Barack Obama drinks the blood of Christian children on Sunday's with Cheney.

I just can't prove it, I will keep on saying it, I won't apologize for saying it, my friends will repeat it, and I just can't prove it. But you should go ahead and believe it without proof.

---Billary

>

Gotta love MSM for the boldness of core beliefs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pu9TQq0C3Ac&NR=1

Here's a "commercial" worth watching. The real HRC- a pandering, ridiculous clown.

I'm afraid that Clinton will try to steal the election not unlike Bush did and we'll have more of the same.

sabba2 wrote: "What a short memory everyone has. The Republicans are going to bury Obama if he becomes the democratic candidate regardless of his powerful oratory skills and the so-called "will" of the people."

If that is what you think, I fail to see how a woman who loses to Obama in state after state could succeed where so many others have failed and where you are are so sure Obama will fail. If I were to accept your premise, by the same logic, Clinton doesn't have a prayer in November either - this is what is called the absence of hope. Fortunately, I reject your premise, because I have hope - both that the candidate the Dems put forward can beat McCain AND that the candidate will be Obama.

What a short memory everyone has. The Republicans are going to bury Obama if he becomes the democratic candidate regardless of his powerful oratory skills and the so-called "will" of the people. Al Gore had the popular vote and the will of the people and that didn't seem to matter. The vast majority of voters were dumb enough to elect George Bush a 2nd time because they were easily manipulated by the Karl Rove Republican machine. There's a certain frightening naivete during this primary season -- don't underestimate the ignorance of the electorate. I'm skeptical that this country of ours is suddenly going to rise up and choose the progressive, inexperienced African American candidate over a moderate safe Republican white guy.

Ignore the cliche personal attacks by all the threatened men uncomfortable with a strong, intelligent experienced female at the helm. If people want true change, it's time to put a female in office. I'm convinced that of the 2 candidates Hillary Clinton can beat the Republicans at their own game. That's what this is about.

First realize that it's over and then go negative. It's the denial factor (i.e. losing) which holds her back. Once she accepts that she has nothing to lose anymore, then her negative ads become more effective. I've seen her in debates and she can be quite a "B" and might as well use this natural born talent to her advantage. In terms of backlash, how would that hurt her since she'll be behaving as everyone expects. Besides her base of angry white women would like her to come out with fangs and teeth. Just read her supporters' comments at any given blog. I'd doubt Obama could withstand a true, honest to God, Clintonian nastiness. Problem with Billiary to date is that they only went halfway with their negativity and only used half-lies. Might as well go with full lies and inject pure venom as only the Clintons can produce.

Blacks will "RIOT" when Obama lose

1. Secure an Edwards endorsement the day of or after the Wisconsin primary to drown any possible loss out of the news cycle.

2. Focus on Texas and Ohio's African-American communities to chip away at Obama's base. Ceding them to him does not help her, just showing effort may give her a few additional points in a tightly contested race.

3. Continue trumpeting internet success to spin the appearance of grassroots support.

4. Paint Obama as having a Messiah-complex and turn his strength, his charisma, into a weakness -- self-righteousness.

5. Win in Ohio and Texas. Doesn't matter how ugly a victory, it has to be a victory.

6. Admit that the Iraq War vote was a mistake, has felt that way for some time, but did not want to cede national security to the Republicans and send a "wrong message" to our troops. This might play into criticisms that Hillary is calculating, but I think candor about her calculating nature might help her with some independents.

7. Secure unpledged delegates for a convention victory forcing Obama to accept the VP spot, or alternatively the transparent choice Hillary's always wanted: Wes Clark.

Hillary's been waging a "national security" election. In other words, she's fighting the 2004 election against John McCain. She has calculated that Wes Clark and her support for the war would help her in a general election and the Clinton brand name would see her through to the end in primary season. But as Chris has said many times on msnbc, if Obama could turn his candidacy into a movement, he would blunt her brand name. Well, it's definitely a movement.

Hillary has no real chance of winning clean any longer. She cannot catch up in the popular vote or unpledged delegate count short of a major scandal or health crisis for Senator Obama. She can however win dirty, real dirty at the Convention and clean it up a bit by forcing Obama to accept the second spot on the ticket. If he says no, she uses Wes Clark and hope everyone forgets or -- this is a real pander -- gets Harold Ford Jr. We'll call that the "Darren from Bewitched" strategy. That might have worked 20 years ago, but I just think the reason she's been doing so badly is because a larger portion of the electorate are paying attention now more than ever. The longer it went on, the less likely she'd win. Her high negatives always assured this.

I have a reasonable compromise for the MI,FL issue. Let them be seated but cut in half their total delegates as a penalty for going early. This would minimize the impact of the flawed elections in both states. From most accounts the total (MI+FL) net delegate gain for Hillary would be about 50. If cut in half, then it would only be 25. That number should have little to no impact on the final outcome considering how large Obama's lead is now and growing. This would still be somewhat unfair to Obama but it would at least put this issue to rest.

usmc_mike wrote: "And, we have 3 basic principles -- cut spending, cut taxes, and win the war. I believe McCain will at least do that, even if he makes other deals with the devil."

ROFL. How do you expect him to do #3, if he does #1 and #2? The military, and the Army & Marines in particular, are horribly broken - you cannot cut spending or taxes because whatever minuscule savings you get has to be funneled into refitting those two parts of the Armed Forces. The war is tremendously expensive, and cutting taxes isn't going to provide the funds needed to put the kind of numbers in Iraq and Afghanistan (the forgotten war) to do it RIGHT and be effective.

I'm a realist and was against the Iraq war from the time the propaganda started floating precisely because it would break our Armed Forces. If that was the mission, then Mission Accomplished, and McCain is party to that gross FAILURE of vision.

I refuse to vote for him, and I refuse to vote for Hillary because she more than any one of them is the "empty suit" - she will say anything, do anything to get elected.

If Obama isn't the Dem nominee, I'm staying home.

There is no path for Hillary that can win this for her, save a miracle. This race will be over after the March 4 results seal her doom:

http://www.kirkdorffer.com/ontheroadto2008/2008/02/democratic-race-will-probably-be-over.shtml

It might be a good idea if the Clinton campaign stopped giving the impression that her administration would be.. well.. like a rerun on TNT or Bravo.
I have had this impression for months now.
The Clinton Years, The Sequel.
Seven days a week.
Back to back.
Non stop.
Revival of the glorious 1990's.
The best years in American history!
Dontchaknowitbynow?

That thought does not quite do IT for me.

Only 179 more comments needed to equal the Achenblog Mike Gravel piece.

I think she should send this anti "Yes We Can" article around until people realize Obama just puffing away on a dream!

http://www.mockiavelli.com/2008/02/obama-pledges-t.html

precisioncontrol wrote:
"Frankly, I would be far more interested in a post that maps out how Obama can win Texas and Ohio."
Here is how Obama wins Texas:

Dallas and Houston metro areas each have about 6 million people, of which 25% are African American (total state population of TX is only about 24 million). Discount for white republicans, are you are left with a significant number of African Americans voting in the democratic vote.
Throw in Austin, where another 1.5 million, mostly college educated academic and white collar left-liberals live (disproportionately Democrats compared to the rest of Texas).
Most "Latinos" in Texas are assimilated into mainstream Texas society and vote the way most other Americans vote - along age, gender, economic class, education demographics - and cannot be counted on to vote as a unified social block, except for the unassimilated ones who tend to be first or second generation, live in places like El Paso, San Antonio, Laredo, McAllen and Brownsville, and tend to vote for Clinton because of old country sensibilities about class and race. Even if Clinton locks up the Rio Grande river vote, the El Paso vote, and the San Antonio vote, that doesn't solve the fact that most delegates are in Dallas and Houston. Whoever told Clinton she needs to campaign in places like El Paso and McAllen to win Texas doesn't understand the playing field down here.

It's never to late for a "fix", especially for the "Comback Clintons", however the message must be simple,succinct, resounding, and most of all, "ring true". For example the message that she (Hillary) is ready to lead on "Day 1" and Obama is not, does not "ring true" and most likely is not true. Leadership ability, as sold in a political campaign, is an intangible. Like "beauty", it is largely determined by the "beholder". Moreover, Obama's campaign "image and performance" contradicts this message and therefore further damages Hillary's credibility. This is an example of a message that does not "ring true" and therefore should be dropped from Hillary's repertoire of slurs.

I agree with your selection of the "economy" as a critical subject that could offer the opportunity for a "resounding" message or point. Making the message "simple" and "succint" is the challenge. A "white paper" won't accomplish this, however, it could serve as background and credible justification for the more simple and succinct message.

It is far to early to count out Hillary. Part of her current dilemma can be attributed to her personal and political past, which is justifiably linked to President Clinton's past "embarrassments" and "lack of honesty". You can not realistically "cherry pick" and expect people to accept the "Best of Bill C." and ignore the "Worst of Bill C". This powerful negative image and perception of Bill and Hillary is an "Albatross" that won't go away and Obama is now benefitting from this permanent handicap. It is the primary basis for Hillary's very high negatives (i.e., 49%) which gives Obama considerable credibility when he states that he is more "electible". Obama does not have anywhere near this high negative figure of 49% and that alone makes him appear more electable. Accordingly this is another point that does not "ring true" and should therefore also be dropped from Hillary's repertoire.

I'm flummoxed by the Clinton-Bush-since-I-was-born comments. The Clinton years were a paradise compared to the Bush years and shouldn't be mentioned in the same sentence.

I voted for Hillary and believe experience does matter when you have a few short years to cause so many changes for the better. I would like to see Hillary overcome the missteps (primarily her husband's words) of the last few weeks, by going back to the important issues of the economy, healthcare, etc. etc.

If Obama gets the nomination, I will vote for him in the general election, but I'd be happier voting for him 8 years from now when he is a bit more seasoned and wise.

I hear many Obama supporters claim that Michigan and Florida delegates should not be seated at the convention, but also that SuperDelegates should not be the deciding factor in this primary and the popular vote should count. So on one hand, let's follow the rules when it suits us and let's throw the rules out when they don't - this is ridiculous. Who cares when people vote - it matters that they voted and as a Democratic society we owe it to them to allow them to be included. She was smart to put herself on the ticket - perhaps Obama realized this was a mistake so that is why he chose to put his name on it in Florida.

The party also came up with the delegate/superdelegate system decades ago and this is a party primary - we should respect this rule, because we don't always have all the facts about our candidates and these people know them much better and they also are the ones who work together primarily.

Barack's campaign has been capitalizing on the positive and negative messages of campaigns before him. People are letting themselves be manipulated and turn a blind eye when he or his campaign has done something wrong.

Clinton's campaign can hardly go negative because it's viewed as destroying hope (which was never lost, we've all been hoping the last eight years would end), or it is viewed as being racist which is a very distorted view. In no way has Barack or his campaign been minimized; in fact the Clinton campaign has acknowledged him from the beginning and only attacked his substance.

Just because you are black, white, purple or blue, male or female does not grant you right to the Presidency and we should not feel guilty or racist because we believe someone is underqualified, lacks substance and is appealing more to our desperation than our true needs as a free society. When couldn't we change things? We always could and we always have been doing this? Change is inevitable.

Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton - Who cares? Really, are we that shallow that someone's name or family determines how we vote? Change for the sake of change is not helpful. Hillary has very good plans, her own credentials to stand on and would be great for our country. She isn't all "image".

We don't live in the time of Lincoln or Kennedy, we live in 2008 and the problems are very different. What has anyone done differently since joining Barack's movement - have you done anything good for America, your community, your own family? Or have you been berating fellow Democrats in hopes to wear them down to serve your desperation for Barack to win? He isn't the only one to bring us change, he never was.

Barack is a person that comes around "once in a lifetime" - a bit much I think. I actually think Hillary is that one person very different from most, that has the edge here. She is older and this is her chance to be an effective leader and it truly is our once in a lifetime chance that a woman like this will come around. Barack has time to gain more experience and further his cause to win in 2016!

Barack should also not be compared to past Presidents such as Lincoln or JFK - there is no way he deserves those honors until he has indeed made transformational change besides playing to America's youth. Both candidates have inspired new and impressive voter turnout. This is more a product of Bush's Presidency than the two of them. We want him out of here!

Remember, we are Democrats, we believe in many of the same fundamental ideals and policies and we will help America continue on. Would I vote for Barack? Yes, because I am a Democrat. Would I vote for Hillary? Yes, because I am a Democrat.

I am a 27 year old, white-male from Chicago Illinois. I voted for Clinton, will vote for either, but stop the in-fighting already. The race is still too close to call.

Ducking a debate? Pretty strong comments when Hillary was ducking Wisconsin and in Texas when the ad started running, lol.

Let's see, isn't the next debate in 8 days anyway? I am sure the continued Obama town hall meetings in Wisconsin will provide lots of opportunity for the voters questions.

Wasn't Hillary the one talking about dropping out of the MSNBC debate? That might be hard to do after this ad.

18 debates done, 2 to go, that is plenty.

Back a winner in Novenmber, vote Obama.
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/national.html

WISCONSIN DESERVES A DEBATE, AND THE COUNTRY DESERVES TO WATCH IT. Ducking a debate before Wisconsin's primary in favor of corporate statium rallies begs the question -- can Barry put the nation's interests before his own?

http://www.thewashingtonnote.com/archives/002857.php

"Losing by a large margin in Wisconsin -- coupled with an expected big Obama win in his home state of Hawaii -- could be the beginning of the end for Clinton."

Sorry...but the beginning of the end was Super Tuesday. At the latest, the end will come March 4 when her third "firewall" collapses under the weight of a Obama's momentum.

What is amazing is that her campaign didn't recognize that Obama in '08 is essentially running Bill's campaign in '92. Obama is young, energetic and charismatic. He is not yet tainted by too much time in Washington and has a great story to tell. All of this should sound familiar to Sen. Clinton and her staff.

While I expect her to go down fighting, Sen. Clinton will not win the Democratic nomination for President.

Gee what about Democrats like me? Where are we going to go? I refuse to vote the "D" and go a long to get a long. Both of these folks don't pass the "stick" factor with me...

There is a possibility that I will vote for a "R" for president for the 1st time in my life...

Keep the clinton platitude-infested era confined to the 20th century. Enough of the bubba-politic!

While Wisconsin looks like a sure thing for Obama (he's winning with progressives and students. Madison's got tons of both and they vote like wildfire when they like a candidate. Madison helped Russ Feingold win his tough re-election in 1998 AND made Tammy Baldwin a Congresswoman that same year). That said, Hillary Clinton can make inroads on Wisconsin's Lake Michigan coast. Places like Kenosha, Milwaukee and Racine have seen significant economic decline as industries have closed down.

However, it is noteworthy that Milwaukee's blue collar white Democrats recently elected Congresswoman Moore, Wisconsin's first African American Member of Congress.

If her message doesn't strike a chord in the Milwaukee area, Clinton can always take her roadshow to Wisconsin's western half. The largely protestant and Scandanavian population there tends to vote Democratic, but they will vote for a candidate willing to engage them directly. Actually, now that I think about it, that's Obama's strength.

On second thought, Hillary's got no chance in Wisconsin, so she'd better shore up her support in Ohio and Texas if she wants to keep things interesting...

claudialong - "cokehead drunk fratboy cheerleader AWOL loser GWBush"

Glad to see Obama's call for change, putting an end to partisanship and politics of personal destruction, and working together is not lost on you.

Let's see, the campaign manager has been replaced, the deputy campaign manager has or will be replaced, any chance we can replace the candidate?

Hillary needs to be humanized. An EMail I recieved about a Secret Service Detail man and their insights into the personalities of the Clintons.
For those who don't know... Capt. Denny Keast flies for UAL and flew many SAM's (Special Air Mission's) for the White House.

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

I flew four Presidential support missions in the C-141 out of Dover AFB, DE.. Two for President Johnson and two for President Nixon. Johnson was a first class jerk and on the two occasions I flew for him, if the Secret Service and t heir Liaison in the Pentagon hadn't intervened, we would have had to stay on the airplane for hours while he (Johnson) was off somewhere. Nixon never required that and the four (4) stops we made with him he was cordial to the Secret Service and to me and my crew.

We had a neighbor when I lived in DC who was part of the Secret Service presidential detail for many years. His stories of Kennedy and Johnson were the same as those I heard from the guys who flew the presidents' plane.

Yes, Kennedy did have Marilyn Monroe flown in for secret 'dates,' and LBJ was a typical Texas 'good ole boy' womanizer. Nixon, Bush 41, and Carter never cheated on their wives. Clinton cheated, but couldn't match Kennedy or LBJ in style or variety.

The information below is accurate: The elder Bush and current President Bush make it a point t thank and take care of the air crews who fly them around. When the president flies, there are several planes that also go, one carries the armored limo another the security detail, plus usually a press aircraft.

Both Bushes made it a point to stay home on holidays, so the Air Force and security people could have a day with their families.

Hillary Clinton was arrogant and orally abusive to her security detail. She forbade her daughter, Chelsea, from exchanging pleasantries with them. Sometimes Chelsea, miffed at her mother's obvious conceit and mean spiritedness, ignored her demands and exchanged pleasantries regardless, but never in her mother's presence. Chelsea really was a nice, kindhearted, and lovely young lady. The consensus of opinion was that Chelsea loved her Mom but did not like her. Hillary Clinton was continuously rude and abrasive to those who were charged to protect her life. Her security detail dutifully did their job, as professionals should, but they all loathed her and wanted to be on a different detail.

Hillary Clinton was despised by the Secret Service as a whole. former President Bill Clinton was much more amiable than his wife. Often the Secret Service would cringe at the verbal attacks Hillary would use against her husband. They were embarrassed for his sake by the manner and frequency in which she verbally insulted him, sometimes in the presence of the Secret Service, and sometimes behind closed doors. Even behind closed doors Hillary Clinton would scream and holler so loudly that everyone could hear what she was saying. Many felt sorry for President Clinton and most wondered why he tolerated it instead of just divorcing his 'attack dog' wife. It was crystal clear that the Clintons neither liked nor respected each other and this was true long before the Monica Lewinsky scandal. Theirs was genuinely a 'marriage of convenience.'

Chelsea was much closer to her father than her mother, even after the Lewinsky scandal, which hurt her gravely. Bill Clinton did in fact have charisma, and occasionally would smile at or shake hands with his security detail. Still, he always displayed an obvious air of superiority towards them.

His security detail uniformly believed him to be disingenuous, false, and that he did nothing without a motive that in some way would enhance his image and political career. He was polite, but not kind. They did not particularly like him and nobody trusted him.

Al Gore was the male version of Hillary Clinton. They were friendlier toward each other than either of them were towards former President Clinton. They were not intimate, so please don't read that in. They were very close in a political way. Tipper Gore was generally nice and pleasant. She initially liked Hillary but soon after the election she had her 'pegged' and no longer liked her or associated with her except for events that were politically obligatory.

Al Gore was far more left wing than Bill Clinton. Al Gore resented Bill Clinton and thought he was too 'cent rist.' He despised all Republicans. His hatred was bitter and this was long before he announced for the Presidency. This hatred was something that he and Hillary had in common. They often said as much, even in the presence of their security detail. Neither of them trusted Bill Clinton and, the Secret Service opined, neither of them even liked him. Bill Clinton did have some good qualities, whereas Al Gore and Hillary had none, in the view of their security details.

Al Gore, like Hillary, was very rude and arrogant toward his security detail. He was extremely unappreciative and would not hesitate to scold them in the presence of their peers for minor details over which they had no control. Al Gore also looked down on them, as they finally observed and learned with certainty on one occasion. Al got angry at his offspring and pointed at his security detail and said, 'Do you want to grow up and be like them?' Word of this insult by the former V ice-President quickly spread and he became as disliked by the Secret Service as Hillary. Most of them prayed Al Gore would not be elected President, and they really did have private celebrations in a few of their homes after President Bush won. This was not necessarily to celebrate President Bush's election, but to celebrate Al Gore's defeat.

Everyone in the Secret Service wants to be on First Lady Laura Bush's detail. Without exception, they concede that she is perhaps the nicest and most kind person they have ever had the privilege of serving. Where Hillary patently refused to allow her picture to be taken with her security detail, Laura Bush doesn't even have to be asked, she offers. She doesn't just shake their hand and say, 'Thank you.' Very often, she will give members of her detail a kind- hearted hug to express her appreciation. There is nothing false about her. This is her genuine nature. Her security detail considers her to be a 'breath of fresh air.' They joke that comparing Laura Bush with Hillary Clinton is like comparing 'Mother Teresa' with the 'Wicked Witch of the North.'

Likewise, the Secret Service considers President Bush to be a gem of a man to work for. He always treats them with genuine respect and he always trusts and listens to their expert advice. They really like the Crawford, Texas detail. Every time the president goes to Crawford he has a Bar-B- for his security detail and he helps serve their meals. He sits with them, eats with them, and talks with them. He knows each of them by their first name, and calls them by their first name as a show of affection. He always asks about their family, the names of which he always remembers. They believe that he is deeply and genuinely appreciative of their service. They could not like, love, or respect anyone more than President Bush. Most of them did not know they would feel this way, until they had an opportunity to work for hi m and learn that his manner was genuine and consistent. It has never changed since he began his Presidency. He always treats them with the utmost respect, kindness, and compassion.

Please pass this on. It is important for Americans to have a true inside understanding of their President... and also the woman who is currently a candidate for president.

Capt. Denny Keast

I think she needs to offer a 21st Century "New Deal". Make repairing the crumbling infrastructure a priority, therefore creating good jobs in all parts of the country. Not sure how permanent this fix is (I'm no economist),but it got the country going again in the 30's.

"Here are verified actual annual fatalities of military members while
actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006"

I wonder how the numbers look when calculated as a percentage of the size of the force. Likewise I wonder how the Bush numbers change if you include Nat'l Guard / Reserve fatalities over the last 6 years.

See Hillary win the nomination.
See Hillary unite the Dems.
See Hillary win in November.
See Hell freeze over.

Notice the Clinton years average 200+ more than GWB.

Notice Carter's 1980 numbers. Peace Prize winner.

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they
may be confirmed by anyone at:

I wonder why the media doesn't print statistics like these?

Posted by: USMC_Mike | February 13, 2008 03:23 PM

i may be no millitary man or a doctor, but ever considered what did they die from? suicide? combat deaths? accidents? old age? or the fact that it might be dishonest to blame a spike in milltary deaths on any paticular dem being in office?

I sat with Hillary Clinton on a round table of women at Yale 2 weeks ago. She needs to do what she did at that round table:
- listen to the real concerns of real people; their fear of losing jobs, losing health care, the dilemma of choosing between heating oil and medication, the rising cost of education, finding a real way out of Iraq
- she needs to talk about how she has the real policies to address these issues unlike Senator Obama
- She needs to stress the fact that this country exists in a frightening global environment with wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, instability in Pakistan and the Middle East and disgust with us in much of the rest of the world. She is clearly the ONLY candidate who can compete with Senator McCain in this arena. Her plan to withdraw from Iraq is reasonable and responsible.
- She needs to compete in Wisconsin
- She needs to make a big deal about how many small donations have come in since Super Tuesday. A great many of us have faith in her, continue to work for her and will do so until the nomination
- Someone needs to mention that Ted Kennedy fought tooth and nail to change the rules for delegates when he was running. Hillary is only trying to seat delegates that she legitimately won in Florida.

Hillary needs to get Obama to talk more about specifics. Obama loves to talk about "bringing people together" but never explains how he is going to do it. Obama also never explains what he will do if the republicans and entrenched big money interests won't come to the table. Is there a plan there? Perhaps if Hillary starts focusing in on what is behind Obama's poetic oratory,the media will start asking him tough questions instead of just giving him a pass.

Hillary Clinton has the only health care plan that covers every American, and the only economic plan that freezes foreclosures. I guess that Republicans and Sen. Obama just don't think these things are important.

I PROPHESY A SAD NOVEMBER 4, 2008 FOR THE DEMOCRATS HOPE IN THE EXECUTIVE BRANCH

The sad thing is...we saw the coming election before. It happened in the Florida 2002 Democratic Gubernatorial Primary. Prevailing thought was with the backlash against 2000 shennangians of the republicans, the democrats were poised to regain the Governorship...but that Janet Reno (a Clinton administration person) was too polarizing and the democrats needed an unknown voice of "unity" that spoke well (and didn't shake from Parkinson's) and was less controversial than the former Attorney General.

Bill McBride (who???) was going to be a unite-r not a divider. Problem was whereas Reno had experience, ideas and a history of public service stretching back years and years in Miami-Dade county before becoming the longest serving Attorney General in American history, McBride had little government experience but was able to raise lots of money and looked "uniting and electable" for a while in the spring of 2002.

However, further scrutiny over the summer of his general "feel good" speeches revealed the lack of political experience and/or a real plan. Coupled with this realization that he was short on substance , McBride had not been battle tested. Alas, that "dream vision" of unity fell apart when the general election's attack tactics commenced. The result--was that he lost to Jeb Bush by huge margins...larger than anybody anticipated....

"McBride, an amiable Tampa lawyer, goes into the race as a decided underdog against the well-financed Bush. But the role is familiar for McBride, who trailed Reno in polls by more than 30 percentage points before surging in the campaign's final weeks.

The Democratic primary was a remarkably civil affair, with neither McBride, Reno nor a third candidate-Daryl Jones-attacking each other. "It was kind of a lovefest for a long time," said Benjamin Bishin, a political scientist at the University of Miami.

But no such civility is expected in the general election. Even before Democrats went to the polls last week, Republicans ran ads blasting McBride's stewardship of the Holland & Knight law firm, which ordered layoffs that critics said was the result of overexpansion during McBride's tenure as managing partner."--The Southern Digest....

Obama will not look like a unite-r when he has to start slamming and going negative on John McCain in a general election. It'll be politics as usual, where the "nice guy" trying to stay above the fray (can you say swift boating) comes in second.

Barak has never been battle tested either--talk about a pushover of an election to become a US Senator - facing a carpet bagging loser like Alan Keyes after a stronger Republican candidate's racy bedroom practices that came to light in his divorce proceeding and forced him to withdrawal. We would do well to remember that yes, these were the strenuous circumstances Obama faced in 2004.

Since B.O. didn't arrive in the senate until January 2005 and started campaigning in 2007...he had two years worth of experience on the hill before declaring for president. Hillary had seven years of experience before running for president. More than 300% more time working across the party divide than Barak has had...

Our country is screwed up, so I'm voting for experience this fall. I can't have the "audacity to hope" that an untested politician with 2 years of senate experience preceded by years and hundreds of "present" votes in Illinois taking politically calculated positions deserves my vote for president--just because he sounds good and gives a nice feel good stump speech. Sorry, but that isn't enough qualification to become the 44th POTUS.

If Hillary's not the nominee, I want some seasoned politician who has DECADES of Washington experience, not someone who spent two years (2005-2006) trying to get out of D.C. early to visit the wife and kids in Chicago or another two (2007-2008) on the campaign trail to say he has much the necessary Washington experience to navigate the political landscape we face in 2009.

This country made the mistake of voting for someone who was supposed to be a unite-r not a divider in 2000, I assume because we thought that Bush was plain and simple and the electoral vote majority of America related to him, while Al Gore was perceived as too intellectual for the electoral vote public--too smart for his own good (and he didn't have a Brother as the governor of a swing state at the time).

Eight years showed the US voting public's ability to make bad decisions when it comes to choosing world leaders based on how they sound instead of the substance...I bet we're seeing the same choice being made in the Democratic primary in 2008.

Personally, I'd rather have a fighter for this country and the I feel the only two people in left in this campaign with a history of being willing to get in there and fight and with the experience to know how things get done when they get done in Washington are Clinton and McCain. I can't afford someone to show up at the White House to in January 2009 ready to vote "present."

Which I guess means if trends keep going the way they are, come November, I'll be voting for McCain, and I haven't voted for a Republican since I was 18 and made the mistake of voting for Ronald Regan in 1980.
Oh what crazy landscapes politics create.
Perhaps we should consider this: its all about an electoral college map. All things equal to 2004 and 2000, we know where are the battlegrounds states which a democrat must pick off in the fall are located to get elected? Any one or two of the following means a win: Florida, Arizona, New Mexico, Nevada, Missouri and Ohio...Ironically, Hillary has won 80% of those so far and a good chance of grabbing Ohio (with John Glenn's recent endorsement) next month.

The Barak caucus victories are likely to remain as red as ever this fall. When push comes to shove (and it is time to pull the lever), I'm willing to bet that Nebraska will remain in the red column along with at least 10 of his other caucus wins.

For those Dream Team prognosticators, sorry...it isn't going to happen with B.O. at the top of the ticket.

Hillary would be insane to consider the vice presidency. Why? She already has proven more influential in the legislative branch than she would ever be as a VP. I'm surprised that people haven't figured out that anything that starts at the top of the ticket this fall with B.O. stinks (pun intended).

I really don't think if the Barak momentum continues to OH, TX and PA who is on the ticket beneath him will matter. We will see both Barak and Hillary in the senate January of 2009. McCain's swearing in will be another sad day for the Democratic Party.

Here are verified actual annual fatalities of military members while
actively serving in the armed forces from 1980 through 2006:

1980 ........ 2,392
1981 ......... 2,380
1984 ........ 1,999
1988 ........ 1,819
1989 ........ 1,636
1990 ........ 1,508
1991 ........ 1,787
1992 ........ 1,293
1993 ........ 1,213
1994 ........ 1,075
1995 ..........2,465
1996 .........2,318
1997 .......... 817
1998 ......... 2,252
1999 ........ 1,984
2000 ........ 1,983
2001 .......... 890
2002 ........ 1,007
2003 ........ 1,410
2004 ........ 1,887
2005 ............ 919
2006............ 920

Notice the Clinton years average 200+ more than GWB.

Notice Carter's 1980 numbers. Peace Prize winner.

These statistics are published by Congressional Research Service, and they
may be confirmed by anyone at:

http://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/natsec/RL32492.pdf

I wonder why the media doesn't print statistics like these?

As an Obama supporter, I dare not give ideas for a Clinton comeback. Unlike many who have posted, I'm not ready to write Clinton's obituary for this campaign.

But her recent performance makes me wonder if she close to reaching a tipping point. Clinton's negatives (lack of charisma, personality, experience, previous Clinton administration scandals) seem to outweigh her positives (intellect, experience).

Mike: Obama lacks substance. His (super)star-power is unexplicable.

drindle: [GWBush is a] cokehead drunk fratboy cheerleader AWOL loser

Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush
Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush
Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush
Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush
Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush
Blame-Bush-Cheney-Impeach-War-Oil-Blood-Blame-Bush

You're like a retarded metronome. A mindless, dittohead, liberal idiot.

'This guy would be a nobody if he weren't black, if the media didn't adore him, and if hollywood cooks didn't bow at his feet.'

a 'nobody'? with more accomplishments than most people even aspire to.

now, if you want to talk about 'nobodys' you should really look no further than your cokehead drunk fratboy cheerleader AWOL loser GWBush, who would most assuredly have been [and was] a nobody until he got the presidency handed to him by his daddy.

As a survivor of Whitewater, Travelgate and the impeachment, isn't it Hillary Clinton's solemn duty to inoculate Obama against the Republican smears and swiftboating that will surely belabor him after Labor Day?

How will he explain his dealings with the slumlord Rezko, facing trial in federal court for corruption? What will he say when they bring up his admitted drug use? How will he respond to questions about his patriotism?

In the one area of experience in which she clearly surpasses him--being attacked by Republicans--Hillary Clinton is duty-bound to make sure Barack Obama can survive to win the White House for the Democrats. Surely she should help him rehearse his responses.

http://ajliebling.blogspot.com/2008/02/hillary-clintons-nuclear-option.html

"Aren't we all witnessing in Barack Obama the emergence of one of the potentially greatest historic figures of the 21st century?"

Seriously?

What is wrong with you people?

This guy would be a nobody if he weren't black, if the media didn't adore him, and if hollywood cooks didn't bow at his feet.

He's the most liberal senator, has spent very little time in the Senate, and has to mask his ideas in lofty rhetoric.

I'm baffled.

We can give her 600 different ways to turn this campaign around but isn't the real issue that nothing can overcome lightening in a bottle? Isn't that really what is happening here? Aren't we all witnessing in Barack Obama the emergence of one of the potentially greatest historic figures of the 21st century?

###### The Clintons must give (not loan) there campaign $10 Million Dollars before the March 4 primary to stay live or ......

bsimon, that's why I said that Democrats need to do more to elect more *good* women to office. Much of this is just plain recruitment. In a party that's now tangibly more female than male, there's no reason why elected women Democrats aren't everywhere, in numbers roughly equal to men Democrats. Not in the form of quotas, but just due to being good candidates and good elected officials.

This is the classic argument I always put to opponents of affirmative action. Either/or: either the playing field isn't level and blacks and women and etc. face hurdles white guys don't, or the playing field is level and blacks and women and etc. are just not as good at Field X or Position Y as white guys.

Within the Democratic Party, at the very least, we should be able to enjoy a body of elected officials that roughly reflects, in the aggregate, the electorate. One good reason to elect Obama is that the under-50 generations pushing him are far less reluctant to achieve gender and racial parity than the over-50 generations who make up Clinton's base of support.

Chris, it was indeed incredible how fast Clinton's campaign fell apart after super tuesday. And it is equally incredible how little answers she had. But she really must have been baffled by whatever has gone on there - I hope we will know one day, in detail. One thing has to be said though: she has not - repeat NOT - attacked Obama everyone said she would do, Obama in the mean time has not shied away from a fierce and frontal attack on the Clintons. So much for the unifying democratic TV-preacher with booming voice and simple messages the senator of Illinois has turned out to be become - someone who will really do anything to turn things his way, probably also as U.S. president. I can hardly imagine the world is really looking forward to that, let alone the battered U.S.A.

Hutchison*

Bsimon: "I think the Dems would be mistaken to promote female candidates over males based solely on gender. Its about competence."

I'm proud of TX Senator Kay Baily Hutchinson.

And not because she's a woman.

drindle -- this isn't the first time your 3rd grade antics have made you look like the foolish lib. you are.

*after posting in a public forum*

*pout*

Well fine, you are not allowed to read my stunning analysis!
I'm not talking to you anyway!
Only those who agree with me are allowed to read and comment!

Just like Hillary bursting into tears after a big loss.

I'm not sure Clinton has a chance to rebound at this point. Perhaps, if Obama had agreed to five debates, she could have tripped him up, but he only agreed to two. Even though she's a much stronger debater, he will be extremely careful not to expose his weaknesses.

If she can somehow turn the debate to foreign policy and security, an area where he is extremely deficient, she may have a chance to expose him.

Further, if she can get him to attack her, as he did in SC, and not attack back, it will expose his nasty temper which he's been very careful to hide. She can then tout his hypocrisy, which has been rampant, in saying he would run a positive campaign. Something the Press has totally given him a pass on.

Hard to say how all this will play out, but it doesn't look good for Clinton right now.

only thing that will stop obama is a perception he can't win the big states. he has to win ohio or pennsylvania.then it is over for hillary. bill will start to look out for his own political standing and realizing that a super delegate fight from a weak position will damage him irrepairably. he'll then tell her its over. he's the only one who can go to her and tell her what she has to accept.

ok, here's my guide for a clinton comeback.

"good afternoon ladies and gentlemen, I hillay rodham clinton, have decided to end my campagin to become the next president of the united states of america. in the face of fracturing the party and the nation i have decided to drop out of the race. Also i would like to announce my intentions to fully endorse senator Barack Obama as the democratic nominee. and finally ive talked to my lawyers and decided to divorce my husband bill clinton. sorry bill but you gotta go!"

"Resigned"? Patti Solis Doyle and Mike Henry? Hmmm, seems that euphemism is used a lot when a ship is sinking. Was there quick jump or was there a shove?
Whichever, we are all too smart. We know a sinking ship when we see one. Changing the help won't stop The Movement.

Obama has said repeatedly that change cannot be made by him alone. The Movement, made up of willing helpers, is ready and willing to assist him on DAY ONE to make change work.

"the gender disparity among politicians is bad for our politics and policy, that, more generally, sexism sucks, and that Democrats need to do more to elect more good women at every level."

When competent candidates run for office, they get elected. Here in MN, prominent women include 1 Senator (Klobuchar), 2 House Reps (McCollum & Bachmann(R)), the AG, Lt Gov & speaker of the MN house. We've had female mayors in Minneapolis. There are a bunch of women in the Legislature.

Other states also have prominent examples; we've talked about female Govs from AZ & KS as possible VP picks.

In short, I think the Dems would be mistaken to promote female candidates over males based solely on gender. Its about competence.

Mrs. Clinton can't go negative, she would be labled racist again. Also I wouldn't count her out yet. Mrs. Clinton has always worked better under pressure. Mrs. Clinton has to push herself into the news. Remind people that Mr. Obama won't debate her. When he has a speech, get on a news program, any news program, send out press release, picking it apart. Start saying all the time "where's the beef?" Also, Mr. Obama needs to not make a miss step. Now that he is the clear front runner, he needs to make sure there are no skeletons in his closet, (other than the ones named in his book), this is the time they ALWAYS come out. Remember Gary Hart? and Bill Clinton? Gary Hart is the one to remember, he never did over come it. He was the clear front runner until those pictures were released to the press with the young lady on his lap (not Mrs. Hart). The media loves to build people up, then tear them down. Mr. Obama is going to be asked some pretty tough questions from here on out, with his lack of experience on Foreign Policy, please say hello to President McCain. As for the republicans crossing over and voting for Obama, anyone one other than me, think that maybe this is being done to stop Mrs. Clinton from getting the nomination? Really, think about it for a moment. This happend at a greater rate since Super Tuesday than it did before. In the last races where he won, he got a huge amount of support from independets that usually vote republican, and from republicans. This started happing at a faster rate once the GOP had it's established nominee. This is only something to think about. Made me kind of wonder. They seem to eager to want to run against Mrs. Clinton. Why would that be, all her baggage is out there for the whole world to see, Mr. Obama on the other hand, we know very little about. I think also, Hillary should after his votes on supporting to fund the war he was so dead set against. Mrs. Clinton should not give up, she should fight to the finish line. As for the votes in MI that all of you wonder about, I am one of those voters. I went to the polls I cast my vote. NO ONE TOLD MR. OBAMA AND MR. EDWARDS TO TAKE THEIR NAMES OFF THE BALLOT'S. THEY DID THAT ON THEIR OWN. Then both camps, sad to say started calling my home about a week before the primary, urging me to vote "uncommitted" when I asked why I was told "so when the delegates are seated, they can vote for who they want". Both camps were assuming that they would be seated in the end. This because MI is a swing state, and they don't want it in the red colum in the fall. However, if my vote wasn't good enough for Mr. Obama in the primary, it will not be good enough for him in the fall. No one has a right to take my vote away, not the DNC, not Mr. Obama, not Mr. Edwards, not Mrs. Clinton. It is my vote, my voice, and the last time I checked one of the few "free rights" I have. If the DNC does not seat our delegates, I will go door to door and campaign for Mr. McCain.

I can offer up Clinton's problem with this particular Independent, and it has nothing to do with gender or any such nonsense.

I. Don't. Trust. Her.

That is based on observing her for 16 years. I have simply not seen any real demonstration of sincerity in that time.

It doesn't matter how she decides to package herself between now and 6 May (NC primary). I'm not looking for her policy positions. I'm not looking for a demonstration of her experience.

I'm looking for deeds to undo the result of 16 years of observation:

I. Don't. Trust. Her.

Unfortunately for Clinton, that is a physical impossibility in only a few short weeks.

Hillary can win if she learns why she was winning! That is Hillary was winning when she was exposing Obama lack of experience in dealing with Iran and other enemies. Somehow Hillary HAS TO SHOW THE EMPEROR IS NAKED in coming debates. It will create a similar and defining moment as Howard Dean's scream. This is, unfortunately, how the Republicans will win if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

"Clinton" (the female one) has been taken completely by surprise, as has the rest of the country. I don't think she was counting on an intelligent, charismatic, caring person to actually run against her.

Possibly she could choose to leap for joy at the chance to hand over a candidacy to such an able individual as Barack.

* Best answer 0%
* 1 answer

Member Since:
February 13, 2008
Total Points:
103 (Level 1)
Points earned this week:
103

Hillary can win if she learns why she was winning! That is Hillary was winning when she was exposing Obama lack of experience in dealing with Iran and other enemies. Somehow Hillary HAS TO SHOW THE EMPEROR IS NAKED in coming debates. It will create a similar and defining moment as Howard Dean's scream. This is, unfortunately, how the Republicans will win if Obama is the Democratic candidate.

"there's no arguing that it will have a sum total of zero effect on long term economic growth or stability."

In fairness, the stimulus bill is not designed to have any effect on long-term anything. It's designed to be a short-term stimulus. So no one would argue your point because it's irrelevant.

I see a couple of problems with some of the suggestions that posters have made above.

On going negative: HRC has to decide if she's going to do this directly or indirectly and stick to her choice, since time is running out. There is peril for her either way, though. If she attacks BHO directly, she turns a lot of people off for sounding "shrill" or "cold" or "insert unvafovrable adjective here". Some of this perception is undoubtedly rooted in mysogeny. Some of it is merited, though, I think. Like it or not, HRC has demonstrated on countless occasions that she simply isn't a polished speaker. Better than the current prez? Undoubtedly. Good enough to pull off a nuanced attack? Apparently not. Her recent hiring of a voice coach suggests that she would not disagree with this assertion.

On the other hand, attacking BHO indirectly hasn't worked out so well for HRC, either. To date, the bulk of her attacks have been couched in buffers and hypotheticals. It's the old rhetorical trick--"I personally have great admiration for my opponent, but others do not and if those others wanted to find fault in my opponent they would need only look into X and Y and Z." Attacking BHO under the guise of pointing out what the Vast Right-Wing Conspiracy will attack him on come the general election screams "passive-aggressive", which is a serious turn-off for just about everyone.

And forget about attacking him via surrogates. HRC has been fighting the perception that she's ridden the coat-tails of others since even before she threw her hat in the ring. If there's dirty work to be done, she needs to show everyone that she's willing to do it herself.

So HRC is kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place on this one.

The large margins of victory in Obama's sweep of the past eight contests shows that the voters are rallying around him. Obama will take Wisconsin just as he took Minnesota. I don't see Clinton making a comeback, especially here in WI--the birthplace of the progressive movement.

A relative in Oregon tells me that she has been willing to support both Clinton and Obama financially, but she has received phone calls only from the Obama campaign. She's not connected to the internet and not inclined to seek the Clinton campaign out.

I also question your first two suggestions, now that Obama is gaining momentum. Those voters are looking toward the future, and showing us all what a great time we had under Bill both looks to the past and reminds us that he will be along with Hillary, for better and for worse.

"Dammit Jim, I'm a doctor, not a miracle worker!"

LOL! Says it all. The "wait for a miracle" plan - while tempting - didn't work in Iraq and won't work for Hillary. The fact that she's in Texas and not Wisconsin seems to indicate that the "waiting for a miracle" is her current thinking.

The wife of Bill must be as tough as old shoe leather - so I hope (and expect) her to paste a smile on her face and deal with losing with as much dignity as possible. She got a huge head start with nostalgia for the Clinton Years of peace / strong economy / responsible spending. She's still got places to go and has the opportunity to set a civil tone in American politics.

It's usually pretty easy to spot Republicans (you can tell by the slime), or it that just a Karl Rove thing?. I'd hate for her to make Republican spotting a little more difficult.

novamatt - "I want to add that I agree with shirt (or Dr. shirt) that the gender disparity among politicians is bad for our politics and policy, that, more generally, sexism sucks, and that Democrats need to do more to elect more good women at every level."

Since woman voters outnumber male voters, especially amongst Democrats, are women in this country sexist too (or is it reverse-sexist)? I think the Dems should consider installing quotas to rectify this horrible wrong. There are plenty of reasons not to vote for HRC (or other women) other than sexism. I can tell you that I would not vote for her but I would and have voted for other females if I thought they were a good candidate. Put up better candidates than Hillary and you will have better success.

And I am jumping on the Sarah Palin bandwagon early for a high political office run in four years!

Spec, I really do not want nor will I recieve a "rebate" check, as that is reserved for those who don't actually pay any taxes. It shouldn't be called a rebate when they haven't given anything to begin with, just call it what it is ... a handout.

As a fiscal conservative, I disagree with this approach and there's no arguing that it will have a sum total of zero effect on long term economic growth or stability.

These politicians were so quick to jump on the spending spree bandwagon because it's an election year. Shame on them, shame shame shame. The economy of China will get more stimulus from this package than will ours, and we don't even have the money to begin with.

davmiller1 | February 13, 2008 01:37 PM

Some people are born with the Teflon gene. Obama has it, Billary does not.

Sen. Obama has taken all the fusilade thrown at him by the Billary Mean Attack Machine and he's still standing. The guy is indestructible.

Hillary has been the frontrunner because of name recognition - and the media's penchant for headline news rather than developing stories.

Now, a little-known candidate has overtaken Hillary as voters - even some Republicans - become aware of Obama's leadership qualities, while Hillary continues to promote her management skills.

Hillary seems to already have the answer for any issue we face; Obama seems willing to listen to opposing views before making a final decision.

We're electing a leader, a world leader, and it's likely that many people would prefer Obama's approach. Certainly, I would choose someone with his leadership style to work with on a daily basis. And now large numbers are saying that is their choice as they cast their ballots.

The difference between Clinton and Obama is mainly in leadership style. And now time may be working against another one-time frontrunner because in this election a change in leadership style is more important than a change in gender.

If Hillary Clinton loses in Hawaii and Wisconsin, that will be 10 straight losses since Super Tuesday. Nobody, I repeat, Nobody can recover from that amount of consecutive beat downs. It's Over. barck Obama is the 2008 Democratic Presidential Nominee. Let us move on.

the iowa jefferson-jackson speech by obama will be shown to be the spark that lit the kindling that started the bonfire that is now the spirit of his campaign. leadership is about inspiration, the things that need to change will not be done by wonks with position papers but by a tidal wave of public sentiment. it is we the people who have recognized this if only subliminally. white men,the lynch pin of his victories recognize a leader when we see one. hillary is not a leader in this mold,we see that too.it is we the people who have recognized this if only subliminally. the avalanche is picking up speed,all the way to the white house.

The Fix has blown a gasket somewhere- don't waste energy on these futile ideas! Obama has won.

I want to add that I agree with shirt (or Dr. shirt) that the gender disparity among politicians is bad for our politics and policy, that, more generally, sexism sucks, and that Democrats need to do more to elect more good women at every level.

But I'm still glad I voted for Obama. And I don't think electing Clinton would end sexism any more than electing Obama will end racism. Those are both larger, longer-term processes than even a presidential election.

She cannot do it without the press.

The press pummeling her and giving Obama a free ride.

The press needs to talk about who Obama really is.

*Voted most liberal senator by National Review.
*For Banning handguns.
*Raised as Muslim.
*Current Spiritual Counsler admires Farakhan
*Michelle on record she would ponder supporting candidate if not her husband.
* There is more...it will all come out after he gets nomination...so lets get it out now.

jireton1, you may be confused about Obama's ancestry. He is not, in fact, Irish or Scottish. I'm sure your spelling of his name as O'bama was just an honest mistake, not a juvenile attempt to belittle him by misspelling his name.

Maryland has 70 delegates; the delegate count you cite is 24. That's because it's a preliminary count, which isn't very reliable. And since Obama's margins yesterday were larger than Clinton's margin in any Super Tuesday state, the difference in their delegate counts would be much greater than those from Super Tuesday.

smarty66,
How is that negative? A criticism of Obama is that he is short on substance and high on rhetoric. Don't see it.

Wisconsin is neighboring state to Illinois, the place of Mrs.Clinton birth and upbringing, where she was defeated in landslide on 2/5/08 because people know her well here and do not believe her words at all. Do you think that it is necessary to have debates in Wisconsin under such circumsatnces? Any reasonable person would not think so.

PS proud: I agree that most of the stimulus package is useless but your attempts to pin them on Dems is as ludicrous as zouk's attempts to blame everything bad on Dems. Bush has been the one pushing hard for the rebate checks.

And of course, as you Repubs love to say about Dems ranting about tax cuts, if you don't want your rebate check, feel free to return it to the IRS.

I'd just like to say that when O'bama lost to Clinton in Super Tuesday states - the coverage was about how he still won delegates...so Clinton didn't really win big. By one Maryland total its 14-10, and if that is right, how can this be such a great win for O'bama. He is great, and if he wins I'll work for him in the general...but all media outlets have become terribly biased and unfair in their coverage of Senator Clinton.

In reply to "YouCrew":

You are correct - the decision to use "Hillary 08" as opposed to "Clinton 08" was intentional. According to her campaign, they are attempting to make her more appealing to female voters by highlighting the fact she is a woman.

Maybe they think all women will vote for her as a result? Suppose it couldn't hurt her chances, right? What's the old saying - if you got it, flaunt it!

claudialong - "first republican majority, then republican obstructionism. more filibusters than any congress in history."

That does not sound like change we can believe in. That sounds like business as usual.

The rapidly growing momentum of the Obama campaign has put Sen. Clinton in the position of having to mount a "Stop Obama" movement. I think that's going to be very difficult for her to do successfully for the simple reason that a very large majority of Democrats like the junior senator from Illinois. Some may prefer Hilary because they see her as more experienced or more electable, or because they want to see a woman elected president, but very few support her because they don't want to see Sen. Obama get the nomination. Running a campaign against what seems to have become Obama's inevitability has to be a negative campaign, and given a perception that she's tough but also just a little bit mean, that doesn't help her.

"You mean the Dem "Christmas tree package"?

Proud, you're just being silly. The Senate added a few things -- the vast majority of the bill was negotiated in the House by Pelosi, Boehner, and Treasury Secretary Paulson. And just in case you don't know how things work, Paulson represents the White House.

I forgot that you're nothing but a rank partisan. How silly of me to try to discuss anything with you.

Mrs. Clinton was supposed to be finished back After NH primary. She cheated, cried on TV screen, and survived, but not for long. She would face ten consequtive failures in February. No ideas would save her afterwards, and no reasonable people could trust her visctory already now.

That didn't take too long...she went negative today.

"Sen. Hillary Clinton launched her first negative ad today in Wisconsin against rival Sen. Barack Obama, taking him to task for not signaling whether he will participate in a debate at Marquette University prior to the state's Feb. 19 primary.

Obama is in Wisconsin on a campaign swing while Clinton is traveling through Texas. "With serious challenges facing the next president of the U.S., Wisconsin voters deserve to hear both candidates debate the issues that matter," the Clinton campaign said in a statement. "Hillary Clinton has accepted an invitation to debate at Marquette University in advance of Tuesday's primary, and is prepared to show she has real solutions for the problems facing residents of the Badger State."

The "Debate" ad criticizes Obama, suggesting, "Maybe he'd prefer to give speeches than have to answer questions" on issues like health care and the economy. "Wisconsin deserves to hear BOTH candidates debate the issues that matter and that's not debatable," the ad concludes.

Obama is on a winning streak in the Democratic primary battle following eight consecutive victories since last Saturday in Nebraska, Louisiana, Maine, Washington state, the U.S. Virgin Islands, Virginia, Maryland, and Washington, D.C."

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2008/02/13/clinton-goes-negative-on-obama-in-wisconsin/?mod=googlenews_wsj

I'll give it a try:

1. Change is inevitable, progress is not. Hillary needs to push this. Frequently, when asked how he will bring about change, Sen. Obama says that on the day he is inaugurated, one will see change simply by looking at him: the skinny black guy with a funny name. This is Sen. Obama's usual answer and it is unacceptable. A president should offer more than his race and his name as his credentials as an agent of change. On the stump, he offers little else.

2. Sen. Clinton must fight tooth and nail to retain Latino voters in Texas. They can save her.

3. This one is a two-parter: a.) Sen. Clinton must find substantive issues where she diverges from Sen. Obama. b.) She must showcase these differences and drive them home in brief, flashy, non-wonkish packages. For an excellent article on this topic, see this link to the New York Sun: http://www.nysun.com/article/71066. The best example: Sen. Obama's tax plan would be the biggest tax increase in American history and that is how it will be painted by McCain.

4. I agree with Chris: overperform in Wisconsin. For the life of me, I can't figure out why they've already given up on it.

5. When all else fails, go negative.

Finally, a couple thoughts on things beyond Clinton's control, but that could benefit her. First, Obama has been given a pass by the media. At some point this must end, and the earlier the better for Clinton. He is now the frontrunner and media outlets, at least on the conservative end, will begin to question his abilities and credentials. Second, Obama and McCain have already begun taking swipes at one another. This works in Clinton's favor because it both points out how the republicans will attack Obama and shows that there are indeed chinks in his armor.

She just went semi-negative in Wisconsin in an ad. I think that is a smart move. The public seems to be unaware of Obama and his track record in Washington is lackluster at best (she should highlight the nuclear leaks mandate bill that he championed, as well as the fact that he has an unimpressive economic plan). The more that Hillary can force Obama to talk substance, the more that she will shine. This will be a difficult task, but it's worth trying out.

She can't go personal, but she can contrast herself with him. She also needs to focus on the economy. It's the issue that she has more knowledge of and the one issue that plagues everyone's mind. Yes, Obama clearly has momentum. He is not unstoppable. The states coming up (minus Hawaii and Wisconsin) favor Clinton.

Without the weird aberration that occurred in New Hampshire---aided by a record warm 67 degree day that provided a very narrow margin for Hillary---Clinton would have been essentially eliminated weeks ago, long before Super Tuesday.

Clinton's only hope is to "win ugly" by trashing Obama in what will be seen as a negative, smear campaign. And in the long run that would doom her prospects in November.

Do the Democrats who run this party really want to go into the fall with someone carrying all of this baggage and limping to the finish line? Especially when they can start fresh with Obama who is now proving he can win among all voters in all places?

How could Clinton win currently? She is destined to lose Hawaii, and Wisconsin. Everybody knows it, including her. Who might be good people, who after the consequtive failure in ten states in a row, would still believe in her and give money to her? Besides, Edwards and Obama wanted her out of the race back before New Hampshire. What is actually changed now? Edwards would endorse Obama after his 2/19/08 victories. Obama with Edwards help would easily win Texas, and, maybe, Ohio. and the entire story would be completely over. Clinton should have been finished back after New Hampshire. She cheated, and stayed in the race longer, but now it is her time to step down. What kind of ideas could anybody, including this article's author, could give to Clinton to prevent inevitable. The answer is obvious :None!

The secret for a Clinton comeback? She'll need to adopt a new personality.

http://onlysayin.blogspot.com

Spec, You mean the Dem "Christmas tree package"? For one thing, the dems
slowed it down and added a bunch of spending to it to the tune of 15 Billion dollars extra.

I hope the President doesn't sign it; it's a political trick and a bloated short-term bailout that will have no long term benefit for the economy.

How could Clinton win currently? She is destined to lose Hawaii, and Wisconsin. Everybody knows it, including her. Who might be good people, who after the consequtive failure in ten states in a row, would still believe in her and give money to her? Besides, Edwards and Obama wanted her out of the race back before New Hampshire. What is actually changed now? Edwards would endorse Obama after his 2/19/08 victories. Obama with Edwards help would easily win Texas, and, maybe, Ohio. and the entire story would be completely over. Clinton should have been finished back after New Hampshire. She cheated, and stayed in the race longer, but now it is her time to step down. What kind of ideas could anybody, including this article's author, could give to Clinton to prevent inevitable. The answer is obvious :None!

Well, this certainly isn't the answer:
http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/02/hillary_hits_obama_with_new_ad.php

Something tells me that down-to-earth Badgers will see right through this. Considering that there will be two debates before March 4, I doubt one more before Tuesday will do the trick.

If she really wants to win Wisconsin, she needs to follow Obama's lead and get herself up there - and for more than the private dinner she's attending Saturday.

There's a reason Obama's winning so many states - because he cares enough to show up. Clinton's like someone who wants everybody at her birthday parties so she'll get lots of gifts, but cherry-picks those she'll attend herself. What kind of friend is THAT???

shirt, you seem to be trying as hard as you can to be offended on behalf of women everywhere. You're leaving the Democratic Party because they didn't elect the female candidate, ignoring the fact that the Republicans have also never elected a female candidate. Is it possible that Hillary Clinton isn't as good a candidate as Barack Obama? Or is sexism the only possible answer?

Personally, I refer to Hillary by her first name for clarity. "Clinton" could refer to either Hillary or Bill. So if I say something like "How would President Clinton deal with this situation?", it's not clear who I mean. There's only one Obama, so it's fine to use his last name. Also, many people can't seem to spell Barack correctly. Or we're all part of the global conspiracy against women everywhere; choose whatever explanation you prefer.

'thread topic: hillary's comeback

drindle's response: blame bush

mike's response: have an original idea, please

drindle's response: attack mike

a stunning display of argumentative prowess - a standard liberal strategy; redirect, avoid, attack. well executed, but not unpredictable.'

i don't realy beleive she can come back so i am not commenting on that. i am commenting on today's news, and mccain's positions. you are not obliged, or invited, to read my posts

your response to them, is as usual--attack me.

'a stunning display of argumentative prowess - a standard liberal strategy; redirect, avoid, attack. well executed, but not unpredictable.'.

now as far as 'blaming bush' ever hear of 'the buck stops here' --it was a concept presidents in this country used to bleieve in. since bush has had a rubber stamp congress for 7 years now, i think it's only fair to lay blame for failures where they belong-- at his feet.

folks like you are still trying to blame clinton for bush's failures, so i don't think you have much room to talk.

My wife just pumped a whole lotta money into the Clinton coffers ($50.00 US) so I hope she uses it wisely... "you go girl!" haha

It's EASY:

Just get Bill to go on the attack and... wha?.... They did?! Oh.

Well, maybe she could ask some big-name backer of hers make not-so-veiled allusions to Obama's teenage drug usage. Whoever she uses would have to be African-American to avoid charges of racism, and then... Really? That too?! Sheesh.

Okay, okay, let me think... I got it! She could "accidentally" refer to him as Barack O's'ama! See, because that way Americans would equate him with Osama Bin Laden, and NOBODY likes that guy so... huh? Oh come on, no way!

Damn, she's screwed.

Oooh, no wait - maybe if she suddenly started tearing up in some high-publicity venue...

Watching Hillary give the same old speech in El Paso, TX after Barak's landslide victories reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. Hillary is smart and experienced, and if this were a traditional campaign season, she may have won with her focus on the big, delegate-rich, normally blue states. But she's finding out too late that a young, so-called inexperienced freshman senator rewrote the play book and is cracking the Clinton machine by focusing on winning almost everywhere else. What can Hillary do now? Experience didn't work. Wonkery didn't work. Calling in past favors with statesmen and women around the country may no longer be enough. I'd suspect Hillary would do one of three things: 1) go negative, which may backfire because millions of people love Obama; 2) steal the election by getting the Florida and Michigan delegates seated; 3) cry. The latter worked in New Hampshire. Why change a winning strategy?

"Unfortunately, sometimes my work gets in the way of a timely response. I'm just doing my part to stimulate the economy! Which is more than I can say for the Dem congress."

That's a pretty stupid comment, proud, given that the "Dem congress" passed the stimulus bill and it's not sitting on Bush's desk awaiting his signature.

I realize you were trying to be funny, but like most conservatives, you just aren't.

Frankly, It's hard to make a case that she knows how to bring back blue-collar jobs when she supported & Bill pushed through the NAFTA. Not that much effect was felt immediately during Bill's tenure, but given a decade, the predictable loss of manufacturing jobs has convinced American workers that out-sourcing to low-wage competition may raise company profits, but in no way benefits them.
When people are extraneous to the economic system, no amount of "recovery" improves their situation.

shirt wrote: "Why do men get the priviledge of being called by last name why the sole woman running is called by her first name?"

I had wondered about this some. However, I was shopping for campaign buttons the other day and noticed someting.

Almost every button on the Clinton site used the phrase "Hillary for President". I only saw one button with the Clinton name on it.

Almost every Obama button had "Obama '08".

So, I think Ms. Clinton is partially to blame for the name game.
My question is, was she purposely intending to distance herself from the Clinton legacy from the beginning?

thread topic: hillary's comeback

drindle's response: blame bush

mike's response: have an original idea, please

drindle's response: attack mike

a stunning display of argumentative prowess - a standard liberal strategy; redirect, avoid, attack. well executed, but not unpredictable.

shirt, it's a good question, but she campaigns as "Hillary." That's what's on her signs, on her bumper stickers, on her website. I'm sure they tested, and there was a better response to "Hillary" than there was to "Clinton."

The Hillary strategy for victory should be quite simple -- don't cede anything. Start fighting for states and voters. In places where's she decided to stand up and fight, she's either won, or done well because her economics message resonates. If she kept fighting in the Potomac primaries, rather than just getting out of Dodge, she would have done much better, and may have even won Virginia. Not competing doesn't work. Just ask Rudy.

The problem is not only the campaign, it's also the candidate. She starts with high negatives - whether her own or those that transfer from Bill. And this isn't part of the vast right wing conspiracy, but come also from loyal Democrats who were delighted to see Bill elected in '92 only to endure 8 years of torture around the various, and often, self-inflicted scandals and missteps.

She lacks any charisma. Bill had (stress had) charisma. Obama has charisma. McCain has charisma in his own way. She's more at ease shouting a message and advocating a position than engaging with people.

And she can't shake the perception that she sees herself as being entitled to this job.

If she's having this much difficulty with a campaign, heaven help her should she become president.

I think she needs to do a stocktaking of what is a) good for the party and b) good for the country.

It's EASY:

Just get Bill to go on the attack and... wha?.... They did?! Oh.

Well, maybe she could ask some big-name backe