"especially the one where he admitted he didn't have CEO skills.... "

I believe he said he didn't have COO skills, which are different from CEO skills. Operations = management. Executive = leadership, judgement, decision-making. Cabinet-level positions are more operational (i.e. managerial) in nature, though certainly require leadership & vision. The President doesn't have to be a manager so much as a decision-maker with sound judgement & leadership skills. A vision is helpful, as is the ability to convey that vision to subordinates. Probably a better business metaphor is Chairman of the Board.

RSLIP: Most folks I talk with caught the Russert bias, maybe because I told them to look for it, anyway it is so blatant, I don't see how anyone could not see it.

The Nevada debate clearly went to Hillary Clinton who looked confident with her answers and never missed a beat when Tim Russert came at her again with his GOTCHA questions. Edwards sounded the same old tired lines he has been shoving at the voters for months. He is a boken record. Obama stumbled all over the place with his answers...especially the one where he admitted he didn't have CEO skills.... The Camera went to Tim Russert's stunned face after that answer... It was the telling moment of that debate. What does Obama think being president is about......? It is the most important CEO job in the United States.
And it is the one that the people get to fill using their votes. We are tired of the rest of the CEOs in this country ripping us off with their gigantic salaries and stock options and other perks. Now we have a chance to CHANGE to a CEO who has the knowhow to actually get the job done. Hope for the future is a nice lofty goal, But it takes a good manager to get the task accomplished. Obama then stated very clearly that he was basically a disorganized person who couldn't manage his own senate office. That was also a great flub.....do I want someone like that being the CEO of this country....absolutely not..... Rslip in Western Pa.

Iowatreasures, your posts are so full of folly that you should be ashamed.

It only takes a second to google the amount of time Obama spent in the Il. Senate.

You are, without a doubt, factually inaccurate.

Uclazy: You are wrong about Obama having more experience in the senate than Hillary Clinton.

Obama spent two years as a state legislator in Illinois. He didn't even vote 170 times during that two year period.

Obama was in the U.S. Senate only one year before he started running for president- in his own words, "I was in Iowa and New Hampshire."

During the NV debate, Obama said, in his own words that he is not an organized person - he has told his staff to hand him a paper two minutes before he needs it.

I think Obama just shot himself in the foot during that debate. We do want someone with experience, and we do want someone who knows what he is doing next, without somebody having to remind him. gw.

ChristopherBusby: Obama didn't prove anything in Iowa. Obama had his campaign workers vote in our caucuses even though they didn't live here. The country was in an unhealthy Obama frenzy then.

They aren't now - we know more about his inability to organize (his words during the last debate in NV.)

Obama claims to be an inspirational president and let his subordinates do the work and hand him a paper two minutes before he needs it (also his words).

JD also seems to be promoting a negative, sexual website. I am not even going there to find out. It should be removed from this comments section, if what I suspect is true. The web-site name gives it away.

rfpictor's comments are sexually explicit and sexually offensive and should be removed from this comments section. This kind of talk makes me want to throw up. gw.

Even the Brits have Obama's number- but we're too dumb to figure it out. LOL

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/03/25/wobama25.xml

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23383304-details/A+drunk+and+a+bigot+-+what+the+US+Presidental+hopeful+HASN'T+said+about+his+father.../article.do

I recently decided to vote for Obama. I am a Chicago Democrat living in Nevada. I grew up 6 blocks from where Hillary grew up in Park Ridge. I have always been a huge Bill Clinton supporter. I made my decision based on what I thought was reprehensible behavior by Hillary. In NH, when she made the comment about England being attacked when Gordon Brown became PM, and implied that we would be attacked here if Barrack becomes President, to me is despicable. I would expect this type of comment from George W. Bush. Hillary was desperate in NH and went to the Rovian strategy of fear politics. Shame on you Hillary. Get back to discussing real issues or join the Republican party. You could probably win their nomination with all the bad candidates they have.

The Obama camp presenting itself as the underdog? Please!

The real issue with the nine casino locations becoming caucus centers at large is that they favor only the Culinary Members working on Saturday. Those filing the lawsuit have two motivations. The first is a fact; there are hundreds of companies with hundreds, if not thousands of employees working on Saturday which will not have the same advantage as the casino staffs. The complaint of an unfair advantage for one group of voters is valid from that point of view.

But as a 17 year resident of Las Vegas, I can tell you the real reason that this suit is being filed is the volume of illegal workers amongst the rank and file of the culinary workforce. We have a local television network that a few years ago sent a reporter out to a local flea market in an undercover position to see how easy it was to purchase false identification documents. It took but half a day for this reporter to make contact with an enterprising merchant. Within 2 days, the reporter returned to the flea market and through a clandestine process was presented with a fake Social Security card and a California license for under $200.00.

Armed with these documents, the reporter went to the Culinary Union office and applied for work. Through the hidden camera we saw the union representative accepting the documents as being valid and allowed this person to join. To add insult to injury, the union representative suggested that the new member seek better looking documentation next time.

Fast forward to today and we can only assume that a significant number of the Culinary's workforce carry the same type of false documentation. The Nevada Democratic caucus has said at these nine locations anyone can participate and registration will be accepted on the spot. All an individual needs to present to be a registered participant is a picture work ID and sign a document that they swear to be a legal resident and they're in. There will be no verification of these documents, no required proof of legal citizenship or of address for that matter.

This is the fastest way for them to end up gaining a legal voter registration card, the gold standard of proof of residency documentation.

Detractors claim that illegals will not participate due to fear of being caught. But we need to look at the path they have already taken. They knowingly crossed the border illegally. They knowingly purchased forged US documentation and presented them as being valid (a federal offense). So why would the opportunity to gain a legal registered voter's ID without penalty be a barrier?

This is the real reason behind the lawsuit but without changing the verification procedures during sign-up here will be no way to stem the tide of further validating the illegal workforce.

""ITS REAL SIMPLE PEOPLE""

Has your candidate made lots of $$$ from running businesses or by their influence ?

If your candidate has made Lots of $$$ from business or using their influence then SOMEONE SOMEWHERE HAS BEEN ROBBED to make them rich.

If your candidate only gets ahead because people admire them and so simple people buy a book about that candidate then THAT CANDIDATE HAS NEVER ROBBED ANYONE they just got the extra $ from the simple people donated by buying their book and so they were supporting a caring candidate who wasn't about influence peddling or business robbing with RICH CEO OWNERS.

SEE THE WEALTH OF THE CANDIDATES AND WHERE DID IT COME FROM

AND

KNOW WHO THEY REALLY CARE FOR AND AS YOU WILL SEE IT WASN'T WE THE PEOPLE THEY CARED FOR, IT WAS JUST THEIR FRIENDS

AND

IF YOU THINK YOU WILL BECOME ONE OF THEIR FRIENDS BY SELLING YOUR SOUL THEN GO FOR IT BUT UNDERSTAND THE REST OF US WHO DON'T,

KNOW YOU BY YOUR WORDS OF SUPPORT FOR THOSE CANDIDATES.

or do we / you keep supporting the rich getting richer??

I don't have anything against Edwards, but is there any primary state that he has a realistic chance of winning? Sure, he took South Carolina in 2004, but Obama is ahead there now. I can't see any place now where he's going to break out, as long as the other two are in the race.

Clinton,Obama,Clinton,Obama,Clinton,Obama,Clinton..... for the most part,you all sound like
mainstream media robots, mindlessly following the lead of the Post and all the rest of the MSM sidelinning Edwards. Have you asked yourself why the corporate media seldom mentions Edwards? Think about it. Listen to his stump speeches. He's all about getting corporations out of your face! Wake-up!!

Two points,

First, someone should ask hillary who touts her 35 years of experience, at what point she felt she was qualified to run for president and be ready on her first day. She has not spent significantly more time in the senate than obamma and if she thinks first lady is enough than maybe laura bush can run next cycle.

Second Edwards is not a viable third candidate because he is too angry and he is too fake and scripted. did you know that his father was a mill leader? and that his biggest weakness is that he cares too much?

Edwards is not as inspirational as barak and there are only so many anti-establishment votes out there. The older citizens in this country are not going to vote for a radical thats just not how it works and obama is going to take the most of the other non Hilary voters due to his great public speaking.

Thank you! I've been waiting for the day when a reporter would tell us the truth about how a story originated, as in "a political operative called me this morning and suggested that I write this".

Thank you for not mentioning John Edwards, despite his big crowds and large following out here in Nevada.

Hillary has quite a bit of support, but many are not terribly impressed with Obama.

Probably nobody has read this far, but I'm still furious about how the Michigan primary was in effect rigged for Clinton, whose victory I would have welcomed in a fair competition that included Obama and Edwards.

Michigan's state party establishment also strongly supported Clinton. They a) moved up the primary date knowing that the national party would penalize the state; b) persuaded Clinton to remain on the ballot AFTER they had withdrawn complying with the rules and a vote by the DNC asking all candidates to withdraw from the primary b) revealed an "obscure" (the Michigan Dem. chair's word) forbidding write-in votes for Obama and Edwards; c)touted "Uncommitted" as a swell alternative to voting for Clinton; d) promulgated a 40-page set of rules for choosing delegates in March that gives the party leadership control of the selection process (a few Obama and Edwards supporters will be included to make the process seem fair, but if you think the final delegation will reflet the 55%:40% primary result you still believe in the Tooth Fairy); d) every Democratic official, Clintonians one and all, has expressed confidence the resulting Michigan delegation will be seated, possibly tipping the nomination to their gal.

In other words, never underestimate the power of the party establishments nor their ability to shape events to get the result they want. Not even the estimable Chris Lizza reported what actually happened on the Democratic side here. It was admittedly complex and wrapped up in camouflaging rhetoric that depicted the whole espisode as a regrettable snafu for which the DNC and rival candidates were responsible.

Probably nobody has read this far, but I'm still furious about how the Michigan primary was in effect rigged for Clinton, whose victory I would have welcomed in a fair competition that included Obama and Edwards.

Michigan's state party establishment also strongly supported Clinton. They a) moved up the primary date knowing that the national party would penalize the state; b) persuaded Clinton to remain on the ballot AFTER they had withdrawn complying with the rules and a vote by the DNC asking all candidates to withdraw from the primary b) revealed an "obscure" (the Michigan Dem. chair's word) forbidding write-in votes for Obama and Edwards; c)touted "Uncommitted" as a swell alternative to voting for Clinton; d) promulgated a 40-page set of rules for choosing delegates in March that gives the party leadership control of the selection process (a few Obama and Edwards supporters will be included to make the process seem fair, but if you think the final delegation will reflet the 55%:40% primary result you still believe in the Tooth Fairy); d) every Democratic official, Clintonians one and all, has expressed confidence the resulting Michigan delegation will be seated, possibly tipping the nomination to their gal.

In other words, never underestimate the power of the party establishments nor their ability to shape events to get the result they want. Not even the estimable Chris Lizza reported what actually happened on the Democratic side here. It was admittedly complex and wrapped up in camouflaging rhetoric that depicted the whole espisode as a regrettable snafu for which the DNC and rival candidates were responsible.

Probably nobody has read this far, but I'm still furious about how the Michigan primary was in effect rigged for Clinton, whose victory I would have welcomed in a fair competition that included Obama and Edwards.

Michigan's state party establishment also strongly supported Clinton. They a) moved up the primary date knowing that the national party would penalize the state; b) persuaded Clinton to remain on the ballot AFTER they had withdrawn complying with the rules and a vote by the DNC asking all candidates to withdraw from the primary b) revealed an "obscure" (the Michigan Dem. chair's word) forbidding write-in votes for Obama and Edwards; c)touted "Uncommitted" as a swell alternative to voting for Clinton; d) promulgated a 40-page set of rules for choosing delegates in March that gives the party leadership control of the selection process (a few Obama and Edwards supporters will be included to make the process seem fair, but if you think the final delegation will reflet the 55%:40% primary result you still believe in the Tooth Fairy); d) every Democratic official, Clintonians one and all, has expressed confidence the resulting Michigan delegation will be seated, possibly tipping the nomination to their gal.

In other words, never underestimate the power of the party establishments nor their ability to shape events to get the result they want. Not even the estimable Chris Lizza reported what actually happened on the Democratic side here. It was admittedly complex and wrapped up in camouflaging rhetoric that depicted the whole espisode as a regrettable snafu for which the DNC and rival candidates were responsible.

mark_in_austin, Yes I do. Right now, colleges get to keep the extra tuition and fees they receive for non-resident students. That, to them, is "free" found money. Take it from them. Also, it is pretty easy to make it mandatory that U.S. citizens, *any* qualified U.S. student, gets first place in line for spots in colleges and universities. All public schools and most private ones, too, receive federal subsidies. So, a quick and easy fix here would be to pass legislation that makes that money dependent on a "U.S. citizen first" admission policy. And none of that nonsense about "better qualified", either. Qualified means meeting a certain basic set of academic requirements. In a recent study in Oregon, every single admission spot at Oregon State's engineering program had a fully qualified Oregon resident that was turned down in favor of one of those Chinese and Indian students.

Likewise, rational tax policy could go a long ways towards resolving the outsourcing and free trade nonsense. For guest workers, like H1-B workers, tax the corporation at a rate of 100% of the employees salary. No deductions allowed, and put that money into a pot that would provide scholarships for U.S. citizens to be trained to take those jobs ASAP. Then, send the guest worker home! Likewise, add taxes and remove any and all deductions for companies AND INVESTORS that outsource jobs, production capacity or technology. Also, add taxes, fees, duties to any good or service that comes into this country as a result of outsourcing. Apple, for example, doesn't pay any penalty for producing their Mac's in China. If Apple, Dell, Microsoft, Intel, etc. lost all of their tax deductions and had to pay even ordinary duties and fees on their computers, the production would move back PDQ. But, if they chose to leave completely, so be it. At least we wouldn't have the burden of supplying their infrastructure and the taxes on their executives salaries (due to outsourced investment) would help to fund the social programs that will be required because of their 20 year run of free trade insanity.

ajironworks: You must be living in a cave somewhere, or don't have any clue as to what you are talking about. The 90s were the best time in our countries history. We were at peace, everyone was working that wanted to work, SS was in surplus for many years in the future. Then along came GW, need I say more??

zbob99 & Mark: The "Uncommitted" in Mi. was the Obama and Edwards vote. Taken the #s as is, Hillary was a big winner.

Do all the promised, detailed policy proposals still matter as if all of them would be implemented from the day one?
We know better than that, I hope, otherwise we, the voters, are the ones who lives in a fairy tail.
Recently, one thought struck me. I think the most valuable war spoil is the enemy's women due to not only their physical usefulness, but also their symbolic importance: the subjugation of women symbolically turns all male enemies into eunuchs.
In this light, would Hillary's presidency increase the chance of terrorist attack on the US soil?
Who can guarantee Hillary wouldn't crackle in front of any Muslim leader if she was elected? Anytime she needs time to conjure up an answer, she crackles. I am worried what her crackle might trigger.
By the way, I am a woman.

We need a new leadership that can unite the congress together to fix the Trade policies that were implimented during the 1990s by the Clinton Administration , that were tariff free , causing the great divid in wealth redistribution , and SS and Medicare shortages , and continued by the Bush administration , all because Big Corporate interested has washington in their back pockets , the grip of greed can be broken by a Obama Presidency .

notice the similarity between Goebbels and Rove...

who was Jeff Gannon visiting at the whitehouse? is that Karls affliction? is that why he like J. Edgar attacked homosexuality???? to distance himself from it? or was that George W.

male cheerleader at Yale and at his boys school?

.

notice the similarity between Goebbels and Rove...

who was Jeff Gannon visiting at the whitehouse? is that Karls affliction?

My family and friends have been following the 2008 Presidential election and I feel overwhelming compelled to comment and express our sadness, disgust and anger after witnessing the continued unfair disturbing treatment that Senator Clinton continually receives from media. The daily gender discrimination and horrible names Senator Clinton is called, forced my family and friends to look else where for our news. The media has dropped the ball. We the viewers and most importantly the voters looked to news stations and newspapers for unbiased FACTS about ALL the presidential candidates to assist voters on making a wise and educated decision on who will run our country. Unfortunately we see your just biased and often racial tabloid news It's a disservice to our great country that you attack and discriminate a white female Senator and Former First lady who has done a great deal of good in 35 years of political service to our country that is dismissed and ignored for fear of upsetting a black candidate and his racial supporters. You should be ATLEAST reporting the differences and giving obama the same microscopic personal attacks that you continue to do to a white female United States Senator. If we wanted this type of so-called news, we can buy the National Enquire.

Joseph Goebbels was born in Rheydt, Germany, on 29th October, 1897. A good student he won a Catholic scholarship and eventually achieved a PhD from Heilderberg University.

Goebbels was under five feet tall with a bad limp caused by a bone operation as a child and in 1914 was rejected by the German Army. It was later claimed that he spent the next two days crying hysterically in his room.

Goebbels spent the next ten years writing novels, plays and poems. When he failed to find a publisher for his work he developed the theory that this was because the publishing companies were owned by Jews. He was also rejected as a reporter by the newspaper Berliner Tageblatt.

Goebbels joined the National Socialist German Workers Party (NSDAP) in 1926. Goebbels described one of their first meetings with Adolf Hitler in his diary: "Shakes my hand. Like an old friend. And those big blue eyes. Like stars. He is glad to see me. I am in heaven. That man has everything to be king."

Hitler admired Goebbels' abilities as a writer and speaker. They shared an interest in propaganda and together they planned how the NSDAP would win the support of the German people.

He edited Der Angriff

(The Attack)

and used the daily newspaper to promote the idea of German nationalism.

___________________________________________

so you see "the attack," a tried and true tactic used by the Nazis and repulsivescammers is finding a home in our society

though the bushes and Karl Rove.

doubt me? think I am a left wing nutcase? good.

prove me wrong.

SEARCH on NAZIS, republicans, CIA, bush

Why vote for the Clintons when it was Bill who signed into law in 1995 and renewed them in-2000- that did not end until 2005 , with the WTO trade agreements that let tariff free imports in under the big corporations like walmart m home debot , and these guys were not made to work with any local manifacturers so that some SS and medicare would be paid , and you would have thought that Bill and all the Congress would have had provisions in the Trade agreements that would have said to these Importers that if they import tariff free then they pay some to the SS and medicare system for the outsourcing that caused the loss .
I am voting for a New start , I am voting for Barack Obama , he can Unite the country for change .

I wouldn't be surprised to find out that zbob99, knew about herding people and manipulation ala goebbels...

.

I wouldn't be surprised if Edwards won.

But this whole stupid expectations game wouldn't have to be played if the media, pundits, and pollsters would all just shut up and let people vote instead of trying to predict, coronate, or otherwise build up one or the other candidate.

my take on Hillary and Barak bashers "of habit," is that they are repulsive_scammers...

even Edwards was smeared with a realestate deal in Washington D.C., when he first decided to run.

you all need to get it that on a very great level you who habitually get led by the bashers are being led to act against the AMERICAN people...

maybe you should read some Goebbels, or Goering

Rove takes his plays from the Reichstag Fire group, it was the PNAC Signatories that said they needed another "Pearl Harbor," to guarantee "the people," buying what they had to sell....

giving their rights away vis a vis The Patriot Act whose cherman name was

(Reichstagsbrandverordnung in German) is the common name of the Order of the Reich President for the Protection of People and State issued by German president Paul von Hindenburg in direct response to the Reichstag fire of February 27, 1933. The decree nullified many of the key civil liberties of German citizens.

With Nazis in powerful positions of the German government, the decree was used as the legal basis of imprisonment of anyone considered to be opponents of the Nazis, and was used to suppress publications not considered "friendly" to the Nazi cause. The decree is considered by historians to be one of the key steps in the establishment of a one-party Nazi state in Germany.

it appears that zbob99 knows alotaboutsleeze...

what's with that?

Before the first Liston fight, Clay went to verbally harass Sonny in the gym.

The "Bear" pounded the body bag with fearsome blows and said to Clay, "See what I can do?"

To which Cassius said "That bag don't hit back...".
-------------------------
HRC and "Uncommitted"?

Why did Hillary leave her name on the ballot in Mcichagan when all other top tier candidates pulled? I guess she was hoping for a cheap win. Well she got it -- barely -- uncommitted did quite well for being nobody. Amazing how many took the trouble to show up to vote for nobody (uncommited) just to stick to Hilary. I think it makes Hilary look pathetic.

cab91: This is going on all over the country in an effort to stop Hillary. The news out of Nevada will be only if by some miracle Hillary wins, otherwise it has been set up for Hillary to lose, and The Media spin it will generate.

'When "nobody" runs against her, "nobody" starts with 40%. And "nobody" didn't even have to campaign. "Nobody" spent no money in this race. "Nobody" didn't even run one add. '

Nor did Hillary Clinton. Check your facts please. You could equally say that the many people who voted for Hillary are clearly passionate about her winning, since they went and voted "knowing" that their vote was also of no account - as the party has banned their delegates.

What the Michigan event actually showed was how deeply the Democrat members in Michigan care about the upcoming General Election. Thousands upon thousands of people turned up to vote even though they knew they weren't going to be helping any candidate at all. That's passion - something the country needs to hear. Using this as another opportunity to bash Hillary is starting to get simply pathetic.

Well, one needs to factor in a sleazy Hillary manipulation tactic. She might have another perfectly timed emotional meltdown -- maybe fainting at a event the day before the NV causcus -- that certainly would gain some sympathy votes from gullible voters.

bsimon posted:

"My gut feel is that it would be cheaper to provide a decent education, starting with early childhood development, for the poor than it is to incarcerate significant numbers of them when they reach adulthood."

bsimon, you, Ross Perot [BigEars], and I, and I think Mike, agree.

So will The Fix be reporting on allegations that members of the Culinary union are being intimidated into voting for Obama? Jon Ralston mentioned it in the LV Sun, while MyDD.com and two other blogs have mentioned it. First an Obama precinct captain distributes a flyer inviting Republicans and Independents to be "Democrats for a Day" so they can caucus for Obama and now, the Culinary union may be telling its members to support Obama or stay home. Nice.

Nobody's second place finish in Michigan

On Tuesday, With no other major candidates names on the ballot, Hillary Clinton was able to get 55% of the vote in the Michigan Democratic primary, but the real story on Wednesday should be the 225,506 + who left their house and went down to their precinct, knowing their state had been striped of its delegates, and voted uncommitted.

When "nobody" runs against her, "nobody" starts with 40%. And "nobody" didn't even have to campaign. "Nobody" spent no money in this race. "Nobody" didn't even run one add. What happens when you add John McCain or Rudy Giuliani in place of "nobody"?

As democrats we have to think long and hard about nominating a candidate who is so divisive. We shouldn't spend these preciously important years ahead re-fighting old fights or addressing political grudges. If we are what we say we are than we must love our country more than this, and choose a leader who can bring Americans together. Our society's needs are too great, the time to pivotal, for anything but fundamental change backed by broad-based support from the American people. Senator Obama proved in Iowa he can do this, and nobody proved it on Tuesday.

Anewdaypost.com

Mark writes
"The Ds want to expand early childhood development programs and community college sytems, but I haven't seen their budget analyses :-)so I think its just "talk". That's what they do."

and
"affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled."

My gut feel is that it would be cheaper to provide a decent education, starting with early childhood development, for the poor than it is to incarcerate significant numbers of them when they reach adulthood. But I can't prove it.

I think that with an education & the chance at a decent future, we'd find a lot of poor kids do have the work ethic & raw talent to excel in our society.

Mike, if you come back to this later, I agree with you that education is a national security issue. But our federal constitution does not even mention education, and that has always made it hard for me to listen to Prez candidates talk about it.

I have some thoughts, not original with me.

The states that adopt 5 week summers, and disperse the other 11 weeks of vacation throughout the year, will find that their students do better because teachers do not have to spend 6 weeks revisiting the previous year's work.

States that mandate two years of education post HS - vocational or academic, will build more skilled and adaptable work forces.

Local districts that insist on parental involvement will do better than those that do not.

The feds could help with nutrition issues through USDA - killing the sugar binge is a good idea.

affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled. Maybe feds could help there if it were part of a broadened service to America program - mil or civ service.
---------------
You got ideas?

Mike, if you come back to this later, I agree with you that education is a national security issue. But our federal constitution does not even mention education, and that has always made it hard for me to listen to Prez candidates talk about it.

I have some thoughts, not original with me.

The states that adopt 5 week summers, and disperse the other 11 weeks of vacation throughout the year, will find that their students do better because teachers do not have to spend 6 weeks revisiting the previous year's work.

States that mandate two years of education post HS - vocational or academic, will build more skilled and adaptable work forces.

Local districts that insist on parental involvement will do better than those that do not.

The feds could help with nutrition issues through USDA - killing the sugar binge is a good idea.

affirmative action for poor kids who have either the work ethic or the raw talent [preferably both, of course] will broaden the talent pool of the skilled. Maybe feds could help there if it were part of a broadened service to America program - mil or civ service.
---------------
You got ideas?

zperez -- edwards "beat" clinton? by 7 votes. lol. sorry, there was not statistical difference between the two.

nevadaandy, where are you (presumably, in NV)? Do you see or hear a buzz? yard signs? bumper stickers? Will UNLV and NVReno students vote in large numbers?

fllewellyn: About Edwards still having a shot is but Media spin. I think most voters pretty well know who they favor even before any announcements are made, at least in my choice, I had thought Hillary would be our next Prez even before she announced. From the 5 Feb 08 states that vote I have been trying to calculate if Hillary has a sufficient number to have the nomination sewed up and am a little Leary about a couple of them, but still think she indeed does have enough.

I don't know how anyone could have much confidence in poll numbers for Nevada. An accurate poll correctly samples the make up of the final electorate. This is the first time that the caucus can be considered a politically significant event. The lawsuit creates the kind of uncertainity that impacts turnout. The polls can tell us that it seems close, but they can't tell us which campaign has the most effective operation or predict whose voters will really turn out.

In Iowa team Clinton got their vote out, but it was not enough to win. In New Hampshire most of the polls assumed that the electorate would be 54% women and it turned out to be 57% so all the projections were off.

In fact the most interesting thing about the polls that I have seen is not who is winning, but that Edwards still seems to have a shot.

My understanding of the situation in Nevada is that is nowhere near what is on the surface. And, that journalists are aware of that. The situation, in fact, seems to involve a series of power plays to determine what is the establishment. To those of us outside Nevada, we may not see that the Culinary may well be part of the Las Vegas establishment. Apparently, per the Las Vegas Sun (which I read on the internet), there exists a heated dispute between the Culinary and other Unions--such as the teachers union--as to control, role issues. (Perhaps, that really explains what is behind the teachers union lawsuit and the proportional voting issue. Perhaps, it isn't as simple as who gets to vote--but, how the vote counts or is weighted.) Another part of the "establishment" appears to be the Las Vegas Review Journal, a fairly conservative paper which endorsed Ron Paul and, today, endorsed Barak Obama. (There definitely appears to be a power-split on the newspaper level as well.) So, if the "powers that be" in Nevada at least include the Culinary and the Las Vegas Review Journal -- both of whom support Barak Obama -- I wonder how that plays into preconceived narratives passed around the blogs so often??? Christinep

FWIW: Nevada means bragging rights for any of the candidates that do well. I think the way the caucus is set up will favor Obama. The spin on this thread is lowering expectations for Obama. I think the Hillary folks wll do the same in SC where Obama is expected to win in the double digit range. 5 Feb 08 should have the Dem nominee settled and the Repubs are anyones guess.

Well, the going in Nevada may be just a bit less rocky for Obama since the Las Vegas Review-Journal endorsed him today:

http://www.lvrj.com/opinion/13832767.html

I will say that last night's debate finally made me get involved. I volunteered today to drive down to Charleston next week to lend a hand to Obama's get-out-the-vote efforts. Here's hoping that they get a strong turnout!

Actually, the latest polls at "Realclearpolitics.com" show Hillary with the lead in NV, by 2-4 points. The Culinary Union is an over-rated endorsement. Plus, many CWOA members will vote for Hillary, despite what the follish head of the union tells them.

The union made a big mistake picking Obama, and when he is beaten in Nv and on super Tuesday...they will be up a creek.

I'm a strong Clinton supporter because I believe in her policies and her analysis of what's wrong with the country and how to fix it. I also believe she's the only candidate with the experience in washington to hit the ground running and make positive change happen. Experience and previous expoure to Presidential-level issues matters a lot.

We can't afford any "on the job training" this time.

I was very impressed with Obama's setting of the tone of the debate.

The campaign itself is the best place to demonstrate that he really can reduce the partisanship and the anger and hate level between the various groups of people that make up our great nation.

Obama would be a Great VP.

Clinton/Obama '08

The unbeatable ticket!!!

Democratic Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

The road to the White House now goes through Nevada because Saturday's statewide caucuses will help to clarify presidential nomination races in both major parties.

Who do you predict will win the Democratic Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1551

.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Republican Nevada Caucus - Prediction Time!

Who do you predict will win the Republican Nevada Presidential Caucus?

http://www.youpolls.com/details.asp?pid=1552

.

Setting themsleves up for an easy loss in Nevada and a win in SC. STill, Obama will have to answer for his NV loss after getting the Culinary Union endorsement.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

"From the 2 p.m. ET hour of the January 15 edition of MSNBC Live:

CORKE: Chris, you know, while talking to the Reno Gazette-Journal, Barack Obama said he doesn't have the, quote, "experience to run a bureaucracy and that Americans aren't looking for a chief operating officer." I'm just wondering, is there any risk in saying something like that? I mean, let's face it. Isn't our government a bureaucracy to begin with?

CILLIZZA: Well, you know, Kevin, the risk I think is that Barack Obama has to be careful of not playing into the stereotype about him, which is that he's a great speaker; he's very charismatic; he's a good leader; but he doesn't have the experience. So any time he's on the record in an early-state newspaper saying, "Well, I don't have the experience to be a CEO," it probably doesn't help his campaign. I mean, I think what he wants to focus on is "Do I have Washington experience? No, I don't, but we don't need Washington experience. We need someone who is ready to change things, who can bring about change to Washington." I'm sure that's what he meant in a broader context. But remember, when candidates speak in those kind of parsed words, unfortunately it gets taken out of context or it's used in different ways, and that will likely come back to haunt Obama in some way, shape, or form, especially if he winds up being the nominee.

CORKE: That's right -- especially also if the economy continues to slide or falter at all. People will get nervous about something like that. Jon, let me ask you about [Democratic presidential candidate] John Edwards, the sometimes forgotten candidate.

From the January 14 Reno Gazette-Journal article:

Democratic presidential candidate Barack Obama freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy.

But he's banking on the fact voters aren't looking for a "chief operating officer" in this election.

"I have a pretty good sense of my strengths and my weaknesses," he said today during a meeting with the Reno Gazette-Journal editorial board.

"I am very good at teasing out from people who are smarter than me what the issues are and how we resolve them," he said. "I don't think there is anybody in this race who can inspire the American people better than I can. And I don't think there is anybody in this race who can bridge differences ... better than I can.

"But I'm not an operating officer. Some in this debate around experience seem to think the job of the president is to go in and run some bureaucracy. Well, that's not my job. My job is to set a vision of 'here's where the bureaucracy needs to go.' "

The final days of the Nevada caucus largely have come down to who has the experience, who can bring about change or whether one candidate can do both.

Obama spent the day traveling Northern Nevada to rebut rival Hillary Rodham Clinton's argument that he doesn't have the substance to back up pie-in-the-sky rhetoric.

"You got to ask yourself, 'who is best equipped to bring about this change you are hoping for?' " he told a rally of more than 1,100 people at the Reno Events Center. "Hope is not being ignorant of the roadblocks that stand in your way.

"I know how hard it is going to be to provide health care to every American ... to fix our schools or reduce poverty. I know because I fought these fights."

[...]

Obama did not use his stump speech to attack Clinton.

But in a 40-minute round-table discussion before the Reno rally he blamed the nation's housing slump and accompanying foreclosure crisis, which has hit Nevada harder than any other state, on Washington, D.C., leaders who listened more to lobbyists than their constituents.

"Ten of the country's largest mortgage lenders spent $185 million lobbying Washington so they could keep engaging in these destructive practices," he said. "And they got what they paid for."

His chin resting on one hand, Obama listened to the stories of struggle from the four Reno residents at the table with him, interspersing the discussion with points from his economic plan.

He wants to provide tax credits to stimulate the economy, revise bankruptcy laws to protect people from losing their homes and create a foreclosure fund to aid those who can no longer afford their mortgages.

At one point, Obama wrapped his arm around the shoulder of Skye Steffens as she told of a traffic accident that seriously injured her husband soon after he was treated for cancer.

"You've had your share," he said. "I don't think anything else is allowed to go wrong for the next four or five decades."

--B.J
"

Lies. LIES. :)

You are right about Nevada, but wrong about South Carolina. If Obama wins South Carolina with a large margin of the African American vote, thus reversing the advantage with that group that Clinton has long enjoyed, he will win the rest of the states with significant black populations, capture most of the superdelegates from those states, and very likely win the nomination. If he loses South Carolina and Clinton carries the black vote there, Obama is probably done.

I should have known when cc wrote tow semi-favorable posts about sen obama something was up. CC is what he is after all.

"The Fix" is in, indeed. Good thing nobody takes you seriously anymore.

stop the clinton love cc. Or propoganda I should say. Your embarrassing yourself.

johnlumea . don't get testy clinton supporters. She made the bed, now she's laying in her mistakes. no race, no sex issues, just polices and stances. Shes attached to bush at the hip. Fear the yale plan.

on another note. HAHAHAHAHAHAHA. Media matters cc? On the front page? What is a jurnalist with zero credibility? A propogandist?

"Election 2008

On MSNBC, Corke and Cillizza falsely claimed NV paper quoted Obama admitting he lacks "experience" to "run a bureaucracy" and "be a CEO"
On MSNBC Live, anchor Kevin Corke falsely asserted that Sen. Barack Obama "said he doesn't have the, quote, 'experience to run a bureaucracy.' " Corke was apparently referring to a Reno Gazette-Journal article that reported, "Obama freely admits he doesn't have the experience to run a bureaucracy"; however, the newspaper did not quote Obama saying he lacks the "experience to run a bureaucracy." Read
"

http://mediamatters.org/

r

u

latenightwhatnot Jan 16 05:32 PM

I find my pomposity intoxicating and showy.
Personally, "flagellate" is the operative word in my post and lovable immensely.

If you care to supress my flowery transgressions and restore the arid wonkishness of this driveling horde of colorless election junkies, you have but to push the delete button.

That is, if you can, your judgeship.

Why we heah in de USA don't see this kinda Bush stuff?

Saudi sword dance

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/bush_goes_to_saudi_all_we_got.html

Ol Mudbone hasta go out de country to see wha de heck dis BUSH do wit his Arab friends!

Chris: Why no mention of the court challenge to the caucus sites in Nevada? It also did not come up last night in the debate. I don't know how people in Nevada view this, but it seems to me here on the East Coast to be a naked attempt to suppress the participation of the Culinary Union members. HRC hasn't come forward to take responsibility for the legal challenge, (though her husband was in Nevada today saying positive things about it). Is her campaign responsible for this effort? Has she said anything about it? Why isn't this getting bigger play?

mudbone, Uncle Remus impersonations are difficult to maintain or to do well.

A word to the wise should be sufficient.

Nevadaandy, I disagree with you and agree with JD. A national primary does not allow the shoestring candidate to get any traction. May as well just go with name ID and big $$$.

But regionals - 4 rotating - should still give the unknown candidate time to gain exposure - or to expose her/himself - without having to raise $50m.

Ol MudBone heah.
Dis Bush guy, GOOD LAWD!
Saudi sword dance

http://weblogs.baltimoresun.com/news/politics/blog/2008/01/bush_goes_to_saudi_all_we_got.html

What is happening in this year's nominating process just shows that a national nominating election should be held on a specific date in all states so that everyone can participate in the democratic process at the same time. It's time to do away with the caucus process and to allow voters to make their decision in the privacy of the voting booth.

"Experience pain and feel good about it"

Stop embarrassing yourself with your tired links.

Obama 08'

Postscript:

Some significant percentage of the Culinary's members are not U.S. citizens -- and thus, not eligible to caucus.

"I like Huckabee too, Nick, he's so funny. But did you hear himn say we need to change the Constituion to conform to the Bible. Hello, red flag.

Amd McCain too--likable. but then he's been campaign with Lieberman, who's to the right of Cheney."

I know exactly what you mean, Claudia. Lots of red flags around Huckabee, so I personally can never cast a vote for him, but boy, what a funny, quick, likeable guy! No one else on the campaign trail makes me laugh like he does.

I saw Lieberman standing next to McCain in MI - ugh. I dislike Lieberman for more than just his hawkish views, but thankfully, McCain has proven time and time again that he sticks by his guns - regardless of who's pressuring him - so I am choosing not to hold it against him.

I think the GOP race is more interesting for the time being because given their choices and their negatives, just who will the GOP support? Will they be smart and nominate the maverick that has ticked them off over the years but who probably has the best chance of winning in the fall? Or will they take chances with the biggest flip-flopper of them all because he looks and sounds the part? Or will they just accept that they're losing in November anyway and pick the guy who will at least make them feel good about themselves after they lose? The GOP race is by far the more interesting since the members must now take stock of their positions and think about the future of the party.

Despite the gender and race blips of the past week - the leading Dems are so much more united on their views, separated primarily by nuance, personality, and style. For now, that's ho-hum to me -- just blathering from the respective supporters and endless analysis by the pundits. I think they should start analyzing the GOP candidates AND the party -- what's happened and where it's going, did they get too cocky, etc.

You write:

"While Clinton's establishment support is impressive, so too are the 60,000 footsoldiers that Culinary's endorsement means for Obama's campaign."

How absurd. The endorsement of the Culinary Workers Union absolutely does NOT mean "60,000 footsoldiers...for Obama's campaign." 60,000 is the total membership of the Culinary. But every one of those members is free to campaign and caucus for whomever he/she chooses. No union's leadership exercises sufficient control over its rank and file to guarantee that its endorsement of Candidate X will translate into 100% support of that candidate among its members.

Stop inflating expectations.

CC/zouk. What you did herehas been done and tried. By this "disgraced" blogger :)

"YouTube, j'accuse!
Controversial critic and disgraced blogger Lee Siegel rages against Internet culture and blogofascism.

By Louis Bayard

Jan. 16, 2008 | In the climactic sequence of "Invasion of the Body Snatchers," Kevin McCarthy staggers into the road like an Old Testament prophet, waving his arms, shouting dire warnings of pod people. "They're here!" he roars, as the cars' headlights arc around him. "You're next!"

Substitute the figure of culture critic Lee Siegel, and you have a pretty fair picture of "Against the Machine," a brief but highly charged polemic about the Internet's podification of our culture. This isn't to denigrate Siegel's argument but to suggest its rhetorical pitch -- and to question whether he is the right one to make the argument.

Certainly there's no questioning his C.V. According to Wikipedia (an institution he despises), Siegel has been book critic for the Nation, art critic for Slate, staff writer for Talk and Harper's magazines, contributing writer for the Los Angeles Times Book Review, senior editor at the New Republic ... on and on he goes, a culture unto himself, weighing in on all things great and small. He has even managed to have an opinion about baseball caps, which -- I never knew this -- signify "a lazily defiant casualness ... a hopelessness about the possibility of originality ever to fly in the face of hierarchy."

Siegel's Olympian perch began to sag a little in September 2006 when, stung by anonymous reactions to his New Republic culture blog, he decided to pose as a reader himself under the handle "sprezzatura." Slamming all his detractors ("immature, abusive sheep") and dousing the blogmaster with incense ("Siegel is brave, brilliant, and wittier than [Jon] Stewart will ever be ... You couldn't tie Siegel's shoelaces"), author and sock puppet were quickly sniffed out by other readers. Siegel was suspended, and his blog was cast into the ether. "

Hey HRC fans, you might find this site funny (or not)

http://dickipedia.org/dick.php?title=Hillary_Clinton

Chris...I'm with ya 99% of the time, but this time I'm not. The states in the middle DO matter because, in turn, they will have repercussions on Feb 5. Sure, they will have small repercussions, but this race is close enough such that they are quite meaningful

Posted by: cartmanqb | January 16, 2008 04:57 PM
____________________________________

Ol Mudbone hasta be disagreeable heah. De closer dey are come Feb 5 de less dis stuff happ'n now is gonna mean!

I'm curious as to why all of those trumpeting the 44% who voted uncommitted in Michigan think that that's significant? Both the Obama and Edwards camps requested their supporters to vote uncommitted. If they all followed the requests, that meant that Clinton beat the combined efforts of those two camps (plus whatever minor support came from the rest of the Dem followers) by 12%, which is a hell of a lot better than she managed in New Hampshire, where a combined 61% voted against her.

So how is this a negative for Clinton? Bottom line is that this was a meaningless tally for all sides.

And, FWIW, I'm a registered Republican who will be voting Democratic, regardless of which of the three front runners is nominated, so I don't have an axe to grind for any of the candidates. I'm just tired of a non-issue being blown up into a supposed "denial" of Clinton.

Ol Mudbone Heah.

Seems to me that all this Iowa, Nevada stuff is nutin but a buncha hoot'n and holler'n bout how 7 peoples gonna vote!
Feb 5 deys gonna be a mess o vote'n den we'all knows sumptin bout de winner!

Anyways fo ya'll dat cares heah de new picks in Vegas:
A new poll by the Reno Gazette-Journal shows a neck-and-neck three-way race among Democrats for Saturday's caucus.

Barack Obama: 32 percent
Hillary Clinton: 30 percent
John Edwards: 27 percent

John McCain: 22 percent
Rudy Giuliani: 18 percent
Mike Huckabee: 16 percent
Mitt Romney: 15 percent
Fred Thompson: 11 percent
Ron Paul: 6 percent
Duncan Hunter: 1 percent

The poll was conducted Jan. 11 to Jan. 13 , with samples of 500 likely Democratic caucus-goers and 500 likely Republican caucus-goers statewide by Maryland-based Research 2000. The margin of error is 4.5 percent. posted by Anjeanette Damon at 7:06 AM

Chris...I'm with ya 99% of the time, but this time I'm not. The states in the middle DO matter because, in turn, they will have repercussions on Feb 5. Sure, they will have small repercussions, but this race is close enough such that they are quite meaningful

Hey, Chris, do you have a problem with John Edwards? You never mention him, unless you're calling him a spoiler. I really don't understand how you can overlook a guy who BEAT Clinton in Iowa and has a great shot at Nevada. I'm guessing if he wins Nevada, you will completely disregard the importance of that state.

As a union member myself, I know I don't always vote along with who the leadership endorses. There was some great insight at Veracifier.com that discussed the upcoming Nevada caucus. Veracifier seems to understand the problems that Barack (who I support) will face in Nevada despite the Culinary Workers Union endorsement.

The saddest part of any election to me is the willing almost dogged suspension of truth by the voters. I read Mr. Black's review of Sen. Clinton's Iraq war vote - frankly speaking it is difficult to understand how anyone can believe anything that comes out of the Senator's mouth! It is all lies!

"I like Huckabee too, Nick, he's so funny. But did you hear himn say we need to change the Constituion to conform to the Bible. Hello, red flag.

Amd McCain too--likable. but then he's been campaign with Lieberman, who's to the right of Cheney.

Posted by: claudialong | January 16, 2008 03:55 PM
"

I agree. I thought the was the only tolerable r, until that.

what good is it to make laws and force religous obediance? who does that help? the lost sheep? Jesus? Does Jesus want people that are binded by the laws of man Or Constintine? How does that help Jesus or the world? It must be a choice. Like democracy gop. you can't force religon with laws, and you can't force democracy at the force of a gun (long term). When will you understand this?

The gop uses the flock, misguided religous teachings (Render to Ceaser)and ignorance to change political policy. A false prophet is the worst of all men to a true religous man.

when are the real chirstians going to turn on the politicains amoungst them? When are the conservaitve patriots going to turn on the fascists?

sry mlal, didn't mean to patronize you. I guess I'm used to dealing with the less-than-technical on this site. It's tough being the smartest guy in the room sometimes :-)

So if the price of poker is this cynical approach, I guess the system is at fault. Or, like in Hitchhiker's Guide, anyone who would want to be President should be de facto barred?

It would be nice if we had a rotating, regional primary system, if for no other reason than to geld those smarmy NHers and IAers, and obviate the need for pandering to a bunch of upper middle class white people and corn farmers, respectively.

rEAGAN? October surprise? Hmm. they are starting to show their face. or the truth is getting out. Either way we will get allthe facts once the conspiritors are out of there. I'm of the mind we should do another 9/11 investigation. A real one this time

"Siljander, who served two terms in the U.S. House of Representatives, was appointed by President Reagan to serve as a U.S. delegate to the United Nations for one year in 1987. "

r

mike asks
"So why bother following it?"

Because one of them might win by a large margin.

Eric Black of the MN Post has an in-depth analysis of Senator Clinton's vote to authorize the use of military force in Iraq. He's trying to determine when she first made the argument that she voted for increased inpsections, not for war - as she is arguing now - relative to when the vote was cast. It is a well researched piece, that offers insight into the Senator's judgement & character:

http://www.minnpost.com/ericblack/2008/01/15/582/hillary_clinton_and_the_iraq_war_resolution_at_what_point_did_she_cry_foul

On the notion of Hillary as the "prohibitive" favorite -- well, she was running ahead of the pack by as much as 40% not so long ago. That's about as "prohibitive" as it gets. The word may no longer be really justified however. One poll today shows that lead has been whittled down by 39%, most of the shrinking coming after the New Hampshire bath. That's one win that hurt. The strangle hold the Clintons have over the party apparatchiks means that they normally should control a strong majority of the super-delegates. Even if 44% of the Democratic Party voters are willing to go against her, she still is a formidable favorite; there's no way around it.

JD, I wasn't blaming the candidates for taking the cynical path...my point was thats the price of entering the arena.

To different degrees, I don't believe most Presidential candidates' stated positions on:

- Energy (ethanol, alternative energy, nuclear)
- Their own degree of religiosity
- The death penalty
- Immigration
- Taxes (or tax cuts)
- Deficit spending
- Privatization (of govt services)
- Abortion (or late-term abortion)

I don't blame them for this--it's not their fault, it's the fault of the electorate (in other words, us)

By the way, you probably shouldn't assume you know the qualifications of the random blog poster...one just might be experienced in the vulnerabilities introd