I have been trying to get some answers to this. The peoloe have right to know if this is true.
Wow!!!!!!!
New Inning: Judge Grants Sinclair Order

Friday April 4th, 2008 7:00 PM by BHDC Staff
Filed under: Sex, Scandals, Scoops, Barack Obama, Drugs, Larry Sinclair
Judge Henry Kennedy, who presides over District Court in Washington, D.C., has granted Larry Sinclair ’s motion for discovery and signed an order for subpoenas regarding Sinclair’s defamation lawsuit against three Internet posters.

Sinclair filed suit in March against the posters, whom, he claims, made up and spread lies about his mental state and character after he posted allegations about Sen. Barack Obama in January on YouTube. Sinclair claims to have used drugs and had sex with Obama in 1999.

The individuals Sinclair is suing have registered accounts at DemocraticUnderground.com, YouTube.com, and Digg.com, although their real names are not yet known. They are currently listed in the suit by their screen names: TubeSockTedD, mzmolly and OWNINGLIARS. Sinclair is seeking $3 million in damages.

The judge’s order, Sinclair tells Big Head DC , signals “a whole new inning and a whole new ball game.” The suit, filed in March, reiterates claims Sinclair has made in the past about Obama.

“On the evening of November 6, 1999, Plaintiff’s limousine driver telephoned then-Illinois State Senator Barrack Obama to set up a introduction of Plaintiff to Mr. Obama,” according to the lawsuit. “Later that evening at a bar which Plaintiff believes was called Alibis, Plaintiff met Mr. Obama. Mr. Obama offered to purchasing cocaine for Plaintiff. Mr. Obama made a telephone call from his cellphone to a presently unknown individual during which Mr. Obama arranged the cocaine purchase.

“Mr. Obama and Plaintiff then departed the bar in Plaintiff’s limousine and proceeded to an unknown location where Mr. Obama exited the limousine with two hundred fifty dollars ($250) tendered by Plaintiff and returned a short while later with an ‘eightball’ of cocaine and gave it to Plaintiff,” the suit continues. “Plaintiff and Mr. Obama then ingested cocaine.”

A sexual encounter allegedly took place after the drug use.

A PolyScore computer analysis conducted on Sinclair in February indicated that he was being truthful in his drug claims, although experts hired by WhiteHouse.com, the Web site that paid for the polygraph, disagreed with the PolyScore readings.

The full order is here: [PDF]
Sinclair Affidavit: Signed, Sealed, Delivered

Wednesday April 2nd, 2008 4:47 PM by BHDC Staff
Filed under: Law, Barack Obama, Larry Sinclair
For anyone who hasn’t seen it yet, Larry Sinclair’s affidavit to the Chicago Police Department has been filed: [PDF]

Earlier: Sinclair to File Affidavit Involving Obama’s Murdered Choirmaster

WHY WON'T ANYONE PUT ANYTHING IN THE PAPERS
ABOUT THIS?

Obama has won more:
Primaries: 15 -13
Cacuses: 16 - 0 (he got 1 more delegate in Nevada), + Virgin Islands + Dems abroad
Popular vote: 13.3 mil - 12.6 mil
Fund Raising: $237 mil - 175 mil
Individual donors: 1.5 mil - 750,000 (est.)

What do you know? Despite that fact that "nobody lives [here]", there seem to be more than one Montanan posting here!

As a former Missoulian who has also lived in several large "liberal" cities around the country, I would concur that it is one of THE liberal cities in the US. I will cross my fingers for an Obama visit to the rez. Regardless of a rez stop, I think he will win MT.

earldy

I am glad to see another Montanan and Missoulian chipping in. Who knew so many of us would notice this blog. I'm here all the time, but haven't noticed too many other Montanans.

Missoula is not the only Democratic city. The voting results don't bear that out. But it is the most Democratc city and certainly the most liberal. It is the only city in Montana where alternative lifestyles are tolerated. Openly gay persons have won elections here.

But the Butte/ Ananconda area has been solid Democratic since their beginning. Missoula didin't start trending liberal until the 1970s, prior to that it was right-leaning centerist at best.

Also Great Falls and Helena consistently elect Democrats to local office and send Democrats to the legislature. Smaller Democratic enclaves include Havre, the largest town on the HiLine. Havre has a labor vote, being a regional headquarters for Burlington Northern and a liberal, albeit more centerist vote due to Montana State University-Northern.

Bill Clinton just announced a Tuesday visit to Montana that will include Helena, Great Falls and Havre, recognizing those cities as also important to a Democratic Primary. With Hillary visiting Butte and Missoula that's quite a full-court press considering this is still two months prior to Montana's Primary.

Havre is also in easy driving distance of two Reservations, Rocky Boy (Chippewa-Cree)and Fort Belknap (Gros Ventre and Assiniboine) and I bet there will be delegations to see Bill Clinton there from the Blackfeet Reservation and the Fort Peck (Sioux and Assiniboine) each of them on opposite ends of the HiLine and 140 and 200 miles from Havre, respectively. The Indian reservations are a strong Democratic enclave that's become more important each year.

No doubt about it, Missoula is a big factor, contributing nearly a third of those likely to vote in a Montana Democratic primary, but no one can win with just Missoula.

Other cities, while still majority GOP in the general elections, have growing Democratic minorities that make those cities more centerist than Republican. Billings is one, Bozeman is the other. Tester lost Gallatin County by just 100 votes and Burns won Yellowstone County (Billings for all those not familiar to our state) by only two percentage points.

So while no city in Montana comes close to Missoula in liberalism, it is not accurate to say Missoula is the only pocket of Democrats in Montana.

Not that anyone is going to read something this far in a blog, but since I'm actually from Montana and half the people posting have laughed at my state I figured I was obligated to comment.

- Why Montana matters: We're the last primary (with South Dakota) in an area that Obama has been easily winning. If Clinton were to win, it would signify a mood swing for the Mountain west.

- South Dakota matters less because Tom Daschel is one of Obama's biggest supporters and is very, very popular in SD among democrats.

- Why Obama will win Montana anyway. Hmmm... Clinton is dispised here. If she were to be the nominee, every other democrat on the ticket in November would lose. It's a sentiment very common in the west. Google it if you need to. The LA Times wrote a whole article on it last year.

- Missoula is basically the only city in Montana that counts for a democratic primary because we're basically the only democratic city. While most Montanans are populist, they generally vote republican because they are the only ones who talk about resource management without saying they're going to turn all our forests into public parks. Schweitzer and Tester know better, that's why they won. It's not that difficult.

- Most Republicans won't bother voting because they already had a caucus in February. They'll only be voting for Governor picks etc.

Cece:

The Re;ublicans who vote in the primary are not likely to vote on the Democratic ballot. That's because the presidential primary does not drive that electorate. The Republicans have contested primary elections for the US Senate seat and for Governor. I think the bulk of the party faithful care more about who their nominees are for those two offices, rather than who the Democrats will nominate for President.

I think there will be a big turnout of independents though. These voters often stay away from primaries, but they may well be drawn to weigh in on the presidential primary. The independents, I believe, will break heavily for Obama.

I'm not sure if anyone has already talked about this, but as a Montana Blogger, I think it is important to point out that the Republicans held a Caucus in MT on Feb 5, and they selected Romney. Romney has since released his votes to McCain.

Since the Republican candidate has already been selected for the state, and Montana doesn't require that you declare a party, anyone can walk into the primary and vote for the Democratic Candidate of their choice.

I suspect that the results of the primary here in MT will be skewed with Republicans voting for the Demo Candidate of their choice to run against McCain.

The other possibility is that the MT Republicans will pick up a Republican ballot, and retaliate against the Republican Party for moving to a caucus instead of the citizen's voice in a primary.

Just another factor to consider in trying to predict MT's votes.

Alan:

Re: rural counties in the eastern part of the state losing population.

I might disagree a little on that. We stayed in Miles and drove through Baker (I have friends there) and the oil producing part of the state is doing well... Baker hasn't looked this good in a generation from my POV... much as Williston is booming in my state. Yeah, my old family town, Harlowton and that surrounding area is emptying out fast, but on the far east side of the state things seem to be picking up a little.

But the general point is well made. Every time I go back to the Bitterroot, it amazes me how different things are than they were, and a lot of the movement is California type liberals. Aside from my mother, who is a 60s leftie and supporting Obama, I didn't get much of a sense that people in the root were all that engaged yet... and there hasn't been much of a bounce in registration from what I've heard.

Whoops. I meant to say the Butte Anaconda area is the only place in WESTERN Montana that is losing population. Virtually all the rural couties in eastern Montana are losing population rapidly.

Nice to see so many Montanans piping up. I guess people do live here after all.

The Grizzlies fill a stadium that seats 25,000. The only other event that came close is the Rolling Stones concert in October of 2006, but then the massive stage took out all the seats on the south end of the stadium. There are about 150,00 or so people living in the area on or near the Missoula valley, counting the Bitteroot and Mission Valleys. So it may not be so far fetched to think of 1/6 that number flocking to Washington-Grizzly stadium. But I think the Adams Field House/Dahlberg arena is the more likely setting with room for some nine thousand or so with seating on the arena floor. I think Obama could fill it, maybe Clinton too. Remember that this a historic occasion to have presidential candidates campaigning in Montana. Some with a sense for history may just want to observe the event as maybe a once-in-a-lifetime experience, without necessarily being a partisan for either candidate.

Who knows if events will ever again come together again to bring this much attention to Montana in a national election?

As far as the other Montana Democratic populations are concerned, it's really hard to peg them. In Butte, Great Falls or Billings, they do come out of more of a blue-collar tradition. But the industry jobs that used to produce a strong blue collar vote are gone. Anaconda Mining left Butte after ARco acquired it. The few mining jobs still there pale in comparison and the Butte Anaconda area is the only region in Montana that is losing population. The smelter jobs are also long gone from Great Falls. Even Missoula once had a stronger blue collar tradition when we had several lumber mills operating. All but two are shut down now, though Missoula has other demographics that keep it one of the fastest growing areas of Montana.

So the Democratic vote in Butte/Anaconda, Great Falls or Billings has transformed from its blue collar roots. The only Democrats that vote as liberal as Missoula would be Bozeman Democrats. It is home of Montana State or as we Grizzlies like to call it, "the udder school." (making fun of its roots as an agricultural colleg).

Though they do not yet control politics in Gallatin County, those that do vote Democratic there come from the same kind of Green, liberal flavor as Missoula. Missoula is likely to break strong for Obama. He already has an organization here and a strong tradition of political activism here will generate a lot of volunteers to get out the vote. Great Falls Butte/Anaconda and Billings voters could conceivably go for Clinton, but I doubt she would have a large margin of victory in any of those towns, meaning she is unlikely to put much of a dent in the cushion Obama will likely have out of Missoula.

But this is really all guesswork. This will be the first ever seriously contested presidential primary in Montana, so we have no history to fall back on. Montana has very few opinion polls, so it's hard to get that kind of read on the electorate. But perhaps the pollsters are getting ready now that were are "on the map."

It should be very interesting. Montana has one of the nation's smallest television markets, which means a political advertising dollar can buy a lot more time than in more populous states. So on top of candidate visits I bet we will see plenty of campaign advertising. I just hope they hire Montana actors. These campaign commercials where out of state actors try to sound as they think cowboys talk get big laughs here but are ineffective.

Leuchtman, you could be right. I spend all my time in Missoula and Helena, so I have no real sense of how the vote might go in other parts of the state. I think CC may be onto something with his Morrison/Tester comparison, though. There's a "progressives" vs. the "old guard" split among the Ds, which that race may have been indicative of. It will be interesting to see how the vote goes. (At least the Ds in Montana get to vote, unlike the Rs who were disenfranchised by the party leaders' unwelcome decision to use a caucus and limit participation to about 2,000 voters statewide.)

acasilaco:

I feel your pain (the GOP in Msla) LOL. I sometimes feel like I'm the only Democrat in ND (not really, but kinda at least rational Democrat). But even for a moderate to liberal Dem like me, Msla is awfully uhmmm, liberal. I have to wonder, though if the vote in Butte/Silverbow, Billings and Great Falls, which is more blue collar type will fall more towards Hillary and cancel out Obama's edge in Missoula.

I just want to say that I'm thrilled to have such a substantial discussion in The Fix (and in the comments section) about Montana. Thank you, CC.

And, I think leuchtman may be correct about Missoula being one of the most liberal cities in the country. (At least that's my perspective as a Republican who lives in Missoula. I have also lived in Seattle and in the DC area, so I have some outside reference points of liberalness.)

I agree with CC that there are likely to be some parallels between Clinton/Obama and Morrison/Tester. I think Obama will win the state, propelled by a huge margin in Missoula. I think Clinton will do well in Helena (my hometown) and Butte.

If both candidates make personal free-to-the-public appearances in Missoula (as local media is speculating), I think both would get sizeable crowds, but Obama will do better. He might actually be almost as popular in Missoula as the Grizzlies football team, which is saying a lot.

Why isn't anyone except Dan Abrams highlighting the fraudulent voting by Republicans for Clinton as being promoted (and followed) by Rush Lambaugh! How can any numbers Clinton get be realistic with this violation going on.

Alan:

So funny. Do you remember the little press area that they had? I felt like a horse standing in that straw that they had. That was a hell of a day.

The Secret Service guys went over my crappy Montana Press Association credentials like they were state documents. If I remember properly, Jackson also carried the other reservations in the state.

The point is that the turnout is typically fairly low in the primary, which will distort the Indian vote significantly. And even more so in South Dakota. Do you have any anecdotal on the S&K and which way you would sense its leaning?

I am in complete agreement with Leuchtman's observations. The In dian vote is very important in Montana.

I also remember Jesse Jackson's visit to Arlee. I was then editor of the Ronan newspaper. He made a big impression speaking at the "pow wow" grounds, a fairly large semi-outdoor arena. The primary season of course was all but over. Dukakis was ignoring the state. But Jesse Jackson did win the majority of the vote over Dukakis in Lake County.

"Warning - Libs are trying to talk intelligently about economics. you may want to come back when sense returns."
Posted by: kingofzouk

Every financial catastrophe of the past 100 years was caused by conservatives and occurred during Republican administrations. Examples: Hoover, Great Depression; Reagan, S&L bailout; Bush II, tech-bubble pop and credit meltdown. Ignorance is bliss, so don't worry--be happy.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Obama's efforts to connect to the Republican Party, specifically Bush, and Dick Chaney, of the Halliburton Company, dates back to the Presidents Grandfather, Prescott Bush, and indeed Chaney was once an executive officer of Halliburton.

The American military pounds Iraq with Artillary, bombs, and the like, destroying large sections of cities, and infra-structures, then Halliburton comes in to rebuild. Halliburton and Halliburton associated companies have raked in ten's of billions.

Obama is just like the BIG HALIBURTAN. Haliburton has contracted to build detention centers in the U.S. similiar to the one in Quantanammo Bay, Cuba. Halliburton does nothing to earn the Two Dollars for each meal an American Serviceman in Iraq eats.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Halliburton was scheduled to take control of the Dubai Ports in The United Arab Emiirate. The deal was canceled when Bush was unable to affect the transfer of the American Ports.

Now we see what some might suspect as similiar financial escapading from the Democrats.

Two years ago, Iraq's Ministry of Electricity gave a $50 million contract to a start-up security company - Companion- owned by now-indicted businessman (TONY REZKO) Tony Rezko and a onetime Chicago cop, Daniel T. Frawley, to train Iraqi power-plant guards in the United States. An Iraqi leadership change left the deal in limbo. Now the company, Companion Security, is working to revive its contract.
Involved along with Antoin "Tony" Rezco, long time friend and neighbor of Democratic Presidential hopeful Barack Obama, and former cop Daniel T. Frawley, is Aiham Alsammarae. Alsammarae was accused of financial corruption by Iraqi authorities and jailed in Iraq last year before escaping and returning here.

LIKE FATHER LIKE SON --
Recently, Obama's campaign staff have been vetted by the IRS to disclose his connection to the criminal money generating underworld. Besides, his connections to the REZCO MAFIA types, his up-coming tax fraud charges -- Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and disclose Obama's MUSLIM Farrakhan mob connection to Chicago's Trinity United Church of Christ. Its minister, and Obama's spiritual adviser, is the Rev. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. In 1982, the church launched Trumpet Newsmagazine; Wright's daughters serve as publisher and executive editor. Every year, the magazine makes awards in various categories. Last year, it gave the Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright Jr. Trumpeter Award to a man it said "truly epitomized greatness." That man is Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church are trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. Obama should stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke "GLORK" Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He is MAD!!! --

OBAM YOU'RE NO JFK --

"GLORK" Obama looks like Alfred E. Newman: "Tales Calculated To Drive You." He is a MUSLIM "Glork" He's MAD!!! Alfred E. Neuman is the fictional mascot of Mad. The face had drifted through American pictography for decades before being claimed by Mad editor Harvey Kurtzman after he spotted it on the bulletin board in the office of Ballantine Books editor Bernard Shir-Cliff, later a contributor to various magazines created by Kurtzman.
Obama needs to disclose why he is a MUSLIM "PATWANG-FWEEE" and stop suppoting our intervention in IRAQ. It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek.

Michelle Obama should be ashamed.

"GLORK" Michelle Obama should be ashamed of her separatist-racist connection to Farrakhan and Chicago's Trinity United Church trumpeting Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama as the second coming of the messiah. If Michelle Obama new what her husband -- the Hope-A-Dope, Fonster Monster -- Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama did in Harlem, she would wash her wide-open, Hus-suey loving MUSILM mouth out, with twenty-four (24) mule-team double-cross X-boX-BorraX. He is a MUSLIM "Glork" It's time to introduce this false, fake "GLORK" Xerox - X box Obama and invite the self-indicting thief plagiarizing pipsqueke Xerox - X box to meet the Buffalo "GAZOWNT-GAZIKKA" Police Department Buffalo Creek. He's MAD!!!

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

THE SPEECH --

The Apologia has arrived and once again the self-indicting, separatist-racist Barack Obama AKA Barack Hussein Obama, promises to heal the wounds of the world. The speech is the rude awakening of mass messianism of his campaign. Apologetically, Obama the MUSLIM double-cross X-boX-BorraX has an astonishingly empty two-prawn echelon explanation of his misjudgment.
In the first prawn: with regard to his connection to separatist-racist Rev. Wright; Obama summons voodoo and juju to express slavery as beginning and ending with the Rev. Wright.
In the second prawn: Obama's speech takes credit for Ashley's dream. A dream of unity Martin Luther King, Jr. borrowed from Ashley for his historic "I Have A Dream" speech. In Obama's speech, the connective bond Ashley, the elderly black man and Obama's grandmother share; represents Obama's self-indicting rise to the Harvard Yard. For Obama, the grand flag of language is the semi-fore of words, bestowed upon our nation by the messiah-alumni from Harvard. Obama's Swoon-Song Apologia to the nation represents a failed hymn -- a hymn that fails to heal the nation, repair the world, or make this time different than all the rest. Obama's speech is a brilliant failure.

http://www.halliburtonwatch.org/

Mul - you say that Montana doesn't count. "Nobody lives there." It is that attitude that has helped sink the Democrats in Presidential races the last few cycles. The Republican electoral college victories are built upon states like Montana. If Obama can bring them back into play it really helps our cause. Last time I checked we were still the United States of America, not the United Big, Important States of America.

I have a pertinent observation here... and I think Alan will agree with this for the most part...

I was visiting my mother in the Bitterroot over the previous weekend. When I go home (graduated from Corvallis-which means nothing in this to anyone other than Alan) I have friends that I tend to visit on the S&K and Crow Reservations.

Missoula is probably (now at least) one of the five or six most liberal population centers with over 50k people in the country (I kid you not- where else would you find a shop that survives in the most pricey commercial real estate area selling only Birkenstocks?), and should be fertile ground for Obama, but I think he ignores the res at his own peril.

I suspect that the NA vote may make up as much as a quarter of the vote in the primary, and while NA are not racist like CA latinos, HRC is VERY well regarded.. that said, the respect that a visit to Arlee or Lodge Grass would imply (by BHO) would drive the vote his way, leading to maybe a split. History is on my side here... I covered Jesse Jackson's 1988 visit to the S&K res when I was in high school (for the (then) Stevensville Star-- a liberal weekly in the Bitterroot), and it drove the NA vote in the primary that year.

As Alan correctly points out, the rural vote is very Republican (there are still tons of Ron Paul billboards dotting I-90), as it is in SD, but Obama neglects particularly the Res vote at his peril, probably 30% of the vote in the SD primary will come on the Rosebud and Pine Ridge, and while people on the coasts forget this, those two places delivered the 2002 Senate race to Tim Johnson-- John Thune beat him substantially throughout the rest of the state-- and probably would have delivered the 2004 Senate race to Daschle but for abnormally high turnout in Rapid.

Personally I don't think either state will be in play this fall, but Obama needs to get his butt out to the Pine Ridge instead of speaking to the ND DemNPL convention-- he won't carry ND this fall anyway-- and a trip to Browning or Lodge Grass (a short drive from Billings) or Arlee (a very short drive from Msla) after the Mansfield dinner, could essentially sew up MT for him... but if he doesn't do it, and HRC does, especially given a large win in PA, and the story from the June primaries could be HRC winning "upsets" and being on the path to the nomination.

Drindl,

Believe it or not, this is my third attempt to answer you question about farmer/ranchers and oil and gas exploration. The first ended in some kind of involuntary deletion---still don't know what happened and the last post was rejected because it said I was not signed in. I don't know what happened there as I was certainly signed in for the posts that did appear.

There is one large issue with oil and gas exploration and that is for proposed exploration along the Rocky Mountain Front in North Central Montana. This has been proposed for exploration, but so far the green lobby, which does include ag people in the area have been successful. There is a party split on this. Republican Denny Rehberg, the state's lone at-large Congressman strongly supports oil and gas exploration.
Conrad Burns, who was a three-term Republican Senator also favored this development until his fatal re-election bid in 2006, when he flipped-flopped on the issue. Supposedly he thought appearing more green would undercut some of Tester's support.

Both Tester and Baucus, the Democratic Senators have opposed the exploration. Governor Brian Schweitzer has also opposed exploration on the front, but has raised some friction with Greens over encouraging development of "green" coal gasification. As you probably know, Greens are not too keen on any kind of fossil fuel development.

That said, oil and gas and agriculture have mostly lived side by side very well. If a farmer rancher owns the mineral rights to his land, it can be financially rewarding. Many eastern Montanans do own their mineral rights because they acquired title back when no one suspected any value to the area below the eastern Montana surface. In the oil patches of north central Montana and Northeast Montana many ag people get regular royalty checks from the energy industry.

Oil and gas is but a shadow of what it once was. All of the refineries that existed in northcentral Montana are long shut down. The drilling crews that still operate don't control many jobs, but it is good-paying work compared to the notoriously low wages most Montana workers get.

Mining has raised a bigger controversy with ag people because mining activity directly impacts the real "liquid gold" in our semi-arid part of the country -- water.

There has been a good deal of opposition among ranchers in southeast Montana to the coal strip mining. Also some hard rock operations, particularly gold mining in the "island" mountain ranges of eastern Montana have impacted water.

That said, rural Montana votes conservative. In ranching (livestock raising) country, primarily in southern Montana, from the Idaho border to the Dakota border, rock-ribbed, moss-back Republicans dominate. The rural farming region of north central Montana and the HiLine (roughly, that section of land between the Missouri River and the Canadian border) is farming country (small grains raising, primarily wheat). It was once strongly Democratic but that changed, particularly in the 70s when the Democratic Party was seen by social conservatives as too friendly to alternative lifestyles and pro-abortion people.

One thing that has made a swing back to the Democrats is in those rural areas of Indian Country. Six of Montanan's seven reservations are in Eastern Montana. Indians stayed away from elections in droves until new voter drives and court actions that made it easier for Indians to compete for local office. Now with many Indians running for local office (all politics is local) there is a strong voting bloc in Indian Country that trends heavily Democratic.

While Democrats have counted on their base in the cities of Montana, I would credit the emerging Indian vote with most of the extra legislative seats it took to take control of part of the legislature. Last session the Democrats controlled the Senate by one vote and Republicans controlled the House by one vote.

Alan,

I would bet there are many Americans like me who have a relative [in my case, great grandmother] who were Native American, and hence are aware of the Indian Trust and the continuing shoddy treatment of NAs by the US government. It's like what else is new? I hope Obama has a grasp of this and can communicate to the leaders that he will make an issue of it in his admnistration.

And now, another example of Bush and McCain's foolishness and hypocrisy -- remember when they both criticized Obama for saying he would strike at terrorists inside Pakistan, if intelligence warranted it? Well guess what...

'The United States has escalated its unilateral strikes against al-Qaeda members and fighters operating in Pakistan's tribal areas, partly because of anxieties that Pakistan's new leaders will insist on scaling back military operations in that country, according to U.S. officials.'

When will the republican hypocrisy and politicization of national security stop? When we're all dead?

Chris, you shouldn't forget WA in handing out divine blessings. We just gave Lewis and Clark each their own counties. And I'm sure no one else has a Pend Oreille, Klickitat, or Wahiakum.`

Chris, you shouldn't forget WA in handing out divine blessings. We just gave Lewis and Clark each their own counties. And I'm sure no one else has a Pend Oreille, Klickitat, or Wahiakum.

That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent.

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

But, imo, this doesn't hurt Obama in the long run. If what all the doom-and-gloomers say will come to pass, Hillary and her defecting supporters will be blamed, and rightly so, for Obama's loss and McCain will have a poor Presidency and Barack will return in 4 years with more experience ready to campaign again. And the nation will be in no mood for any Republican. Hillary's career will be over.
And there's only one person to be angry at: Hillary, who ran an awful campaign.

'I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporter'
wpost this was a joke right? (you really don t want me to itemize all of those hateful posts again?
Gallup on CNN today according to Blitzer said that 25 per cent of Clinton supporters will never support Sen Obama; after seeing how they are treating the Fla and Michigan voters I may soon join them. That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent. I know I will be once again attacked for saying so because the Obama supporters just don t want to hear that. My guess is that the Clinton campaign after Pa will try and win Indiana, Ky, W Va, and Puerto Rico and will not have the resources to seriously conpete in Montana with few delegates at stake that just wouldn t make a lot of strategic sense. I am convinced that even if she were to win all 10 states, which is'n t going to happen that as long as the Obama campaign can block Fla and Nichigan they will insist they are entitled to the nomination, shove it down our throats and damn the general election or the Clinton supporters

'I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporter'
wpost this was a joke right? (you really don t want me to itemize all of those hateful posts again?
Gallup on CNN today according to Blitzer said this that 25 per cent of Clinton supporters will never support Sen Obama; after seeing how they are treating the Fla and Michigan voters I may soon join them. That is not a threat but reality and from the Clinton volunteers who have told me of the abuse they have had to tolerate I suspect its much greater than 25 per cent. I know I will be once again attacked for saying so because the Obama supporters just don t want to hear that. My guess is that the Clinton campaign after Pa will try and win Indiana, Ky, W Va, and Puerto Rico and will not have the resources to seriously conpete in Montana with few delegates at stake that just wouldn t make a lot of strategic sense. I am convinced that even if she were to win all 10 states, which is'n t going to happen that as long as the Obama campaign can block Fla and Nichigan they will insist they are entitled to the nomination, shove it down our throats and damn the general election or the Clinton supporters

AlaninMissoula,
Thanks for your response. Sorry your time in the DC area was not enjoyable and I hope your daughter is finding it bearable. I have relatives that now live in the Upper Penninsula of Michigan that have expressed the exact same sentiments. The only point I was trying to make, apparently not very well, is that I don't believe the sole reason people on the coasts sometimes overlook what happens in places like Montana can be attributed to elitism. I believe it is also a function of population. Coasters tend to overlook events in places like Delaware and Rhode Island too, not because we think our more populous states are better or more important, but because power, news and information eminates from population centers and that is not Delaware, RI or Montana. It is certainly not to say that important things don't occur in all places or that the things that do can't or don't impact us all. If there were issues in Montana with,say, livestock or agriculture, I feel safe in saying the coasts would feel the impact.

I am aware of the Indian Trust issues and lawsuit although not in huge detail. It is important to me as a matter of fairness and as a means to identify and hopefully fix incompetence (which could easily affect us all). I sincerely meant no disrespect to your state.

"Hillary IS - Dishonest, Disingenuous, Deceptive, Divisive, Delusional, and Dangerous"

One final note on Indian Country. McCain is well versed and well known in Indian Country, but he tends to talk down to tribal leaders...tell them what they should be doing. When I've heard him speak to the tribal leadership I never really liked his tone. Obama has an opening there.

To answer Chris on Republicans voting on the Democratic ballot:

All politics is local.

The Republicans have contested primary races for the nomination for US Senate and Governor. That should keep the true-blue (true-red?) party faithful voting on their own ballot.

To the extent that there may be people drawn to vote in the primary just because of the presidential race, then I suppose those voters would be drawn to the only ballot with a true contest, the Democratic ballot.

In an open primary state like ours, there is always speculation that the opposite party loyalists would vote on the other ballot for the sake of political mischief, but no one has ever demonstrated that to be the case.

"Indian Trust" not "Trust fund".

Alan - Thanks again. Most people do not know about the Trust Fund case, the incredible sums involved, or the decades of continuances and postponements.

It is the closest match to Dickens' "Bleak House" or Franz Kafka in U.S. judicial history.

I suspect that both McC and BHO are very aware of it.

much will depend on his VP choice...Lieberman would lock Florida.

I think he can beat McCain in the general, but I'm not so sure he can win FL. It really depends on how weak McCain looks by then.

Yeah...the chances of FL going for Obama are slim to none...too many old NYC transplants, but he has a chance in MI, especially since McCain is such a bonehead on the economy.
--------------------------

I disagree. One thing Barack has proven is that he can mobilize a very effective grass-roots organization in even the most difficult states. Remember that he has overcome huge 20-30 point deficits against the Clinton machine in many states. And he did it as a nearly unknown candidate. Now that he is better known and the Muslim question has been put to rest (ironically by the Wright matter), he will have a stronger wind at his back. Once the Dems unite behind him post nomination win, I think he will run an extremely effective national campaign and win convincingly over McCain.

Also Dave, to answer your question, I disagree with Chris that there is any special reverence for Bill Clinton in Indian Country. They like Democrats rather than Republicans but that's about it. For starters Obama or anyone else might address the money lost by the Interior Department in years of slip shod management of Indian Trust lands. It has been subject of a major civil suit, which probably is known only to us who live on or near Indian Country.

Yeah...the chances of FL going for Obama are slim to none...too many old NYC transplants, but he has a chance in MI, especially since McCain is such a bonehead on the economy.

Dave.

Events in Montana have no impact for you because to you, we are nothing but scenery. By the way, I spent some of the most disagreeable times of my life living in the Baltimore-D.C. area, from 02-04. My daughter is a foreign service officer currently stationed there.

I don't like the area much. It is full of consumers not producers. Er... that's something you might think of when you think our small-population producing states have little impact on the country.

brian- i would have to agree,considering Mi was at least a blue state in the last few cycles. i would recommend the dem nominee campagin harder in this state. same with florida but i wouldnt stake money on winning there.

glazer--

Bad assumption on your part. Most University of Montana students claim Missoula as place of residence. The time has long passed that traditional 18-22 year-old-single students made up most of the University population. Non - traditional students dominate now. These students depend on local jobs to help them stay in school. They don't leave town at the end of Spring Semester. Missoula is where they live..

But the dorm-living traditional students who go back to mommy and daddy in the summer were never a voting block here.
Few of them register to vote in Missoula County anyway. The campus precinct turnout is notoriously poor.

The liberal vote in Missoula does not depend on school being in session. School was not in session when Tester drubbed Morrison 3-1 in the 2006 primary. Missoula has the kind of political climate that attracts liberal voters. The transformation began in the 60s and has continued. That has not always been the case. I grew up in this town in the 50s and 60s and until the early 70s Missoula nearly evenly split. Even with McGovern hot on campus in 1972, Nixon took the Missoula County vote.

The liberal trend in Missoula has taken deep roots now.

MI and FL Dems will vote in November as it will be clear by then who caused the cluster @#!$. Its Hillary and her supporters who want to muddy the waters.

nice try hillary, looks like you just lost michigan.

A federal judge on Wednesday ruled Michigan's presidential primary law unconstitutional and blocked the state from giving voter lists from the Jan. 15 election to the state's major political parties.
U.S. District Judge Nancy Edmunds in Detroit ruled that the law's provision giving the list of voters' partisan preference only to the Democratic and Republican parties violated the rights of several small parties, who argued that the information should be distributed to all who wanted it or to no one.

But the ruling likely further damages the already small hope that the Democratic Party would honor the Jan. 15 results. It is unlikely that national Democratic officials would relent in their opposition to seating delegates based on a disputed vote that has now been declared flawed under the constitution.

http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/METRO/803260443/1361

must be more of that activist judges stuff i keep hearing about, long story short, the mi primary never happened and MI state legislature just took a well undeserved vacation. if Mi residents are looking to place blame, please direct your ire to the state dems.

Now that everyone has sobered up and realized that Hillary is finally done let's move on to the real problem: McCain. We don't need to spotlight her lack of honor or truthiness, she's taking care of that all by herself.

McCain vs. Obama...McCain vs. Obama!

The old broken warrior is gonna go down, but in a nice and respectful way...watch Obama work! Its still gonna hurt tough.

I do not agree with Chris's analysis of the Native American vote. Obama has been cleaning Hillary's clock in the NA community. This along with the Native American cross identification of many of the Latinos (yes, I know that many NM Latinos are multi-century descendants of the Spanish colonial communities) in NM and AZ was a reason for the close results in those two Hispanic dominated states. Look at the AK results, SD has already been mentioned, and there may be data from some of the other pockets of Native American votes (HI is a somewhat different case and Obama's childhood state, but we could add it to the stack). Furthermore, we shouldn't dismiss all the caucus results as a tiny "unrepresentative" sample of the voters in those states. The Wyoming caucus had a participation rate of 15% of registered Dems. That is not terribly out of line with primary turnouts in some areas (admittedly in other election cycles)

Brad is right on with his assessment. Too bad the Clinton campaign didn't think it out...I mean great because I was not looking forward to voting for Billary.

Cool...didn't catch the play on words...tunnel vision.

With only a few minor exceptions, Hillary Clinton has pretty much ignored the nation's midsection and Mountain West, and her aides have arrogantly dismissed these states as "irrelevant," insisting only a dozen or so "big states" on the East and West Coasts (and apparently not including Illinois, the nation's 5th largest state) should count toward the Democratic nomination. Result: she's lost Illinois, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri, Kansas, Nebraska, Colorado, Wyoming, Utah, and Idaho, all by very wide margins with the exception of Missouri where she did put up a fight and lost a close race. Her campaign's dismissive attitude has not gone unnoticed in these states, and there's little reason to think the result will be any different in Montana.

Between them, these 12 states account for 94 electoral votes. Only one of them, Illinois (21 electoral votes), is reliably Democratic. A few---Idaho, Wyoming, Utah, and probably Kansas, accounting for a combined 18 electoral votes---are reliably Republican. Most--Wisconsin, Minnesota, Iowa, North Dakota, Missouri, Nebraska, Colorado, good for a total of 55 electoral votes---figure to be very competitive in the general election if Obama heads the ticket, and current head-to-head polling confirms that. Clinton's weakness in this region, compounded by her dismissive attitude toward these states, stands her in poor stead in this region should she end up as the Democratic nominee. And the downdraft a Clinton candidacy would create for down-ticket Democratic candidates in this region is not going unnoticed, either. There's every reason to expect Montana and South Dakota will join the rest of the region as Obama Country when they hold their primaries later this year.

For the first time, the Democratic Party has a very closed competition.

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

First time? Not by a long shot. First time in your memory? If your relatively young, I could understand that.

Latest Wall Street journal polls show Hillary has lost ground on nearly every front in the past week.

Barack's lead in NC is growing. She needs to win NC to claim momentum. If Barack wins PA, it's over. Whoever wins NC will most likely be the nominee.

brian....i hope you realize that the humor was intentionally lame...and a play on the Bosnia story.

All presidential primaries are important. For the first time, the Democratic Party has a very closed competition. Democratic voters are excited. Every vote matters. Senator Hillary Clinton is gaining more supporters. She is a strong candidate. Recent polls in Puerto Rico, shows that Senator Clinton is ahead by 72%.

Good for you! Thinking before you say something is a nice approach in life.

Your wit and old school humor with the arrow and chief jokes is so refreshing to hear!

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

LOL. I almost used the verb "braved" but felt there was a limit to even lame humor.

Your wit and old school humor with the arrow and chief jokes is so refreshing to hear!

This won't look good on a resume:
"US: Saddam paid for lawmakers' Iraq trip

Federal prosecutors say Saddam Hussein's intelligence agency secretly financed a trip to Iraq for three U.S. lawmakers during the run-up to the U.S.-led invasion.

An indictment in Detroit accuses Muthanna Al-Hanooti of arranging for three members of Congress to travel to Iraq in October 2002 at the behest of Saddam's regime. Prosecutors say Iraqi intelligence officials paid for the trip through an intermediary.

In exchange, Al-Hanooti allegedly received 2 million barrels of Iraqi oil.

The lawmakers are not mentioned but the dates correspond to a trip by Democratic Reps. Jim McDermott of Washington, David Bonior of Michigan and Mike Thompson of California. There was no indication the three lawmakers knew the trip was underwritten by Saddam."

Yup...two million Indians are not a big enough voting block for her to even consider.

Oh yeah, and Chicago (Obama country) was a big center for Indian relocation back in the day and the Indian center there is something Barrack is aware of.

I'm sure Hillary doesn't even know what Indian relocation was or that an Urban Indian exists.

"Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent."

---------

I heard she came under a hail of arrows on her last visit to the reservation. Heck of a Commander-in-Chief!

This won't help Hillary either:

Dick Morris (The Hill):

Hillary simply cannot tell the truth. Here's her scorecard:

Admitted Lies

• Chelsea was jogging around the Trade Center on Sept. 11, 2001. (She was in bed watching it on TV.)


• Hillary was named after Sir Edmund Hillary. (She admitted she was wrong. He climbed Mt. Everest five years after her birth.)


• She was under sniper fire in Bosnia. (A girl presented her with flowers at the foot of the ramp.)


• She learned in The Wall Street Journal how to make a killing in the futures market. (It didn't cover the market back then.)

Whoppers She Won't Confess To

• She didn't know about the FALN pardons.


• She didn't know that her brothers were being paid to get pardons that Clinton granted.


• Taking the White House gifts was a clerical error.


• She didn't know that her staff would fire the travel office staff after she told them to do so.


• She didn't know that the Peter Paul fundraiser in Hollywood in 2000 cost $700,000 more than she reported it had.


• She opposed NAFTA at the time.
• She was instrumental in the Irish peace process.


• She urged Bill to intervene in Rwanda.


• She played a role in the '90s economic recovery.
• The billing records showed up on their own.


• She thought Bill was innocent when the Monica scandal broke.


• She was always a Yankees fan.


• She had nothing to do with the New Square Hasidic pardons (after they voted for her 1,400-12 and she attended a meeting at the White House about the pardons).


• She negotiated for the release of refugees in Macedonia (who were released the day before she got there).

With a record like that, is it any wonder that we suspect her of being less than honest and straightforward?

"Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent."

Hillary knows that. She spent lots of time in India as a foreign policy expert, and the experience she garnered -- what's that? Indians, like Native American Indians? Oh hell, Hillary doesn't care about them.

"NEW YORK - Having a big belly in your 40s can boost your risk of dementia decades later, a new study suggests.

now that we know the cause and effect, maybe you can seek professional help."

Speak for yourself, fatboy. 6'1, 180 over here.

Chris,

Just a little insight on the Indian vote. Bill Clinton is not "revered" in Indian Country. Dan Inoyue is "revered", but Bill is not...his wife is not even on the radar screen. Bill has a better record than Bush with tribes, but the tribal trust mess did not start with Little Bush. He also stalled on sacred site protection and offered pardons to his friends but not Peltier...left some wondering...even those that do not support the release of Peltier. He did hold a tribal leaders summit, but that didn't amount to a hill of beans and we remember that.

Barack Obama is from Hawaii and knows about Native issues, he's also the only candidate who has mentioned Indians consistently in his speeches (see South Carolina and Wisconsin victory speeches). Indian Country has taken note and will overwhelmingly support him in Montana and South Dakota. Besides Indians always love the underdog and insurgent.

"those evil Repubs and corporations - imagine them creating all that wealth."

Props to zouk, but that's inflation, not wealth, that was created.

AlaninMissoula - "I notice some posters here, both GOP and not seem to disrespect our giant piece of real estate that has nearly one million souls spread throughout. This is typical of the elitism east coast/pacific coast denial that anything of substance happens in between."

As someone that has lived pretty much my whole life in the DC burbs but has visited Montana and SD numerous times and ranks those two states among my favorites, I would submit that the thinking is not that things of substance don't happen in the middle of the country, but since the populations are less than on the coasts, those things tend to have less of an impact (which results in coastal people caring about it less). That does not make it right, I think it just is what it is (and not necessarily elitism, although there is definitely some of that). But this year Montana lucks out with the closeness of the Dem primary. Enjoy it while it lasts!

"People there will be looking for something concrete on Indian policy, more than the lip service they usually get."

So why was Bill Clinton revered there and what could Obama say that would sway those voters, if anything?

If only:

http://www.twango.com/media/asan13.junk/asan13.10786

I think The Fixes analysis on Montana is right on the money Obama will win! The Morrision/Tester primary is a good template for the 08 Dem. primary! Also I think that Penn. is the big state coming up if Obama wins the race is over! Its a knockout blow! and in Penn. the template is the Casey/Rendell Dem. Governors Primary Casey is the establishment candidate=Hillary and Rendell the insurgent Mayor from Philly=Obama it was upset victory for Rendell. Look for the Obama upset knockout blow in Penn.!

I'm also not sure that Obama's political career would benefit from winning the nomination but losing the general. For one thing, we need look no further than John Kerry to see how the Democratic party treats the losers of hotly-contested presidential contests. On top of that, I suspect that Sen. Clinton would be pushing the "I told you he wasn't electable" message hard in 2012. I wouldn't expect too much from the "kitchen-sink-free" nature of Obama's campaign, either. Sen. Clinton's supporters certainly perceive his campaign as having been dirty, and in the end it's perception that counts.

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

Kerry and Obama are very different creatures. I myself found Kerry to be wooden and uninspiring as a political leader. He has complete support and still blew it. Totally different scenario.

If Obama wins the nomination, I think he will win a huge and overwhelming victory against McCain.

If he loses, most of the blame will go to Hillary, not Obama. Why? Because the Republicans will run those clips where Hillary praises McCain over Barack. Much will depend on how intensely she campaigns for him. If she is seen as not supporting him fully, even more blame will come her way.

Most Democrats are aware that Hillary is attacking Barack and not McCain. Her dark tactic works ONLY if she not only wins the nomination, but the general and has a brilliant Presidency. Then all is forgiven. Esp if she nominates Barack to the Supreme Court, as she should.

Otherwise, if she loses the nomination and/or the general, she and Bill will have savaged their own reputations.

It's possible she can do it, but the probability is low. Her future depends on total victory, Barack's is just a matter of time.

Alan, I opened this thread looking for your opinion and now that I see you have posted it, I thank you.

To wpost4112 -- Thank you for your thoughtful comments.

To dyinglikeflies -- You are right that true Clinton and Obama supporters can't be convinced to switch. However, I don't think either camp is giving up on convincing the losing side of voting for the other in the general election. These blogs certainly aren't a good start.

drindl, LOUD and DUMB there is a scientific reason now for your situation - we understand now:

NEW YORK - Having a big belly in your 40s can boost your risk of dementia decades later, a new study suggests.

now that we know the cause and effect, maybe you can seek professional help.

I don't know, wpost4112. That's two months to try to unmake all of the bad blood created by eight months of tooth-and-nail fighting. I agree that it's not an impossible task, but I maintain that it's unlikely. Political grudges can be awfully long-lived beasts.

I'm also not sure that Obama's political career would benefit from winning the nomination but losing the general. For one thing, we need look no further than John Kerry to see how the Democratic party treats the losers of hotly-contested presidential contests. On top of that, I suspect that Sen. Clinton would be pushing the "I told you he wasn't electable" message hard in 2012. I wouldn't expect too much from the "kitchen-sink-free" nature of Obama's campaign, either. Sen. Clinton's supporters certainly perceive his campaign as having been dirty, and in the end it's perception that counts.

"Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?"

And wpost4112 14 times. But a lefty doesn't stand out here. I am sure you would claim with a straight face that there is no MSM press bias. at least that you can see.

"Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?"

It is not the number of the posts, it is the intelligent content contained in them that counts.

why didn't you notice that drindl has also posted 12 times and offered nothing informative or original? Is this now an official lefty biased blog? still?

That ain't necessarily so. Though the last primary takes place in June, I don't see any reason to expect that the battle for the superdelegates won't go right down to the convention at the end of August. The Democrats will have less than ten weeks, not "several months", to build party unity.

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

T'aint nothin necessarily so cept death and taxes (well, only death for certain Republicans).

I can think of several reasons why the nominee will be in place by June. But even if it is not a done deal by August, that leaves 2 months and change. Which is a very long time in political life.

Think of it: it's only been 2 months and change since the Iowa caucus...look at how drastically things have changed.

The point was that polls taken in the heat of primary battle are historically meaningless post-nomination.

Could the nomination of either candidate split the party? Sure! But it is as true of Hillary as it is of Barack.

If McCain wins, as he most likely will if the Dems split, who benefits in the long run? Barack. Why? Because he and not Hillary has the support of young voters, while Hillary has the support of senior citizens. In 4 or 8 years, Barack's supporters will continue to increase while Hillary's will be dying off.

Who has a better chance at coming back in 4 or 8 years? Barack. By keeping his campaign positive and "kitchen sink" free, he has not alienated future voters as Hillary is doing.

So, however it turns out, Barack comes out ahead.

year mean median
1989 277.9 68.8
1992 246.1 65.3
1995 260.7 70.8
1998 328.5 83.2
2001 423.9 91.7
2004 448.0 93.1

In thousands of dollars - net worth for USA

SCF Web Site: http://www.federalreserve.gov/pubs/oss/oss2/scfindex.html

those evil Repubs and corporations - imagine them creating all that wealth.
Stupid people were supposed to give it all to the government, not invest it in stocks, bonds, real estate, etc. how dare they flirt with not needing the nanny state?

If we could only get a Lib in power we could tax away all that wealth in no time flat.

Geez zouk, 12 posts in this comments section alone?

GOP, that's a cute poll and everything but it's highly deceiving to take such a poll at this point in time. It's the height of tensions between Clinton's supporters and Obama's, while McCain is essentially running around the world kissing babies and shaking presidents' hands.

Read: McCain doesn't look so bad when no one is talking about him. He reminds most people of their uncle ... or should I say grandpa? Once the Democrats' hurricane passes, they'll rebuild their allegiance right where it used to be, just like people always do. Everyone knows this.

Actually dyinglikeflies, one of my best friends is a Hillary supporter for some reason...but we have a spirited debate then let it go. Ultimately we both agree that the economy is terrible, this war has went on too long, gas is too high, and healthcare cost too dang much. We also believe that Hillary and Barak pretty much say the same thing when we listen closely to the issues and take the personal out of it. I do not want to attack you because I do not know you. But let's not forget why we need a democrat in the white house while concentrating on who it will be.

"But no, of course I am not trying to convince you of anything. "

Good, because you would be a failure at it.

Gallup Poll
March 26, 2008
If McCain vs. Obama, 28% of Clinton Backers Go for McCain

If McCain vs. Clinton, 19% of Obama backers go for McCain

http://www.gallup.com/poll/105691/McCain-vs-Obama-28-Clinton-Backers-McCain.aspx?version=print

wpost: Not trying to convince anyone on this board of anything. Nobody who bothers to post here is convince-able, we have all made up our minds as to whom we support. We do this because others read this idly and may absorb some of what we say, including blog authors, other posters etc. I've also had comments on these boards picked up to other sites, and perhaps had the opportunity to try and persuade a reader there. Who knows. But no, of course I am not trying to convince you of anything.

(Besides, trying to convince an Obama supporter of the truth is like trying to exlain the color red to a person born blind. Sorry, I couldn't resist).

dyinglikeflies,

I am sorry but Hillary's campaign is dying like flies...quickly and free fall. I agree with wpost...so if we do not vote for Hillary then in the fall you guys will ignore your prinicples and values...yeah her and Barak share the same...to punish the nation for her losing the democratic primary with four years of McBush Lite? I hear you saying such wonderful things about McCain...why are you a democrat again? I mean if you are aligned with him then why not just be a republican. Now take your toys and go home

No data, but I don't buy the premise of your claim about "crossover Republicans". But are you saying that Obama will win with votes from the center and center-right, and so-called "new voters"? While he has now become associated with a leftist, "liberation" agenda?
------------------

I suppose that's why he is solidly supported by a leading conservative Catholic and Republican who served under Reagan and Bush1?

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2008/03/25/douglas-kmiec-conservative-professor-defends-his-endorsement-of-obama/?mod=WSJBlog

"Data" is not over-rated.

wpost4112 writes
"Why blame all Obama supporters or Obama himself for what one person asked of Chelsea. Who knows whom that guy supports."

The guy who asked the question supports Clinton & was trying to pitch Chelsea a softball so she could explain how Sen Clinton is stronger for having dealt with such adversity.

wpost4112, quoting Gallup, said:
"The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee [...]"

That ain't necessarily so. Though the last primary takes place in June, I don't see any reason to expect that the battle for the superdelegates won't go right down to the convention at the end of August. The Democrats will have less than ten weeks, not "several months", to build party unity.

dyinglikeflies writes
"No data"

That's what I figured. Enough said.

Republicans will vote in Montana's primary. They voted in the Democratic primaries in Mississippi, Texas, and Ohio, and they will vote in Pennsylvania, too. (The big lag in between primary dates means that people have had enough time to switch party affiliations before the deadline, and many seem to have done so.)

By my measure, Republicans are largely voting for Clinton. It's hard to say how much effect they have had in races so far, but Mississippi ended up a lot closer than anyone expected, and much closer than neighboring states that voted earlier in the season.

These Republicans will most likely switch back in the fall, so their presence creates a false image of strength for Democrats. There are a few Republicans who have been inspired by Obama's message of unity, but most of the recent-comers to Democratic primaries are those merely seeking to prolong and disrupt the process. They see Obama as the stronger of the two candidates right now, and so a vote for Clinton is a vote to weaken the Democrats generally heading into the fall. Besides, the logic goes, even if Clinton were elected, on many issues she is not that much more liberal than John McCain, and is maybe even more conservative in some respects. Clinton's divisive qualities (both within her party and among Republicans) could put government at a stalemate, and so, all told, a Clinton presidency is not the worst thing in the world for conservatives.

Or so the argument goes. It's unthinkable Republicans arguing this a decade ago, five years ago, or even last year.

I have no idea how prevalent this voting pattern is, but I know more than a few Republicans who are taking this path of voting for Clinton in the primaries with no intention of supporting her beyond that.

wpost4112:
Clinton supporters are not more cultish, just more angry. We truly feel disenfranchised by the manner in which Dean and his people are letting this go down, and by some of the venom directed at Clinton (I mean, come on, going after her daughter for what happened between her parents when she was a kid? Really). It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain.

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

Why blame all Obama supporters or Obama himself for what one person asked of Chelsea. Who knows whom that guy supports.

To ignore all the dirt thrown by supporters of Hillary onto Barck or his supporters is to be in denial. Hillary has said that only she and McCain are fit to be commander-in-chief. She has betrayed the Democrat party in doing so.

More angry? Who knows. I do know that voting for McCain is voting against women's rights. That would indicate a certain level of self-hatred.

Neith Hilary nor Barck are divine. Neither has a right to the nomination.
It's a political election.

You're trying to convince me, an Obama supporter, to support Hillary instead simply because more of her supporters will switch to McCain in a fit of anger.

That's not an argument I can take seriously.

The reality is that there is anger on both sides. And the sure way of increasing that anger is to continue assigning all the blame to just one side.

bsimon: No data, but I don't buy the premise of your claim about "crossover Republicans". But are you saying that Obama will win with votes from the center and center-right, and so-called "new voters"? While he has now become associated with a leftist, "liberation" agenda? As Ricardo Montalban might say, welcome to Fantasy Island. Let's have this discussion again in November after gramps wins the election.

"social security to tuck away its surplus"

what surplus, you mean the one the Dems are spending as fast as they can get it? Maybe it's in a lockbox? Should we start making fun of the goracle again?

Warning - Libs are trying to talk intelligently about economics. you may want to come back when sense returns.

If Obama can win 6 out of the 10 remaining contests (including both North Carolina and Indiana), then Obama will have momentum as well as the most pledged delegates, the most states won, and the most popular vote. I agree with another blogger that latinos are not one-dimensional voters. Mexicans and Puerto Ricans are different. If you don't think so, accidentally call a Puerto Rican a Mexican and you will find out.

zouk writes
"What, you mean the market doesn't always go up?"

That's not what she said. She said, and backed it with data from the WSJ, that perhaps treasury bills have been a better place for social security to tuck away its surplus, rather than the equities market. The reason for this is precisely becasue the equities market doesn't always go up. I hope that clarifies it for you.

dyinglikeflies writes
"It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain."

This comment implies a lack of research on the part of dyinglikeflies. My understanding is that Obama has won votes from more independents & crossover Republicans, whereas Clinton has won more votes from the rank-and-file Democrats. Obama is drawing new participants to the primary process - is it your contention that all these people are coming from the fringe left? If so, I'm curious to see the data.

What, you mean the market doesn't always go up? ??? House prices don't always go up? ???? I understand you Libs are shocked at this revealation.

The government ought to do something!

President Bush should personally see to it that the market starts going up again. and while he is at it, can he make sure it doesn't rain on sunday?

wpost4112:
Clinton supporters are not more cultish, just more angry. We truly feel disenfranchised by the manner in which Dean and his people are letting this go down, and by some of the venom directed at Clinton (I mean, come on, going after her daughter for what happened between her parents when she was a kid? Really). It didn't have to be this way. And, again, a move from the Clinton-center to McCain and the center-right ain't as much of a move as from Obama-land to McCain.

Those "crazy" liberals are at it again:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/26/us/26baltimore.html

Actually making a difference.

'The WSJ says that recent problems in the markets suggest that we might be in the midst of a "lost decade." The stock market is at the same level it was nine years ago, and many think the period of decline is far from over. Stocks are often referred to as the best long-term investment, but the truth is that over the last nine years, investors would have gotten a bigger return out of Treasury bonds.'

So it looks like Social Security is the best place for a retirement account after all, according to the 'liberal' Wall street journal. hmmm...

And so much for Republicans and the economy... not such a great record.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB120649226977964203.html?mod=todays_us_page_one

alaninmissoula writes
"Some disrespect South Dakota too."

I like to poke fun at Dakota Territory, but don't lump me in with the loons that disparage Montana. That's one lovely state, with much to offer, though I have to admit I haven't spent as much time there as I'd like.

To wpos, jnoel-
Check Google headlines re the new polls-
And it seems decidedly more of the flippers to McCain will be Clinton people than Obama people, by a wide margin (but that's only logical because Clinton voters, to pick McCain, have to move less far to the right from where they are than Obama voters would).
------------------------

You forgot to include this rather important, and astute, remark that Gallup appended to its polls:

"It is unknown how many Democrats would actually carry through and vote for a Republican next fall if their preferred candidate does not become the Democratic nominee. The Democratic campaign is in the heat of battle at the moment, but by November, there will have been several months of attempts to build party unity around the eventual nominee -- and a focus on reasons why the Republican nominee needs to be defeated."

If anything it supports the claim that Barack's supporters are more supportive of the Democratic Party whereas Hillary's supporters are more supportive of the Clintons. More "cultish", as it were.

dyinglikeflies,
thanks for the follow up, pretty interesting. I found this link:
http://washingtontimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080326/NATION/260140173/1002

Either side has a fair amount of candidates flipping to McCain, which should worry the Dem's. However, it is only March and I imagine/believe a lot will be done between now and the general to minimize the defection no matter the candidate.

I don't agree with the assumption that Puerto Rico should be a Clinton state. Clinton's advantage among Hispanics may be only among Mexican and Cuban Hispanics. Obama won the Hispanic vote in CT, MD, and VA, three states where the Hispanic vote is decidedly non-Mexican and non-Cuban. In fact, CT's Hispanic population is heavily Puerto Rican, and Obama cleaned up in Bridgeport, New Haven, Hartford. Puerto Ricans may well vote more like blacks than like Hispanics.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

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

oh zouk, you're adorable in pony tails!

"Referring to Sen. John McCain's (R-AZ) repeated false claim that that Iran is training Al-Qaeda, last Sunday on Meet the Press, NBC political director Chuck Todd said the "stumble" won't hurt his presidential candidacy because McCain has "enough" credibility "in the bank with media that he can get away with it." The Washington Monthly's Kevin Drum takes a closer look at McCain's media "cred":

Let's recap. Foreign policy cred lets him get away with wild howlers on foreign policy. Fiscal integrity cred lets him get away with outlandishly irresponsible economic plans. Anti-lobbyist cred lets him get away with pandering to lobbyists. Campaign finance reform cred lets him get away with gaming the campaign finance system. Straight talking cred lets him get away with brutally slandering Mitt Romney in the closing days of the Republican primary. Maverick uprightness cred allows him to get away with begging for endorsements from extremist religious leaders like John Hagee. "Man of conviction" cred allows him to get away with transparent flip-flopping so egregious it would make any other politician a laughingstock. Anti-torture cred allows him to get away with supporting torture as long as only the CIA does it.

Drum asks: "Remind me again: where does all this cred come from?"

To wpos, jnoel-
Check Google headlines re the new polls-
And it seems decidedly more of the flippers to McCain will be Clinton people than Obama people, by a wide margin (but that's only logical because Clinton voters, to pick McCain, have to move less far to the right from where they are than Obama voters would).

Polls are showing that a very large percentage of Clinton voters will flip to McCain and not Obama- and a valid reason would be the nasty misogynistic tone of Obama's supporters.

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

I haven't heard a single misogynistic remark from Obama supporters. Nor is there anything to prove that such is the cause for the poll results.

The same poll reveals a nearly equal number of Obama supporters will not vote for Hilary, should she get the nomination. I suppose you would say, all unsubstantiated charges being equal, that this is because of the racist tone of Hillary's supporters?

You'd be equally wrong.

It all means nothing til August. That's a million years away in political time.

Accused in recent days of embellishing her story of a brush with sniper fire in Bosnia, Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton today said "don't be fooled" by photos showing her being greeted at the airport by a pony-tailed 8-year-old Bosnian girl with a bouquet of flowers.

"That was no little girl," Sen. Clinton told reporters in Gary, Indiana. "That was a covert ops midget sniper."

The New York senator said that moments after the "so-called little girl" presented her with the flowers, she revealed what the bouquet had been hiding: "a tiny semi-automatic weapon."

"Fortunately, I had the presence of mind to use some of the Tae Kwon Do techniques I had learned in preparation for the Northern Ireland peace talks," she said.

Defending his wife against charges that she had yet again fabricated her exploits while First Lady, former President Bill Clinton told CNN's John King that "Democratic voters have a clear choice this election: do they want a liar or a plagiarist?"

"Hillary tells some real whoppers, but at least they're original," he said.