of young people Obama has engaged, for real this time, and is prepared to deliver to our party. Will they become loyal lifetime Democrats, our next generation, if they see Obama winning the votes but losing the election in a bloody, negative campaign decided by backroom deals? I don't think they will.

The Clintons can of course continue on with this intensely self-interested and destructive campaign, and the party can continue to sit off to the side, and fecklessly watch our future unravel.

Or, the party can declare right now that it will play by the rules in Michigan and Florida and put that to rest. It can publicly urge the Super Delegates to follow the lead of their constituents.

And then let's see what the candidates and the voters do in the remaining states.

Let's not buy the Clinton campaign's hype about her superior electoral vote math. They keep blathering about the "big states" but the electoral reality is that California, New York, Illinois, New Jersey, and Massachusetts are virtually a lock for the Democrats in November whether Clinton or Obama heads the ticket. Texas will almost certainly go for McCain (and indeed there's good evidence that it was hard-core conservative Republican crossover voters who at Rush Limbaugh's urging put Clinton over the top there Tuesday, just to make the Democrats bleed a little longer). Ohio (20 electoral votes) is a genuine battleground, making Clinton's win there significant. But so are Minnesota (10 electoral votes), Wisconsin (10), Iowa (7), Missouri (11), Colorado (9), Virginia (13), Delaware (3), and Maine (4), all won by Obama. As are Nevada (5), New Mexico (5), Arkansas (6), and New Hampshire (4), all captured by Clinton. Arizona might be a battleground but for the fact that McCain is the Republican nominee. Michigan (17) and Florida (27) haven't been legitimately heard from yet as no one has campaigned there. Pennsylvania (21) is up in a few weeks, and it's conceivable that under the right circumstances North Carolina (15) could be in play, but they don't vote until May. That sounds pretty even in the electoral value of genuine battleground states won by each candidate so far, with a distinct edge to Obama (67, to Clinton's 40 including Ohio).

Dear NoBama08: The first quote you have from Michelle Obama rings especially true when you read some of the vile, ignorant comments posted in this forum. Bad enough when they come from Republican wackos but when they are from "Democrats" for Hillary, it is even more pathetic.

And for all you knuckle-draggers who insist on beating the dead corpse of Rezko until your "smoking gun" is revealed, you are gonna be waiting a long time:

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2008/03/05/rezko/index.html

So let's get this straight...The media snaps out of its' hypnotic state to finally question Obama about his credibility on issues like Rezco, lying about his NAFTA position, his commitment to public financing and other issues...and THAT's negative campaigning?? And he blames Clinton for it?? You must be kidding. The people aren't buying it. Thanks to the internet, they can do their own research.

She nets 3 delegates after blowing double digit leads in both texas and ohio and every Clinton supporter thinks she can walk on water now. She was up in both states by over 20 points at one time. Another week or two and she'd have lost both. But..She'll lose the Miss and WY and then maybe win Penn but she'll still be behind. I'm betting that then the true colors of the Hillary machine will come out and the lawsuits will start flying. Whatever it takes Eh Billary?

It is time for Obama to kick butt and take names
Obama has been a gentleman
Where race and gender play a factor is that Obama cannot step over the boundaries of decency and Hillary can
She threw the kitchen sink at him

Since when is sleeping with the president "experience"
And, when and if the phone goes off at 3a,, what will Hillary be doing
Witness the following:
Bill says to Hillary: Hillary, the phone is ringing. Why don't you answer?"
Hillary replies: "Don't tell me what to do. Let the damned phone ring. We're going to sit here all night if we have to until you tell me the truth about 'that woman'.

Hillary now has the momentum. Until she doesn't.
Those 11 wins in a row now mean nothing because of three wins in a row?
This is all very silly. Barack is leading 10-6 in the seventh inning, but Hill would have us believe she's now winning because she had a two run sixth. Nonsense.

If Obama had more substance he would have won the big states. The fact is he is mostly stage craft and with just barely enough experience to get this far. I dont trust his judgment at the switch and I dont trust he can meet our economic crisis which is be on the desk day one. He should serve at least two years in the Senate before running, short of that he is just ego.

On Michelle O. in the New Yorker:
...."Obama begins with a broad assessment of life in America in 2008, and life is not good: we're a divided country, we're a country that is "just downright mean," we are "guided by fear," we're a nation of cynics, sloths, and complacents.

"We have become a nation of struggling folks who are barely making it every day," she said, as heads bobbed in the pews. "Folks are just jammed up, and it's gotten worse over my lifetime. And, doggone it, I'm young. Forty-four!"....

Michelle is the gift that keeps on giving.

Barack is going to slowly be opened up like a can of tuna. Better he be vetted now than later against McCain should he win the Party nod and with the White House at stake. If Barack is indeed an empty suit, finding out now will only help Democrats against the Republicans for the general election by ensuring the better candidate faces them in the Fall. We can not expect the MSM to do its job as they are so vestally timid that they can't bring themselves to take a hard careful look at the object of their affections. He is their (and the Hillary loathers for Obama 's) golden (graven?) image.

Expect the Hillary loathers for Obama to crank it up a dozen notches or so taking on the look of crazed Furies and increasingly appear more and more like the right wing hate machine they so wantonly imitate. These loonies are Hillary's ace in the hole for the more unhinged they look the worse they make Barack look. After all, how could anyone with even the slightest appearance of normalcy want to be associated with a candidate who attracts such hateful supporters?

Hillary arguably halted Barack's momentum Tuesday. The country has an opportunity to take a more careful nuanced look at him. The Rezko trial is underway and we may get a better understanding of his relationship to Barack. Now if only Barack's voting record in the Illinois state legislature were opened in such a way that everyone could easily look it over we could better determine Barack's character. We could see where he took principled stands, where he was politically expedient and where he was not up to the task. We could take a better measure of this man who would be president.

between a black/white man and a woman, REAL change is always gender-based. it's almost like a polar shift. everything, from running the war to health care, is different from a biological perspective. to hell with speeches. it's all in the deeds.

ahahahaha. Vunderlutz.....yeah someone obviously did not graduate from 2nd grade social studies....the "red phone" is a metaphor. duh. Also, in order to win the actual election.... a democratic candidate has to win actual DEMOCRAT AND SWING STATES. not red america....yeah. How about we not make this another 1988? HA.

Re: Winning ugly

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

"Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Après lui, le déluge

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning --as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve-- namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting-- paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear. Pursue their reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experienced", and dark insinuation, tenaciously get--and vote--the facts."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

Poster "bvet61" adds his name to a long list of self-named "conservatives" all over the country who have told Democrats that B.O. is the strong candidate to beat McCain and that Dems should put him on the ticket. (Rush tried to spin in reverse last minute to confuse the issue/spin again.) I'm sure they're sincere, right? I mean the other team or someone like Bobby Fischer would give you his strategy before the match, right, .... or ... maybe ... hmm...

Listening to Hillary raises my BP;too much energy and aggressivenes on display

ermias.kifle---

Half the states you mention either will not be counted because they voted against the rules (in MI Obama pulled his name from the ballot) or have not voted yet.

So, yes, Coo-Coo indeed.

Look at the pledged delegates my lad. It is all in the pledged delegates.

Forget about the superdelegates, Mr. Balz. The only way they will come into play is if there is a small (say less than 50) margin in the pledged delegate count. If you look at the states coming up, I'd say it is a pretty safe bet that Obama will split the remaining states with Clinton (at worst.) He will still have a pledged delegate lead in excess of 100. The supers will not reverse that result! Also, I wish the networks would stop including superdelegates in the total. They only do it to make the race look closer than it really is.

So, now that Obama has lost more big and critical states, he is willing to ignore his previous "political silliness" comments in favor of attacking Clinton. Let's take a look at tax returns... she has over 20 years worth of tax returns in the public domain -- he has one! (2006). There are a whole lot more of us that would like to know about the shady deal that Obama worked with Rezko in order to purchase his mansion in Chicago. Will Senator Obama release that financial information and the personal and politcal arrangement behind it?

pardon me if i'm getting this wrong, but wasn't obama behind by like 20 in both ohio and texas a month ago? and didn't he only lose texas by 4? and isn't he in the process of winning the texas caucus, so that he might actually get more delegates than HRC from texas?

that sounds like a victory, not like a "big loss".

the delegate count is fundamentally unchanged from where it was. most places still have obama over a hundred ahead. and he probably has a bunch of undeclared superdelegates essentially in the bag, for when he feels like he needs it. just thought i'd mention.

Neither Obama nor Clinton would go extreme negtive. There is now talks in the Clinton campaign about a dream ticket. Obama avoid to talk about it because talking about it would reduce him to a side show. But he is fully prepared for that outcome. All Clinton is doing now is to show the super dellagates that she should be on the top of that ticket. Since neither will secure nomination before the convention, it is possible for them to reach a deal. If both candidates have the will to make such a deal before Denver, the party leader will be more than happy to comply to avoid the nightmare senario.

My feeling is that both Obama and Clinton are smart enough to control their attacks so things would not go the republican way.

Coo-coo, big state!
Can you say FL,MI,OH,NJ,MA,CA,NY,TX and soon PA,
Swing states:- NV,AZ,TN,NM,again big and swing state OH!!! soon KY,WV,IN

DEM Base states:- NH,PA,RI,MA,NY,NJ,CA,

sgr_astar---

Have you been smoking something other than cigarettes? Nothing in your post seems like it was written by a sobre individual.

It's so funny, some Black men talk about Bill cheating on his wife in 90's....
at least he used condom...can we talk about Jesse Jackson ???
How about teenage pregnacy?

Call me crazy...but isn't Clinton still losing by tons? And haven't most of the states already voted?

And she barely scored any delegates at all yesterday.

So how can this be called a "stunning victory"?

Coo-coo.

Obama is ahead in delegates because he won more states. Hillary can spin it anyway she likes but the numbers do not lie. If she was the one ahead, she would be cackling. She has been cackling about Ohio and Texas which actually is no big deal since she won by a narrow margin. The people in Ohio were easily scared since they were mostly unemployed and on the government dole. The Hispanics in Texas voted out of loyalty and it's to their disadvantage because Hillary, when push comes to shover, backs down. Hillary may have all the best plans in the world, but, if people dislike her; those plans can be for naught just like her HealthCare reform of 1992. Hillary is a congenital make-believer, not a liar like Bush, but close. Her administration will be disastrous because all the Bill scandals will be rehashed and added to. All these middle-aged women sympathizing with Hillary are doing the country a big disservice. She's the one who can talk but cannot deliver.

Sorry there were some typo in the last post. Here is a correct one

Obama's dilema is that he copied everything from Clinton, attacking her is shooting in his own feet. The only thing he can differ himself from Clinton is the position on Iraq war, but he has recently been persuded that the US should not pull out of Iraq. He can never make an effective attack on Hillary's experience: he looks younger than his real age, and his attraction is mostly to the ones who are younger than he looks. His voting bloc cannot help him win the general election, unless he can persuade people in their 40s to 60s, who mostly support Clinton.

Excellent article! What Obama supporters can not own up to is the fact their candidate has yet to win a "major" - and without the ability to do so, is basically unelectable in the fall. He had the momentum, money, organization and supposedly the right message but could not deliver in Texas or Ohio.

He can talk forever about being ahead in delegates or how close it was or how much ground he made up but so what? Neither candidate will have enough to win the nomination outright prior to Denver under the most advantagous circumstances. Close only counts in horseshoes and hand grenades - this is neither. The Electoral College is winner take all.

The chorus that HRC should drop out is nonsense and naive. Obama needs to take the shots now and show he can prevail with a strong pertinent message. The fight will make the candidate and the party stronger. Would you rather the dirty laundry, if any, be aired for the first time now or in Sept/Oct?

Obama needs to get on message, add substance to the rhetoric (e.g. he has very little experience and voting "present" does not inspire confidence he will take on the special interests), and win Pennsylvania to show he is electable. Otherwise, if the Super Delegates don't show him the door, McCain will.

Obama's dilema is that he copied everything from Clinton, attacking her is shooting in his own feet. The only thing he can differ himself from Clinton is the position on Iraq war, but he has recently been persuded that the US should pull out Iraq. He can never make an effective attack on Hillary's experience: he looks younger than his real age, and his attraction is mostly to the ones who are younger than he is. His voting bloc cannot help him win the general election, unless he can persuade people in their 40s to 60s, who mostly support Clinton.

If this was a general election between Obama and Hillary, here is the total electoral college numbers for the states they won so far (excluding Florida and Michigan):

Clinton 219
Obama 193

With Florida and Michigan factored in:
Clinton 263
Obama 193

This is better illustration of why Hillary's wins are much more substantial than Obama's. Don't believe the hype! GO HILLARY GO!!!!

Electoral college map:
http://www.270towin.com/

"Let's start talking about all the "suicides" and murders of Clinton insiders."

Please go ahead, just what Obama's campaign needs - to sound like the Truthers.

The right-wing and Ken Starr talked about those rumors ad nauseum. Even Ken Starr concluded Foster's death was a suicide. When one of the Clintons' biggest enemies can't even conclude what you insinuate, your talk is going to be worthless.

And to think Obama's side calls Clinton slimy.

Thank you, Dan and thank you Washinton Post.

You have been truly loyal to Barack Obama and when things are not going smooth like right now, your support comes very touching to us. We know who is a true friend of Barack.

I feel reading this article as if I am an insider of Barack's campaign, discussing future strategies rather than reading a newspaper article. Your suggestions are great. Please call Barack and let him know of your suggestions.

No matter what other media go negative against Obama, you have been standing up truely for Obama only for Obama. Thank you, and keep up with your royal support for Barack Obama!

89% Blacks voted for Obama

60% Whites Voted for HRC

Who is RACIST?

Obama can win. He is having an uphill battle because he is up against two Clintons running for the White House. What other candidate has that luxury??? Without him, she would not be where she is now.

Let's start talking about all the "suicides" and murders of Clinton insiders.

Let's remind people that Clinton didn't have 9/11 and Katrina on his plate when he was elected!

And WHY IN THE WORLD are people BUYING HIllary's failed attempt explanation at health Care in 1993?

AND All the things which are concerns today were also concerns back then,,,Did they address them...NO! Most of these are long standing issues.

I changed parties today so I could vote for Obama here in PA Primary.

New Obama Advertisement:

Camera on a turbanned Emir as he slides an open brief case filled with neat stacks of dollars across the table. The camera closes in on the money. A suit sleeve with an older man's hand turns the brief case.

Emir: Of course that is for your speech and consulting with us.

Both laugh.

Announcer's voice over: "What are the Clintons hiding in their tax returns? Every other candidate has disclosed their return, why not the Clintons?"

The hand snaps the brief case closed.

So now Obamans are crying that they were shafted by Edwards due to John's racism. It's too funny. Or did I fall for a troll?

What Obama needs to do? You missed one, important one: as the agent of change, he ran on platform of government transparency, but refused to answer reporters if questions are tougher, didn't that hurt his saint image a lot?

Obama needs to simply point out that Clinton had to engage in massive deficit spending to win Ohio and Texas - the exact kind of spending that got the country to where it is today. Clinton can't manage to stay in the black even when her campaign has $150 million or more to spend in a year. How can she manage a $13 trillion GDP if she can't handle a few hundred million?

Obama has shown how naive he is about electioneering. This is the Big Leagues baby!!!!!

You got to roll up your sleeves and get to work Mr. Oh.

You don't have to get dirty to hit Clinton hard. Too much skeletons in her closet for you to be turning the other cheek. It suggests that you are a wimp..which far different from being a gentleman. Gentlemen will always defend their honor.
Good candidates know the whereabouts of their surrogates. They demand to be told of their plans. I have yet to hear that someones head has fallen for the NAFTA fiasco. Be Presidential by all means..but be decisive for ONCE.

Two hits, ONLY TWO HITS, the guy falling a part...

Now, they start crying "RACISM"

How is that RACISM?

He is a P***Y. He can't handle it.

What RACISM?... He is not ready for PRIME TIME.

HRC slap him silly couple of times and the guy start to cry RACISM.

P***Y, HRC will bend him over in PA...heeeeeee

HRC 08
HRC 08

Why did John Edwards not endorse Obama?????
That is pure hypocrisy or should I say RACISM?????
They all had similar views almost (at least from what Edwards portrayed) but we are all scratching our heads whether he really meant all the talk or was just looking for votes!!!!!!

I can understand why one could dismiss Obama's wins in red states as practically meaningless in a strategic sense, as those states are extremely unlikely to go Democrat in the general election.

But I don't understand why Clinton's wins in big blue states imply that she's got an advantage over Obama and should get the nomination.

Aren't those states going to go to the Democrats in November regardless of who the nominee is? Or is there fear that a big Clinton primary state would have a significant number of people refusing to vote if Obama were the nominee?

Obama wont win in a genral election.
Just not enough Hillary bashers in the country.

HUSSIEN out spent HRC 3 to 1, 3 to 1 my goodness.

WOW...3 to 1 and he lost?

He is a P***y!

HRC 08

The narrow win in Texas and moderate win in Ohio are essentially blips in the broader trend that Obama has won 12 of the last 15 contests, most by larger margins than Clinton won her home state of New York by. And that trend is likely to continue in the next few weeks as the race moves back to states which weren't selected weeks ahead of time by the Clintons as the most favorable terrain available.

It's amusing, and a little sad, to watch the press overcompensating for their perceived Obama bias by essentially repeating every piece of spin coming out of the Clinton camp over the last week. It's particularly disturbing because the press knows better than to actually believe the stuff they're writing.

Besides, if you say the press has been soft on Obama, why hasn't the press been harder on Hillary? Would it not be legitimate to ask questions about the inevitability of a Bill-caught-with-young-lady incident, and how that would affect a Clinton candidacy or presidency? Or are we all sticking our fingers in our ears and closing our eyes and telling ourselves that such a thing could never happen? If Rezko isn't getting enough coverage, then why aren't there more aggressive questions about Mark Rich, Norman Hsu, Kazakhstan, and all the other bad-smelling bits that have emerged recently on the Clinton side? The simple fact that Clinton is more interested in raking Obama's muck than he is in raking hers doesn't mean that the press is released from their obligation to be equally vigorous in their oversight of all candidates.

We need a "REAL AMERICAN" not Obama.

HRC 08

Hillary can definitely win. There are many more delegate counts to come and the difference in the number of delegates now between them is not insurmountable. She can win and she will. I will be happy not to have a president that has to read off cue cards or have to pause for long periods between thoughts as if they had no idea what they were going to say. That's plain embarassing. Our prez is supposed to be the leader of the free world. She's smart, she's tough, she can think fast. Let her represent.

jellinat,

You're damn right!

No, no, no, it is the math. All the conversations and dialogue is just banter. The race has not fundamentally changed. Her victories last night were her first in a month, and now its even? Please! The superdelegates will not overrule the will of the will of the people. It's not going to happen. Oh, and by the way, you can't have buyers remorse if it's your first time voting. Nothing in this article is commensensical.