According to a report on MSNBC Clinton hasn't paid the $7500 tab to a small cleaning business for cleaning her HQ in Iowa during Novemebr, December and January. Poor guy has been getting the runaround for months now. I guess they will blame Patty Solis for this too. Someone has to take the fall and it sure isn't going to be the folks responsibile for Clinton's poor campaign strategy.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

LOOK OUT FOLKS... Hillary's ship is beginning to sink, and Hillary's getting desperate. And when Hillary gets desperate, she gets mighty nasty. Expect more email blasts trashing Obama. Expect more Clinton lies and cheating. Expect more heads to roll in the Clinton campaign. Expect Billy-Boy to strong arm as many superdelegates as he can get his hands on. Expect it all. It's gonna be a very bumpy ride to the convention.

spectator 2, I misquoted, unintentionally. Beyond that, the point stands. I think most Obama supporters will vote Dem in the general, irrespective of whom is the nominee. However, neither Dem nor Repub party faithful win elections - swing voters do.

bsimon: "Spectator, I think you overstate what 'most' Obama supporters would do."

Now come on, I didn't think you'd stoop to the mibrooks game of putting words in people's mouths. I said "a large chunk." That's based on comments on these boards and what the Post has reported in campaign coverage.

" say it an't so! "

I value integrity & predictability over policy. In MN-speak, I'm a Wellstone Independent.

No, no, no!

bsimon say it an't so!

"I'm an independent voter who will vote for McCain if the Dems nominate Senator Clinton for President."

I, too, am an Independent supporting Obama. Looks like our votes would cancel each other out if Obama does not get the nod...

spectator2 writes
"Most Clinton supporters have said they would have no trouble voting for Obama if he's the nominee. It's the large chunk of OBAMA supporters (probably including you, for example) who have said they would vote for McCain or stay home."

Spectator, I think you overstate what 'most' Obama supporters would do. Unless, of course, you have proof. I would believe that more Obama supporters than Clinton supporters would vote for McCain, if their preferred candidate is not nominated. This should come as no surprise, because Obama attracts more independent voters than Clinton does, so it stands to reason that more of them will be open to the GOP alternative.

And that is the crux of the problem that faces the Dem superdelegates. If neither Clinton nor Obama win a majority of elected delgates, do they support the candidate that attracts the most swing voters, or do they support the candidate that has more support among the party's base?

If they pander the long-term Dem voters & give the nomination to Clinton, they risk losing the swing voters to McCain, and - possibly more importantly - risk alienating the youth vote that has been inpsired by Obama in huge numbers, and possibly the african-american vote.

From where I sit, it seems obvious what the Dem leadership should do. But then, I'm an independent voter who will vote for McCain if the Dems nominate Senator Clinton for President.

bsimon, good point and I am fully aware of the context of McCain's 100 years in Iraq comment...

My contention is that a permanent presence in Iraq is not in America's best interest.

Do the American People realize that it was the "temporary" basing of American troops in Saudi Arabia during Desert Shield, and then, Desert Storm that birthed al-Qaeda and turned Osama bin-Laden against us?

How much more do you think a permanent Western (read infidel) presence in a Muslim country will fuel Islamic Extremism?

If we put enough troops in Iraq -- say, a Super-Surge -- I believe we probably could subdue the country and reduce, or virtually eliminate, the killing of American troops. But how many troops would we need to do this? General Shinoseki seemed to think 300,000 right?

500,000 was not enough to subdue Vietnam. Perhaps, if we re-instated the Draft, and put about a million men in Iraq we could bury the insurrection.

My question is, whether the number is 300,000 -- 500,000 -- or one million, would this be a wise use of our resources? Would this be wise from a geostrategic vantage point? Would we be inspiring another generation of Enemies?

We need to fight the REAL enemy. Bush was right to go after the Taliban and al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, but the Invasion of Iraq was a disastrous diversion.
To stay in Iraq would be to continue pumping billions and billions of dollars into the WRONG THEATER -- and at the same time turning many millions more Muslims into Extremists. Extremists bent on killing Americans.

So, whether McCain is correct in asserting that the Iraq can be subdued if we persist long enough misses the point entirely. The point is, would this be a wise thing to do? Establish permanent bases in a Muslim country, when to do so, would not only drain away our much-needed resources, but would also strengthen our Enemy.

We need to get out of Iraq as fast as possible and go after the real enemy as quickly as possible.

"It's very curious, this hold Hillary has over some of her supporters. If Hillary doesn't win, they will support McCain (or stay home) and thus, eventually, drive the last stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade.

An interesting legacy for Hillary Clinton's short-lived political career..."

What a crock of s**t. Most Clinton supporters have said they would have no trouble voting for Obama if he's the nominee. It's the large chunk of OBAMA supporters (probably including you, for example) who have said they would vote for McCain or stay home.

Nice try, liar.

'I haven't seen as much venom towards Hillary or her supporters'

you must be joking, blarg. just read this morning's entries alone

Posted by: claudialong | February 11, 2008 09:35 AM

C'mon, drindl, look at svreader's posts - both sides have some pretty over the top attack dogs on this blog. I don't think either group is representative of their candidates. However, it is normal for primary contests between opponents with relatively minor positional differences to degenerate into personal attacks. Sad but true.

If Obama becomes president, the Iraq war is going to go on for ever.After all the nice things he is saying about Republicans and Ronald Reagan and if he wins with the help of republicans, he will not have the strength to do any thing about Iraq, but to follow their strategy.

adrickhenry writes
"before you cast a vote for McCain, remember that he Wants to Stay in IRAQ for DECADES."

I don't think he "wants" to keep troops there forever. His point, if you bother to go check the context, had to do with WHY people want our troops home. Its because they're still taking fire (and bomb blasts), and thus casualties. We don't care that troops are stationed in the Balkins, Korea, Japan, Germany or the Phillipenes because they aren't suffering attacks there. McCain's point is that if we can stabilize Iraq to the point where we have bases there - for strategic reasons - we might station troops there for the foreseeable future. The problem, of course, is stopping the violence. McCain's real challenge, in the general election, will be twofold. First, addressing the pressing economic concerns that are becoming voters' primary concern; second, explaining how he can stabilize Iraq & Afghanistan after 6+ years of Bush failures.

A Needed Reminder:

some Obama supporters are saying that they will vote for McCain rather than Hillary

and some Hillary supporters are saying that they will vote for McCain rather than Obama.

Now, think about this:

McCain wants to STAY in IRAQ.

McCain wants to continue to fight the wrong enemy at the wrong time in the wrong place.

This occupation of Iraq is Draining our Resources. It is also severely damaging our standing in the world:

It is:

1) eroding our relationships with our traditional allies
2) weakening moderate Arab governments in the region
AND
3) Strengthening the Real Enemy (Islamic Extremism of the Wahhabi type)
4) Strengthening IRAN (no friend to the U.S.)

and never forget about the thousands of young Americans who die -- and the tens of thousands who are maimed and/or psychologically damaged for life. Our society will pay for this...

So...

before you cast a vote for McCain, remember that he Wants to Stay in IRAQ for DECADES.

Hillary fired the wrong person. It was Mark Penn who designed the "Rudy Guiliani strategy" of waiting for the big states of Texas and Ohio, while loosing 11 in a row.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/11/clinton-fires-the-wrong-person/

novamatt, if I lived in Arlington, I would have long ago eaten a bullet. (I do work there, when I decide to go into my offices).

I live in Western PW County, or Tom Davis country, to use your paradigm.

I did see a yellow Obama sign on 66 coming in this morning. So that's one. No HRC signs, no Paul signs (although my neighbor has a Fred Thompson bumper stick still on her car).

There is no party registration in Virginia. We're all independents, officially anyway.

I should pass along a district-by-district rundown/prediction of tomorrow's D primary in VA (not by me, so it might actually be accurate): http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2008/02/virginias-delic.html

My gut feeling, by the way, is Obama by 20 statewide, probably a little more in MD, and a blowout in DC.

JD, thanks for the comments. I live in Dave Albo country in West Springfield and work in the District. Think I remember you saying before that you're from Arlington. My sympathies. There must be about a dozen Republicans left there.

I've been sort of surprised by how few campaign signs there are anywhere. A few Ron Paul signs, a few Obama signs, and that's it. Think it's maybe an indication that no one thought the races would get this far.

'If Obama wins the nomination, me and many of my friends are not going to vote for him.'

then you will get 4 more years of exactly what we have now-- endless war and and endless debt.

Those Americans who voted for Bush because he was a nice guy while every one thought that Gore was stiff and did not have a great TV personality should remember what they are about to get if Obama wins. He will be worse than Bush! He will keep us in Iraq for ever just to be nice to republicans and just to show that he can work with them. Last night in 60 mins he said that the surge is working.

I have been completely turned off by Obama's constant attack on HRC. Even in 60 minutes last night, I found HRC to be much more magnanimous than Obama. He knows he can't win on issues. I find the so-called liberals more offensive than even the Republicans. If Obama wins the nomination, me and many of my friends are not going to vote for him.

"And I AM in favor of ending earmarks. And gifts, trips, bribes and freebies of every kind from lobbyists."

claudialong | February 11, 2008 09:35 AM

Couple strict ethics with generous compensation and you might get leaders who spend taxpayer money more wisely. Pay house members $500k/yr, senate $750k, Pres $1 million. Also let them keep 10% of their unspent staff budgets. They might start taking pride in their gov't career instead of using it as a stepping stone to big bucks later on.

I'm not here to push either candidate into the limelight, I just want to make a point. The younger generation may not be old enough to remember this, but I came from the Jimmy Carter era...At the time he was voted in (I too voted for him!), he boasted about it being time for a drastic change, and people fell for the line. And look what we got!!? Present day Jimmy Carter is an asset to our country, too bad he couldn't have been an asset back then too. Think it over good before you vote.....

'What is your definition of "affordable"? That could be the reason you are having trouble answering that question.'

Well, like many people, I am middle-aged and have a pre-existing medical condition. So I pay $1500 a month for health insurance for a family of 3. Of course, that will rise precipitously if I actually need treatment for something.

That's $18,000 a year for a middle-class family. I don't consider that 'affordable' for most families.

That is because I am self-employed-- but of course, fewer and fewer people who work for companies are insured by them now, a trend that will increase sharply over the next couple of years.

But yet, no one in the repubican party has any ideas on what to do about that.

'With that said, I'll mention that the reason I started posting on this site is the relative civility'

'relative' -- epsecially lately.

Stepped aside??? How about kicked to the curb?

james d granata

Dave writes
"I though I would be seeing a lot more signage."

Likewise. I've now seen a total of two Obama signs.

The other day I almost missed a stopsign, a Fred Thompson bumper shocked me so badly. I think that's the only GOP sticker I've seen, other than legacy Bush/Cheney ads.

lylepink - In VA, you can register for a party but in the primary, you are allowed to vote for anyone. According to the State Board of Elections, all registered voters may vote in either party's primary, but not both.

How can he lose, he is on our cable news 24/7, the media made him...you can have him...I don't like the man....I don't like he stands for spewing pretty words, with nothing to back them up...if he is what the dems give to me, I'll vote for McCain...EVERYONE IN THE MEDIA HAS GIVEN HIM A FREE PASS....IF YOU SAY ONE THING THEY DON'T LIKE I HEAR "RACIST"....

mark_in_austin,

Seeing as the Potomac primary is tomorrow, I though I would be seeing a lot more signage. There is none in my neighborhood. Based on my bumpersticker count of the last couple of weeks (and the trend continued this past one), Kerry should win. I saw 3 more Kerry/Edwards, one Hillary and (amazingly) one Sore/Loserman bumperstickers over the last week.

Virginia is an open primary so it will be curious to try to see about cross-over voting because there is little excitement for McCain or Huck. I kind of think Hillary will do a bit better than expected in VA because the CW here is that McCain would do a lot better against HRC in the general election than Obama and many R's are at a loss as to which R to vote for. That said, I personally can't bring myself to vote for a Clinton (or outside my registered party for that matter).

I think Hillary is in trouble. Her issues have been so over-analyzed that to do so here again would be meaningless, so I'd like to interject something that no one is talking about. It is the proverbial "elephant in the room."

Hillary can't dunk on McCain.

That's right. In order to win this election, the Democrats need someone who can rise up, arch their back, and hammer the ball through the rim with authority.

Barack Obama can dunk on McCain. Here's the photo to prove it (not even Drudge has this yet!)

http://inner-ninja.blogspot.com/2008/02/barack-obama-can-dunk-on-mccain.html

claudia, I'll agree with you that the tone of the Dem primary has really taken a turn for the worse. I've found myself skipping past more and more posts on this blog and I pretty much ignore the rest of them (ever see hotnuke's posts?).

I'm left guessing that some of the folks are just immature people trying to stir up trouble, some are actual supporters who seem to believe that their posts actually help the candidate, and some are probably in favor of the opposite candidate and want to make supporters of their opposition look bad.

With that said, I'll mention that the reason I started posting on this site is the relative civility of the discussion here in comparison with other places. People actually respond to other posts here! And they even agree at times!

Claudialong - "Now, what I want to know is, why is it that I NOW can 'go out and choose my insurer anywhere in America' but I --and 50 million other Americans --still can't get affordable health care?"

What is your definition of "affordable"? That could be the reason you are having trouble answering that question.

It's very curious, this hold Hillary has over some of her supporters. If Hillary doesn't win, they will support McCain (or stay home) and thus, eventually, drive the last stake through the heart of Roe v. Wade.

An interesting legacy for Hillary Clinton's short-lived political career...

"Obama supporters are among the most rude, nasty, and immature people I've ever encountered."

Stereotype much?

.

"And I AM in favor of ending earmarks. And gifts, trips, bribes and freebies of every kind from lobbyists."

'Are you calling for the end of Civilization, as we know it?'

resoundingly, yup.

Obama supporters are among the most rude, nasty, and immature people I've ever encountered.

You will reap what you sow. That's a fact of life that many of you are too inexperienced and naive to understand.

*************
I also notice that on both venues, NPR and Chris Wallace on Sunday morning, Williams is pushing the "racial" divide in the D primaries. Anybody else think that is peculiar? He seems unmoved, completely, by BHO's appeal in "white" states.
*************

Thank you, Mark. I heard Williams this morning talking about this (it was the first time I've heard him on this) and started shouting random states at the radio...

"Kansas! Minnesota! Washington! Maine! Iowa! Nebraska!"

Maybe I've been paying a little too much attention to this race...

plathman | February 11, 2008 09:34 AM

Kerry was swiftboated.

Clinton will be hillarized.

mark_in_austin | February 11, 2008 09:30 AM

Donna Brazille also talked up the "black" voters a lot. Billary allies, I would say.

Mark writes
"I also notice that on both venues, NPR and Chris Wallace on Sunday morning, Williams is pushing the "racial" divide in the D primaries. Anybody else think that is peculiar? He seems unmoved, completely, by BHO's appeal in "white" states."

I heard a discussion including Williams a few minutes ago on NPR. He certainly seemed to be playing up the race angle with Obama & Clinton voters, while downplaying gender. Seems like both voting patterns are newsworthy. On FNS, Williams defintely fills the role of token liberal & seems to take that role seriously, while Liasson is more neutral. This leaves Williams working alone against Hume & Kristol, who get occasional backup from Wallace.

"And I AM in favor of ending earmarks. And gifts, trips, bribes and freebies of every kind from lobbyists."

claudialong | February 11, 2008 09:35 AM

----------------------------------
Are you calling for the end of Civilization, as we know it?

'I haven't seen as much venom towards Hillary or her supporters'

you must be joking, blarg. just read this morning's entries alone.

JD, anyone with a brain wants to end torture. It produces false results. All the many witchcraft suspects in the 15th and 16th century were tortured and every single one confessed to satanic deeds and plots, even knowing they would be executed. Do you really think they were all guilty?

Ditto closing Gitmo. Common sense. It has become symbolic of everything the US has done that repelled the whole world. We need to repair our relationship with our allies, so we can depend on them when we need them.

This election is about a lot of things for me -- Pakistan, Afghanistan, Iraq, our own economy, the sinking middle class, our civil rights, my daughter's education and future -- a lot. And I find MCain too much like Bush in too many areas--even though I respect his character.

And I AM in favor of ending earmarks. And gifts, trips, bribes and freebies of every kind from lobbyists.

this was the clutch move for john kerry's campaign in 2004. some people said it was too late to make that move because dean was surging, but it worked for kerry to win the nomination. since now the delegates are evenly split, more or less, it's as if the 2008 race were just beginning. this strategy may pay off for clinton. i hope it doesn't, but it might.

Jim, thanx for FT cite.
-----------------------------------
Thread jack: Many of us are NPR regulars.
While I consider NPR's reporting generally more accurate and much deeper than that of any commercial news electronic media venture, I get annoyed with Inskeep and Williams. In my opinion, Inskeep and Williams are the strident "liberals" as interviewers; Inskeep to the point that he cannot keep the sneer out of his tone of voice, and he will interrupt an answer he does not care for. I know that conservatives will think I am being kind here, but I wonder what liberals think of my sense of these two, especially Inskeep.

I also notice that on both venues, NPR and Chris Wallace on Sunday morning, Williams is pushing the "racial" divide in the D primaries. Anybody else think that is peculiar? He seems unmoved, completely, by BHO's appeal in "white" states.

jimd52 | February 11, 2008 09:21 AM

The strange thing is that the blogosphere and youtube are an influence on reality. The Clintons never saw it coming.

Why I will never vote for McCain --he IS Bush:

THE CONSERVATIVE AGENDA FOR 2008: A THIRD BUSH TERM

BUSH'S THIRD TERM: 'MAKE THE TAX RELIEF PERMANENT'
BUSH: With all the other pressures on their finances, American families should not have to worry about the Federal Government taking a bigger bite out of their paychecks. There is only one way to eliminate this uncertainty: make the tax relief permanent.

McCAIN: We need to make the Bush tax cuts permanent, which I voted for twice to do.

BUSH'S THIRD TERM: 'THE SURGE IS WORKING'
BUSH: Ladies and gentlemen, some may deny the surge is working, but among the terrorists there is no doubt. Al Qaida is on the run in Iraq, and this enemy will be defeated.

McCAIN: As the president said, we are winning. We have not defeated al Qaeda. But I am proud of the success of the surge and I am proud of the leadership we have.

BUSH'S THIRD TERM: 'WE WILL NOT REST UNTIL THIS ENEMY HAS BEEN DEFEATED'
BUSH: Al Qaida's top commander in Iraq declared that they will not rest until they have attacked us here in Washington. My fellow Americans: We will not rest either. We will not rest until this enemy has been defeated.

McCAIN: I think the president's assessment is exactly right.

BUSH'S THIRD TERM: 'EXPAND CONSUMER CHOICE' ON HEALTH CARE
BUSH: We share a common goal: making health care more affordable and accessible for all Americans. The best way to achieve that goal is by expanding consumer choice, not government control.

McCAIN: And they can -- and they will be able to go out and choose their insurer anywhere in America and they will be able then to get affordable health care in America.'

Now, what I want to know is, why is it that I NOW can 'go out and choose my insurer anywhere in America' but I --and 50 million other Americans --still can't get affordable health care?

claudialong | February 11, 2008 09:19 AM

Hard 'n ugly, just how we like it!

Claudia, I guess I find it surprising that Rudy would actually hurt McCain in NY, since the guy did some pretty good things there (and did beat the Dems 2x in a pretty liberal town).

I doubt most GOPers would agree with you that McCain is a 3rd W term. He wants to end waterboarding, close Gitmo, give detainees extra rights, etc. His amnesty policy jibes with the Dems (and W's), as does his campaign finance reform thoughts.

I guess this election is pretty much only about Iraq/Iran for you. Or abortion. Because I *know* you're not in favor of ending earmarks...

Mark, drindl

I agree that there is a great deal of anger expressed here. However, the Internet is famous for venomous expression. There are always people on the right and the left who are convinced that election of the other party will result in the end of civilization as we know it. I wouldn't take it as representative.

Excellent post, novamatt. I'm sick of people who think that supporting one candidate is about insulting the other. I've seen Obama supporters called some pretty nasty names on this site in recent weeks. I haven't seen as much venom towards Hillary or her supporters (not counting MikeB), but there's certainly been some of that. And it's stupid.

We are all Democrats. We all have reasonably similar policy goals. On paper, there isn't much difference between Clinton and Obama's policies. There are legitimate reasons to support one or the other. But if you're a Democrat and you believe in the goals of the Democratic Party, you should vote for whoever the party nominates. And if we're going to win, we need both Clinton supporters and Obama supporters to stand together. Insulting each other is counterproductive, and maybe even dangerous.

' if so many Americans are convinced that whomever they disagree with is the devil incarnate or an evil cartoon super-baddie'

this is why i find unlikely the idea that there can be 'bipartisanship' and 'unity' in this country at all, when there is so much even intra-party hatred. It really saddens me that we have the first woman and first black candidate for president, and all it means is a festival of misogyny and racism from both party's members.

mark_in_austin | February 11, 2008 09:10 AM

Mark, Mary Matalin said two weeks ago on Meet the Press that Hill was "duped by a dope(Bush)".

Hill is no slouch when it comes to demeaning and simplistic conclusions about her chosen opponents. Who could want an alledged dopee as Commander in Chief. Not me.

hillary clinton for president!!!

obama for snake oil salesman of the year!!

I must second drindl on the surprising, to me, anger among Ds on this thread. It rivals the anger among Rs on other threads, which also surprises me.

Most Freudian psychology has been supplanted by the dawn of neuro-biological /chemical understanding of the brain, but his phrase, "the narcissism of small differences" will live forever in describing politics.

It's going to be hard to find the common ground in America even for labor/management lawyers who do "common ground" for a living if so many Americans are convinced that whomever they disagree with is the devil incarnate or an evil cartoon super-baddie.

And do remember that many of those who post nasty remarks are just posing as Obama or Clinton supporters.

It's reverse psychology and very common on the internet.

Also remember that Barack has not used a single negative ad. Nor has he used people like BET's Johnson as proxies.

Look to the candidate, not the supposed supporters who hide behind the anonymity of the internet.

jimd52 | February 11, 2008 09:04 AM

Thanks, Jim.

Read the article this morning, too.

'Not that it matters... if I remember, you live in NYState, and I don't think McCain could carry it even with Rudy as vice.'

Very funny, JD. you know I can't vote for McCain, which will simply be a third GWB term. Even though McCain has far more character and competence than bush ever will, he still has exactly the same policies, so I will certainly vote for Obama -- or Hillary.

Rudy as VP would be an anchor around McCain's neck in New York. He is about as popular here as is in all the states he lost in the primary. The more people get to know him, the less they like him.

Interesting:

"At the same time, the Clinton camp confirmed that Mrs. Clinton had met privately on Thursday with former Senator John Edwards in North Carolina. Mr. Edwards, who has dropped out of the race, has not made an endorsement. But Mr. Obama is scheduled to meet with him too, on Monday night, Obama allies say, and is also flying to Mr. Edwards's home in North Carolina."

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/11/us/politics/11dems.html

I would draw a distinction between the hothead commenters here and the general public.

novamatt | February 11, 2008 08:31 AM

Amen

Here is an interesting column from the Financial Times that makes the strongest argument I have seen on why the Democrats should nominate Obama. I find it very interesting although I am leaning towards McCain.

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/4c003b86-d7ff-11dc-98f7-0000779fd2ac.html?nclick_check=1

I'm not sure, but I think Va. is one of the few states that you do not register for a party, or something like that, and can get a ballot for either party you choose. This should be a huge win for Obama, if my thinking is accurate about the ballet of choice.

Orwell is alive, and the scriptwriter for the republican party:

"It's been more than seven years, but I still laugh when I look back at this classic satirical item from The Onion, in which George W. Bush assured the nation that "our long national nightmare of peace and prosperity is finally over."

"My fellow Americans," Bush said (in this fake-news item), "at long last, we have reached the end of the dark period in American history that will come to be known as the Clinton Era, eight long years characterized by unprecedented economic expansion, a sharp decrease in crime, and sustained peace overseas. The time has come to put all of that behind us."

Of course, this piece, written four days before Bush's first inaugural, proved to be rather prophetic. But in the meantime, whenever I see or hear references to "peace and prosperity," I think of The Onion, and the strength and success Bush squandered.

I was reminded of it again this morning, listening to Bush's speech to the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC).

"My energy is up, my spirit is high, and I will finish strong. And in the meantime, we will elect a new President. We've had good debates and soon we'll have a nominee who will carry a conservative banner into this election and beyond. Listen, the stakes in November are high. This is an important election. Prosperity and peace are in the balance."

Really? Does George W. Bush seriously want to argue that the nation should follow his direction in order to maintain "prosperity and peace"?

Where is this elusive "prosperity and peace"? And why is it hiding so well?'

http://bluegirlredmissouri.blogspot.com/2008/02/oh-my-god-i-finally-get-it.html

novamatt | February 11, 2008 08:31 AM

I would draw a distinction between the hothead commenters here and the general public.

I, for one, am an election junkie. Sometimes I go over the line in my disparagement of the Billarys and will not apologize for it.

When Bubba and Hill sincerely apologize to the Lani Guineres and the long list of fall guys they threw overboard for the sake of expediency, I might apologize, maybe.

Hillary isn't the wicked witch of the north -- she's the manifestation of tendencies within the Democratic Party towards 51/49 incrementalism,

Posted by: novamatt | February 11, 2008 08:31 AM

Novamatt, your first paragraph was poetry. Even though you and I probably disagree on the issues more than Reagan vs Gorby, I thought you stated the issues very well.

Where in Nova are you? (I'm going to guess Arlington)

My mom and a few friends are supporting Hillary, and of course the game's not over, so I'm trying to be a gracious winner now that we're ahead. But man she and Bill and their horde of flying monkeys have made it hard.

I really wonder if I want to continue to support Obama, if this is the kind of voter he attracts

Posted by: claudialong | February 11, 2008 08:07 AM

So Claudia, can we count on your vote for the conservative candidate in November? (Not that it matters... if I remember, you live in NYState, and I don't think McCain could carry it even with Rudy as vice... of course, if NY State is actually in play, then this is a landslide and it won't matter)

Oh yeah, who'd the conservative candidate be again? An indy run by Ron Paul?

rfpiktor, it's not about being nice. Conflict is an inherent part of the process. The tendency to personalize these conflicts is what I find dismaying. Hillary isn't the wicked witch of the north -- she's the manifestation of tendencies within the Democratic Party towards 51/49 incrementalism, towards a Democratic flavor of cronyism and corruption, towards a Democratic flavor of divisive campaigning and governing.

We need to rid the Democratic Party of those tendencies and move forward. *Not* destroy Hillary the person. *Not* demean and diminish those who support her. Especially now that the Obama campaign is having some success.

What particularly galls me is when Obama supporters speak with contempt about working-class Hillary supporters. If they don't give a damn about ordinary folks struggling to get by within an economic system designed to screw them over, what the hell are they doing in the Democratic Party?

Another thought on civility:

The Hillary Inevitable Coronation Tour was derailed because she didn't expect any real opposition.

Opposition she got and out came Bubba to unleash a tawdry fusilade of racial "factually accurate / factually distorted by the Media" below the belt cheap shots.

Just deserts and a lesson to all fear mongers who forgot we have a youtube comissar watching each and every little word uttered.

This time, we are all watching and listening, in full stereo and amazing Technicolor. Thanks, youtube.

tlmck3job wrote:
"because out of the Senate, I think [Biden's] the only one with a kid in the active military."

Jim Webb's son served in Iraq - I don't know if Biden's son did or not, but Webb's son did.

Webb campaigned with Army boots representing his son. Also, remember when Bush asked Webb how his son was? And Webb's response to Bush was not particularly 'fit to print'?

Posted by: critter69 | February 10, 2008 11:15 PM

Biden's son's National Guard unit is due to deploy to Iraq sometime this year - can't remember when but I heard an interview with him on POTUS-08 in December.

I believe McCain has two sons in the military.

novamatt | February 11, 2008 07:29 AM

Is there a nice way of decimating your opponent? Ask Bubba on the subject.

Hillary has to go down for the count, the sooner, the merrier.

Ugh. The hatefulness on this blog has just become overwhelming. It's really too bad that both the Obama and McCain supporters are this nasty and vile. I really wonder if I want to continue to support Obama, if this is the kind of voter he attracts I'm completely turned off by all of it. I have to say I really wonder what has happened to this country, that we have to spew this venom instead of talking about the problems we face--especially the sinking middle class:

"The Federal Reserve's dramatic rate cuts were expected to make it cheaper for consumers to use credit cards. But credit card interest rates remain high and in many cases have even climbed.

Bruised by a rise in foreclosures, banks have been reluctant to lower rates for cardholders who have missed payments or had their credit scores slip, analysts and industry watchdogs said. Yet even some cardholders who pay on time have not benefited from the Federal Reserve's recent actions, as banks raise rates and fees to make up for losses in their mortgage departments, analysts said."

That's right, the economy is sinking, so what to do the banks and credit card companies do? Why, they raise your rates to make up for the losses they incurred through greed and bad business practices. Just like always, the middle class takes the hit, because our politicians are owned by corporations.

Look at this string of postings.

The accusations against Hillary range from too much ambition, cold-bloodedness,
anti latino, crookedness, alignment with her husband's past etc.

I think this rage says more about us than about Hillary.

I am for Obama, I think he will bring out the best in all of us. And has the best chance of dealing with McCain. But
one reason I am not for Hillary is that right now, I believe any strong, intelligent woman (contrast her grasp of issues with our present
commander in chief) inspires and even more, energizes the misogynists......and there is some of that in too many of us. She just
cannot overcome that. But someday......a woman will make it.

In hope,

nfahringer

I want to caution my fellow Obama supporters to win with class. There's nothing to be gained by being ugly towards Clinton, her campaign staff, or her supporters.

If we want to win big in November, the kind of big that can transform the system, we're going to need the votes and the passion of working-class whites and Hispanics and single women and old folks who have been tilting towards Hillary thus far. They aren't the enemy. We want them aboard the Obamawagon too. Remember that.

Here's the headline in all the Latino media this morning: "CLINTON CAMPAIGN REPLACES LATINA WITH A SISTAH". That does not good in english or spanish.

THERE ARE MORE CLINTON BASHERS OUT THERE THAN EVER AND THEY ALL HAPPEN TO BE OBAMA LOVERS. AND THOSE PEOPLE PREACH 'UNITY'?? I GUESS 'UNITY' MEANS FOLLOWING OBAMA. LISTEN TO THE MAN THEMSELF BASHING CLINTON....

Not even the staunchest Clinton supporter can truly believe that Solis Doyle stepped down entirely of her own accord without being told to or asked to. They might say it, but they can't believe it. How many of Hillary's top aids have been sacrificed now. Her willingness to "throw others under the bus" as someone phrased it, is just one of the many ways that Hillary reminds me of George W Bush. Do people actually believe that Hillary's failure to do better than she has is anyone's fault but Hillary's? One has to wonder if the Clinton campaign wouldn't have made this move much earlier and possibly been a lot less gentle in dismissing Doyle if Hillary hadn't needed the Hispanic vote as badly as she did on Super Tuesday. She is the ultimate career opportunist.

wpost4112 posted an interesting article that suggests a line of attack that Clinton and possibly the GOP will try to use against Obama (post-nomination):

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23182456-28737,00.html

The argument is that Obama is over-sold -- people think he will transform America and milk & honey will rain from the skies. Since that is unrealistic, he will necessarily fail. The nation will be disappointed and the Obama bubble will burst.

The problem with the argument in WA -- where he won 2 to 1 so if he's hyped anywhere, he's hyped here -- is that I didn't get any sense from voters that they thought he would transform America in the sense of eliminating all the problems, turn the economy into a juggernaut, and turn America into a land of racial tranquility. No, people think he will transform America because he will be able to beat McCain. They think his known ability to unite opponents and represent those who have different views will help pass legislation to broaden access to health insurance. They see that he inspires people especially young people and see a chance (not a guarantee) that he will inspire a generation the way that JFK did for the youth of the 60s. They believe that he will work to bring our troops home from Iraq and will not use force carelessly and rashly, the way that people believe Bush has done. And on an emotional level, they see a man who embodies what is good about America and they want that man to be the face that America presents to the world. These are realistic hopes.

BTW, I can't believe that the newspaper printed this article. It's basic argument is "Hey, Nelson Mandala was a cult-figure in South Africa. People thought he would transform their lives and all the poor blacks would have a washer-and-dryer. Well, Nelson Mandala's cult persona wasn't able to lift poor South African blacks from poverty. So that shows the inherent inability of the cult-figure to live up to expectations." Excuse me, but Nelson Mandala leadership and ability to inspire millions brought an end to 46 years of apartheid. And this writer has the gall to criticize him for not being able to lift poor black S. Africans out of the poverty caused by the apartheid system that Mandala was so crucial for stopping? Honestly.

Someone wrote:
The nearly 4 million votes cast in Californian are a million more than the all the votes cast in North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Kansas Idaho, Alabama,, Misouri, Georgia, Louisana, Alaska, and Delaware combined. States that Obama won.

However, notwithstanding this, those states have 86 Electoral College Votes and California has 55. (In other words, you are better off winning those states and losing California even with the greater popular vote total.) The key is that Obama is doing well with independents and showing the ability to pull in voters in States that have not necessarily fallen into the Democratic Column. That makes him a stronger general election candidate as it is inconceivable that Obama would not carry those well established traditional Democrat states in which he did not win the primary. (New York, Mass, California and so forth). Claiming that his failure to win the primaries in those States is ultimately meaningless as they are going to go with the Democrat whether its Clinton, Obama or a Donkey.

You are such an idiot. If you graduated from Stanford with honor and got a Master degree from Oxford, you could get a six figure salary too. Too bad your little bird brain is only good for making fries.

I've never heard of anyone graduating with "honor" or getting a "master degree". Perhaps your study of the singular/plural was done in a chop suey restaurant.

In any event, I wasn't arguing how much money she made, I was arguing how she could get a managerial position in an equities firm without putting in the time to earn her way up.

I'm also glad you insulted me by saying all I could do is work in a low wage job. This clearly shows what kind of person you are and the type of person you support (Hillary).

McC's son, too.

For gandalfthegrey, I wrote this assuming no "snowball" from February, but the elements are correct:

I am going to explain TX to you. Please pay attention.

1. Only 126 of 228 delegates will be selected by the Primary vote. It is likely that none of the 5 metros of more than 1.3m will split as much as 60-40 for anyone. Harris, Dallas and Travis Counties will probably go for BHO and Tarrant and Bexar for HRC. But neither candidate is likely to get a ten delegate lead among the 126. Call it 67-59. For the sake of argument, call it 67-59 for HRC on the assumption the Valley Machine supports her and actually gets out the vote down there.

2. 67 delegates will be elected IN JUNE.
But that is by the State Convention, which will have been filled with delegates from the County Conventions, which will be filled by delegates from the Precinct Conventions, run just like IA's CAUCUSES, after the Primary polls close! In other words, when you hear the TX Primary vote, you won't know anything about who won. Because if the BHO voters come back to the Precinct Conventions in big numbers, they can overwhelm an 8 delegate HRC lead from the Primary!
25 of the caucus selected delegates are supers, but "pledged" by their caucus vote.

3. Additionally, there are 32 unpledged supers, 12 of whom have endorsed HRC, 3 of whom have endorsed BHO, 17 of whom are waiting. These supers could tip the scale back to HRC or change their minds. Oh, there are 3 supers selected by the other supers at the end of the process - 35 total
unpledged supers.

4. Just in case you think this was EZ so far, let me add that the 126 primary elected delegates are chosen by State Senate Districts. The SSDs got votes allocated by how strongly D they voted in 2004.

Of the 31 Senate Districts, the 4 largest in terms of delegates are:

* Senate District 14 (Austin) - 8 delegates. Home to the University of Texas at Austin and an enormous young, vibrant D community.

* Senate District 13 (Houston) - 7 delegates. Home to one of the largest African-American communities in the state and Senator Rodney Ellis, one of two African-Americans in the Texas Senate.

* Senate District 23 (Dallas) - 6 delegates. Home to Texas' other African-American State Senator, Senator Royce West, this district includes inner-Dallas and has over 280,000 African-Americans and over 270,000 Hispanics, just in this single district.

* Senate District 25 (San Antonio) - 6 delegates. This contains southwest Austin, north San Antonio, and the rural country in-between (Guadalupe, Hays, Comal and Kendall). The only district with 6 or more delegates that has a Republican Senator.

So whoever thinks TX is going heavily for anyone, forget it. TX splits nearly even. Toward BHO if the Valley Machine sits out to make peace for Noriega, toward HRC if the Valley Machine works its tail off for HRC.

[The only Texas "Machine" is in the Rio Grande Valley. The Valley is overwhelmingly poor Hispanic, and will not have a 15% voter turnout in a General Election unless the RGV Machine makes it happen. If the Machine is more concerned with getting Col. Rick Noriega a shot in Nov. against Cornyn, it may not take sides in the March Prez race, to keep peace in the family.]

Mark from Austin or Meld or anyone else who knows how the vote counting goes.
Do the absentee ballots (and ballots of people who voted well in advance) get counted before the ballots cast on election day. Watching California's vote, Clinton started with 54% to Obama's 32%. Obama's steadily rose to 42. Edwards took 4%. Is this the reason why Clinton won by more than the polls predicted. It was also claimed that in NH the Clinton machine had been getting thier people to pre vote for months. Again was this the reason why so many polling people got it wrong.

By reading the Post you would think Hillary has one foot in the grave. Even after the weekend sweep she is only 60 delegates behind, yet she is ahead in the national popular vote by over 500,000 votes.

The nearly 4 million votes cast in Californian are a million more than the all the votes cast in North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Kansas Idaho, Alabama,, Misouri, Georgia, Louisana, Alaska, and Delaware combined. States that Obama won.

Reporters keep touting the number of states as if it means something. Delegates are awarded proportionally by population. That's why Alaska only has 11 delegates up for grabs and California has 440. Only 405 people showed up to vote in Alaska and 17,000 in Idaho, which will go red in the general election even if Elmer Fudd is the GOP nominee.

So I wish the Post would quit playing up these little wins as ground breaking.

There is still along way to go until August-- Seven months, and half the delegates needed are still up for grabs.

While Obama scavanges the small game, Hillary will pass Obama in the bigger states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

This thing will see-saw back and forth up until the convention, and I hope the super delegates will consider the popular vote as well as the pledged delegate count in making their decision.

I would hate to see a Florida 2000 again where the nominee wins without the popular vote.

I will vote for either candidate in the primary, but the treatment of Hillary in the press could cause all those who voted for Hillary to switch to McCain should she lose the nomination.

As women earn 78% on the male dollar, they also only get 78% of the press coverage when running for office, even when they're ahead.

I might just be that mad with this whole process by then to defect o McCain if I feel the process was unfair to Hillary.

tlmck3job wrote:
"because out of the Senate, I think [Biden's] the only one with a kid in the active military."

Jim Webb's son served in Iraq - I don't know if Biden's son did or not, but Webb's son did.

Webb campaigned with Army boots representing his son. Also, remember when Bush asked Webb how his son was? And Webb's response to Bush was not particularly 'fit to print'?

By reading the Post you would think Hillary has one foot in the grave. Even after the weekend sweep she is only 60 delegates behind, yet she is ahead in the national popular vote by over 500,000 votes.

The nearly 4 million votes cast in Californian are a million more than the all the votes cast in North Dakota, Utah, Colorado, Washington, Kansas Idaho, Alabama,, Misouri, Georgia, Louisana, Alaska, and Delaware combined. States that Obama won.

Reporters keep touting the number of states as if it means something. Delegates are awarded proportionally by population. That's why Alaska only has 11 delegates up for grabs and California has 440. Only 405 people showed up to vote in Alaska and 17,000 in Idaho, which will go red in the general election even if Elmer Fudd is the GOP nominee.

So I wish the Post would quit playing up these little wins as ground breaking.

There is still along way to go until August-- Seven months, and half the delegates needed are still up for grabs.

While Obama scavanges the small game, Hillary will pass Obama in the bigger states of Ohio, Texas, and Pennsylvania.

This thing will see-saw back and forth up until the convention, and I hope the super delegates will consider the popular vote as well as the pledged delegate count in making their decision.

I would hate to see a Florida 2000 again where the nominee wins without the popular vote.

I will vote for either candidate in the primary, but the treatment of Hillary in the press could cause all those who voted for Hillary to switch to McCain should she lose the nomination.

As women earn 78% on the male dollar, they also only get 78% of the press coverage when running for office, even when they're ahead.

I might just be that mad with this whole process by then to defect o McCain if I feel the process was unfair to Hillary.

afgooey74,

You are such an idiot. If you graduated from Stanford with honor and got a Master degree from Oxford, you could get a six figure salary too. Too bad your little bird brain is only good for making fries.

"How did Chelsea snag a job with a six figure salary straight out of college?"

Yeah, did I read correctly that she is a hedge-fund manager? How the f*** do you get a job like that right outta college?

Then again, her portfolio must be in a freefall right now.

Oh, BTW -

Mark in austin --- could you repost that very thorough and quite enlightening piece you did the other night about the distribution of delegates in Texas. That was really fascinating and quite complex.

I'd like Meldupree to see it and others who follow this stuff.

The other night- at about 3 am, I found myself wandering around the blogoshere (SVREADER having retired for the evening - leaving me no one to pick on) and I came across a couple of great and subtantive post from people far more interesting than most of us hacks.

One person in particular had compiled a really nice compendium of information about Obama's legislative work. Naturally I purloined it and provide now a tidbit (a brief excerpt) of info that some may find useful.

Moreover, I'm now trying to coax SVREADER out of the dark hole into which he sometimes goes to sulk when we spank him too hard.

Here goes:

"...I follow some issues pretty closely, and over and over again, Barack Obama kept popping up, doing really good substantive things.

There he was, working for nuclear non-proliferation and securing loose stockpiles of conventional weapons, like shoulder-fired missiles.

There he was again, passing what the Washington Post called "the strongest ethics legislation to emerge from Congress yet" -- though not as strong as Obama would have liked.

Look -- he's over there, passing a bill that created a searchable database of recipients of federal contracts and grants, proposing legislation on avian flu back when most people hadn't even heard of it, working to make sure that soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan were screened for traumatic brain injury and to prevent homelessness among veterans, successfully fighting a proposal by the VA to reexamine all PTSD cases in which full benefits had been awarded, working to ban no-bid contracts in Katrina reconstruction, and introducing legislation to criminalize deceptive political tactics and voter intimidation."

Interesting stuff, eh?

Chilmark was the poster.

another desperate act by a desperate woman. when will the drama end? and this is the leading story, rather than obama's BACK-TO-BACK VICTORIES?! hillary clinton is DESPERATE, she is FEARFUL, she is LOSING, she can't WIN, she is FINISHED!

Mark in Austin:

2 quick citations re: Hillary and torture:

http://www.nydailynews.com/news/us_world/2007/09/26/2007-09-26_hillary_flipflops_contradicts_bill___her.html

http://www.isthatlegal.org/archives/2006/10/torture_necessi.html

I just googled Mr. Alonzo Cantu. He came a long way from picking grapes as a migrant worker to owning his own construction company (isn't this a great country or what). However, from what I glanced at, Mr. Cantu has given me reason to furrow my eyebrow. Another Norman Hsu brewing? We shall see, we shall see . . .

gandalfthegrey, I have to agree with your latest post regarding svreader. He seems very angry and disturbed; if he can't support