ileuxn gxzq jdfncezhr rsmfz fjuc kfbav dbfmuievh

ileuxn gxzq jdfncezhr rsmfz fjuc kfbav dbfmuievh

ileuxn gxzq jdfncezhr rsmfz fjuc kfbav dbfmuievh

Being from Penna and talking to people if Obama wins they will not vote for him in the General election they will turn to John McCain or vote non-vote. I agree with this. Also its not over yet!

jimd, blert and dankirkd, thanks for your responses.

I agree with the post that said that the closeness of the Democratic race is a win for the voters in states whose primaries and caucauses are upcoming. Usually by now it has already been "decided" whom the candidate will be and everything else is just rhetoric.

For once it seems that people across this great nation of ours are getting excited about, and interested in knowing about, who our next president will be. I am in my early fifties, and I have voted in EVERY election since I was 18. I too, am excited that so many others are finally taking an interest in politics. There just needed to be a candidate worthy of their interest, whether that be Barack or Hillary.

I, for one, being a Michigander, feel cheated at not being able to cast my vote in Michigan's primary because the candidate of my choice was not on the ballot, however, I strongly feel that I will get that chance in November.

Let's hope the people are the ultimate winners...I used to be a life-long Democrat, but I am now an Independent...In a one-man campaign with no opposition, I still would not vote for Hussein, not this year or any other year. I genuinely like Hillary's plans a bit better, but the savage way that she is treated by all the while male chauvinists in the press as well as some of the females in the press is enough to make me sick of the entire process (which I am).
Hussein, aka "The Pied Piper," comes off in sparkling silver armor up on a white horse, and the hate-mongering media just keep trying to paint Hillary as lower than a dog and deserving of no respect -- I have never gotten that, and I don't think that I ever will...I hope she wins and wins big just so that these types of so-called "journalists"(by some great stretch of the word) will get a come-uppance of sorts...eating a bit of humble pie with a portion of "crow" wouldn't hurt them a bit.

I'd have to say Hillary won. After all, she had to defeat not only Obama, but also Chris Matthews, Tim Russert, Keith Olberman, Maureen Dowd and other female reporters to name just a few of her opponents. Eight states is pretty good considering all that competition.

Not so often mentioned in media. Obama won California voters who VOTED ON TUESDAY.

Some pundits say Hillary's win in NJ and MA is big. REALLY? they are states close to NY, mostly white, it should be solidly in hillary's side all along. The bigger news is that Obama won in CT, and DE, northeastern states with mostly old, white population. Poeple like hillary herself voted for Obama. But the same did not happen in GA or AL (one of which was supposed to go to hillary by more than 10 points according to polls). Obama absolutely trounced Hillary in black votes

-number of States won
-margins of victories
-"turnover" from pre-Tuesdy pol numbers
All of the above points to Obama's (near landslide) victory.

Plus, he made inroads into white men and white women (a little) and even Latino (though only a little). Hillary made no inroads at all. She only held on to her strengths. If I were a Hillary supporter, I can see no positive signs.

Long thread, but in case jimoneill50 reads this far, let me try and answer his question with regards to Washington state on Saturday.

blert and sheridan1 chimed in on this. I think blert is wrong to think Clinton has the edge, and I think sheridan1 is more on point on this.

Let's start with this: Washington is a caucus state. We've seen how well Obama has done in caucus states. Washington will be no exception. Polling is indicating he's doing well by over 10 points. He's raised twice as much money here than any other candidate. He's had a paid operation in the state since the beginning of the year. Clinton is only just moving paid staff into the state now.

I was out last weekend walking my precinct to get out the vote, and I was struck by how many people we talked to, Independents and Republicans, provided unsolicited negative feedback on Hillary. Simply put: if Hillary becomes the Democratic nominee they will be voting against her. Now with Republicans you'd think, "well duh", but when they spoke about Obama it was with respect and admiration. That's a big difference and why polling is also showing that in an Obama vs. McCain matchup as opposed to Clinton vs. McCain, Obama not only wins over the Independents and Moderates, but he even wins over a greater (an not insignificant) share of Republicans who think Obama's positives would outweigh McCain's.

So my prediction is that Obama wins Washington state big on Saturday, by perhaps 15-20%.

I'm 63 years old and never in my years of being witness and participating in elections, sometimes crossing party lines, have I ever seen such viciousness towards a candidate or candidates, like this one. It starts with the news media pundits who are all about ratings and playing on viewers biases and emotions toward any given candidate. I am disgusted in particular with the pundits on the FNC and Chris Matthews on MSNBC. In particular towards Hillary Clinton. It is true what they say about "Image is everything." If Hillary were under fifty and pretty with big boobs those pundits would be swooning all over her no matter what her political affiliation or views are, or who her husband is. The above mention are probably the worse, worser, worsest(?). There is no professional respect towards their female guests and they are no better when it comes to Hillary Clinton. That's probably why they have had to eat CROW and end up with EGG on their faces! I love those moments when those pundits look like fools, or is it foolish?

Rufus reported:

"There's a new rule at the Republican National Committee. Refer to the two leading Democratic presidential candidates simply as 'Barack' and 'Hillary' and you'll be fined $10."

This is traditional for trial attorneys. We call our own witnesses "Bill" and "Mary" and the opposing witnesses "Mr. Smith" and "Ms. Jones".

I'm not sure who "won" but I do know that comments to the effect that Obama is "the Black Candidate" is absurd. He won the 6 of the Whitest states in the nation yesterday--3 of them with Black populations BELOW 1% of the population. And, he won them with huge leads--48 points in Kansas with a 5.6% Black Poulation; 63 points in Idaho with a .5% Black population; 35 points in both MN with its 4% and Colorado with its with 3.7% Black population. N. Dakota's 91% White electorate chose Obama by 24 points.

In the states Clinton won, her margins were far less stunning. She took her Home State of NY by 17 points while Obama took Illinois by 32 points. Clinton took Arkansas by 43 points--no surprise there. Oklahoma is a bit hard to figure: Clinton was ahead of Obama by 24 points but 10% of the vote went to Edwards--the only state since he dropped out where he took more than 5%.

Another observation: Obama might be better understood when you look at the map and notice that he is sweeping the prairie states. It looks like he is also poised to sweep the Intermountain west. The entire tier of states above the Mid-south is turning out to be Obama Country--in effect, he is taking the (mostly White) agricultural "heartland"--(not to mention the Deep South)-- areas the Democratic Party has ceded to the hard-core right since Ronald Regan. I think the East Coast media needs to re-think its assumptions that this election can be understood in terms of "Race" and needs to think about Regional or Geographical ethos instead.

We couldn't imagine that the majority of the americans are black african americans who invaded 14 states to govern America .However, I would like to clarify the real meaning of the word "CHANGE"; for Sen. Obama "Change is not to look at the past but to look for the future!" for Sen. Clinton she wants to change what is existing to be replaced with a wonderful plans and clear strategies as an outcome of a long research and studies, well prepared by her through trial and error which is an essential pillar for achieving perfection in the political life that she practiced successfully.She wants to deliver what BUSH FAILEDf to deliver to the american people.This is the change the world looking for now. God Bless America

This is funny to me. Obama has won more pledged delegates than Cliton. Obama has 603, Clinton has 590. Any advantage Obama has is a miracle and a victory. He was once completely counted out. It's funny to me how the media is paintin McCain and Clinton as the two underdogs. If anything is should be McCain and Obama. Obama had been written off early in the Presidential race, before the first contests.

The winner: the Democratic Party.

Obama puts Colorado, Missouri, Iowa in play.
Hillary won states that any Democratic nominee will win in the fall.

-McCain just isn't that intelligent. Sure, he's a nice guy but by that logic, Mike Huckabee should be the nominee, for he is clearly the "nicest" candidate on the right.
-McCain claims he's a fiscal conservative but he wants to prolonge the Iraq war, which currently costs $12Mil each day.
So this fiscal conservative gets to spend as liberally on defense as he determines necessary, and still gets to claim he's fiscally conservative? By 2012, the Iraq War will have cost an American family of five roughly $20,000. That amounts to roughly $4,000 per taxpayer.
-McCain claims that the "surge" worked? 2007 was the deadliest year of the war for American troops. According to CNN, "Baghdad is now 75% secure." What a f*cking joke! How secure is Cleveland? How secure is Baltimore? 60%? How's New Orleans look? Biloxi? Are they 75% secure? How many more years will we have to keep troops in Arabia? It's time to deal with American citizens and American problems. I'm a little tired of spending my tax dollars towards keeping Baghdad 75% secure! The later months of the "surge" have brought death levels to that of 2004. That's a success?!! We've returned to the second year death levels of a war that should not have even been waged. Let the people of Iraq vote and let them decide whether they want U.S. troops to stay there. I'd much rather hear what Iraqis think of the "surge", because I can already guess that John McCain, the Weekly Standard and Fox News think more boots in Arabia is just the best idea they've ever heard. Weren't 15 of the 19 Sept. 11th terrorists Saudis? Saudi Arabia is one of the least democratic regions on the planet. But they posses the world's largest oil reserves, and Iraq possesses the world's second largest oil reserves. So why isn't Iraq pumping oil now? How come the price of oil has reached $100 a barrel when we've rid Iraq, home the the globe's 2nd largest pretoleum reserves, of their despot? Wasn't the war supposed to pay for itself, by way of the oil? Of course not. Because OPEC, under the auspices of Saudi Arabia, prohibits Iraq from producing anywhere near the amount of oil Iraq could realistically produce. Why? So Saudia Arabia, ExxonMobil, Chevron, and BP can profit from an oil shortage. There's no shortage of oil in Iraq, they're just not pumping any. And that, my friends, is no accident! Now I see why Saddam had to go, he was a liability with all that oil. Might do something crazy like, export to Iraq's actual potential. Is John McCain really defending your interests? Or is he protecting Big Oil and those true conservatives in Saudi Arabia?
-Oh right, and John McCain admittedly knows very little about the economy, so I'm supposed to believe him when tells me that making permanent tax cuts for well fed, whites earning over $250,000 annually will help the middle class? How have those tax cuts worked out for you these past seven years? I can refer you to some folks that have done really well as a result, but they don't live on your block, nor mine. If you earn less than $250,000 a year and you're supporting John McCain, you're an Uncle Tom! There are these awesome things called books. You might want to pick one up.

Obama '08

LadyEagle,

You mentioned that those people who are undecided skewed heavily to Hillary. I don't consider that an indictment of Obama, but of the struggle he's over coem getting any votes.

We have known Hillary since 1992. 16 years in the public eye, against Obama a virtual unknown until 2004. If a person, for whatever reason has been unable to make a choice despite the past 4 months of debates and news coverage, Either that person is truly on the fence, or not paying attention. The first might split, but the second will go with name recongition and familiarity. To be honest, I consider it a hollow victory that Hillary can claim the apathetic vote.

"RNC careful not to humanize Clinton, Obama
By: Steve Benen @ 1:50 PM - PST Once in a while, it's worth taking a moment to realize how very, very odd Republicans can be.

There's a new rule at the Republican National Committee. Refer to the two leading Democratic presidential candidates simply as "Barack" and "Hillary" and you'll be fined $10.

The reason: Using first names makes the candidates sound more likable but calling them "Senator Obama" and "Senator Clinton" makes them sound more distant and bureaucratic.

"I don't think people are actually being fined," says one insider. But everyone is being "encouraged" to follow the rule.

It's like a swear jar in which people who use profanity are supposed to be put money in a pot every time they use profanity. It's supposed to be a deterrent.

Only at the RNC, the swear jar is a humanizing-Democrats jar.

No, I usually don't understand Republicans, either.
"

hahahhaha. don't forget loyalty oaths. The gop is done. do not pity them. they are fascists that made their bed. they earned irrelevance. Let give them what they earned people

alright, back to jd.

"Why do you hate poor American children so much that you would deny them a way out?"

Is that the question you begged for an answer? Why the american left and teachers unions hate poor children? Really? that is yoru question, and you want a serious response.

By me saying money, like with heathcare, should have no play in this issue I hate poor kids. On contrair.

great post sheridan1. Thanks for the time it took to write that one. I agree on all fronts.

I have a major problem with dividing the contest on race or gender. So any latino's out there please forgive my finger pointing.

I just know the famr workers are red rag republcains. they support for clinton is major in the latino community. More so than any "union", because they are not a union. more like a gang, with enforces. All over california and the west. I have a major problem with these people, the northern mexican red raggers.. Always have. to see them support clinton to sabotage the democratic party after all the work put in enrages me. I fight these people daily. Like the gop they are a plague and spreading. And some have credibility and power, with the establishment. I have a major problem personally with these gang bangers and what they have doen to the west.

Basically mexican strong men, paid by the gop, and are now supporting clinton and enforcing for her. The old laws/rules of politics.

to see the latino vote go to clinton is very disheartening. Where will they go when obama is the candidate? Obama or gop? In that race they are going for maccain in droves. Think about the big picture.

bought and paid for. As long as clinton is still in the running the gop is still alive and active as a force. Until she is out I cannot stop what I do. for me to fight agaisnt bush all these years then allow clinton to win is hypocritical. clinton is bush. to those that hate bush but support clinton, you are a hypocrite. The same can be said of bush supporters who hate clinton. They are the same person.

Fear the yale plan

According to the rule of thumb in every other democratic and western nation 'one man one vote' meant Obama won the day.

I got no idea what caucus states mean but delegates are a complete interference in the democratic process. They seemingly sabotage what the electorate speaks.
I'm told Americans themselves can't understand their political process. The establishments preferred candidates can simply win nomination through a candidates simplistic cliche to describe why millions who've cast their votes have been ignored.And are votes going to be annulled because names are similar to convicts as happened in Florida. No one even knows if this obscene injustice has been corrected. Were those criminally falsely struck off voters, victims of the Bush administration, allowed to vote this time around? The media won't tell us. Definitely a case for the BBC to investigate. Perhaps Jeb Bush only allows right wing Fox in Florida. The scoundrels a shame to the Confederacy. If indeed he is Southron.

bsimon,
Many of those requirements are there because of the "only public school" mentality that has existed for years. If you believe that public schools are the only solution to cover all children and there is no choice of where to send your child to, then every school has to cover the special needs of all children. If you have the choice and your options are not limited to your local public school, schools can specialize in certain areas and perhaps be able to better accomodate children with different needs. That's not to say I think it should be requlation free or that performance of all schools should be measured. NCLB would, theoretically, not be needed or could be radically modified as parents would be making the choices of which schools to attend and schools would be reacting to those choices. As it is, NCLB is trying to mandate accountability but pure school choice would be a better and quicker way to do that, IMO.

"THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH."

You can say that again.

Perhaps there is no free lunch in merely exposing public schools to so-called competition.*

* As I've said before, if private schools want to collect vouchers, they should be required to meet all the requirements that are required of public schools, including but not limited to providing for special-needs students, lunch programs, NCLB, etc.

I am so pround of you today Lylepink, that your post bears repeating:
"I think I can safely say that I have been the strongest and longest supporter for Hillary on The Fix. Tuesday, Super Dooper whatever, was A HUGE WIN FOR Obama, and I would hope other Hillary supporters would say so/acknowledge this as well. There is no way to spin this, so don't go into Hillary won the states that matter, or Obama won states that are pretty well acknowledged as Repub strongholds. The FACT remains, Obama WON BIG."

After last night's results, both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton are able to claim some major wins. Clinton took California and New York, the day's two biggest prizes, while Obama won more states and, likely, more delegates. Neither scored a knock-out, ensuring the race for the Democratic presidential nomination will drag on for weeks, if not months.

While no winner emerged tonight, a protracted campaign is better for Obama, and what might be his roll toward the nomination begins in four short days. On Saturday, voters in three states head to the polls or caucuses, and in all three, Obama has hefty advantages.
In Washington State, the biggest prize available this weekend, a total of 68 delegates will be decided in caucuses. Four years ago, former Vermont Governor Howard Dean did better in Washington than he did in any place outside his home state and the District of Columbia. Washington is one of the most highly educated states in the country, and the dominace of white Seattle liberals in the electorate could favor Obama heavily.

Washington State political watchers on both sides of the contest agree Obama has the leg up. Clinton backers privately admit that their candidate will likely lose on Saturday, while Obama supporters play up their organizational advantages and speak confidently of wins throughout the liberal western half of the state, from which most delegates will be allocated.

In Nebraska, just 21 delegates are available at that state's caucuses, but given the amount of effort Obama exerted in Idaho -- he opened an office in Boise, the only candidate to do so -- to win that state's 16 delegates, he could play strongly there as well. Obama has support from the state's only Democratic member of the congressional delegation, Senator Ben Nelson.

And if Nebraska's geographical and political positions, namely a red state in the Plains, are any indication, he will perform strongly there: Obama won North Dakota, Kansas, Missouri and Colorado on Tuesday, and won neighboring Iowa a month ago. Plains states, especially those President Bush won in 2004, have gone heavily for Obama so far this year.

Washington and Nebraska have another political positive for the Illinois Senator: Eight states have conducted caucuses. Seven of them, including Iowa, Alaska, Colorado, Idaho, Kansas, Minnesota and North Dakota, have broken toward Obama. Only Nevada Democrats caucused for Clinton. Obama scored an eight-point win in Iowa, which at the time looked like a big victory. Last night, wins by nearly 50 points in Kansas and Alaska, by more than 30 points in Colorado and by more than 20 points in North Dakota made that margin look paltry.

The third state that votes on Saturday has promise for Obama as well. In 2004, non-whites made up about 29% of the Louisiana electorate, and while many, particularly African Americans, fled the state after Hurricane Katrina, the Census Bureau still estimates that nearly 32% of the population is black. On Tuesday, Obama repeated the dominating performance he had in South Carolina, winning African Americans in some states by as much as a six-to-one margin. While Clinton has been able to make up some of that gap with strong support among Latinos, just 3% of Louisiana will be Hispanic voters.

African Americans have dominated Democratic politics in New Orleans and some other major urban areas around the state. If black play a major role in Louisiana, as they have in other Southern states, odds are that Obama will sweep clean the Saturday states. Add in Maine, which holds another caucus, which benefits Obama, on Sunday, and Clinton could have a very bad weekend.

Beyond this coming weekend, Obama has other advantages heading into the rest of the race. Next Tuesday, African American voters will play another important role in the so-called Potomac Primary, in which Maryland, Washington, D.C. and Virginia voters cast ballots. While Clinton has institutional support from statewide elected officials in Maryland, Obama has backing from Washington Mayor Adrian Fenty and Virginia Governor Tim Kaine, giving him an early organizational leg up.

The next big contests come a month from now, on March 4, when Texas and Ohio are big prizes up for grabs. Polls have not been conducted recently, but in early December, Clinton led in the Buckeye State by a 45%-19% margin, according to Quinnipiac University. No polls have been taken in Texas, but Clinton's camp reportedly feels good about the state.

Clinton, though, has led by wide margins in other states she ended up losing or barely winning. She led by 37 points in an early October poll in Nevada, where she ended up winning by just four. In South Carolina, she led by 24 points in an American Research Group poll and 14 points in an Associated Press-Pew Research poll taken in late November, before losing by 29 points two months later. The more time Obama has to campaign in a state, the better he is able to do. And after outraising Clinton by nearly $20 million in the month of January alone, Obama can afford to begin running ads in both states early, closing any gap Clinton might have.

If Clinton can't score a big win by early March, calls will begin in earnest for her to leave the race. And while all signs point to leads in both Ohio and Texas now, she may not have the same support in the four long weeks Obama has to play catchup.

For Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, Super Tuesday was a draw. But that draw provided Obama with the opportunity to extend the nomination fight, and left Clinton, once again, ending an important round without landing the knock-out punch. The longer Obama dances and avoids the roundhouse, the more likely he will end up winning by surprising in a state he's not supposed to take.

Obama's chances have looked increasingly promising in recent weeks. If Clinton is unable to pick up any states this weekend and underperforms next Tuesday in the greater Washington, D.C. area, Obama will once again be in a position to score a knockout. The battleground will shift to Ohio and Texas before the Democratic race is through, but it will be Obama with the momentum going in, and Clinton, as she has been at least a few times so far in this campaign, with her back once again to the wall.
Reid Wilson is an associate editor and writer for RealClearPolitics. He can be reached at reid@realclearpolitics.com

alright jd. When I come back from lunch.

HAHAHAHAHA.

you gop'ers must really be scared. Super tuesday was yesterday and yoru talking about schools. AHAHHAHA

I love it. The gop is done

and worth it?

Was the "satisfaction of winning" worth the costs we all paid. Including pat tillman and those thousands of soldiers.

Was the cost of fascism, worth the reward? What is the reward? And who's is it?

The gop is done. Clinton is a republcain. Allow the will of the american peopel do be done gop. Or face the consequences of destroying the government,a nd justice as you have.

there are both risks and rewards for what you people do. I am willing to pay the price for my country and it's ideals. I give very little and get much in return (althgouh not financially). What does the gop pay or sacrafice for what they do? Very little. What are their rewards? The seat of power? All the money to their cult?

they risk very little and have a huge reward. Time for the street to run both ways. Shared sacrafice, sharded responsiblity, and shared prosperity.

That is the goal. One Nation again. Why can we not have this?> Why is it crazy to try and re-unite the nation? And who is stopping it? The left? No. the right is the cause. So them their is a price to pay of what they do. Otherwise they risk nothing with theri treason and fascism.

This election is either a reward for the last 8 years of bush or not. I'm betting on the latter. Oh, and clinton is a republcain. She should share the gop's fate. Whatever that may be. You goper's better start voting for clinton in big numbers. She is the gop's only future.

bnw173: Are you serious when you ask how anyone could think Obama could win a list of states in the general that includes Illinois and Minnesota? I assume you aren't too familiar with the midwest. Illinois is a fairly strong state for Dems, last time I checked, and Minnesota--well, the last time Minnesota voted Republican in a presidential election was for Nixon in '72. So yeah, I think Obama can probably take those (as well as a few of the others, like Colorado and Kansas, for example.)

Rufus: sorry to burst your bubble, kid, but I would never try to turn you into a Republican (not being one myself).

If you wish to argue the facts, fine. If all you have is babbling and invective, well... ladies and gentlemen, the voice of the American left, on display.

So why are you so afraid to let competition reveal the NEA's vision of the public schools for what it is? Why do you hate poor American children so much that you would deny them a way out? And if those selfsame kids' parents wish to choose to stay where they are, fine.

Is it possibly because your party relies so much on NEA union contributions and horsepower? Is it because ensuring a steady stream of underclass helps out the party continually pitching to save them (while keeping them on the reservation)? No, that would make you evil - sacrificing poor kids on the alter of maintaining the status quo.

Answer that question please, no other. Any other reply will be ignored.

rufus:

"I'm not a privitize guy. The cost always goes through the roof." A competition situation vs a monopoly one almost always leads to lower cost.

"But self made people don't have the money to pay for school." If you own propery you do since schools are generally paid for through property taxes. Even self made people pay those.

"Without factoring extra fees due to privitazation, on things that are free in normal non-third world countries." THERE IS NO FREE LUNCH. Memorize it and repeat it often.

"When you privatize you risk bias." When you live, you risk bias. It is there now. But that might just be my biased take on it.

"Give them funds .pay their teachers." They have funds and their teachers are paid. I'd like to pay the better teachers more so that we attract better teachers, but there seems to be a lot of people that have issues with that. As it is, DC schools are very well funded, teachers are highly paid (and paid even more to work in the problem schools). And they are some of the worst schools in the country. So bad that the mayor got elected on the promise to take the power away from the school board and give it to himself.

"Rufus, again, too bad you still don't get it. Oh well.

Some people work with children. Some work with the mentally challenged.

I work with Rufus and Claudia.

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 03:01 PM
"

:)

Maybe you can "improve" us.

But does that mean you would make us republicans? does that make your movement a cult? Does that make it fascism?

Ever see that high school movie with the alien slugs. They were all aliens, Once the slug infected them. That is the gop to me. Good luck infecting me and claudia jd.

:)

I have ideals and love my country. There is no way you could turn me to a sell-out traitor for profit. It would take a scrooge macduck pile of gold for me to sell-out my country and world. What was your price?

aT LEAST we see the gop model of "everyman for himself, screw the country and my countrymen", has been soundly rejected by gen x/y. think about the future gop.

you have a choice. don't whine and complain on what choice you make. Either chance you turn and join reality, or don't. But know the risks and the rewards. The risk is being irrelevant for a generation and as a result your party dying out. The rewards of what you do? Not sure, money, satifisfaction of "winning". Not sure why you do what you do gop. Just know there are risks and rewards for your treason. one reward is money. Is it worth it? Is your cult worth it gop? You will have to answer that for yourselves.

Either way nobody cares about your whining and crying anymore. You made your bed, now sleep. for a generation if need be. When you want to rejoin america, by all means. The gop's choice. Do not pity them for choosing the cult of the country. that is treason. What is the penalty for treason again? Teh gop is getting off light. do not pity or fear the fascits. The only power they have is the power we give them

bsimo -simon
---------------------------------------
I did not mean to imply Clinton could win in the general, the states Obama won. She can't either. I overlooked Illinois. He would have a better chance than Hillary there. The Obamites were using his big numbers in Georgia, Alabama, and other red states to imply he might have a chance there. Hillary won my home state, Tennessee. I don't think she could win here. It would be close because the Clintons was popular here. But I don't think enough to win. Her best red state would be Arkansas. Regardless of what the Repubs say, the Clintons are still popular there. My contention is that she is stronger in most of the larger blue states , which would be a plus in the general. Forget those pure red states.

lylepink writes
"bsimon: Your Bias is showing in your reply to bnw173."

What bias is that?

Rufus, again, too bad you still don't get it. Oh well.

Some people work with children. Some work with the mentally challenged.

I work with Rufus and Claudia.

who's to say an employer can't pay a worker 5 cents an hour. If he won't work for it we can bring in illegals from around the globe who will.

Right gop. Screw the country and laws. As long as you make a buck. Screw the country gop, sabotage it if you must. Anything to line yoru fascist pockets.

Imoved him to a differant school. But the gop game of never solving an issue and blaming the messanger is getting real old real fast. eventually you people will have to get with the program. You can't keep this up forever, can you?

"I'm just trying to reduce the crushing bureaucracy and influence of the NEA, something that lefties cannot deal with or fathom."

Posted by: JD | February 6, 2008 02:43 PM

JD is right! It is time we rid ourselves of this crushing bureaucracy.

Oh how I long for the pre-New Deal days. Or better yet, the pre-Progressive days.

Let's get rid of these damned child labor laws -- if a kid wants to work, why should some beauracratic Lefty be able to block his right to earn a wage?

And it is time to rid ourselves of this communistic minimum wage thing. Let the market decide what a job is worth, right? Corproations always look out for the good of mankind.

Let's rid ourselves of the strangling food and drug administration. If the people didn't want to eat rat poop they wouldn't buy the sausage, right?!

Let the Buyer Beware!

Republicans of the world unite! You have nothing to lose but your cattle prods!!!

Don't want to talk about the subject at hand jd/gop. I understand. Better change the subject.

And schools, like healthcare like the police/fire department, is to important to privatize. I'm not a privitize guy. The cost always goes through the roof. If your parents lef tyou a frotune who cares. But self made people don't have the money to pay for school. We barely can pay rent, keep the heat on, and feed our familes. Without factoring extra fees due to privitazation, on things that are free in normal non-third world countries.

how much for blackwater troops? how much for an American infantryman? Who get's paid more?

When you privatize you risk bias. The gop only cares about their cult. When you rpivatize what happens is the gop takes care of themseves and their cult. In our school system we cannot accept gop sabotage.

The whole private school agruement is a joke. I have an idea. Stop sabotaging public school gop. Give them funds .pay their teachers. Nay, all your kids are in private schools. So why worry about the rest of the kids. Let illegals (your slave labor) take over the school system. Who cares, not your kids. Your kids are taken care of by the cult. My kids school they teach him spanish because they are so many illegals in the neighborhood. I guess I should move, right jd?

Frickin republcains

mark_in_austin,
Sure, go ahead a ruin a perfectly good one-dimensional discussion by throwing out a different angle...:-)

Why is this a federal discussion? I think because the horse has already left the barn. I think this ceased being just a state issue long ago although I would be OK with and actually prefer it going back to that. But realistically I don't see that happening. There are too many interests involved on a national level. It's almost like asking why is social security a federal issue. So I am resigned to the fact that there will be federal involvment for some time, perhaps forever, and I am looking for the best solutions to help educate kids.

bsimon: Your Bias is showing in your reply to bnw173.

Claudia, it's a shame that both you and Rufus feel unable to argue the point I'm actually making, instead of making one up yourself and arguing against it.

Nobody is talking about completely privatizing schools. *At least I'm not*

We're talking about introducing the one mechanism proven to both reduce costs and increase quality: competition.

Mark, fair point, but that ship has sailed. The federal government is now hopelessly entwined in the educational system in this country. I'm just trying to reduce the crushing bureaucracy and influence of the NEA, something that lefties cannot deal with or fathom.

clinton supports think small cmsore. They think we can only win "blue" states. BLue staes. The divisions that seperate us are man made divisions for personal power/wealth.

there is no such thing as red states and blue states. PArt of the big gop lie. clinton cannot win purple or red staes. Let's leave it at that. Obama, YEs HE CAN. :)

If great watching the clinton sabotage machine. At least we get to see who's who and what's what. Like the last 8 years, at least we found olut who the gop cultists are. Now we just need to marginalzie those who would choose canidate or party over country. The same epopel that backed the bush sabotuers back clitnon. there are indebted to the same people

bsimon - "And therefore, the school choice argument also falls in to the "That's a great theory but how do you do that?" category."

Choice means that you have options, hopefully one that is better than your current situation. It is not a guarentee of kids in the worst schools suddenly getting into the best school. I may have wanted the Wii for Christmas but couldn't find it and had to settle for PlayStation. But that is better than the broken Atari I had. I never said that vouchers were the only solution, just one that was needed because it would cause schools to compete for kids. And i disagree that competition wouldn't help "kids that have behavioral problems, or were unprepared to enter school, or only eat one 'decent' meal a day". Why not? As a parent, I would be looking for schools that best fit the needs of my kids. If they were great in sports, I might lean towards schools that had better sport programs, if they had behavioral problems, I would look to the schools with the best programs that addressed that. If they provided meals and that was critical to me, that may influence my decision. That may or may not be a private school. They have these issues now. Some schools deal with particular things better than others. If I have a child in a public school that has a learning disability and that school is not very good at addressing that problem, what do I do now if I am poor? Nothing - my child struggles. Actually, I guess I would wait for an improvement in the school while my child struggles...

"TOTAL VOTES CAST
Clinton: 50.2% (7,347,971)
Obama: 49.8% (7,294,851)"

If this is true, wow. How many were illegals for clinton though, in the west?

bnw173-

I can honestly believe that some of those states are obtainable for Obama and also obtainable but harder for Hillary.

Colorado has a large inmigration of Californians, has elected some dem Senators (and I believe has a strong Dem in the 2008 Senate race) and is part of the Mountain West portion of the R coalition that is more disenchanted than the rest of them and that has been turned off by the Southern wing of the party.

Illinois- Hasn't Illinois historically voted Dem? Besides he's the Senator from Illinois so I'm just going to assume your eyes skipped this one.

Kansas- Unlikely, but his mama's from there and the R's are in retreat on statewide offices.

Minnesota- A quintessentially PURPLE state where the D will need the Independents who tend more to Obama than Hillary.

Missouri- Am I wrong in remembering that there have been numerous tight races between parties there in the last decade?

Let's add New Mexico which has been a swing late counting state in the last few elections.

True, the smaller parts of the Mountain West and the deep south would only come with a nationwide landslide, but from my vantage point some of those states are definitely obtainable, and the ones that are obtainable have more electoral votes than the ones that require a radical national margin.

It's true that Obama's wins in red states yesterday were overrated. After all, some Democrat has to win the primary Georgia. A Democrat has won the Georgia Democratic primary every election, but that's not the same as winning the state in the general.

But who do you think would have a better chance to win Georgia? The candidate who won the Georgia primary by a landslide, or the one who was soundly beaten? Georgia voters clearly support Obama far more than they support Clinton. Does that mean he'll definitely win Georgia? No. But it does mean that he's shown an ability to appeal to Georgia voters, which Clinton hasn't. It shows that Obama at least has a potential to win the state, which Clinton doesn't. That's not a guaranteed win, but it's something.

And the fact that Clinton won a state doesn't mean that she's the only one who could win it. Wow, she won NY and MA, two liberal states that always vote Democratic. Obama can easily win NY and MA in November. If he can win all of Clinton's states, but she can't win all of his, who's the better nominee?

...so many thought-provoking, well-reasoned posts today and so many seriously-intended hilarious posts, as well.

Just a few I had to comment on:

The big winners of the night were the people of Virginia, Texas, Pennsylvania and all the other people in post-SuperT states whose votes now actually matter to some degree
Dave 10:06

This is right on the money, Dave.

But I also would like to add that both the Obama and Hillary organizations are going to benefit enormously from the intense competition. They will both develop even stronger grass roots organizations to fight each other, and thus, whoever gets the nod will be much stronger for the general election.

I also hope that anyone here who's pulling for a McCain Huckabee ticket think about the risks to the Constitution of calling for a 'Christian nation.'
Claudia 11:54

Claudia, Oliver Cromwell called for a 'Christian nation' and look at all he accomplished?

I speak as a 54 year old white male Floridian who changed his registration from independent to democrat in order to support Obama.
Optimist 12:07

I did the same yesterday -- except that I'm 50 and a Chicagoan.

bschick20: "Obama is playing chess while Hillary is playing checkers." Good one!

Actually, I think it is more like Obama is playing jai lai whilst Hillary is playing polo.

Understatement of the Year:
"Its safe to assume that the Clinton campaign will not give up without a fight."
Also safe to assume she'll finagle a way to get MI and FL delegates reinstated because of her 'win' in those states that were supposed to be off limits. Rule-breaking and lying is, after all, the Clinton way.
Proud 10:34

And this is exactly why Republicans fear her so... she beats them at their own game. let's face it: the Clintons can out-Rove even Rove!

Obama may have done better than expected, but just because an underdog almost tied the favorite does not mean he won. The Giants beat the Patriots they didn't just do better than expected. Obama will have to do better to win the nomination and in most of the biggest states remaining -TX, PA, OH, VA, WI, WA, he does not yet look like he can do more than "win" by almost not losing. Clinton also has the superdelegate advantage and still seems to be accruing the benefits of the party apparatus - i.e. if it's close the party is going to lean to Clinton. Obama needs to take the lead in the voter determined delegates, not just a tie. Let's hope he can build that momentum in the coming states. Time does seem to improve his results, but he has some ground to cover in little time. A McCain v. Clinton campaign is really going to be stale and painful. Two old white politicians in grey suits bantering about the same media talking points. Yuck!

bnw173 asks
"Obama: (13 wins): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah
----------------------------------
Does anyone in their right mind believe Obama can win any of these states other than Conn. and Del. in the General. "

Of that list, in the general, Obama would win Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois and Minnesota easily. Its possible that he could be competitive in Georgia & Alabama, which Sen Clinton would never be. Kansas & Missouri are tougher to call, though the urban populations in KC & St Louis could potentially swing those states in Obama's favor. Which, again, Sen Clinton would never be able to do.

He talks about how great fox and clinton are in the same sentance. You do my work for me and make my connectiions for me.

clinton is a moderate sell-out republcain. Put the r next to her name. I don't have a problem with her personally. I just wish she ran as a republcain, where she belongs, and the democtaic party can move forward without gop sabotage.

You know clinton is a republcain by her votes, her actions, her support of fox, and her supporters and their gop tactics. The farm workers are red rag republcains. Strong men. Gang bangers. Trying to stake out a claim. Clinton is a republcain. HEr old ladies illegals and red raggers will never win the day. All she is doing is destroying the future of her party.

clinton cannot win. It is impossible. So why do her and her supporters persist? They are republcain traiotr red coat sabotuers.

Ignore the trolls blarg. That's what they say about those that do not want conflict.

I was never one of these trools, trying to stir you guys up. My goal was change and growth. I was always real with you people. I just looked at things differantly.

These people who come just to get you angry are not worth your time, blarg. You give them what they want. Make him earn it. When he posts one thing of substance then acknowledge. otherwise you are feeding the moster. Clinton is the underdog. HAHAHAHAHHAAHAHAHA.

Don't feed the trools. A lose lose. the trolls (either side)will never acknowledge reality

Obama: (13 wins): Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah
----------------------------------
Does anyone in their right mind believe Obama can win any of these states other than Conn. and Del. in the General.

wow pink. Thanks for being real. Congrats on california though. I was hoping for that one. Not close. Thanks again pink for acknowleding reality. Unlike some on this blog,I won't mention names.

I would say a draw. But coming were you came from I can see you would think it was a loss. You thought this was not possible, what obama is doing. Many old schools think the same.

Thanks again for the acknowledgement. you are the clinton supporters on this blog. :)

I say it was a draw, due to the big ones going for clinton. But now we are at the same point. clinton being the enivitable candidate at one time and now even would make this a slight loss. But they are even right now. Maybe after clinton's enivitability arguement has been shot more of her supporters will cross over. That is my hope

You like the fact that Hillary made a terrible decision by voting to go to war with Iraq, and has never apologized or wavered in her support for that war? Wow. You must be a huge fan of George Bush! He's also known for taking a wrong position, never changing his mind, and never admitting he made a mistake. What wonderful praise for your candidate.

And hey, he's also the underdog, because some members of the media don't like him! That's everything you want in a candidate, right?

As far as MI and FL are concerned, I suspect that the DNC will consider seating delegates, but not based on the primaries that were already completed.

Because the voting did not represent an actual campaign in either state, something else will have to be done. In MI, if delegates are to be seated, there will likely be a caucus held sometime in May or June. The DNC would not allow the 1/15 results to stand because one of the two key candidates was not on the ballot.

More likely, the D's will schedule caucuses in both states.

tomagg-Glad to see another non-sheep on these posts. I don't see how these folks don't see the media bias. I'm not talking about Fox either. I sometimes turn to them to make sure I'm not watching them. I find out I'm not. At least 1 in 10 statements are somewhat positive on Fox. Vote for the underdog. Vote Hillary.

You know, I keep hearing how Barack Obama won all these states that will go red anyway in the general election. Besides the fact that maybe we should try to actually redraw the map for the first time in god knows how long (so we don't have to sit around yet AGAIN on election night praying Ohio won't have any ballot issues), how about giving Minnesota a little credence? Isn't Minnesota one of the "purple" states that either side can take? And didn't Obama win BIG there? And doesn't it have the same number of delegates as Missouri (which is another back and forth state that he also won)?

And being from the midwest myself, I think I probably speak for a lot of people there when I say I resent hearing all of Obama's wins there derided as unimportant or small-state wins. Flyover country it may be to some of you folks, but come November it'll get a lot of attention just like always, and it looks like Obama may be more popular there than McCain. Combine that with McCain's apparent unpopularity and Obama's popularity in the South....

If you're thinking about electability, by the way, notice that McCain lost in many of the states that Obama won. I think he and Obama and competing for the same independents...and they seem, in my analyis, to be going for Obama.

No one cares bnw173. you showed your face as a clinton propogandists. One vote for her. thank you.

You got anything of substance other than clinton lies spin and propoganda?

dave, JD, and bsimon, I want to complicate your discussion by asking why this is in any way a federal question?

In TX we have charter schools that work and ones that do not. In Austin, the good ones have provided an alternative to public schools.

Locally I have been in favor of in District transfer vouchers and we have won an approximation of that. When the better schools in the District are not taking any more transfers, I have no problem with vouchers for charter schools. But I go to the school board about that.

Not Congress. Not the President. What are you guys doing to my country? :-)

I think I can safely say that I have been the strongest and longest supporter for Hillary on The Fix. Tuesday, Super Dooper whatever, was A HUGE WIN FOR Obama, and I would hope other Hillary supporters would say so/acknowledge this as well. There is no way to spin this, so don't go into Hillary won the states that matter, or Obama won states that are pretty well acknowledged as Repub strongholds. The FACT remains, Obama WON BIG.

Blarg. I can't remember any of Clintons accomplishments without looking them up, I know lots of things she sponsored but I would have to research to answer correctly to see what passed. I know with research I could list at least two for every Obama one. Remember, I just got on board with Hillary when she became an underdog. I'll have to research. I know she voted to go to war. I didn't like that vote, but at least she stood by it. She didn't just vote present. I don't honestly know if Obama would have voted for or against. In a speech(2004) supporting Kerry, he stated he wasn't really sure how he would have voted. Kinda like present. Other statements(2002) imply he was against the war then. I honestly think they are almost alike. I just like the underdog. Maybe if Edwards had dropped out when he was an underdog I would have chosen him. And before the media anointed him.

dave writes
"Obviously not every child can go to the one best school (be that public or private)."

And therefore, the school choice argument also falls in to the "That's a great theory but how do you do that?" category.

I agree with the criticisms of the teachers' unions being in the way of making effective changes in the schools. But that, likewise, does not mean that vouchers are the only alternative.

I suspect a larger problem is with how schools are funded. In this state, property taxes are a major source of funding for schools. What is the relationship between real estate value and childrens' educations? Tenuous, at best. Its a terrible way to fund schools. I also think a lot of societal problems end up magnified in schools, then the schools get blamed for failing to educate kids that have behavioral problems, or were unprepared to enter school, or only eat one 'decent' meal a day - which they get at school, etc. Voucher programs or school 'competition' or whatever you want to call it, won't address any of those problems.

"In our own way, we are writing history this presidential season and the activism shown in these posts speaks to what Faulkner was driving at...we will NOT go quietly or gently into that good night! We WILL state our case and select our champions...loudly and with conviction...right or wrong, but above all...OUR convictions!

For those among you who may not be familiar with Faulkner's speech, I urge you to Google it. It's magnificent! As a writer, I try to live up to it. As a reader, I think carefully about these posts...all of them.

There's hope, yet. Thank you all.

Posted by: PETETENNEY | February 6, 2008 12:56 PM
"

:)

yES WE CAN.

BY IMPROVING DAVE, do you mean they produce little cult republcains, like private schools? Is that like hwo the gop is "imporving" iraq and afganistan now, and would like to "improve" iran and pakistan?

By improve what you really mean is more rpublcian like.

you disenfrancise shcools because you want to force conservatism on children. Your cult only works if you" hook em young." Free thinking independant minds will reject fascism and slavery every single time.

You want kids to go to catholic shcool. No evolution, little science, or science authorized by your cult.

To give strength to the public shoocl system would be to empower the poor. I'm sure that is big goal of teh gop. Empowering the poor and disenfranchised in big cities. The gop has always been for that. HAHAHHAHAHAHA

Without gop sabotage think of what we can do. I picked my path for my children. The democratic method is much better and safer for the children. Much less pain. Needless pain and conflict does not always make a man/women a better person.

The gop is done. at least in their old capacity. dance around that all you want gop. But your movement has been rejected. As we move forward please do not sabotage the future. Think about the future. You are free to be you, gop. you can't force conservatism on a free person, any more than you can force democracy at the point of a gun. Please stop trying. Re-join america gop. Or get let in the dust. Your choice. Nobody pities you and yours anymore for the choices you make.

Bad choices have consequences. Your party has been making bad choices for decades now. Stand aside and let a new generation take over. Or do not. But do not whine cry and complain. Rememeber how the right treated the left. In a free society the street must run both ways. And the laws must apply to all.

I disagree. We fix our countries problems by working together. Not seperate but equal and sabotaging the other side. The gop disagree's. We will see what the american people think about that. I think they will side with me. But make no mistake. Clinton is a republcain. The writing is on the wall, she almost admits as much.

I'm so sick of the moderate sell-out republcains that pose as democrats sabotaging the "opposition" party. For decades now. This just started with you gop, mccain and huck. The left has been dealing with the gop sabotaging for generations now. Don't whine and complain to much gop

I'd rather just have three arties and get it over with. The right the left and teh sellout moderates. At least then the moderates could be open about them being up for bid. The right and moderates and combine marginalize my leftist movement. At least then the moderates would not destroy the left's ideals and movements for profit. At least then it would all be on the table.

Then we would see what america is really about. Are we a country based on the ideals we were founded on. or are we a capitalistic fascist police state?

Just did a quick calc going through the states, and rounding to the nearest thousands in each state (sorry Alaska!), I have:
Obama 7,315,000
Clinton 7,376,000

Yikes!

bsimon - "The solution is to improve the bad schools, rather than diverting public dollars away from public shools towards private schools, where only a few will benefit."

That's a great theory but how do you do that? There is no incentive other than "because its the right thing to do". And why penalize all the kids in the school in the process? Obviously not every child can go to the one best school (be that public or private). And there will be people that can't afford to change even if given the option. But if you make all schools compete for kids in order to survive, I really think everyone would be better off in the long run (and the short run for many). I don't believe that all private schools are better than public and studies support that. The difference is that the students for those private schools that are not meeting parents expectations have other options. The one's in crappy public schools mostly don't.

Hillary could have won every state and every delegate, and the headline would say that Barack is still the Messiah. When will anyone start hardball with Obama? NO ONE has! Has anyone even adventured into the details of the differences in each of their health plans? Or is Obama going to receive a pass on that as well? His is going to cost double what he stated and will leave at least fifteen percent of the population out. Hillary's covers EVERYONE, costs a fraction more than she states and finagles the money already within the system. That is only one example. People, please pay attention to the issues. Hope is a slogan, not a policy. I do not understand the disdain for this woman at all. My God, do you want someone to actually listen to you or not? Do you really want peace and prosperity back in the United States or not? And don't use Bill as the scapegoat either. He was terrific at foreign policy and has even more credit around the globe now. For those of you old enough to vote but not old enough to remember the Clinton years, listen up. Things were pretty damn GOOD. He was impeached for chasing a woman-nothing more. The great John F. Kennedy and many more exactly like him who donned the White House address chased a hell of a lot more women than he did and for some reason, that seemed to be ok. So, everyone get off it. Start paying attention to the issues. I hear a lot of talk about change from Obama; but, I have not heard one detail about one single issue from the man. I am waiting for the media to begin acting like reporters and start asking him some real questions.

Anybody know if Huckabee believes in global warming? McCain certainly believes in evolution along with global warming. What other policy differences do they have?

Posted by: judgeccrater | February 6, 2008 10:34 AM

The biggest policy difference is over that snake oil panacea of the "fair tax" that Huckabee supports. There is no way McCain would go for that.

Understatement of the Year:
"Its safe to assume that the Clinton campaign will not give up without a fight."

Also safe to assume she'll finagle a way to get MI and FL delegates reinstated because of her 'win' in those states that were supposed to be off limits. Rule-breaking and lying is, after all, the Clinton way.

Posted by: proudtobeGOP | February 6, 2008 10:34 AM

proud

she would need the convention to vote to seat those delegates.

'dave, I'm starting to think that the NEA-backed left in this country would sacrifice the education of the poor only to ensure a steady supply of underclass (and therefore victims, ie Democratic voters).

How cynical is that?'

about as cynical as thinking that those who want to privatize schools hope to demolish the public educational system altogehter in order to insure a permanent whiny underclass of victims [ie, rush limbaugh listeners].

I saw a great Obama Ad yesterday. He was talking(preaching) about bringing change to Washington with new ideas and a new establishment. Only one thing wrong with that picture. White haired Ted Kennedy on his right and John Kerry on his left. It was not really an ad but another sermon. (Speech). It sure served as an ad to me. Go with the underdog, vote Hillary. (By the way what happened in California. All the Obamites were swooning on Obama up 8 Points. Sounds like underdog to me.)

ALAN in MSLA: "But Obama's win in some smaller states, including two neighbors of my Montana, Idaho and North Dakota, shows what can happen when you actually come to these small-population states and ask for their vote. Obama's win was lop-sided in both of these states because the Clinton campaign all but ingnored them."

I want to bolster that point, for you Alan. I graduated from high school south of you, and live in ND. I did some work for the Edwards campaign, and my wife signed up for HRC's campaign. We got 12 pieces of Obama mail between Tuesday of last week and this Tuesday, 14 phone calls, etc. HRC, nothing.

That said, to confuse that with Obama being able to carry either state in the General is a huge mistake. He will not carry Idaho, and he will not carry NoDak. Look at the raw numbers. 11,000 votes out of 400,000 registered voters in North Dakota, are you kidding me? That's a harbinger of competitiveness in the fall. North Dakota is solid red in the Presidential races, has been since 1964, and like Idaho will stay that way this year. So all of the hoopla about Obama carrying ID, UT, ND, KS, etc is full of sound and fury signifying nothing.

BSimon, I agree that a person's sex or the color of his or her skin SHOULD have no bearing on the capability to lead...but it's a fact! A LARGE segment of the United States is still gender- and racially-biased. We are, by and large, a nation of white, selfish, fat MEN who would prefer to be lulled into somnolence by televised "reality" shows than to get up and actually DO something! We do what we are told because "they" tell us to...NOT because it is a rational decision we've made, but because it is easy. Those of us who post on these boards are the exception...WE DO rage against the "machine"...from ALL directions!

GOOD!

That's our only hope. In what I think is the most magnificent Nobel Prize acceptance speech ever made (and certainly the shortest) by our greatest American writer, William Faulkner...a man notoriously averse to giving speeches...speaking to those of us who are blessed (or cursed) to be writers, spoke universal truths when he said, "Our tragedy, today, is a general and universal physical fear so long sustained by now that we can even bear it...the young man or woman writing today has forgotten the problems of the human heart in conflict with itself which alone can make good writing because only that is worth writing about, worth the agony and the sweat. He must teach himself that the basest of all things is to be afraid: and, teaching himself that, forget it forever, leaving no room in his workshop for anything but the old verities and truths of the heart, the universal truths lacking which any story is ephemral and doomed...Until he learns these things, he will write as though he stood among and watched the end of man. I decline to accept the end of man...I believe that man will not merely endure, he will prevail. He is immortal not because he alone among creatures has an inexhaustible voice, but because he has a soul, a spirit capable of compassion and sacrifice and endurance. The poet's, the writer's, duty is to write about these things. It is his privilege to help man endure by lifting his heart, by reminding him of the courage and honor and hope and pride and compassion and pity and sacrifice which have been the glory of his past..."

Heavy words spoken in 1950 and as important today as they ever were, then.

In our own way, we are writing history this presidential season and the activism shown in these posts speaks to what Faulkner was driving at...we will NOT go quietly or gently into that good night! We WILL state our case and select our champions...loudly and with conviction...right or wrong, but above all...OUR convictions!

For those among you who may not be familiar with Faulkner's speech, I urge you to Google it. It's magnificent! As a writer, I try to live up to it. As a reader, I think carefully about these posts...all of them.

There's hope, yet. Thank you all.

dave, I'm starting to think that the NEA-backed left in this country would sacrifice the education of the poor only to ensure a steady supply of underclass (and therefore victims, ie Democratic voters).

How cynical is that?

rufus - "Money should have nothing to do with it."

Other than then fact that it costs money to educate people, be that public money from taxpayers currently spent of public schools or private money spent on private schools or home schooling. School choice is not meant to disenfranchise public schools. It is meant, actually, to force them to improve. Right now the way to "improve" public schools is to provide them with more money or resources. There is no penalty for them if they fail or continue to fail other than to give them more. Most of the kids in those schools have no other option to choose from on where to be educated. The kids are the ones that get penalized.

'If all schools had to accept all comers, like public schools do, the 'better' private schools would start seeing the same problem public schools have. The solution is to improve the bad schools, rather than diverting public dollars away from public shools towards private schools, where only a few will benefit.'

thank you, bsimon, for putting it so well. additionally, a great many of the problems kids in poor-performing schools experience has to do with their home lives. i have spoken to a number of teachers over the years, and most of them feel that success in school is nearly impossible without a great deal of parental involvement, especially in the early years, by teaching and enforcing study habits and discipline, goalsetting, etc.. one of the many reasons people ARE poor is that they never learnd these things themselves.

Dumping a kid in a private school who does not have the right tools to deal with it can only do so much. and in any case, who pays? i know in voucher programs, people get a few thousand a year for tuition, which might get you into a Catholic school--with bearing someof the cost yourself. But private schools start at $35,000 a year around here. Are taxpayers supposed to send poor kids who are not prepared to one of these? and do you honestly think they will accept a child with a poor academc record?

It's a fantas -- or more aptly, another way to privatize, to squeeze a profit out of every human activity.

there's also the concept of community. my kid has gone to the same small school system for 12 years. she knows every kid in town and has an identity of being part of a community. and that is priceless. there are emotional and human benefits that the privateers apparently cannot imagine.

"Had Obama won California, you definitely could have put a win in his corner for the night. Speaking of which, anyone know why the polls were so off in Cali? They had Obama at +7, and then Clinton won by 10. Very New Hampshire-esque.

Posted by: ManUnitdFan | February 6, 2008 10:56 AM

Simple answer - early voting. Over 1/3 of the total California vote was cast before Super Tuesday. Obama's surge was late and was not enough to overcome Clinton's huge advantage with the early voters.

As it was, Obama won the white vote. Clinton won with Hipanics and Asians.

Obama has not brought Hillary down , The likes of CNN and MSNBC have . She does have over 3/4 of the voters in this election against her. She did have a big lead earlier until the press started on her. I have being accused of not being a Democrat,I am, although a dishartened one. You Obamaites Clinton bashers, should read an op-ed by Dr. Stanley Fish in the 2/3/08 New York Times. I can understand Repubs bashing her. But you sheep can not prove one law that Hillary has broken. You bash her because the Repubs have told you so many lies that you believe them. Now, that's sheep. NOTE, this morning on Morning Joe, Tim Russart was singing the praises of John McCain. Couldn't be starting a different love fest could he?

Mark in austin:

Dude look inside the vote in California. I have spent a lot of time in the state, and have a lot of hispanic friends in the LA area and down to Riverside. They HATE blacks. If the GOP nominated a close the borders guy, it would be irrelevant, but McCain can shade the racial stuff in California against Obama, and play up his immigration views, and bada bing bada boom, California is seriously in play.

Any scenario that has Obama winning has to include California, the numbers are too stark, in itself, the state makes up nearly 20 percent of the electoral vote necessary to win the GE.

Hillary won the hispanic vote 72-28, and that's not an accident. Arnie is the Governator by capturing a substantial hispanic vote in both races. McCain is on the right side of the immigration issue from a Hispanic perspective.

All of this talk about who won misses a very big point. Hillary won the aggregate vote yesterday by over two million votes. Yes, the delegate race is close, because of the proportional representation schemes, but in big state after big state, in states that Dems can win, she won handily. Now I've lived in the plains states for 13 years, and I can tell you, Obama can't carry them, no matter that he got 11,000 votes in north dakota when he sent out over 200,000 mailers and made a half million calls, he can't win the GE with a popular Republican governor up for reelection. He won big in UT and ID, do you seriously propose that he can win those states? KS? Maybe, just maybe. But NE and SD, not a chance in hell.

Welcome to 1992, ok, fine. I'm stuck in 1992, you're living in some sort of possible future not 2008.

bnw173, I notice that you didn't list any of Hillary Clinton's accomplishments. I'll be charitable and assume that you didn't notice my question. Please list the great things that she's accomplished, so we can compare with Obama's accomplishments. (Some of which have already been mentioned.)

And while you're at it, can you explain further how Hillary is the underdog? Some would say that the candidate who's supported strongly by the Democratic establishment, including a former president, is by definition not an underdog. Especially when she started the race with the highest poll numbers and best fundraising. She's running against a senator from Illinois, who nobody had heard of 4 years ago. So how is she the underdog?

I heard this Am that half the votes in CA were absentee votes, starting after NH, there by giving HRC the advantage over Obama

I staid up until
ABC closed last nght, and so far, there were only 13 precincts in California reporting for clinton. 13 [precincts makes a total win? Obama campaigned in the Bay Area, what happened to that? It
is known now that if he goes to a tate and the people see him, they go for hom. Maybe not all. But here in Texas there are many groups organized for Obama. Not all of them are college ed areas. And a big group of Women for Obama. Recently Clinton has been inundating Wichita Falls, Texas, an outlying area north of Houston,
with repeated ads. She did not come to Texas. Obama did. A friend who lives in Wichita Falls, couldn't believe how many Clinton ads were going on. She forgot they have a University there, but for the most part a good deal of Texas is a redneck and color bias regionally. And she is counting on this. Here it's The Oil, stupid. And a lot of Religous Right folks. But Obama came here and in Austin, and Houston, and some of the industrial areas there is a lot of Obama people. Big
medical center, and Universities, but not sure how they lean. Not sure about California precincts either, or why it was awarded to her. Then there is the Missouri contest, Obama 49, Hillary 48. ? Anyone know where I can find those results?

As an Obama supporter, I'd say the real winners are not the parties or the candidates but the voters in states voting after 2/5. The dems are in trouble because they don't have a front-runner so they're going to keep fighting until June which hurts both candidates and the reps have a front-runner that their core voters despise. My first reaction was to annoint McCain the big winner but I don't think he won by a big enough margin to really be in the clear when Huckabee drops out. Therefore, Ohio, Texas, and many other states are the big winners because they now have a huge voice when before they thought they'd have none.

judge - "My main concern is not when people vote for someone who is like them racially, it's when they vote against someone who is not like them racially."

Then I might be not getting what you're saying. If in AZ, BHO got 83% of the african-american vote, doesn't that seem to suggest that many african-americans are voting against HRC (as well as, one could argue, that they are voting for Obama) because of color? Your statement seems like the two sides of the same coin. I must be missing something. Personally, I think it's just as bad to vote for someone because they are (pick a category) female, male, white, african-american than it is to vote against someone for that same reason. You judge or vote for someone based on the content of their character, not the color of their skin (or gender), to paraphrase Dr. King.

Now since Hispanics have a choice between two non-hispanics, the 60% that Clinton got could be construed as a vote against Obama moreso than if there is a person of your race in the choice. But 60% is not a huge number and, as I said, HRC was doing outreach to the Hispanic community long before Obama. I still say the 80 number is more telling than the 60 number.

Rufus, since you clearly don't get it, let me educate you.

Right now, the poorest neighborhoods deny their kids educations because the monolithic NEA/Democratic alliance won't allow competition to provide the poor kids and their parents more options.

If you claim to be against 'only the rich kids getting a good education', then you MUST be in favor of school choice. Throwing dollars at an overbearing, bureaurcatic system accomplishes very little.

For example, in my backyard, in DC (this IS a Washington paper, folks), they spend more money per pupil than any other big city in the country, $8770 per kid per year. And their performance: (drum roll)... dead last.

In an analysis of NYC schools, the NYTimes actually found an INVERSE relationship in money spent per pupil and academic performance. So don't suggest that throwing even more money at the problem is the answer.

I have serious doubts about how many of a state's actual voters are represented by the caucus system. In Texas we both vote and hold caucuses that night; the real delegates are chosen at the caucuses and they don't match the vote that closely. Organized enthusiasts can show up at a caucus and carry it, especially in bad weather or rural areas--such as North Dakota or Minnesota has so many of. I wonder how many of those caucuses Obama won were in college towns or big cities, compared to ones from the smaller towns or farms where many people still reside in most of Obama's states. (If you have to drive 25 miles to a caucus in ND or CO--or 15-25 miles in many TX counties, you have to be a real enthusiast, and to have a good car and be in good health.)

Drindl: thanks for the research on MDH. Sounds like he wouldn't have any real heartache in coming around to McCain's views on those issues. Maybe Limbaugh will finally give himself heart failure over all that.

"Judge - In Austin they are not a force, but in small town TX"

Yeah, Mark, we've got the same bunch here in OH. They don't occupy as much real estate and OH will probably go for McCain. MDH will do very well (will get a big bounce from yesterday) but will likely come in second. Bhoomes, are you out there and capable of putting aside your depression to weigh in on this?

" If your goal is to provide the best education for all children that money can buy, school choice is your ticket.

Posted by: dave | February 6, 2008 12:04 PM

"

If children are the future, then education is the key to their sucess. "the best education money can buy", put's only those with money in a position for sucess. Where teh rich go to privite shcools and the rest of kids are discarded.

You illustrate the problem and the gop midset again, dave. Thanks.

What if money had nothing to do with it? What if we gave the best education available to all children? What stops that money? I don't think so. I think politics has much more to do with the problems with education than does money. Money should have nothing to do with it.

It's to disenfrancise public Schools. Why would the gop want to do that? Think about it.

great song, mark, hadn't heard it...

'Did Obama or Clinton get more votes?" Add McCain to that-- what I'd really like to know, which one of the 3 did the most Americans vote for?

Big night for both candidates. There was heavy spinning
in both camps before (and now after) Tuesday, perhaps a bit more on the HRC side. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/02/05/AR2008020503397.html

I have a hunch that Clinton's people knew she would perform strongly in Massachusetts and California, despite Obama's high-profile endorsements for in the former and the big rallies and encouraging poll numbers in the latter. The Clintons have a good reputation among blue-collar democrats in MA (well-earned, I'm told, by my in-laws there), and she continues to outperform among women--who have become a sizable majority of the Democratic voters-- and Hispanics. Also--and this was evidenced in CA by HRC's huge lead and Edwards' high percentage in the early returns (25% or so)--she did remarkably well among absentee voters, many of them who likely were seniors. Obama crept closer late in the day just as he had late in the race.

I agree with those who say time is on Obama's side. His numbers always tick up after his speeches, and he can distinguish himself even more as the anti-establishment candidate. He does very well in the caucus states, and I expect for him to do well in MD and VA.

Obama's success in such swing states as MO, MN, and CO seems to bode well for his chances going forward.
What can one can read from his successes in red states ID, AK, ND, and UT? Red-state democrats fear HRC's down-ticket influence. What else? His success outside of traditional Democratic strongholds means either that:
1) he's got a better chance for a Reagan-style mandate in November, or
2) such states are little more than trophies he's be hard-pressed to win in the general.

How will Ohio, Pennsylvania, and Texas work out for our historic duo? I'm excited to find out.

beckonon-I don't believe you have figured it out. Paste and post, or test. You failed, Boy am I having fun. You even have a sheep name, beckonon. They have beckoned and you are on.
I don"t care if I offend Obamites. I personally heard him say he did not think his sheep would vote for Hillary, He implied her knowledgable voters would vote for him. Therefor vote for him, because without his sheep Hillary couldn't beat McCain. That is intellectual rationalization at its highest form. I love underdogs. Give em hell Hillary.

Well put, Dave. I always find it interesting when lefties continually harp on the GOP taking campaign donations from pharma and energy companies, then accusing it of being in those industry's back pockets.

Of course, the fact that the Dems two biggest financial contributors are the NEA and Trial Lawyers.... and the Democratic party planks happen to agree with those two group's agendas... well, that's just a coincidence.

That the Democrats would sacrifice the education of the poorest and most needy, only because the NEA is afraid of competition, is a crime that puts them in Karma Receivership.

dave writes
"School choice is wildly popular with poor families whose children are stuck in horrible schools and have no other alternatives. If your goal is to provide the best education for all children that money can buy, school choice is your ticket."

School choice is great for poor kids when you only have a small number of kids switching schools. If all schools had to accept all comers, like public schools do, the 'better' private schools would start seeing the same problem public schools have. The solution is to improve the bad schools, rather than diverting public dollars away from public shools towards private schools, where only a few will benefit.

To put it differently, public dollars are spent on public schools because an educated population is seen as a public good. Public dollars should be spent on a public good, not on private institutions that benefit a few.

I agree with Judge that the Ds will not seat the MI or FL delegations if doing so would change the outcome.

A desperately close convention is now a possibility. Drama.

I speak as a 54 year old white male Floridian who changed his registration from independent to democrat in order to support Obama.

I had left the party because of the influence of money and power in politics though in policy positions I am unapologetically what conservatives would label with a sneer as a liberal.

I can remain in the party so long as it works to reduce rather than heighten the partisan disease that infects the body politic. I would leave in an instant if the illegitimate delegations from Michigan or Florida were seated at a contested convention. I'm done with that kind of politics and the candidates who would stoop to such tactics.

No doubt there will be a third party candidate to accept my support should this occur.

jimoneill50,

About Washington and Wisconsin, having lived in both....

Washington is dominated by King County (Seattle and its metropolitan region). In state elections, many Democrats can win King County convincingly but lose virtually the rest of the state, and still come out on top. There is an Obama crowd in Seattle, but the more staid Democratic forces (Boeing unions, etc.) will probably carry Washington for Clinton.

Wisconsin, on the other hand, will probably lean toward Obama. The governor has endorsed Obama; it's next-door to Illinois, and the state has a mix of progressive and independent-minded people who will vote Obama. Milwaukee's black population will also give him a boost, plus Wisconsin is an open primary, giving more voice to independents, who have consistently voted Obama. Obama also already has a campaign office in Wisconsin, which Clinton has yet to establish, so he has an edge in organizing, too.

I imagine that both states will be tough fights, although this is kind of a silly statement given that it can be said about everything in this race, but I'll venture that Clinton and Obama end up splitting Washington and Wisconsin, which make Virginia and Maryland the crucial tests ahead of Ohi