26thMarch 2008

The Editor
Washington Post

Dear Sirs,

If you haven't been to Washington D.C. in January, take my advice and bring an overcoat, as it is normally brass monkeys in that neck of the woods, particularly at this time of year. I only mention this, as you might be planning to attend the Inauguration of the 44th President of the United States in January 20, 2009 and you wouldn't want to be inappropriately attired for the occasion. Of course your decision to make the journey will probably depend on which candidate is stepping forward to take the oath of office that is unless you are a World leader or a person of grave importance, in which case you will be obliged to attend anyway. The ceremony will be broadcasted from coast to coast with seamless commentaries and expert opinions, not to mention the pageantry that is the hallmark of such salubrious celebrations. There will be an abundance of words to mark this historic occasion and of course the irony of this is, that with all these words, it may well be, that not merely a word, but a word with a 'suffix' actually determines the outcome of this election. To those of you who have not been taking your 'suffixes' of late, permit me to be more explicate. A suffix is an affix added to the end of a word serving to form a new word and may also carry grammatical or lexical information. In the normal course of events 'isms', seldom take centre stage, but as the war of words between Senator Clinton and Senator Obama gathers momentum, these literary superfluities, will be drafted into frontline action.

The present race for the Democratic presidential nomination is progressively evolving into a distasteful diatribe, where once, honesty and decency was a prerequisite between such rivals. Hostility and contemptibility is now the currency of this unseemly humourless discourse. This contest has the potential to mark a great and historic moment in American politics, with three very different, very gifted and extraordinary individuals seeking the presidency; a first lady Senator, a first African - American Senator and an elder Senator and war hero. It is equally possible that this contest could rapidly descend inexorably into an ugly charade, a bare knuckles fight, if sexism, racism and ageism are permitted to dominate the election debate. There is a perilous risk in the indiscriminate hit and run rhetoric being used by both Democratic candidates and from this perspective, it is evident that each candidate is never to far from setting off a few indiscreet landmines. Is it only a matter of time before we hear that the aged Senator McCain is in fact, too aged to become President and that his health, not to mention his mental state of mind, might not survive much beyond Inauguration day? Is it only a matter of time before we hear that the White House is in fact, not ready for a first lady, a heroic dodger of sniper firing or is her state of mind to showing early stages of dementia? Is it only a matter of time before we hear that America is not ready, just yet anyway, for an African-American to become Commander in Chief, who has graduated with seventeen years of spiritual indoctrination through the twisted and outspoken Reverend Jeremiah Wright Jr. and what now of the good Senator's current state of mind? I expect that such statements may never be aired with such directness but be assured that reference to these very fine personal attributes will be delivered to a brain cell near you before you cast your vote.

It must be said of course, that I will be ready, if officially invited, with my winter woollies to attend Washington on the 20thJanuary 2009.

John Shortall

"Why haven't the supposedly decent, wise and seasoned elders in the Democratic Party, such as Mondale, Gore, Edwards, Biden, Richardson, et al., come forward and condemned Hillary?"

good reason;your question answers itself. They have not condemned Hillary because they don't agree with your analysis and believe that she is the most electable general election candidate. Why whould they prop up your faultering campaign, falling precipitously in Wed polling and where your candidate cynically believes that he can now obtain the nomination by p.o. democrats in Michigan and Florida. If he does succeed, and even though I am honestly trying to give him the benefit of the doubt, I will be joining millions of other Dems and skipping the Presidential ballot in Nov and voting a straight ticket for Dem downballot candidates. It is my belief that that would be the worst strongharmed tactic at a convention since Mayor Daily locked out the Vietnam protestors in 1968. You are welcome to disagree with me but I am sure that there will be millions who will feel exactly the same. I am not interested in another flawed Michael Dukakas like nominee with Senator Obamaa.

All week I have read that Senator Obama has won the nomination.

Survey USA has Senator Obama losing to John McCain in Minn. 47/46 and in New Jersey 48/45%. Senator Clinton is ahead in each of these state polls against Senator McCain by 5% points.

So much for those ineveitability arguments. Maybe the screaming at the Clinton supporters will now be a little quieter now.

Looks like Senator Obama has succesfully blocked a revote in Michigan. His supporters should be proud.

Hoyers has done more damge than anyone to the party. When the house should have stood firm on so many issues Hoyer safed it out and backed Bushisms. No the party final has some backbone and he whines about it.

I agree with richardb1 that this nomination fight is a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party.
Democratic leaders in Congress have generally succumbed to the partisan war mentality. The Clintons have adopted the tactics of Karl Rove - division and ridicule and slime.
And it's people like svreader and Rush Limbaugh - in love with their own voices - who would have everyone base their worldview on fear and hatred.

Dear Republican friends,
Of course we know you will vote for McCain (not OBAMA) and encourage ppl to vote for Hillary in primaries. Please post somewhere else.
NICE TACTICS!!

This is disgusting and the Clinton's legacy will reflect their decision to trash the Democratic party. Do they really think historians will leave this part out??

It is also looking less likely that the party can be unified at the end of this campaign. There clearly is a growing number on both sides who will not likely vote for a ticket possessing the opposing candidate.

Congratulations, Hillary and Bill. You've done your country and your party proud.

The Democrats are going to lose for one simple reason - Bill and Hillary Clinton.

From the first primary in Iowa they began their racial profiling campaign.

America has come a long way. We are not where we should be. If Bill and Hillary Clinton, their campaign, surrogates, the power elite, money brokers and the media do not stop polarizing this country with every form of racist tactic to get Bill and Hillary Clinton back in The White House, they are going to destroy America.

The sad thing about all of this, every day our men and women are in harms way fighting and protecting us. We tell other countries about democracy and equal opportunity.

How can we do that and why, when we are unwilling to give every American citizen the right to participate in this government and election process.

This election campaign is a mirror for America to look into, and ask itself, are all men created equal in these United States.

Bill and Hillary Clinton thinks no one should run except them. He disgraced The Office of The President and she allowed him to violate a young intern.

Hoyer and all the other Democratic members need to rein Bill and Hillary Clinton in trying to segregate this country.

It is going to hurt America in the long run. And everything that we are trying to do in those other countries will be for naught.

They are going to look and see how far removed America is from what they preach to us every day.

Bill and Hillary Clinton are destroying our image. They did it when they were in The White House before and they are doing it again with all their racist and dirty politics.

America deserves better.

I'm a New Yorker and I can testify, that Hillary's experience has been over-inflated. She has done little to nothing in this state except run for President. And in that, so far, she has even been failing. I don't know, what experience she has. She seems to be unable to run an effective campaign and would rather destroy her party, than she her rival get the nomination.

( svreader, that's such a lame attempt to slander someone, as to be almost laughable, if it weren't so sad. I suppose, you were one of those people enthusiastically sending out the "islam" emails, too, huh? )

I have absolutely no reason to vote for Mr. Obama if he were the nominee. It's sad to come into that conclusion, even though I have voted for a Democrate Presidential Candidate since 1984. This time, Mr. Mc Cain will get mine.

Mike

YOU'VE CONVINCED ME!

I will vote for Obama!

Obama is intelligent, articulate, and (most of all): decent. He's a good man.

America is lucky to have such a candidate.

(but, you've convinced me, I won't vote for his pastor)

DISPATCHES FROM THE GROUND WAR ...

THE SCRANTON (PENNSYLVANIA) TIMES-TRIBUNE IS REPORTING ...

03/13/2008
Poll: Hillary's negative rating rivals Santorum's

BY BORYS KRAWCZENIUK
STAFF WRITER

New York Sen. Hillary Clinton has something in common with former Republican Sen. Rick Santorum. A large percentage of Pennsylvania voters dislike both of them.

In fact, greater percentages of voters here have consistently viewed Mrs. Clinton unfavorably than Mr. Santorum, according to a review of data from a respected statewide poll.

The data could buttress arguments by Sen. Barack Obama's campaign that Mrs. Clinton, if she wins the Democratic presidential nomination, might not be able to defeat Arizona Sen. John McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, in the Keystone State. ...

The Bill thing is like the democratic party... it is over. This fall some head will fall...

Where the heck has he been? This woman has already split the party in two. If it is ANY indication as to how the Clinton legacy will go down in history look at the new polls out today that show Bill's disapproval rating skyrocketting over the past several weeks. His approval rating has gone down! Traditionally those numbers are reversed. People use to like Bill and now they are disliking him. Bill USE to have an approval rate over 55% it is now down to 45%. HELLO WAKE UP!!!!!!!!!!

Obama's pastor of 20 years. His "family" asking God to damn America. Check this out folks. An ABC news report.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk

If you can vote for Obama after watching this then do so. If you doubt the closeness between Obama and his pastor check the web.

Check this link for more egregious instances. Watch the sort of attacks he makes:

http://elections.foxnews.com/2008/03/12/obamas-controversial-pastor-puts-church-in-hot-water/

The irony with the Ferraro history is that Obama is not black, only half black. And the italian parents of Ferraro had also their ancesters coming from africa as we all do. Despite this, for people like Ferraro, Obama is still too brown to be commander in chief.

Well, a commander in chief should unit and not divid. A commander in chief should also lead by example and release his/her records (tax returns, White House records, list of big lobbyists who donnated to his/her own foundation, etc.). Finally, a commander in chief should not be ready to say anything for more money and more power, no matter the color of the skin or the gender.

Watch the videos of Obama's pastor from the church that Obama attends, was married in and where his daughters were baptised during the past 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_7S3hkWV0

Watch the videos of Obama's pastor from the church that Obama attends, was married in and where his daughters were baptised during the past 20 years.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWvxTUy47Fk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZS_7S3hkWV0

It appears to me that the longer this drags on, the more damage to Dems - people are growing increasingly irate and sick of it already.

It also seems that Ferraro's blunder has actually cost Hillary the black vote in the primary and the general. I'd be surprised if the superdelegates decide that the Dems can afford to go into the general election without the black vote.

I and many, many Democrats will not vote for Hillary if she steals this election.

WE WON'T !!

If the democratic party were smart (which is in doubt) it would staunch this blood-letting fast.

Gore, Edwards should quickly come-out for the winner, i.e. Obama

Super delegates should do the same.

IT'S EITHER OBAMA
.....or, it's McCain

Barack Obama attracts the younger voters. Well, his campaign acts its age... a bunch of whiny, immature imbeciles. It's quite obvious who really plays the race card and who gets blamed for it. I'm a life-long, dyed-in-the-wool Democrat. And I've had it up to you-know-where with the kid gloves treatment Obama has gotten. This is politics, for God's sake. And if he can't take the heat... get the hell out of the kitchen. If he wins the nomination, for the first time since 1976, when I mistakenly voted for Ronald Reagan, I'll vote for a Republican. Barack Obama has divided the Democratic party. Some uniter, huh? And I know plenty of Hillary Clinton supporters who feel the same way I do. So... Mr. smooth talker... you've opened the door for a certain John McCain win in November. Enjoy your defeat.

Before the election got underway, I called in a bunch of favors in Washington and got all the candidates checked out in detail.

The most interesting information came from the staffers who do the actual work.

They all gave high marks to Hillary and said that all Obama ever talked about or spent time on was his image.

Contacts higher up told me that Hillary is highly respected on both sides of the isle.

I used multiple references for each candidate.

The references on Obama were so universally negative that I went the extra step and had him checked out in Chicago and then went farther back to contacts who had known him at Harvard.

I've never gotten such a bad set of references on a well known politician.

I've never gotten the kind of negatives I've gotten about Obama with respect to any senior person at all.

I'm not going to be the least bit surprised to see him indicited.

What he did in Chicago shows such a complete lack of concern for one's fellow human beings that its chilling.

This is a very poor method of getting the word out.

When I found out about the book "Obama's Slums" I found that lots of other people are following similar leads.

They write far better than I, and have access to a much wider base of readers, listeners, and viewers.

It will be interesting to see the results of their efforts.

Obama supporters and MSNBC want to keep Ferraro comments in the news. Yet, they overlook Rev Wright's hate speech, damning America, making racist comments concerning whites. Wake-up! This is Obama's spiritual leader for last 20 years. He will be Obama's spritual leader if he is President. Obama has spent many Sunday's listening to this hate speech, so he is influenced by his pastor. He needs to reject and denouce Rev Wright. We are seeing articles now where Obama has done many favors for people in his campaign using taxpayers money. These folks will expect to be repaid again if they help get Obama elected.

Obama has been pretty slippery about how to count the FL/MI votes, saying they would leave it up to the DFL, but with one qualification caucus only, which he knows Hillary will not support:

If Hillary wins PA/FL/MI she totals up 2, 021, even if he wins every other state and there are 9 of them. So, neither will reach the 2, 208 needed.

To leave out FL/MI would result in a stolen election. To give him half is exactly what he wants because he knows he will win.

But for half of the Democratic party there will be outrage.
If in fact Hillary wins those 3 states, Obama would not win.

At this point, I don't see either candidate walking about from this as the loser.

Where does it say candidates of the same party do not have the right to point out weaknesses in the opposing candidate? We need to know as much as possible about these candidates, and it's becoming obvious from this election we can't count on the media to be objective. Anything negative about Hillary Clinton gets hashed and rehashed over and over and over, while any news that might negatively affect the Obama campaign gets glossed over by the media and forgotten.

The democratic party is already damaged... Both candidates can not form a ticket for obvious reasons (Hillary is not trustworthy according to the records the republicans and the records that she will not release, and Barack is not experienced enough according to Hillary). If one of them is nominee, the supporters of the others will not vote for him/her.

The democratic party is already damaged and it is time to fix it. To make a purge among the bad guys who will be running for office next fall. With time, maybe, the party will rebuild itself to say no to racism, no to sexism, no to lobbyists, no to politicians ready to cross any lines for more money and more power.

Brian wrote, "There is a time for cold analysis and a time to call a spade a spade"

You comment supports the fact that Obama supporters like to use race card. The term spade is racist. I bet if someone made this same comparison with Obama, you have with Hillary, you would flip out.

Dear Shortall,
1) You seem to have fallen into the trap. OBAMA won Texas. 2)The people who in fact READ the "actionable" intelligence found it was NOT actionable at all. 3)Regardgin Al Qaeda his assessment is logical. Why spend billions beating around the bush?? 4) Obama is not perfect. However, his misdeeds are pale in comparison to Hillary or Republicans ( who seem to be alike).

Peace.

Obama is a real jerk.

Obama let the people who elected him in Chicago rot in slums when he was supposed to get them decent housing after he funneled $100M to his friend Rezko.

It was Obama's responsibility to make sure his voters got what they paid for.

He didn't do his job.

He didn't care what happened to them.

He only cared about himself.

Does winning the primaries mean so much to Obama's groupies that they abandon all principle?

How can they even THINK of supporting a man who did what Obama did in Chicago to the poorest of the poor who elected him???

Please Watch this report on Obama, Obama's slums, Rezko, and $100M of wasted taxpayer money, from Channel 5, Chicago's most respected TV news program.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rDHsHM0laT8&feature=related

I'm sorry to burst your bubble, but the real Obama is a really bad guy

Obama has a very carefully crafted image.

Its about as far from reality as can be imagined.

The real Obama is cold, calculating, and manipulative.

He only cares about himself.

The real Obama is crooked as a horse-shoe.

The real Obama let the people who elected him state senator suffer and die in Slums that he funneled $100M of Government money to his friend Rezko to repair, but were never even touched.

That's the real Obama.

He's arrogant, incompetent, and only cares about himself.

His carefully crafted image is as fake as Bush's was.

Will America make the same mistake again?

For all our sakes, I hope not.

Its astounding that anyone, especially any person of color, would support Obama knowing what he did to the last bunch of people stupid enough to buy his pitch.

The guy totally shafted his own people.

What a Creep.

Dublin
Ireland

The Editor
The Washington Post

"We're going strong and we're going all the way," Hillary Rodham Clinton, the New York senator told supporters, following her recent significant victories in Ohio and Texas. This is an amazing turnaround for the fortunes of any political candidate, when compared with Senator Barack Obama's much celebrated election momentum. In view of the small marginal difference in the number of pledged delegated to each Democratic candidate, in this hard fought and at times aggressive contest, it is vital to scrutinize each of the aspiring presidential nominees objectively, in order to guarantee that the right candidate is selected to contest the presidential election.

It is interesting to hypothesize which of these two unique personalities will emerge victorious to take on Senator John McCain, the Republican's elder statesman, to become the 44th President of America. In the past, such great names as Franklin D. Roosevelt, Harry S. Truman, and John F. Kennedy occupied the Oval office and from this perspective, it is interesting to conjecture which one of these Democratic candidates will extend this list of names. Could it be President Hillary Rodham Clinton or just plainly Hillary R. Clinton or is it likely to be President Barack Hussein Obama or just Barack H. Obama. Names can be important when trying to visualize or associate an individual with one particular profession or another. Not that anyone should place any great significance to the fashionable custom of adopting boutique middle handles. However, it is sometimes revealing when an individual adopts or drops names or initials from their title to suit the occasion or even in some cases to avoid controversy. Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton was merely Hillary Clinton when she was, not just merely the First Lady, but later as a New York senator installed Rodham into her title. One could speculate that such name change may have been the brainchild of her advisers, in order to gain politically in some quarters.

It is also reflective of the uglier side of this current political campaign, when either candidate has to account for his or her religious beliefs or associations. Recently, Senator Obama was challenged on his associations and sympathies with Muslims. Senator Clinton, when asked for her views on the matter, responded rather mischievously "that Obama is not a Muslim as far as I know". Although, Senator Obama is apparently a Christian, his childhood and family connections to Islam are beginning to complicate his presidential ambitions. The emergence of what appears to be cynical elements in the contest between these two fine candidates is disingenuous to say the least and may be divisive to the Democratic Party and ultimately damaging to the prospects of the eventual nominee.

There comes a time for truth and honesty between these two great candidates - that time is now. There is no doubt; many political and personal questions need to be asked of both candidates in order to make an informed opinion. For example, is Senator Clinton tax compliant? I am sure that she is and I only raise the question, because some pro Senator Obama activists raise the issue. In his campaign programme with promotional e-mails to supporters, and television commercials, Senator Obama has repeatedly reminded voters that his presidential campaign does not accept contributions from lobbyists or political action committees, pointing out that "this is a noble departure from the way things are done of Washington". However, in Senator Obama's eight years in the Illinois Senate, from 1996 to 2004, $290,000 came from PACs, corporate contributions, or unions, according to records at the Illinois Board of Elections. He tapped financial services firms, real estate developers, healthcare providers, oil companies, and many other corporate interests, according to records. Though Senator Obama is reported to have returned thousands of dollars in campaign contributions since he declared his candidacy, his presidential campaign has maintained ties with lobbyists and lobbying firms to help raise some of the $58 million in the early months of 2007. The Los Angeles Times reported "that Obama's campaign had reached out to lobbyists networks to use their contacts to help build his fund-raising base". Yet, he protests at his rival Senator Clinton's recent remarks that taking lobbyists' cash is acceptable because they "represent real Americans". From where I sit, it would appear that both Senators share the same feeding trough and that the issue of fund raising is more a question of semantics.

On the issue of major foreign policy and War on Terror, Senator Obama tells us of his greater sense of judgement than that of his rival and as an Illinois Senator he opposed the war in Iraq. As it turns out the Senator may have been correct in his assessment, but one question remains. Following September 11, "actionable intelligence" from both London and Washington, about high-value terrorist targets, reported that Iraq was an immanent threat to World peace with WMD and that the only course of action, in order to avert further terrorists' attacks, was to use direct military force towards Iraq. Would President Barack H. Obama have ignored this "actionable intelligence" and the counsel of his military advisers or instead rely on intuition? Was it not the case, that the majority of the Senate and the House of Representatives voted in favour of this war, based on available "actionable intelligence" and would the Senator oppose this democratic decision? In contrast to this, Senator Obama has stated that "if we have actionable intelligence about high-value terrorist targets in northern Pakistan, that he would pursue the enemy into Pakistan and if President Musharraf won't act, we will". To me it seems Senator Obama's philosophy on foreign policy is somewhat muddled, as there is obviously a dichotomy within these actionable parallels.

There is no doubt that the battle for the Democratic presidential nomination, which is becoming progressively hostile, will ultimately produce a victor, albeit by very slim margins and with a few dislocated egos. The Republican camp must be overjoyed with the constant shenanigans of their undecided opponents and busily counseling Senator John McCain, the very presidential Republican nominee, to let them at it. As I see it, there is a dog fight on in the Democratic camp which is indelibly negative and is getting ugly.

This is a historic moment for the Democratic Party and for the American electorate. It is a time to display graciousness by both contenders in a respectful contest. Now let the real battle begin and may the best contender emerge victorious and with honour.

Yours truly,

John Shortall

And Obama is smarter...he's goin after the real enemy...McCain...focusing on his weakness...the economy...and the Bush tax cuts! Focusing on real issues...not desperate attacks or false claims of being victimized. Point Obama!

Last week I was willing to vote for Hillary if I had to...now?

I, too, will not be engaging my brain in this process...arrogant...ignorant...are you sure you're not talking about the Clinton's? He embodies pride in this country and inspires a whole bunch of people to have some again. You're on the losing end of this one guy...I have seen the response in people from children to old ladies...he is what is good about America and something the country is longing for...you just have not accepted it yet.

Yeah...this half-African guy with an unusual name has only been able to gain the lead in delegates, number of states won, and the popular vote through America's "Affirmative Action" program for Presidential candidates.

As soon as some of these white folks see someone of color getting a position they think they deserve by birthright that start up with the "unfair advantage because their not white" crap. Sorry fools, your old affirmative action complaint does not apply here and neither should you...HATERS NEED NOT APPLY!

It's more than a set of primaries. It's a battle for the soul of the Democratic Party. Will the bigots and machine politicians win? Or will it be someone who talks about a common purpose and shared dream? To worry about damage to the Democratic Party is the worry of people who sidestep conscience and moral judgment. What the Democrats should worry about is continuing as they are.

Obama and Clinton supporters should quit barking at each other. This party is divided now...not by race or gender, but because of the ridiculous way the DNC runs its primaries and caucuses. The Texas two-step is a farce. Wyoming showed Obama received almost 70 pct of the vote yet he only received 2 more delegates than Clinton.

As far as the "race card", many blame the Clinton campaign, many blame the Obama campaign, but the guilty ones are the media and press. They purposely report crap like this just to help ratings and infuriate supporters.

Both candidates need to focus on the issues...not the silly "soundbites" the press and media report.

I, too, will not be voting Democratic if Obama is the nominee. He is an arrogant ignorant man with no pride in our country. Go away, thank the Lord, that Hillary is still in the running or else the democratic party is doomed.

I agree that the democratic party is in trouble. Can you say loose canon? It's no wonder Hillary supporters would rather vote for McCain, Hillary has all but endorsed McCain. Someone should ask her which party she represents. I am pretty angry because we've suffered from this kind of divisive politics now for eight years and it looked like we finally had a chance to choose a different kind of dialog. And in fact we did choose it, but it looks like the DNC powers that be are siding with the one who wants to steal the nomination. So, add me to the list. I will not vote for Clinton. And if the super delegates choose to side with her instead of the one who is ahead with fairly earned voter pledged delegates-- then Nader deserves my vote and we need a third party.

There are a lot of women voting for Obama and I am tired of this being cast by the media as women versus African Americans. If anyone is voting for their candidate ONLY because they are a minority or a woman, then that is racist or sexist behavior. The media loves driving this wedge. Don't buy into it. Rep. Hoyer should know better. His state voted overwhelmingly for Obama--and we aren't all African Americans! As a woman, I want to see a woman in the White House, just not this one.

leichtman writes
"The Kerry bill in June of 2006 was not a call for immediate withdrawl of troops as you alledge but to withdraw troops within 1 year that is far from immediately as you misstaded."

You're correct, I misstated. Sorry, I don't have a catalogue in my head of all Iraq bills, by author's name. Without knowing the context in which Kerry's bill was offered, its difficult to comment. Your characterization of the circumstances does nothing to change my opinion.

The party will be fine once Hillary recognizes the situation and ends her public attempt at seppuku.

There is a time for cold analysis and a time to call a spade a spade...how could anyone with any honor run a campaign like Clinton has? I can't wait until we have some distance on this and people really understand the clear patterns and they are documented, examined, and discussed. Watch! It's all been recorded for posterity!

This could do damage due to the party. You can be pretty much guaranteed that there will be protests in some form in Denver this summer--the city has been working on a plan to deal with it--regardless of who the nominee is.

I just hope it doesn't turn into the equivalent of what happened in Seattle in the 1990's when the WTO had a meeting there: i.e. majority of people want to peacefuly demonstrate, but a critical mass of people who want to do battle with the police turns the thing into a messy riot.

Penn or Wolfson...which one is Gollum? These loser's political careers will end after the smoke clears...then they can crawl back into their multimillion dollar holes!

The Majority Leader explains part of why its been so divisive but not all of it. I would agree that due to race and gender some people may take the attacks personally.

What about the campaigning styles though? We have a candidate who runs a relatively positive campaign, and generally only runs negative when pressed to defend (Obama). We also have a candidate who runs a more conventional attack and defend--more of attack and play the victim--(Clinton).

If the campaign styles were similar there might not be such divisions over support.

Gimme a brake Hoyer...get some balls and say something insightful and constructive. I'm really sick of folks playin dumb with Hillary's tactics. Let's keep the BS alive and pretend that Hillary has a chance...keep movin the goal posts so we can hear more of her ugly schizophrenic babel! The last 24 hours have just sent me off the deep end! If I see Ferraro on one more news show runnin her ignorant mouth I think I'm gonna puke.

Change is what the people want!

I think the House Majority Leader is on to something with is comment about taking the attacks personally.

Many Democrats have not forgotten how John Kerry, someone who actually served was villified and made to look unpatriotic while someone who went into the Guard to get out of Vietnam-draft was made to look like a war hero and tough on terrorism. This isn't about just John Kerry per se, but also the whole Karl Rove method of sleazy campaigning. Rove campaigning works if all you need is a razor thin margin to win, say 51-53% of the vote. It does not work if your operate on the "big-tent" principle and want to get as many voters as possible, as you cannot afford to alienate them.

Hillary's campaign is filled with people who are Karl Rove wannabe's and but miss a point of common sense. THe principle of common sense is this: if you throw a punch you have to be prepared for a counterpunch, otherwise don't pick a fight in the first place. Hillary throws a punch, often below the belt, and then when Obama (or an opponent) throws a counterpunch plays the victim.

Hoyer should be condemning the Clinton campaign...they are the clear antagonists in the ugly mudslinging and divide and conquer tactics. The master of the double standard...reject and denounce...give me a break. This Ferraro thing is just another example of the pattern of suspect racial comments, ugliness, and mismanagement by her campaign. Obama responded gracefully and did not call anyone a racist. If Ferraro says it enough then it must be true...that women is as out of control and touch as the entire Hillary campaign. Keep it up Jokers!

It's time to turn the page. When you see old Pat B. agreein with you, you no you're done! America has changed you relics! Most of us younger folks have actually been friends with folks of other races...ate with then...partied with them...lived with them...made love to them...married them...and had families with them!

Live by the sword...die by the sword!

Thanks PatricKNYC Clinton Supporter from and Obama Supporter who just wants the candidates to focus on the economy, jobs, health care, and this trillion dollar war. My gas cost aren't going down because Obama is black and Clinton is a woman. My fuel cost are going up because of President DUH-Bya.

Sometimes when I read these comments, I get so sad.

Whew.

Let's all take a deep breath.

The reason that this has been a tough primary has been that both candidates are well liked by their audiences. Its also the LONGEST primary season ever. Its one long 2000 election night spread out over many months, and again, it will come down to Florida.

I suggest that anyone who is intellectually honest with themselves take out the personalities of the people involved and vote based on their political proposals and beliefs. ANY democrat would rather you vote for the other democrat rather than the republican. That's just fact.

Yes, we all have the "cult of personality" people here. The Obamabots and the Hillary4Evuh fans. But look beyond that to what the country needs.

Vote your conscience . This isn't prom king and queen here!

mahmud010, you bring up a great point. I think both campaigns believe Hillary will be trailing in delegates going into the convention (even with FL and MI delegates seated). If that is the case and the superdelegates override the pledged delegates, I see some serious, long-term problems. First, how do you explain that to all the new voters that waited in lines because of record turnouts that someone from the "party establishment" just swayed the election against the popular vote? I think it also seems highly undemocratic.

Although I voted for Obama in the primary, if Hillary wins the nomination I'll vote for her. But if she loses the pledged delegates contest and Obama wins more votes and states, I will be very disgruntled while casting my vote for Hillary.

Thank you PatrickNYC Clinton Supporter from an Obama Supporter who just wants us all to focus on the issues...economy, fuel cost, trillion dollar wars...instead of who is black, who is a woman, and who is a real democrat. Let's be Americans who actually get it right this time.

jnoel I guess if losing only 50 troops a month instead of 200 and spending $300 billion a year to fight for Iraqis who hate and 80% would have no problen killing our troops, equals sucess you are correct. Personally that is something I would expect to hear from a McCain supporter rather than an Obama supporter. That is rather strange. Is Sen Obama now the prosurge candidate? If so I really hope that he will tell Pa voters that.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 02:58 PM

I understand your disdain for losing soliders and spending money on a cause you don't support. However, I wouldn't classify Obama as the "prosurge" candidate. The point I was trying to make is pulling our troops out of Iraq is more than a political move. And even though I do not want to continue the War; I do not understand or see a way we can simply pack up and leave the country right now. Nor could we have left when Kerry (someone else who voted for the war) and others proposed it. I just don't believe leaving, particularly at this moment, is as easy a thing to do. And the article points to the fact that the men and women who are actually dealing with what is going on in Iraq have a different view than you do of the surge and war effort. Moreover, perhaps Obama's foresight, instead of Kerry and Clinton's hindsight, might make him a better candidate for President. Being for the War, before you were against it shows a lack of judgment in my view. And I would like the next President to view events or options like war, differently than purely political--which is how I feel the current administration and Kerry/Clinton viewed the War.

Why does everyone assume the superdelegates can't take the will of the people into account when voting their conscience? There's this idea that the superdelegates' conscience can't include listening to the will of the people, and nobody ever explains why.

Let me illustrate why this matters. Many pundits predict a disaster for the Democratic Party if the supers override the will of the people. If the party is truly important to America's future, shouldn't the will of the people be a matter of paramount importance in the decision making process? Again, there is a whole new generation of voters who are coming out in favor of Obama. Do the superdelegates really want to risk alienating them? What would make such an action worthwhile?

The media needs to do its job and starting knocking down this artificial barrier dividing the superdelegates' conscience from the voice of the people. We have yet to hear a satisfactory explanation of why such a barrier exists.

What I really don't get is the hatred from HRC supporters because Obama is getting 90% of the black vote.
Since Black Americans were ALLOWED to vote... they had no choice but to give a white candidate 100% of the black vote.

Posted by: tjfrmla | March 13, 2008 03:21 PM
-----------------------------
Please don't think all her supporters are that ignorant. I can see by many of the posts that some are but I would be more than happy to vote for Obama in November. I also was happy to vote for Paterson for Lt Governor and wish him the best with taking over here in NY.

I will be happy with either Dem after the Bush nightmare ends in less than 10 months. Man I love the way that sounds. Don't let the door hit you on the way out W. Duh ba u

"Then there is the subject of McShame's VP pick. Will it be conservative enough to please the base that does not like him? If it is will it turn off the middle of the pack?

Posted by: PatrickNYC1 | March 13, 2008 03:18 PM
"

Hillary clinton is his pick. Write it down.

Hillary seems to be a republican candidate.

What I really don't get is the hatred from HRC supporters because Obama is getting 90% of the black vote.
Since Black Americans were ALLOWED to vote... they had no choice but to give a white candidate 100% of the black vote.
Right up to and thru 2004. All of a sudden it's a problem. For 200 years white people have been voting for white people. Some voters couldn't even read...but they voted for the white person on the ticket. Why aren't the HRC supporters complaining to the "blu-collars" for voting for Hillary because she's white???? Noooo...their voting motives are never even questioned. What hyprocrisy. Clear and obvious BS. Do as I say...not as I do...NOT!

By bloodying each other, Clinton and Obama diminish the Democratic Party's chances to recapture the White House in fall. However, the negative campaigns on the two sides do not have the same effects in this respect as one of my colleagues argues

Still, unless Clinton and Obama declare and observe a cease-fire, they will hand McCain a victory

Posted by: bn1123 | March 13, 2008 03:10 PM
--------------------------
I think both the MSM and posters on the various blogs are making more about this then will be there after we have a winner. If you recall the GOP's were going at each other pretty hard and that's all forgotten.

Then there is the subject of McShame's VP pick. Will it be conservative enough to please the base that does not like him? If it is will it turn off the middle of the pack?

By bloodying each other, Clinton and Obama diminish the Democratic Party's chances to recapture the White House in fall. However, the negative campaigns on the two sides do not have the same effects in this respect as one of my colleagues argues at:

http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/a-new-theorem-n.html

Still, unless Clinton and Obama declare and observe a cease-fire, they will hand McCain a victory:
http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/clinton-obama-c.html

you 100% right kmwray. but where has reid and dean been the last two years. Maybe this will enlighten as to why.

"All U.S. presidents since 1989 have been Yale graduates, namely George H. W. Bush, Bill Clinton (who attended the University's Law School along with his wife, New York Senator Hillary Clinton), and George W. Bush. Vice President Dick Cheney attended Yale, although he did not graduate. Many of the 2004 presidential candidates attended Yale: Bush, John Kerry, Howard Dean, and Joe Lieberman.

Other Yale-educated presidents were William Howard Taft (B.A.) and Gerald Ford (LL.B). Alumni also include several Supreme Court justices, including current Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
"

Just trying to help. Dean is not coming to the party or obama's aide until he has no other options. I knew dean would not stand with us when it counted. I was just waiting for him to prove me wrong. Nope. Altough hope is not lost as of yet.

I just cant tell you how happy I am to have Hillary's team remind the Black folk that they have no business thinking they can be President of the United States. For the first time in years I have hope that the Democratic party of George Wallace can be reborn. Man, these Clintons are good. They even have black mayors and congressmen supporting them. Now where did I pack my Confederate Flag?

Phil spector above whined that the republcains left these blog when I come on. good. This is the demcoratic party and a democratic issue. What business do the republcains have in the democratic process, other than to break it and sabotage it with hhillary.

I don't want to hear john mccain love on this post. Also, any hate obama or clinton post by them is bias for the other guy. you clinton supporters are not in the game. Please join the democratic party clinton supporters. Please quit the sabotage on the gop's behalf. for the gop to run both parties is for americans to sacrafice freedom and an opposition party. We need an opposition party. If the last 7 years have not convinced you of that gop (clinton included) nothing will

The joe lieberman school of politics. Every man for him or her self. Screw the party and the country, as long as clinton gets her birthright. right leachman?

Whoever becomes the Democratic nominee will make history. However, neither race nor gender is a factor in my consideration of the candidates.

I want my next president to make sound and wise decisions that will not involve America in protrated conflicts. I want my next president to unify Americans and to end the polarization in America between classes and political parties. I want my next president to shore up the foundation of America for future generations - a good educational system that provides children with the basic knowledge they need to compete for good jobs; sound trade ageements that ensure there will be a wide variety of good paying jobs for future generations of Americans. I want my next president to put America on path where we won't be so dependent on foreign oil. I want my next president to ensure that we clean up the environment so that future generations will have clean air to breath and clean water to drink.

I have followed Sen. Obama since he made his speech at the last DNC. In some of his senatorial campaign speeches, I was impressed when he told people that he didn't pretend to have the right answers but that he would work at getting the right answers. I was impressed when he first got to the Senate, he was the only person on his committee to sit through all day vetting sessions of appointees to Cabinet offices.

When he said the time to plan for exiting Iraq was when we were planning to get in, shows that he is a strategic thinker. He thinks beyond the immediacy and into the future. He wasn't in office when the vote to engage in this war came up. If he were, I hope that he would have pointed out this flaw in the planning. Clinton was in office and she with her "experience" and "ability" to be a Commander in Chief, didn't see this flaw in the planning or raise this question.

It's time to put somene in office with a fresh set of eyes and ears.

kmwray.

Well said. DNC is dysfunctional that lets HRC take down the party along with her.

jnoel I guess if losing only 50 troops a month instead of 200 and spending $300 billion a year to fight for Iraqis who hate and 80% would have no problen killing our troops, equals sucess you are correct. Personally that is something I would expect to hear from a McCain supporter rather than an Obama supporter. That is rather strange. Is Sen Obama now the prosurge candidate? If so I really hope that he will tell Pa voters that.

jnoel I guess if losing only 50 troops a month instead of 200 and spending $300 billion a year to fight for Iraqis who hate and 80% would have no problen killing our troops, equals sucess you are correct. Personally that is something I would expect to hear from a McCain supporter rather than an Obama supporter. That is rather strange. Is Sen Obama now the prosurge candidate? If so I really hope that he will tell Pa voters that.

The problem is not the campaigns nor the candidates, its the DNC

The first time HRC said count Fl and Mi, they should have stepped in and said, do you understand they broke the rules, were told the repercussions and neither you nor Obama csn change that

Once the vitriol started, the DNC should have said hey attack McCain and the GOP not each other

The DNC should have made it clear to both campaigns the Superdelegates were devised to give party activists and elected officials a say in the nominating process --- they are not tools to be used to sway the electorate in a primary --- which is what both camps have done

Once this marathon began after Super Tuesday, the DNC should have been on top of declaring winners and delegate counts rather than MSM

The DNC should have been all over HRC for calling the caucus sytem undemocratic (its a primary with open debate and public voting)

The DNC should have told both Obama and HRC to cease and desist from declaring themselves the winners in Texas ---- the winner of Texas is whomever wins the most delegates in both primary and the caucus

The DNC needs to play referee, here

Hope Bill & Hillary will keep their race cards put away. That woman will stop at nothing to get the nomination.

I agree with cedricguss.
Conservatives had no interest in this election. They cannot decide between Obama and McCain. Hillary's name will unleash AVALANCHE of votes and McCain will get white house. HRC is a liability even as a VP.

I do not consider myself a Democrat although I find them to be overwhelmingly better choices than most Republicans. I voted for Obama here in Wisconsin during the primary and was happy when he carried this state by a substantial margin. I do not like the tone of this campaign as the discourse is getting lower and lower.

I think the policy differences of the Democrats is minor. But I prefer Obama's leadership style over that of Hillary. As much as I want Obama to win, I cannot fathom a 4 year extension of the Bush agenda and for that reason would never consider voting for McCain or Nadar.

If you are a progressive and stating that you will vote for McCain, you have taken this campaign and all the hot air and rhetoric too personally.

Well the situation is clear. Obama has the most states, the most votes, the most delegates. I thought, at least, this was a democracy, and I know, at least, that the world is watching what we do here. As for Clinton, it's therefore clear all she and her surrogates are doing is splitting the party in a useless quest for their own selfish thirst for power. It's just that simple folks. If you can't have it, then take all Democrats down, right Hill and supporters?

Personally his opposition to this 2006 bill was then a pretext for W to then push for his escalation(surge) something I presumed your side vehemently opposed. I certainly did.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 02:36 PM

But by many accounts the surge is working, so it appears once again Obama made the correct judgment.
This article from April 2007:
http://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2007/04/surge_results_are_visible.html

The Kerry bill in June of 2006 was not a call for immediate withdrawl of troops as you alledge but to withdraw troops within 1 year that is far from immediately as you misstaded.

"Faced with a lack of support in the Senate for a withdrawal of American forces by the end of the year, Senator John Kerry of Massachusetts put forward a resolution the following week calling for a withdrawal by July 1, 2007."

Moreover your suggestion that a war hero like John Kerry would simply cut off funding for the troops is absurd, his bill called for the funding of our troops to be used for redeployment something he now says can wait til the end of 2010. Good judgment, I disagree. Personally his opposition to this 2006 bill was then a pretext for W to then push for his escalation(surge) something I presumed your side vehemently opposed. I certainly did.

"You once again make my point when you say a woman should just wait "

Problem is, that's not what I said. I said that, regardless of gender, Sen Clinton is not a good candidate for President. If there is a good candidate for President who happens to be female, I would vote for them. Sen Clinton is not that candidate.

"Ah Old age! To frail to climb out of the box your mind is stuck in"

there chains are already cut. the question is, will they leave the cave. Or have they become accustomed to to love their slavery? Stockholm syndrome.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave

"Once enlightened, so to speak, the freed prisoner would not want to return to the cave to free "his fellow bondsmen," but would be compelled to do so. Another problem lies in the other prisoners not wanting to be freed: descending back into the cave would require that the freed prisoner's eyes adjust again, and for a time, he would be one of the ones identifying shapes on the wall. His eyes would be swamped by the darkness, and would take time to become acclimated. Therefore, he would not be able to identify the shapes on the wall as well as the other prisoners, making it seem as if his being taken to the surface completely ruined his eyesight. (The Republic bk. VII, 516b-c; trans. Paul Shorey)."

Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quis_custodiet_ipsos_custodes%3F

Where was clinton and her supporters when it mattered? When THEY were the democratic party and it's leadership? Did they fight bush and the gop? Or did they cave? Why was bill clinton touring the world with bush 41 for years on end, and not fighting them? you made this mess clinton supporters. Clinton backed bush his entire presidency. WHile we were fighting the destrouction of this great nation, you people were DOING IT. Not merely enabling the gop. But standing side by side.

Someone's got to fight for this country. Leaders lead when they are most needed. Where was clinton and her sell-out moderates when it counted? the same place they are now. Fighting WITH the gop. Not agaisnt it.

Sen Clinton should drop out, for the good of the party and the nation.

It's obvious she can't win, no matter what lies she tells or what attack ads she uses, or how often she accepts help from the McCain campaign.

Besides, she'll do fine as a US Supreme Court Justice.

"lets wait for a woman who qualifies based on her own merit's,"

Actually Senator Robert Byrd and Senator Pat Leahy have praised Hillary's service in the US Senate and have called her a bold leader in th Senate. The NY Times last Sunday said that Sen Obama while a fine man, as a US Senator is not all that highly regarded in the US Senate and has very little to show for his time in the US Senate. I support Hillary regardless of who her husband is and sometimes thinks he would best serve her candidacy by having a lower profile. So you oppose Hillary b/c she is married to our exPres who actually had a vercy succesful administration especially in comparison to the last 7 years.
You once again make my point when you say a woman should just wait because of course their are more qualified women when we find the right one. And its is exactly that attitude that has created the glass ceiling and why there are so very few women CEOS. And as I recall we heard the same thing about Ms. Ferraro when VP Mondale selected her. Oh that is really nice but she is not the right woman for the job there is obviously better women. I respect your choice but disagree with your logic and agree with Sen Byrd and Leahy people who know Hillary and just a tad about the US Senate.

But I can also recognize that Congressional action to cease funding for our troops over there is the worst possible alternative.

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 02:19 PM

I agree 100%

then he essentially disagrees with Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and John Kerry and agrees with Hillary about the war, that is great you have just made my point.
Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 02:06 PM

Incorrect, as I said above you are somewhat comparing apples to oranges. As the situation changes so might your vote. The war had already begun and the consequences of a withdrawal are different than never going to War in the first place.

"You can call his changed position good judgment, I just call it a changed position on his signature issue."

I don't call it a changed position, I call it rational judgement. Just like I call voting for approval to use force without reading the relevant intelligence irrational misjudgement.

The common mistake is to equate being against the war with being for immediate withdrawl. Usually its the pro-war set that makes that argument, so its surprising to see it coming from a Clinton supporter. But the point is that immediate, unconditional withdrawl from Iraq is bad policy. I think Bush made a mistake in getting us into Iraq. I think he continues to make mistakes in prosecuting that war. But I can also recognize that Congressional action to cease funding for our troops over there is the worst possible alternative.

Hey, Chris -- when are you in the media going to own up to YOUR enabling role in this back-and-forth?

All of you love the gladiator-like drama of the fight and are more than happy to ignore those who are disenfranchised during these kinds of personality conflicts?

Does anyone come closer to getting health insurance from this BS? ...no

Does any soldier get closer to coming home from this squabbling? ...no

Does poverty lessen for anyone struggling to survive in this country? ...no

Does the Washington Post sell more newspapers and ads from covering the latest insult? ...yes

After less than two months, I am nostalgic for John Edwards' "adult wing of the Democratic party."

lOOK SLIKE CLINTON SUPPORTERS REPLACED THE OLD ZOUK PROPOGANDISTS AROUND HERE. How did that happen?

Same tricks same tactics. jones effect elementary school kids. to the old school's here like drindl, they know what I mean.

do you feel me know drindl that clinton is gop? How are her supporters differant than zouk? Same childish "i know you are but what am I". Same childish, "If three clinton supporters attack a obama supporter it must be true." HAHHAHAHA

We'll see who buys it tough guys. don't blame me for the gop's irrelevance. They've made their bed. Now the gop (clinton included) must sleep in it for a generation. I am not the cause, belive me. :) You waste your venom. Reality is your enemy. Not me

"These are the same people who are always saying the process should be fair, so why are they determined to undermine the process at every interview they give?"

I challenge you to find me one Obama supporter who objects to voting continuing as planned. Indeed, the voting will take place even when Hillary withdraws.

"The process" is simple - whoever wins the most delegates wins the nomination. The delegate selection process is not undemocratic - it is the democractic solution to the sort of backroom deals Hillary is trying to finagle. The undermining you mention is 3/4 ways through the process trying to convince the American people that the rules all parties and candidates agreed to and have adhered to are wrong, that the "real" winner is the one who has the most popular vote, the one who wins without blacks, the one who wins the most "big" states, the one who blah blah blah caw caw caw. For a Clinton backer to accuse the Obama camp of "undermining the process" is like the Nazis accusing Poland of kicking off WWII because they complained about being invaded.

Bring it on. Let Michigan and Florida revote, let Pennsylvania have its say, let Hillary fight on the beaches of Guam. Just don't moan about the rules agreed to and try to change them around to accomodate a poorly run and mismanaged campaign.

And by the way, Clintonazis - Wolfson called, and he wants one of you to pick up his dry-cleaning on the way back to the office.

Fire Howard Dean can fix half of the problem. No party can have a partial chairman at the top and expect a unified party; he is also imcompetent, reckless, and lack of leadership. For example,when the Florida and Michigan revote issue first started, he tried everything to block the effort;he said there was no money, then there no time , the voting mchines were gone,the mail-in is too risky and etc. He is basically saying he does not want to solve the problem, he just wants Obama nominated. What kind of Cbairman is that? Chairman is supposeed to be neutral. He must go and have a revote to unify the party.

It may?! It MAY?! Hillary has already damaged the party. She needed to bow out three weeks ago when it became apparent she couldn't win.

I will NOT vote for a ticket with Hillary on it.

And if Obama panders any more to the God crowd, I'm voting for Nader...AGAIN!

Ah youth! So put upon! Now, it's a claim of ageism. Any more victims out there?

First, what I said was not an attack. (Read it again.) Second, I did think--and read--before typing. I have yet to read anyone call Sen. Obama a sleaze who will do anything to get elected. I have read it too many times to be counted from his supporters against Sen. Clinton. Lastly, there's nothing ageist about preferring someone like Sen. Clinton to a less-experienced person (no, being State senator with "present" votes doesn't count for much stacked against Clinton's lengthy resume).

Posted by: rosepetals64 | March 13, 2008 01:33 PM

Ah Old age! To frail to climb out of the box your mind is stuck in.
You are correct that voting for Senator Clinton is not ageist, however accusing/attacking (read it again) Senator Obama's supporters of being rude and inconsiderate because they are young is. (It was the very first reason you listed)Simply because someone is young does not mean they are rude; in the same way just because someone is old doesn't mean they cannot think out of the box as I joked earlier. Just because you have wandered the planet for a larger number of years doesn't mean you have learned anything on your journey. Experience/Age is not an indicator of intellegence.

If you haven't seen anyone spewing crazy about Obama you haven't been reading this blog (or any one for that matter) lately. I encourage you to scroll back up through the posts and read what has been written. My point was--both sides of supporters have been saying negative things about the opposing candidate, not just youthful Obama supporters.

And lets try again...what on Clinton's "lengthy resume" makes her SO much more qualified than Obama. Just because you were married to the president doesn't mean you are prepared to be president. I am married, and I could not effectively or otherwise perform my wife's job.

"I think you understand my point and the difference."

I do understand your point. I equate it with G.Ferraro's comment about Sen Obama being where he is because of his race. Uncalled for & irrelevant. But, let me put it another way:

So what if he is?

Let's say Obama is here because of his race.
Let's also admit Sen Clinton is here because of her gender and her spouse.

Now, which one's the better candidate? For my vote, its Obama, hands down. He is the kind of leader this country needs right now, she is not. In my opinion, she's not much of a leader at all, and her 'experience' is her husband's, not her own. If we're going to have a female President, lets wait for a woman who qualifies based on her own merit's, rather than her husband's.

"cutting the funding & forcing immediate, unconditional withdrawl is the one option worse than continuing the existing failed policy. Sen Obama's recognition of this & voting to continue funding the conflicte is a positive indicator of his judgement."

then he essentially disagrees with Dick Durbin, Russ Feingold and John Kerry and agrees with Hillary about the war, that is great you have just made my point. Sen Obama when he was safely in an Illinois Senate seat and had no vote and nothing at risk spoke out against the war, but as soon as he entered the US Senate, had to account for his votes in the US Senate and decided to run for President took the more nuanced position to vote exactly as Hillary. Personally I opposed the surge and believe that a 12-18 month period to carefully extricate our troops should have started before the surge and that Sen Obama was wrong to have opposed the Kerry bill, but I have become much more antiwar lately its an enormous tragedy of lives and treasure. You can call his changed position good judgment, I just call it a changed position on his signature issue.

Texas? Only steers and. NEvermind. :)
------------------------------
Don't pay him any mind, he doesn't have any. What a douche.

Sorry to hear that, nlynnc. I guess we just equal each other out, though, because if Clinton is on the Democratic ticket, I will vote for McCain. She is the biggest fraud. 35 years of experience? Standing next to her husband. She voted for Iraq, and her husband ignored Iran when they were trying to moderate and reach out to us in the 1990s. Make no mistake about it, we will have more war with Hillary, and if Clinton and McCain are our choices, may as well have the guy that knows what he's doing. Luckily, your vote will be going to Nader, and we will get a president that will actually change America's wrong-headed foreign policy as implemented by Bushes and Clintons.

"Sen Obama's recognition of this & voting to continue funding the conflict is a positive indicator of his judgement.

Posted by: bsimon | March 13, 2008 01:56 PM

"

SAcrafice? Compromise? YUp. Obama's a patriot alright. Not everything is about him. He fights for something bigger than himself. The movement and america. Clinton? She fights to be the first women president in american history.

She can't win leachman. Even if she wins she loses and so does the dnc/country for the future.

sometimes when you win you really lose. Sometimes when you lose you really win.

Clinton cannot come out on top, unless it's as mccain's vp. If she steals the election the party is toast, she loses the ge. What are her options? She loses every way you slice it. Being a women has nothing to do with it. It's her tactics, her gop support, and her out of touch gop-like supporters, like leachman here who refuse to acknowledge reality. and would rather destroy the world that sacrafice a small amount of "what they want". GOP, I say

In America, every citizen has the right to vote and have their vote be counted. Being that there are at least 10 more primaries give or take, shouldn't everyone on the Obama side of the equation just let the voting continue until all the contests are completed? These are the same people who are always saying the process should be fair, so why are they determined to undermine the process at every interview they give? Once all the contests are over and the pledged delegates counted, then the super delegates can weigh in and make the final call for the general election. This is the way the democrats decided it should be done, so the democrats of the party will have to abide by their decision. One more observation, common sense should take hold after this contest and the party should change the election process to be fair to all who enter future primaries. How about a nationwide primary held on a day in Feb. and winner take all, no delegates just a popular vote. That would be a true democratic election and the party would have their nominee in one day. Just food for thought! Oh yeah, lets not forget FL and MI, it's not the citizens fault that the DNC and the state governments screwed the process up!

bsimon: good come back but I think you understand my point and the difference. I am sure when you read those kinds of uncalled comments directly from Obama supporters here that they are not intended as words of endearment but to demean, what many women say they still deal with in the work place. In the work environment its a firing event and Hillary's comment I am sure you understand was self depricating humor, not eaxctly the same as a venemous attack by her most verilant opponents meant to demean a grown woman. Again I would not suggest anyone call their female superior at work a girl, it wouldn't be pretty.

leichtman, the Senator has answered the question innumerable times. My initial response was eaten by the blog, but I'll resummarize: cutting the funding & forcing immediate, unconditional withdrawl is the one option worse than continuing the existing failed policy. Sen Obama's recognition of this & voting to continue funding the conflict is a positive indicator of his judgement.

How am I siding with those GOPers, you jagoff? I'm going to vote for Obama if he's the nominee.

They're scared spector. Like you are. They run in fear when I come on. I try and keep there here by mispelling words and sacraficing my ego. They're still are scared.

you must not have seen the revolution here on the fix. they will not challenge me anymore. I won everytime. that's why they don't post. they can't win. We have already had these fights with dave and jd and zouk. They lost. Rather than you moderates fighting them, you decided to side with them now. How are you not stabbing us in the back, as well as gutting and dividing the party/country.

don;t you knwo that by know? I thoguht you would have understood when leachmen and yourself could say nothing but elementary school mocking and gossip.

Here's teh way it works. I will spell it out for youbecause I want to help. IF YOU GOT SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE POST IT. Forget about me. You can't touch me. Post whatever you have in that little mind of yours.

Now you know why I call you clinton supporters republcains. Always worried about what the gop will do or say. That's means yoru either a coward, or don't know you are being played for their amusement. you do their work for them when you blog for them, or their approval.

some people only understand strength. They do not comprehld reason and truth. I have all three.

so post your posts. If I'm wrong lying or misleading, tell me how. Or don't. Quit worrying about me gop. do you. all definatly do me. I have been blogging before the begining of this movement. My candidate is now ahead and has very little chance of losing. I should back down now? It's working. Why would I stop now? :)

They're scared spector. Like you are. They run in fear when I come on. I try and keep there here by mispelling words and sacraficing my ego. They still are scared.

you must not have seen the revolution here on the fix. they will not challenge me anymore. I won everytime. that's why they don't post. they can't win.

don;t you knwo that by know? I thoguht you would have understood when leachmen and yourself could say nothing but elementary school mocking and gossip.

Here's teh way it works. I will spell it out for youbecause I want to help. IF YOU GOT SOMETHING OF SUBSTANCE POST IT. Forget about me. You can't touch me. Post whatever you have in that little mind of yours.

Now you know why I call you clinton supporters republcains. Always worried about what the gop will do or say. That's means yoru either a coward, or don't know you are being played for their amusement. you do their work for them when you blog for them, or their approval.

some people only understand strength. They do not comprehld reason and truth. I have all three.

so post your posts. If I'm wrong lying or misleading, tell me how. Or don't. Quit worrying about me gop. do you. all definatly do me. I have been blogging before the begining of this movement. My candidate is now ahead and has very little chance of losing. I should back down now? It's working. Why would I stop now? :)

If Senators Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama deadlock the Denver convention, then theseventen's point about Senators Joe Biden and Chris Dodd being better candidates might come into play.
Abraham Lincoln became the dark horse candidate in 1860 after the party bosses deadlocked over the leading candidates. Read Ronald Brownstein's book, The Second Civil War and then speculate about whether a nation divided against itself can be saved by another drakhorse presidential candidate.

I would seriously like a rational response to my querry about Sen Obama's vote against the Kerry bill rather than just another rant. For those of us which I believe would include supporters on both sides who are against the war, and want to fully understand Sen Obama's early stance against the war which is honorable, why did he suddenly change and become more nuanced when he actually had a chance to vote to end the war rather than join Sen, Durbin, Kerry and Feingold. If that is an unfair question please explain why.

caribis writes
"I have been legal to vote for just over 20 years... This fall I will vote Obama first, McCain second, write-in line or not vote third. I should have at least one and most likely two people I would vote for this fall. After twenty years of not voting either Democrat or Republican for President I still don't have my ideal candidate but I at least have a candidate and maybe two... Happy voter in a swing state."

WTF, do I have a doppelganger?

Ferraro's comments together with Bill's and Rendell have all ticked me off as a human being. There is no "they" as in both sides, its coming from one side -- HRC -- and it had better stop. Its lowered the party to the gutter, and makes people think perhaps the GOP is a better alternative if HRC represents the spiteful face of the Democratic party. I am appalled that so called leaders like Hoyer have said nothing. Just like the war, good for nothing. Just occupying a chair at our expense.

On a lighter note there are some neat polls out NBC/Gallup. Bills approval, how important are issues (not very), who would make a good commander and chief.

Nothing that shocking if you follow pol. but it does give voice to what we suspect. The are some young bloggers so it might be informative if this is your first race.

Mac and Obama are below 30 percent on dis-approval. That will change but speaks to their present strength. Hillary is 'issues girl' but who cares about that - right.

Oh, and incidentally, the more Clinton shows her willingness to play to racist elements in this country, the more I feel she is an utter traitor to the Civil Rights movement, from which she herself has benefited enormously. It's just so sad and disappointing.

leichtman writes
" no one in the 21st century at least in the working world would dare refer to a grown woman as a girl "

Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton, addressing a union crowd last year:
"I'm your girl."

"Obama b/c of his speech against the war when he was in the Illinois Senate....
But what about Sen Obama's voting nea to the Kerry bill to end the war, what is your answer and I think that is completely fair question to ask."
Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 01:27 PM

Now, I am not a "true blue" supporter. However, I think you are comparing votes and they are not identical. So, I actually appreciate the way Obama voted even though on its face it appears inconsistent.
Obama was against the war in the beginning, before it started. However, he was not of the majority opinion. So, America went to War with Iraq. Now, once the war started whether he agreed with it or not, you must be reasoned in how/why you withdraw. Similarly, I think no matter how you feel about the war you must fund our troops fighting it, which Obama did. Pulling out of Iraq immediately might destablize the country and the region--at least this is what the military personnel on the ground seems to believe. We have to fight the battles at hand, whether we agree with them or not. I think many people would agree we went to war without being fully prepared for the situation on the ground. I do not think we should leave under similar pretenses.

""Before you attack, think. Something that has been missing with all the Race/Gender induendo is the blatant Age discrimination, especially against younger voters.

Posted by: jnoel002 | March 13, 2008 01:18 PM "

Ah youth! So put upon! Now, it's a claim of ageism. Any more victims out there?"

You're both talking past the point.

Racism, ageism, sexism, these things exist. I don't see how you could possibly deny it.

The issue has nothing to do with whether or not Clinton is racist or ageist; it has to do with whether or not she is willingly playing to these sentiments for a perceived gain on her part. I say, absolutely, yes. You can not rationally deny this.

I simply don't see Obama doing this. Please, if you do, point out examples (rather than just insisting it's true and I'm blind not to see it). I take the matter of politicians driving wedges VERY VERY seriously. It is one of the most destructive tendencies in modern America, imo. If I start seeing Obama engaging in that sort of thing, I will absolutely find him to be as despicable a person as I'm starting to find Clinton.

While I agree with Hoyer that this primary could cause damage to the Democratic party I am quite pleased by my choices this fall. I have been legal to vote for just over 20 years. I have voted for a lot of Democrats and a few Republicans. I worked on the campaign of a state Republican woman. But I have never voted for either a Democrat or a Republican for President. I will only vote for somebody, never against someone. I have voted for people I do not agree with (to both the left and right) on policy, but who I believed would still do a good job or were a necessary voice. This fall I will vote Obama first, McCain second, write-in line or not vote third. I should have at least one and most likely two people I would vote for this fall. After twenty years of not voting either Democrat or Republican for President I still don't have my ideal candidate but I at least have a candidate and maybe two.

Happy voter in a swing state.

"But what about Sen Obama's voting nea to the Kerry bill to end the war, what is your answer and I think that is completely fair question to ask. I have asked this question before and has been ignored. Why have I touched a nerve about the consistancy of Sen Obama's voting record on the war.

Posted by: leichtman | March 13, 2008 01:27 PM

"

you want to talk about the past? Nah. You know that vote would never have happened if not put in that position by authorization. We can go to the past and get down and dirty if you like. But you cannot win that arguement. You knwo that. Reminds me of a camacazie bomber. Your taking them both down aren;t ya? :)

I think it's better to look to the future, not the past. Then your candidate has a chance, albeit a small one. Who tends to make money off more war like the gop did? Obama or clinton? think long and hard. I don't expect and answer.

You will never win this way leachman. Picking one issue differance or one vote will nto save you or steal the election. You stil thinking in old style politics. That's why you have already lost.

Texas? Only steers and. NEvermind. :)

You texas red coat/confederates are a joke. the south will not rise again. It was treason then and it's treason now. I say ship all the gop confederates who hate freedom democracy and america greenland. Somewhere where we both can be happy. then you fascists can war agaisnt yourselves. And america would be free to build without gop sabotage.

How will you squabbling Democrats feel once President McCain appoints an ardent conservative, in the Thomas-Scalia-Alito mold, to the Supreme Court to succeed either 87-year-old John Paul Stevens or 74-year-old Ruth Bader Ginsberg?

How will those black male/white female divisions look then? How silly will the plight of disenfranchised voters in Michigan and Florida, or ads about 3 a.m. phone calls, seem then?

Remember, the three youngest justices are Roberts (53), Alito (57), and Thomas (59).

That's a long legacy to owe to the silly squabbling of the majority that can't act like one.

"Meanwhile our gov't continues to cut revenue (lowering taxes) while increasing spending, and has to borrow more money. More dollars being sold lowers the price, and the cycle continues. Yeeha!"

Exactly, bsimon.

What we need to Immediately do is:

1) CUT spending. An important