I am a senior citizen from Florida.
I saw Obama ads on TV in Florida. It is a lie he did not campaign in Florida. It is also a lie that it was a national ad and it could not be stopped as stated on the Chris Mathews show. How do you think that the NFL blanks out TV in certain market areas?
It was stated by the Obama campaign that they could not stop the ad. LIE, LIE

Any chance Edwards bows out and throws support/votes/delegates toward Obama?

The column says Edwards was a loser in the race. But a bigger question comes to mind: Why is Edwards still in the race? Doesn't he have something better to do, like spend time with his wife and help her with her fight with cancer? After getting beaten everywhere and getting so creamed even in his own state, it must be obvious he's just hanging on as if he has nothing better to do and wants attention, like Kucinich. This is his wife's second bout with cancer and he may not have a lot of time with her. He's more than just a loser, he's kind of creepy that he's chasing around in this national campaign while his wife has cancer. Maybe he's in denial of her life-threatening problem and is fixated on the race to block it out. Seems like some kind of psychological twist to his refusal to give up.

The call at the last second was legit, whichever way it went. I haven't checked for a frame-by-frame analysis but I would have accepted either possible call (or lack of one).

Lyle is, unfortunately, absolutely correct...Documented exit polling revealed that the VAST majority of blacks in S.C. voted for Obama for ONE reason...because he IS black!

Now that's OK...It's a rather minor (or should be) reason to cast a ballot for someone, but it IS a valid reason.

Lyle's merely stating the facts!

The ONLY despicable thing coming out of the primary is that YOU, Chris, and the mainstream media continue to ignore, marginalize, patronize and make derisive fun of John Edwards, the ONLY true progressive in the race.

It's becoming more and more evident that NO ONE will have enough first ballot delegates to assure nomination going into the convention. This means a brokered, wide-open convention and THAT is good for the process AND for the country because the entire world, so turned off by this administration's arrogant stupidity for the past eight years, WILL be watching as we participate in what is an almost uniquely American process.

If Obama and Clinton continue their shrill and increasingly tiresome catfights (and there's NO reason to assume they won't), when it comes to a floor vote among the convention delegates, personal rancor and dislike will prevent either of the "celebrity" candidates, already all but decided upon and anointed by you MSM idiots, from yielding to the other on the first or on successive ballots in the interests of party unity and what SHOULD be the main objective of beating the Republicans in November. In desperation, the party's so-called "leadership" will then turn to the ONE person who can achieve both...John Edwards. With each successive inconclusive ballot this possibility becomes more and more of a certainty.

And it WILL be the correct choice: Edwards will largely negate the certain coming of the Republican slime machine because he has a demonstrated widespread appeal across ALL geographic and socio-economic boundaries AND because he is the ONE candidate of whom polls constantly have shown handily beats ANY candidate the Republicans run against him!

Why? Because Edwards represents TRUE change rather than merely pretty words and hope! He has spent his entire public and private life fighting the special interests and WINNING!

He will also be appreciated as a fighter and as an underdog...traits much admired by the American people.

And THAT populist, pro-people message and personna terrifies Big Business corporate interests who DO make their billions on the backs of the middle class and the working poor...and evidently it especially terrifies the corporate bosses who dictate who and what may and mayn't be reported upon by the mainstream media!

Ben Bradlee must be spinning faster in his grave than a second place politician's explanation of why he really won in spite of losing.

(Just as I've been doing. But I, of course, am CORRECT!)

I am one Democrat that hasn't made up his mind. But Barack Obama's victory, and the fact that the Democrats outpolled Republicans in South Carolina most likely means that Obama is motivating voters that would have otherwise stayed home, namely blacks and young voters.

Democrats have counted on the solid "black vote," but the down side of that for Democrats is historically low turnout among blacks. The same goes for the 18-29 vote.

But Obama's huge victory and the Democrat's advantage over Republicans when both primaries were hotly contested could mean he can attract a surge of formerly apathetic voters to the Democratic ticket. And that could mean something that isn't mentioned much in these days of self-indulgent presidential campaigns -- coat-tails! New voters on the Democratic slate, if it pans out in November, could mean the Democrats take not only seats that seem vulnerable for Republican incumbents but also pull off upsets where the political wags aren't expecting them.

Though many have pointed out his four-year federal experience is wanting, remember that JFK was considered too young, too callow to win the presidency in 1960. Could it just be Obama's time?

I like both Clinton and Obama. I like Edwards too, but his ship has sailed. We'll have to see how it goes Feb. 5. It's like a mini-national primary and there could be a lot of surprises.

Edwards not a loser.
John Edwards wasn't a loser. He's very much third in what's looking more and more like a two person race, but he won the white primary in SC. He was closer to Hillary than she was to Obama in the overall results.

Lyle,

Considering Obama has written extensively and revealingly about his own life, family, and personal challenges your comment strikes me as odd, to say the least. There has also been plenty of coverage, negative and positive, about his rise froma disfunctional home to becoming the first black president of the Harvard law review, all the way up to the present.

Finally, your empty suit reference is just insulting. This is a guy who was an academic super star, a respect civil rights attorney and law professor, and an effective state senator before joining the US Senate. Your advocacy for Hillary is great -- I truly respect your passion -- but this kind of dig is really beneath you.

JimD writes
"I would be in favor of a plan that enabled borrowers to get a revision to the mortgage terms or re-finance so people could continue to pay the mortgage and keep their homes."

On the surface that sounds like a fair proposition. However, what do you do when an unscrupulous lender helped a buyer get a loan for a far more expensive house than they could afford with a traditional mortgage? Refinancing doesn't help the buyer - they'll still be in over their heads. Surely it wouldn't be prudent to write off part of the debt, refinance the rest & put into $300K homes people that could normally only afford $200K homes (making up numbers here).

bfu: I have been doing research on the guy and with few exceptions, The Media has been his biggest supporter. I found about his family and friends by looking it up myself, and what I found was not very flattering. An empty suit some would say.

'Mitt Romney and John McCain accused each other Monday of harboring liberal tendencies, a charge bordering on blasphemy in the increasingly caustic campaign for the Republican presidential nomination.'

funneee..

"Obama gets more votes than McCain and Huckabee in South Carolina
By: John Amato @ 1:43 PM - PST (correction) Another huge sweeping victory as far as the total number of voters for the Democratic Party in what has become another important election narrative:

In last week's SC GOP primary, McCain and Huckabee (the top 2 finishers), got 147,283 and 132,440 votes respectively. That's a total of 279,723. Obama just pulled down 291,000 by himself.

So the totals are roughly: GOP - 442,918 Dems 530,322
"

This is south carolina we are talking about right. I thought was the redest of red.

Obama keeps talking change and puts 'change we can believe in'. The question is what change has he brought to American politics?
What change did he bring to Illinois State Senate? What change did he bring to US Senate? Is 'present' a change? Is not voting a change?
Come on, a new graduate can talk about change without experience to support. For a 40's guy with many years in politics, just talk? Give me a break. When you conduct a job interview, can you believe in a talk without anything in his resume to support?

Obama is a bubble.

As the second paragraph of CC's post explains, this list of winners and losers is supposed to skip the obvious and offer more detailed analysis. Obama was obviously a winner, and Clinton was obviously a loser, so that doesn't need to be said. I almost complained about omitting the major candidates last time CC made one of these posts, then I read more closely.

If you're going to complain about anything in CC's post, complain about that last Loser. Approximately 95% of all conversation everywhere is about sports; do we really need to talk about sports on the Fix too?

"I would add the black folks of SC to the losers list for one reason in particular, and that would be voting for Obama because he is black. There are many reasons to vote for him on the merit of his campaign, but from the numbers being reported it is obvious a great number of the votes cast for him was simply because of his race.

Posted by: lylepink | January 28, 2008 05:05 AM
"

wow. pink. EEAAASSSSYYYY. Don't say that. That is too far, sir. :)

I think there may be other factors in peole's decision. Clinton, bush, the yale plane, maybe even the PERSON OBAMA IS. Just maybe it has not much to do with race. Edwards won the white vote, obama got 1/4. Race had very little do do with this. The clintons could have attacked him on something else that has zero relevancy, like he likes to fly airplanes (don't know if yes or no), and it would have been the same. It was a rejection of the clitnons and a VOTE of confidence. Since when are votes dictated by race? you go to far. You show yoru face old man

Robert J. Samuelson [who is not Nancy Pelosi]

'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.'

The winners do not include Barack Obama?

Bitter to the end, eh cc.

Does this mean that there is no longer a race card? If you would want a race card (all sides around) why? Who does it benefeit? Wake-up time for america. Time to finally live what what say, in terms of america. Time for freedom to truly reign.

Do not be scared old people. You will be witnesses to things you never imagined possible. If you only do not fear our combined power. Time to leave the 60's and into the 21st century

JimD: I say the Herald reporting a million have already voted. Can you see how this may be to the advantage of Rudy, since he has been losing support nationwide lately, and these are before most of his drop occurred??

jimd, we are so schizo as a society.

We cry about the poor savings rate among Americans, yet we also decry the lack of consumer spending.

We scream about how Christmas has gotten too commercialized, then we complain that the retailers had poor shopping seasons.

We decry the lack of 'affordable housing', then we fret over falling home costs.

I think that there is actually a cottage industry in badmouthing the economy, led by Nacy Pelosi and company (even though she should have some ownership of it by now).

consumer holiday spending down here in westchester county -- most stores had disappointing sales.

however, very high end luxury stores in manhattan did fab business, although mostly foreigners taking advantage of low dollar.

i know two families who had houses in the $700-- mil range who were foreclosed around here...

i have to add about the signage thing, a lot of the kucinich/paul signs i saw were handmade.

Jimd,
That's about 5% which is about twice what the high estimates that I read were (which is definitely not good news).

Interestingly, I have not seen anywhere near that number in my area, a low to high end middle class area with the caveat that it is near DC so prices are high in general. I have seen 4 houses foreclose - don't know the total but I would say it's at least 1000 in the area I am looking at.

Eating into my workday - last post.
Dave, I saw a brand new "Beat Bush"
bumper sticker in green and white.

Otherwise, nothing but the sole Paul yard sign and the tel pole stickers for "Ron Paul Revolution" with the funny spelling.

Mark

I am open on the solution. We have even had close to 20 foreclosures in my upscale gated community (out of about 400 homes) over the last year.

dave

Consumer spending is definitely down here in North Florida and this past Christmas season was a disappointment according to national reports.

Riddle: why no one takes Hillary to task for claiming 35 years of experience???

Easy: because these last 16 years SEEM like they've lasted 35 years.

Go ahead, elect her and the next four years will seem like another 35.

jimd52 and JD,
I keep hearing how consumer spending is down. That stat does not seem to mesh with my experiences at the malls and shopping since Nov. Out this weekend and malls packed with people buying (register lines out the wazoo). I know that the greater DC area (where I am) is slightly recession-proofed by virture of the Federal government so I was wondering if anybody had noticed a drop off in their area, anecdotally speaking.

Mark_in_austin,
OK! Saw an Obama bumper sticker this weekend (and naturally a Kerry/Edwards one also). Still no lawn signs to be found. Did however, see a number of Ron Paul signs in the medians of some major roads.

JD and Jim and drindl, I would prefer those "solutions" to be imposed at the state level. FL and AZ have a much more direct stake in this than TX right now and it is not actually a pervasive national problem.

I think the most direct response would be state or even local bond issues that raised a pool that people could apply to for housing subsidies. That would protect the tax base and not throw out the baby with the bathwater.

People who were actually cheated could look to their legal remedies.

Enforcement of state and federal fair lending laws and future oversight by state licensing of mrotgage brokers are lessons to be taken form this mess.

Great result for Obama, but I cant imagine it matters much nationally.

http://p2plendingwithprosper.blogspot.com/

JD,
The Kerviel story is fascinating. I don't know what will happen, but if you look at his picture, the movie version will have to star Tom Cruise.

"People living with the consequences of their actions are part and parcel of maximizing people's potential as human beings and citizens."

Posted by: JD | January 28, 2008 08:56 AM

JD, I agree that people should have to live with the consequences of their poor decisions. However, I am also concerned about the potential consequences to the macro economy of a rash of foreclosures. The housing bubble has deflated, and that is, on balance, a good thing for the economy. A more severe drop in home prices fueled by a rash of foreclosures would have a devastating ripple effect through the economy. Many people would find that their mortgage balances exceeded the current market value of their home. Consumer spending, which drives our economy, would fall off even more precipitiously. Many people finance large purchases through home equity loans.

Also, there certainly was an element of unscrupulous behavior on the part of many lenders. So, I would be in favor of a plan that enabled borrowers to get a revision to the mortgage terms or re-finance so people could continue to pay the mortgage and keep their homes.

Lyle,

I surely hope one day a person's ethnicity or gender will not be newsworthy or part of any discussion.

By the way, my guess is that Florida should be a pretty good barometer of the national mood. The Democratic machine will run smoothly and Hillary will prevail.

Austin elects disproportionately more black officials than it has black voters. The city is 13% black and the county, less.

I can honestly say that race is a minimal issue at most. Gary Cobb, the ADA who is running for Ronnie Earle's seat [Earle is retiring after 34 years as DA - you know him from the DeLay indictment, probably] is running on a platform that includes "lend-lease" of young trial lawyers from the big firms. The big firms will pay their salaries for 6 months while the young lawyers get thrown into the battles learning to try cases to juries years before they would have that opportunity in the firms. The DA's office then has a continuing pool of young talent to throw at "easier" cases that can pare the workload of the experienced ADAs to concentrate on big cases. Cobb did not get the big firms on board because he is black. He did it because he is persuasive.

On the other hand, Dukes cast her lot in the Lege with the unpopular Speaker, and I suspect most black voters in her district will vote for her white opponent, a claimed reformer.

Am I living in a tree, or are our politics not so different than yours?

christopher please stick to opinions that don't face the wrath of frame by frame analysis. clearly the ball was on the way down. however the mounties who shot just 12/23 from the line should never have put themsleves in that position. add bill clinton to your list of losers after his very un-statesman like behavior in the land of the confererate flag

From Arnold Garcia, editor of the Austin American-Statesman, from a much longer piece:

"Though he got plenty of respect, Brooke never inspired the excitement Obama sparks. Obama inspires people who seldom or never vote. (If he makes it to the general election, that will cut both ways). That creates potential for Obama to be a factor in down-ballot primary races.

'I never dreamed I'd see this day,' said the Rev. Marvin C. Griffin, pastor of Austin's Ebenezer Baptist Church. Griffin, a former Austin school board president who has been active in state and local politics, noted that Obama's presence on the March 4 Texas ballot should motivate an unprecedented number of African American voters.

Nationally, African American political leaders balked at backing Obama over the Clintons, who are viewed as friendly to black causes. Rank-and-file voters won't suffer the same inhibition, Griffin predicted. Asked if he was going to declare, Griffin declined, citing an allegiance to the Clintons.

Three Democrats -- County Tax Assessor Collector Nelda Wells Spears, state Rep. Dawnna Dukes and district attorney candidate Gary Cobb, all African Americans -- are likely to benefit from the expected bump in black turnout. All are competing against white candidates in a county that elected its first black courthouse official only 28 years ago.

Like the presidential contest, none of those elections hinges solely on race. There are issues to discuss, performances to be evaluated and qualifications to be weighed. That said, it would be naïve to believe that race isn't a factor in those contests or the presidential one.

We note progress in the fact that race isn't the dominant factor as we've all seen in races up and down the ballot that included African American candidates. Like Obama, Dukes, Cobb and Spears won't garner universal support from African Americans. That tells us what we should already know: African Americans don't march in lock step.

Obama will lose black votes just like he'll lose white ones. Clinton will lose female votes as well as male votes. But the important thing is neither appears to be ceding any of those votes to the other. That is a good sign.

We have a long way to go, but baby, we've come a long way since Edward Brooke took his first oath of office."

'Still, I might favor directly bailing out many homeowners under some circumstances.'

how about for fraudulent contracts? a lot of people were lured into bad deals because there was insufficient disclosure. shouldn't those people who were cheated be recompensed? and shouldn't federal regulation be passed, that full disclosure is required in any contract?

i personally checked into refi and was outright lied to about the nature of the loans by several financial reps. i reported this to our AG's office but don't know of anything came of it. but my understanding is that this was quite widespread.

'Might be one of them there polysci terms about which I should know nothing.'

anything you don't understand on the internets, ask a kid. they will know.

'As I've said before, we're borrowing $150b from China mostly so we can all go out and buy a bunch of Chinese-made goods? We're stimulating the wrong economy; the Chinese are not allies, and in fact are near enemies.'

agree with you wholeheartedly there, JD..

'As the losses mounted, Kerviel tried to conceal his bad trades by covering them with an intense red wine sauce, later switching to delicate pastry horns.'

and did you write that? it's hilarious!

--anyone who's hoping to end partisanship [not to mention misogyny and racism] has only to look at this thread to see how far we've got to go.

btw, i was up in the berkshires/catskills again this weekend -- and everywhere i drove -- past backwoods tarpaper shacks and fancy vacation homes-- there were no political signs except for ron paul and kucinich. plus quite a few 'support our troops, bring them home now' and all of them pretty much equally scattered regardless of demographic.

To paraphrase our illustrious last president, it depends on what the definition of 'bailing out', is. I'm sure it seems cruel and mean to the bleeding hearts out there, but it seems to me critical that we don't take actions that introduce moral hazards (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_hazard)

People living with the consequences of their actions are part and parcel of maximizing people's potential as human beings and citizens.

I've been reading a lot of blogs since the SC results came in. This, from the Guardian UK, is my favorite comment:

"I guess breaking that glass ceiling for Hillary is a bit like LBJ and civil rights: in the end it takes a white man to do the empowering."

Thanks, JD. The article reminded me of other proposed stimuli for inefficient behaviors. Sen. Clinton's suggested interest freeze for ARMs is one. I have read BHO to accept Greenspan's idea that direct subsidies to struggling mortgagors does less damage to the rational decision making process than screwing with the market and preexisting contracts.

When I was an undergrad, the theory of wealth accumulation was taught to us in nutshells, one of which was "OPM" - other people's money; or leverage. We leveraged everything and it always seemed to work, until the S&L crisis in the late 80s. I avoided bankruptcy by the skin of my teeth and the patience of bankers and friends who knew I was "good for it" eventually. My whole generation thought we were victimized by B-School theory [not our greed].

The facility to blame others is human; the ability to accept responsibility is damn near divine. Still, I might favor directly bailing out many homeowners under some circumstances.

Mark: Sharpton was a joke and still is IMO. Th black folks have good reason to vote for Obama, as do women for Hillary. My point is it should not be the Major reason in either case.

M in A, another good article for you on the subject

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502047.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

Martinedwinandersen-- give me a break. you are no democrat -- you are spreading lies and filth. you're just another slimy R operative, clearly.

Lyle - I do understand what you are saying, but I ask you to look at it from another vantage point.

Black voters did not vote for Sharpton over
Edwards or Kerry in 2004. That vote is not an "automatic". Just as women have waited for decades for a truly credible candidate, so have black voters.

In previous races, D candidates have spread "street money" among black ministers to defray the costs of organizing turnout. On
Stephanopoulis' show yesterday it was asserted by two of the observers that BHO
did not do so.

Also, it is apparent from the demographic cross sections that BHO won a majority of young voters among whites.

Should I assume that older whites, who voted against BHO, were racists? I do not,
because most of them said they would vote for BHO in the GE. And most black voters
said they would vote for HRC in the GE.

No, I think that we have all seen the energy younger voters feel this time. Like dave, I think it may not be enough for BHO to win the nomination or the election, but I do think involved youth beat what we have had for so long.

rfpiktor: I always try to refer to blacks as "blacks" I very seldom use AA, and as you can see by any and all of my past Posts, I refer to humans as people or folks. The numbers are so out of whack, something like four to one doesn't add up to me without race playing a major part in the disparity. I would hope I am wrong, but the numbers speak for themselves.

Lyle,

What happened to all that "African American" political correctness. Now "black folks" is your term of choice.

You actually believe people vote for the color of a person's skin?

Did you know there is only one "race": it is called the "human race".

There are three different ethnias: Negroid, Mongoloid and Caucasoid.

So "blacks" voted for the Human Negroid from Kenya-Kansas. What a bunch of "losers". That , along with the Mongoloids and Caucasoids that might have also voted for him.

What would you call them? Traitors to their ethnicity?

I would add the black folks of SC to the losers list for one reason in particular, and that would be voting for Obama because he is black. There are many reasons to vote for him on the merit of his campaign, but from the numbers being reported it is obvious a great number of the votes cast for him was simply because of his race.

there is no way in HELL that was a legit block at the end of the G-Town game. That was goaltending all the way, the ball was coming DOWN. In other news this is a win for Obama that we should have seen coming the Hillary/Bill thing was way overblown and thusly a blacklash ensued, the majority of voters who decided on primary day or 3 days prior voted for Obama. Hillary will still keep a reasonable national lead and I see her winning 55-60% of the states on Feb 5th and Obama will keep the delegate count close....in other words we still will not know what is going on.

LOSER:

George Stephanopolous(apparently).

George looked frustrated, tired and agitated with Barack Obama this morning on This Week. In his interview with Obama and during the roundtable discussion, George and Cokie seemed to be rushing to Hillary's rescue.

I guess if the people I once served and worked for (Bill and Hillary in George's case) had been really nasty and divisive and got called on it, I'd feel strangely defensive about it too.

Attention Obama hypers:
If the African-Americans can play racial card in SC, the whites and other races can play that too.It is not over yet, wait until after Feb 5th,than we can see something clearer. I sill think the country needs Hillary more than Obama for all the problems left behind by Bush. You can not hire an electrician to do a surgeon's job, period.

Larsen 770 and smithtt: It's questionable whether or not the shot was at it's apex or going down.

What isn't questionable is that the call could have gone either way... it didn't go WVU's way - too bad. But a heckuva play, either way - lets be fair now.

HOYA SAXA. Chris - one question for you: How long has it been??????????

The Arizona Republic endorsed McCain (Native son, expected) and OBAHMA!!!

The edititorial begins with the following:
"Obama can unite nation"

This is historic. Savor it.

For the first time, a Black man and a woman are within striking distance of the U.S. presidency. That is a remarkable statement about how far this country has come toward the goal of equality. It is shining testimony to the world that the United States continues to move toward the "more perfect Union" our Constitution envisions...."

READ IT ALL HERE!!!
http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/opinions/articles/0127sun1-27.html

Nothing legitimate about that block -- I wonder how many laughs JTIII and Ed Hightower (the cheating ref) had at WVU's expense after the game.

Doesn't matter, G-town is the definition of over-rated this year. Their demise is visibly on the horizon.

The Hoyas are overrated....this coming from a Villanova guy.

As for the SC primaries, the weather really stunk here for the GOP primary--snow in the upstate, sleet in the midlands and heavy rain in the lowcountry.
Yesterday was for the most part a Chamber of Commerce day here (albeit a little cold for some of the natives). I thought the GOP vote was reduced on account of the weather and whomever gets nominated by the GOP will win (even if it is McCain!).

Losers - The media who ignored Obama's race-baiting tactics to win the vote in South Carolina and painted the Clintons as racists.

While the media was spouting that the Clintons were trying to turn Obama into "the black candidate" and accusing Bill Clinton of speaking in racial code, did anyone notice what I did?

How about Obama playing the Jay Z song, "I Got 99 Problems (But a B*tch Ain't One of 'Em)" at a rally on the evening of the NV caucuses?
How about the next day when he was in a LA black church giving a history lesson on the Civil Rights movement, invoking fire-hoses, beatings and dogs, but completely devoid of campaign issues?
How about the next few days, when he did the same in black churches in GA and SC?
I even saw him do it at a rally in SC and wondered if the white people in his audience were as offended as I was by the obvious race-baiting.

I wasn't surprised though. The first time I saw this tactic used was several months ago when Oprah gave her big rally in SC, she did it too, and the media totally ignored it then.

The big losers are Newspapers like yours, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, and Fox who do all you can to destroy Hillary Clinton's campaign while letting Obama get away with sordid tactics to which you turn a blind eye. Shame on you and shame on Joe Scarborough, Tim Russert, Jack Cafferty, Chris Matthews, Shawn Hannity and all the other nitwits at Fox who should be fired for misusing their positions to influence an election.

Do democracy a favor and tell the whole truth for once!!!

dave

I think, to some extent, it started with the Clinton's being determined not to turn the other cheek the way Dukakis did in 1988 when Atwater masterminded a highly negative campaign. When Clinton's letters as a student in the Vietnam era came to light, it was like the divisions of the Vietnam era all over again. That fueled a reprise of the culture wars. I have always taken a somewhat detached view on this since I was a war protester in 69-73 while in college. I then became a career naval officer. I understand the hard feelings on both sides without sharing them.

I saw the first impeach Clinton bumper stickers in Florida in December 1992 - several weeks before he was inaugurated. I think things spiraled out of control with the investigation mania of the GOP Congress and the hardball tactics of the Clinton's in fighting back. I can understand the Democrats' reaction since Clinton's hardball tactics were matched by the opposition in the '90s. People tend to see the negativity on the otheer side while regarding the negativity on their own side as legitimate political discourse.

I never voted for Clinton - I went for Perot in '92 because of my deficit concerns and Dole in '96. Dole, to me, is a fine example of the pre-supply side, responsible government, pro-small business, fiscal conservative and realistic foreign policy Republican I feel more comfortable supporting for president.

It was Clinton resorting to the ruthless, take no prisoners approach in a Democratic primary against someone who tried to eschew that sort of campaigning that woke up a lot of Democrats. It started out on a low level, especially when Obama was far behind in the polls, the Clinton surrogates would attack and then accuse Obama of hypocrisy when he responded.

I sincerely hope for a Obama-McCain race- I think it would elevate the discourse considerably. I shudder at the thought of another Clinton campaign.

For those wondering about that French bank trader who lost billions, I finally found out the real story:

Friends of rogue trader Jerome Kerviel last night blamed his $7 billion losses on unbearable levels of stress brought on by a punishing 30 hour week.

Kerviel hid his November losses in a batch of wonderfully fresh croissant. Kerviel was known to start work as early as nine in the morning and still be at his desk at five or even five-thirty, often with just an hour and a half for lunch. One colleague said: "He was, how you say, une workaholique. I have a family and a mistress so I would leave the office at around 2pm at the latest, if I wasn't on strike. But Jerome was tied to that desk. One day I came back to the office at 3pm because I had forgotten my stupid little hat, and there he was, fast asleep on the photocopier. At first I assumed he had been having sex with it, but then I remembered he'd been working for almost six hours."

As the losses mounted, Kerviel tried to conceal his bad trades by covering them with an intense red wine sauce, later switching to delicate pastry horns. At one point he managed to dispose of dozens of transactions by hiding them inside vol-au-vent cases and staging a fake reception.

Last night a spokesman for Sócíété Générálé denied that Kerviel was overworked, insisting he lost the money after betting that the French were about to stop being rude, lazy, and arrogant.

A reasonable article Mark, thanks for the heads up. I'm not sure I agree with it 100%

(for example: "This "stimulus bill" is really $150 billion worth of some future generation's resources appropriated to finance our own consumption. Why are we entitled to pass on this additional debt? "

You could argue that since GDP is compounded, after a fashion, that future generations in fact *do* benefit from greater growth now.

In my never-humble opinion, however, it's not worth it)

As I've said before, we're borrowing $150b from China mostly so we can all go out and buy a bunch of Chinese-made goods? We're stimulating the wrong economy; the Chinese are not allies, and in fact are near enemies.

I also don't like the stimulus (and especially don't like the idea of monkeying with adjustable rates, as that ignorant witch HRC would do) because it introduces a moral hazard. People made their beds - if the Feds bail people out this time, they will do it again.

~

God, I hope it's not Obama.

He is not qualified.

David Axelrod foisted Deval Patrick, another unprepared politician, off on Massachusetts in Nov 2006.

They even used the same slogan: "Yes We Can." The electorate got all gooey and voted him in. The guy had no experience governing and it has been a nightmare.

Team Clinton is ready to lead on day one.

You Obama people are drinking the kool-aid. This is not a beauty pageant. Yes, he does give a good speech.

Clinton is qualified and she has tons of support nationwide.

She's leading Obama by 30+ points up here in Massachusetts.

You guys ought to try listening . . . but I know that you won't.

~

bsimon - "After Bill squandered his legacy as an elder statesman for his party by lowering himself into the sewer of race-baiting for political gain, Gore is left as the most-respected Dem politician."

This statement surprises me coming from you. The Clinton's have conducted themselves in the same manner ever since they came onto the national stage. Previously, it had been mainly directed against R's. I don't think one can say that Bill Clinton was ever the "most-respected Dem politician" given that numerous people despised him, even people that voted for him (and R's of course). I find comments like this and other Dems sudden fascination with the problems of a co-presidency amazing to say the least. R's all over are starting to feel somewhat vindicated for pointing this stuff out since the early 90's (apparently to little avail).

Jimd (from the last thread),
yeah, I know this sort of thing is not limited to the Clinton's. But I find this new discovery by Dems that the Clinton's play politics this way almost humorous.

Clinton (Bill) WAS at one time a well-respected figure in American politics. All that has changed, particularly since Bush senior became his BFF. Even though he is an ex-convict (lying to federal grand jury, obstruction of justice, and even though he had his license to practice law stripped from him, and even though he no longer has public employees (Arkansas National Guard) running him to see his many "mistresses, even after Monica Lewinsky, Jennifer Flowers and a host of others,many Americans still supported him. That has changed, it has changed because he became an attack dog for his wife's failed campaign. He has, and continues to, insert the issue of race on a daily basis in a misguided attempt to bolster his wife, who joins in her her husband's divisive tactics. The first words he spoke after his wife's dismal loss yesterday: Well, you know Jesse Jackson won SC in 1988: another blatant attempt to inject racism. It was like saying, "A black man won before; it's no big deal."
And their thinly veiled attempt to play "Good Cop - Bad Cop" fooled no one.

Bill Clinton has been reduced to a pathetic figure unable to complete a sentence without a reference to himself. It is a sorry sight. I am an African-American and at one time I campaigned for Bill. It is sad commentary on his lack of character and makes me feel as though I was duped in the past by his display of racial blindness. Too bad to see that Hillary has adopted this same posture.

Thank you, Judge.

Chris - count me among those who think that, among the losers, you mixed up HRC and Edwards. Any primary that Edwards gets over 15% supports his "stay in it and grab delegates where I can" strategy. With the Clinton family and BHO as the competition, his odds of accumulating African American votes are a bit like Gary Hart in 1984. Nevertheless, his 2:1:1 among white males may mean he can clear 15% in several of the Southern states, and perhaps even go into the 20s in some. That would undercut HRC severely. HRC can't win Southern primaries just with white women. To the extent that Edwards ascent and HRC's decline was driven by free media (debates and news coverage), I don't see why this effect cannot continue.

HRC missed her chance to drive Edwards out. If Edwards had been below 10%, as he nearly was according to polls at the start of the week, then I think he would have lost his Federal funding. IIRC, if you don't hit 10% in two consecutive primaries or caucuses, you lose your match and can only get it back if you hit 20% subsequently. As the only Democrat taking federal funding, that would have severely damaged him. SC allows Edwards to live on and, at worst, tip Southern primaries to Obama.

Of course, WTOP /CBS radio and other parts of MSM are emphasizing how disappointing Edwards finish was. The Post is also reporting he will face increased pressure "Democratic Party officials" and the Clinton camp to drop out (page A11 of the "Edwards Appeal" article today). I'm not a conspiracy guy, but it sure sounds like the folks who didn't cover him are taking messages from their Clinton connections on how to spin SC. And now Florida is getting attention?

inonit wrote: "If we look at the numbers, Edwards seems to have gotten more white votes this year than 2004"

Memo to inonit: Whites are not the only Americans allowed to vote in 2008. Who cares who won the majority of white votes?

Mark: my first thought was that BTE stood for Better Than Ezra but actually it's "better than expected." Might be one of them there polysci terms about which I should know nothing.

Threadjack warning:

JD, I thought this article was reasonable:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/01/25/AR2008012502593.html

jac13 -

What is "BTE"?

I PREDICT:

That Obama gets an SC bounce that pulls him even with Clinton in the national Democrats' preference poll;

That Obama's bounce also moves him up in CA, NY, and other states where Clinton has been far ahead, and that he does BTE on Super Tuesday; and

That the Kennedy endorsement, added to the earlier endorsements of McCaskill, Conrad, Nelson, Kerry, et al., gets Obama to a "critical mass" of endorsements that result in his candidacy's achieving legitimacy with the Dem. establishment.

Wishful thinking? Maybe. Or maybe not.

UofMdGrad, your post is very intriguing, being a fine fit with my observation of Buchanan in prior POTUS campaigns. People look to Rove for a similar measure, but Rove is an unreliable barometer (thanks for a great metaphor) owing to his quirky penchant for reverse psychology and 3/4 spin.

Losers who are winners.

The greater the Clinton loss because of the higher turnout by blacks in South Carolina, the more it made Obama a black candidate.

The greater Obama's margin of victory because of black voters, the more he became a black candidate.

The whites in the remaining states may not be racists, but they are not going to be supporting the blacks' candidate.

It could be the people in SC don't want to see a co-presidency. It was at times hard to tell who was really running for president Hillary or Bill.

There was a good op-ed in the NY Times titled "Two Presidents Are Worse Than One", by Garry Wills, a professor emeritus of history at Northwestern. He gives a brief history of why the founding fathers argued against this in creating our democracy and uses the Bush administration as an example of a co-presideny, saying "One problem with the George W. Bush administration is that it has brought a kind of plural presidency in through the back door. Vice President Dick Cheney has run his own executive department, with its own intelligence and military operations, not open to scrutiny, as he hides behind the putative president.

No other vice president in our history has taken on so many presidential prerogatives, with so few checks. He is an example of the very thing James Wilson was trying to prevent by having one locus of authority in the executive. The attempt to escape single responsibility was perfectly exemplified when his counsel argued that Mr. Cheney was not subject to executive rules because he was also part of the legislature."

He ends the piece with:
"We have seen in this campaign how former President Clinton rushes to the defense of presidential candidate Clinton. Will that pattern of protection be continued into the new presidency, with not only his defending her but also her defending whatever he might do in his energetic way while she's in office? It seems likely. And at a time when we should be trying to return to the single-executive system the Constitution prescribes, it does not seem to be a good idea to put another co-president in the White House."

My question is given how the Clintons are conducting her campaign as if we are getting two for the price of one, and knowing Bill's penchant for being free wheeling, if Hillary was to be president, would she use her executive privelege to defend Bill when he does something on his own?

We certainly do not need distractions in the next administration and given the way Bill has been acting and given his past actions he WILL BE a distraction in a Hillary Clinton administration. It could be that the SC voters came to this realization before going to the voting booth.

Heart-attack Hoyas are back!

GU'83

"it showed that amongst the people who thought he was an important factor in their decision, HRC won 37% of the vote overall, it appears that he had a positive effect, and not a negative one.

I have no problem with saying that you think Bill turned people off. The poll question just doesn't support that.

Posted by: dvg1 | January 27, 2008 04:31 PM

OK, 37% of the people who said Bill Clinton was an important factor in their decision voted for Hilllary - but that means 63% of the people who said Bill influenced their decision voted AGAINST Hillary,

As for the accuracy of the pre-election polls, take a look at them, add the percentages for Obama, Clinton and Edwards - most sum to about 85%. The undecideds could not remain undecided when they voted, and the undecideds broke for Obama.

It's too soon to say if Clinton won or lost. The strategy over the last weeks wasn't to win South Carolina, though she probably didn't anticipate losing by as much. Obama certainly did turn more negative over the past weeks, and his support amongst White's was pretty low. While the spin now is that he beat many of the polls (which still included undecided voters), he did a lot worse than in NH, IA, or NV. This was the first time he came in 3rd. Obviously, not all White people are the same, and he probably would have taken some of the Edwards vote in another state. Still, it isn't a good trend (if it's a trend at all) and he obviously needs to be careful about getting away from his politics of hope message.

On an unrelated note though, I can't believe how many people in the media have misinterpreted the exit poll's Bill Clinton effect question. While the question was worded strangely, it showed that amongst the people who thought he was an important factor in their decision, HRC won 37% of the vote. Considering she won 26% of the vote overall, it appears that he had a positive effect, and not a negative one.

I have no problem with saying that you think Bill turned people off. The poll question just doesn't support that.

Chris, you know the MSNBC crowd, could you provide some reason why they keep Pat Buchanan employed? After 2000 election, this guy lost all credibility. His books on why we are all doomed are sophmoric and just plain stupid. He's not a serious person, please tell your friends to terminate his contract. Thanks

Surprise winner in SC:

Al Gore.

After Bill squandered his legacy as an elder statesman for his party by lowering himself into the sewer of race-baiting for political gain, Gore is left as the most-respected Dem politician.

Chris...I'll have to disagree with you about Edwards. Why do you, as well as the rest of the media, continue to look at this primary through the same filter? Sure the likelihood he is going to be the nominee is slim to none, but I don't even think he really believes he will be the nominee. He is going to continue to fight for delegates until he can't muster the 15% anymore. He is fighting, as of now, to have a say and to continue to drive his agenda which has been taken on by Obama , Hillary, even Romney and Huckabee. Edwards has set the debate. He won't win elective office, but his causes win.

As for SC...where was he in the polls at the beginning of the SC process? At around 10%. He surged in SC, because of the debate and because of "Obillary". I think he did a great job considering what has happened so far with his candidacy. The key is to build on this to continue gobbling up delegates.

Of course the media will do everything they can to write him off...what else is new. He never fit into the narrative of the "history in the making" election.

Perhaps the biggest development: The Clintons come out of SC as a TEAM. Hillary can no longer 'bill' herself as an independent who must, by entitlement, secure the liberated female vote. On Feb 5, people will be voting for the Clintons - not Hillary.

The Clintons 'will do whatever it takes' to get elected. That might be just fine with the Bush Supreme Court, but to most folks it is el supremo turn off.

first off congrats to obama on his massive curbstomp on hil....i mean victory over the team clinton last night.

now the real battle come on 2/5 or super extreme tuesday. 22 states will now decide if we go back to the 90's or move forward on the democratic side.

consider this: in order for either obama or hillary to win they must do the following. win their home state and califorina. also corral smaller states in order to become the definitive front runner. so far obama looks like the favorite. why? before folks accuse me of drinking again let me explain. obama showed us he can win in red states. thats the main selling point. if he can win places like nebraska,idaho and in southern states like georgia, plus illinois, its game over!

team clinton is going to have to realize this so focusing on the north east states and califonia is as best suicidal. the wild card in all this is john edwards. if he can pull in enough delegates or pull off a suprise win, he can become a kingmaker.

Jesse Jackson--loser and loser.

Barack Obama didn't want Jackson, a South Carolina native, in South Carolina campaigning for him, as pointed out in the washintonpost.com blog The Trail.

Bill Clinton used Jackson yesterday as an example of how a black candidate won South Carolina in '84 and '88 but failed to win nationally. The year of Jackson in '88 failed to materialize.

How about giving Edwards some press when he does well; say for example after he ate the other two for lunch in the debate Monday night. All of the headlines after that debate were along the lines of Clinton-Obama trade jabs, get personal, get heated, blah, blah, blah.. We have seen political reporting during this cycle reduced to the level of People magazine. Maybe a little objective coverage will lead to positive results for JE on election days.

I would just add that the GOP is a loser because after Obama'a huge win last night - and today's news that Ted Kennedy will be endorsing Obama tomorrow, I think it is looking more and more promising that Obama will be the nominee. The GOP has been 'salivating' at the prospect of running against Hillary and Bill! (One note of what to watch for anytime commentator Pat Buchanan is talking! I call it the "Buchanan Barometer!" If Pat - a GOP man - senses that Hillary is slipping and Obama is gaining, he praises Hillary effusively, and really slams Obama! You then know that Obama has had a particularly great debate or primary, etc.! Pat has been saying for a year that the GOP is praying that Hillary is the nominee as he knows that having her as the Democratic nominee is their best hope for victory! He also seems to support Romney, and after last week's GOP debate - where Romney actually used one of Obama's stump speech lines - Pat said Romney could be the GOP's "OBAMA-LIKE CANDIDATE" of hope and change!! So of course he wants Romney to run against Hillary, and not the REAL Obama! Pat was on MSNBC last night and was the ONLY person saying Hillary and Bill had a GREAT night! The "Buchanan Barometer" was firmly pointing toward Hillary and Bill! So we know Pat was worried! Very obvious and transparent and amusing!!)

Well: I guess there are a lot of partisans posting on the Fix, but very little insight as to what South Carolina will mean going forward.

It seems to me that two things come out of the South Carolina primary: First, Obama again has strong momentum going into Super Tuesday. Second, I'm not sure that is enough.

The problem with Obama's win, as strong as it was, is that I'm not sure it is going to have the impact his supporters hope. It was a very strong win and he seemed to beat expectations -- the key.

But the Clintons also succeeded, I think, in marginalizing South Carolina as a state dominated by racial identity politics (how is it that Clinton can get away with courting and carrying women in a big way never seems to get the same type of coverage).

Whatever the tests the pundits put out there, the fact remains that Obama won South Carolina because of very strong African American support and turnout. If South Carolina had Iowa's demographics, he would have placed third.

The Super Tuesday states have very different demographics that favor Hillary.

Also, South Carolina is the last of the early states (the ones where voters paid attention to the race before 20008).

From here until the end of the primaries, it is going to be tarmac campaigning and a lot of voters just not paying attention all that much.

A media and TV ad driven campaign seems to to favor Romney on the Republican side. It also favors Clinton on the Democratic side. She is the presumptive nominee and it is just tough to knock someone off from that position -- particularly when lots of people are barely paying attention.

Obama will surely and deservedly get some momentum out of South Carolina, I just don't think it is going to be strong enough to carry him through the rest of the campaign.

There are stories behind the story. Perhaps the most significant ought to be a look at the credibility of exit polls as they pertain to the actual vote cast. And, following upon the actual vote cast in relation to the exit polls, how does one explain vast differences.

Scroll back to Ohio, 2004, and Florida's Sarasota County vote in 2006. In 2004, exit polls showed John Kerry carrying Ohio, but the "results" gave Bush the win. Somehow lost in the hoo-rah of the past four years has been the possibility of election fraud - changing votes or eliminating them altogether. Kenneth Blackwell's possible role in all of this, and the destruction of RNC and Bush-Cheney '04 and Karl Rove's emails paint a very suspicious picture. Why isn't his on the table for investigation today... the same possibilities could occur in Nov.

Secondly, what about the "loss" of almost 16,000 votes in the 2006 election in Sarasota County in which a Democratic candidate was narrowly beaten by her Republican rival? This story has dropped off the radar altogether, too.

I realize there are many HRC supporters nation wide who are just as fervent and loyal for Hilary, as there were Republicans for George W Bush. If the Clinton campaign demonstrated their behavior traits in S. Carolina, it was the extent to which HRC's team will do everything and all things possible to secure victory. This is no different than the Bush campaigns (2000 and 2004), and exercised by Bush '41 (via Lee Atwater). Consequences of win-at-all-cost have brought our nation to its dysfunctionality of where it is today.

Obama's victory sends a clear message that people are fed up with this style of playing Swift Boat tactics upon your political rivals. It only impedes the clarity needed to solve very thorny and difficult issues our nation MUST SOLVE. Obama's victory speech provided a sense that all Americans, perceiving as people with shared sacrifice and a common goal to better our society and our place in the world, can achieve greatness by reachin gout to those with differneces and focusing onthe similarities first and working to resolve the differences.

Lastly, I'd urge all the WAPO readers to check out the article by Frank Rich (New York Times) about the secrecy that surrounds the Clinton campaign's donors and the ties to the Clinton Library in Little Rock. A very good read.... and still an openissue HRC's campaign has refused to provide clarity to the votrs on who has been bankrolling her financial needs. We all know that after the election is over, those with fat wallets come calling to make sure their place at the table is well fed and taken care of.

Here are some thoughts on the way for Obama to take Tsunami Tuesday.

http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/01/27/how-obama-can-win-tsunami-tuesday/

One winner apparent after SC is the company that makes those Costco-sized cans of whoop-ass. Apparently the Obama campaign has been buying them by the truckload, and opened a big one this weekend. Even conceding that if Edwards would not have been there and Hillary would have had the cracker vote all to herself, she would have been drowned by the flow from that can of whoop-ass. It's apparent that HRC can keep her hispanic women vote - everyone else belongs to Obama! It's called SuperDuper Tuesday because on 2/5 Obama will be cracking open a SuperDuper sized can of whoop-ass!

Ted Kennedy endorses Senator Obama:

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2008/01/27/kennedy-to-endorse-obama/index.html?hp

I don't get it. Billary gets routed and they don't make the list of losers? Is this to imply that the results won't impact them? Oversight or an absurd opinion?

Luckily, the Fix is not a Michigan fan. A heart attack is merciful compared with suicidal depression.

I look at Edwards differently than the way Chris wrote it.

If we look at the numbers, Edwards seems to have gotten more white votes this year than 2004:

2004: 77,200
2008: 91,200

The way I see it, Edwards 2008 was just up against candidates who were stronger in the black community (Clinton/Obama vs. Kerry/Sharpton). Clinton/Obama may be stronger in the white community, too. But Edwards still got more white votes than 2004. It's just that Clinton and Obama have been able to build gigantic field operations compared to anything seen in 2004, due to vast fundraising. Edwards is still playing the 2004 game, which is unwinnable in 2008.

Two other clear losers in South Carolina:

The pollsters -- none of them got anywhere near the final margin.

The pundits -- almost all of them said that the Bill and Hillary team had successfully put Obama on the defense in the week before the primary and might make the primary more competitive. Wrong -- unless only a 2 - 1 margin was more competitive.

John Isaacs

Two other clear losers in South Carolina:

The pollsters -- none of them got anywhere near the final margin.

The pundits -- almost all of them said that the Bill and Hillary team had successfully put Obama on the defense in the week before the primary and might make the primary more competitive. Wrong -- unless only a 2 - 1 margin was more competitive.

I don't see how you can leave out Hillary Clinton from the Losers list. As recently as two months ago, she was leading Obama in the polls by double digits. Even the polls going into last night had Obama up by only 10 to 15 points. Winning by 28 percent - more than double her vote - is a huge loss.

Her decision to leave the state before the polls were even closed and failing to give a true concession speech make her loss even more profound.

You left out the biggest losers in the outcome of the SC election -- The American people.

Ted Kennedy = John Kerry = losers
Kennedy family has been a disgrace to this country

FIRST BECOMING PRESIDENT OBAMA WILL CHANGE THESE TOP PRIORITY
1 BUILD A TAH MAHAH LIKE TOMB IN KENYA FOR HIS DAD
2 CHANGE THE SENATOR OBAMA SCHOOL NAME IN KENYA TO PRESIDENT OBAMA SCHOOL
3 AGENDA TO PUSH KENYA OUT OF POVERTY WILL BE ASSIGNED TO TOP DIPLOMAT AND BECOME PRIORITY ONE
4 VISIT INDONESIA IN FIRST YEAR TO REUNITE WITH STEP DAD THERE
5 TAKE POCKET CHANGE OUT OF AMERICA TO BUILD HOUSE AND ROAD IN KENYA'S RELATIVES SO THAT THEIR OWN CHILDREN WOULD HAVE BETTER LIVES
6 PROMOTE AMERICAN TO CHANGE TO MUSLIM NAME LIKE HIMSELF

Losers in the SC primary are Billary and their politics of half-truths, racial innuendos and divisiveness; and, Edwards too-oft-repeated stump speech.

Winner is Obama's uplifting message.

http://whathappenedtomycountry.blogspot.com

Yeah, I think next to Edwards, the Clintons are losers. Its one thing to get beat by single digits but to blown out like that is humilating. I expected Edwards being the only southerner running in his birth state would had done much better. There is no rational for his candiancy anymore. If he doesn't drop out soon, its going to be embarrasing to watch.

Hmmm...are there any other losers, you may have missed? Or maybe I missed it somewhere in your column. Who else was I thinking of...oh yeah, how about Shrillary Clinton and her finger-wagging husband, Fairy Tale Bill.

Ten Most Corrupt Politicians 2007
http://www.judicialwatch.org/

1. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-NY): In addition to her long and sordid ethics record, Senator Hillary Clinton took a lot of heat in 2007 - and rightly so - for blocking the release her official White House records. Many suspect these records contain a treasure trove of information related to her role in a number of serious Clinton-era scandals. Moreover, in March 2007, Judicial Watch filed an ethics complaint against Senator Clinton for filing false financial disclosure forms with the U.S. Senate (again). And Hillary's top campaign contributor, Norman Hsu, was exposed as a felon and a fugitive from justice in 2007. Hsu pleaded guilt to one count of grand theft for defrauding investors as part of a multi-million dollar Ponzi scheme.

5. Former New York Mayor Rudy Giuliani (R-NY):
6. Governor Mike Huckabee (R-AR):

8. Senator Barack Obama (D-IL): A "Dishonorable Mention" last year, Senator Obama moves onto the "ten most wanted" list in 2007. In 2006, it was discovered that Obama was involved in a suspicious real estate deal with an indicted political fundraiser, Antoin "Tony" Rezko. In 2007, more reports surfaced of deeper and suspicious business and political connections It was reported that just two months after he joined the Senate, Obama purchased $50,000 worth of stock in speculative companies whose major investors were his biggest campaign contributors. One of the companies was a biotech concern that benefited from legislation Obama pushed just two weeks after the senator purchased $5,000 of the company's shares. Obama was also nabbed conducting campaign business in his Senate office, a violation of federal law.

Chris, that was goaltending all the way. The Hoyas smell of "fraud," much like Mitt Romney.

Perhaps, in anticipation of a late night on Feb 5, The Fix should start resetting its body clock to Pacific Time.

Go Hoyas - Final Four this year? I think so.

Clearly above the rim on the way down, Chris. Goaltending is goaltending. The Mountaineers were robbed! Before that Hibbert climbed over the back of a mountie to steal a rebound so don't gloat too much!

WE'RE ABOUT TO TAKE THE DEMOCRATIC PARTY BACK ...

South Carolina shows that truth, simple truth, can still win the field.

That good Democrats believe that a party of change should not also be a party to corruption.

And that government accountability starts with personal responsibiity--something the Clintons famously avoid at all times, in all circumstances.

We must continue to speak truth to power.

However red faced the Clinton machine is after the rout in South Carolina, it still stares eyeball to eyeball with an America that does not want to re-live the 1990s, the scandals, the shame, the spectacle of our White House transformed into a bordello.

There is no way they will just slink back to Wal-Mart; to their sleezy law-breaking overseas Chinese contributors, and their dictionaries used for parsing words like "is," without trying to dragging us down with them.

(Bill Clinton is looking more and more like King Kong--the 1933 version--in which he holds aloft a terrified Fay Wray--here the Democratic Party--while raging: "Love me! Love me!")

The fact that neither Hillary or Bill had a modicum of graciousness and made a concession speech last night shows that the concept of sportsmanship is foreign to them.

We can ensure that in the end we do take back the Democratic party ... by drawing on the direct action lessons community activists taught us in the 1960s and 1970s during the heyday of the civil rights movement.

The next step: a zerox machine, a tape recorder, or a DVD player.

And a willingness to stand up and be counted.

Go to your next Democratic Party meeting.

Bring with you copies of the article in the liberal Nation magazine by Katha Pollitt on Bill Clinton's alleged involvement in the Juanita Broaddrick sexual assault scandal (http://www.thenation.com/doc/19990322/pollitt). Politely distribute it as a leaflet.

Take too, the original Washington Post story on the same subject (www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/stories/broaddrick022599.htm).

Use this one as a leaflet as well; please be polite.

Also, bring a tape recording or DVD of the Juanita Broaddrick interview in which she talks of her personal experiences with the Clintons. ...

And make sure you can play it loudly. (www.youtube.com/watch?v=5KZ8ICvutc0)

Just for giggles, also take with you a paperback version of the book "No One Left To Lie to"--about the Clinton White House--by British-American writer and human rights activist Christopher Hitchens.

Make a lot of copies of his chapter on "Is There a Rapist in the Oval Office?"
Distribute them when someone challenges you to produce more facts.

Recently Hitchens reminded (http://www.slate.com/id/2182065) that the essay "has never been challenged by anybody in the fabled Clinton 'rapid response' team.

"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.'"

Share these journalistic artifacts, as well as your thoughts, with your fellow Democrats at party meetings before your state holds a caucus or primary.

Ask them to listen to their consciences.

Ask them if they want the divisiveness, examples of disrespect for women, and union busting friendships (Wal-Mart, Marc Rich, you know the drill), that would surely come with another Clinton presidency.

Ask them if the country can afford such a spectacle as the economy tanks and young men and women are fighting and dying for our freedom many miles from our shores.

Once a lone voice from the back of the U.S. Senate chamber, that of Daniel Patrick Moynihan, called out to remind a body that was about to rubber stamp Clarence Thomas' elevation to the Supreme Court about their responsibilities.

Anita Hill came forward and the rest was history.

Unfortunately, that time it was too late to make a difference.

It was Moynihan who once said that everyone is entitled to his own opinion but not his own facts.

Take ... the ... party ... back!!!
---
Martin Edwin Andersen is the 2001 winner of the U.S. Office of Special Counsel's "Public Servant Award" for uncovering what the U.S. Department of Justice Inspector General later called "egregious misconduct" and "willful disregard for national security" by senior Janet Reno aides in a major national security and corruption scandal.
Jimmy Carter's pollster, Patrick Cadell, speaking before Alberto Gonzalez was attorney general, said that Reno was either the most incompetent AG in the country's history, or the most corrupt.
Hillary Clinton promoted the idea of making Reno AG in the first place.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.