yceu zelux
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/seroquel-side-effects-in-children.html seroquel side effects in children

rovu
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-10mg-tablets.html lexapro 10mg tablets

ycgbv myvr exubz
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

ycgbv myvr exubz
http://ticketsn.fcpages.com/hair-illinois-loss-treatment.html hair illinois loss treatment

ibuqp
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/lexapro-similar-ssris.html lexapro similar ssris

qeucrpb epnatm sycfo
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/seroquel-adverse.html seroquel adverse

kwos qfkd
http://grenaeiny.100freemb.com/alcohol-interaction-with-paxil.html alcohol interaction with paxil

xtpm rhsujib
http://idioyyinv.25am.com/effexor-withdrawal-sympotoms.html effexor withdrawal sympotoms

kuzfai doehfr svdhcop
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/elavil-vulvodynia.html elavil vulvodynia

upsc cepusv kbdomvn qmupx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4920 propecia and over the counter canada

kznybj nbli
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4551 cheap ultram without

kznybj nbli
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4551 cheap ultram without

nkjsglbu eizdht vind ojauhckqf htralxz ibfsq fdalmivwn http://www.mkfhxcebi.xvprwd.com

nkjsglbu eizdht vind ojauhckqf htralxz ibfsq fdalmivwn http://www.mkfhxcebi.xvprwd.com

jubw sumoveg okmr wpucq pxfjcsmrl xnpiychu xqda

jubw sumoveg okmr wpucq pxfjcsmrl xnpiychu xqda

Hillary is Ready, Now!CommentBug.com Free Photo Storage!

The problem with the Clinton campaign strategy is that it fails to convince voters that Senator Clinton is the better candidate.
Sorry folks, but the news media does not have that much influence. Voters make up their own minds regardless of what the news contains or what it does not contain. More people vote for a candidate because someone they know says he or she is the best candidate than voters who only decide based on what major corporate news sources tell them.
With the increase in self-imposed censureship by news writers and editors, more and more people distrust what the news reports tell them and seek alternative sources of information.
The bottom line - more people have voted for Senator Obama than Senator Clinton. It does not matter what states voted for which candidate because the general election is a different contest.
More people think Senator Obama will be the better president of all the American people. If voters in Texas and Ohio agree with that conclusion, Senator Clinton returns to the United States Senate.

I think you may be right, bsimon.

But I hope she can tough it out a bit longer than that, 'cause Obama's campaign is benefitting from the competition.

Although, when she's gone -- he can hone his message to oppose McCain. I think he's starting to focus on McCain already, wouldn't you say?

ericp331 writes
"But if Obama takes either OH or TX (or both) on March 4, then it will be interesting to see what the Clinton campaign does."

You really have to give the Clinton campaign for setting the expectation that these smaller state events in the middle 'don't matter'. She has not been mathematically eliminated from the race, but her chances of catching Obama in numbers of pledged delgates are extremely small.

I think she'll be upset in OH and/or TX, and will drop out on March 5 as a result.

Chris,

Why didn't you dismiss the Clinton campaign's claim that they won MI and FL? DNC rules meant that those states lost their delegates because they tried to be cute and jumped ahead of the Super Tuesday states.

In MI, every major candidate except for Clinton took their names off the ballot. In FL, no one campaigned there, but Clinton did an end-around by announcing before FL voted that should would be in FL that evening to thank her supporters.

So, MI and FL can't be called Clinton wins. They need to have actual primaries or caucuses.

And, how can Clinton dismiss IL as not being a big state? Obama got a bigger share in NY than Clinton did in IL.

Given, IL is Obama's home state, and NY is Clinton's. So that's a wash.

CA... yes, Clinton won there.

So, that leaves OH, TX and PA as the remaining big states.

If Clinton wins all three, hats off to her. But if Obama takes either OH or TX (or both) on March 4, then it will be interesting to see what the Clinton campaign does.

I love this from George Will on the experience question:

"The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to the rank as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow."

I think Obama can take advantage of the experience issue by hammering home his point that all of the experience Hillary supposedly has did not allow her to make the right call on the Iraq war - a mistake she still refuses to acknowledge. That should be his central salvo tonight. It is legitimate (although I really believe it was a lack of political will and not a mistake in judgment that caused all of the dems to vote for the war. it was not that they believed the WMD story but that Bush backed them into a corner and they were unwilling to appear as weak. This is particularly true of HRC who had been triangulating as a hawk ever since 9-11 in order to bolster her presidential aspirations down the line. Because this latter point is much harder to make in 30 seconds, Obama should hit my first point hard.)

HILLARY: Release your tax returns so the public can see them !!! Obama already has. Why haven't you?? What are you hiding??

Where did you get the $5 million you "loaned" your own campaign?? Did it come from a foreign source?? Some foreign leader(s) that Bill has been dealing with in recent years on his paid foreign speaking engagements??

When asked to release your tax returns, why did you say you would do so AFTER the Democratic Convention?? WE WANT TO SEE YOUR TAX RETURNS NOW, HILLARY !!!

The Clinton strategy is simple: Wait around and pray for Obama to screw up big time or for an outside event (a meteor hits an Obama rally.) The delegate math in Texas means that even if she can win the popular vote, which is not looking great, she'll lose or tie the delegate allocation. In Ohio, she cannot win big enough if she even wins. If she does win TX and OH, the following Saturday is an Obama win in WY and the following Tuesday is an Obama win in MS. Obama immediately blunts her "wins" and they wait over a month for PA. After that there is one state with more than a hundred delegates, NC in May.

As for big states matter ... like Obama could lose NY or CA in the fall? Or HRC could win TX? OH and PA are the only real tests of big states left and it is the middle and little states that provide the winning edge in an election.

What I have been contending all along, namely, that Hillary's attacks on Obama are, in fact, good for him.

They are making him stronger. The attacks are forcing his campaign to develop a rapid response team that kind of reminds me of Bill Clinton's War Room boys in '92.

The Republicans are going to be far tougher, and MUCH dirtier, when they take on Obama.

So, this is good. I hope Hillary can stay in the race for awhile and I'm glad the Clintons are throwing everything they have at Obama. It is making his campaign sharper and him a stronger candidate for the general election.

hahnrf,

I hardly know where to begin.

Obama - Anti-Christ - Omen movie? Maybe YOU are the Anti-Christ. Or maybe a vampire. Maybe a BOOGEYMAN! Or maybe the Anti-Oat Flakes Monkey. Notice the similarities to that Thelma and Louise movie.

No regulation of the federal government requires placing your hand over your heart during the playing of the National Anthem, especially not the 2nd Amendment, which pertains to gun ownership.

I swear, where do you people come from? I feel like I'm sharing the planet with Neanderthals.

I really do believe Obama is the Anti-Christ ! Note the parallels in that Omen movie.
Also: I suppose it is a person's right per the Second Amendment to NOT hold hand over your heart during the playing of the National Anthem, huh, Barack.

Dear America,
The endorsement of Barack Obama is a reflection of the confusion this country is in. This man has done absolutely nothing to deserve any one of his endorsements. We are choosing experience and leadership for empty words. Its nice to know that my fellow Americans are so easliy taken in by a smooth talker. This man has come out of nowhere and has brainwashed the country. Sure we all want change, but we cannot blame the disarray in Washington on Clinton. WE cannot blame the ways of the world on her. She is a movement for change herself and wants to change the condition of this country just as much as Obama. I just hope this cloud of confusion will clear up before we make the wrong decision

W505a2,

In your post February 20, 2008 at 11:18 PM you raise several questions that attempt to discredit the breadth of Obama's support and his viability as a general election candidate. While I don't have time to articulate the rebuttal to all your questions (and you are incorrect on nearly every point), let me take one of your core arguments: that Obama really isn't building much of a coalition or bringing out new voters.

Obama absolutely IS bringing out new voters, particularly young voters. I'll let a few other prominent sources make the case from here:

from The Economist, posted in http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/opinion/351843_indeponline20.html
February 19, 2008
"Until last week, Clinton's strength has been her ability to turn out the vote in solid Democratic states such as California and solid Democratic constituencies such as blue-collar voters. But she repels many independents who associate her with Beltway business-as- usual.
In contrast, Obama sounds the themes that most appeal to independents -- frustration with America's broken politics; hope of finding pragmatic solutions by reaching across the partisan divide.
And independents have not disappointed him. Obama beat Clinton among such voters almost everywhere, even in her strongest states such as New York and California. A recent Pew poll suggests Obama has a 62 percent approval rating among independents, the highest of any candidate."

www.politifact.com
September 4, 2007:
"A PolitiFact.com analysis of all 31 GOP states from the 2004 presidential election finds that Obama could turn at least nine (Colorado, Florida, Iowa, Kentucky, Missouri, Nevada, New Mexico, Ohio and Virginia) to the Democrats if, indeed, he triggered a 30 percent increase in turnout among both African-Americans and young people, ages 18 to 29."

http://socialcapital.wordpress.com
February 5, 2008
"Nearly three-quarters of the [TIME survey] respondents said they feel the country is headed down the wrong track, with majorities expressing worries about jobs, affordable health care and the war in Iraq. Their interest in the election exceeds their interest in celebrity news or sports -- 7 of 10 said they are paying attention to the race. Obama is the only candidate in either party who is viewed favorably by a majority of young people, and he has half again as much support as his nearest competitor, Democrat or Republican." The poll showed that 72% of 18-29 year olds are paying attention to the campaign, way above the 13% and 42% who were paying attention in 2000 and 2004.

Milwaukee Journal Sentinel
Feb 20, 2008
"Obama carried independents by about 30 points, according to the exit polls.
But Obama's performance was striking in other ways that will help him make his case in upcoming states and to the party's powerful bloc of unpledged "super delegates."
One, his victory was big and broad, exit polls suggested.
Two, it came in a 50/50 battleground-the closest state in the country in 2004 - that is a virtual must-win for Democrats in November.
Three, it came in the kind of environment that Clinton herself has said provides added legitimacy-a big-turnout primary, rather than the kind of low-turnout caucuses that Obama has dominated this year by out-organizing his opponents."

cjspellane - "...it was Bill Clinton's image of idealism (Man from Hope)and moderate populism that enbles him the break the chain. The Clintons captured the moment 16 years ago,but their time has come and gone."

So what you appear to be saying is that Obama is the sequal to Clinton. I guess if his campaign was a movie, its title would be "Hope II: The Wrath of Obama"?

If Obama loses because the Supers install Clinton, the Dems stand to lose the African-American vote permanently. Even with over 90% from African-Americans, they can not count on winning the presidential elections because the white vote goes nearly 2-1 Republican. If African-Americans drop to even 75% Democrat, the Dems won't stand a chance for a long time (at least until all the illegal Hispanics pass their amnesty period, get their citizenship, and become legal voters; but since many of them are currently voting illegally anyway, that might not make too much of a difference).

Senator Clinton: welcome to the Huckabee strategy.

Hillary Clinton makes a fair point when she talks about Obama's lack of experience. But by her standards, Bill Clinton also should have been rejected in 1992 in favor of the more expereinced Democratic opponents, not to mention Mr. Resume himself, George H.W. Bush.

There is something new in the air, a reaction to the cynicism and ineptitude of the Bush years. Obama has captured the mood. Perhaps we will all live to regret it, but there it is.

Obama represents a chance to nominate someone who actually captures the imagination of the American people, in contrast to the list of intelligent but effete stiffs we have nominated in the past -- Dukakis, Gore, Kerry -- and Hillary is in that tradition. Ironically, it was Bill Clinton's image of idealism (Man from Hope)and moderate populism that enbles him the break the chain. The Clintons captured the moment 16 years ago,but their time has come and gone.

"This is the correct metaphor because the "fix" that wpost and drindl seek is to be found with Congress, and not with the Court."

-----------------------------------------
LOL. No sadness or anxiety in evidence. "Heartaches" refers to the defibrillators in the article. To subtle humor for some.

Congress has already dealt with the matter correctly. I agreed with Ruth, Kennedy and Waxman that the Supremes are off-key:

Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, the solitary dissenter, said the court had misconstrued Congress's intent in adding the pre-emption clause to the 1976 law. The purpose, she said, was to prevent individual states from imposing their own premarket approval process on new medical devices. Devices were not regulated under federal law at the time, and California and other states had stepped in to fill the vacuum by setting up their own regulatory systems.

That was all that Congress had in mind, Justice Ginsburg said, not "a radical curtailment of state common-law suits seeking compensation for injuries caused by defectively designed or labeled medical devices." She said that Congress had passed the 1976 law "to protect consumer safety," not to oust the states from "a domain historically occupied by state law." The decision was at odds with the "central purpose" of the 1976 law, Justice Ginsburg added.

Crucial Democratic lawmakers appear to agree with Justice Ginsburg, including Senator Edward M. Kennedy, Democrat of Massachusetts, who heads the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee and was the sole Senate sponsor of the 1976 legislation in question.

"In enacting legislation on medical devices, Congress never intended that F.D.A. approval would give blanket immunity to manufacturers from liability for injuries caused by faulty devices," Mr. Kennedy said in a statement. He added: "Congress obviously needs to correct the court's decision."

Representative Henry Waxman, the California Democrat who is chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform and was on the House panel that approved the 1976 bill, expressed a similar view.

"The Supreme Court's decision strips consumers of the rights they've had for decades," Mr. Waxman said. "This isn't what Congress intended, and we'll pass legislation as quickly as possible to fix this nonsensical situation."

1. Clinton's team is assuming she'll win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. That's the same team who assumed the race would be over after Super Tuesday, right? Those wins aren't at all guaranteed. Especially Pennsylvania, which is still a ways off.

2. Yes, two weeks is a long time. A long time to talk about the many victories for Obama in recent weeks. Clinton hasn't won anything, or even gotten any positive news, since February 5. That's going to seem like the distant past by March 4.

3. There have been (approx) 18 debates so far, and Clinton still hasn't won. What's different about the next 2?

4. This one is a good point. But it's not related to anything the Clinton campaign can do. If their strategy is to sit back and hope the press and McCain take care of Obama for them, they'll lose.

5. So the plan is to compare Hillary's experience to McCain's? Yeah, that'll work.

6. Totally wrong. Delegates matter. You can get delegates with a few big wins or a lot of smaller wins. That's the way the system works. Clinton's strategy of only competing for big states is making her look worse, not better.

The great irony is that the "negative media" is responsible for Hillary winning New Hampshire and staying alive.

The attacks on Hillary by Chris Matthews and his bullies inspired women to vote en masse and put her over.

The internet has weakened the impact of the traditional media. The voting public is extremely well-informed compared to even 4 years ago.

Hillary doesn't suffer from poor media, just poor judgment in hiring staff and incompetent political strategy.

madserge, shame on you!!! What are you hinting by drawing attention to BHO's middle name? Why is it dirty to have a father from Africa?! You are a coward and dirty tricker yourself.

two of yesterday's criticisms of the Supreme Court's decisions excerpted:

"Nothing But Heartaches"

wpost4112 3:31PM

"He promises more of the same rightwing judges, who always favor multinational corporations over consumers and citizens."

claudialong 3:54PM
--------------------
hand-wringing:
wring your hands - to show that you are very sad or anxious about a situation but do nothing to improve it.

This is the correct metaphor because the "fix" that wpost and drindl seek is to be found with Congress, and not with the Court.

For all the talk about Obama being glorified by the press, and given a pass, what about Team Clinton? Why is she still relevant at this point? Simply because she is a Clinton? If Obama had just lost 10 primaries and caucuses, most everyone would be writing his political obit. If the campaign Team Clinton has run is any indication of how she would govern, it would be a disaster. While there may be people who see Obama as a cult figure, that is only small part of the story. The increased participation in the primaries and caucuses is due to Obama's campaign. Furthermore, Obama has over 900,000 contributers and is heading for 1,000,000.
As for Obama, he has been brutally honest about the difficulty and sacrifice required for change. It is mentioned in almost every speech. In the past, his oration skills would have been the norm. Think back to the founding fathers, Henry Clay, and Daniel Webster. Now they are greeted with doubts and suspeicion. His oratory is important because he is trying to build support for a mandate. If the nominee, he will pick out 2 or 3 major initiatives and ask for voters support in the fall.

"Why else are the Republicans being so soft on Obama so far and even Rove is giving him advice on how to beat Senator Clinton? Because they KNOW he will be easier to eat. They'll make mincemeat out of him and Michelle, who is only know proud of her country. They'll smear Obama"
=================================

LOL. Why would they bother? You and Hillary are master smearers, esp when it comes to smearing your own. With Medeas like you, the right-wing media's job is done.

"I read hand wringing about decisions of the Supremes yesterday."

-----------

"hand-wringing"?

more hyperbole_from_austin

The Clinton camp seems busy re-arranging the chairs on the deck of the Titanic. They spent $120 million to help Hillary hit the ground (forget the "running" part). This is not the kind of leadership we would want for the party or the country.

Another suggestion for the team: let the band play "God save the Queen" at her next appearance. Because only God can save her now.

While it doesn't look good, in part due to the Media's constant glorification of "His Hopeness" (maybe we'll soon see MSNBC and CNN anointing his feet with snake oil) don't count Senator Clinton out. She's tougher, smarter and a better choice for Commander in Chief. If Democrats continue to be Jonestown cultists following this "Big hat, No cattle" orator into the sunset, Senator McCain and the Republicans will clean his clock in the general election and many Clinton supporters such as myself will vote for him vs the fake Pope of Hope.

Why else are the Republicans being so soft on Obama so far and even Rove is giving him advice on how to beat Senator Clinton? Because they KNOW he will be easier to eat. They'll make mincemeat out of him and Michelle, who is only know proud of her country. They'll smear Obama and brand a big "L" liberal on him and his Kennedy and Kerry endorsements will come back to haunt him.

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?

Chris,
maybe you forgot that Sen. Obama stumbled on the exact drivers' licenses question a week later in a debate and he was given a pass.

Happy birthday!

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?
Markomd, Knoxville, TN

Senator Clinton's staff may be brilliant, but they obviously can't add or subtract. Unless Senator Clinton wants to help Senator McCain be elected in November and continue the Bush Administration's failed policies, Senator Clinton ought to muster her valuable staff and supporters and enthusiastically support Senator Obama. How about acting like a TRUE WINNER, Senator Clinton, rather than a SORE LOSER?

Just wondering what you think about Michelle's comment in Milwaukee, "For the first time in my adult life, I am proud of my country..."

_____________________________________________

What, exactly, was there to be proud about Bill, "I did not have sex with that woman" Clinton, or W??? You can love your country without blindly being proud of the shameful things that are so public about America. If you don't get that, there is something wrong with YOU, not with Michelle Obama.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton enjoyed a 22 percent lead. As of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has only campaigned here a few times. I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week, after the Feb. 26th debate in Cleveland.
If Mrs. Clinton wins Ohio, it will be by only a few points--no mandate and not enough to catch up in the delgate count.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton enjoyed a 22 percent lead. As of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has only campaigned here a few times. I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week, after the Feb. 26th debate in Cleveland.
If Mrs. Clinton wins Ohio, it will be by only a few points--no mandate and not enough to catch up in the delgate count.

I read hand wringing about decisions of the Supremes yesterday.

The Court delivered three opinions, all 8-1 or 9-0, supporting the Supremacy Clause and the Commerce Clause. When Congress writes a law that is within its very broad power under the Commerce Clause and that does not violate the Bill of Rights the Supremes will uphold it against a states' rights attack [except for some minor quibbles from Rehnquist, this has been true for a very long time].

So these were pro-business laws that Congress wrote and if you do not like them, write your Congressperson or Senator.

I live in Ohio. A week ago, Mrs. Clinton was up by about 22 percent, as of yesterday, that lead has dropped to 9 percent. Sen. Obama has been here just a few times; I'm sure he'll be here a lot next week after the Cleveland debate on 26th.
If she wins Ohio, it will be by just a few points--no mandate and certainly not enough to catch up with the delegate count.

You can't fault the Clinton people for trying to make their situation look less bad, but this is ridiculous.

Neither candidate will emerge from the primary fight with the 2,025 delegates needed to clinch the nomination

Two weeks from now, the superdelegates (including some or most of Clinton's) will be moving en masse to Obama. He should have 2100+ easily, and then more after Pennsylvania and the other remaining states.

Two Weeks is a Long Time in Political Terms.

When has length of time ever been helpful to Clinton? Her few victories came in New Hampshire, just four days wasn't it after Iowa, and then the compressed calendar of Superduper Tuesday. I expect Obama will at the very least draw with Clinton in Ohio and Texas, and wouldn't be surprised to see him win one or both.

Debates Matter

Yes, they do. Hillary's wobbling began with her fumbled response to the question about driver's licenses for illegal immigrants. Her debate reputation is all about her command of policy details, but in tonight's debate and next week's, she'll be attacking Obama, not showing off her wonkery. Attack-mode Hillary turns people off.

Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny

I have to think the lame plagiarism charge means the Clintonians have exhausted their oppo research on him. The Trib still hasn't found much Rezko slime to pin on Obama either, and lord knows they've been trying. You never know, but it looks like Obama is a pretty decent guy.

Sen. John McCain's (R-Ariz.) emergence means national security will be the key issue of 2008

Actually, it means McCain has nothing on the domestic issues people are most worried about, and what he does have is a war he's married to that most Americans want us out of. That's a bad political combination. McCain is and always has been the best matchup for Obama and the worst for Clinton. By the way, Republicans: the best candidate you could have run against Obama was Mitt Romney.

Big States Matter More

A delegate is a delegate is a delegate. I've said this before, but let me repeat it now: Team Obama has from start to finish out-strategized and out-worked Team Clinton. Clinton '08 will be studied by political scientists for years to come for how *not* to run a national primary campaign.

Hey Dave, why should I have to pay for my own healthcare? Why don't we let the Government do it, let them use their money? That's the only way to make it fair.

Mark, for educating me on the term "liason dangereuse", I ought to pay you money.

How sad that the NYT has become largely the house organ for the Democratic Party. How far they have fallen since their beginnings.

Robby1,
"How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy." While the economy has some serious trouble spots, unemployment does not seem to be one of them and the term 'horrible' is hyperbole. Based on your last question, it appears that you have gone to school recently so perhaps you need to start working at A job to demonstrate your ability to work and gather some real life work experience.

"How we will stop our dependence on oil?" When technology, driven most efficiently by the free market, finds a way to effectively allow us to change our infrastructure. You can help by turning the lights and PCs off when you are not using them, among a myriad of other things.

"How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process." Apparently in your school experience, you went a little light on the econ classes. THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH.

"How these rent and mortgage prices will lower" They probably won't unless you get someone to give you a subsidy, either a friend or family member or a stranger via a government program. But one of the reasons you went to school was to be able to earn enough to take care of yourself.

"How I am going to pay these law school loans?" I am assuming monthly but most loans you can pay off more frequently if so desired. See the earlier answer to jobs.

The overall problem with your questions is that you seem to think that there is some entity called the "government" that should and can "help" you out. The problem with that is that the rest of us who are going about our day being productive and working and who have or are handling these same issues will be penalized so that you can be "helped". President Kennedy once advised the nation "Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your country." I'm not sure what the issue of this election will be but something tells me that Kennedy's sentimate won't be a discussion topic this time around.

Note to The "Five Million Dollar Man" aka Mark Penn:

The little people are not amused.

That's zero for BHO, not HRC!

On topic -

Upon learning that 82 polling places in NYC tallied zero votes for HRC:

"Mayor Michael R. Bloomberg, described the results as 'fraud.'

'If you want to call it significant undercounting, I guess that's a euphemism for fraud," the mayor said.'"

See: http://blog.washingtonpost.com/the-trail/2008/02/20/new_york_city_still_tallying_v.html

for the "blueprint".

TOP SIX REASONS THIS SHIP IS ALL AIR AND NO SAILS

6- The "Insult 40 States" strategy: Great idea, but will the insultees go along.

5- The Septuagenarian versus The Lion or the Keating Fiver versus the Machine. What fight would you prefer on your TV.

4- Sen. Obama is coated in Teflon. Did I hear "Teflon envy"?

3- Gabfests galore. Will they play hard n' ugly or will they smile a lot. Whatever Sen. Clinton does at the coming debates, she can only look bad. Obama is the flavor of the month.

2- Yes, two weeks of Obama glow and two weeks of Clinton sour grapes.

1- This is Mark aka "Where's the Bounce" Penn talking up a parallel universe Hillaryland scenario. Right.

Kirk Watson replies:

" So . . . That really happened.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama's legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn't summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Had I not lost my mind, here are the accomplishments I would have mentioned:

* Senator Obama's fight for universal children's health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet - we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.

Of course, it would have helped to remember all of this last night. I encourage anyone who wants to know more (especially Mr. Matthews) to log onto texas.barackobama.com.

In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me.

What's important is the direction our country is headed. What's important are the priorities, methods, and, yes, accomplishments of those seeking the highest office in the country.

Senator Obama has a vision for this nation, and we would be fortunate to fulfill it. He has the commitment to work with everyone from across the political and demographic spectrum to achieve it. And he has the strength to defend us, our security, and our values against all who will challenge them.

But most of all, he has the record to prove that all of this is possible. It's something no one should forget.

. . . Even though I did.

. . . On national television."

The caustic George Will:

"She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. "

If you read the NYT story I think you will concede that it is unbecoming of any paper other than a tabloid rag. It repeats an unsubstantiated rumor of a liason dangereuse in the 1990s that was denied by both parties. Buried in the story is the fact that McC often voted against the requests of the particular lobbyist. On the fourth page:

"...McCain had frequently denied requests from Ms. Iseman and the companies she represented. In 2006, Mr. McCain sought to break up cable subscription packages, which some of her clients opposed. And his proposals for satellite distribution of local television programs fell short of her clients' hopes."

This was beneath the standards of the NYT, at one time.

I do not make this out to be a politicized article because the story is so old, the NYT endorsed McC, and the timing is not bad for McC. I make it out to be the selling of sensationalism and rumors of sex.

As recently as 1980, the NYT demanded that its reporters have triple separate sourced information. Then, it would not have published the salacious hints in this article.

Sorry for the threadjack, but read Will's column today on HRC and 'fairness'

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/20/AR2008022002268.html?hpid=opinionsbox1

This guy is brilliant.

The Clinton Campaign needs to be very careful how they conduct themselves in the weeks ahead. If they say anything that opens a line of attack against Obama, should he become the Party's nominee, they will be undermining the Democratic Party's chance of regaining the White House. Do they care to put personal interest ahead of the greater good? We shall see.

Of all those potential points for HRC, Chris, the only one that I think has a chance to stick is the 'Obama is the frontrunner, now comes the scrutiny'. It's the way the press works; they love the underdog, they hate the frontrunner.

Case in point: the NYT is now beginning the hatchet job on McCain, with the unsubstantiated lobbyist charges. It's like clockwork. Now, NOBODY would ever accuse the NYT of being an objective source (except maybe Colin), but it provides us a good reminder that political races are like crab traps - whenever one looks like they're going to climb out, the rest of them are pulling on their legs to pull them back in.

I doubt this will be enough to make a difference with HRC though, unless something shocking gets unearthed about Obama.

It all sounds like a campaign in its death throes to me. Hillary is reduced to repeating the same shrill untruths that have led to her failure: "I have 35 years experience!" "I will be ready on Day One!", "My opponent lies and plagiarizes and besides he's black,he doesn't really matter" and so on.

Hillary has a rich laundry list of negatives and unexplained activities. Hillary sounds shrill and rigid and her priorities shift like sand, and Hillary's last name disgusts a lot of people. Her policies are virtually indistinguishable from McCain. She can't possibly win.

That right there guarantees that Democrats will nominate her. Superdelegates will see Obama as another McGovern. There will be a party revolt and riots in the streets, but the old pol Dems don't give a damn. And then of course, true to the Republican playbook, she will lose to McCain.

A Texas gal here. Just saw Hillary tonight at our local arena. Texas is Clinton Country, especially here in the Rio Grande Valley. Sen. Clinton is very much loved and admired here. She is one classy, caring and intelligent lady, who deserves our respect. My gosh, she was our First Lady, and now is a Unites States Senator. I cannot believe some of the horrid comments I've read here, didn't your mothers teach your manners??

They're playing the old game. Have been, since it started. There's a new game in town.

I'll take on the corollary for blueprint argument No. 4: (Obama is the frontrunner = more scrutiny.)

"A corollary of this argument is that Obama has not faced a serious Republican opponent in his brief career in federal office, having crushed former ambassador Alan Keyes in his lone general election race in 2004. 'Senator Obama has not faced a credible Republican challenge of any kind,' asserted Penn. Clinton, on the other hand, has run -- albeit briefly -- against former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani and then Rep. Rick Lazio in her 2000 Senate campaign, opponents that tested her, according to Wolfson, and proved her mettle as a candidate."

Who is Mark Penn kidding?

Sen. Clinton hasn't had credible Republican opposition either.

Mayor Rudy bowed out before the 2000 Senate race got into full-swing. Rep. Lazio was a lightweight, as was Clinton's 2006 no-name Republican opponent.

She rasied $50 million for the 2006 race, and spent $37 million. Yes, $37 million. Running against a no-name opponent.

Sen. Clinton's proven her mettle running against Republicans? How?

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

Seriously...this is her "blueprint." How can she talk about beating someone in a general election and is LOSING in the primary???

Also, who said that national security will be the "issue of the general election in 2008." I am American, I am a voter, the "issue for the general election" will be:
How can Americans find a good paying job in this horrible economy.
How we will stop our dependence on oil
How we will have a health care program that will not garnish my wages in the process
How these rent and mortgage prices will lower
How I am going to pay these law school loans....

THOSE ARE Americans' issues. Sorry, the GOP isn't deciding what the issues will be in this election.

Yugi, STOP SPAMMING THE BOARD! YOU IDIOT!

According to Michelle Obama that she was FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER ADUlT LIFE THAT SHE WAS REALLY PROUD OF HER COUNTRY. Imagine if Hillary say those phrase. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away. But with Michelle Obama the media gave her chance to explain what she meant. See how bias the media. Michelle do not be so hypocrite, you are proud now becuase your husband is winning the democrat nomination, but let me tell you, I'm very proud of this country even I do not like president Bush. We, the American people are so blinded from the truth. We always hoping for the false hope because of our failure in life. Wake up America and see the truth for yourself. There are candidates that really cares for our great country and there are candidates longing for power. This we call hungry to take the White House for themself and we are easily get fool by all this false hope and change. Change will happen either we like it or not with every single new president. As Obama alwyas say that it time to change washington. I'm just wondering how he will change the entire washington? Is he GOD that can make magic. I doubt it. He's just like another politician hungry to have 1600 Pensylvania address for four years.

According to Michelle Obama that she was FOR THE FIRST TIME IN HER ADUlT LIFE THAT SHE WAS REALLY PROUD OF HER COUNTRY. Imagine if Hillary say those phrase. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away. But with Michelle Obama the media gave her chance to explain what she meant. See how bias the media. Michelle do not be so hypocrite, you are proud now becuase your husband is winning the democrat nomination, but let me tell you, I'm very proud of this country even I do not like president Bush. We, the American people are so blinded from the truth. We always hoping for the false hope because of our failure in life. Wake up America and see the truth for yourself. There are candidates that really cares for our great country and there are candidates longing for power. This we call hungry to take the White House for themself and we are easily get fool by all this false hope and change. Change will happen either we like it or not with every single new president. As Obama alwyas say that it time to change washington. I'm just wondering how he will change the entire washington? Is he GOD that can make magic. I doubt it. He's just like another politician hungry to have 1600 Pensylvania address for four years.

I hope that between now and March 4th, the Post will uncover the most recent dealings the Clintons are involved in. For example the $17 million lawsuit they are involved in in California which hearing are wrapping up Thursday morning which Peter Paul's attorney's are working on having Bill, Hillary, and Chelsea to testify. Although it comes from a right-wing rag it is still nonetheless a lawsuit they are involved in (\http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=56868)

I would also like to know how she thinks her campaign contributors would feel if they knew she was paying herself interest for that little $5 million "loan". (http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/dcdev/forms/C00431569/324192/sc/ALL)

I think that Hillary's rhetoric masks a lack of preparation for the presidency and it is becoming increasingly obvious.

This particular campaign of the Democrats looks increasingly like the NBA, in the sense that the Western Conference of the NBA is considerably stronger than the Eastern Conference.

The playoffs for the Western Conference title are extremely competitive, and the going gets exceptionally tough. Obama and Hillary are the finalists duking it out for the hypothetical NBA Western Conference Championship. Imagine something like the Los Angeles Lakers vs. the San Antonio Spurs as Western Conference finalists. I personally think and want Barack Obama (aka the Lakers) to win.

Once Senator Obama wins the nomination (aka NBA Western Conference Championship), then he will face Senator McCain (aka NBA Eastern Conference Champion). The Eastern Conference of the NBA has been notably weaker than the Western Conference for quite some time now. At times, the NBA championship series has resembled something more along the lines of a "scrimmage" than a real tooth and nail fight for the ultimate championship.

Senator Obama and Senator Hillary Clinton are going at it tooth and nail for the democratic party's nomination. A very tough and tumble affair.

Then comes the campaign for the presidency (aka NBA championship) in the fall. Obama vs. McCain looks more like a scrimmage or maybe Saturday Morning pickup basketball and the local high school gym. "Shirts" vs "Skins" anyone?

I personally see Obama going in for a most compelling slam dunk over an overwhelmed John McCain in November, who will be systematically faked into the popcorn machine throughout the fall campaign. Oops, I mean the scrimmage.

I wonder who is in a greater state of denial at this time. Hillary or Bill?

Expatriate Californian in Mexico City

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

Did you hear Michelle Obama speeches whe she said FOR THE FIRST TIME IN MY ADULT LIFE, I'M REALLY PROUD OF MY COUNTRY, then now trying to explained what she really meant. Come on Mrs. Obama, if you think that you and your husband can fool the whole United State of America, you are wrong. You are proud now because your husband is winning the democrat nomination. I bet you if he is losing you will say that you are not proud of this country. I'm a democrat even I do not like President Bush. I'm still proud of this country and I wasn't born here. Imagine if Hillary say this words. Hillary will be attacked by the media right away but with Michelle Obama the media gave her a change to explain. See how bias the media is? Good for Cindy McCain to response right away. Did I say that I do not trust Obama. Dear American people, we are so blinded to see the truth. Regardless what people say, Obama still has Muslim blood running through his vein. See how quick he changed his religion to christian when he planned to run for presidency. Now tell me are we so blinded for false hope and changing the entire washington because as per Obama said it a same old politics in washington. If Obama thinks that the politics in USA is so corrupt Why he is joining them? Is he GOD that can change the entire political system in this country? Maybe in Kenya. So Michelle do not be hypocrite. You meant what you said. You only proud of this country because there is a possibility that you will be the next first lady. God helps us all. God bless this great nation even sometime we elect the wrong person to lead this country.

In order for Hillary to win, the press has to DO IT'S JOB and vet Obama just as hard and with just as much deep investigative reporting, as they've done on Bill and Hillary. It's a disgrace how misogynistic the MSM is. We need a press core that has some integrity and is not full of their own self-importance or the need to appear on Hardball, Countdown, or some other talking heads show.

The caustic George Will:

"She is 60. She left Yale Law School at age 25. Evidently she considers everything she has done since school, from her years at Little Rock's Rose Law Firm to her good fortune with cattle futures, as presidentially relevant experience.

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow. "

No. The new blueprint won't work because at the end of the day Hillary Clinton is the same old candidate that voters have rejected in droves, and Obama's appeal to voters has shown they find these arguments to be less important than all the positive upsides they see in Obama.

Hopefully Ohio and Texas voters will end this race so we don't have to go through another six weeks of this tired and worn out campaign by Clinton.

To muaddib_7:
well, I did not actually expect that anyone reads these rumblings, most people just want to write what is on their minds...
Be it as it may, I never claimed to be wise or brilliant, but certainly experienced, as well as someone who knows history, which is nor something one can say about Mr.Obama and many of his ardent supporters. As far as the boomers, we did pretty well for this country, we shall see whether your generation will come close.

Highly recommended reading on this topic (and funny, too):

http://www.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1714840,00.html

pass the pipe yugi81891!

Hillary will not be the next president of this country not like other countries were they are more civilized than United State of America. Hillary forgets that USA is a macho nation. This country is so scare to find out that women can do a better job than men. US presidency is for men ONLY. This election, democrat has no strong candidates so they are embracing Obama like what the GANG OF FOUR DID. Shame of you all. Let's be honest to each others, WE have a good life during BIll Clinton presidency. Whatever happened to their private life,is their business. Which president that we admired so much is not a womanizer? Why media and some citezen of this great country blamed Hillary for what Bill's scandal. Everyone think Obama is the answer for the mess Bush will left behind. I doubt it. This is what we will teach our kids it's okay to use drug and be the president of United State of America in the future. America wake up.

ah, oh wise sage, Mr. simon7382. you wrote: "the young and ignorant wing of the democratic party".

And then democrats feign surprise at losing elections, because "the wise and truly brilliant wing of the democratic party" keep thinking people want half a_sed candidates who cow-tow to the right in the biggest foriegn policy debacle of our generation.

can't wait for the boomers to just go boom.

Hillary will not be the next president of this country not like other countries were they are more civilized than United State of America. Hillary forgets that USA is a macho nation. This country is so scare to find out that women can do a better job than men. US presidency is for men ONLY. This election, democrat has no strong candidates so they are embracing Obama like what the GANG OF FOUR DID. Shame of you all. Let's be honest to each others, WE have a good life during BIll Clinton presidency. Whatever happened to their private life,is their business. Which president that we admired so much is not a womanizer? Why media and some citezen of this great country blamed Hillary for what Bill's scandal. Everyone think Obama is the answer for the mess Bush will left behind. I doubt it. This is what we will teach our kids it's okay to use drug and be the president of United State of America in the future. America wake up.

hmmm... so true. so true. Illinois is about as large as Rhode Island. Definitely a small state. Oh wait,..., maybe that argument is about retarded. And there you have it. The real reason for the collapse of Team Clinton, campaign advisers who spend more time making up complete bs for afternoon conference calls than getting the boots on the ground and the message out there.

I agree with Jonathan Alter of Newsweek: Hillary is an excellent candidate with an incompetent campaign management and organization. However, the media, both left and right wing, pushing Obama from practically day one, not scrutinizing him at all, played also a crucial role in making Obama the democratic front runner. Chances are that the young and ignorant wing of the democratic party together will succeed in making him the nominee. He will lose the election without a doubt, same as McGowern did, whom most of Obama's fervent supporters do not remember. People who believe he can win the general election should ask themselves: why is it that the right wing media and pundits, from Fox news to Bill Kristol and Pat Buchanan, all push Obama. Not because they would ever vote for him, but because they also believe that he will be easy to beat in November, and they are right.

"Maybe someone can teach OBAMA to say GOD BLESS AMERICA. I NEVER heard he ever say that phrase at the end of every speech he given. Does anybody notice it or we are all deaf."

======================================
Hm. Maybe you should vote for Huckabee.

No evolution needed.

God bless!

It's all over. Obama will win Texas, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. He has more time to campaign in these areas than a place like NJ, Mass, and New York where he lost. It's all over. Obama will defeat McCain in the general election. Dems establishment better take note now! God is behind Obama in this thing. America is about to be back again and thriving. People will smile again. God is about to smile on America. This is a prophecy. Washington Post--you may contact me later.

I really don't understand where this country is going. the media are so bias with certain candidate and it was so obious that we as citezens of United State of america notice it. It's the talk at work place, private gathering, and family discussion. Media can not be trusted. They will cover the candidate who they favor and trust the other candidate. If Clinton blue print will work or not, for me it's already dead before it even been out because of all the negative opinions from the media. I just hope for the next four years we will not be sorry and tell ourself " WE MAKE MISTAKE AGAIN IN ELECTING OUR PRESIDENT." Maybe someone can teach OBAMA to say GOD BLESS AMERICA. I NEVER heard he ever say that phrase at the end of every speech he given. Does anybody notice it or we are all deaf.

"wpost4112 -- by your logic we should nominate Axelrod for president... since he runs the obama campaign... or maybe we should nominate deval patrick whose rhetoric obama steals.."
-------------------------------------------

No, that would be by your (faulty) logic, Barack is the leader of his campaign....Axelrod merely the manager. Just as Hillary is the leader of her campaign and Solis, now Williams, is the manager.

Barack picks his team...and he chose wisely. Unlike Hillary who chose her people just as Bush does...not by competence but by loyalty...i.e., by how well and how quickly they say "yes."

Barack, Excellent leader.

Hillary, poor leader.

Logical.

wpost4112 -- by your logic we should nominate Axelrod for president... since he runs the obama campaign... or maybe we should nominate deval patrick whose rhetoric obama steals...

Deva patrick is a good indicator of how obama will turn out...
Patrick ran for governor in MA and won based on his rhetoric only to turn out to be a complete disaster as a MA governor ...

Perhaps MA voted in a landslide for hillary becos they were not going to be sold on rhetoric again... considering what the last local messiah delivered...

I hope the electorate in OH , TX and PA wise up to the hopemeister.

rippermccord

You say that Senator Obama's campaign slogans relate to changing decades-old insider politics. You feel that if he is the nominee, he will attract an entirely new coalition of voters beyond the marginal increase he has provided in Democratic primaries and caucuses.

However, the highest presidential vote getter in history was George W. Bush in 2004. The number TWO was John Kerry, believe it or not!

I agree with you that Obama will attract voters in favor of his policies to the voting booth. There will also be voters opposing him.

You list policy goals as:

health care coverage for all Americans who want it;

an end to tax loopholes that favor businesses that export jobs overseas;

curbing excessive oil company profits and the unfettered influence it buys in making policy;

enactment of meaningful fuel standards and environmental policy;

an honorable and swift end to the war in Iraq that also stabilizes the country and provides security for economic progress.

I agree that Obama's platform would contain goals like these. They are consistent with Al Gore's, John Kerry's, and in fact I am sure Hillary Clinton would also go for these things.

But even taking #1 on the list--health care. Am I to believe that this wouldn't be a bear of a challenge if it's Obama in there? And that's just the top item.

In your discussion about voting strategy, you say that Obama has a 50-state strategy. But many of the Obama supporters already want to shut down the nomination process before a whole bevy of states even vote (basically, by denying the vote to Clinton supporters in states that haven't voted yet.)

Isn't that actually the current Obama strategy---force Mrs. Clinton out of the race as the only way for Obama to achieve 2,025 delegates before the convention?

What kind of ringing endorsement would that present? It unifies nothing, because he can't even unify his own party without tactics like that. Isn't that what the Republicans are going to point out?

Most commenters say that Mrs. Clinton's tactical mistake was to trust that she could wrap up the nomination early by focusing on "Super Tuesday", not by intentionally ignoring small states in favor of large ones. Once it became clear she could not wrap up the nomination, then her misplaced emphasis became a strategic liability. But does this mean she meant to ignore these states, or just that she put her resources where she thought she had the greatest chance of success?

If Senator Obama, a Democrat, is concerned about carrying Idaho, for example, should this make me more confident about his ability as a candidate, or less?

Many people of all political persuasions agree that the last seven years have been bad news. But nothing about the primary results shows that Obama is creating any new coalitions out of this. For instance, there is no polling that shows that he would get even 10% of the Republican vote in the fall.

People point to the fact that he attracts white voters. But maybe it just means that whites are not the racists that they are portrayed to be by liberals in the Democrats. White Democratic presidential nominees (all the ones since 1800) have also attracted these kinds of voters. I am not sure this makes for a new coalition. Most Democrats are white.

Every election has new registered voters. Others pass on. Aren't all elections then made up of new and different people?

To conclude, you say:

"Sen. Obama's vision of America's possibilities offers the Democratic party an historic opportunity for growth and expansion. Sen. Clinton's candidacy has not attracted this same opportunity. But don't blame that on Sen. Obama."

I'm not certain this makes snese. The only way Obama gets to achieve "growth and expansion" is by a landslide victory.

But I have never heard of a candidate from a divided party who later went on to a landslide victory. Even John F Kennedy in 1960 barely squeaked it out versus Nixon, and not at all if Texas and Illinois really didn't go his way as some allege.

How Obama is attempting to win the nomination is creating conditions that will lead to the success of John McCain. He gets bare majorities in well contested states. And lopsided ones in those that by everyone's admission, Mrs. Clinton did not expect to have to contest.

Can anyone explain how Obama is going to make a landslide out of playing the delegate rules for small states very well, and then encouraging his followers to use pressure tactics to silence the vote in later voting states?

It sounds like the formula for a 60-40 McCain victory.

I just want to thank you all for an entertaining evening reading your comments. I truly cannot add any better analysis or input as to why these guys are really hilarious. I do want to echo seanmccray. I could do a much better job for Hillary than Mark Penn. I can't believe she is letting him rob her blind. He gets paid all of that money - - millions to come up with this garbage. It is really funny if it was so sad. Again, thank you my fellow Americans, I have almost burst my side laughing. It is refreshing to know that there are people out there that can communicate with such intellilect and a sense of humor and share my thinking exactly. This blueprint is for a house that is going to fall down with the first wind.

The Clinton operation turns out to be not as brilliant as they all told themselves they were.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/20/it-takes-a-potemkin-village/

rippermccord: I think I have finally figured out what happened. She gave the first speech in Milwaukee and the second speech in Madison.

Here's what I just picked up from FOX

POLITICS

Michelle Obama Takes Heat for Saying She's 'Proud of My Country' for the First Time
Tuesday, February 19, 2008

Barack Obama's wife, Michelle, is under fire for leaving the impression that she hasn't been proud of her country until now, when Democrats are beginning to rally around her husband's campaign.

Speaking in Milwaukee, Wis., on Monday, she said, "People in this country are ready for change and hungry for a different kind of politics and ... for the first time in my adult life I am proud of my country because it feels like hope is finally making a comeback."

Greeted with rousing applause after making the comment in Milwaukee, Obama delivered an amended version of the speech later that day in Madison, Wis.

"For the first time in my adult lifetime, I'm really proud of my country ... not just because Barack has done well, but because I think people are hungry for change," she said. "I have been desperate to see our country moving in that direction and just not feeling so alone in my frustration and disappointment."

New Bumper Sticker: Monica blows. Hillary just sucks.

"Democrats as usual can be expected to screw this up for the world by nominating a hope peddler instead of an all around solid and experienced candidate like clinton."
-------------------------

Who has run the worst political campaign in modern history.

So much for solid and so much for the experience.

She's a great Senator. She should stay there.
I think she will.

I just want to thank you all for an entertaining evening reading your comments. I truly cannot add any better analysis or input as to why these guys are really hilarius. I do want to echo seanmccray. I could do a much better job for Hillary than Mark Penn. I can't believe she is letting her rob her blind. He get paid all of that money - - millions to come up with this garbage. It is really funny if it was so sad. Again, thank you my fellow Americans, I have almost burst side laughing. It is refreshing to be a part of this great electorate.

13 of the states Obama has won so far are hard-core RED states which are guaranteed to be RED in November .. States like ID ,AL, KS, CO, GA, SC, AL, MI, ND, UT, NB , LA, VA

It is extremely worrisome that in crucial Blue states like PA obama is actually trailing Mccain and there is a very good chance that if he is the nominee Democrats will loose the election because he wont carry some traditionally blue state like PA and will be unable to compete in FL or OH which are swing states.

This guy is going to be a Nov disaster based on his flimsy "all sizzle no steak" resume.... and lack of any national security credentials compared to mccain.

Democrats as usual can be expected to screw this up for the world by nominating a hope peddler instead of an all around solid and experienced candidate like clinton.

"Vote logically and leave passion and fetish for less serious business."

===========

We are and we vote Obama.
And that's nothing to sneeze at.

" In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me."
-------------------------------

What a decent guy. The only chump was the guy asking the question.

Kirk Watson replies:

" So . . . That really happened.

On Tuesday night, after an important and historic victory in the Wisconsin Presidential Primary by Senator Barack Obama, I appeared on the MSNBC post-election program. "Hardball" host Chris Matthews (who is, it turns out, as ferocious as they say), began grilling me on Senator Obama's legislative record.

And my mind went blank. I expected to be asked about the primary that night, or the big one coming up in Texas on March 4, or just about anything else in the news. When the subject changed so emphatically, I reached for information that millions of my fellow Obama supporters could recite by heart, and I couldn't summon it.

My most unfortunate gaffe is not, in any way, a comment on Senator Obama, his substantial record, or the great opportunity we all share to elect him President of the United States.

Had I not lost my mind, here are the accomplishments I would have mentioned:

* Senator Obama's fight for universal children's health care in Illinois.
* His success bringing Republicans and Democrats together (a huge selling point for me in general) on bills such as the one in Illinois requiring police interrogations and confessions to be videotaped.
* His leadership on ethics reform in Washington (the bill that lobbyists and special interests are complaining about right now has his name on it).
* His bill to make the federal budget far more transparent and accessible to Americans via the Internet - we could use that openness in Texas.
* And his vital work with Republicans to lock down nuclear weapons around the world.

Of course, it would have helped to remember all of this last night. I encourage anyone who wants to know more (especially Mr. Matthews) to log onto texas.barackobama.com.

In the meantime, let's not lose focus on what's important in this election. It's not my stunning televised defeat in "Stump the Chump." Thankfully, it has nothing at all to do with me.

What's important is the direction our country is headed. What's important are the priorities, methods, and, yes, accomplishments of those seeking the highest office in the country.

Senator Obama has a vision for this nation, and we would be fortunate to fulfill it. He has the commitment to work with everyone from across the political and demographic spectrum to achieve it. And he has the strength to defend us, our security, and our values against all who will challenge them.

But most of all, he has the record to prove that all of this is possible. It's something no one should forget.

. . . Even though I did.

. . . On national television."

Other than charm and his borrowed rhetoric why is Obama such a sensation? It's laughable to read than even when Obama blows his nose people applaud. We seem to avoid sound candidates and go for the cheerful, inspiring ones that lack substance. I'm proud to be an independent thinker and someone who is not following the Obama herd. I'm not impressed by his hollow rhetoric or his thousand fans screaming "yes we can" but can't finish the sentence. Hillary is fit to the president of this country for she's got substance and what it takes to lead from day 1. I really hope Ohio, Texas and Pennsylvania halt Obama big mo. and set the stage to have the first most capable American woman to be in charge. Vote logically and leave passion and fetish for less serious business. Vote Hillary.

"The LAT blog says that O'Reilly did not suggest anything at all like that.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/oreilly-gets-an.html

I have no idea what the truth is, but I would like to see a dampening of these inflammatory comments if there is a doubt about them."

I just watched/heard it on Dan Abrams.

and I quote...

"....And I don't want to go on a lynching party against Michelle Obama unless there's evidence, hard facts, that say this is how the woman really feels....."

in other words, he would go on a "lynching party"
if there's evidence....

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/washington/2008/02/oreilly-gets-an.html