Anyone familiar with investing terminology? My guess is Hillary Clinton is in the midst of what is commonly referred to as a "dead cat bounce".

I'll be looking forward to the actual results tomorrow.

Get out and vote people. Doesn't matter who you like.... vote.

Seems like the same cast of characters are blogging the Post. And the Dems find ever more ways to be nasty to each other.

What is really disturbing about 2008 is that the candidates are basically no different from each other philosophically.
I read in another blog where McCain, Obama, and Clinton have all voted to give social security benefits to illegal aliens. Where is the sense in that? You might as well hand over the country to Mexico and take the next boat back to where your ancestors came from, if that is the direction this country is headed. No sense of loyalty to VOTERS among any of these three; no love of country, no patriotism, an honor that is meaningless. A senior naval officer who can't distinguish between surrender and withdrawal, a leading Democrat who union-busted as a member of a corporate board (Wal-Mart, for God's sake), and Obama, who votes 'Present'and then runs around saying 'Yes We Can'. Who would want ANY of them?
Get out while you can, organize a third party campaign with people who are reasonable, on the side of the voter, and show up for work every day while you can. No one is addressing the energy crisis, which will soon turn into a money crisis, because they're busy accusing each other of dirty tricks or calling each other names. Folks, this is not the time for high school student council hi-jinks. War is coming soon, and we need people who can organize a defense and maintain the dignity and integrity of the country. NONE OF THE ABOVE is capable of handling our impending serious problems.

I was dumbfounded . . . dumbstruck . . . to read just now that Hillary Clinton is telling voters today that she still has the momentum, despite having lost eleven straight primaries/caucuses. This should be an indication to voters that she has no grasp on reality or she is simply incapable of telling the truth (perhaps both).

The Clinton spin on the four primaries to be conducted tomorrow is amusing. I was say they delude themselves, except I am sure that they know better. It would be more accurate to say that they hope to delude voters into believing that "If he [Obama] is unable to win all four states it shows Democrats are engaged in what some in the media have called buyers' remorse". That might be true if Senator Obama were the candidate who had very large, double-digit leads when campaigning began in these four states. The truth of the matter is that Clinton enjoyed commanding leads just a couple weeks earlier and those leads have been evaporating as they have in virtually every state that has voted this year. That is your "buyers' remorse"!

There is another way to look at the Clinton Campaign's statements about the Obama outspending them and putting more volunteers on the ground in the sattes voting tomorrow. In fact, I think it is yet another blunder on their part to point out those facts. Senator Obama continues to outperform Hillary Clinton in campaign contributions and does so with a greater number of contributors giving a much smaller average contribution than Clinton's wealthy and corporate clientele. His ability to outsepnd her in these states (in an effort to overcome her greater name recognition and in order to rebut the constant line of negative attack ads Clinton is running) is also a result of the fact that the Obama Campaign has been a much more efficient organization and has not squandered contributions as Hillary has. As for the greater number of volunteers on the ground - that just points to the greater enthusiasm and support for Obama when comparing the two candidates. I don't know how Wolfson, Penn and Clinton can regard these things as negative attributes concerning their opponent's well run campaign, but it actually reveals a very positive aspect of the Obama Campaign which underscores Senator Obama's greater management skills.

Regardless of how anyone tries to spin Tuesdays primaries, it is a rather simple matter of mathematics. Hillary is trailing significantly in delegates and the only thing that really matters is whether or not she is able to gain a significantly larger amount of delegates from the four primaries to cut into Senator Obama's lead. Any other factors, including how many states each candidate wins or loses is a rather mute point this late in the campaign. With 2 of the last 3 big states out of the way after tomorrow, cutting the delegate lead significantly is critical for Hillary if she plans on continuing her "scorched earth" campaign any further.

Until Rezko is out, HRC stays in. Here is a good link from the Chicago Sun Times on the facts about Rezko (from Jan and Feb):
http://www.suntimes.com/news/watchdogs/757340,CST-NWS-watchdog24.article

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/rezko/822363,CST-NWS-rezko03.article

It's interesting to see how BHO can authentically admit wrongdoing when he's wrong: "it was a bonehead move" rather than HRC and Bill's Whitewater nuanced and semantically based explanations. Here's another area where, again, HRC cannot take down BHO because she lacks any moral authority. Here again, as I've said before is the 'veracity gap.' BHO admits he was wrong. nothing about what he did, so far as can be investigated, is illegal. That 'public official A' in Fitzgerald's indictment was the current Illinois governor and even he is not a target. Still, innuendo will fly as long as Rezko is being tried. HRC's campaign can continue throwing hail mary passes in hopes that an iota of the implications about BHO and Rezko will stick.

Speaking of 'sticking,' BHO may have disagreed with Reagan, but he said a lot about how successful he was in communicating his ideas. I just looked at the Audacity of Hope last night and BHO tips his hat to Reagan as communicator while criticizing his ideas. If BHO is really going to be like Reagan the communicator, he'll have to 'teflon' like Reagan was and withstand much of the insinuations and mud being slung at him.

All that being said, if BHO in fact did something wrong, he's toast. Hence, there's a valid basis for HRC to keep her oar in the water as long as her money is flowing. Fitzgerald takes no prisoners and the way he took down Scooter Libby shows he doesn't care which side of the aisle you're on.

Having read the great volume of commentary on this article, and having groaned through much of it, I must say that the quality of discourse I have found in these posts (with few exceptions) is not very encouraging. OK, people, how about much more THINKING and much less SCREECHING?

Reality reminders:
1) The experience arguments against BHO would have eliminated Abraham Lincoln from consideration . . . Lincoln served a single term in the House of Representatives and never ran a business bigger than his own law practice. Seems to me he is highly regarded, and he certainly had some REALLY TOUGH issues to deal with . . .
2) Likewise, age and irascibility arguments against McCain are equally irrelevant. Being a grumpy old man myself, I recognize and appreciate one when I see one. Mind you, now, I'm not likely to vote for McCain on the theory that the GOP has really messed things up royally for the last seven years (ya think???), but I'll make that decision later. And unless McCain really loses his composure irrationally or just can't remember where heck he is or some such, I WON'T vote against him because of age or temperament. I'll consider the issues (what a concept!).
3) I'm not the least bit surprised that the HRC and BHO campaigns are trying to manipulate our expectations about Tuesday night. Guess what, candidates and their campaigns spin! It's Chris Cillizza's job to report on this stuff, and it's OUR JOB to keep our heads as this all unfolds. As a cussedly independent person who happens to be a Democrat, I'll be watching the AFTERMATH of Tuesday night to determine whether it's BHO or HRC who reacts with the greater degree of wisdom, statemanship, and (yes, even) grace.
4) Electability questions are still premature, given that we've months to go before general election. There is plenty of time for ANY candidate to implode, really mess up, etc., so you'll understand if I'm skeptical about some your prophecies about electability . . .
5) It is likely a vain hope (uh, an "audacious" hope?) that we will decide the election on the basis of real issues and ignore the destructive, inflammatory, and (most importantly) irrelevant wedge factors like race, gender, age, etc. But cranky curmudgeon that I am notewithstanding, I still cling to that audacious hope (and no, don't assume that I'm automatically a BHO partisan . . . that, too, will be decided later).
6) Maybe our West Virginia Democratic primary in May will really be important . . . Think so? Stay tuned . . .

What about Rhode Island and Vermont? It's not a two-step, it's a four-step.

Have we really gone over the scenario if Obama wins Texas by a bit and Hillary wins Ohio, essentially a split?

It would be a further spli if Hillary wins Rhode Island.

Does that keep Hillary in the race through Pennsylvania?

Also Crist of Florida said they may schedule a new Florida primary, that has to keep Hillary in the race because she has a chance to pick up those delegates.

Also Michigan, it would make the most sense. I think its important that those two states vote in a contested election and that those two states count.

Have we really gone over the scenario if Obama wins Texas by a bit and Hillary wins Ohio, essentially a split?

It would be a further spli if Hillary wins Rhode Island.

Does that keep Hillary in the race through Pennsylvania?

Also Crist of Florida said they may schedule a new Florida primary, that has to keep Hillary in the race because she has a chance to pick up those delegates.

Also Michigan, it would make the most sense. I think its important that those two states vote in a contested election and that those two states count.

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/authentic-change.html

"Sunday, March 02, 2008
Authentic Change

The WP reports today that Obama has "thrown away the script" in Ohio, turning from his stump speech to a series of town hall meetings.

Ohio and Texas are tight. The contest is too close to call. This is, for a campaign, a "red phone" moment.

Note how Obama responds.

Instead of an array of tactical shifts in persona, Obama shows the strength and fortitude that he has demonstrated all along--in a kind of reverse Rove (recall that Rove was famous for taking his adversary's greatest strength and attacking it) taking his greatest ability and putting it to the side, moving from score to improvisation, to further answer the questions of the people--something he has done all along the campaign trial, but now is putting aside his greatest strength to emphasize.

Note what he could have done:

He could have gone on the attack, derogating Hillary's past through the ad hominem methods all too recently seen. He could have attempted to change the presentation of his personality, in order to find the persona that consultants recommend, changing his tone, his emotions, shifting through traits like a anxious shuffle through a deck of cards, searching for the combination that would meet the seeming demands of the day.

In a moment of pressure--at 3 A.M.--he could have responded with panic and artifice.

Instead, he moves *away* from his strength, and presents himself simply before the people.

This is judgment, which arises from a known and consistent self. It does not arise, despite experience, from a self that uncertain, fearful, and therefore driven by fear, to change under the pressures of the moment.

This is what will count when genuine moments of crisis occur in our future evenings, in our 3 A.M. moments, and in the early dawn."

Cite:
Head of State
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/authentic-change.html

Scruffy,

Even with FL and MI, Obama would have about a 100 pledged delegate lead. Besides that, the law is clear that primary campaign are the domain of the party, the party gets to decide how to choose their nominee per the 1st Amendment right of association, and the party clearly laid out the rules and all parties agreed to them. Unless of course you are suggesting Clinton was part of a conspiracy to deprive the good people of Michigan and Florida of their rights, only to flip flop when it became politically opportune for her, are you?

BTW I found some amazing analysis on Obama's campaign. I haven't seen anything like this mentioned anywhere in the MSM.
Check out "Al-Qaeda Gets 'Offended' " http://savagepolitics.com/?p=162and "Predatory Lenders and the 'Red Phone' " on http://savagepolitics.com/?p=158

SAVAGEPOLITICS.com This site offers brilliant writing & analysis. EVERYONE into politics should check it out!!!

Yeah, Republicans never get held accountable on religious peoples endorsements! LOL!!!! FWIW, McCain's sensical stance on Hagee:

"Well I think it's important to note that pastor John Hagee who has supported and endorsed my candidacy supports what I stand for and believe in. When he endorses me, it does not mean that I embrace everything that he stands for and believes. And I am very proud of the Pastor John Hagee's spiritual leadership to thousands of people and I am proud of his commitment to the independence and the freedom of the state of Israel. That does not mean that I support or endorse or agree with some of the things that Pastor John Hagee might have said or positions that he may have taken on other issues. I don't have to agree with everyone who endorses my candidacy. They are supporting my candidacy. I am not endorsing some of their positions."

If we apply the standards of the one vote civil rights laws then Michigan and Florida should apply which would make Hillary the delegate leader at this time. Therefore, Hillary is winning the nomination and should win on Tuesday. I see lots of flaws in Obama and his message and he does not speak as well when he speaks off the cuff. Obama has a strong stump speech for young people because they want fluff and not substance. People over 30 want substance and not fluff.

I found a great video on everything Senator Obama means to us and will bring to this country. I believe strongly that Martin Luther King Jr. would want everyone to see this video - to see the truth that will set us free :

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YuB_W8o_UsU

Enjoy!

"Who does Tony Romo support?

There's your winner."

Man, I can't believe you got Tony Romo and "winner" into the same statement...

Wolfson says that if Obama doesn't win all four states, he's the loser. So...if Clinton doesn't win all four states, does that mean she's the loser and should withdraw from the race? Seems to me by engaging in this all or nothing approach, the Clinton campaign is setting itself up to have to answer some hard questions if she doesn't manage a sweep.

I checked out your website, Mr. Lamb... I see you're quite the busybody...

'In Pensacola, Mr. Lamb's civic activities included chairing the Pensacola City Council Citizens' Task Force on Adult Entertainment Issues'

america becoming increasingly irrelevant in the world, due to this administration's incompetence. 4 more years of neocons will likely render us completely impotent.

'Daniel Levy, a former Israeli peace negotiator, said that key players in the region are moving beyond the Bush administration. "The feeling is that if you keep the flash points on a lower or somewhat higher flame, it will give you more cards when a new administration comes in," he said, speaking in a phone interview from Israel. "Everyone is sucking up to the Iranians," he added.

The signs of American irrelevance are apparent throughout the region. Even Palestinian Authority President Mahmoud Abbas, hailed as a potential peacemaker by the Bush administration, mused last week to the Jordanian newspaper al-Dustour that in the future it might be necessary to return to armed struggle against Israel.

And Syria, which received an unexpected invitation to Annapolis, believes that the peace summit was "an exercise in public relations" and that Bush has no interest in peace, as Syria's ambassador to Washington, Imad Moustapha put it last week.'

The Clinton campaign intends to stretch this out as far as poosible hoping for some miracle. In the meantime, they drag Obama and the rest of us through the slime of their disgusting cut-throat political game. The "supers" need to stop these people before they irreperable harm to the party and the nominee.

Hey Chris, pull out the Clinton campaign statements following the Wisconsin loss. They told everyone to focus on Texas and Ohio -- that is where Hillary will turn the tide. The Hillary campaign is run by a bunch of charlatans with the Chief Charlatan in charge.

CC --WHY ARE YOU GIVING MCCAIN A PASS ON HAGEE?

politics12: your preoccupation with racial percentages amounts to a very unhealthy obbsession. get a life. btw, Richard Cohen is one of the worst hacks in the busness. If you want to paint yourself as 'credible' get another source.

Who does Tony Romo support?

There's your winner.

a bit off topic, but why is the MSM ignoring the McCain endorsement by the raging bigot Rev. Hagee? Obama (or any black) has to grovel and trash Farrakan(sp?) and McCain gets a free pass?

politics12: I have taken the time to read your whole LONG Post twice, and I was aware of most of what you have written. You did leave out the part where he claims to have been brought up by close to an indigent mother and Grandparents, which is also false. Many times I have stated there was something about this guy that I could not put my finger on. I did extensive research and found many untruths [lies] from what he projects. The SNL skit was far more accurate than most will admit.

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Hillary Clinton has not Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911 but all about OIL. That is not Judgment and it is the wrong kind of Experience. Some say who know that she and Bill have the agenda to get Bill a III, Presidency, that should not be allowed. It was Bill who spoke first after their loss in South Carolina!

NBC's Lisa Myers and Jim Popkin report that Hillary Clinton has declined to return $170,000 in campaign contributions from individuals at a company accused of widespread sexual harassment, and whose CEO is a disbarred lawyer with a criminal record, federal campaign records show. The federal government has accused the Illinois management consulting firm, International Profit Associates, or IPA, of a brazen pattern of sexual harassment including "sexual assaults," "degrading anti-female language" and "obscene suggestions." Sen. Clinton's spokesman, Howard Wolfson, told NBC News in a statement that the senator decided to keep the funds because the lawsuit is "ongoing" and because none of the sexual harassment allegations has been proven in court." This is the usual Camp Clinton Hypocrisy Spin.

Hillary Clinton has not Credibility on national security since she cast her Yes vote to authorize war in Iraq. There where other Senators who voted NO! They knew to vote yes was to automatically Invade a Country that had nothing to do with 911 but all about OIL. That is not Judgment and it is the wrong kind of Experience. Some say who know that she and Bill have the agenda to get Bill a III, Presidency, that should not be allowed. It was Bill who spoke first after their loss in South Carolina!

Senator Obama has been disingenuous in claiming to be an African American. Senator Obama's Kenyan family and his Kenyan roots are Arab not Black--the family is and has been registered in the Kenyan Census as Arab African. The Kenyan Obamas are proud of their status as Arab Africans as it puts them squarely in the upper reaches of Kenyan society.

If elected Senator Obama will be the first Arab American President, albeit with dark skin pigmentation!

http://kennethelamb.blogspot.com/2008/02/barak-obama-questions-about-ethnic.html

By Kenneth E. Lamb

Sen. Obama's autobiography is filled with "composite" characters, rearranged timelines, and fantasy events that never occurred. I read that twice in the Washington Post - read Richard Cohen's columns of Jan. 1, 2008, and March 27, 2007, for yourself.

There are more articles than that, by more authors than just Mr. Cohen, but I wanted to get started by saying that what follows isn't just something I'm pulling out of thin air. What follows is serious, documented, and not at all what those who want to write history about the election of the first so-called "African-American" president, want in the least to admit is true - and why its truth matters more than their desire to ignore the truth for the sake of their desire to write history.

While his shrill wife objects, the truth is that Sen. Obama's life, as he wrote about himself in his autobiography, is, in fact, nothing but a fairy tale. Again, don't take my word for it - read Mr. Cohen's, and others, articles about it.

If what Mr. Cohen writes are truths, then what Mr. Obama wrote are lies. It's just as simple as that.

Yet there is not one word from the "Last Bastions of Accuracy" that comprise our first-tier information enterprises about the complete lack of integrity Sen. Obama shows with his fictional life history. He lies, but his lies are swept under the rug by a groupthink mentality that is so desperate to regain leadership positions - as opposed to actual leadership programs to earn those leadership positions - that it ignores the truth that Sen. Obama lies - about himself, about his life, about his actions - and even about his racial composition.

I researched what follows for a NY daily of international reputation. It wasn't what I thought I'd find. I documented it, presented it to the Washington Bureau Chief, but was hardly surprised that it never saw ink. As you'll see for yourself, this is the political equivalent of a nuclear bomb.

I must pause very briefly to note usage of the word Negro in what follows: In all academic studies of race, the proper scientific word for the ethnic composition I discuss is Negro. For any who scream racist at its mention, I say take it up with the scientific community. It's not my word, it's theirs. I am using it in its proper scientific context.

Why is the fact that Mr. Obama is only 6.25% African Negro not reported?

Because to acknowledge it is to report this devastating truth about him: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

Federal law requires that to claim a minority status, you must be at least 1/8 of the descriptor, but for the sake of this article, I've converted it to a decimal fraction for easier comprehension. You must be at least 12.5% of the racial component you claim for minority status. Mr. Obama, claiming to be African-American, is half the legal threshold.

Again, to let it sink in: Mr. Obama is not legally African-American. It is impossible for him to be, in truth, America's first African-American president.

Yet claiming to be African-American is the soul and substance of his claim to fame. It is what he has used throughout his adult life to distinguish himself from other competitors. It is the ethnic identity he proclaims, and it is the ethnic identity he craves. Without it, he is just another mixed race Caucasian Arab with an African influence playing on his skin's pigmentation.

But no matter what he craves, no matter what he has used to propel himself through life, no matter the racist presumption of seeing his skin and without question calling him black, the hard, cold, genetically inarguable reality remains: he is not an African-American.

Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian, that from his mother. What those who want Mr. Obama to write history by becoming "America's first African-American president" ignore is that his father was ethnically Arabic, with only 1 relative ethnically African Negro - a maternal great-grandparent (Sen. Obama's great-great grandparent, thus the 6.25% ethnic contribution to the senator's ethnic composition.).

That means that Mr. Obama is 50% Caucasian from his mother's side. He is 43.75% Arabic, and 6.25% African Negro from his father's side.

Put another way, his father could honestly claim African-American ethnic classification. He was the last generation able to do so.

Sen. Obama could honestly say, "My father was African-American." Racist presumptions led an Ivy League admissions committee, and lazy "newspapers of record" factcheckers, to presume that if his father is African-American, then Sen. Obama must be African-American also.

But it doesn't work that way. Racist presumptions coupled with sloppy vetting don't turn a lie into the truth.

Sen. Obama is one generation too far removed from the ethnic African Negro input to make the same claim as his father, Harvard's Admission's stamp of approval notwithstanding.

As you can see for yourself, Sen. Obama's African-American ethnic claim, when properly researched and documented, is a lie.

The question no one wants to answer - particularly Mr. Obama and his supporters, is, "Why do you think he has an Arabic name? Why does his father have an Arabic name? Why does every ancestor on his father's side have an Arabic name?"

The answer is obvious: They have Arabic names because his father's side of the family tree is Arabic.

Need proof? Research the Kenyan records for yourself. You will find that his father was officially classified as "Arab African" by the Kenyan government.

But in America's current political climate, that truth is heresy; that truth is "an inconvenient truth." It is the political equivalent in our time to what Galileo's scientific pronouncements were in his time: it is true, but nobody wants to know the truth because the lie is so much more comforting.

That is why detractors of this truth will do everything to denounce it, except submit to the discipline of actually researching it.

There's a reason for that: it proves he is not sufficiently Negro to earn classification under American law as an African-American.

For Sen. Obama, telling the truth means he will give up all the accolades about being the first African-American president of the Harvard Law Review, an accolade that relies on a sleight-of-hand in job titling that changed the name of the top job from Editor to President.

If stated in its absolute truth, Mr. Obama was the second person of color to run the Review. He was beat to the Review's top spot by a true African-American about 60 years before Mr. Obama showed up for classes.

Again, a very inconvenient truth.

That is devastating in itself. The further effect is that Mr. Obama would have to convince Americans still reeling from 9/11, Afghanistan, and Iraq, that now is the time for America's first Arab-American president.

We all know what chance that has of succeeding.

Of course, that would only happen if Mr. Obama told the truth about his racial composition. To tell the truth means Mr. Obama will have to admit that which he has never been forced to admit before, even in the face of the massive lies of his autobiography: Mr. Obama's entire projection of who he is, and what he is, is a lie.

Mr. Obama would have to say to the world: "I am not what I've told you I am. I lied to you in my autobiography when I told you I am black. I lied to the Admission Committee at Harvard so I could get in. I lied to my constituents in Chicago so I could get elected to the State Senate. I lied to my constituents in Illinois so I could get elected to the US Senate. I lied to my supporters across America so I could be President.

"I have lied all during my life to play the race card, and use it, cynically, to advance myself by playing upon the racist presumption of Americans to accept, without question, that anyone of color is African-American. I lied to you, and you blindly accepted it, because of your own racist presumptions about color, and ethnic identity. I looked African-American, and your racist presumptions told you to believe it."

Even as you read this, the overwhelming majority of you will continue to believe it. Even as you know the truth, you will block the truth out of your mind, because you are bred to accept the racist presumption of color, and ethnic identity.

And so many of you reading this will create incredible mental gymnastics, telling yourself why the truth doesn't matter. You will lie to yourself because you want to believe the lie, and then curse the American body politic for being built on lies.

You will do this all while failing to tell yourself the truth that it is your lies, as much as any other lies, that are killing the body. You will commit the very action that you curse as the cause of America's demise, because you are jaded beyond recognizing in yourself the very same disease you so freely condemn in others.

Here is the truth about Mr. Obama's name, and his father's ancestors:

True Negro tribal members of western Kenya where his father was born have Christian names, not Arabic. His father's decision to name him with an Arabic name is a matter of his father establishing his ethnic identity in Africa - it is done deliberately to separate him from the African tribes. He may live among them, but he is not one of them. His father's message is that he is Arabic, not Negro.

Many will find these truths unsettling. I'm often asked, "But I thought his father was Kenyan. How could Mr. Obama not be African-American, how could his ethnic composition be so Arabic?"

The definitive clue to that answer is to look at his name, his father's name, and the names of all his ancestors on his father's side. They are all Arabic.

Researching his roots reveal that on his father's side, he is descended from Arab slave traders. They operated under an extended grant from Queen Victoria, who gave them the right to continue the slave trade in exchange for helping the British defeat the Madhi Army in southern Sudan and the Upper Nile region. Funny how circular is history; now the British again face the Madhi Army, albeit this time Shiite, not Sunni, as in nineteenth century Sudan.

But telling America's black community that while their ancestors were breaking the shackles of slavery, Mr. Obama's ancestors were placing those shackles upon their wrists would hardly play as an Oprah Winfrey best-seller.

Being the son of a poor Kenyan goat-herder plays much better than being the son of a highly placed Arab-African who operated at the top of the Kenyan government following his education at Columbia. You see, even the way he portrays his father is a lie.

We need to linger for a moment on Ms. Winfrey, and her support for Mr. Obama. A very serious problem arises with Ms. Winfrey because of her double-standards: Does everyone remember how she went ballistic when a person whose book she endorsed turned out to be dishonest about what he said about his life in his book?

Of course you do. She pulled the plug on him and forced him into a highly publicized "Mea Culpa" of near groveling for her forgiveness. She publicly humiliated him, and would actually twist-up into contorted faces, visibly hot with anger.

Why then does Ms. Winfrey operate with a double standard for Mr. Obama? She knows his so-called autobiography is replete with "composites" - an Orwellian word for fictional characters that never existed but in Mr. Obama's imagination, even though he addresses them in his autobiography as if they are real people. They aren't; they are lies.

So are his timelines, chopped up and rearranged for Mr. Obama's aggrandizement. And there are the complete lies about events he said specifically impacted his life - events that never occurred despite his writing that they did. They too are lies.

As I said, don't take my word for it; read Mr. Cohen's columns in the Washington Post for the details.

Why then does she not hold him to the same standards she held another author?

She doesn't say, but the possibility that the reason is race-based is fair to ask. What Mr. Obama did is far beyond what the other author did. Why then, public humiliation for one, but campaign whistle-stops for the other?

Ms. Winfrey needs to tell us why. Her integrity is on the line.

Mr. Obama has struggled all his life trying to prove that he is black enough to be called black.

The truth is that if Mr. Obama is elected, his primary ethnic composition is Caucasian, but of course, that carries no cachet.

So if we look at his next predominant ethnic component, Mr. Obama would be America's first Arab-American president. The truth is that his name says it all.

What amazes me more than anything else about Mr. Obama's heritage is the unwillingness of anyone in the journalism profession to want to know the truth. While all this is easily documentable, it is so radioactive that no one wants to be on the receiving end of the racist charges that will bombard whoever broaches the truth.

It is another example of how America's political system is further degenerating into fairy tales and lies. Torpedo boat attacks in Viet Nam, WMD's in Iraq, Sen. Obama is African-American; we shamelessly lie to ourselves to rationalize whatever we want to believe.

But I wrote this tonight because I'm tired of reading about "integrity" written by those who have none themselves. They know Mr. Obama's autobiography is filled with lies from start to finish, they know he lies about what his operatives do (the Apple advertisement knock-off against Hills immediately comes to mind), and for those who circulated my research, they know he is not legally black.

But for those longing for Camelot, for those who feel a good story trumps the truth, for those who are so jaded about others that they now live as those they profess to hate, for those who are terrorized by the racist attacks these truths bring, the integrity of Sen. Obama doesn't matter.

Because their own integrity doesn't matter to them either.

Why am I writing this? Maybe I just want a clear conscience, clear that the research I did didn't get buried because the people who received it are afraid to tell the truth in the face of Sen. Obama's frenzied celebrity status. I've been in the business since 1972 - 35 years - writing and researching for people like the NY Times, the Miami Herald, the St. Petersburg Times, The Jewish Information Network, so I know what it's like on the newsroom floor right now. Nobody can dare speak against Sen. Obama without generating at least a flickering flame of doubt about his or her own sanity - not to mention the knee-jerk reaction that questioning him is indicative of some deep, dark, racist agenda spurring those questions on.

And truth? I ask as Pilate asked, "What is truth?" Who cares about truth? This is history; this is the first time ever in America - why let truth get in the way of chronicling history? (. . . I wrote facetiously.)

Maybe I just want to know that if he gets the presidency, he will get it honestly - if this is general knowledge, and he overcomes it. Maybe I'm just tired of presidents who lie to us; and in this case, I already know Mr. Obama will lie to us, just as he lied in his autobiography, and on so many other occasions documented by Mr. Cohen, by Michael Dobbs, the Washington Post's factchecker, and so many others.

And maybe I'm tired of us lying to ourselves. Mr. Obama is what we've lied ourselves into believing he is.

Maybe by saying that I know he lied, and saying that we lied to ourselves, I will say after he is elected that nobody has any right to complain about him lying after he takes the oath of office, when everybody knew he lied about so many other things - when we lied to ourselves about so many other things, so very long before that.

I heard Wilco was the featured band on SNL tonight - wearing Obama buttons. Also heard that Obama stickers could be spotted on the band's gear when it showed up for a two-night stand at 9:30, the Washington music club this week. The gig Chris missed because of the debate?

I heard Wilco was the featured band on SNL tonight - wearing Obama buttons. Also heard that Obama stickers could be spotted on the band's gear when it showed up for a two-night stand at 9:30, the Washington music club this week. The gig Chris missed because of the debate?

bonjedi, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement and I think you know that. Unfortunately here in Texas it is a known political science fact from every political science leader in our state. For some reason hispanic turnout in texas has been in lower numbers than expected and I didn't like it anymore than you should, more so in Texas than in California or Arizona. Am I happy about that? hell no. We have a fine and proud hispanic culture here in texas who for some reason have felt leftout from our anglo, bush loving, Republican run state govt in texas who have used hispanics to win office, and then provided them nothing, from the worst healthcare in the nation to poor economics and bad schools. Are we proud of that here in Texas? Certainly not any thinking progressive. Noticed what I said sir. Texas needs hispanics to be more engaged in Texas like you, so we can get rid of the Ws and Rick Perrys in this state who have run hispanics and anglos as well in the ground and run our education and healthcare system in a race to the bottom for all texans. I congratulate you for being engaged in politics even though I differ with you about your candidate selection. Hispancs will soon be the largest population mass in the state of Texas, that is a fact, and posters here should fully understand that. We in Texas respect you and your culture but it needs to be known that Hispanic voters in Texas and across the country now have the numerical power to decide elections in Texas. We want to get rid of W mentality and his sidekick Rick Perry. Your numbers here in Texas are not 21% as an earlier post misstated. It is up to hispanic voters to now start telling us who our political leaders should be especially in Texas b/c in Texas we desperately need to change things, which are just not going in the right direction for us. What I spoke about, hopefully was about past voting patterns here in Texas and not in 2008 as the Early Voting pattern here is terrific, across the board. I am older than you and have seen this issue come up before and seen so many compitent democratic Texas politicans go down the drain. That doesn't need to happen going forward and if that means getting hispanic genY and from every age group supporting B.O. that is fine with me as long as it helps us get us get out of our rut here in Texas and rid of some of our pathetic Texas Republican politicians out of office. I have seen hispanic clients abused in our Texas courts and I am sick of it and at times it has brought me to tears and I desperately want to see that changed, I am sure not nearly as much as you. If that makes me evil and you want to slap me fine, but I salute you sir and your involvement in the political system and ask that you don't misunderstand why I made that statement it was intended solely as a political statement not as an insult which you unfortunately read it as. If you don't believe me read about the Tony Sanchez, Gary Mauro, Jim Maddox and Chris Bell runs for Texas Governor here in Texas. many of those were elections we could have and should have won, and All Texas voters were equally to blame, but a larger hispanic turnout in any of those elections could have meant a different state govt here in Texas. Join us in getting out the largest Texas hispanic turnout ever in Texas on Tuesday, whoever your choice, that will be good for Texas and good for the nation.

bonjedi, that is an absolutely ridiculous statement and I think you know that. Unfortunately here in Texas it is a known political science fact from every political science leader in our state. For some reason hispanic turnout in texas has been in lower numbers than expected and I didn't like it anymore than you should, more so in Texas than in California or Arizona. Am I happy about that? hell no. We have a fine and proud hispanic culture here in texas who for some reason have felt leftout from our anglo, bush loving, Republican run state govt in texas who have used hispanics to win office, and then provided them nothing, from the worst healthcare in the nation to poor economics and bad schools. Are we proud of that here in Texas? Certainly not any thinking progressive. Noticed what I said sir. Texas needs hispanics to be more engaged in Texas like you, so we can get rid of the Ws and Rick Perrys in this state who have run hispanics and anglos as well in the ground and run our education and healthcare system in a race to the bottom for all texans. I congratulate you for being engaged in politics even though I differ with you about your candidate selection. Hispancs will soon be the largest population mass in the state of Texas, that is a fact, and posters here should fully understand that. We in Texas respect you and your culture but it needs to be known that Hispanic voters in Texas and across the country now have the numerical power to decide elections in Texas. We want to get rid of W mentality and his sidekick Rick Perry. Your numbers here in Texas are not 21% as an earlier post misstated. It is up to hispanic voters to now start telling us who our political leaders should be especially in Texas b/c in Texas we desperately need to change things, which are just not going in the right direction for us. What I spoke about, hopefully was about past voting patterns here in Texas and not in 2008 as the Early Voting pattern here is terrific, across the board. I am older than you and have seen this issue come up before and seen so many compitent democratic Texas politicans go down the drain. That doesn't need to happen going forward and if that means getting hispanic genY and from every age group supporting B.O. that is fine with me as long as it helps us get us get out of our rut here in Texas and rid of some of our pathetic Texas Republican politicians out of office. I have seen hispanic clients abused in our Texas courts and I am sick of it and at times it has brought me to tears and I desperately want to see that changed, I am sure not nearly as much as you. If that makes me evil and you want to slap me fine, but I salute you sir and your involvement in the political system and ask that you don't misunderstand why I made that statement it was intended solely as a political statement not as an insult which you unfortunately read it as. If you don't believe me read about the Tony Sanchez, Gary Mauro, Jim Maddox and Chris Bell runs for Texas Governor here in Texas. many of those were elections we could have and should have won, and All Texas voters were equally to blame, but a larger hispanic turnout in any of those elections could have meant a different state govt here in Texas. Join us in getting out the largest Texas hispanic turnout ever in Texas on Tuesday, whoever your choice, that will be good for Texas and good for the nation.

"Regarding the 3 am ad, I think HILLARY has the advantage since she came in with the idea first."

Actually, Walter Mondale's campaign had the idea first, and McCain's fans had it in January:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

THe problem with running on experience and foreing policy decisionmaking... Hillary vs McCain, who wins that argument??

As for the unoriginality, it was a specific response ad, not stealing an idea pretending to be an original one...are you guys seriously that naive?

"Regarding the 3 am ad, I think HILLARY has the advantage since she came in with the idea first."

Actually, Walter Mondale's campaign had the idea first, and McCain's fans had it in January:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

THe problem with running on experience and foreing policy decisionmaking... Hillary vs McCain, who wins that argument??

As for the unoriginality, it was a specific response ad, not stealing an idea pretending to be an original one...are you guys seriously that naive?

"Regarding the 3 am ad, I think HILLARY has the advantage since she came in with the idea first."

Actually, Walter Mondale's campaign had the idea first, and McCain's fans had it in January:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GPadP7eAO9Y

THe problem with running on experience and foreing policy decisionmaking... Hillary vs McCain, who wins that argument??

If Sen. Clinton wins TX and Ohio by large margins than I agree that this campaign is a long way from over.

However, I don't see how narrow wins in TX and Ohio will give Sen. Clinton any real chance at the nomination. Let's say she has a net gain of 20 delegates on Tuesday. Obama still is ahead by 130 pledged delegates. Given that two of the remaining states, North Carolina and Mississippi, will almost certainly go to Obama, how in the world does she come anywhere near Obama in pledged delegates?

Thus, what I haven't heard from anyone in the Clinton camp is the delegate math that provides a path to victory if she only secures a narrow victory on Tues?

I am an independent voter until HILLARY ran for President! I admire her dedication and commitment to this presidential race.

Regarding the 3 am ad, I think HILLARY has the advantage since she came in with the idea first. Obama just responded, without originality. even on debates, he just agree with what HILLARY says. HILLARY always answer the first question, a true mark of a smart candidate.

She has proven herself may times that she can win this nomination and she will. TX, OHIO, RI, & PA are her turf. TX will still gonna be her state since I don't believe in polls and HILLARY has established her grounds already way before Obama campaigned. Before Feb 4th, in CA, Obama was leading in polls by 8 points, but HILLARY won by 10 points! People should not be swayed with these polls, they should vote with their hearts and minds! Analyze who is the better candidate who can bring about change with directions and smart solutions! Not empty rhetorics with no specifics!

We still have a chance, let us vote wisely this Tuesday, vote for HILLARY!

If Sen. Clinton wins TX and Ohio by large margins than I agree that this campaign is a long way from over.

However, I don't see how narrow wins in TX and Ohio will give Sen. Clinton any real chance at the nomination. Let's say she has a net gain of 20 delegates on Tuesday. Obama still is ahead by 130 pledged delegates. Given that two of the remaining states, North Carolina and Mississippi, will almost certainly go to Obama, how in the world does she come anywhere near Obama in pledged delegates?

Thus, what I haven't heard from anyone in the Clinton camp is the delegate math that provides a path to victory if she only secures a narrow victory on Tues?

"Texas Hispanics traditionally turn out in lower numbers than the rest of the state. "

I am a proud chicano warrior! How dare you insult my heritage with such a comment? If you were here I would slap you with a glove! Viva la raza! Viva Obama! All of my friends and familia are voting for you!

Latinos comprise 36 percent of Texas' population notthe statement above saying Texas hispanics representing 21% which is again bs.

This from the Killen News: "Latinos comprise 36 percent of Texas' population, their words not mine, but no not 21%."

turnout that is another question as Texas Hispanics traditionally turn out in lower numbers than the rest of the state. I have concluded that from the unsucessful Tony Sanchez for governor campaign I worked on 10 years ago. He spent $65 million of his own money and actually did poorly with Hispanic turnout. If Hispanic Texas voters have finally decided to show their muscle and expanded population base since the Sanchez fiasco its good for Hillary's chances in Texas and for our opportunity to turn things around here in our Texas government. All those hoping for better political times for us in Texas, regardless of which side you are on should be routing for that turnout. Like in Ohio its time that we in Texas now turn our state govt around and ts starts with our ever expanding hispanic population. Is it going to happen on Tuesday. For Hillary and the State Democratic party and for the interest of all Texans, I sure hope so but truthfully no one knows, and anyone who says they know exactly how that will turn out knows nothing about Texas politics. have things changed in Texas over the last 10 years? I certainly hope so but I agree its totally unpredictable her.

Don't forget to watch Hillary on SNL tonight.
Should be a real b*tchalooza.

Without winning Texas and Ohio, it will serve as huge setback for her campaign. At the end of the day on tuesday he will have won 13 of the last 15 states as I feel that she will win Ohio and Rhode Island. When you have lost 11 in a row anything short of a clean sweep for her will be devastating to her chances of securing the nomination.

What seems to boggle my mind is that the Clinton campaign seem to keep harping on the fact that Texas has a large hispanic population. The hispanic population make up 24% of the voters in Texas while african-americans make up 21%. We all know how well Obama does with african-americans and those figures basically cancel each other out. He also does better with hispanics than she does with african-americans. She will not win Texas.

Obama will not rule out Private Security Contractors (Blackwater) in Iraq.
==========

Do you happen to have an actual quote or speech-bite rather than a rumor? Thanks.

Anyways, The Truth is referring to polling from early voters - obviously it is a felony to access the ballots before election day, and your accusing me of a crime is in line with the typical Clinton campaign dissembling

Once again where did you pull this"polling from early voters" garbage from. It doesn't exist from the Dallas Morning News, Houston Chronicle, San Antonio Express, Channel 13 News, Rice Prof Bib Stein or CNN. Somehow I trust these local news sources just a little more than you. And why would you think I was accusing you of anything. My point is that Early Voting is not tabulated until 7 pm on Tuesday. I spent 3 hours at 2 of the largest Early Voting sites in Houston. Guess what there was not anyone doing exit polling there, no one. We don't exit polling our early voters. I am Texas on the ground and in touch with local news sources. Why should we believe anything you are saying when you make such absolutely stupid comments like B.O. is crushing Hillary in the Hispanic community it is absolute bull. I would be happy to provide you with reliable Hispanic news surveys showing Hillary with a 42% lead with Texas Hispanic voters. Is she going to win Texas? I don't know all I see are very very long early voters. Some in Hispanic parts of town some in African American parts of town. But we are not so arrogant as to predict a 60% vote for B.O. In fact I should hold you to that lofty prediction and say anything less than a 60% vote for B.O. in Texas, but I won't waste my time in such idiotic discussions with someone who knows zero about Texas politics.

Incidentally, no one has answered my early querry about the only pure Iraq Congressman Dennis Kucinich and where he stands on the election.

Incidentally I just received an email from a left wing site called Alternet(far from a Hillary supporter) entitled:

Obama will not rule out Private Security Contractors (Blackwater) in Iraq. This from the candidate we have been told by his supporters is totally pure on his position about Iraq. Not so fast you might want to check out this story and ask why B.O. believes Blackwater should not be leaving anytime soon. I am not thrilled to read story this especially since so many of you are convinced he is our guy.

www.alternet.org/election08/78161

Definitely a huge improvement over Sean Austin and Fran Drescher.

Chris you did very nice job on Larry king tonight, congrats

Obviously, this is something that really can't go for more weeks and months. Some of you may be interested in the petition asking Senator Clinton to drop out for the larger good.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/clintonwithdrawnow/

I do not know what Clinton buzz among hispanics you are discussing. I have heard several reports of children's birthday parties in Texas using the effigy of Hillary Clinton as pinatas. That does not bode well for your candidate. Maybe the buzz you are hearing is the killer bees, hmmmm?

Anyways, The Truth is referring to polling from early voters - obviously it is a felony to access the ballots before election day, and your accusing me of a crime is in line with the typical Clinton campaign dissembling. As a 30 year vet you should know that there is a lag in polling numbers, as even a veteran of 30 DAYS would know. How many double-digit Clinton poll margins have we seen turned into Obama victories?

The Truth stands by her prediction - an almost 60% thrashing of Hillary by Obama. Much talk has been made of TX as Hill's Alamo, and we know what happened to the defenders of the fort. The Clinton campaign is comprised of a few zealot dead-enders.

It's astounding to me that in all of these stories on the Clinton spin of March 4, it seems the MSM has amnesia. Am I the only one to remember the Clinton rationale for their tub-thumping losses of 11 straight nominating contests in February? Mrs. Clinton, remember, was looking forward to March 4 and investing her time and resources there. Presumably those investments should have borne fruit -- like leading the contests by margins approaching those of Sen. Obama (33% average) as opposed to being in dead heats in Ohio and trailing slightly in Texas. People, these are states Mrs. Clinton has had double-digit leads in for months. Harold Ickes and Maggie Williams have clearly been a boon (oh, maybe I'm prohibited from using that word) to the Clinton campaign as the only message I'm seeing on MSNBC and CNN is a constant replaying of the 3 am ad and how Obama's got to win them all. Amazing ... Mrs. Clinton says it and it therefore must be true -- sound familiar? Obama's team needs to keep focused; Yes We Can!

"thurston said we should have a revote in Fla and Michigan and not simply walk away from millions of voters, one state which decided to select W. I have not heard one good argument against that other than it might not help B.O. with his delegate count."

They should do that, it's what Obama's been calling for for months. The Clinton folks seem to be the only one opposed (they say it would be disenfranchising since they already made their choice abundantly clear, and since they know that a party-run primary might end up working more like a caucus, which would put her at another disadvantage).

actually Early Votes in Texas, which ended last night, are not even allowed to be tabulated until after the polls close on tuesday. So to say that you know what those vote totals are is a bald faced lie and nothing else and my guess is that you probably even know that.

"The Truth's sources on the ground in TX reveal that Obama is outpacing Hill 3 to 2 in the early returns, with much of his support coming from crossover Republicans. He is also outperforming Hill with the Hispanic vote. Stay tuned, early signs are that Obama will get close to 60% of the Lone Star vote. TX will be the knockout blow we've been waiting for."

The Truth, sounds like you feel that you are getting your info from god himself, but in reality you know zero about what is happening here in Texas, zero.

Obama leads with Hispanics, what bs. A Hispanic survey came out here in Texas last week and said Hillary leads the Tx Hispanic vote by 42%. I have worked Tx politics for 30 years and know that a lead by Hispanics doesn't necessarily equal turnout but you come here and just lie when you say BO leads in tx with Hispanics. I have been in 2 large hispanic neighborhoods here in Houston and there is nothing but buzz for Hillary.

And your Prediction that B.O. is winning 60% of the Tx vote is more bs. Every Tx poll has either B.O. or Hillary up by no more than 3-5% points or in a statistical dead heat.

Some other B.O. posted that she must win both states by at least 15%. Who makes you supporters the referees. It would be like my saying if B.O. can't win Ca by x % he should lose. Why don't you B.O. folks cool your jets and stop measuring for curtains. Hillary will likely win Ohio b/c of the Ted Strickland Tubbs and Sherrod Brown operation and nHillary actually has a pretty good ground team here in Texas. You might be surprised by the results.

thurston said we should have a revote in Fla and Michigan and not simply walk away from millions of voters, one state which decided to select W. I have not heard one good argument against that other than it might not help B.O. with his delegate count. And why should voters in Fla or Michigan care?

Incidentally Truth's statement that B.O. leads in Tx early returns is total b.s. I live in Texas and follow all of our local political news. Absolutely no one including our local Republican Cty Tax Assesror who runs our elections knows that and it would probaably a criminal offense if he should leak that information, so if Truth says he knows something here our election officials don't know, he is not just spinning, he is telling an absolute lie. Do you honestly think we are all that stupid or that your dissembling is somehelping your candidate?

And, one more time, saying she's more likely to carry those states in the general because she won those primaries is total BS.

Virtual Tie????

Obama - 1194 pledged delegates (53.5%)
Clinton - 1037 pledged delegates (46.5%)

Obama - 26 states won
Clinton 13 states won (11 not counting FL and MI)

Obama has won more pledged delegates on every day of voting in this cycle. Even if youthrow in Clinton wins in Florida and Michigan, Obama still has a substantial lead. This is not a virtual tie or even close.

The will of the Democratic electorate should decide this, if it doesn't, we stand for absolutely nothing except triangulation, manipulation and calculation. I've sat by too long and worked too hard to fget a democratic congress elected only to see nothing happen except for them to become Bush's lapdogs, I'm not compromising my principles for the party a single time more. The voters are speaking, the party leaders better listen.

Sorry, that didn't post right. What I tried to post was:
I don't see how I fit in the "die-hard" category. I was just trying to suggest a logical way to choose a Democratic
candidate between these two who are in a virtual tie, and neither of whom will have the needed majority of delegates from the primaries and caucuses by the time of the convention.
Considering the General Election and the Battleground Swing States seems a logical means to evaluate this. It's certainly something a Super Delegate would think about.
However, the explosive "kreuz_missile" is, in contrast, ready to leave the Democratic Party if he/she doesn't get his/her way. Now THAT strikes me as falling into the die-hard category.

The Truth's sources on the ground in TX reveal that Obama is outpacing Hill 3 to 2 in the early returns, with much of his support coming from crossover Republicans. He is also outperforming Hill with the Hispanic vote. Stay tuned, early signs are that Obama will get close to 60% of the Lone Star vote. TX will be the knockout blow we've been waiting for.

candidate between these two who are in a virtual tie, and neither of whom will have the needed majority of delegates from the primaries and caucuses by the time of the convention. Considering the General Election and the Battleground Swing States seems a logical means to evaluate this. It's certainly something a Super Delegate would think about.
However, the raging "kreuz_missile" is, in contrast, ready to leave the Democratic Party if he/she doesn't get his/her way. Now THAT strikes me as falling into the die-hard category.

The rage is understandable, esp for female supporters of Hillary, who see the Presidency slipping from their hands...a real missed opportunity for women.

Unfortunately, they will blame Obama, his supporters, the media, and anti-feminism rather than Hillary herself for underestimating
Barack, not planning past Feb 5 and hiring an incompetent campaign manager.

Barack has run a brilliant campaign, has taken advantage of a sympathetic press, and has the ultimate trump card: spoke out against giving Bush a blank check for waging war.

If Hillary had voted against that with the other 23 Dem Senators, she'd be the nominee by now.

Anyone else notice how the die-hard Clintonistas (thurston et al.) are beginning to sound a lot like the Iraqi Information Minister who informed a laughing press corps that the Americans had been "crushed" miles from Baghdad, while American troops milled around behind him, waving to the cameras?

Not sure why anyone pays attention to the McCain match up polls.

That's like paying attention to the Obama/Hillary polls last December.

Campaigning is everything....as well as those unexpected moments that often sway voters where they thought they'd never go.

Can't wait for Obama/McCain debates!
McCain can be quite effective.

Not to mention the faulty Penn logic of a particular county being the deciding factor for the nation as a whole, or one particular state determining the election

I'm sick and tired of the 50+1 mentality that Clinton and Bush represent. If she pulls out a narrow victory by solely focusing on Ohio as a swing state, we all lose because she will have zero mandate to accomplish anything, especially a mandated universal healthcare system that will be derided from day 1 as Hillarycare II and socialism. The agenda will be dead on arrival, and 47 million Americans will still be without healthcare. Her plans are worthless if she lacks the ability to implement it. Obama by following the 50 state strategy, expanding the base of the party, making congressional races competitive in the deep south and mountain west will allow that to happen. That's what this election needs to be about, not just winning in November, but actually being able to get to work for the American people once elected. Hillary has already shown her contempt for the people (except in the few states supporting her in the primaries), so how can she be expected to lead them from day 1?

One happy fact about Obama as the nominee is that he has already set up a grassroots organization in all 50 states. Hillary has a few in only the most populous.

This morning's Houston Chronicle announced that Hillary Clinton runs ahead of B.O. in a matchup against John McCain 47% to Clinton and 44% for McCain in Harris County Texas, which includes Houston Texas, America's 4th largest city and that B.O. in that same Harris County matchup would only best McCain 45% to 44%. That is important to Texas voters deciding this weekend which candidate here is more electable.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2008 09:47 AM

******************************************************************************************************

Should we assume from this that the poll is 100% accurate and there is no margin of error? This would be a first for any poll...

This sounds more like grasping at straws by some Clinton supporter...If you figure in the margin for error usually plus or minus 3 to 5%, all this means is that the presidental race is a dead heat among all three candidates for Harris County residents.

Fact is, either Dem candidate will win this November. Their respective pos/negs give them equal chances.

Arguing that either Hill or Bama are better for November has little significant evidence to back up either claim.

The idea is who the people of the Democratic Party want as their nominee. Clinton chose to ignore 75% of the country, that alone tells me she'd be a crappy President, the fact that she'd then deride each of those states and those Democratic voters as essentially worthless, as you continue to do here, only makes matters worse. Obama is up by 160 pledged delegates, those votes matter. I've been at this quite a while, thank you very much, and have a great deal of experience within the party, so stop your petty holier than thou I know better than you so just trust me on this issue, you're sounding too much like a Hillary superdelegate. We've had elections, and it is now almost mathematically impossible for Hillary to win, and unless she wins BIG on Tuesday, it will be impossible. If the party doesn't abide by the results of those elections, especially after spending the first four years of Bush's term whining about Bush stealing the election, I'm done.

Gee, kreuz_missile, what a quitter. No need to implode. I can see that you haven't been at this politics thing too long. It's going to be a long year, so please chill out.
As to Missouri and the others you mention, they are small change compared to the Big Four (Missouri is only 11 delegates vs. 27 for Florida). Wisconsin and Iowa are even smaller. And by the way, the general election will not be a caucus, it will be general election vote, so i think we must discount the caucus results vs. states where primaries were held. Primaries are a much better indication as to what will happen in the general election, which is what we should be taking about.
And that is my real point: we should be looking to who will do best in the general election. They are both very good candidates, but the idea here is to win in November!
As to Florida, I think people there are unhappy because their votes are not being counted in the process, and they are (in my opinion) among the most important states to win in November. Same for Michigan. Let's do them again and see: I don't think it will change a thing.

Thurston says: "The same rules applied to both candidates".....and I agree..........
Both candidates agreed to abide the decision when the DNC invalidated the delegates from the early primary states Obama was not even on the ballot in Michigan.

How can you possibly say that HRC won fair and square?

That said, I will vote D regardless of the outcome, there is just way too much at stake for the future of of this nation, John McCain of all is most mercurial and he is the last one I wish to see in a "red telephone" or any other crisis.

Never mind the differences on taxes, the war, immigration, HEALTH INSURANCE and the entire raft of other meaningful policy issues.

Obama is right about one thing, at least, this is certainly a silly season. If Obama and Hillary want to duke it out, I say that's fine, lettem, and may the best one win. The phony charges of plagiarism, turbans, red telephones and all of the other nonsense that both---all---candidates so relentlessly pursue is wearisome. I am not looking forward to the tenor that I suspect will attend the general election.

"So, I still think it is a strong argument that, if someone wins all of the "Big Four" battleground states (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania), then they are the most electable in the general election, and should be the party's nominee."

For one thing, the idea that she won the democratic primary (largely, as she points out, by winning over more Democratic voters) that she is more electable in the state is just plain BS, just as for Obama to make an argument that he would be more electable if he won Texas would be.

The fact is she did NOT win Michigan fair and square, as you said the rules do apply to both no one campaigns and the results do not count. No one organized there, no one put together a GOTV effort, no one made specific appeals to those states, and thus they are out (a recent poll even showed only 24% of Florida Democratic voters wanted the results to stand!).

But, you want to talk swing states? What about Missouri? What about Wisconsin? What about Iowa? What about Colorado? Your whole argument for Hillary is a pathetic load of garbage that makes no logical sense ad completely ignores the democratic process and everything valued by the Democratic Party. I think everyone here has a good trackrecord of seeing me as a consistent hardcore Dem, but I will most certainly resign from the party if the superdelegates overrule the people of the party and nominate Hillary, and I'm sure I'm not alone.

"Senator Clinton won Florida and Michigan fair and square."
================

Nonsense.

Senator Clinton won Florida and Michigan fair and square. The same rules applied to both candidates, so they definitely should count. Indeed, those delegates should be hers in the delegate counts, so that is an unfair thing that people who want fairness should agree on.
In these four battleground states, I think Senator Obama's supporters will come out for Senator Clinton in the general election (though in fewer numbers), but many more of Senator Clinton's supporters (who are more middle of the road) will switch to Sen. McCain in the general election rather than vote for Sen. Obama, and the Dems lose the big four swing states if he gets the nomination.
The best solution for the Dems is Senator Clinton for Pres. (bringing in the swing voters) and Obama for VP (bringing in the new young and urban voters). In 8 years, Obama runs for President, and everyone wins.

Well, the good thing about Hillary staying in the race is that donut shops and delis are making lots of money.

Good for the short term economy.

I expect the loser to do the right thing on March 5th. No more "firewalls," no more excuses, no more tortured rationales! No more "preemptive nuclear strike" ads, Hillary, PLEASE!

It's an argument, but not a very strong one if the voting is close. Exit polls reveal that 75-85% of all Dem voters will vote for whomever is the Dem nominee.

If Hillary tries to argue that she should be the nominee because she won the popular vote by a slim margin in 2 of 4 swing states (Mi and FL do not enter the argument since there was no campaigning in either), while Obama has more popular votes and delegate votes overall, the argument is extremely weak if barely supportable.

Just not going to work unless she wins Ohio, Texas and Penn by wide and convincing margins. imo.

Sorry, "kreuz_missile", but the fact is that these are called the "Swing States" for a reason. Most states are either solidly Red or Blue, so these few states will surely decide the winner in the general election.
So, I still think it is a strong argument that, if someone wins all of the "Big Four" battleground states (Michigan, Ohio, Florida, and Pennsylvania), then they are the most electable in the general election, and should be the party's nominee.

Some comic relief for the week:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7bzdj9RlG4

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zilnml5rm0Y

Man, there's some awesome logic. Let's forget the entire country, four states will decide everything. How about this November, we only vote in those four states and just forget the rest of the country? If the superdelegates fall for such a stupid, illogical, undemocratic, outrageous position, I seriously hope all pledged Obama delegates walk out of the convention in the middle of her acceptance speech. The Democratic Party would be effectively dead even before it began anyways.

OK, mark_in_austin, I looked at the lists of Swing States in 2000 and 2004, and you are right! Texas is not one of them. So, scratch that from the must-win states.
So, if Senator Clinton carries Ohio and Pennsylvania, then she will have won ALL of the four largest swing states (in terms of delegates) in the last two elections: Michigan, Florida, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. Carry those four, and you've got the general election won, and that's what this is all about, isn't it?
So far Senator Clinton is 2-0 in those largest Battleground States. Let us see what happens in Pennsylvania and Ohio. The best Senator Obama can hope for is a tie.
If Senator Clinton takes all four of the largest Swing States, then she should definitely be the party's choice.

Is Howard Dean and the party ready to walk away from millions of voters in Pa, Florida and Michigan? For the good of the party I certainly hope that because one blogger is exhausted that we don't disenfranchise millions of voters. Did that in 2000 in Florida and that didn't work out too well.

Posted by: leichtman | March 1, 2008 10:06 AM

Millions of voters in Florida were not disenfranchised in 2000. An analysis of the disputed ballots was conducted by the Miami Herald and the NYT - it concluded that Bush would still have won in a recount. The irony is that more voters wanted to vote for Gore but thousands of ballots in Palm Beach county were erroneously marked for two candidates or for Pat Buchanon due to the confusing butterfly ballot - which was designed by a Democrat.

As for disenfranchising primary voters, EVERY primary season has seen millions disenfranchised by that standard as the nomination has pretty well been sewed up by Super Tuesday. If Clinton wins by a combination of super-delegates and seating of Florida and Michigan, it will hopelessly split the party and render the nomination worthless.

claudialong - I'm in the same boat. I remember watching McCain on the History Channel many years ago and thinking, "This looks like a nice, intelligent guy." When I found out, that he was running for Pres. the first time, I was supportive... but as I've learned more and more about him (especially this past year or so), I no longer believe that guy exists. And we certainly don't need someone, who seems far too willing to embrace old wars and new ones.

I'm an Independent voting for Obama (and not Hillary, because of things I already knew about her. She, after all, the Senator from my state --- at least, in theory.)

from Eleanor Clift's 2/29 column:

A visitor from another country recently paid a call on the Clinton campaign headquarters in Ballston, Va., a place just over the bridge from Washington but light years away. He imagined he would be present at a moment of great triumph. Instead he found a campaign on the verge of imploding. Phone bank tables were unmanned. Bins full of mail sent over from the Senate sat unattended. A lot of young women, fanatical Hillary fans all, rushed about, seemingly unclear about what they were supposed to be doing. Other aides sat in front of computer screens, gloomily reading coverage of the campaign. Howard Wolfson and Phil Singer, the campaign's communications team, weren't speaking with anybody else, just doing their own thing, whatever that might have been. In short, it was not a happy family.

I was a McCain supporter as well. Till he turned right and embraced Bush. Not a maverick after all.

I assumed Hillary was on her way to the WH until Iowa.

Since then, Barack's brilliant grassroots campaign has convinced me he'll bring the same deft competence, intelligence and unflappability to the White House.

I just no longer know who Hillary is.
Her almost schizophrenic behavior has undermined my trust. I wish she had the internal confidence and solidity of Thatcher or Kiki McLean...THAT I could put my trust in. Too many cooks in her kitchen for me. It's sad. Would've been a great achievement for women.

The Houston CBS Channel 11 station on Wednesday interviewed Republicans saying they would be crossing over for B.O. who to a person told the interviewer that there was absolutely no way in the world they would vote for him in November. I see it as Republican mischief to mess with our primary. Personally I am more interested in the Democratic vote which strongly favors Hillary then some smug Republicans who want to meddle with our process.They seem to be taking great pride with this manipulation something as a Democrat I wouldn't be bragging about.

Mark, I told you initially I could have supported McCain. The old McCain, that is. I started doing research on him -- you know I am thorough. What I found was not only disillusoning, but frightening.

You also know I initially supported Hilary. I switched to Obama because I found her in judgement in the people she surround herself with to be sadly lacking. And that tells you everything about how a presidency will be run. Whom does your candidate trust and want the support it?

And I find McCain lacking in judgement even more so than Hillary.

'drindl, McC did say he does not agree with Rev. H. - is the new standard that he must refuse his support? I think he should refuse
it, but if he does not that will not make me think McC is guided by the Rapture.'

what do you mean by the 'new standard'? he actively courted the support of an individual who has been spouting this hate campaign against the entire Catholic Church -- not to mention women, gays and blacks -- for years. Why? Of course he sould denounce him and walk away.

Look how the entire press corps mobilized to force Obama not only to denounce, but condemn Farrakah. This guy is just as bad, if not worse. Frrahan, at least is not trying to bring on the Armageddon.

"Hillary ahead in Ohio with Strickland at her side from 5-11% and will probably be higher with Ted's help, so stop your Obama spinning."

==============

No spin.

It's the latest Reuters/C-SPAN/Zogby Poll

45/45

"In Ohio, Obama continued his march to catch Clinton in the race there, erasing her two-point lead in yesterday's tracking poll. The two are now tied - down to the tenth of a percent. As is the case in Texas, Obama leads in the big Democratic cities - Ohio's Cleveland and Columbus, now the biggest city in Ohio where thousands of unionized state government employees live. Clinton's strength remains in the more rural areas, and among Catholics, an important demographic group in Ohio.

Pundits who think Obama will have a hard time in the Fall against McCain are as clueless about the perilous state of our economy as George Bush and John McCain.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/03/01/swimming-naked-when-the-tide-goes-out/

"wpost, one for you and I am gone. This op-ed in the DaMN is froma lifelong fiscal conservative R who publishes a Dallas magazine."

================

Thanks. What an unexpected switch!

"wpost, was my idiom so colorful that it overpowered the irony of the juxtaposition?"
-------------

LOL> No irony definitely remained savory.

wpost, one for you and I am gone. This op-ed in the DaMN is froma lifelong fiscal conservative R who publishes a Dallas magazine.

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/dn/opinion/viewpoints/stories/DN-allison_23edi.ART.State.Edition1.45e0862.html

I have spoken with a lot of my undecided Houston clients on my rolodex who I have been calling and they are telling me they are now leaning towards Hillary, about 100 to date so I wouldn't trust the cheerleaders in the press. Hillary ahead in Ohio with Strickland at her side from 5-11% and will probably be higher with Ted's help, so stop your Obama spinning.

wpost, was my idiom so colorful that it overpowered the irony of the juxtaposition?

drindl, McC did say he does not agree with Rev. H. - is the new standard that he must refuse his support? I think he should refuse
it, but if he does not that will not make me think McC is guided by the Rapture.

leichtman, Hook 'em and leichten up!

""We've had a lot of Republicans switching over to Democrat," Ms. Denton said."
===============

Which means?

I've heard of Repubs switching to vote for Hillary because of Rush and Repubs switchng over to vote for Obama to stop