The Trail: A Daily Diary of Campaign 2008

Many comments about the canidates are not based on any facts that have been discovered or independently investigated by the commentators posted, but by so call facts from the media,in general. The fact that most of what is reported is not authenticated or a repeat of he said she said. Normally the whole story is not told, just the portion that is deemed " News Worthy", whatever that means. Do we stop and ask the question, how is that determined or by whom? Do we really believe everything that is reported is true? It's one thing to report news from the source that created it, because it belongs to the them, it's not reporting news when it is assigned by another source. Media in general, gets a free pass on trustworthliness, which is a terrible mistake, because there is little or no accountability. It hides under a shroud of anonymity. This creates an atmosphere of superstition and allows things to spread, creating distrust and division as it takes on life, not at the source that created it , but at it's target. The current mess our country is in has very little to do with republicans or democrates. The shame of it all, is that relying on tv and radio personalities to tell us what truth is. No one or nothing on earth is perfect, but that doesn't mean we should not seek it. All things have errors or faults in them naturally, and if not covered up will be seen. Fabrications or modifications makes one wander, if something is being covered up. Diamonds and other precious things have faults and still have value, but the the less the faults the more value it has. We Americans say this proudly when we visit other countries and would not, inspite of our faults, would not trade her for the world. Does this mean that America need no improving and should be left as she is ? If that is the case nothing would ever need changing in this country, then should we conclude that the pursuit of perfection cease ?

It's a moot point who gets the Dem nomination...HRC or BHO...as any objective, thinking person knows McCain hasn't a snowball's chance of being elected president.

Once again, the Repubs in their infinite stupidity have handed the White House to the Democrats...this time they nominated a McGeezer who would continue with 4-8 more years of war-mongering, corruption, and incompetence.

Helluva job, Repubs!

George and Charlie screwed up what could have and should have been a good debate. Furthermore, that wasn't even a debate period. With a whole hour and a half, they reserved it (from the beginning even) for stupid questions, and among them the flag pin??? Those two are supposed to be professionals and in a nationally important televised debate, they bring up flag pins??? I should've been the moderator for goodness sakes. I'd have made good use of the time, and every question will have counted with substance. That was not a debate. That was a dumb waste of time and an insult to the intelligence of many. That was disrespectful of many people in terms of their time. This is an important year to vote for our next president, and we deserved to have a Good, Decent, Substantive debate.

George and Charlie combined, both of them failed many in this nation miserably. I hope they learned a lesson. Two of them, and not one of them saved the debate but continued down the same path of irrelevence. You two ought to be embarrassed with how you chose to utilize your ninety minutes. You had plenty of time to come up with good questions to cover that length of time, and that's the best you came up with during these crucial times? Pathetic. Sit back and watch some of the other debates.

michael4, short version: Obama makes the better general election nominee against McCain.

Short verson addendum: The only way that McCain wins is if voters ignore all issues of substance and get diverted by B.S. non-troversies.

And no I don't get paid for this stuff -- I just do my homework. I figure it's a civic duty to be an informed voter. I make reading up on this stuff a priority.

It'll be over next Tuesday, or--at the latest--on May 6. Then the intraparty bickering can stop and we can move on to the real contest: Obama vs. McCain.

I am amazed at how people said Obama did not do well in the debate. If he would have said as the world knows that Clinton lied about Bosnia and snipers. Bill lied when he said she only said it once late at night when she was fuzzy and tired,when she actually said it three time and she also said it during the day. Obama could have said well since her own husband said she can not think straight at 11 pm then how could she make a sound judgement at 3 am. He did remind us that Bill did pardon two Weathermen. Clinton better be concern about what the Republican have in store for her. Some of the bloggers may be to young to remember the Clinton scandals but the world did not. The Republican may delve into Foster's death, White water and why the Clintons have not named the contributors to Bill's library what about all of the pardons that Bill granted and what were the circumstances I think these are legitimates answer that are as relevant as any others. The best way to try to get people to forget about your transgressions is to attack your opponent. The Republicans want to face Clinton and not Obama, that is why some republicans were/are encouraged to vote for Clinton. There may be much more that the Republicans will reveal than the world already knows. Have anyone ever stop to think that Al Gore was VP under Bill but have not endosed Hillary. Mr. Gore who should be call President Gore seemed to not have wanted Bill involved in his campaign either. If being mean-sprited and putting your self above what is good for the country and party is what you want, then Hillary did well in the debate. If Obama would have alluded to Hillary's negatives then he would have been accused of picking on Hillary because she is a woman or using the same old negative politics. This was not necessary look at Hillary approval rating the Republicans will.

Remember folks meek is not weak but strength under control.

to Debra:

It is Clinton who doesn't believe in counting votes fairly. The rules were about Florida and Michigan were set in place BEFORE THE SOCALLED BUT ACTUALLY NONEXISTENT primaries took place. She knew it wouldn't count, she accepted it, until it appeared that it might cost her the nomination. Then, she wanted to change the rules afterward, which is never fair. What a crybaby. Everybody knows that in a fair contest, with candidate appearances allowed, and real advertising, unlike the paltry national ad campaigns aired by Obama, which happened to include FL (yes, he shouldn't have done that), he would have gotten a larger percentage of the vote than he did. And what about the rights of the Obama voters who stayed home because it wasn't going to count? She is the one stealing the election, and you are falling for her garbage!!!

JP2:

Either you are paid to write this garbage, or you have too much time on your hands. In any event, I am not about to waste my time reading that book of yours...how about an executive summary?

jennifer potenciano:

You mischaracterize too much for your "piece" to be educational. Get your facts straight.

Electability -- the exit polling on this one from Edison-Mitofsky courtesy MSNBC consistently shows this as the last of four concerns amongst Democratic primary voters. The vote typical ranks as the top concern for only about 6 to 8 percent of Democratic primary voters.

The electability issue does register as a concern, but it's safe to say that most voters are not as concerned about the issue as Washington's chattering class.

Let's deal with the argument though -- who is more electable?

If we're going strictly by the numbers one of the first factors that I'd want to look at are favorability numbers. According to Rasmussen Obama's negatives have gone up recently -- they've been anywhere from a high of 51 percent (bad) to as low as 44 percent over the past couple weeks (even after the Wright flap). Clinton's on the other hand registered as high as 56 percent in today's Rasmussen poll -- her numbers haven't dropped below 50 percent on the negative side in some time.

In today's recently released Newsweek poll Clinton's negatives registered at 49 percent to Obama's 36 percent.

Ideally going into the general election I would not want my party's nominee to be at or above 50 percent. Give McBush a couple months and we can start to make an apples to apples comparison on this one.

The other factor that I'd look at is the distribution of support levels. It is true that Clinton's numbers are roughly in the same neighborhood as Obama's -- however, from an electoral perspective there is no competition between the two. Clinton's numbers are bolstered by a strong concentration of support in a handful of key battleground states as well as reliably Democratic states -- Obama's are strong across the board outside of parts of the southeast -- especially west of the Mississippi.

While Clinton makes the substantially stronger play in Florida and New Jersey -- and would likely not need to invest resources in these states; she does significantly worse than Obama in Virginia, North Carolina, Iowa, New Hampshire, Michigan, Nebraska (with the state's split electoral votes), Oregon, Nevada, Washington, and Colorado -- states which Obama has the prospect of putting in play and forcing McSame and the RNC to invest resources.

Even at this stage -- based purely on electability I would much rather run with Obama than the alternative.

On the Clinton side, I think her team gets plaudits for their media spin operation -- they have been able to frame the narrative in ways favorable to their candidate in a manner that is not consistent with the reality on the ground.

In other areas they have not been as successful (ground organization, use of resources, etc).

In terms of contrast points too -- on special interest money, trustworthiness, and issues such as the Iraq War Obama serves as a much stronger contrast going into the general election. The breadth and diversity of his support networks too are an asset that neither of the general election alternatives is likely to have.

As far as Washington's special interests lobbies go Obama is more of an x-factor, so I would not be surprised to see a concerted and continued effort to obfuscate on big issues (the GOP isn't going to run on McBush's record -- the economy, Iraq, government transparency). "Who's the bigger patriot?" the last refuge of scoundrels -- is clearly where the GOP wants the debate to take place.

I'm also sure that many in the press corp won't seriously examine the assumptions underlying that question (is selling out the economic interests of ordinary Americans "patriotic"?) I think it's a safe bet that the ABC debate probably is a preview of the trivial nonsense that the chattering class will obsess over throughout the next several months. The primary concerns of ABC's news division are clearly not in alignment with your run of the mill voter.

At the end of the day though, I think the anger and desire for change in the general electorate is real enough.

I'm sure that McSame a career Washington insider will position himself as that agent of change, and I'm sure many of his friends on cable news and some network channels will attempt to sell that argument -- I'm not entirely sure though that a majority of voters will buy that argument in this election cycle.

"Democrats can't afford to nominate someone with no experience and a history of multiple felonies, including grand theft auto and a repeated use of hard drugs."

Didn't know Hillary was arrested for grand theft auto. Her other felonies were youthful indescretions, brought on by too many shots and beers down at the union hall.

WHAT ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT, MORON??

jmcauli1-
Your source is a blog not neccessarily a credible news source; anybody can compile any opinion or rumor on a blog and call it fact; Do you have a more reliable source for your info?

Speaking of shake ups and hard questions of Obama, a closer look at just how dirty and how clever the twisted schemes are in Chicago, and how up to his eyeballs Obama is with Rezko here's something the lazy rip and read journalists might want to get off their fat arses and take a look at.

It's from www.mydd.com/story/2008/1/30/1608/05885

"I am a long time employee of the Cook County Assessor and would like to come clean about personal knowledge relating to an inconsistency in Sen. Obama's property taxes.

Mr. Barack Obama and his wife purchased a house in Hyde Park during the month of June 2005. The total purchase price was $1,650,000. Title was put into a unnamed land trust. I will not publish a pin or address because of obvious security concerns for the Obama family.

The house was reassessed during summer of 2006. All of the surrounding houses were increased by an average of 28%. The Obama residence increased 6%. What is more troubling is that we always attempt to assess houses at about 68% of actual sale prices. The Obama residence is assessed at 90,882 with a market value of 568,012. That is just about one third of the selling price from 2005. When I questioned this assessment, I was transferred to another project in the office. The Obama assessment was then completed by the same person who did the workup for Governor Blagojevich's house, which also was assessed at a lower percentage of surrounding properties and rose at a fraction of the rate of surrouding properties. According to standards set up within the office, the assessment should have been 179,520 and the tax bill should have been almost double in this one assessment cycle alone.

These types of things occur almost weekly. Such is the way of Cook County and Chicago. They probably happen every day but I don't see it because they have me answering the telephone now."

This is small potatoes but it is part of very large rotten barrel of Chicagco style politcos.

Your sleazy Chicago politcians at work.

BTW Cheryl,
You might be interested to know that Rev. Wright in that sermon "Confusing God with Government" from which those snippets were pulled and aired 24/7, Rev Wright complains that it took so long for our government to pass ammendment's that established women's right to vote, equal representation under the law, and control over their own bodies; states that Native Americans, Japanese-Americans, African-Americans and others have been unfairly treated in the past; And that many governments have acted unfarily;(He also compliments our government for changing; specifically speaking approvingly of Bill Clinton's presidency); He reminds his congregation that oppressor's come in all colors;He reminds his constituency not to attribute any nations actions as God-blessed because God is always loving, always does the right thing; He reminds his congregation that when any government, any nation takes action that is dishonest or oppressive or without just cause,it cannot rightfully claim that those actions are God blessed.

I have noticed for months how some of Senator Clinton's supporters are quite bitter at Barack for probably winning a nomination, that was supposed to be coronation and how many of them often project, a psychological defense mechanism, in describing Barack, when what they say far more aptly characterizes Hillary, such as on ths issue of honesty.

Recent polls show Hillary has a negative rating of as high as 58% among the electorate. This highly negative opinion of her by a majority of people and polls showing Barack doing better against McCain, clearly show who is more electable in the fall.

Cheryl

There are several inaccuracies in your post:
First and foremost Obama and his campaign have never labeled any of Hillary's, Bill's,Geraldine Ferraro's, Lanny Davis', Rendell's, Carville's or any others from her campign as "racist", "racist-based", "racially-motivated" or any such thing;despite that some sonsitutents have suggested it,he has repeatedly said he does not attribute them as "racist"; He has called them "wrong-minded", "divisive" and "disingenuous".
(Those don't sound like particularly negative adjectives especially when compared to the Clinton campaign's labels of "un-American", "unpatriotic", "traitorous", "elitist"). You are correct in stating that he has apologized for statements made by his campaign that were inappropriate, though milder than many from the Clinton supporters.

Second the Clinton campaign came out on multiple occasions with politically-charged words and phrases that were intended to subtly trigger inference of race, religion, ethnicity with "calculated intent"; an effective political strategy requiring Obama to address race and for the clinton campaign to then counter that he was the first to bring race into this campaign. That is not saying that they or the campaign is "racist"; only that they knew that these carefully planted phrases and innuendos would trigger responses in others that are not nearly as "tolerant".

Third, many of us small donors have contributed to his campaign $25, $50, $100, or $250 of hard- earned salary at a time; I am not a lobbyist, a corporate executive, just a mom working hard to support a 17-year old son and donating for the first time to a presidential candidate. I have voted in every presidential campaign since I reached 18; I have read and listened and researched the candidates; I have based my support of presidential candidate on responsible and reasonable thinking and am very careful not to make unsupported and malicious statements regarding ANY candidate or potential candidate in
this campaign. I don't think it is unreasonable to
expect others to do the same.

gbook,i wasn't counting,i was comparing in case you missed that. the other thing you missed is i'm no hillary supporter. i'm not even a mccain supporter. and one thing is clear,the dems ideas are not sustainable and they are a danger to the country's future. but it looks like they will get to prove it.

What to talk electability??

McCain's will eventually rally the Republicans behind him and make it a tight race. . . . The CORPORATE media will favor McCain like they were against Hillary vs Obama, for the most part.

BUT, not all Democrats will hang in there with Obama, because he will never get the Latino vote. The Latino vote will mean a small hemorage away from the Democrats and toward the Republicans. . . . . . In other words a 4% lost of standard Democrats over to Republicans means an 8% swing. And in a tight race that can be important.

Also, Hillary offers the Democrats some insulation against those who are afraid of getting out of Iraq too soon. Although both Hillary and Obama want to pull the troops, the general perception is that Hillary will study the situation more and a lot better than the single minded Obama. . . . . . . Therefore, fence sitters on this subject can feel more comfortable with Hillary.

The long and short of it is that Hillary is more electable against McCain.

michael:
i don't read them that way. i see them as puncturing all the gee whiz, it's all over tabloid cable coverage cause obama has it wrapped up. it ain't over for the very points the articles made. it's only april and stuff does happen.

Hillary has stayed on for too long already , I don,t want to hear any more "I have 35 years experience." Doing what? If she some how manages to stay on much longer we won,t be able to buy Obama stickers etc until its to late to proudly display on our cars. Go Home lYing Hag!

When Obama decided to run for president, he said "I know how to win elections".
Obama has had some very big money behind him from day one.
In previous elections Obama has won by destroying his opponents. He has used the same tactics in this election.

He told his supporter, he was a new kind of politician and would not play negative politics.
His campaign then immediately attacked Hillary Clinton with accusations and insults that were so negative his campaign ended up having to apologize for them.
Next he said it would not be about race and then immediately twisted the words of Hillary Clinton in order to label her a racist.
This is a joke to anyone who knows her history, she has spent her life fighting for civil rights.
He also accused many others who have always supported civil rights of being racist. He made these accusation while he was still attending a racist church.

He has a way of doing things that seems to work on people.
First, everytime he insults Hillary Clinton he follows the insult with the comment that he does not want to play negative politics.
Second he made the media so afraid that if they questioned him on anything they would be accused of being racist.

Every morning his campaign holds a conference call where they always make some kind of accusation against Hillary Clinton and as soon as she responds they accuse her of going negative.

It is frightening that people are so easily misled by these tactics.

He also convinced his followers that he only gets money from small donors. Even though it has been reported on and proven that more than 50% of his donations are from large donors and that he does take money from the oil industry, his followers will defend him and deny the facts.

He attended a churh that preaches Black Liberation Theology, which is itself a racist view, for 20 years and never gave a speech asking the congregation to work on their anger and hatred against the white race or heal their anti-semitism.
Yet when this became an issue for his campaign he give a speech asking all Americans do work on these issues.
Even while asking Americans to get past racism he defended Reverend Wright.

Hillary Clinton would not have gone negative in this campaign if Obama had not forced her to in order to defend herself.
Hillary Clinton is about solutions and loves nothing more than explaining her plans and solutions in detail. That is the way her campaign would have gone if Obama had not derailed it with the help of the media.

What those who support Obama should take into consideration is that the media have given him a free ride and attacked Hillary non-stop.
If Obama wins the nomination the table will turn. The media will support the Republican nominee and will assist the Republican party is destroying him and there is more ammunition for them to do this than you can imagine. We have only scratched the surface so far.

A vote for Obama is a vote for McCain.

A vote for Hillary Clinton is a vote for a better America.

What a joke. The article starts out saying that neither Clinton nor Obama can claim to be more electable, and then goes on to demonstrate, point by point, how Obama is polling ahead with nearly every constituent group and is leading McCain by 5 points nationally, while Clinton trails by 3 points.

The media really wants to drag this thing out and it has become so obvious that it is just pathetic.

Our fourth estate has been co-opted for a long time now, there are very few quality journalists out there.

For those of you who think Hillary would be a good president, haven't you had enough lies and deceit lately to last a lifetime?
She is a power hungry, self-righteous, indignant, manipulator and you've all fallen for her shrill ploy.

fieldenstern:

Despite it website URL ("straightrecord") it appears to be no more than an apologist site for Clinton. In addition to the verbiage, it also includes links to Clinton websites. Come up with something objective, and don't waste our (my) time.

all is not lost, cristine, for you or my candidate, joe biden. see my posting a few above yours.

Though I did not(and do not) support the current administration's position on a multitude of issues; I am even more appalled as to how it conducts its business:
1. Its insistence that rules and laws do not apply to this administration and their actions
2. Its eagerness to label those who disagree with its views and actions as "un-American", "unpatriotic","elitist", "traitorous"
3. Its willingness to dispel truth and supplant it with "misspeaks" and distortions
4. Its cronyism; Rewarding individuals for "loyalty" above ability and credibility
5. And to punish those who dare speak against their distortions and actions

When I see a presidential campaign again and again twisting facts, falsely representing the validity of the Fl and MI primaries; neglecting to tell their constituents that they lent their support to Kathleen Sullivan (NH)in opposing early primaries during the vote at the DNC vote (including MI);falsely labeling the opponent and their supporters as "un-American", "unpatriotic",
"traitorous", "Judas", it is not difficult for me to see that despite its proposed positions being more in line with mine, its concept about how to conduct a campaign ( and I fear how it will conduct its administration) are repugnant and damaging.
I venture that I am not the only one who has made this connection but I have not heard anyone address it. Its not just what you say you'll do; its how accountable you'll be to the voters who you are supposed to be representing. Of course, none of us can be certain whether the candidate once elected will deliver on their promises but these "at all costs" tactics do not bode well for
the presidential campaign of which I speak.
Posted by:IntelliWhitFeminiWoman

The media has been propping up Hillary all along before Obama made a name for himself and now that Obama is beating her in most states. ABC must stand for "A biggoted channel" because the two "moderators" looked like they were trying to hold Obama as Jack Johnson down to protect the great white hope Hillary. Nobody was fooled by the claim that they are getting tough now. They pulled the prejudice card out.

I don't know if Obama can win since the entire media seems intent on slandering him running with the slanders hurled by HilBill and McCain (and the right-weirdo groups haven't even had to spend money yet, but I do know HilBill can't win. She has told one lie too many, as has her repulsive evil twin/husband.

JohnAdams1:

And you are from what planet? It wasn't Bill's friends who initially "turned on her"... it was the VOTERS. Bill didn't help, running his mouth constantly, I'll grant you. However, she started with the assumption that she would be crowned by acclimation and had zero plan for after Super Tuesday, which she lost. Afterwards, the "kitchen sink" tactic sunk her, and exposed her for what she evidently is, a spoiled brat. She needs to re-group and help Obama win in November then help him (and need I say us?) get this country on the right path. We still need her. I hope she doesn't let us down again.

After Super Tuesday, the FOB simply decided to get on a winning horse. If you want a friend in Washington, get a dog.

I grow more frightened every day. Why oh, why was my candidate John Edwards eliminated so early and ignored by the media? This whole historic "black/women" blathering has given us two questionable candidates who have turned the democratic sure victory in 08 into a republican wet dream. We need to wipe the slate clean of both of them and get a viable candidate now!

Hillary Clinton has lost. It is over. She fights on weakening Obama and positioning herself to say "I told you so" when the party should be uniting. The only way you beat Obama is by ruining him. Nobody will support her as a delegate if she does that.

Her megalomaniac defense for attacking Obama is that the Republicans will do the same in the fall. Carrying water for the Republicans reveals your true colors Mrs. Clinton.

Are you trying to line yourself up for an independent run with Lieberman or something?

On another note some good is coming out of a drawn out race with discourse and debate going on every single state this election season for the first time ever.

More people are registered Dem now more than ever. Twice as many people were voting in the Dem primary than in the GOP in the early states. And all of this is scaring the Bejesus out of the Neocon-McCarthy Party. Hillary has raised more than twice as much as McSame. Obama has raised more than three times as much as McSame.

The Republicans keep digging deeper for manure in Democratic fields to salvage their November chances. The RNC is getting desperate.

Are you Republicans really so blind to see that fresh steaming coating of manure the Bush/Cheney Administration just coated your field with?

Parties be damned, moderates will see this election is too important for McCain to continue the insanity of Bush/Cheney policy.

And to everyone who is attacking Obama for his ties to Rezko, his reverend and all of that other crap... You strike me as the morons who voted in Bush and I tell you what, you are a pot calling the kettle black. With all of the corruption of Bush and Cheney to Halliburton, their ties to that insane group called PNAC, this only shows that Bush and Cheney are just as insane as Ayers and Wright.

What a ludicrous article!

I mean, I have taken a step back from this whole process and have not been glued to the TV like most people who watch Faux News and read the WaPo.

I mean, who writes this stuff!!!!

After the Democratic party convention, it will be a whole new ball game.

McCain's comment that "we will be in Iraq for the next 100 years" will be played over and over and over again.

Talk about "electability problems"!

if the superdelegates wait until the convention, they'll have a good idea. part of the decision will be which will help in their particular area of interest. that's what the back-room arm-twisting is about. check out a more thorough exposition of the situation here: www.straightrecord.com/dems and www.straightrecord.com/obama.

Is there an echo in here?

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Let us remember, there is no rule that the superdelegates have to follow the pledged delegate count. If they did, then we wouldn't need superdelegates.

Superdelegates are there to ensure that the most electable candidate in November gets the nomination.

The two candidates are in a virtual tie. If either candidate had 2025 in the delegate count, that is a big number, more certainty. A sign of great popularity.

Fact is neither has a clear advantage.

The superdelegates need to do what they are there for and support the candidate that has the best chance of winning, in THEIR JUDGMENT.

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Let us remember, there is no rule that the superdelegates have to follow the pledged delegate count. If they did, then we wouldn't need superdelegates.

Superdelegates are there to ensure that the most electable candidate in November gets the nomination.

The two candidates are in a virtual tie. If either candidate had 2025 in the delegate count, that is a big number, more certainty. A sign of great popularity.

Fact is neither has a clear advantage.

The superdelegates need to do what they are there for and support the candidate that has the best chance of winning, in THEIR JUDGMENT.

Obama's Minister Committed "Treason" But When My Father Said the Same Thing He Was a Republican Hero
Posted March 16, 2008 | 04:23 PM (EST)

When Senator Obama's preacher thundered about racism and injustice Obama suffered smear-by-association. But when my late father -- Religious Right leader Francis Schaeffer -- denounced America and even called for the violent overthrow of the US government, he was invited to lunch with presidents Ford, Reagan and Bush, Sr.

Every Sunday thousands of right wing white preachers (following in my father's footsteps) rail against America's sins from tens of thousands of pulpits. They tell us that America is complicit in the "murder of the unborn," has become "Sodom" by coddling gays, and that our public schools are sinful places full of evolutionists and sex educators hell-bent on corrupting children. They say, as my dad often did, that we are, "under the judgment of God." They call America evil and warn of immanent destruction. By comparison Obama's minister's shouted "controversial" comments were mild. All he said was that God should damn America for our racism and violence and that no one had ever used the N-word about Hillary Clinton.

Dad and I were amongst the founders of the Religious right. In the 1970s and 1980s, while Dad and I crisscrossed America denouncing our nation's sins instead of getting in trouble we became darlings of the Republican Party. (This was while I was my father's sidekick before I dropped out of the evangelical movement altogether.) We were rewarded for our "stand" by people such as Congressman Jack Kemp, the Fords, Reagan and the Bush family. The top Republican leadership depended on preachers and agitators like us to energize their rank and file. No one called us un-American.

Consider a few passages from my father's immensely influential America-bashing book A Christian Manifesto. It sailed under the radar of the major media who, back when it was published in 1980, were not paying particular attention to best-selling religious books. Nevertheless it sold more than a million copies.

Here's Dad writing in his chapter on civil disobedience:

If there is a legitimate reason for the use of force [against the US government]... then at a certain point force is justifiable.

And this:

In the United States the materialistic, humanistic world view is being taught exclusively in most state schools... There is an obvious parallel between this and the situation in Russia [the USSR]. And we really must not be blind to the fact that indeed in the public schools in the United States all religious influence is as forcibly forbidden as in the Soviet Union....

Then this:

There does come a time when force, even physical force, is appropriate... A true Christian in Hitler's Germany and in the occupied countries should have defied the false and counterfeit state. This brings us to a current issue that is crucial for the future of the church in the United States, the issue of abortion... It is time we consciously realize that when any office commands what is contrary to God's law it abrogates it's authority. And our loyalty to the God who gave this law then requires that we make the appropriate response in that situation...

Was any conservative political leader associated with Dad running for cover? Far from it. Dad was a frequent guest of the Kemps, had lunch with the Fords, stayed in the White House as their guest, he met with Reagan, helped Dr. C. Everett Koop become Surgeon General. (I went on the 700 Club several times to generate support for Koop).

Dad became a hero to the evangelical community and a leading political instigator. When Dad died in 1984 everyone from Reagan to Kemp to Billy Graham lamented his passing publicly as the loss of a great American. Not one Republican leader was ever asked to denounce my dad or distanced himself from Dad's statements.

Take Dad's words and put them in the mouth of Obama's preacher (or in the mouth of any black American preacher) and people would be accusing that preacher of treason. Yet when we of the white Religious Right denounced America white conservative Americans and top political leaders, called our words "godly" and "prophetic" and a "call to repentance."

We Republican agitators of the mid 1970s to the late 1980s were genuinely anti-American in the same spirit that later Jerry Falwell and Pat Robertson (both followers of my father) were anti-American when they said God had removed his blessing from America on 9/11, because America accepted gays. Falwell and Robertson recanted but we never did.

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

The basics of the electability of either Democratic candidate in November comes down to simple terms any voter can understand.
The alternative will be another 4 years of the Republican (Bush) policies that are tantamount to a speeding vehicle headed for the abyss with John McCain pressing the throttle fully "open" and telling the American voters to "enjoy the ride."

Skinsfan1978 - Wow, I'm glad you're not in charge, with your ideas, Liberia would look awfully tame. Anyone who speaks against any of America's actions 'hates' America?

Even those who stand against the REAL TORTURE we have inflicted on people? Even those who stand against our extraordinary renditions? Or our secret prisons? Or our suspension of habeas corpus? Or our decision to lock up people without the right to challenge their imprisonment, a fair trial, or the ability to contact the outside world to obtain relief from unjust arrest?

Does speaking against the injustices done in America's name (even those done centuries ago) earn the badge of hating America?

Silly me, I thought I loved it, and was defending it from those who would use it's might to do wrong and injustice, as has happened repeatedly under Bush. Instead, I assert that YOU hate America, for not demanding accountability from those doing wrong in her name, by allowing unjust wars to continue, and injustices to be done to people around the planet, that you are suborning the destruction of America, by not demanding ACCOUNTABILITY from her leaders!

In reality YOU hate America,and you don't grasp what it stands for, asserting that:
"'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged"

Oddly enough, we aren't technically AT WAR! Only Congress can declare it, and it hasn't done so. Bush was given the ability to use military force (inadvisably), and he has disastrously misused it.

gbook. everybody in the nation saw rev. wright. it ain't made up and the idea that8000000 middle class blacks are racists is as easy to believe as 8000.

Posted by: gunclinger. | April 18, 2008 7:07 PM
_________________________________________

So now it's 8 million racist blacks. No wonder Hillary's losing, her supporters are all math-challenged. (But not meth-challenged!)

Clinton Slams Democratic Activists At Private Fundraiser

At a small closed-door fundraiser after Super Tuesday, Sen. Hillary Clinton blamed what she called the "activist base" of the Democratic Party -- and MoveOn.org in particular -- for many of her electoral defeats, saying activists had "flooded" state caucuses and "intimidated" her supporters, according to an audio recording of the event obtained by The Huffington Post.

"Moveon.org endorsed [Sen. Barack Obama] -- which is like a gusher of money that never seems to slow down," Clinton said to a meeting of donors. "We have been less successful in caucuses because it brings out the activist base of the Democratic Party. MoveOn didn't even want us to go into Afghanistan. I mean, that's what we're dealing with. And you know they turn out in great numbers. And they are very driven by their view of our positions, and it's primarily national security and foreign policy that drives them. I don't agree with them. They know I don't agree with them. So they flood into these caucuses and dominate them and really intimidate people who actually show up to support me."
Clinton's remarks depart radically from the traditional position of presidential candidates, who in the past have celebrated high levels of turnout by party activists and partisans as a harbinger for their own party's success -- regardless of who is the eventual nominee -- in the general election showdown.

The comments also contradict Clinton's previous statements praising this year's elevated Democratic turnout in primaries and caucuses, and appear to blame her caucus defeats on newly energized grassroots voter groups that she has lauded in the past as "lively participants" in American democracy.

"You've been asking the tough questions," Clinton said in April of last year at a MoveOn-sponsored town hall event. "You've been refusing to back down when any of us who are in political leadership are not living up to the standards that we should set for ourselves... I think you have helped to change the face of American politics for the better... both online, and in the corridors of power."

Clinton's criticism followed MoveOn's endorsement of Obama in early February. The group was initially established in 1999 to oppose the Republican-led effort to impeach President Bill Clinton, and now claims 3.2 million members.

In a statement to The Huffington Post, MoveOn's Executive Director Eli Pariser reacted strongly to Clinton's remarks: "Senator Clinton has her facts wrong again. MoveOn never opposed the war in Afghanistan, and we set the record straight years ago when Karl Rove made the same claim. Senator Clinton's attack on our members is divisive at a time when Democrats will soon need to unify to beat Senator McCain. MoveOn is 3.2 million reliable voters and volunteers who are an important part of any winning Democratic coalition in November. They deserve better than to be dismissed using Republican talking points."
Howard Wolfson, communications director for the Clinton campaign, verified the authenticity of the audio, and elaborated on Clinton's charge that these same party activists were engaged in acts of intimidation against her supporters: "There have been well documented instances of intimidation in the Nevada and the Texas caucuses, and it is a fact that while we have won 4 of the 5 largest primaries, where participation is greatest, Senator Obama has done better in caucuses than we have." About Clinton's remarks suggesting dismay over high Democratic activist turnout, Wolfson said, "I'll let my statement stand as is."

In fact, the Nevada caucuses occurred prior to MoveOn's endorsement of Obama, and when Clinton made her remarks, the Texas caucuses had yet to take place.

The disclosure of Clinton's statement disparaging the prominence of party activists in the caucus process comes after she repeatedly suggested that Obama's electability had been compromised because he had allegedly offended other key Democratic constituencies.
******************

go to Huffington post to listen to audio recording of Hillary's remarks.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/celeste-fremon/clinton-slams-democratic_b_97484.html

Polling at this time of the cycle has nothing to do with the general election. Most people are not comparing Obama to McCain. Polls only are somewhat meaningful about primaries.

Gov Rendell says 7% for Clinton. He is probably right. Unfortunately, the election continues.

Copyright Reverend Irving Wright with twenty years of Amens from Barry Obama

While the storm clouds gather far across the sea,
Let us repudiate a land that's so called free,
Let us all be hateful for a land that's so called fair,
As we raise our voices in a bitter solemn prayer.

God Da-mn America,
Land that I loathe.
Stand astride her, yet despise her
With a chip on a shoulder from above.
From the plantations, up to Harvard
To the Jews rich from our blood
God Da-am America, keepin' us down down down.

People that support Obama
Durbin compares American soldiers to Nazis
Michelle believes America is a mean country (Obama supporters are)
Wright hates America and whites
Ayers hates America
Kerry trashes American military to California students, telling them that those unable to navigate the country's education system "get stuck in Iraq." (There are people with degrees that choose to protect this country from liberal nuts)
Howard Dean, 'The idea that we're going to win the war in Iraq is an idea which is just plain wrong. I've seen this before in my life. This is the same situation we had in Vietnam.'

Senator Kennedy said, blamed the actions on a few to the entire American military saying, 'We now learn that Saddam's torture chambers reopened under new management, United States management.'

I agree with what Abraham Lincoln once wrote,'Congressmen who willfully take actions during wartime that damage morale and undermine the military are saboteurs and should be arrested, exiled or hanged.'
It's time to stand against those that blame America for the world's problems!

skinsfan1978 - Don't let the MSM rhetoric fool you, the media are talking about him because the people are talking about him. Obama brings hope, and is convincing enough to make people want to FOLLOW.

You know what that is? It's something we haven't had for nearly eight years.

A LEADER.

Leaders aren't elected, they aren't made, they are who they are because of what they do, and what they say. They excite people, they interest people, they inspire people. They make people WANT to follow them, because their ideas and plans get folks fired up and hopeful!

Bill Clinton was a good leader, Reagan was phenomenal, Hillary can't, McCain can't either, and Bush couldn't find how to be one with GPS, a roadmap and a flashlight.

The question should be : Who will definitely lose?

Just look at the mathematics. Obama has a real problem getting white, Hispanic, and Asian votes in the general election. For instance, if Obama can only get about 30% of the white votes (especially low in battle ground states like Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey), in the DEMOCRATIC primaries, he will get even lower % in the general election becasue most of the white votes are for Republican traditionally. Even with 100% of black votes, it just does not have enough for him to win. You call it racism or not (by the way, there are racist blacks too), it's the reality.

Plus the tension existed between the blacks and the Hispanics and Asians has a long history. Both the Hispanics and the Asians are afraid of "black power" in any shape and form. If Obama becomes the president, they are afraid that the blacks in the neighborhood will be greatly enpowered and cause great damage to their standing in the society.

On the other hand, Clinton may not be able to generate the same level of enthusiasm among the black voters as Obama can, but Clinton will still get vast majority of the black votes. Plus she can count on the 53% of the white votes (Woman votes) and the Hispanic and Asian votes. The white male votes will ultimately decide the winner between Clinton and McCain.

The bottomline is this: Obama mathematically can not win. Clinton can win if she can get close to 40% of the white male vote. It's a probability game. Clinton has a better chance to win versus Obama's zero chance.

RE: Comment from Michelle, that's a great catch, the identical posts at 3:37 and 6:53! Makes one wonder how much of the 'vast right-wing conspiracy' may actually be true? Just because you're paranoid doesn't mean they're not after you.

Maybe not as an actual organization per se, but a number of people with similar views, trying to manipulate the system and people, with an organized distribution of talking points! Kind of scary actually.

Hilary would make a better Senator than President. You can win an election with 50% +1 vote (sometimes with less as the child Bush did) but you can't govern and lead.

Obama will trounce the old, slow and boring McCain. Vote for the past or the future? America always votes for the future. The Family values voters aren't going to vote for a guy who dumped his sick wife to hook up with a young blond heiress. The evangelicals aren't going to be enthusiastic about a guy who called their leaders evil. The jingoistic border vigilantes won't be happy that he won't seal the borders and the rest of the country is made as hell for his whole-hearted support of the Bush-child.

Save America from Republicans!

Stephanopoulos and Gibson asked Obama questions the Obama media would not ask. A large number of the media elite have jumped on the Obama bandwagon and lost sight of reporting the facts, they defend Obama. Liberal Reporters that cover Obama may be afraid of being labeled racist, so they have lost their objectivity and parrot each other in their support of Obama. These same reporters did not feel Hillary's pain when she was ganged banged by Russert and Williams during the MSNBC debate. The media feel their propaganda campaign will result in Obama being elected President.

I am baffled as to how a man who will be 72 years old, wants to remain in Iraq forever,wants more taxcuts while the infrastructre is falling apart, could even have a ghost of a chance at the presidency.

Hillary is unelectable. She is an angry, bitter, vicious woman who will do anything to get what she wants.

The problem with the article on electability is that it doesn't address the huge difference between Hillary and Obama concering their ability to persuade and inspire voters. She has done nothing comparable to Obama's race speech in which he reversed the gathering tide against him. His most recent dip--some argue it didn't happen--because of the gotcha issues and his mediocre performance at the last debate, that dip only is an occasion for a new brilliant adjustment coming up. He has established that he can counterpunch very effectively. She hasn't been able to recover from the self-inflicted damage she's suffered during the last few months. Look for Obama to overwhelm her as he gathers himself to increasingly better handle the only thing that has seemed to her to work, spurious attacks against him.

My suggestion is that he stop arguing the facts involved in the guilt by association charges and take the offense, pointing out decisively that these arguments have impact because voters "unconsciously" infer from a negative association that, for instance, Obama supports bombing the Pentagon. He needs to expose that implicit charge and show it's ludicrousness. He needs then to go even more on the offensive, not trashing people for talking trash, but challenging them to make an explicit charge of wrong doing and then provide evidence for it. That will help people see through this partly effective ploy and innure them to it. He needs to keep patrolling our vulnerability to all of these guilt by association and guilt by spurious inference and increasingly help us to decisively see through these machinations.

With all the tiresome, repetitive hate Hillary rant and cant we have to put up with, I don't recall hearing hardly anyone saying that Senator Clinton would actually make a bad President.

The important question isn't Obama's electability, it is Hillary's. While I believe she is head and shoulders more competent than the current occupant of the Oval Office, she is the only candidate to cause an immediate, intense, visceral reaction from 50% of the US. HALF of this country immediately begins to froth at the mouth, whine about the word 'IS' and become increasingly irrational to the point of idiocy. Given the choice between banishing Hillary or Satan from the universe, they would opt for Hillary's removal every time! That these folks also have the ability to cast votes in an election she is running for, should be of HUGE concern to the Democrats!!

Nobody votes FOR a candidate anymore, they all vote for the lesser of two evils. And when Hillary is undoubtably the greater of two evils (to a MINIMUM of half of the country), even when compared with Satan, her electability is not only suspect, it is DOOMED.

The greatest threat on election day is turnout, and if Hillary's name is on the ballot, you will see Republican turnout like never before. The personal and intense anger towards her from the right, is rather similar to the anger directed towards Bush from the left. VERY deep, VERY serious, and VERY personal. They wouldn't trust this person to fetch the newspaper, much less run the country.

I have no problem with a woman president, and am certain one will hold the office one day, it just won't be Hillary.

In fact, a vote for Hillary will only be a vote for McCain in the end, it may not be right, it may not be fair, but in the world of reality we dwell in, it just IS.

And to all those who whine about Reverend Wright, McCain's sycophancy to Jerry Falwell is far more concerning to me. Wright's anger stems from centuries of anger due to slavery and oppression, not merely incessant whining about Xtianity not being the only faith in America anymore. I could quote all kinds of offensive and ignorant Falwellisms here, but I'll leave that to you if you are even open-minded enough about it to check. Obama had the good sense to disavow Wright and his comments, though in context his words carry some wisdom. McCain has yet to reach for the Listerine to wash the taste of Jerry Falwell out of his mouth, and that leaves an awful taste in mine, John McCain.

I always wondered about sudden surge of Obama, an African American on the political front. Digging a little deeper gave me a glimpse of what is happening in the African continent has direct impact on the establishment wanting an African American in the White House for propaganda purpose. The Chinese are making inraods in Africa diplomatically, financially, economically and politically in every country. They are beating USA and Europe at their own games with heavily subsidized government owned companies giving virtually free many things than Africa needs. In return, they make those countries right off their future by getting exclusive mining rights at dirt price. To regain our influence, we need an African American as the president. Or we will be locked out by the Chinese on the African continent. I am sure most of the Africans are not fond of the White America. Many who studied in USA faced blatant resentment and discrimination. So, our remedy is Obama.

Dan, write these few words down, and save them til November, by whihc time you'll have wasted a million of the things. (words)

Obam 54%
McCain 43%

Only a boob can't see that Hillary is toast, and that McCain is a B-Teamer on his best day.

Balz, like so many others in the MSM strains to write that "neither can make a convincing case of electability". Are we to believe that the candidate who is thought to be dishonest by 6 out of 10 DEMOCRATS is electable?

Dan, your a smart guy, how come you keep talking about Clinton?

She doesn't stand a chance in hell in either the Dem or National race. And you flog her candidacy all day long.

Yellow fellow much?

The media seems to be searching for a "great white hope", and what they dont get is that most Americans are ready for change. The media treats Obama like Jack Johnson, how dare he try to be president. I like him and think he will win.

john adams,i just hope evryone keeps it together and it doesn't turn out in the streets of chicago like the bears losing the superbowl.

Garret

Obama will sweep into office on a generational wave? With Kennedy, Kerry, Nunn, Richardson, Dodd, Leahy, et al? What generation are you talking about?

JohnAdams1,
What happens when all these political relics that endorsed Obama discover they have boarded the Titanic and head for the lifeboats at the same time? That will be worth watching.

the dems can beat mccain with a clear demonstration of the sort of government the right wants, the sort of behavior the right has displayed.

Obama will sweep into office on a generational wave, taking the country back from the liars & manipulators, just in time. (Late, actually, but that's what he has to work with) Clinton & McCain don't stand a chance though the media will keep the show going and their ratings high till November.

More than 1.3 million donors so far, and the Clinton machine broken!

Hope is hard to hear after the Reagan, Clinton, & Bush years, but it's real.

Obama's church had 8000 members? No wonder he stayed in. That's 8000 voters. If I ever decide to run for office, remind me to join the biggest chruch I can find.

vidal,enlightened people? i thought i saw some people who looked lighter.

I'm sorry, Mr. Balz, but this is just foolish.

If Americans don't know by now why McCain is useless to them and to their country, not to mention downright dangerous (as if we hadn't had enough of that already), then he's all they deserve.

Republican warmongering, ignorance, arrogance, corruption, downright lying and greed should be all any sane person needs to be quite sure that the time has come to try something else - almost ANYTHING else.

Most people agree that neither Clinton nor Obama come across as idiots. On the other hand, almost any Republican you care to name is open to that charge today. (It was not always so)

Live with it, Mr. Balz.
Your neocon empire is going to have to wait.
Americans are still too smart to fall for it.

The woman is untrustworthy?

I think the dishonest and untrustworthy candidate is Obama.

But the really dishonesty rests with the old line democrats and now firends of bill who turned on the woman.

Just when the economy is declining and burden of that will fall on women and children, all the male democrats whom women supported and now stabbing the woman in the back and will block her win.

Speaking of being -- and not being -- honest with each other, speaking of pre-digested talking points:

So far on this discussion thread, there are two comments, seemingly word-for-word identical in content, with the title "Obama and the Country of Doom." One of the comments is signed by "Marian Williams" and posted April 18, 2008 3:37 PM. The other is signed by "Saul Calliway" and posted April 18, 2008 6:53 PM.

I urge the Washington Post editors to leave both of these comments up. They show evidence of this kind of fake "participation" in discussions. Some people are coming to these discussions and posting talking points and/or entire articles that do not come from them.

This is part of the situation with the US political system right now. Some people are being spoon-fed words that they then post as if it comes from them (or whatever name they claim to have). The people who posted this identical pre-written comment did not cite a source for the writing they posted -- this practice implies they have written it themselves. Obviously, however, they did not.

Spin, hype, lies, fakeness, stubborn and willful lack of human-ness and respect for one another -- these are part of our practice as a nation. Talking points and pre-made "commentary" substitutes for real participation that is based on careful and intelligent attempts to understand and assess what is happening and to make our decisions based on that understanding and assessment.

Senator Obama's strength and his weakness is that his practice and perspective rejects that kind of fake-participation. He asks himself and he asks us to be real about what is going on, to be real with each other, to reject the plastic fake spin approach to being part of this country.

I really don't know if we, collectively as a nation, are up to this challenge. But as I see things, decisions about whether we will step up and be real are squarely in front of us right now.

THANKS GOD WE HAVE THE INTERNET SO WE CAN FIGHT ANY LIES COMING FROM THE LUNATIC RIGHT. AS WE ALL enlightened PEOPLE KNOW, WE DON'T EXPECT ANY TRUTHFUL REPORTING FROM THE 'MAIN STREAM' MEDIA. IN REALITY THE AMERICAN MEDIA OUTLETS ARE COLLECTION OF FORMER POLITICAL OPERATIVES OR SIMPLE CORPORATE LACKEYS.

How can Hillary win the "electability" argument when, according to the latest NEWSWEEK poll, "a majority of all registered voters now see her as dishonest and untrustworthy"?

(In the poll, she scores 41 percent for "honest and trustworthy," compared to 61 percent for Obama and McCain.)

gbook. everybody in the nation saw rev. wright. it ain't made up and the idea that8000000 middle class blacks are racists is as easy to believe as 8000.

obama has surrounded himself with America haters...people who would have America destroyed and neutered...How can any American support this white hater and America basher...will ayers be a member of the cabinet, maybe secretary of defense. maybe wright will be the white house chaplain and will farakhan and the new black panthers replace the secret service...will the dems remember that any President does not have absolute power and it's the congresses job to oversee the white house not just give him a pass...This is your America, think twice about your future because the only one to blame is yourselfs, no one else...

That's right sheeple, keep reading WaPoPravda and the rest of the fascist MSM. Keep reading the propaganda that will lead you to the slaughter, again.

The fact is, Obama is most certainly electable over McCain.

Just look at the war economy that has bankrupted America, destroyed our greatness, and shredded our Constitution.

Why in heaven's name would anyone with half a brain want to vote for more of the same by voting for either McCain or Clinton?

Honestly, this is hysterical.

First he's a Muslim. Then he's a Christian who belongs to a racist church (who knew 8000 upper middle class black taxpayers were so bigoted). Then he was in the pocket of a slumlord who froze people to death. Then he was doing lines in the back of a limo with a gay hooker not named Jeff Gannon. Then he was plotting to blow up the US with a Weatherman. Now he's in league with the Mafia, And all the time, he hates America -- the country that made him a multi-millionaire -- because he won't wear a flag lapel pin.

Seriously, who can read all that and take it seriously? No wonder his numbers keep going up, NOBODY is stupid enough to believe all that. I'm waiting for the investigative report on how his kids play tag "rough" during elementary school recess.

The better question is, why are so many rich and powerful people afraid of him?

the left has hyjacked the democrat party. neither one of these two can win. the american people are tired of middle of the road bush but that doesn't mean they want to turn the country into a freak show.

Gee, how disingenuous to claim what "the Republicans" are gonna do as an excuse for doing what you claim they will. Why wait for them? Hillary can do it, to the disgust of thinking Democrats. She has shown herself to be a liar and a poor loser. What a shame. She should have been more honest and classy.

As for the media, they have kept her alive as much as anyone, all so they can keep a fight going. She has no chance remaining for all practical purposes. She just wants to continue fund-raising so she can pay her debts, and repay her loan.

26% of Democrats are polled as racist. HO HO HO.

In the last debate I finally realized that John Edwards was right in saying that he was the only grown-up on the stage. How can one of these two children bickering about a lapel pin be taken seriously as contenders for the Presidency of the greatest nation on Earth and the supreme command of the US Forces?

Obama and the Country of Doom

Obama spells doom for this country. Not only because of his dubious affiliations with mob members like Rezko and criminals like Auchi, but because of his lack of experience and bias education especially his bizarre religious affiliations. He is like silly putty; able to change his ideas for the public as needed so as to achieve his goal as supreme leader.

His intentions are unclear, but his affiliations are clear. Being surrounded with people like the violent Ayers, or the Hiteresque Wright, or his American hating wife Michelle, or his Kenyan half brother Islamic Jihad terrorist Abongo "Roy" Obama, or his Jewish/Israeli hating best friend Rashid Khalidi, or his close advisor Robert Malley who advocates supporting and helping the terrorist group Hamas, or Mr. McPeaks, Obama's military advisor who open believes American Jews are the "problem." and "Christian Zionists were driving America's policy in Iraq to benefit Israel," or Obama's super delegate and major long term supporter Senator Meeks who openly hates and distrust all whites and gays or Obama's most dangerous affiliation to Mr. Auchi who was Saddam Hussein right hand man and made billions in Iraq and has been a important supporter and behind the scene man throughout Obama's rise to power.

And besides all this questionable laundry in Obama's life, another serious question is why is Obama protected and promoted by the media? Is this also being directed from behind the scenes? The American public has been fooled before and I guess those in power know we can be fooled again. (Kennedy's assassination, Martin Luther King's assassination, the invasion of Iraq...).

The fact that Obama has made it this far demonstrates the collective lack of discriminative intelligence and education of this country. And nothing demonstrates this better than how well Obama plays his black card; which plays on our fear of being labeled a racist.

Has anyone seen Webb Hubbell lately? Is he still alive? Isn't it strange he's no longer available for pictures?

I wonder if he's on retained to the Clinton campaign.

Hillary has not been fully vetted and could not win the general election. Does anyone really think the Republicans don't have tons of material to use against her (and Bill)? McCain would skate to the presidency if she were the Dem. nominee.

@ kevin April 18, 2008 3:15 PM: You write that you "do not know this man" and have been reading and listening. I would be interested in knowing more about what you have been reading and listening to.

Also, I would be interested to know if you have actually read the books that Senator Obama has written.

I myself have only read the first one, Dreams From My Father. When combined with my observations of how he has actually been running his campaign (actions I can observe), the book gave me an excellent feel for who he is -- not just the content but also the way he approaches things, the way he thinks, the standards he uses to determine action.

There are also some other excellent articles online that lay out his perspectives, including a 1995 Chicago Reader article that has a lot of good info to help you make your assessment:

http://www.chicagoreader.com/features/stories/archive/barackobama/

Based on my own values and judgment, I strongly feel that he should be the next president of the United States. That's my perspective based on careful observation and reflection.

I encourage you and others to make assessments and decisions that are based on careful reading, listening, and observing, and that are honest about your perspectives and where you are coming from.

My guess is that your "we still do not know this man" statement is not an honest statement from your experience. My guess is that it is repetition of a talking point rather than your claim that it is backed by an honest effort to gather information.

I would respect what you say (even if I disagreed) if it seemed to be coming from someone who really had been doing the reading and listening you claim. As someone with teaching experience in my past, I have a pretty good internal detector on these things -- my feeling is that you actually haven't done a good review of what's out there.

You can in fact get an excellent sense of who Senator Obama is and where he is coming from. If you had done the reading and listening you say you have done, then you would not be able to claim you don't know him. You could say that you don't like where he's coming from, that you disagree, that you don't want him to be president ... but not this "we don't know him" silliness.

My assessment of your comment is that you need to stop pretending, do your homework, and speak your actual mind rather than parroting talking points. I respect whatever opinion you have and urge you to vote your conscience. But please, be honest with yourself and with people reading what you have to say.

From where I stand, this country is faced with a really seriously important choice right now -- about who we are as a nation as reflected in who we choose as a leader. I don't know if this nation is mature enough to make the choice that I feel as the right one.

But whatever happens, this election is defining point for us, collectively. IMO, the least we can do is be honest with each other about where we're coming from and why we feel and think and act/decide as we each do.

This whold democratic primary is such a farce. If michigan and florida voters were allowed to be heard Clinton would be ahead. Punishing voters is wrong and very undemocratic.

I am so discusted with the democratic party. It is becoming very clear to me that they have misrepresented us all along. If changes aren't made to the whole nomination system I may never vote democrat again.

If you want a good look at the electability issue, go to www.electoral-vote.com

I started this election cycle a supporter of Hillary and voted for her in the California primary. I have since completely changed my mind and am fully for Obama.

Democrats nominate candidates that they like. End of story. This electability stuff is nonsense -- you would have said that McCain was "unelectable" before Christmas.

Debra

How many posts can you write ripping Barack in the same day? You clearly have way too much time on your hands and should accept the fact that Annie Bosnia Clinton is history. She will keep wallowing in her gutter politics until the bitter end but it is over. Ask the Big Dog's former cabinet member & Super Delegate Robert Reich. The flood gates to Barack are opening...

I wonder if it's ever occurred to Obama and Wright that it probably doesn't help young people in the black community when they're told that their country hates them, that the U.S. government gave them drugs and AIDS, and that jail and genocide are the officially-sanctioned plan for them.
"The government gives them drugs, builds bigger prisons, passes a three-strike law and then wants us to sing 'God Bless America,'" shouted Wright at his congregation. "No, no, no. God damn America. That's in the Bible, for killing innocent people. God damn America for treating our citizens as less than human. God damn America for as long as she acts like she is God and she is supreme."
I wonder if Obama ever considered the negative impact on young blacks from listening to these hateful and anti-white tirades. It's not as if Obama is blind to the influence of hate speech. When Don Imus made one careless remark about black female athletes, Obama was among the first to call for his firing. Fines and a temporary suspension weren't enough. Obama said he wanted Imus silenced so that his young daughters never had to hear such language.
Does Obama think it's good for his daughters and the black community when black leaders increase the black community's level of anger, defeatism, paranoia, cynicism, negativity and pessimism? Does he think it's good to jack up the level of the resentment and racism in a community that's already overdosed on rage and victimhood?
"Recent statistics show that more than three times as many black people live in prison cells as in college dorms," reports the Lincoln Institute for Research and Education. "One in every 10 black men between the ages of 25 and 29 is in prison."
On top of being murdered, blacks are also "more likely than any other group to be victims of serious violent crime," reports the Justice Department, which is defined as "rape, other sexual assaults, robbery or aggravated assault."
And we need more ranting and raving, more boiling with rage?
Does Obama think it improves matters when black leaders tell blacks that they're poor, sick, jailed or hooked on drugs because of a government plot? Does it help to fix things if the choir is singing "The devil made me do it," the white devil?
"The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color," Rev. Wright preaches to his congregation. In America, he asserted, "no black woman can ever be considered for anything outside what she can give with her body."
The United States is "the number-one killer in the world," preached Wright, the "U.S. of K.K.K. A," a nation that only maintains its standard of living "by making sure that Third World people live in grinding poverty."
For 20 years, Barack Obama drank the aforementioned Kool-Aid, never seeing the problem. That makes him a problem.

By virtue of the fact that most of Bill Clinton's cabinet is not supporting her, you have to question the "ready from day one" claim.

I would guess they would know whether she is or not better than anyone and apparently they don't think so...

There is no way Obama can win in the general. Young voters won't show up, Hillary supporters will go for McCain.
If Obama is the nominee, November's results will make McGovern's look competitive!

The Democrats only hope for a real race is Hillary.

Most of the data illustrating Obama's electability over Clinton in a match-up against McCain is empty rhetoric of Obama supporters in the media. The primary polls have consistently shown that Clinton support is always underestimated in polls, and Obama's overblown. In New Hampshire, the polls predicted a rout of Clinton, but Obama lost. So was the case of Texas and Ohio. If at this stage when he has more delegates, Obama is outspending Clinton 5 to 1 in PA media ads, in addition to getting support from perceived Obama networks such as NBC and CNN. Still, no one is predicting an Obama win. They are all conceding that Hillary will win, naturally with reduced margin because of the lopsided advantage in TV ads and coverage. If he can't win now, how can any one say that he is more electable. I think that democratic party is in for a surprise in November if Obama is the nominee. He may catch up with McGovern's performance. Diehard democrats find it difficult to vote for him because of the emptiness of his record. Contrast it against McCain, and it tells you where we are headed. Republicans can't ask anything more than McCain vs. Obama run. That is where we are headed, because it is now pretty clear that barring a huge victory by Hillary in PA, Obama will be nominated. Obama is not giving me the feeling that he can take the heat, and his support among the people other than the young is fast vanishing. Help from young people alone is not going to elect a president, you need support from the core democratic constituencies such as the seniors, Regan democrats, women, Latinos, Asians etc., and I don't see Obama carrying these groups. The ochestrated campaign to deny Hillary the nomination will defenitely lead to a disastrous outcome for the democrats.

antiwhiner --

You may not care about counting all the votes but the rest of America does.

The only ones who are damaging the Democratic Party is Obama and his supporters.

According to Obama, he doesn't like Democratic Presidents anyway.

He only likes Republican ones.

He's not going to win anything.

If we nominate him, we'll lose.

Democrats can't afford to lose another presidential election, and Obama's completely and totally unelectable.

Quit the whining about Florida and Michigan.

1. The DNC warned them in advance if they moved their primaries, then the results would not count. These states did it anyway. If I warn you that if you poke yourself in the eye with a pointy stick, it will hurt, I am not going to have pity for you if you choose to do it.

2. Both candidates signed off on the DNC party actions. You Hillary supporters who are constantly moaning about this, why not ask your candidate what the heck she was thinking in "denying" these people their "democratic representation." Also, ask her to explain how this is not a flip-flop to want them included after signing off on the DNC decision. It's hypocrisy to only be for this now that you come out ahead.

3. To the individual who said that Obama is trying to "manipulate the vote." Excuse me but your candidate is the one who has been saying "there is no such thing as a pledged delegate" and insisting that the right thing for these delegates to do is to ignore the way their people voted. Granted, this is more "completely ignoring" the vote than manipulating it, but it's absolutely worse.

Anyway, get used to Obama being the candidate because he's going to win this thing. Hillary would rather see the party torn apart completely than to step out gracefully, so good luck to all.

Repugs are NOT benefiting from the Democratic struggle to nominate a competent candidate who isn't a shallow, arrogant, platitude-spouting, plagiarizing gas-bag with the mantra "God Da'mn America". Rather, the Repugs are currently benefiting from the fact that most voters do not actually understand AMNESTY-JOHN.

The "character" of AMNESTY-JOHN can be summed up in one word: BETRAYAL.

1. Wife BETRAYAL. When his wife was injured in an auto accident resulting in a severe limp, AMNESTY-JOHN didn't hesitate to divorce her, after numerous affairs, to marry-up into money. (His current wife is a multi-millionaire beer distributor who has refused to provide a single penny of her money to the AMNESTY-JOHN campaign, but her distribution warehouses reportedly employ dozens of illegals!)

2. Constituent BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN betrayed his constituents on many, many issues. Most notable is his total support for providing citizenship to illegal immigrants - an issue opposed by more than 70% of his constituents.

3. Party BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN is one of the few "Republicans" most likely to vote against or oppose the interests of his party. He's done it on taxes, spending, appointments, policy matters, social issues and on and on and on.

4. Country BETRAYAL. Several independent investigators have alleged that AMNESTY-JOHN betrayed both his country and fellow solders while a POW. They concluded that AMNESTY-JOHN provided military information to his captors in exchange for better food and medical treatment. AMNESTY-JOHN has made sure that such details of his military service will never be known since he used his senator-influence to have his military record PERMANENTLY SEALED FOREVER. Just what is AMNESTY-JOHN trying to hide?

5. Taxpayer BETRAYAL. AMNESTY-JOHN is one of the "Keating Five" slimebags that helped produce and profited from the saving and loan catastrophe in the 70's. LOOK IT UP!

If AMNESTY-JOHN is elected, the citizens of American will suffer intense "buyer's remorse" once he sets out on his own agenda - instead of the one American citizens want. Fortunately, once the true, disgusting character of AMNESTY-JOHN is known to the voters, they will run from this profane, senile, ill-tempered, war monger faster than you can say "IMPEACH DICKNBUSH".

Do we have viable independent candidate yet?

Please?

Please!!!!

PLEASE!!!!!!

@John Ryskamp: You say of Senator Obama: "He's a hood. He's organized crime."

You are familiar with the term "libel," right? As in: "Libel and slander are legal claims for false statements of fact about a person that are printed, broadcast, spoken or otherwise communicated to others."

Your statements are not merely insulting and offensive, they are defamatory. Since they are also demonstrably false, they would also seem, in my humble opinion (and I am NOT a lawyer), to be libelous. Not many of the idiotic remarks on this discussion board sink to that level, but this one does, and you might want to think twice before posting another one like it.

The Post should also consider its role in publishing statements like yours, and in allowing such comments to remain on its web site.

We've learned from this campaign how low people are willing to sink in order to win (no need to specify, I'm sure), but someone somewhere needs to start calling the morons (in and out of the media) on this "anything goes" insanity, rather than accepting dunderheaded abuse and blatant falsehood as the new political norm.

This country is better than that.

I wonder if the press will ever get around to grilling McCain about specific instances where he's blown his stack or had mental lapses regarding facts? Someone should ask him why he treated his first wife and family so shabbily, or if he feels any remorse for the stinking way he treated the Native People of Arizona. I'd like for someone to ask him why he changed churches at age 71 if not to pander to the religious right. Maybe he could explain how he can be good for the average worker, when all of his advisers are industry lobbyist from special interest groups. Maybe someone could ask why he thinks himself smart enough to be president, since his academic record is so weak.

If pressing Obama about his relationship with his preacher is ok, then any of these would be valid questions.

I am a democrat that is a conservative and I cannot stand republicans for giving us high gas prices, no increase in wages , a war without victory, that preaches hypocrisy flag waving and hypocrite religious actions and deeds, 45% devaluation in our standard of living, make it profitable for businesses to lay Americans off and give the jobs to china, India, Mexico, allows illegal thieves and job stealing people into our country as cheap labors again for businesses that pays them under the table. Spend our taxes like a dunking sailor, refuses to balance the budget and borrows billion upon billions and calls democrats tax and spend people, that spins and lies about everything, I can go on and on but the idiots will vote for McCain to keep this flag waving idiocy continual to destroy what little we have.

The Democratic Party has been hijacked by the Socialist, and the corrupt media is hiding their misdeeds to support their agenda. This is not the Soviet Union where outright lies were fed to the masses as propaganda. We need to tear down the virtual Berlin Wall and drive out the liberal elitists and their goons!

Democrats can't afford to nominate someone with no experience and a history of multiple felonies, including grand theft auto and a repeated use of hard drugs.

How do we know he did those things?

He brags about them in his books.

That's not just arrogant.

Its nuts.

One comment said "the Republican slime machine". If there is a slime machine, it's Obama and his supporters such as his minister (anti-american), Nation of Islam, Rekzo, just to name a few. Obama is the pits. He would not be able to sweep his hand over his shoulder to clear the comments and questions as he did re the debate if he became president and had to tackle the other world leaders; he'd be a laughing stock. God protect the U.S.A. from one such as Obama. We do not want to see the people in the Middle East dancing if he's elected. GO MC CAIN!!!!!!!!!!!!!