Bill Clinton has once again brought shame to the office of the presidency. We should have let the Republicans run him out of office when they wanted to. I guess they knew him better. He fooled us all. If Hillary wins I will vote for McCain. I don't agree with him on the war but at least he doesn't make my skin crawl.

If the Clintons succeed with their foul plan, I have a two word response:

Bloomberg-Obama

Why would Obama be the only hope if one doesn't support Hillary? Is it because you are really saying we Republicans don't want to face Hillary or Edwards, but we'd love to have a target rich Obama to destroy?

rd

claudiam1,

Totally agree. I think we're on a similar wavelength. I was a huge Bill Clinton supporter. Every bone in my body wants to vote Democrat again in November, but I made up my mind today for good that I will NEVER vote for Hillary. I have lost total respect for Bill. I'll write Joe Biden in if necessary to preserve my conscience or possibly vote for a third party candidate. But I very much want to see either Obama or Edwards prevail at this point, which of course means Obama is the only hope.

We taught our toddler to say, "George Bush is bad for America!" We may need to teach him the same about Bill and Hillary.

The divisive and machiavellian strategy they're following is so disgusting. Her campaign is what her presidency would look like... further dividing America for personal benefit. Hillary Clinton is a liberal version of Georgey Boy. It's pure selfish ego and power grab that will leave America with nothing in the end.

lyle,
You're electoral college predictions are from Cloud Cuckooland.

Well well well well Obama is going to slam Hillary in South Carolina -

first one must comment on the selection of Nevada and South Carolina by the democrats to be the states at thie stage in the process - was that the right decision? Do these two states significantly add to the process, or do they simply present an additional set of problems which further imbalace the process?

Obama is strong, he has a great deal of money and he will go through strong. He will gain significant momentum from South Carolina -

it is unclear if Hillary will gain any momentum from Florida should she win because those delegates have been taken away by the party.

One needs a massive chart to know how the delegates will be awarded - and how many John Edwards can win. Obama is going to be strong, Hillary is not helping her reputation with these tactics.

Apologies for the triple posts

proudtobegop hit the nail on the head in his earlier posting that the Clinton campaign has been encouraging the media to disregard Obama's white support and focus rather on his black support. This seemed to be the case in Nevada.

I found it a little strange how a particular line on the wire services, on TV, and in the papers kept being repeated ad nauseum: "Obama carried 80% of the black vote" in the Nevada caucus. I would have expected them to remark on how Obama had again won substantial white support (especially in the rural areas) in yet another state with a 5% black population. His black support in Nevada was inconsequential to the result, but it was hyped.

Why would anyone seriously run for president of the United States by appealing only to black voters?

If I were Obama I'd find all those Kansas and Hawaii cousins and put them on the stage with me from here on and defuse the whole race foolishness.

proudtobegop hit the nail on the head in his earlier posting that the Clinton campaign has been encouraging the media to disregard Obama's white support and focus rather on his black support. This seemed to be the case in Nevada.

I found it a little strange how a particular line on the wire services, on TV, and in the papers kept being repeated ad nauseum: "Obama carried 80% of the black vote" in the Nevada caucus. I would have expected them to remark on how Obama had again won substantial white support (especially in the rural areas) in yet another state with a 5% black population. His black support in Nevada was inconsequential to the result, but it was hyped.

Why would anyone seriously run for president of the United States by appealing only to black voters?

If I were Obama I'd find all those Kansas and Hawaii cousins and put them on the stage with me from here on and defuse the whole race foolishness.

xango

proudtobegop hit the nail on the head in his earlier posting that the Clinton campaign has been encouraging the media to disregard Obama's white support and focus rather on his black support. This seemed to be the case in Nevada.

I found it a little strange how a particular line on the wire services, on TV, and in the papers kept being repeated ad nauseum: "Obama carried 80% of the black vote" in the Nevada caucus. I would have expected them to remark on how Obama had again won substantial white support (especially in the rural areas) in yet another state with a 5% black population. His black support in Nevada was inconsequential to the result, but it was hyped.

Why would anyone seriously run for president of the United States by appealing only to black voters?

If I were Obama I'd find all those Kansas and Hawaii cousins and put them on the stage with me from here on and defuse the whole race foolishness.

Hillary is the most experienced candidate to deal with the current market crisis. Back in 1978 she turned $1000 initial invest into $100,000 in future trading. An improbable odd that is 1 in 250,000 million.

Andrew

Hillary is the most experienced candidate to deal with the current market crisis. Back in 1978 she turned $1000 initial invest into $100,000 in future trading. An improbable odd that is 1 in 250,000 million.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hillary_Rodham_cattle_futures_controversy

No, I don't want to "stick it" to Republicans. I want to implement an aggressive policy platform that Hillary and Democrats have. We talk specifics, and it will be a fight. Republicans will fight all the way.

What true Obama supporters (the ones that are actually in here - most are Repubs saying I used to lean toward Hillary but now I hate her blah blah blah - what a pack of liars), but what true Obama supporters don't talk about is specifics, not some papaer on his web site, but specifics about what he is going to do with who and what is different about his specific policy proposals that Republicans in Congress (there's only a couple of Independents) are going to go for that wouldn't go for Hillary's policy proposals.

If and when the naive youngsters want to share those specifics beyond the "can't we all just get along" stuff, then there's something to talk about.

Until then, the answer is no, Republicans aren't going to roll over and play dead because the most liberal member of Congress is elected President.

Which of course would never happen after they swiftboated him into infamy.

And as for Republicans salivating over facing Hillary, all they have is the same tired bi*ching they've always had. They won't swiftboat Hillary. They've already shot their wad trying.

rd

CLINTON, ANGER AND A QUESTION OF RAPE

Bill Clinton likes to say, "You've got to do what you've got to do."

For him, that means lying, race-coding elections and trashing some of the best and brightest of the Democratic Party.

Well, we've got to do what we've got to do.

But we're not going to make any accusations.

We are just going to let Democrats make their own judgment.

We do believe a party of change cannot be a party to corruption and good government starts with personal responsibility, a quality neither of the Clintons can claim.

Here is some reporting from reputable sources that might allow Democrats decide whether we believe what we say we do--including in women's rights--or are, dare I say, "shameless."

Katha Pollitt of the liberal Nation Magazine, an improbable ally of Hillary's "vast rightwing conspiracy" has reported that(http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt ):

"We will never know the truth behind Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in l978. The most you can say about it, which is also the least you can say about it, is that her story is credible ... investigations by NBC News and reporting from the Washington Post poked no major holes in it.

"She has as much corroboration as Anita Hill--friends who say she told them about the assault at the time, one of whom says she saw her immediately after with a bruised and swollen lip. ... the best Clinton's defenders can come up with is that rape doesn't fit his 'MO'--as if, after all the backing and filling and prevaricating and outright lying, we know what this man's MO really is."

More recently Christopher Hitchens, also of the independent left, has written
(http://www.slate.com/id/2182065 ):
"In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton.... Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."

Then there was one of the original Washington Post stories, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics... ), that was very sympathetic to Ms. Broaddrick:

"Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because 'I just don't think anyone would have believed me.'

"In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told "Dateline NBC" that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly 'turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.'... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip.... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.'... He wouldn't listen to me.'

The media seems more interested in covering the presidential "horse race" than looking at hard truths while professional "women's rights activists", whistle softly and look past the individual carnage and the possibilities for a reprise of Oval Office embarrassment.

Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering, what the the U.S. Department of Justice's Inspector called, "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior aides to Attorney General Janet Reno in a major corruption and security scandal at the DOJ.

CLINTON, ANGER AND A QUESTION OF RAPE

What has gotten into Bill Clinton, he of red-faced outbursts of anger, Washington Post columnist Eugene Robinson asked Tuesday.

Katha Pollitt of the liberal Nation Magazine, an improbable ally of Hillary's "vast rightwing conspiracy" already gave one answer (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt ):

"We will never know the truth behind Juanita Broaddrick's claim that Bill Clinton raped her in a Little Rock hotel room in l978. The most you can say about it, which is also the least you can say about it, is that her story is credible ... investigations by NBC News and reporting from the Washington Post poked no major holes in it.

"She has as much corroboration as Anita Hill--friends who say she told them about the assault at the time, one of whom says she saw her immediately after with a bruised and swollen lip. ... the best Clinton's defenders can come up with is that rape doesn't fit his 'MO'--as if, after all the backing and filling and prevaricating and outright lying, we know what this man's MO really is."

More recently Christopher Hitchens, also of the independent left, has written
(http://www.slate.com/id/2182065 ):
"In my opinion, Gennifer Flowers was telling the truth; so was Monica Lewinsky, and so was Kathleen Willey, and so, lest we forget, was Juanita Broaddrick, the woman who says she was raped by Bill Clinton.... Yet one constantly reads that both Clintons, including the female who helped intensify the slanders against her mistreated sisters, are excellent on women's "issues."

Then there was one of the original Washington Post stories, "Clinton Accuser's Story Aired"
(http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics... ), that was very sympathetic to Ms. Broaddrick:

"Juanita Broaddrick told her story to a national television audience last night, saying she did not tell authorities 21 years ago of her contention that Bill Clinton sexually assaulted her because 'I just don't think anyone would have believed me.'

"In a gripping account punctuated by sobs, the Arkansas woman told "Dateline NBC" that in her Little Rock hotel room, Clinton suddenly 'turned me around and started kissing me, and that was a real shock. I first pushed him away. I just told him 'no.'... He tries to kiss me again. He starts biting on my lip.... And then he forced me down on the bed. I just was very frightened. I tried to get away from him. I told him 'no.'... He wouldn't listen to me.'

Yet today, somehow, the media is more interested in covering the presidential "horse race" than looking at hard truths while professional "women's rights activists", whistle softly and look past the individual carnage and the possibilities for a reprise of Oval Office embarrassment.

If Blacks prefer Obama and Hispanics prefer Clinton, she may become a candidate, but with her the Democrats are bound to lose in November. This is the best chance ever for an independent like Bloomberg to step in.

Mark in Austin:

The situation is somewhat analogous to the phone companies providing access to private customer data without proper warrants. You get the feeling that they will get away with their criminal activities.

I suspect -- no, expect -- that bank officers would lobby for protection from their criminal acts as well, if they haven't decided to jump out their windows like some of their 1929 brethren did.

That the powerful get a pass on their criminal acts -- par for the course.

Finally - folks are waking up to the fact that we do not need a Bush/Clinton dynasty and that a Hillary win will only polarize our country more. The Clinton's will do whatever it takes to get back into the White House. Not to mention what a hateful and nasty primary all of us will have to endure. I was always a Bill supporter - I am no longer. I do not like the lying and the "do whatever it takes" attitude. I am ready for a real change; I want to see someone in the White House who can work and hopefully bring our country back to what it once was. Our parties need to be able to work together once again. I do feel that Barack can get us close to achieving that.

optimyst1, I will run your suspicion by my wife, also a CPA; but her expertise is tax, not audit.

What you have said makes sense to me except for the imposition of mens rea. Would a future AG or US Attorney for the SDNY try to indict former Federal Reserve bank examiners for violating SEC reporting regulations? I do not have at the tip of my fingers the interplay between the banking code/regs and the securities' laws. They sure are not going to indict a bank officer for following the examining authority's directions.

More likely, a civil investigation would order the banks to report the losses in a more appropriate fashion, and nothing else would come of it.

What do you think would be the result?

Bill Clinton is a big disgrace! A fomer president acting so childish on the campaign trail. This man as so tarnished his legacy, whatever legacy that was. The legacy of Monica-gate, Rape-gate whitewater-gate impeachment-gate. Obama is a man of class no matter what a liar like Bill Clinton says. Bill Clinton can go to hell, the man is a pig.

Since y'all are talking about the sub-prime mess, there's something I've noticed from my instincts as a CPA about the recent earnings reports issued by SunTrust, Wachovia and Bank of America. All three -- and I haven't had time to check the others have reported small profits that range anywhere from 95% to 98% lower than last year. Think about that for a minute. They are reeling from subprime losses, yet still showed a small profit. The odds of it working out like that are highly unlikely even though they are in the same industry. My instincts tell me that they've been instructed by the Fed to write their sub-prime losses off over time instead of all at once. While this may make sense from the Fed's ivory tower point of view, it is both a violation of generally accepted accounting principles and of the officers' fiduciary responsibility to shareholders. Simply put, if my hunch is right, this is fraud. This could turn ugly if the Fed doesn't stabilize the situation, and if the Fed is shown to have secretly manipulated publicly traded security values, the crisis in confidence in our financial institutions could lead to a crash of 1929 proportions. Remember how Enron imploded if you want an example. Bank assets are virtually all paper; create a psychological stampede and the paper degrades quickly.

And no, this is not a Ron Paul thread. Now, back to your regularly scheduled programming.

Pearlstein has a good piece today on the rate cut'

'After all, what got us into this mess in the first place was too much cheap credit that was used to buy houses, finance corporate takeovers and commercial real estate and speculate in commodities, driving up the price of said houses, takeover targets, office buildings and commodities to levels unsupported by the economic fundamentals.

Now the bubble has burst and the prices of those assets are beginning to fall back to more reasonable levels. Why would anyone want to interrupt that process by bringing back the cheap credit?

The short and oversimplified answer can be summed up in three words: the Great Depression. For that was very much the attitude of the Federal Reserve and other central banks after the stock market crash of 1929.'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012203065.html

And Samuelson does too, although strangely, none of this stuff ever bothered him before:

'Amid the mayhem on world financial markets, it is becoming clear that capitalism's most dangerous enemies are capitalists. No one can have watched the "subprime mortgage" debacle without noticing the absurd contrast between the magnitude of the failure and the lavish rewards heaped on those who presided over it. At Merrill Lynch and Citigroup, large losses on subprime securities cost chief executives their jobs -- and they left with multimillion-dollar pay packages. Stanley O'Neal, the ex-head of Merrill, received an estimated $161 million.

Everyday Americans will conclude (rightly) that this brand of capitalism is rigged in favor of the privileged few. It will be said in their defense that these packages reflected years of service, often highly successful. So? It's not as if these CEOs weren't compensated in all those years. If you leave your company a shambles -- with losses to be absorbed by lower-level employees, some of whom will be fired, and shareholders -- do you deserve a gold-plated send-off? Still, the more serious problem transcends the high pay itself and goes to the wider consequences for the economy.

Wall Street's pay practices perversely encourage extreme risk-taking that can destabilize the economy. Subprime mortgage losses may simply be chapter one. Now there are signs of problems involving securities known as "credit default swaps."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012202615.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

'Claudia, the funny thing is that they called Exxon a "U.S. company".'

I know. Globalization happened so fast I think a lot of people still haven't wrapped their heads around what it means. That's why many are still willing to spend American taxpayer's money for subsidies to what used to American companies, with the idea that they will create jobs. Of course almost all of these formerly american corporations are now owned chiefly by foreign governments and they may create jobs somewhere, but it won't be here.

Loo- Hillary was up against the global pharma/healtchare-for- profit behemoth. A many-head monster with more money than God. Almost as much as Big Oil. They crushed her just like they will crush anyone now who tries to break their lock on american consumers. This is why no one is suggesting single-payer, even though it would be the most efficient way to deliver care to the most people.

But as long as our campaign system holds our repprsenttive hostage to these immensely powerful giants, we will not have good, effective or efficient public policy or government.

'Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that our government and American companies are borrowing money from foreign countries to help pay our bills'

This is true. Our primary debtor, as a country, is the Chinese government. Our largest businesses and financial instutitions, like Citibank for instance -- are now owned or partially owned by S. Korea, Japan, Saudi Arabia, and AbuDhabi and others.

One of the primary reasons for the subprime mortage debacle is also new and unregulated financial instruemtns:

Also facing possible ratings downgrades -- and with that, the increased possibility of default -- are ACA's largest rivals, MBIA and Ambac. Together, those firms insure more than $2 trillion in loans, bonds and other securities. Because the credit-default-swaps market is almost completely unregulated, it's anyone's guess who is at the other end of those swaps."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/22/AR2008012200965.html

bsimon: I think you are missing the main campaign strategy of Hillary, in that by winning the Dem nomination, she is almost assured of victory in the GE. By concentrating mainly on the states where she will have the number needed in the convention. She has to be careful by not giving the impression that she is ignoring any of the states, and you can be sure The Media will put out anything to cast a doubt about her. My observing The Media has convinced me they, as a whole, are against her by close to 100%.

"Iowatreasures" repeats HRC's lie and cites the Chicago newspapers.

Here is the Trib story:

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/nationworld/chi-obama-rezko-clinton-080122,0,5430503.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout

The paper has all there is about Rezko - and there is a lot. Not any that is likely to stick to BHO, however.

But as to HRC's lie, the Trib says:

And a Tribune review of land and court documents and law firm files as well as correspondence and other records related to Obama's eight years as an Illinois state lawmaker supports his contention that he did not directly represent Rezko's development firm. Instead, the records show, he represented non-profit community groups that partnered with Rezko's firm.

Gotta work for a while; nick, I saw your posts and wil get back.

On the subject of SC & Hillary - it's smart to begin campaigning for 2/5, given that there are only 10 days from SC primary and 2/5. Does she need SC? It would be nice, but not only is Obama going to win SC but there are also 22 states at stake on 2/5. That's a lot of ground to cover in 10 days.

Hillary is smart and realistic - and that's exactly what "passing on SC" is.

Obama needs South Carolina way more than Clinton does. She's won two already. If the poll numbers and convention wisdom says she's likely to lose because of the black vote, don't Obama's comments sound a little racial?

When I read the article I got the impression that Obama was trying to say that the Clintons don't need SC (ie bc of the Obama black vote). my two cents.

I'm not an economist. But my view on the situation is:

Responsibility for the financial crisis is shared by the mortgage brokers, lending institutions and goverment for not providing adequate oversight. They took the risk of qualifying people who were not qualified and now we're seeing the consequences of those risks.

Blame also has to be placed on the rising health care costs, rising education costs, rising power and gas bills, rising cost of food and the loss of jobs.

When people are forced to mortgage or re-mortgage homes to pay for health care or college tuition; and when the cost of living goes up and while earnings don't increase in the same proportion as the rising cost of living and rates charged by lending insititutions; and when they lose their jobs because it has been outsourced to a foreign country, these impact the economy.

The solution is one that requires better oversight of lending institutions, as well as rebuilding and stablizing our middle class. This requires the creation of more and better paying jobs, ensuring all children receive a good education so they can become productive citizens who will contribute to the economy and contribute to the social security system, and lowering health care costs and fuel costs.

It's hard to balance your budget when the costs of things go up while your income remains relatively stable.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me that our government and American companies are borrowing money from foreign countries to help pay our bills, and that American companies are taking money and investing in foreign countries while these same countries are not investing in America. I'm not sure but I think there's a big imbalance in the trade deficit.

Just my average citizen thoughts.

The Bush bailout, as well as Federal Reserve Bank cuts in interest rates, is a wealth transfer from creditworthy people and taxpayers to those who made ill-advised credit decisions, and that includes banks as well as borrowers. According to Temple University professor of economics William Dunkelberg, 96 percent of all mortgages are being paid on time. Thirty percent of American homeowners have no mortgage. Delinquency rates were higher in the 1980s than they are today. Only 2 to 3 percent of all mortgages are in foreclosure. The government bailout helps a few people at a huge cost to the rest of the economy.

Government policy got us into the subprime mess and government's measure to fix the mess is going to create more mess.

http://townhall.com/columnists/WalterEWilliams/2008/01/23/subprime_bailout

quite right Williams - again.

Mark & bsimon - two opinion pieces on Obama & foreign policy:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/12/28/AR2007122801899.html

http://www.salon.com/opinion/conason/2007/12/29/obama_europe/

"I bet zouk is a Democrat just creating "straw-man" arguments.

Posted by: AdrickHenry | January 23, 2008 01:50 PM
"

An edwards supporter? Perhaps. No one is that ignorant. HAs to be an act. People like zouk can't possibly exist in 2008 america. :)

Why shouldn't the Clintons' appeal to the African-American voters in South Carolina be judged against Obama's? Bill said over the weekend that he was going to go door-to-door looking for votes. Shouldn't that ELEVATE the stakes in SC rather than diminish them? If Bill was the 'first Black president' why aren't expectations in the media HIGHER for the Clintons to do well? Seems to me if Obama wins SC that it IS a BIG DEAL! He is going up against an icon in Bill Clinton! Come on, be fair! Even if it is close, for Obama to do better than the Clintons with a constituency that reveres Bill, as many do, is a great accomplishment!

IowaTreasures writes
"Obama said to the Reno Editorial Board that Reagan was tranjectory figure for America in a way that President Nixon was not, and that Bill Clinton was not.

Doesn't Bill Clinton have a right to respond when Obama talks about his record as president?"

The word was 'transformative' not 'tranjectory'. In that context, Obama is right to call Reagan's presidency transformative - and Clinton's not. Please note that this is not a judgement of the merits of each president's policies. Instead, it is an assessment of their effect on the electorate & the mood of the country.

Blarg, that is on my list, if I can find a used copy. Pollan had a short article in the NYT Magazine several months ago. He expanded (& expounded) on the theory that ag subsidies not only make us fat (subsidies produce cheap sugars like high-fructose corn syrup that ends up in much of the food we eat), but manipulate the price of corn (driving it down) that makes it economically infeasible for latin american peasants to produce a crop & make a living. So those peasants leave their farms, to come to the US, where they can find work & send money home. It was an interesting article that I recommend, if you can find a cite.

wdsoulplane: o.k. to make sure the Clinton's don't paint a picture that is not true, how is this for truth? :

Obama did represent Rezko, the slum landlord in Illinois. Obama said he only worked about 5 hours for Rezko. The Chicago newspapers said that Obama wrote letters on Rezko's behalf.

Obama is representing Rezko with his slum housing projects, while the tenants go without heat and utilities in the dead of winter.

Then Obama gets $168,000 in contributions, some of which were collected at fund raisers in Rezko's mansion.

Obama also got $300,000 knocked off the purchase price of his house, next door to Rezko property.

Another reality check: Obama said to the Reno Editorial Board that Reagan was tranjectory figure for America in a way that President Nixon was not, and that Bill Clinton was not.

Doesn't Bill Clinton have a right to respond when Obama talks about his record as president?

Right now, everyone is trying to muzzle Bill Clinton from speaking at all. What is Obama doing today, the same as he always does - play the victim. I don't feel sorry for Obama.

I am glad the unhealthy, fanatical adoration for Obama is over. Now, he can come back down to earth with the rest of us and discuss the issues. And answer questions about his poor choices in the past, and other important questions without playing "the blame game," as he always does. Obama is very immature. Magic Johnson was right - he is a rookie. gw.

Thanks, Mark, for reposting. I did miss it.

My knowledge of economics is pretty basic, but I do understand that economies are cyclical. I got the points you enumerated, but I wonder if you are suggesting that the government should thus butt out of the economy completely? Are you suggesting that it was wrong for the Fed to have bailed out Chrysler? (This never really seemed right to me.)

On the mortgage brokers, your post suggested that you might be thinking that they're solely to blame for the current sub-prime fiasco. Remember that it was the banks who authorized the loans; they loosened their lending criteria.

Also remember that the fed's rate kept the rate at 1% for a long time, which probably created the climate for the mess we're now in - so couldn't you blame the government for the current problem? Remember too that there are bank regulators who seemed asleep at the wheel. Then finally, the banks themselves, to protect or gain market share (free enterprise), despite acknowledging the risks, furiously competed with one another, providing ever creative loan options.

While it's true that borrowers are to take part of the blame, the fact is that most are pretty naive when it comes to finances. The average man on the street knows so little that he can't possibly ask the right questions. How many really understand the concept of prepayment penalties or how interest rates affect their payments? The government could have stepped in to protect these people, but "home ownership" was being touted as proof that the tax cuts were working.

I am not sure what role government should play to help ease the situation beyond the fed lowering the rate again, but I don't think it can just sit back and let the market forces play out. Certainly, lowering corporate taxes won't help the situation in the short run.

I don't know...this subject might be a little too complicated for me to discuss intelligently. I just don't have the finance and economics background.

Mark: I've been reading Michael Pollan's "The Omnivore's Dilemma" recently. He blames much of American farm policy on Nixon's Secretary of Agriculture, Earl Butz. But he's talking specifically about farm policy as it relates to corn, not as it relates to Mexican peasants, so that may be unrelated to your post.

I agree with driven about the audience control issue. Better to have no studio audience than a rude one.

NevadaAndy, I quibble with you on one issue: American farm policy is the driver for millions of peasant farmers to flee Mexico and that policy is a giant bipartisan SNAFU. Clinton is only partially responsible...

I feel that CNN should be disqualified from holding any more televised debates. NBC moderators thank everyone in advance so the candidates do not need to take time to do so. They also admonish the audience to hold their applause and comments for their candidates till the end of the debate. CNN had no control of the debate. Hillary was addressing a problem she had with Obama, and the audience BOOed. Whenever he made his points, the audience erupted into applause. It was obvious the audience was made up of mostly Barack supporters. But Booing ?? No audience control...no debate. It seemed like mob mentality and CNN could not do anything to make it end. Blitzer NEVER once admonished the audience. I watch all the debates, both parties, but i will never again watch a debate on CNN. Good job NBC.....please keep up the good work.

In the Clinton-Bush campaign the economy was the main issue. Remember the Ann Richards speech in which she said poor George was born with a silver spoon in his mouth - or something to that effect. Then the country went ahead and elected another Bush - turns out he did the same thing, mishandled the economy.

When Clinton was in office his trade policies did nothing to secure jobs in America, he did nothing to ensure the security of America against terrorist attacks (he was in office when they first bombed the World Trade Center - his response was to bomb and empty terrorist training camp), he opened the flood gates for illegal immigration, and he did nothing to stem global warming. Given these facts and given the bad experiences we have had under two Bush administrations what makes Clinton supporters think that we would be any better off under another Clinton administration? People who support Clinton need to wake up. We are in a new millenium not the '90s. What may have worked for the Clintons in the '90s won't work in these troubled times. We need someone with a broader perspective and approach to our troubling times.

Hillary has been in the Senate for 8 years during that time what major changes has she worked on or proposed? Why didn't she get her Congressional colleagues to work on "green" jobs eight years ago? Why didn't she lead the fight to make the borders more secure? Because it would have repudidated her husband's trade policies. Why didn't she take the lead to get her Senate colleagues to work on health care? She hasn't shown any true leadership in the 8 years since she's been in the Senate so why should we elect her to be the Chief Executive of the United States? She has not demonstrated any sign of being a good leader (remember she failed to get health care reformed in the early '90s. She has displays the characteristic of a sly, cunning, and unruthless politician.

On the other hand, Obama in his short time in the Senate has led the movement for transparency in government, ethics reform and reduced carbon emissions. He has shown true leadership ability and the kind of vision we need in a leader. He could have spent his first term in office learning the ropes but he didn't because he saw that the ropes were all tangible, so he is choosing to untangible the ropes of government. He is the type of leader American needs.

Legan, if that was meant for me, apology accepted. I never thought the "Let 'em freeze in the dark" bumper stickers during the first oil shortage were funny, either, nor did I like Goldwater's "jokes" about an earthquake sending coastal California into the Pacific.

I bet zouk is a Democrat just creating "straw-man" arguments.

I think the fact that Hillary is going to be beaten so badly in SC is much more of a headline than what her campaign WILL do after she gets pounded. The WaPo headline looks like something straight off of Clinton's campaign website - spinning the loss before it even takes place. Shame on WaPo for advancing the Clinton's spin machine.

That's gospel.

"Cahnge cannot come through conflict."

Change cannot come without conflict that is. I'll crawl back into my hole :)

Hillary is Karl Rove's wet dream. Only she could possibly lose in Nov. She won't get any Republican votes and she'll turn off all the progressive Democrats who are the ones that actually distribute literature, go on GOTV drives and man polls. It'll be a fiasco - we'll lose to McCain even with the economy in shambles, the dollar dropping like a rock, the Iraq war bleeding us dry and leading to worldwide enmity of Americans. The only reason she hasn't crashed and burned yet is that Big Media is on her side. Look at today's headline - 'Clinton Looking Beyond S.C.' rather than - 'Hillary Down 19 points in Latest Zogby Poll and is Heading toward a Crushing Defeat'. Big Media is Big Business - and they want Republicans in power so they can buy that second yacht and still pay less taxes than their secretaries...

And legan00. Cahnge cannot come through conflict. No need to appologize. If someone gets offeneded that is not in your control. Do you. do not pity the people who have destroyed our country for money. do they pity you? do they care about this coutnry as you do? Or are they party loyalists and fascist propogandsits?

do not appologize. How do you hurt people who only understand strenth and only care about money?

You people give zouk to much credit. do what they do to rush now, ignore him. Treat zouk like you treated me before supporting Obama was en vogue. you know back when he was a muslim and a terrorist. Why do you people still give zouk any credibility? My Rudy? what's the point? Are you going to change him? You can't cahnge fascists. All you can do is cut their chains and hold up mirrors. You give him what he wants be getting angry.

read this. Defeat teh zouks of teh world by not giving them what they want. power over you.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J_Krishnamurti

r
u

f

"Analysts are expecting the company to post solid quarterly and full-year earnings next Thursday - and if the results top forecasts, Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) could end up reporting the highest profit ever for a U.S. company.

Claudia, the funny thing is that they called Exxon a "U.S. company".

Sorry if I've offended anyone with my alleged "bombthrowing."

I've lived in New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia, Texas, D.C., and Maryland. I loved all of them. I didn't mean to offend other Americans. I love it here, and I love my countrymen. I love american ingenuity and the various ways it manifests itself.
For give me.

papier mache, non?

bsimon, I certainly was not impressed by the JFK contrast, but I was concerned that the allegation that BHO had run no subcommittee meetings as Chair might be true. So I looked here:

http://www.state.gov/p/eur/c13157.htm

This is not the only possible source, but I could not find the calendar of the subcommittee through google and I could find the State Dept. stuff.

Maybe Biden told him and Dodd to go campaign and not hold meetings. I dunno.

But this subcommittee used to hold meetings in the 90s - it was very active during the Yugoslavian wars.

Ever hear of Enron? Paper machet ecomony, built on speculation to serve the rich. Time to let the grown up take over. Play time is done

So the US economy is going the way of the companies Bush ran -- into the ground.

Is anyone surprised?

everything else may be in the toilet -- but exxon always rakes it in and the prices at the pump never go down. we should be giving them more tax breaks and subsidies!

NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- Exxon Mobil, the world's largest publicly traded oil company, is within striking distance of setting an all-time profit record - again.

Analysts are expecting the company to post solid quarterly and full-year earnings next Thursday - and if the results top forecasts, Exxon (XOM, Fortune 500) could end up reporting the highest profit ever for a U.S. company.

No one is throwing bombs. No one is throwing mud. I'm just not going to be quiet while Republicans get loud. That's why the left loses. I can raise my voice, too. Sometimes we really must.

Republicans I know are hard, but only in a dense, unimaginative, somewhat sad kind of way. Resistant to change and unwilling to negotiate is not strength.

kingofzouk,

I must ask. Why the WashingtonPost? This isn't very Republican of you. The Republicans I know are harder than WashingtonPost readers.

My problem with WJC getting in the mix this intensely is that he is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and I mean the ENTIRE Democratic Party. To me, this seems like a blatant conflict of interest. He should be paying attention to what this race (maybe he should take an afternoon and read these blogs) is doing to the future of the party, not playing to one side.

I have to say (and given my political history to do so is a sad thing) if Hill gets the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain.

My problem with WJC getting in the mix this intensely is that he is the de facto leader of the Democratic Party, and I mean the ENTIRE Democratic Party. To me, this seems like a blatant conflict of interest. He should be paying attention to what this race (maybe he should take an afternoon and read these blogs) is doing to the future of the party, not playing to one side.

I have to say (and given my political history to do so is a sad thing) if Hill gets the nomination, I'll be voting for McCain.

I used to live in Dallas. I love it there. I've heard Austin is great.

"I could care less what people in America really think. California, New York and our friendlies..."

Legan000, get your own blog and cohost it with KOZ. Your friendlies and his can entertain each other.

Many people will visit it to watch the fireworks. You might be able to make it a commercial venture if your allegiance to Debs can be suspended for convenience.

But I'll pass on the vicarious pleasure of political bombthrowing. I count too many New Yorkers and Californians, as well as my Texas "friendlies", as my fellow Americans.

Hillary's scheme to diss Obama and build herself up in South Carolina has backfired, so she's fled SC for states she thinks are more important, states like Arkansas. But Bill is still working the disparagement scheme in SC, and meanwhile Hillary's campaign is going all out in her absence to beat expectations in South Carolina.

legan: if a democrat wins, even a mental midget will likely end up richer, as long as he has some money invested in stocks, which do better when a dem is president.

would you look at that. the DJIA is now up a whopping 11 percent for the entire seven years since Bush took office, after tripling (that would be a 300 percent increase for the slower among us) under Clinton.

kingofzouk,

What are you going to do if Hillary wins? Will she start dragging people through mud? Please tell me that there will be mud for 8 years, and gridlock!

Eugene Debs '08

'All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action and critics of radical feminism '

'radical' feminism--right. and what about the habit of verbal thuggery and slime long used against defenders of affirmative action and feminism, hmm? typical.

'Just ask the disciple, lead jackel drindl, who she supports, if she can ever stop insulting everyone and everything for a moment.'

well zouk's punched in, folks, time to watch the threat disintegrate into sewage and drivel.

gee, first thing out of your foul jackal mouth, zouk. an insult. a tirade. a deluge of filth. but then, that's all your capable of, isn't it? do you live in a sewer? is that where you get your inspiration?

yeah, dirty politics in this country definitly started just in 1991. before that everything was perfectly clean. there was no such person as Lee Atwater, for instance.

Boy, clever campaigns all turn to mud when they hit South Carolina. They do like the dirty politics there. I didn't hear any of this meaningless mudslinging about slumlords and racism before, and now even leaving the state for a few days is questioned. It is smart politics to downplay an expected loss, and there are 45 other states that haven't voted yet. People need to grow up.

I would certainly leave the state after watching what makes their poll numbers fluctuate. Mitt Romney had it right, better to just skip it. Mudslinging has a directly positive effect on poll numbers there, which is sad. You should be voting for someone, not against someone. Nobody seems to have an opinion on the economic policies or foreign policies, but Hillary seems like a racist and was on the board of walmart so we'll vote for the other one. Or Obama worked for a slumlord and someone said he's a Muslim so we'll vote for the other one.

You gotta be kidding me. The best thing that could have happened to either campaign would have been to ignore South Carolina completely. There's something strange in the water there... Too bad Michigan was not allowed any delegates, they might have actually had something useful to add to the discussion. But then we wouldn't have all the exciting TV.

schencks84,
voting for a Republican candidate would be the worst idea ever. If you do that, you're an idiot.

-Republicans are a bunch of fascist mouthpieces. Get out of the way. I could care less what people in America really think. California, New York and our friendlies have been held back so much by your worthless states, which don't generate much revune, nor do they produce many intelligent residents. Stay in Mississippi, Jack!

Fred also exited the stage gracefully. Some people refuse to leave the stage. They hang on indefinitely, because they are more interested in getting publicity than actually winning. This explains people such as Dennis Kucinich and Ron Paul. Fred left with his dignity intact. Some people would rather hang on forever.

That somebody is Bubba, aka Bill Clinton. I have repeatedly compared Bill Clinton to Bill Murray n the movie "What about Bob." He just won't go away. He has been campaigning his whole life, and he cannot stop. He cannot leave the stage. Everything is about him and his narcissism.

Bill Clinton claimed that Barack Obama is not ready to be President yet. He cited his own decision in 1988 to stay out of the Presidential race until he was more seasoned. This is nonsense. In 1988, the Gary Hart scandal over Donna Rice exploded. Bill Clinton had plenty of "bimbo eruptions," to be dealt with, and the country had not lowered its standards far enough into the gutter for him to be a viable candidate. The only thing that changed between 1988 and 1992 was that the economy had a brutal recession. It had nothing to do with Bill Clinton.

In his first two years, he blundered repeatedly, lost the congress, and then played defense for the last six years of his Presidency. He was not bad. He was just peripheral, aka the Seinfeld President. He won reelection against a weak candidate in good economic times fueled by an internet age that he was lucky enough to preside over.

In 2000, he wanted to keep campaigning, this time for Vice President Al Gore. Gore refused his help, a stinging rejection (that in all fairness might have cost him the election). So instead, Bill plunged himself into his wife's Senate campaign. Al Gore lost a narrow election, while Hillary Clinton won in a state that tilts heavily to democrats anyway. Yet for Bill Clinton, the campaign was proof that, as he protested years earlier, he was still relevant.

After barely containing their glee at President Bush defeating John Kerry in 2004, Hillary began her 2006 Senate reelection campaign, which was just to kill time until the 2008 Presidential race. Hillary Clinton was supposed to cruise to a coronation, and then Obama got in the way by being the one thing Hillary cannot figure out how to be...likable.

The codependent relationship that is the Clintons continued to benefit both of them. Hillary needed Bill to save her faltering campaign, because she has never achieved anything in life without him. Let the feminists have their heads explode. Hillary Clinton owes her entire career, which to her is her entire self worth, to the fact that she married well (on some levels). Hillary needs Bill. Bill needs to be needed. He depends on her dependence on him.

Some former presidents stay on the public lecture circuit and make millions. Bill Clinton has done this, but the crowds are hundreds, not millions. Money has always been less important to him than power, and power for him is adulation. He could build houses for poor people, but that would only be useful if the cameras were on.

Bill Clinton cannot stop campaigning. It is a narcotic for him.

Bill Clinton will not let go. He can't. He sucks the oxygen out of a room because the campaigning is his oxygen. He needs it to breathe, and it is his oxygen alone.

http://blacktygrrrr.wordpress.com/2008/01/23/deputy-dog-should-take-bubba-with-him/

Zouk, if you continue to generalize more than half of the country (Democrats) you are going to continue looking like an idiot with no ability to provide a truly objective point of view, therefore throwing all of your ideas out the window.

People who don't make enough to pay taxes should get the rebates because they are the ones who are most likely to spend it. Giving tax rebates to people who are already living comfortably is not going to motivate them to spend the money. They'll put it into a bank account and sit on it with the rest of their savings. You clearly don't understand the point of a stimulus package - to inject money into the economy immediately and help people who need the money most so they can avoid eviction or foreclosure.

Using NH as an example of a democratic/liberal voting bloc is completely absurd. The majority of Democratic votes in NH came from independents, not liberals. All this tells us is that libertarian democrats in NH are closet Clinton supporters, which doesn't exactly mean they're racist. Clinton doesn't hate blacks because she's white and assuming people who vote for her are racist is more ignorant than racism itself. Nice one.

"Dems are now the party of hurt feelings. the party of the greater victim. the party of government handouts."

The Democratic Party is the party of compassion and understanding, true. Sometimes it goes too far, especially with criminals (in my opinion). But the Republican Party is the party of subsidizing oil companies making $10 billion in profits every three months. They're the company spending billions of dollars every year on no-bid government contracts for companies who contribute to Republican campaigns. If you took the GOP blunders of the past seven years and totaled up the financial cost, it could pay for social security solvency for the next century.

Basically, either get your facts straight or shut up. Thanks.

I can easily imagine a new cabinet level position in the clinton WH - department of bimbo eruptions - their goal to gather private investigations on enemies. Back to enemies lists. and might as well use the FBI, IRS and CIA - again.

Remember that clinton was impeached the first time for abuse of power and lying. why change when it works so well and the gullible Libs accept it?

For the first time in my life, I may have to vote Republican, or abstain from voting altogether. I have always trusted the Democratic party to represent truth and integrity, and this is the perfect time, politically and socially, for the Democratic party to rise up and unite for a better America. If Hillary Clinton is our candidate, a candidate who represents lies and deceit, emptiness and division, then I pray for the future of our country. Anybody or any organization who stands behind blatant lies shall NEVER have my support. If we do not come out against the spinning, the lies, the Rovian tactics, we are no better than bible-thumping, bigoted, right-wing extremists, and we will fall apart. This is our time to stand up and be strong; we have been waiting for this. Don't throw away this chance to do something GOOD for our country.

electoral-vote.com is a GREAT site. However, note the votemaster's caveat on the Obama-McCain numbers; some is very old, surveyUSA didn't do Obama-McCain in FL, etc. An interesting game, but not necessarily an accurate reflection of the situation on the ground.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan22.html

Arguably the nastiest campaign in our history took place in 1800: Jefferson vs. Adams. The election of 1828, Jackson vs. Adams was also extremely lowdown and dirty. There have been many instances, too numerous to name right now, in which, our politicians have stooped mighty low to try to get elected.

To say that "vindictive sniping" in politics originated with the Clinton's is simply to bare ones ignorance of American history.

If this good guy - bad guy type of campaigning is any indication of how the Clintons would run the administration if elected, then voters need to re-evaluate their vote for Hillary. We don't need this type of tactic in the next administration. What the Clintons are doing is trying to undermine Obama's message and get him off track. If this is any indication of how they will be if they get back to the White House, then America will not see any significant changes and will continue to drift further off track. We need a Chief Executive who will be honest with the citizens and who will take responsibility for their decisions and who admit when they have made a mistake. This won't happen in a Clinton administration. Hillary will accept the praise when things go right, and Bill will be the fall guy.

This good guy - bad guy routine worked well in the comedy shows to bring laughs. Those who are buy into this routine probably were fans of the Burns and Allen, Abbott and Costello, and Hope and Crosby shows - and given the fact that most of Hillary's supporters are elderly women, I'm sure they remember these shows. Politics is no laughing matter.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Senate/senator-ratings.html

Obama rated the most liberal senator of all.

good Luck with that.

http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Pres/Maps/Jan21.html

the expected outcome of hillary vs Mccain. hit next report for Obama vs Mccain.

hillary - 251
Mcain - 287
crisis averted

obama - 242
McCain - 289

Carter redux averted

thecrisis writes
"I think Obama will also fare very well in the midwest, since it's where he's from and people in the midwest I believe are the most tolerant voters out there (Minnesota elected the U.S.'s first Muslim senator - Keith Ellison)."

That remains to be seen. He could do well, but still has a lot of work to do, just in overcoming the name-recognition deficit to HRC. For the record, I live in Rep Ellison's district, which is one of the most reliably Dem in the country & therefore shouldn't necessarily be taken as representative of the whole Midwest.

proud

African-American author Toni Morrison is credited with being the first to call Bill "the first black president'.

Of course she's taking a pass. I think it's really funny the way everyone talks about politics. Last night, Sean Hannity & New Ningrich --who I think might have to seek the nomination for Republicans, in a crisis situation--kept saying Hillary just "drags you through the mud." Pelosi & Reid are, according to these two highly regarded Republicans, responsible for the "gridlock"in Washington. But describing politics like this is so childish. Wow, Obama called Hillary a Wal-Mart lawyer. I knew that. Any other American could have known that, too, had they easily researched her history. And what Hillary said wasn't news either. I knew that. Neither issue scares me. Let's grow up. This is the actual debate for the presidency. And Obama represents a polished version of liberal/progressive politics. I think he's unquestionably qualified to be president. I live in New York so, Hillary sort of has a lock on this piece, but those of us in NYC intend on sending Hillary a very clear message. And that message is a strong showing from Obama here in the city. He's all over my airwaves now. And his leftist appeal is well-received here. So this nomination is really up in the air. I really think Obama can do this. The Clintons seem to view this as a repudiation of their legacy, which it is not. It is the progression of the American Left. Sorry. Obama is going to have lots of delegates after Feb. 5th Let's see what that means.
Stop Rudy.

Eugene Debs '08

Thanks for the link, koz. That was a very good read. Makes me wonder...where did all this "First black president" b.s. originate anyway? It's so nauseating, really. I can't believe they have gotten away with this fairy tale for so long now.

The Clintons will stop at nothing to climb back into power, including using those who supported them during Bill's impeachment against their own now, invoking race at the same time as they decry it's relevance.

I've been going over my Electoral College map and find no way Obama can win the GE. Since last June I have Hillary with 309, more than enough and these are pretty sure bets. My count has not changed over these many months. I looked because Ed Rendell is going to announce his support for Hillary and on the 15th of June was when I added Penn. for Hillary.

Never mind, we have discovered that asking Dems/Libs who they support is an exercise in futility. they lie to pollsters to appear progressive. when the curtain is closed, they vote their bigotry. that is why the polls in NH were so far off on the Dem candidates and NOT the Repubs.

and then they have the audacity to accuse Repubs of racism.

question - who freed the slaves, who passed the civil righits act, who is fighting about racism and sexism now?

Dems are now the party of hurt feelings. the party of the greater victim. the party of government handouts.

brilliant idea of the week, give tax rebates to the 40% of citizens who don't pay any taxes. so much for pay-go and Lib frugality.

I think Obama is going to win all of the red-leaning states for the exact reason Gordon's girl and Jimd52 point out. In Idaho, no one is more hated than Clinton. All of the conservative libertarians I used to work with (about a dozen men) hate Clinton and don't mind Obama, even though they disagree with some of his policy ideas. The fact is that ideas and policy are less important if a politician seems flexible and intelligent. No one likes a bullish, partisan Democrat (Clinton) over a calm, thoughtful liberal (Obama).

Mark, having now read the Wash Monthly article I stand by my initial reaction. The author, a former speechwriter for Bill, overplays JFK's experiences in Europe as a 'footloose youth' and underplays BHO's time in Indonesia. His summary is built on a criticism of the Boston Globe's editorial that calls Obama intuitive, by citing GWB's self-professed intuition. I call it a hatchet job.

"There's a reason red-state Dem leaders are backing Obama - they know Clinton at the top of the ticket is toxic in their state."

AMEN, Gordon's Girl

Let the record show exactly where all the vindictive sniping in modern politics originated - Arkansas in 1991. It continued with Al gore in 2000 and is well represented today in the daily Ko(ok)s and moveon.org.

Lest we forget, it is the clintons who turned politics into trailer trash daily. It is their way and they can't help themselves.

Just ask the disciple, lead jackel drindl, who she supports, if she can ever stop insulting everyone and everything for a moment.

Keep it up clintons, many almost forgot what we despised about you and slick willie. clinton fatigue indeed.

"They (FDR & CLinton) are the only one in over a century to win twice against the Republicans."

Almost true - Woodrow Wilson 1912 and 1916

Here's another rich but sad irony: the Mythical First Black President and the Wife claim to embrace minorities, to work for their advancement, to help them achieve equality, and to work toward racial unity. And yet they stoke the flames of racism, dismissing a black man of undeniable ability as a "fairy tale," and dividing by race.

For two people who claim to admire Dr. King, the Mythical First Black President and his Wife have turned his most powerful adage upside down: they are asking us to judge the black candidate by the color of his skin, NOT by the content of his character.

Then again, would you expect anything different from two people whose own characters are empty and malignant?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=24600

When was the last time SC was a deciding factor for the Dem. Party? I think they should all compete for the votes of Dems in SC - but I don't put a lot of importance on the out come of one of the most conservative states in the nation.

Clinton is right to be focusing on the Feb. 2 - those are the states that will decide who not only the Dem. Nominee is, but also most likely the next president.

I know I would rather win CAL, NY, NJ...et al than try to have a strong showing the Democratic nominee, regardless of whom it is, will have no chance of winning like SC.

bsimon, all I can testify to is that Obama has a campaign office in all 22 ST states, including my home state, Idaho. He is absolutely crushing Clinton here and since we're off the radar, no one pays attention. The last numbers I saw showed Obama raising nearly twice as much money from Idaho Democrats as Clinton. And I believe this is just one state where this is the case.

My theory is that in the reddest states, the Democratic minority is by far the most thirsty for change because they see nothing but red around them. It explains why Iowa and SC (both heavily republican) both favor Obama, along with Idaho. I think Obama will also fare very well in the midwest, since it's where he's from and people in the midwest I believe are the most tolerant voters out there (Minnesota elected the U.S.'s first Muslim senator - Keith Ellison). Minnesota, Illinois, Wisconsin, Indiana, maybe even into North/South Dakota, all will favor Obama, especially after cruising through SC.

Unfortunately with Clinton winning all of the New England states, it's going to get interesting. But even some Clinton campaign members admit that Obama has better organization in the ST states, which is supported by Clinton's heavy campaigning in the biggest of the ST states. Obama has been working in Idaho for something like 4-6 months already and has our state nailed to the wall.

"Every revolution devours its offspring, and it seems that the multicultural one does, too."

Now that bit of hyperbole is way over the top, Proud, about par for the Weekly Standard.

Boko: BHO appears to be gaining on HRC in CA but not fast enough to win (interpretation mine) unless the slope of the line changes dramatically.

http://www.pollster.com/08-CA-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

If Hillary and Bill are running with the idea that you get two for the price of one with their team, and Bill is the part of the "team" that is campaigning in SC, and Obama beats the "team" in SC.

Does that mean that Obama is such a good candidate that he even beats BILL Clinton?

The Obama people should start spinning it this way in my opinion.

From: The Wages of Sensitivity
The Democrats' politically correct chickens come home to roost.

What the Ds have now is "an unforseen clash of two groups who have been told for years by liberals that they are victims of everyone, and the result is explosive.

All the rhetorical devices that have been a staple of identity politics are now being exploited by the Clinton and Obama campaigns, competing to play the victim, accusing each other of insensitivity deliberately misinterpreting each other's comments in order to somehow imply that the other is morally retrograde.

All the habits of verbal thuggery that have long been used against critics of affirmative action and critics of radical feminism are now being turned inward by the Democratic front-runners. .  .  . Every revolution devours its offspring, and it seems that the multicultural one does, too."

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/616ikltq.asp?pg=2

"That was my point earlier, (thanks for the snide comment anyway judge)..."

Actually, Proud, I deleted my snide comment before I posted. I really did think you made an important point and edited myself to keep the post purely positive. Granted, 'snide' is my starting point on many issues....

"latest poll has BHO up 19% over HRC..."

What poll are you looking at, thecrisis? Is that just SC alone?

I do wonder if Bill's gross negativity is going to cause people to remember "Clinton fatigue" and will show up in the polling data.

My take: HRC is only appearing to be stepping away from SC. Instead, she's leaving behind the two people believed to be better campaigners, though in completely different ways.

They're trusting that Bill will win over voters, not only as a former President but that infamous "first Black President," as well as a son of the South. I think they're banking that it's much stronger to have him knocking on doors than the candidate herself.

Chelsea's also left in SC, surely to be the "soft side." But why the muzzle? All of the other candidates' adult children are open to journalists - why the shield around Chelsea. More importantly, why are journalists still respecting it as if she's still 12 years old? Here's a good piece: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=4170204&page=1

Clearly, the Clintons are setting up an SC loss as due to the black vote - a not-so-subtle dismissal of the importance of African-Americans. My dream - and I DO think it's a dream - is that Obama wins in an indisputable landslide, just so Hillary can get her butt kicked.

Though I don't expect Obama to win many rural white voters in SC, he's done exactly that in NV and NH. He may do better in 2/5 states than many realize. HRC may come out ahead in votes, but Obama could still match her - even exceed her - in delegates. So far, she's only proved her ability to win blue-collar votes in metropolitan areas controlled by pro-Clinton Democratic machines. There's a reason red-state Dem leaders are backing Obama - they know Clinton at the top of the ticket is toxic in their state.

'the Clinton campaign has been intentionally dragging Obama down into a petty slugfest because Obama will come out on the losing end of it.'

isn't this what happens during every campaign, though?

' I was drinking hot tea and worrying about the palm trees in the cold'

so how cold is it mark? sounds like an old vaudeville line..

i'm asking because after a bizarrely cold snap in december it's been very warm here [compared to 'normal' ] in the uppers 30's and low 40's, generally.

my sister, who lives in a SoCal beach town, tells me the parlm trees there are dying frm the cold winters the last couple years.

'when one candidate is trying so hard to be above polarization'

well, that can be a vey calculated strategy, too. i guess i'm more cynical than most of you [ i work in advertising/mktg, which can do that] but i think candidates tend to be painted in extremes, and that none of them is as bad or good as they appear.

except rudy. haha.

thecrisis writes
"The latest poll has BHO up 19% over HRC. She's going to get crushed and then on Super Tuesday, she's going to be shocked at how well Obama does."

I hope you're correct. The recent lesson of NH leaves me unwilling to believe it, until I see it.

Mark, I will go back and read Nick's cite; after my kneejerk reaction, its probably a good idea...

optimyst, have you seen recent CA polls? (or has anyone else?) The primary delegates are distributed according to the proportions of the popular vote won, yes? Maybe femalenick should answer that one...

Do you remember in 2000 when the Rovians not only depicted McC's Bangladeshi adopted kid as an out of wedlock half African-American, they attacked Warren Rudman, McC's campaign mgr as "not christian" b/c he was Jewish?

Caused McC to lose his temper - and that was the real point of the exercise. Get McC off his above the fray stance. Make him blow up.

The bald faced lie about BHO representing Rezko from the woman who represented McDougal and kept his S&L open for months after it should have been shut down is the kind of lawyer sniping that plain ticks me off.

California dreamin'

Looking ahead to Feb 5, I think the prize is California above all. Whoever wins that will not only get a boatload of delegates, but will have the BIG MO moving forward. Assuming the other states split between Clinton and Obama, they'll cancel each other out, but I don't see how other states will cancel out the results of California.

Here in Florida, it's like the Michigan primary. With no advertising and no candidate appearances on the dem side, it's a non-event. And since the SC result is pretty much in the bag, the dynamic is set for Feb 5 on the dem side.

The echoes back to 1968 are spooky. RFK was behind and needed California to have a shot at the nomination. Obama, who many think is an ideological heir of RFK, has that same need for a California victory.

Of course there are big differences as well. California is no longer a winner take all primary and it is now early in the calendar, but still, I do feel those 1968 vibes.

drindl, the Clintons do nothing blindly. I'm sure at least 51% of respondents to whatever poll they did indicated that 'hitting back' was the strategy most likely to win them at least a plurality of votes... (I say 'plurality' because, if Clinton is the Democratic nominee, I think Bloomberg will run.)

The latest poll has BHO up 19% over HRC. She's going to get crushed and then on Super Tuesday, she's going to be shocked at how well Obama does.

proud is surely correct - when one candidate is trying so hard to be above polarization the temptation is great to attack, attack, attack in order to bring that candidate into the mudfight.

This has been happening to McC for years.

I've heard this idea that Obama isn't going to be able to handle the sort of nasty campaign that the Republicans will throw at him and am having a hard time understanding it. Are the R's really capable of coming up with something worse than we've seen? Based on the stuff that's already been passed around, Obama is a naive childish flip-flopper Muslim racist who is probably selling drugs to your child as we speak. Oh, and he'll sell us out to Al-Queda if he wins. And if you didn't guess already, he's not patriotic.

It's hard for me to imagine exactly what more a R campaign would bring up. On the other side, it isn't difficult at all to imagine what R's would bring up (which Obama has not) in a race against Clinton.

"they're just hitting back blindly in a punchdrunk sorta way."

drindl, No, no, no - it's all calculated and on purpose with the Clintons. you know that. That was my point earlier, (thanks for the snide comment anyway judge) that since NH, the Clinton campaign has been intentionally dragging Obama down into a petty slugfest because Obama will come out on the losing end of it.

By "the article" I meant Nick's cite, not the SC editorial.

"Maybe being attacked so relentlessly, both fairly and unfairly, for so many years has taken its toll, and they're just hitting back blindly in a punchdrunk sorta way..."

You're probably right, Drindl, although I'd substitute 'unintelligent' for 'punchdrunk.' We're all supposed to be on the same side but Bill seems bound and determined to shove a large and significant portion of the Democratic electorate over to the other side. And I'm sure the bet is that all conflicts will be smoothed over and all wounds healed by November regardless of what he says now.

tea break.

Blarg, that was from memory, no reading of old posts.

Judge, I was drinking hot tea and worrying about the palm trees in the cold and after thanking Bokonon and Blarg I thought it would be small of me on an unseasonably cold day not to share a warm thought for many of you.

bsimon, I did read Nick's cite to the article critical of BHO on the SFRC. I do remember that Biden was mentoring him, early on. I wonder if JB was disappointed in BHO's failure [as perceived by the article] to set a working info exchange with the NATO alliance legislatures.

Despite that article, the first detailed but apparently not partisan criticism of BHO I have read, I would still be more comfortable, if McC fails to win the nomination or the presidency, with BHO than with HRC. I thought that SC editorial I posted expressed a sentiment that many of us have shared.

Did you read the article?

It may appear that is has gotten a bit rough between Hillary and Obama, but the Repubs will make this past couple weeks look like a walk in the park when the Democratic candidate is finally chosen.

This back and forth between Obama and Hillary (and Bill) is nothing compared to what either Obama or Hillary will face against the inventors of swift-boating.

Yeah, party unity sounds nice, but it is better for as much of this stuff as possible to come out now and let Obama and Hillary build up anti-bodies against it. For example, the slum-landlord crack will be old news and useless to the Repubs by the sunmer.

The best we can hope for is that the "vetting" is thorough enough...

'They could have maintained party unity without much effort but NOOOOOO'

I do have to agree with you there, judge -- i just don't get it. Maybe being attacked so relentlessly, both fairly and unfairly, for so many years has taken its toll, and they're just hitting back blindly in a punchdrunk sorta way.

You'd think that all the negativity would make people not want to watch--but yet the debates are drawing a huge audience. Go figure this country.

Maybe we should just forget about debates and elections and have mudwrestling matches instead.

"They have transformed SC into Washington, D.C. -- an all-black primary that tells us how the African-American vote is going to go.
Posted by: proudtobeGOP | January 23, 2008 11:05 AM"

Geez, Proud, that's pretty darn perceptive. Congrats.

OT, but related to some of the discussions of the economy...

Has anyone looked at Stiglitz's op-ed in the Times today? It sounds like a reasonable plan to me, but since he's promoting spending increases (and is a Nobel winning economist), I was curious about opinions by some of the more fiscally conservative folks on it.

Mark: are you going somewhere? Sounded like a speech at a retirement dinner.

rpy1 writes
"That's when I see Bill helping Hillary the most."

I agree. As has been noted, its a huge advantage for HRC's campaign. Someone called it the 'good cop, bad cop' routine, which is a good comparison. The Clinton campaign sends Bill out in attack mode, while Sen Clinton is sugar, spice & everything nice. The Obama campaign is forced to respond to Bill's accusations, but compared to Hillary they will look defensive.

Personally, I think its another example of how Hillary wouldn't be a candidate if it weren't for Bill. Without him, her 'experience' evaporates. Frankly, I'm somewhat surprised that so many Dems don't see that, but given their record for nominating inferior candidates I suppose it shouldn't come as a surprise.

When you run for President, you have to run a national campaign. Hillary's pass on South Carolina is weak in my opinion.

It is similar to how Rudy is too scared to fight in most states. Strategy is one thing, but you have to objectively at least "show up" to be President.

lyle,

Sorry -- I guess I wasn't clear about what I was trying to say. I think the fact that the Clintons are able to cover twice as much ground as Obama's campaign is a big advantage for them. I'm not saying that it's wro