dnveqki tlyoqg
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/lexapro-bipolar-disorder.html lexapro bipolar disorder

euyckq kzjd pegmt
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/paxil-overnight-shipping.html paxil overnight shipping

cdwz rkpisla
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-efedra.html effexor efedra

dqtk mnihv sgpv
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-depression-drug.html effexor depression drug

dqtk mnihv sgpv
http://ratetiti.fcpages.com/effexor-depression-drug.html effexor depression drug

gjcpi tiuog
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/buy-paxil-medication-35385-buy.html buy paxil medication 35385 buy

mcusor wkgfbu
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-bupropion-texas.html wellbutrin sr bupropion texas

mcusor wkgfbu
http://thebunio1.exactpages.com/wellbutrin-sr-bupropion-texas.html wellbutrin sr bupropion texas

bapimx
http://doaingemanci.100freemb.com/drug-addiction-treatment.html drug addiction treatment

livec flokw
http://doaingemanci.100freemb.com/copper-cause-hair-loss.html copper cause hair loss

gizxa
http://fendergu1.lookseekpages.com/kamagra-sildenafil-citrate.html kamagra sildenafil citrate

ranyk yjdm brzd zldhv
http://coeeeebridk.250m.com/lexapro-manufacturer.html lexapro manufacturer

ranyk yjdm brzd zldhv
http://coeeeebridk.250m.com/lexapro-manufacturer.html lexapro manufacturer

knios
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/pravachol-actos-plavix-ritalin-seroquel.html pravachol actos plavix ritalin seroquel

knios
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/pravachol-actos-plavix-ritalin-seroquel.html pravachol actos plavix ritalin seroquel

yxqkpr
http://youngercam.00freehost.com/lexapro-and-jaw-tightening.html lexapro and jaw tightening

ucamfn tkey tgysjap cnrw
http://armsasdrcd.1freewebspace.com/negative-side-effects-of-lexapro.html negative side effects of lexapro

prgb cdsgeor fgvkl
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4726 cheap generic propecia

rexdc nvujqrt
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4599 ultram ingredient

rexdc nvujqrt
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4599 ultram ingredient

iojuvf dglzyx
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4487 symptom ultram withdrawal

qtfoy vshd rulg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4495 online drug store ultram

qtfoy vshd rulg
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4495 online drug store ultram

isufl agynxtw vupx eivrglw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

isufl agynxtw vupx eivrglw
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4571 ultram overdose

frizyqc ngweuq
http://www.yourhealthforum.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=4530 buy dir ultram

jzvo ufdb cfkvpi myqvzgt gctsi zulpgns cbuwfizvt http://www.qsankyi.qjwprovzt.com

irjdmfug hkmzqljvs wshikurae zyxdq buhgi efrvmotda nxtyjudr

vammap, your latest responses don't require rebuttal, as they make my point for me. Thanks for the delightful conversation.

('simon-says' - how very clever of you. first time I've heard that one. Are you going to pull out 'simple simon' next?)

BTW, I'm not a guy.

And here's the difference SIMON-SAYS, it may be 15,2% but that 15.2% makes up the second largest group in the state.

BSIMON

As usual your info is out-dated, skewed; you can't come up with one bone-a-fide resource or fact, so since your tendency is to pick..over bones...

Here I'm throwing you one now....chew this awhile; I'm off to work.

"A look at the state's changing demographics offers some clues as to how Illinois lawmakers may handle public policy choices in the future, according to researchers at the University of Illinois.

While the overall population grew moderately between 1990 and 2003, increasing from 11.4 million to 12.7 million residents, major changes have taken placed in the state's ethnic and racial composition. Both the number of Hispanic (non-black) and Asian residents doubled, while the number of non-Hispanic whites decreased by 1.6 percent. The black population increased by 13 percent.

As a result, the percentage of white residents dropped from 75 percent in 1990 to 66 percent in 2003.

While blacks still constitute the state's second largest group at 15.2 percent (up from 14.9 percent in 1990),

"These demographic shifts are likely to have an impact on future policymaking on several issues, according to "The State of the State of Illinois," a report issued by the Institute of Government and Public Affairs."

CHEW!

We could only hope that Obama would be more like JFK since JFK was more of a conservative democrat that a flaming liberal like Obama.

Guys! guys! Get a room, ok?

vammap, I hate to pick on the new guy, but you're not making any sense. I said Obama WILL win IL in the general.

You said "If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period," which certainly sounds like you're saying he couldn't win the general. Importantly, you're not even correct about the IL population. It doesn't have a 'large black populace.' Blacks make up 15% of the IL population, according to the 2000 census. I'm left to conclude that you're either making data up to fit your needs, or are woefully misinformed by someone else.

OK...YOU started it with the bad song/slogan lyrics regarding Presidents, so I'm gonna' give you the campaign slogan I wrote for JFK way back in 1960:

Nix on Nixon!
Rah for Jack!
This is the cheer
That I will back.

In November
You will see
It's Nix on Nixon!
Jack's for me.

(Now, I go to work on Clinton and Obama)

Bsimon,

I did not imply he would lose Illinois in a General Election. You are misconstruing what I said, which is that of course he would win his home state, but it does not necessarily mean that he would win a General Election.

You're saying that Sen Obama might lose Illinois in the general election, if he were running for President.

That's not what I said; my statement and your parsing of it are are entirely different.

Waste of time trying to make yourself look credible.

bsimon: nice work dealing with the newbie.

Here's the article URL

http://www.alternet.org/election08/76123/?page=2

vammap, I'm not putting words in your mouth. Scroll up, its all right there for you. At 11:53 EST, you wrote "If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period."

Too bad The Fix doesn't allow editing of one's posts, or you could go back and 'correct' the record. Thanks for playing!

bsimon

Don't put words in my mouth to cover your own inaccurracies:

What I said was that a win in red states, not ILL, which is a blue state, is not indicative of outcomes on a national basis.

In other words, he would win Ill, it's his home state, chances of him winning in red states is more unlikely...

Quick look at one Wisconsin voter:

Mike Burlingame, a 48-year-old corrections officer, is a Mike Huckabee supporter who voted for Hillary Clinton at Lincoln Elementary School in Cudahy.

Here's his reasoning: He really doesn't want Barack Obama. He thinks his vote would be wasted on Huckabee, so he's crossing over and voting for Clinton though he plans to vote for McCain in November.

Bottom line: "I want to knock Obama out."

Burlingame said the last Republican he voted for in a presidential race was Ronald Reagan.

Milwaukee Journal.

To Blarg:

It's not over, Alternet, Feb 6, 2008 points out "that Clinton's strength in large states will eclipse any gains made by Obama in 10 smaller states that have contests in the next four weeks. Those 10 states and locales are: Louisiana, Nebraska, Washington, Virgin Islands, Maine, Washington, D.C., Maryland, Virginia, Hawaii and Wisconsin. Most of these states are seen as leaning toward Obama, for various reasons, from the electorate's make-up, to political beliefs to campaign organization and endorsements."

"Political scientists say the Democratic nomination is moving into uncharted territory with few precedents. During the past two decades, the party's nominee was largely chosen by this stage in the nominating process. What is unprecedented is how an ongoing contest will engage voters -- now and into the fall -- and whether a long contest will hurt the nominee as the country moves into the fall election, academics say."

vammap, which fact did I get wrong? I said Obama has won Illinois before. He has. You're right, it wasn't a close race, and the competition was pitiful. Not unlike Sen Clinton's electoral victories, come to think of it. But that's neither here nor there. The point is that you tried to imply that Sen Obama might lose Illinois in the general election, if he were running for President. This is a meritless claim, that you seem to be pulling out of your backside, given IL's Democratic bent. IL went to Kerry, Gore & Bill Clinton (twice). The last time it went Repub was in the 1988 Bush-Dukakis race.

To bsimon said :

Well... He's won it (Illinois) before,"

Get your facts right Simon. Obama ran easily against Alan Keyes, the raving Republican lunatic, that wasn't exactly a contest. It was a give- away.

Skewing makes you appear less than credible.

"Most of Obama's wins were in caucus, red, states that will vote heavily Republican in November; these are states where Republicans and Independents can cross party lines and vote for whoever they want, not a very good indication of what a vote would look like nationally."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html
RCP notes who won each state, and whether it was a closed primary or not.

35 states have voted (including DC, not including MI and FL). 13 of them have been closed primaries. Obama has won 9 of those. The only closed primaries that Clinton has won are New York, Arizona, Oklahoma, and New Mexico by a nose. Even when voters can't cross party lines, Obama wins and Hillary loses.

'Pining for JFK? Well, I've been doing that my entire adult life...No, let's be perfectly honest, he was far from perfect. JFK was a womanizer, he hid his ailments, he was slow to embrace civil rights, he should have stood up to and fired the CIA for that Bay of Pigs fiasco, he should never have commited any troops or advisors to Vietnam (I still believe he had plans to get us out of there completely in his second term - 'could that be the reason he was killed? Maybe...) But he was incredibly inspirational...eloquent and rational...poetic and practical... respected the world over, and he was gone 'way too soon.
I have heard nothing from Obama that makes me think of JFK, although Senator O loves to channel JFK, as well as MLK, and a host of others that he believes will get him elected. Obama doesn't move or inspire me, and I could never vote for him.
"Pining for JFK" certainly doesn't translate to being another lemming under the spell of the Obamamania cult. I see nothing about Senator O that reminds me of the strength and character and vision of President Kennedy.
In fact, I think a quote from a one-time vice-presidential candidate sums it up very nicely, as directed to the enigmatic and undefined Senator O:
"Senator, I knew Jack Kennedy. Jack Kennedy was a friend of mine. An' let me just tell you, Senator -- you're NO Jack Kennedy!"

"If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period."

Well... He's won it before, if I'm not mistaken. Historically, IL has often been a key win for Dem candidates seeking to win the nomination for President. Of course, NY & CA have also been important in that race, which is why the race is still going on.

vammap, suffice it to say, your analysis & comments are pretty one-sided & reflect a limited understand the process. That's ok, of course, but you should perhaps keep an open mind that you might better serve yourself to seek out more sources of information in order to gain a better grasp of how the process works.

"If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period"

But he did win in Illinois by a large margin. And the more voters get to know him, the more he wins in "blue" states.
Hillary is more or less coasting on name recognition and those who really want Bill back.

She has lost 20 point leads (from only a month ago) in every state. This points to a momentum for Obama that will carry him in the blue and red states. And the further McCain nuzzles up to the right, the more independents and left-leaning and moderate Repubs come Obama's way. I think he could very well win some traditionally red states.

14,000 showing up for a Democrat in Boise Idaho is pretty much a miracle politically.

Most of Obama's wins were in caucus, red, states that will vote heavily Republican in November; these are states where Republicans and Independents can cross party lines and vote for whoever they want, not a very good indication of what a vote would look like nationally.

If Obama can't win in his home state of Illinois, with it's large black populace, than he can't win, period.

Characterizing Hillary as losing is not an accurate assessment, the race is too close..She's won big blue states, he's won mostly caucus red states. We have to wait and see how the remaining contests will play out..

"Look at the state of Illinois. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines..."

But of course that is Obama's home state. Much more important is Missouri. I think it accurately reflected (as it has done ever since 1900-with one exception)the final outcome...Barack by a nose.

However, it is worth noting that the one exception was Adlai Stephenson, and in some, but not all ways, they are a rather similar.

Look at the state of Illinois. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines...

If Hillary has so much appeal to the voters, why do they keep voting for Obama? Seems to me that if people loved her as much as that quote says, she wouldn't be losing.

"Look at the state of New York. You have to be able to appeal to lots of different kinds of people. It cuts across racial lines, it cuts across ethnic lines, it cuts across rural and urban lines. She carried every county but two. What that tells me is that all the things that the sophisticates like you and me don't like about her--her coldness, her dowdiness, all these thing about her that seem uncharismatic, as opposed to the dashing Obama or Edwards--that's all stuff people like. We don't get it. They get it. They're the people who are going to be voting. I've seen this disconnect before. In 1998, the chattering classes thought Clinton was toast, but the country was for him."

http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/stumper/archive/2007/11/16/making-the-case-for-hillary-clinton-by-sean-wilentz.aspx

"It further erodes any semblance of a meanginfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL."

I certainly agree that last night's group was certainly representative of nothing in particular. Not a minority in sight. Who was the woman wise-cracker...funny but what's the point? Frum? Propangandist. Ron Reagan?...ballet perspective? And the blonde woman..."monolithic grunt"? was anyone blinded by that brilliance?

The young guy though was the exception...he seemed objective and reasonable.

But, frankly, I thought they made Hillary look good.

That's exactly what he was doing, making Hillary look bad by association (even though he was saying supportive things about her). It's a given..

And why have such a trashy group, why not have the candidates' surrogates representing them?

It further erodes any semblance of a meaningfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL.

Remind, Barack has not won one huge blue state.

That's exactly what he was doing, making Hillary look bad by association.

And why have such a trashy group, why not have the candidates' surrogates representing them?

It further erodes any semblance of a meanginfull exchange, which did not happen last night on CNN's LKL.

Like this exchange...

Remind, Barack has not won one huge blue state.

"The historian has a point. FDR and Bill Clinton, though widely vilified, ran for president a combined six times and never lost. When the voters divided, most went for them."

Rewriting history now?

Clinton won in 1992 with only 43% of the vote...and Ross Perot was the spoiler, taking 19% of the vote from Bush I.

In 1996, he got only 49% of the vote against one of the worst Rep candidates ever, Bob Dole.

As far as vilification, I think there will be plenty for each.

The point Frum was making is that the Republican fear neither Clinton or Obama. They prefer Clinton because they like her close relationship with big business and because she will unite a fractured Republican Party...which fits nicely into their plan to nominate Jeb Bush in 2012, whom the entire Republican party will support.

Obama is a wild card...they HATE that. He could be the best president ever or the worst...no one really knows.

"Frum, Schrum, were they separated at birth?
Both like to talk a lot and they also stink a lot."

LOL.
You certainly know how to lower the bar.
With supporters like you, Hillary doesn't need enemies.

Frum, Schrum, were they separated at birth?

Both like to talk a lot and they also stink a lot.

The 9 million plus Democrats and independents that have already voted for Sen. Obama must have it all wrong.

Repent, REPENT! Saint Hillary shall prevail!, you little people, fly-over raffle.

Shrum rhymes with "has been", "loser" and schmuck.

Is there any actual evidence that the Republicans are scared to run against Hillary? So far your "proof" has consisted of "They act like they want to run against her, and they're sneaky!" Is that all you've got?

On Larry King Live last night Frum made the most salient points against Obama, for Hillary.

Here'a a snipet from an article in the Charlotte post from Sun, Feb 17, 2008, "Saul Wilentz, a Princeton professor and Pulitzer Prize-winning historian who's supporting Clinton, offered this advice to those who fear she's too divisive.

In an interview with Newsweek magazine, he asked, "You know who makes that argument more than anybody else? Republicans. This is a favorite Republican argument. They say, `We want to run against Hillary. She's the polarizing candidate and we're going to take advantage of that. She's going to rile up our base, et cetera, et cetera.' Whenever Republicans tell us who they want us to nominate, we should nominate her. They're scared of her."

The historian has a point. FDR and Bill Clinton, though widely vilified, ran for president a combined six times and never lost. When the voters divided, most went for them.

http://www.charlotte.com/409/story/497314.html

"fpiktor: Don't make the mistake that Repubs are FOR Obama, just the opposite, they are afraid of Hillary and he is only a tool they are using. These SDs are being wooed and I think they will use their judgement as to who is best for the country."

Republicans would much rather have Hillary in the WH than Barack. David Frum has made that very clear. Hillary is friendly to big business and to Israel, both very important to Republicans. They consider her "Romney Light."

Not to mention the fact that they think she will galvanize a fractured Republican party...something many prefer to 4 years of maverick McCain.

Repubs don't like Obama because he's an unknown and Republicans HATE uncertainty. They just wet their pants in the face of the unknown. Which is of course why they tend towards conservative values...stockpiling money and crushing dissent. Security is more important than liberty.

However, as Ben Franklin said,
"They who would give up an essential liberty for temporary security, deserve neither liberty or security."

Pining for JFK has always been a problem in a large part of the Democrat Party. As I've noted on other Blogs, Camelot was created by Jackie Kennedy, shortly after JFK's assassination, and implemented by close JFK aides in an effort to pre-determine his legacy, yes, a fairly tale.

rfpiktor: Don't make the mistake that Repubs are FOR Obama, just the opposite, they are afraid of Hillary and he is only a tool they are using. These SDs are being wooed and I think they will use their judgement as to who is best for the country.

"If Republicans can actually vote against Hillary, which is the case in most caucus states where Obama consistently won, this is not at all an indication of the national vote..."

Not necessarily. McCain has been abandoning his independence and sucking up to the right, actually changing his positions in several key areas. This is losing him the independent support among all party members...voters whom Barack picks up.

Plus, McCain will never win the far right without Huck as VP, which won't happen (and if it does happens, he loses every independent and right-leaning Democrat..and most likely every moderate Republican).

He's damned either way.

Barack wins either way.

If Republicans can actually vote against Hillary, which is the case in most caucus states where Obama consistently won, this is not at all an indication of the national vote...

People, do you get it yet?

lylepink | February 19, 2008 08:17 AM

Obama Republicans?

Music to my ears.

rfpiktor: I lived in Racine for six years 66 to 72 and it was great. My earlier estimate of at least 10% of Repubs voting for Obama is beginning to look like I was a little low and it appears that it is more like 15%, and even higher in some areas. The exit polling should give us some idea, if it is reported accurately, which I somehow doubt.

Talk about demented!!

...all this supposed Republican/ Independent "support" is because they don't want Hillary to win, Obama is a pawn..

Study Ties Political Leanings to Hidden Biases
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/29/AR2006012900642_pf.html

"We have 50 years of evidence that racial prejudice predicts voting. Republicans are supported by whites with prejudice against blacks. If people say, 'This takes me aback,' they are ignoring a huge volume of research."

George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

" study found that supporters of President Bush and other conservatives had stronger self-admitted and implicit biases against blacks than liberals did."

... pretty hard to fathom why old white boys would support Obama..and seeing George Bush's photo ops in Africa, NOW, (interesting timing) is utter hypocrisy...

Lyle, if it is of any consolation to you, Hillary will prevail.

Any other scenario will be the little people's doing and will have nothing to do with brainy prognostications and feelings of any sort.

THE MACHINE WILL RULE! Or not.

"Today, Wisconsin should show Obama winning by about 8 to 10% and anything less would be a victory for Hillary, since it has same day registration and anyone can choose a Repub or Dem ballot."

Any win by Barack in Wisconsin is huge...Even a 50/50 split is big for Barack. This is demographically her state. If she can't win here, it spells big trouble in Texas and Pennsylvania.

novamatt | February 19, 2008 07:25 AM

Do not worry, the little people, the fly-over little people are watching.

Roger Simon over at Politico is reporting that the Clintonistas will be going after Obama's pledged delegates now. Utter, utter shamelessness.

If Hillary is the party's nominee via some back-room putsch this summer, it's time to blow up the Democratic Party and start something fresh. And we can kick that off by not voting at all for anyone in November.

Kennedy endorsement business: it takes a lot of bravado to campaign for change when the Kennedy reputation lives on.. destroying Ted's attempt to recapture the "fairy tale" in his 1980 run for the Presidency..

He couldn't fulfill what must be a family quest to return the "name" to the oval office.

Evidently he doesn't want to see his dream absconded by the Clintons..

The irony is stunning..

lylepink | February 19, 2008 07:15 AM

Two words: February five.

cam8: No. Hillary should continue on her way and try and think of some way to overcome The Media and Repubs support of Obama in their effort to stop her. I was accurate in that most folks did not even realize just how strong this is, by under estimating how powerful this all out effort to stop her really was. I hear and see nothing reported about this and can only assume that is also part of the plan to keep folks from finding out what is actually going on. Today, Wisconsin should show Obama winning by about 8 to 10% and anything less would be a victory for Hillary, since it has same day registration and anyone can choose a Repub or Dem ballot.

Calling an upset for Hillary today in Wisconsin.
Sub-zero weather....whose vote will that suppress?
The Stepford speech bite will hurt just enough to tip the balance, plus Michelle's "proud of America" sound bite. Barack is in trouble.
Hillary posed for winning the nomination.
Barack/Bloomberg third party a definite possibility.
Hillary ultimately prevails. Will exceed expectations.

More than a feeling?

May the best candidate win!

Posted by: rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 06:21 AM

Another off-the-wall response. These aren't my numbers, it's not my spin, it's from a national poll! Hello, earth to rfpiktor...are you there?

Obama had a huge lead in Wisc and now the campaign is stepping back from what could be a more competitive race..

people

vammap | February 19, 2008 06:11 AM

Your numbers against political reality.

The little people will make themselves heard today in Wisconsin and Hawaii.

Go tell the little peoople numerology tall stories.

Eight wins in a row and counting.

Response to rfpiktor | February 19, 2008 05:44 AM

This is exactly the type of insubstantial and idiotic spinning I'm talking about:

Pollster.com rates the American Research Group Polls at the bottom of the pack..in other words...they're highly unreliable.

http://www.pollster.com/blogs/poll_of_pollsters_rating_the_i.php

The Washington Post Poll, which is ranked 2nd, shows Obama and Hillary running roughly even (today) nationally...

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/politics/polls/

You know what they say about fairy tales...
happy endings, we all live forever...oh and did I mention...unreliable

Will Texas look like this? My guess is YES, but that is only my humble opinion.

http://www.pollster.com/08-WI-Dem-Pres-Primary.php

Good morning, Mrs. Billary, thought you'd wake up to this:

Texas poll- Clinton 42%, Obama 48% done on Feb.13

http://americanresearchgroup.com/pres08/txdem8-702.html

Did anyone watch Larry King Live last night, or Anderson Cooper, or Blitzer?
Well,seems CNN has gone the radio talk show route, the days of prognosticators arguing policy are gone; there is no equity, no fair representation of the candidates' positions, CNN might as well be classified as comedy, rather than news..is this a Rubert Murdoch thing?

From www.newstreamz.com

Sen. Edward M. Kennedy will visit San Marcos on his swing through Texas this week to rally young voters for presidential candidate Barack Obama, a paid coordinator for the campaign told volunteers at an organizational meeting this evening. The announcement was made during a training session attended by about 80 local campaign workers at the Dunbar Center, several people who attended said.

http://newstreamz.com/news/texas-state-university

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.
----------------------------------
Such nonsense. He's nowhere close to achieving this let alone faced the difficult decisions the next president will have to make with regard to Iraq (his campaign promises will be severely tested here I suspect), entitlements, AMT (he is utterly silent on this politically and fiscally difficult topic), immigration and a number of other areas.

It's difficult to take these pronouncements seriously.

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.
----------------------------------
Such nonsense. He's nowhere close to achieving this let alone faced the difficult decisions the next president will have to make with regard to Iraq (his campaign promises will be severely tested here I suspect), entitlements, AMT (he is utterly silent on this politically and fiscally difficult topic), immigration and a number of other areas.

It's difficult to take these pronouncements seriously.

I don't give a damn about Obama and the money. Ask John about that million dollar loan.
John McCain is a politician and will toe the party line when he has to do so. Yeah he is a hero, but I don't want him as President.
Hillary is a liability downticket. Is there any wonder why Chet Edwards went with Obama today? Democrat in the reddest district in America, hmmm.
If you want to find some substance about Obama it is there. Who the hell wants to read a thirteen page report on the economy? Damn, there is a reason they call it the dismal science. Does anyone remember Ross Perot and his stupid charts? I swear, do you really want to hear a speech about flowcharts? I have slept through enough of those, thanks. If I want to know where a candidate stands on an issue or how they tend to vote I can find it without being put to sleep.

Obama takes Wisconsin and Texas, a split in Ohio.

Chris -
You, like most pundits, leave out the significant distinguishing factor between JFK and Obama. Kennedy served in a position of leadership in WWII. That fact alone puts his experience head and shoulders above Obama's. It is alarming to see how uncritically the media boost someone with so little background in confronting the challenges of our times.

All this Obama thing is a good plan to keep the Republicans in the White House.

Obama has no slight chance in the general election.

He will make a mockery of himself and the Democratic Party in the general election.

Vote for Obama, this is exactly what corporate media and Republicans want.

Do you think they are willing to let go of the power and its enormous financial benefits easily?

Look in the past, when was the second time they have ever supported a left liberal candidate before?

Once Obama gets the nomination they start a swift boat campaign you haven't seen the like before.

They know, after all the corruption and incompetence that have brought to this country, they have a zero chance in the general election, unless to promote a candidate like Obama.

A candidate who thinks acting like JFK and revibrating the air in his throat like MLK or preparing for speeches for hours is enough to win elections.

Don't be fooled by the polls that Media publishes everyday, trying to convince you that Obama has a better chance in the general election against Mccain. Who has verified those polls?

A very tiny fracion of the Republican-leaning Independents and Republicans (compared to the whole electorate) vote for Obama in primaries exactly for the same reason that Media is giving him a free ride.

They know Clintons are very resilient people, they have defeated them twice already.

Don't be fooled by the slogans like "Obama will bring us together." How in a right mind someone might think an ultra liberal will bring parties together?

Any thing was achieved in this country in the past was for the efforts of the moderate of both parties who were willing to compromise.

Don't lose an election that Republican has already lost.

JFK and "Camelot" made us feel good...that counts for a lot. In life, when one is optimistic, hopeful, expecting positive results, oftentimes they receive them.

As Studs Terkel said in 2004, "Hope has never trickled down. It has always sprung up. That's what Jessie de la Cruz meant when she said, "I feel there's gonna be a change, but we're the ones gonna do it, not the government. With us, there's a saying, 'La esperanza muere ultima. Hope dies last.' You can't lose hope. If you lose hope, you lose everything.""

Obama brings new hope to millions of Americans and especially to young people, who will decide this next election.

The old way, the scandals, the divisiveness, the "Decider" will be history. This is as Obama states, a decision about the past versus the future; it is our time. It will take hard work; people working together, to bring real change. This is part of our national character and history...we can do better. Grace under pressure; lifting and leading all people.

Growth is the only sure sign of life, and it is time for our country and our people to grow.

This is the United States of America!

wpost:

"Like sending our kids to their deaths in Iraq so Bush's friends would make more money on oil.

She loses on both counts: what's between those two darling ears and how she used it."

Agree. I wonder if HRC was pained or not with the loss of lives, lives of the poor and of both Americans and Iraqis. An article in The New Yorker reported that she did not really read the documents sent by the White House before her voting. She just took an opportunist position, which is very telling about her integrity, let alone judgment. The same article said that her health care reform version then was of more than 3000 pages, simply too long for anyone to finish. When suggestions of revision and as well as criticism rose, HRC said we would demonize them. This is why we heard "demonizing" time and and again recently. The word became a jab at HRC without mentioning her name. One of the reasons for me to support Obama is that Obama does not have this so-called political establishment. Imagine a lawyer just moves to NY, a state she was never a resident, and says I want to be your senator and she is, and then she says to the country I am so ready to be your president and she is almost there now. I support Obama because Obama processes certain excellence of both character and ability, and because he has showed great concerns with the ordinary, and the less privileged in particular. I read an article in the New Yorker about Obama four years also ago , before he run for the senate. I was very impressed by him then already. I am very glad that he is now running for president.

Both JFK and Reagan were positive, yet realistic - as is Obama.

Clinton, not so much.

I was just looking at the Real Clear Politics site and it shows a CNN poll that has Obama to within 2% of Clinton in Texas. If Obama wins Texas, Clinton is toast.

..the poll shows that the GOP has done a great job of trashing the Clinton record and the Clintons.

Who would follow the endorsement of a Kennedy, in this case Edward..both brothers were womanizers; they get a free pass..we don't hold them accountable?

Americans are dumb!

AdrickHenry - No, you shouldn't. I am a history buff and you need to read a lot of it before you go touting Lincoln as this glorious saint. He wasn't and he and the Radical Republican's did a lot of things that came very close to destroying the American democracy. They were not very nice people. And Reconstruction was nothing more than a vendetta. The underlying reason for the Civil War had very little to do with emancipation and a whole to do with the same Wall Street folk that have brought us so much misery of late. We are simply treading the same ground, over and over, dancing a tune set for us by the wealthy, the investors, and big business. I hope and pray that Barak Obama will help to end this cycle, where this country can realize its potential. Those ignorant of history are doomed to repeat it. Stop believing in the fairy tales you were taught in public schools, go to the library or a good bookstore, buy some decent history books and read!

I love Obama, but I can't resist TWO Clintons. I loved just one.
Srfotog-Oregon

Howard Fineman said something about the Clinton's today on Hardball that was pretty amazing.
http://jtaplin.wordpress.com/2008/02/18/losing-their-embarrassment/

The GOP is fortunate this year to have John McCain as head of their party. They are also fortunate to have a new opposition party - The Un-Democrats. The opposition candidates, Obama and Clinton, are in a bitter fight to lead the un-democratic party.

Just look at the Byzantine, convoluted, tortuous selection process and politics of the DNC. Is it a democracy to have Super Delegates trample over the rights of the elected?

The un-democratic party could be called the autocratic party - because the Super Delegates know best. Some are better than others in an Orwellian point of view. Just for kicks, let's disenfranchise Florida and Michigan - after all - this is the un-democratic party.

The Byzantine Empire collapsed under its own bureaucratic weight of impossible rules and regulations. It appears the same thing is happening to the former Democratic Party of Truman and Kennedy.

Chris:

I saw your appearance on Olberman's show, and find myself compelled to respond to your "talking head" crapola.

You said that democrats see Obama/Clinton as a dream ticket. I have heard that ad nauseam. There is no truth to that bull, and even if it were true, it can't happen.

If you want an African-American/female ticket, get one that can win in red states. Obama and the governor of Kansas.

Blarg, don't be surprised that a few nitwits pine for Nixon: rightist wackos like Ann Coulter flog the idea continously that he was a swell leader. It's a pretty big movement among the real hard cases.

As a thirty-something, my memory of the Kennedy clan are more informed by their scandals and electoral defeats (One of the first Republican votes I cast was for Bob Ehrlich when he trounced the insufferable Kathleen Kennedy-Townsend for Maryland governor back in 2002). Since then I've relocated to the midwest.

As a Republican-leaning Independent today, I can only hope that Obama would govern as conservatively as JFK did (wasn't JFK a tax-cutter and, and manage to redeem a failure at the Bay of Pigs with masterful brinksmanship in the missle crisis?).

The party of JFK is long gone (policy-wise, JFK had more in common with Reagan than Obama). The only similarities between Obama and JFK are in style, not substance.

"Being smart isn't just a matter of what's between your ears, but what you do with it."

Like sending our kids to their deaths in Iraq so Bush's friends would make more money on oil.

She loses on both counts: what's between those two darling ears and how she used it.

None of the empty promises on her website will bring those lives back.

bad Policy. bad President.

Being smart isn't just a matter of what's between your ears, but what you do with it.

We've gone through 7 years of "a uniter, not a divider" "a man of principle" "a Harvard man"

What we've gotten is 7 years of disaster.

He turned out to be an egotistical empty suit.

Part of being smart is being skeptical and verifying that people's plans make sense.

I'd just like to urge voters to look at both web sites.

If you study both of their policy plans, you'll wind up voting for Hillary Clinton.

Presidents make policy.

I still call an upset in Wisconsin (for Hillary) and an upset in Texas and Pennsylvania (for Barack). He'll also I think take the debates....another upset.

Chris,

When is the media going to start actually discussing who might be a good president and stop these Obama campaign commercials?

"Will he be more like Bobby or John Kennedy?"

It is not journalism. Are you going to start reporting about Britney Spears in the Fix as well?

"Here the one-minute video of my opinion on YouTube:"

The Larry Craig clip is fun....and Hillary's "vote with conviction" is excellent.

I support Bama but don't see how we can pull out of Iraq without major problems. Hope Bama's got some good plans...actually, hope he gets Colin Powell in his circle. What a mess George and the Congress got us into.

Anyone who would vote for Hillary over Mr. Obama probably roots for Notre Dame or thinks "The Empire Strikes Back" had a happy ending. What part of 64 ounce can of whoop-ass don't you get?

Here the one-minute video of my opinion on YouTube:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7J3x2Qu7Noc

sch,
My $.02 theory is that FDR isn't higher because he died a natural death in office. It shouldn't matter, but subconsciously it may feel like a "bad risk" of his dying again, unlike those assassinated, whose deaths were caused by murderers who are gone. Does that make sense?

I'd just like to urge voters to look at both web sites.

If you study both of their policy plans,, you'll wind up voting for Hillary Clinton.

Presidents make policy.

the poll was very interesting/revealing.

this line about kennedy & obama jumped out at me, though: ". . . both men had spent a relatively short time in public life before running for national office . . ."

that's perpetuating the myth on BOTH men.

so here are the years in government office (elected or appointed), for the presidents of the last half century, in order of years experience, including the three prominent dem noms this year (counting how long they will be when they take office, just like the previous presidents).

their years in office is listed first.

i relied on wikepedia, with all links from this list of prez: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Presidents_of_the_United_States

27 Johnson (3 VP, 12 US Senate, 12 US House (includes Senate Majority Leader))
26 Ford (1 VP, 25 US House (includes House Minority Leader)

16 Bush Sr (8 VP, 4 US House, 1 CIA director, 3 UN Ambassador)

14 Nixon (8 VP, 2 US Senate, 4 US House)
14 Bill Clinton (12 Gov of Arkansas, 1 Attorney General of Arkansas)
14 Kennedy (8 US Senate, 6 US House)

[b]12 Obama (4 US Senate, 8 Illinois Senate)[/b]

8 Reagan (8 Gov of California)
[b]8 Hillary Clinton (8 US Senate)[/b]
8 Carter (4 Gov of Georgia, 4 Georia Senate)

6 Bush Jr (6 Gov of Texas)
[b]6 Edwards (6 US Senate)[/b]

0 Eisenhower (formerly General of the Army)

so kennedy and obama are both near the middle of the pack.

barack is 7th out of these 13. hillary is in a three-way tie for 8th, and Edwards is second from the last. obama will have been in office 50% longer than hillary, and will be just two years shy of the group tied for fourth, clustered in the middle of the pack.

you can argue that hillary is a special case. but take her out of it, and obama will have double the government experience of the other leading Dem, john edwards.

the clinton's tagged obama with this "newness" myth way back, the press repeated it, and now it's taken for granted.

i'm not sure how/when kennedy developed his myth.

"I also see him running his campaign brilliantly against the most formidable political machine in American history."

True enough.

"I supported McCain for a while, but he has flip-flopped on taxes, torture and supreme court. I can't trust him. I don't want his temper near a nuclear button. A hero, but not I think a President."

That seems fair.

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

I appreciate your post.

I'm glad to hear you're maintining professional skepticism (and not swooning.)

I'm going to sign off for the day knowing there is one lukewarm Obama supporter out there (I didn't know they existed).

Peace be with all of you. Even you, angry Blarg.

If only we had time machine usmc. All our problems would be solved if we could just journey 5 or 6 decades in the past, huh?

HAhAHHAHA. Same sh*t differant day. You can't run and hide from your problems forever. Eventually you must face then. In your case taking responsibility means your party irrelevant for a generation. I can't wait to see the great america we build without gop sabotage for profit. It's going to be great.

"wpost4112 -- just curious
Are you a left-leaning democrat, indy, or what?
How do you usually vote?"

Independent. I always try to vote according to conscience and intelligence. Party affiliation means little to me.

I'd say I was a fiscal conservative and social liberal...in other words, I am against a government mortgage bail-out and throwing money at people to "stimulate the economy" but for letting anyone marry whom they damn well want to.

In other words, I'm an American.

http://www.politico.com/cartoon/index.html

For whoever that was last week. "We had to burn the town to save it." :)

I think it was simon. It would be funny if our childrens future was not in jepordy

Blarg,

You made 2 points.

I responded to both of them.

Then you responded to 1.

I assumed you conceded the other.

Your response was to imply I am insane, then jet.

Time well spent, I'd say.

"And I'm not convinced Obama is the Messiah.

But if you are, that's cool man."

I am not convinced Obama is the Messiah. I don't believe in Messiahs. I believe in real people doing real things.

I have my doubts about Bambam. I think he is a little too arrogant at times. A little too lazy. I don't like the way he has treated Hillary...indicates a smallness of character. I wonder if he has the grit to stick to a unpopular decision. Will his prose meet the poetry.

I have my doubts.

But I also have a record of what he has done. And it is impressive. I also see him running his campaign brilliantly against the most formidable political machine in American history. And winning graciously.

I also know a lot about the other candidates and to me they come up even shorter. I supported McCain for a while, but he has flip-flopped on taxes, torture and supreme court. I can't trust him. I don't want his temper near a nuclear button. A hero, but not I think a President.

Hillary. Well, I think she might have the best President the USA ever saw...except she decided to marry Slick Willy and became something other than herself. And now will be whatever is needed to win. I trust her even less than McCain...and I won't even start in on "I had no sexual ralations with that woman" Willy. A President who lies under oath. THE example for lawfulness. Astonishing.

I'm taking who I think is the best of the three. And that's Barack. It's a gamble I'm comfortable with.

Messiah? No.

Not half bad nominee? Sure.

Possibly excellent? Defintely.

Possibly the worst? Maybe.

And we roll the dice.

"So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless."

I didn't say that. I didn't say anything even vaguely close to that. I didn't use the words "hope" or "attack" in any of my posts on this topic. I was talking about a method of increasing the minimum wage.

So here's what I'm going to do: I'm going to leave. Obviously you're having yet another conversation with the caricature of a liberal who lives inside your head; I'm just getting in the way. Bye now.

PS,

I don't want a religious theocracy, or a christian socialist state, or anything like that.

I agree with Mitt Romney - that we each have the freedom to believe what we want to, and not believe what we don't want to.

Last week, the debate got very heated when I suggested that we ought to at least be able to acknowledge the fact that our values are based on Christian morality (NOT, as it were, that we are a "Christian nation", although at one time that's exactly what we claimed to be).

I trust the Super-Delegates....
to hammer out the details at the Democratic convention...
sort out what match-up breaks best for the Democrats winning the White House in November.

If the contestants can't gain a resounding primary mandate from the voters, then we've got OT in Denver with the "Coin-Flip":

- Michigan and Florida elected-delegates are 1st TIE-BREAKER...

- Super-Delegates 2nd ... the elected officials with tons of collective experience... GET TO WEIGH-IN.

Sorry, if a simple plurality that can't win on 1st ballot...
then light-up the cigars and broker us a "Winning Ticket"

"Clinton- Obama '08" or "Obama-Clinton '08"...
either bumper-sticker gets my vote!

(People wanting a brand of ideological perfection can vote for Ron Paul)

wpost4112 -- just curious

Are you a left-leaning democrat, indy, or what?

How do you usually vote?

"So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless."

He has based his campaign on the citizens. WE are the hope he is talking about. US.

Huck is basing his campaign on divine hope...on whatever his notion of God is. That has nothing to do with all Americans.

He wants to conform the Constitution to the Bible. This is not hope, this is religious fascism. It may be "hope" to him, but it may be despair to others. He can practice his brand of relighious hope at home or in his church.

Many more of us are quite happy with a the society and government as described in the Constitution...based on secular laws, and practice our religious beliefs in private.

The pursuit of happiness is our inalienable right. And no one has the right to abridge that right as long as it causes no damage to another's person or property.

It is quite relevant to criticize foisting one person's religious hope on the many, it is without meaning to criticize wanting to awaken hope in every American citizen as they see it for themselves.

"We yearn for leadership, but not a priest or Queen or general. Just a man or woman who is honest, smart, capable, inspiring...a citizen among citizens with a inborn gift for leadership and enough humility to keep him or her in
balance. "

While I can't deny how attractive that sounds,

I also care about issues.

And I'm not convinced Obama is the Messiah.

But if you are, that's cool man.

j.navin, either you're lying, your source is lying, or you misunderstood what you read. I don't know you, so I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

The person who stated she was "proud to be an American" for the first time was NOT Michelle Obama. It was a gal named Monica Morris who posted a "happy birthday" message to Michelle Obama on the positivelybarack.com website Jan. 19th. Her exact words were:

"I would like to share something with you that touch me deep in my soul. On Januay 17th about 6:45am (I remember the date becuase marked it in my calendar and was on my way to work) a feeling came over me. For the first time, I felt proud to be an American..first time..mind you, I am a veteran..a college graduate, and a proud black woman...but never had I ever experience the feeling of feeling proud to be an American...a connection..part of the team..possibilities..that are real possibilities."

Please get your facts straight before you make scandalous accusations.

Thanks.

wpost4112, your intriguing musings about randiness and leadership compel me to offer a possible explanation for Lincoln being an exception. According to his biographers, he concluded from the childhood deaths of all but one of his sons and his wife seeming a bit "touched in the head", that he had before marriage contracted syphilis and passed it to his wife. Reportedly he was consumed with such guilt over this that his wife could do no wrong, and he could have no fun. As you you say, he does seem more spiritual owing to his seriousness, plus he was never able to stop grieving those sons who died. For sure, he was not religious. He never joined a church and only attended upon his wife's request. That his speeches flow with scriptural references and have the cadence of the King James Bible is owed to it being the only book his parents owned from which his kindly stepmother taught him to read and write.

OBAMA AND LARRY SINCLAIR:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fxb9i9IIAsE&feature=related

PT. 1 OF INTERVIEW

Jeff Rense interviews Larry Sinclair about his alleged sexual and drug encounter with then Illinois Sate Senator and now US Senator and Presidential Candidate Barack Obama.

3.00% Annual Increase

1938 $ 0.25 -- the first national minimum wage
1939 $ 0.26
1940 $ 0.27
1941 $ 0.27
1942 $ 0.28
1943 $ 0.29
1944 $ 0.30
1945 $ 0.31
1946 $ 0.32
1947 $ 0.33
1948 $ 0.34
1949 $ 0.35
1950 $ 0.36
1951 $ 0.37
1952 $ 0.38
1953 $ 0.39
1954 $ 0.40
1955 $ 0.41
1956 $ 0.43
1957 $ 0.44
1958 $ 0.45
1959 $ 0.47
1960 $ 0.48
1961 $ 0.49
1962 $ 0.51
1963 $ 0.52
1964 $ 0.54
1965 $ 0.56
1966 $ 0.57
1967 $ 0.59
1968 $ 0.61
1969 $ 0.63
1970 $ 0.64
1971 $ 0.66
1972 $ 0.68
1973 $ 0.70
1974 $ 0.72
1975 $ 0.75
1976 $ 0.77
1977 $ 0.79
1978 $ 0.82
1979 $ 0.84
1980 $ 0.87
1981 $ 0.89
1982 $ 0.92
1983 $ 0.95
1984 $ 0.97
1985 $ 1.00
1986 $ 1.03
1987 $ 1.06
1988 $ 1.10
1989 $ 1.13
1990 $ 1.16
1991 $ 1.20
1992 $ 1.23
1993 $ 1.27
1994 $ 1.31
1995 $ 1.35
1996 $ 1.39
1997 $ 1.43
1998 $ 1.47
1999 $ 1.52
2000 $ 1.56
2001 $ 1.61
2002 $ 1.66
2003 $ 1.71
2004 $ 1.76
2005 $ 1.81
2006 $ 1.87
2007 $ 1.92
2008 $ 1.98
2009 $ 2.04

Sorry, $4 was an estimate. I meant 2.

Mike...
I'll make you a deal. I won't assume either is true for either of us.

With you, I'll stick to the issues.

I don't care who Obama chooses for veep as long as her name is Napolitano, Sibelius or McCaskill

Posted by: krnewman | February 18, 2008 06:04 PM

I think you will be disappointed. I am pretty sure Obama will select someone with heavy duty foreign policy/national security credibility - someone like Joe Biden or Wesley Clark. An interesting dark horse candidate could be Congressman Joe Sestak from Pennsylvania - he is a retired three star admiral and a very promising up and coming Democratic star. He combines outsider newness with heavy national security credentials.

The democratic party is house divided - it looks like the Obama half is winning and these people are NOT gracious winners by any means, so they will kick and scream obscenities at the Clinton half, until the smaller half is disgusted enough to sit out (or for some of them to even switch and vote McCain who is not a bad choice in any case).

The strange thing though is that the winning half are actually the usurpers of the old democrats' legitimate house. The Obama half got the keys by the help of independents, Repug crossovers who may have their own motives, and by winning caucus red states overwhelmingly (with a few blue states thrown in no doubt, thanks to the large African American vote), all aided and abetted by the fawning media, such as Arianna Huffington and Andy Sullivan who were part of the Rethug bunch not so long ago, and also the old style racist and sexist scum such as Colby, Robinson, Frank Rich and Mo Dowd.

Well, they can have the keys to that house, when the Clinton supporters are kicked out or leave of their own volition, the Obama half will find their tent is not big enough to cover the White House.

As an old style liberal (not a watered down progressive - what is wrong with the word liberal?), I would not be unhappy with that outcome.

"I just learned that Michelle Obama said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud to be an american. I'm surprised that the media hasn't picked up on this statement. It is extraordinary and disturbing."

I find it refreshingly honest. It's what I hear every day from the people I meet through work, at weddings, community activities, ball games, etc.

Many Americans are not proud of this country right now. Nor of themselves. Feelings can't be denied.

Barack us helping to change that.

Pride comes from honesty, hard work, fairness, doing the right thing.

We see Enron, Iraq, Monica Lewinsky, New Orleans, Torture, Steroids. We hear Rush, Matthews, FOX, NOW, Rove, Reid.

Dishonesty. Laziness. Greed. Perversion. Incompetence.

We yearn for leadership, but not a priest or Queen or general. Just a man or woman who is honest, smart, capable, inspiring...a citizen among citizens with a inborn gift for leadership and enough humility to keep him or her in
balance.

With kindness in the eyes and steel in the backbone. Whose head and heart are matched.

An example. Because in the end, it is WE who will do all the work. It is after all our country.

So you concede he has based his campaign on hope, and for me to attack hope is relevant, whereas a similar attack on Huckabee would be pointless.

I would like to ask a practical, reasonable question to Hillary Clinton supporters. lylepink, I know that you are likely the biggest HRC supporter on these boards, and so this question is especially for you.

Let's assume that the DNC approves a plan to seat half of the original Florida delegation based on the results of the January 29 primary. Additionally, they also agree to fund a caucus in early April in Michigan to seat half of its delegation, in order to insure that there is a fair representation of the MI electorate at the convention.

Sen. Obama wins WI, HI, and WA tomorrow. He then goes on to win 3 of 4 on March 5th. Let's just say he wins TX, VT, and RI, while Sen. Clinton wins OH.

It is now all but impossible for either candidate to earn a clinching majority of delegates through the primary/caucus system. Trailing in pledged delegates by over 200, wouldn't you say that, after March 5, it would be time for Sen. Clinton to accept an offer to withdraw? Knowing that the Democratic electorate would become alienated by having their will potentially overturned by the superdelegates?

I ask only for your reasoning why she should or should not withdraw.

Thank you.

I have no idea where your $4/hour comes into it, because I don't know what that is. It's certainly not a living wage, or a reasonable minimum wage. Is that just a number that you made up?

Obama says that he will raise the minimum wage and index it to inflation. I don't see anything unclear about that. True, he doesn't give an exact dollar amount that he believes the minimum wage should be. But that's not the president's job. And if he did, you'd be attacking that number, so we'd be having a slight variant of this conversation which would be equally inconclusive.

j.navin -- well said.

wpost4112 --

I'll make you a deal

I won't make any references to you being a civilian,

If you don't make any references to my being a Marine.

"The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. Hoooooweee!

Whether or not this sort of madness occurs, the race for the D nomination becoming uglier with each passing day. Gotta love that. "

I could easily see this happening. I'd sign up instantly. Maybe we will have a revolution after all. Or civil war?

The times they are a changin.

I just learned that Michelle Obama said that this is the first time in her adult life that she is proud to be an american. I'm surprised that the media hasn't picked up on this statement. It is extraordinary and disturbing. There is much to criticize America, but America stands for much that makes me proud, every day. Particularly the brave men and women serving in Iraq at this very moment. The press has not held back in admonishing the former President on the campaign trail - but this one is a whopper, and someone needs to find out what the heck she meant.

Blarg --

To your first point, I do understand the inflation-indexed idea. But is he going to raise it to $10, then index it? Didn't he just vote for the massive raise? Or, does this count? Is he just making up for past failures to index? Once again, where does my $4/hour come into play? Is it a living wage, or a minimum wage, or both?

The point is, it's not clear. It's neither clearly written or articulated.

To your second point -

Mike Huckabee hasn't made a career out of being a "political rockstar". He isn't swooning crowds. He isn't talking in huge platitudes. He isn't relying on vague hopes and dreams for change and a brighter future. He isn't masking anything about himself - his beliefs, opinions, or policies. So, if you were to do the same of him, it would be less relevant (obviously).

And yes, Obama has said something I agree with - cut middle class taxes. Of course, not by nearly enough, and he also proposes punishing the wealthy to "pay for it". So, I guess no.

OK, Semper Fi, fair enough.

What I hear from Barack is "Compromise." Not "give in," not "my way or no way," not "give up." But finding solutions that work...win/win solutions.

It is the essence of political achievement. It is what has been lacking from American life for decades.

It is what he has done throughout his life to great effect...whether on the basketball court, the Harvard Review, the Illinois Senate or the US Senate.

Bush operates from fear and ignorance. The Clintons operate from arrogance and paranoia.

Barack operates from self-respect, intelligence and courage.

It is that which allows him to reawaken hope in America. What we do with that is up to us.

As a marine, I can't understand why you do not understand the importance of leadership, of inspiration, of self-respect, of watching your brother's or sister's back.

That is what Barack calls us to. That is what he has practiced.

That is what he stands for.

I don't care who Obama chooses for veep as long as her name is Napolitano, Sibelius or McCaskill

The Obama campaign is now realizing that Clinton is willing to fight nasty by pushing for Michigan and Florida delegates to be included and by persuading super delegates by all available means. Well, the Obama camp is not sitting idly by and allowing the Clinton's to do what they do best: continue their trail of corruption, and total disregard for rules and guidelines.

The word on the street is that the Obama campaign and New York Mayor Mike Bloomberg have already met and devised an incredible plan if Clinton wins the nominee. Mayor Bloomberg would give nearly $1 billion to Obama's campaign after which Obama would bolt from the Democratic Party and run as an Independent candidate with king-maker Bloomberg as his running mate. Hoooooweee!

Whether or not this sort of madness occurs, the race for the D nomination becoming uglier with each passing day. Gotta love that.

Mike: The Minimum wage is currently only raised by statute. Obama's plan, a common plan among Democrats, is to link it to inflation, so it automatically increases every year. Do you honestly not understand that very simple concept? Or are you feigning ignorance to insult Obama? I'm not sure which reflects worse on you.

Out of curiosity, is there anything that Obama could say which you'd agree with? It's been established that you and he are very different politically. I'm not sure what your point is here. I could go to the Huckabee site and pull up dozens of policy ideas that I disagree with, but it wouldn't say anything about the quality of Huckabee as a candidate. I could also find a bunch of vague feel-good statements on his site and post them here. But I won't, because it's a waste of everyone's time.

Four words: "Independent Ticket: Clinton Bloomberg".

I guess my point is, I've read his website.

I've watched the debates.

I've been paying attention to the news.

(No, I didn't read Audacity of Hope.)

Shouldn't it be easier to figure out what this guy stands for?

Shouldn't it be obvious?

I'll tell you what's obvious:

*Belief

*Hope

*Change

*Future

And 24 states have fallen for this nonsense already.

"OK. So now the executive branch of the Federal Government is going to "invest" in high-speed Internet access for "rural" areas?"

Sounds like a great idea. Internet access means you can do business anywhere. Information access increases. Knowledge increases. More business means LARGER TAX BASE in rural areas. Less federal money needed in the long run.

Looking ahead. That's my man, Obama!

USMC, As much as I find your poetry amusing, I'm gonna have to correct you on your label of Sen McCain as a "liberal" R.
In an effort to discount his solid lifetime voting record of 82.3% with the American Conservative Union, you asked me to review the last seven years of his ACU rating a while back, so I've got it here:

According to some on the right, he's taken "a radical left turn."

To respond to such nonsense, let us herewith set the record straight --- with a little "straight talk" in print.

Here are McCain's ACU ratings, running from the last year of Clinton's reign to the most recent available figures (2006):

2000 - 81%

2001--68%

2002---72

2003---80

2004---72

2005---80

2006---65

http://michaelmedved.townhall.com/blog/g/83e46c29-567d-483f-85e1-90769c76e061

In other words, over the last seven years, McCain has come within two points of his lifetime average of 82% three times. His average since the turn-of-the century: a respectable ACU rating of 74%.

This doesn't make him one of the most reliable, ideologically pure of Republican Senators (but he's never claimed that), but it also leaves him a world away not only from Barack and Hillary, but also a world away from true "mushy moderates" in the GOP who, in 2006, earned vastly lower scores:

Olympia Snowe of Maine (36%)
Susan Collins of Maine (48%)
George Voinovich of Ohio (56%)
Arlen Specter of Pennsylvania (43%)
Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island (24%)

For the record, one of McCain's biggest critics in the Senate, Thad Cochran of Mississippi (who supported Mitt Romney for President) earned a 2006 ACU rating of 67% -- virtually identical to that of his Arizona colleague - but maintains a lifetime record of 80% (that's below McCain's).

And ultimately, it is worlds away from Obama's 100% liberal rating, and that is what counts in November and for our country for the next 4 years.

"Raise the Minimum Wage: Barack Obama will raise the minimum wage, index it to inflation and increase the Earned Income Tax Credit to make sure that full-time workers earn a living wage that allows them to raise their families and pay for basic needs. "

Which is it Mr. Obama? Are you going to raise the wage, or index it to inflation?

Because, as I have previously calculated, an inflation-based minimum wage would be less than $5/hour. And Pelosi-Reed raised it to what? 7-something?

So, I'm confused.

"Invest in Rural Areas: Obama will invest in rural small businesses and fight to expand high-speed Internet access. He will improve rural schools and attract more doctors to rural areas. "

OK. So now the executive branch of the Federal Government is going to "invest" in high-speed Internet access for "rural" areas?

And, oh, by the way, doctors and schools too.

"Amend the North American Free Trade Agreement: Obama believes that NAFTA and its potential were oversold to the American people. Obama will work with the leaders of Canada and Mexico to fix NAFTA so that it works for American workers. "