Obama is the right person for America at this time. Not Hillary. Not McCain!!! For the sake of our domestic and international healings and progress, Obama is the only clean and clear choice!!!

Would someone PLEEAASSEE tell me what Hillary's so-called, 35 years of experience consisted of?

Did her 35 years of experience consist of Bosnia-like missions?

I'm sorry, but I simply cannot believe that there are so many gullible Americans that actually believe her nonsense... and it 2008! Pathetic!

C'mon people... please wake up and smell the coffee! She lies and she's phony and we already have a lying phony in the white house!

Thank God CHANGE is on the horizon!

Go Bama! Go Bama!

What I would give almost anything to know is how many voters who have already voted for Obama in a primary, before all the recent revelations have come about, are seriously regretting what they did and wish they had voted for Clinton. It must be an awful, awful feeling..........

That's REALLY Democratic: let's just do
away with the process that defines our Democracy, which is the people elect the candidates; on that basis, stopping the election now is tantamount to disenfranchising over ten million voters at least, if there are a million voters in each of the respective races left, there are surely more...not even counting MI or FL..

BTW, Obama can't win in the count either.
I suggest you sleep on this...

At last count, the MI Vote was put to bed by Obama supporters in the MI legislature.

I'm sorry you don't like that fact. But, that's the lay of the land right now.

Either you can't read, like some others who post here, or you find it difficult to accurately reflect what you can not abide, or you just want the last spin of the evening...

BTW, they went home for the break after Obama supporting Legislators helped defeat revote, as was stated before in a CNN segment with Wolf Blitzer.

Does it REALLY make sense for Democrats to spend $200 million fighting each other for the next 3 months? CLINTON CANNOT WIN in the Delegate count, the ONLY vote that matters.

Any argument about monopolizing media coverage is totally blown away by this FACT.

This decision to continue is SELF DESCTRUCTIVE and so are her supporters if they think she has a chance to win OR that this is helping the Democratic Party!

SMART Democrats would spend the $200 million fighting McCain.

The Washington Post Editorial Board doesn't seem bright enough to recognize this simple reality.

vammap, give it a rest. No candidate stole my vote in MI. The state government gambled that the national parties would bow to their wishes and lost.

The REPUBLICAN led MI state senate went home for a two-week break before Easter without even discussing the idea of another primary, thereby making it statutorily impossible due to specific rules in our election law. Again - no candidate stole my vote.

Don't you get tired of 'misspeaking'?

Since when is counting votes, not an issue??? Which planet's moon are you on??

New plans put forward to count the votes in MI under Stupak's (uncomitted) formula, New York Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton, who received 55 percent of the primary vote, would receive 47 delegates.

Illinois Sen. Barack Obama, who pulled his name from Michigan's ballot, would receive 36 delegates. Many Obama supporters in Michigan voted for "uncommitted," which received 40 percent in the primary.

The remaining 73 delegates would be awarded based on the percentage of the popular vote garnered nationwide by Clinton and Obama after the last Democratic presidential primary is completed.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/23882892/

Let's see how this proposal goes over...

Dr. svreader PhD:

Lie smear. Lie smear. Whine. Fling feces. Smear some more.
Repeat ad nauseum.

Hey Doc did you find a job yet? You should be polishing your resume. Don't forget, the trolling fees dry up soon.

anything but actual issues, huh moonbats? that would be too painful. I guess you have to play the cards dealt you. too bad only fellow moonbats pay any attention to this garbage.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 31, 2008 01:17 PM

LOL Now THAT was funny. When have you ever addressed actual issues kingoftroll?

You're just another pathetic republo-fascist clown. Thankfully you're going to be flushed with the rest of the your fellow reptiles in November.

"Steal This Vote"-

The idea is that unless MI/Fl count the election will be perceived by many to be stolen. Clinton is fighting for those votes, and the longer she stays in the more she makes her case. Something the Obama camp does not want.

Here is an electrifying article by Andrew Gumbel, a "Los Angeles correspondent of the Independent of London and the author of "Steal This Vote: Dirty Elections and the Rotten History of Democracy in America."

Gumbel says, "The will of the people has been even more compromised when it comes to general elections for the presidency. In fact, on every occasion in American history when the race for the White House has been close enough to be contested, the candidate with fewer votes has prevailed.

And, of course, it happened in 2000, when the two major parties, the authorities in Florida and the Supreme Court all, in their own ways, prevented a full recount of the votes in the Sunshine State. And thus the keys to the White House went to George W. Bush, the candidate lagging half a million votes behind in the national vote tally.

Given this long history of dogged, dirty, win-at-any-cost electioneering, Clinton's determination to keep fighting in the face of seemingly insurmountable electoral arithmetic makes a lot more sense."

http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-nugumbel31mar31,0,1764061.story

Obama supporters will do anything to supress the truth about him.

Its not going to work.

Obama's guaranteed to lose the national electon.

It would be nuts for Democrats to nominate him, regardless of what the current vote totals are.

The more we find out about Obama, the more we find that his "accomplishments" aren't his at all, but that he was given credit for the work done by others to make him look far more impressive than he actually is.

Obama is like a "Potemkin Village"

He looks good on the surface, but there's nothing behind it.

He's spent his entire political career running for office, and strong-arming people into putting his name on bills he never even did any work on.

The WP says so themselves in their recent article.

The NYT says "big image, little results"

All this will come out before the general election.

As will the truth about how his negligence led to people who voted for him freezing in slums in his district that Rezko, and in the rest of Chicago, that Rezko got $100M to repair, but never touched.

He can't win the general election.

But he can cause Democrats to lose it.

Everyone interested in the Presidential election should read the article that there's a link to at the bottom of this message.

Its from a Chicago reporter who's known Obama since the beginning of his career and has followed Obama's career ever since then.

The take-home message is that Obama is a total fraud, a manufactured product of the chicago politicial machine.

It tells about him stealing credit for bills he never worked when he was in Chicago, just like he did in Washington.

It talks about "Obama's Slums" and fact that Barry didn't care one bit about the people who elected him.

Its about the fact that Chicago Barry Obama is the one of the most clever con-men in the world and the biggest fraud that's been put over on the American public since Bush.

Its filled with facts about Obama from someone who has known him for years.

The title's cute. Obama isn't. He's a fraud.

news.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/

after Rev Wright's comments about Palestinians, that is certainly not anything to brag about.

I have been checking Polls again as usual, BIG SUPRISE in Mass., Obama and McCain are tied. This is quite telling along with another one that shows Ca. in play should Obama be the Dem nominee. The latest from Gallop is quite revealing as well, when the Internals are looked at. Most of the past Dem "LOSERS" are supporting Obama, and from everything I can gather from most Polls, there is this "Envy/Jealous" Factor along with the "HATE Clintons" Factor that have became more apparent recently. The Rasmussen Report [I think favors Repubs about 5%] has been more accurate than any of the others. I urge everyone to look at any and all Information about these candidates with a "Common Sense" approach and Post relevant FACTS.

Even the Palestinians are for Obama..

http://youtube.com/watch?v=21YF7ggCG6g

Feast, the problem, while you are stating that you Love Hillary, is that you're not pointing out the truth....

The interesting thing about the CNN article I referenced that came out in Dec, is that the race in Iowa was a dead-heat between the three candidates, but back then CNN said there was a potential for students to sway the caucus vote. HOW?

"Iowa election laws allow out-of-state students attending college there to vote, and 17-year-olds can vote in the caucuses as long as they are 18 years old by election day."

That's what tipped it for Obama in Iowa.
The turn out that was not a traditionally dependable one, turned out to be the block buster for him.

And they took that formulae and laid it on in every caucus state where they could get Independents, Republicans, Hillary haters, and which ever who walked in the door to plunk one down for their man.

But, in the process, caucus voting also disenfranchised the elderly, the handicapped and millions of voters who couldn't take time to spend hours waiting to vote.

"While Mrs. Clinton has performed best in primaries, like New Hampshire and California, Mr. Obama has excelled in caucuses that turn on organizational prowess, from the kickoff event in Iowa to the Washington and Nebraska contests over the weekend. "

"That is partly because Mr. Obama invested more heavily in grass-roots organization in his bid to overcome Mrs. Clinton's establishment advantages. Moreover, the time and information required for caucus participation attract demographic elites drawn to the Illinois senator in the first place -- his ''Starbucks Democrats,'' rather than Mrs. Clinton's ''Dunkin' Donuts Democrats,'' as Chris Lehane, a former aide to Al Gore, puts it."

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9E06E5DE1730F932A25751C0A96E9C8B63&scp=1&sq=caucus+voting&st=nyt

So, in a nutshell, that's why Obama wants to call the shots, conduct voting that will benefit him. But that's not how voting was done in either FL/MI, so that's an obvious problem.

and she honored that pledge and did not campaign there.

Fine you love Hillary I won't challenge that but I will challenge your premise that Sen Obama want a revote in Fla or Michigan that is just nonsense that the Obama surrogates in the michigan legislature ackowledge, You still have not answered my question; if Sen obama wants a Michigan revote then why are his Michigan spokespeople saying it is in their political interest to not have any revote period. Sorry but that is a flat out contradiction, we want a revote we just don't want our friends in the Michigan legislature to support Any plan.

My quoting of Plouffe was a matter of once again showing the postion of Obama about the revotes. Did i ever say it was "news" It was to again...for the sixth time state the position of Obama on the revotes. Who am i going to quote to state that position? Ronald McDonald?
Last August Sen. Hillary Clinton signed a pledge not to "campaign or participate" in the Michigan or Florida Democratic primaries. Obama signed that pledge as well. Both candidates agreed to these rules. That being said, Do i want a revote? Hell yes i do. never said different. I would love for any one of you to source an exact quote from Obama where he says he flat-out WILL NOT participate in a revote. I want every state to be able to participate. The problem is that up until the first week in March Hillary was OPPOSED to revotes. Then the delegate math became gloomy and she wants to revote. The fact that Obama is even considering a revote is a blessing. He is under NO obligation to consider such a thing. WHy is he even considering it then? Why has he stated that he would honor any DNC decision on the matter? Obama is being labeled a "blocker" for wanting to negotiate the terms of such a revote, but Hillary's oppostion to potential details in a revote is called something else? The ONLY reason any of this matters is the MATH. Once again...
Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 10 percentage points (60%) and then she must win 60% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know i LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What i have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way i want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 60% wins from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/
AND FOR THE SIXTH TIME I LOVE HILLARY. Sorry that reality is a bummer guys. Sorry indeed. You dont seem to realize that i honestly do not have a bias. You keep thinking that if i point out the truth that it means i am bashing Hillary. Again go do the delegate calculator. Move the sliders to 64% in ALL remaining states. Begining to soo the uphill battle. You cant sit here tell me Obama is blocking when up until march 6th Hillary was opposed herself to a revote. All this is a mute piont anyways because Hillary gave HER WORD and signed a pledge NOT to campaign in FL or MI and that those deleagtes would not be seated. Obama considers finding a way to seat them anyhow and he is "blocking" Oh boy talk about bedning over backwards

feast you quote Obama's campaign manager Plouffe as your 'facts',what is that about? Obama and Sen Daschel have repeatedly insisted that they be awarded exactly 50% of Fla and Michigan delegates whih is nuts. He should want a revote it will make the eventual nominee very popular in those 2 states for the general. If you don't believe me I am sure I can find their quotes for you.HC won Fla whether you agree with the process by 300,000 vote. And you are seriously telling me that Sen Obama's campaign wants those delegates seated. I am sure you understand that Fla has the largest numbers of elderly voters in the country who can vote absentee but can't necessarily attend a caucus like my 92 year old mom. Personally I would be inclined to support Sen Obama in Nov if he agreed to a revote and won those states. I would then consider him the legitimate winner who would deserve my support. Without it I see him as just another politician acting hollier than thou which in my mind is the worst kind of politics.

No Blogs remember Feast, especially from the Chicago Tribune. Don't do an Obama on us, and go back on your stated position.

A caucus vote is not a reliable vote. This is just one source that shows that the potential for illigit votes is just as possible as other forms of voting, ie. internet, or mail in. There is more potential for fraud.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/POLITICS/12/22/johnson.iowa.students/

You better bet Obama is back-tracking his sink the revote strategy because the heat is on BIG TIME.

Floridans are now threatening the DNC, "prodigious Flori-dough" may be at stake. Prominent Florida Democratic donors and fund raisers are now threatening to withhold or seek the return of hundreds of thousands if not millions of dollars from the national party."

http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,1724374,00.html?iid=sphere-inline-bottom

feast you quote Obama's campaign manager Plouffe as your 'facts',what is that about? Obama and Sen Daschel have repeatedly insisted that they be awarded exactly 50% of Fla and Michigan delegates whih is nuts. He should want a revote it will make the eventual nominee very popular in those 2 states for the general. If you don't believe me I am sure I can find their quotes for you.HC won Fla whether you agree with the process by 300,000 vote. And you are seriously telling me that Sen Obama's campaign wants those delegates seated. I am sure you understand that Fla has the largest numbers of elderly voters in the country who can vote absentee but can't necessarily attend a caucus like my 92 year old mom. Personally I would be inclined to support Sen Obama in Nov if he agreed to a revote and won those states. I would then consider him the legitimate winner who would deserve my support. Without it I see him as just another politician acting hollier than thou which in my mind is the worst kind of politics.

vammap:
Polling in Michigan shows a virtual deadheat. Hillary oppoese caucus's in both Fl and Michigan. Does this mean i can say Hillary opposes revotes? When Obama opposes the xspecific plan to revote he is somehow "blocking" when Hillary does it what is that called? I cannot beleive i am actually defending Obama. This is total madness.
March 27, 2008
Obama camp reaching out to Florida, Michigan Democrats
Posted: 01:32 PM ET
(CNN) - Representatives with Barack Obama's presidential campaign have reached out to Michigan and Florida Democrats to begin a "dialogue" about how to seat the delegations at the nominating convention that will be held in Denver later this summer.

"As we've said consistently, we think there should be a fair seating of the Michigan and Florida delegates. The Clinton campaign has stubbornly said they see no need to negotiate, but we believe that their Washington, my-way-or-the-highway approach is something voters are tired of," Obama campaign manager David Plouffe said.

Is this a battle for who's news story is more current all of a sudden?
a federal judge in Detroit declared the law that set up the disputed Jan. 15 Michigan primary unconstitutional.

http://weblogs.chicagotribune.com/news/politics/blog/2008/03/judge_strikes_down_michigan_pr.html
Is the judge an Obama fan too? UGH i am soo tired of this mudlsinging partisian hackery going on. Lies about Hillary, lies about Obama, seeking out any info, any news to fit a bias to further create your jigsaw puzzle of slander. I will defend Hillary to the end of the earth just as easily as i will defend Obama NOT blocking revotes. If he questions the DETAILS and METHOD of the revote he is "blocking" When Hillary does it what is that called? Please Please dont make me continue to defend Obama. I have already said over and over I Love Hillary.

I am being factual feast I do not believe you are. The Michigan state rep clearly told Wolfe Blitzer that he would work with the Michigan legislature to block a Michigan revote. When the interview went on and mentioned that HC had agreed to a scaled down Firehouse primary that would allow mail in ballots and in person voting at Michigan firehouses a plan that Senator Obama had claimed was acceptable he backed off and said he opposed his own Michigan plan. Call it a coincidence that a Michigan state rep who was an Obama spokesman stating he opposed ANY plan to allow a revote in Michigan if you want. The only plan that Sen Obama will endorse is a pure caucus that will favor students over the elderly and infirm. Its easy for you to claim you have the facts but then refuse to listen to Obama's Michigan and Florida spokepeople, who say they universally oppose ANY plan. To tell me that you are objective and that Senator Obama wants a revote is respectfully a joke.

Not so fast fellas. Better do a hell of lot better job fact-checking...

This is why you're gonna lose, if it's not this summer, it will be in November.

Because your arrogance, your deceit has split the party in two.

No way could I vote for the REAL Obama I have come to know by doing the WORK of finding out the TRUTH!!!!!!!

Not so fast fellas. Better do a hell of lot better job fact-checking...

This is why you're gonna lose, if it's not this summer, it will be in November.

Because your arrogance, your deceit has split the party in two.

No way could I vote for the REAL Obama I have come to know by doing the WORK of finding out the TRUTH!!!!!!!

No so fast fellas. Better do a hell of lot better job fact-checking...

This is why you're gonna lose, if it's not this summer, it will be in November.

Because your arrogance, your deceit has split the party in two.

No way could I vote for the REAL Obama I have come to know by doing the WORK of finding out the TRUTH!!!!!!!

Here's the problem: Feast provided one link to a Reuters article from March 10th.
Here's a link to the last Reuters article which followed through the revote story to its ultimate demise at the hands of Obama supporters on March 18th: Here's what it said:

DETROIT (Reuters) - Michigan Democratic Party leaders on Tuesday said a proposal to re-run the state's contested presidential primary in June, which could potentially benefit the campaign of Sen. Hillary Clinton, was stalled and unlikely to be approved before a deadline this week.

Opposition from lawmakers backing Illinois Sen. Barack Obama's campaign seemed certain to scuttle any proposal to hold a June 3 "do-over" Democratic primary in the Midwestern state.

"There are definitely not enough votes now to support the proposal," said Callie Collins, a spokeswoman for state Sen. Tupac Hunter, co-chairman of Obama's campaign in Michigan.

http://www.reuters.com/article/domesticNews/idUSN1823854920080318?virtualBrandChannel=10112

Without bias: That is understanding.

Polarized people, those whom can't judge honestly beyond their fav, they lack some understanding and have proven to be the polarizing group.

Enough listing the negatives back and forth. If we had a candidate whom said he/she is perfect: I would be worried. However, we see opposite. In the end, what matters is where they each stand on the issues. We need to remind ourselves where we stand on the issues. There are things that I don't like about my favorite candidate, as well as Hillary. The issues I dislike does not amount to the larger issues I have problems with as far as this country goes. Therefore, my focus is on that. I admit that I am unapologetically against McCain's idea of this war. I've looked up ALL candidates, but I can NOT agree with McCain. If Obama fails to continue, I'll back Hillary with full force. I believe they will have a field day with McCain.

To the White House we shall go =)

vammap..
More truth comes out.. more truth comes out. Its always that SOMETHING will come out. Always is this ever present idea that some big bomb waits in the wings. Please once again lets stick to the facts. Not "what ifs." Your source is an op-ed. To make matters worse its simply a blog. Should i source my own blog and call THAT news? EVERY story from your source is Hillary heavy. Does that lend credability to your source? Hillary needs the revotes that much is sure. Why? Math? Doesnt anybody actually do the math? WHy is it i say the simple truth and its heresy and all the Hillary supporters go nutts? Even when i state that i LOVE Hillary there is no talking to some of you people. Once again why does Hillary want a revote? When in the past she was against it? MATH. I urge you to follow this link and move the delegate sliders to 60-65% for Hillary (Huge margins) in ALL remaing 10 states. Even then she would need over 60% of the superdelegates. It's an uphill battle to say the least. She needs all the delegates she can get. I wish her well. because as i keep saying i LOVE the gal.
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

And we love Barack and so wished he'd practice what he preached...oh did I really say that...

Feast, you're about as polarized as polarized gets; the test is that you won't recognize a fact when it's staring you right in the face; it would take a semi or a forklift to knock, even one, in...

I believe you're lost to the stupefaction of Obama's brand of opiate ..

FEAST gets the nod!!! =)!

I enjoy all of your posts as I do some others.

We're on The Same Team for similar reasons. Either one BUT McCain.

Message to all Obama and Hillary supporters alike: WE all should unite regardless to NOT hand McCain this election. MANY of Our American Citizens are depending on the ultimate decision. Let's make that happen =)

Barack's future could feel a lot more like famine than feast if more TRUTH comes out, if the media stops showing him bowling and allows the TRUTH to come out...

http://www.talkleft.com/story/2008/3/12/151551/198

Marc Ambinder has more detail on Barack Obama's decision to lawyer up against counting Florida and Michigan votes.

I'll discuss the merits of this in a later post, but I first want to take a moment to consider the shameless hypocrisy of the Obama campaign. Barack Obama is out there having his campaign argue that mail in voting has some type of impact that requires a Voting Rights Act review that could be troubling. That it will take more than a rubber stamp. Let's be clear, if the implication is this is just filling out a form, then no one would be bringing this up. Even the time frame is not a particular problem. No, Barack Obama is intimating that HE will raise a Voting Rights Act issue about mail in voting.

The SAME Barack Obama who is co-sponsor of the Senate version of this bill, "The Universal Right To Vote By Mail Act", which declares that NOT ALLOWING mail in voting in every state (28 do through absentee balloting) disenfranchises voters, now opposes a mail in revote. I have heard of chutzpah, but this one takes the cake.

OH and by the way i LOVE Hillary. No bias here. I am not some polarized dem who says all or nothing, my candidate or to hell with the rest. I think Obama OR HIllary would make a fine president. I will defend Hillary just as quick as i defended Obama. I just beleive in the statement of fact. Not innuendo or partisian spin. Hillary is making a smart political move to suggest and continue to insist on a revote. However to suggest Obama has anything to do with that not happening is disingenuous.

then why was the Michigan State Rep interviewed by Wolfe Blitzer(self identified as an Obama steering commitee member) on Friday claiming that it was in his candidate's political interest to block a revote. He was being honest about it, your's and the Obama campaign claiming otherwise is nothing but partisan spin.

Posted by: leichtman | March 31, 2008 07:27 PM
-------------------------
See when i make a claim i SOURCE it. I dont just state it as fact, i source it. Obamas only objection to revote are for the same reasons Hillary has opposed revotes. Each wants to be sure that the revote is done in a fair manner.
http://www.reuters.com/article/topNews/idUSN1222769820080312?feedType=RSS&feedName=topNews
Also interesting is that Hillary was dead against a revote untill recently.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0308/Softening_on_a_revote.html
Now she is poosed because of the potential caucusing of those states.
http://www.usnews.com/articles/news/campaign-2008/2008/03/07/clinton-says-no-to-a-caucus-do-over.html

See to say Obama is blocking anything is folly of the highest order. BOTH HIllary and Obama are keenly interrested in the DETAILS of a revote. NIETHER of them has blocked that process. If the DNC comes up with a revote plan BOTH candidates have pledged to honor it and revote. Its just that simple. PLEASE PLEASE just keep things factual.

Feast or Famine; you're so uninformed. Do you ever watch the news or read the paper?

You can try to spin it but it's been all over the networks, his own pro-Obama supporters said they "could sleep at night." After all they said, "We are going to win."

The guy had a grimmace, from ear to ear like the Cheshire cat in Alice in Wonderland; it was downright scary.

Check out Politico: The DNC okayed MI. That means, without any spin attached, Obama and surrogates made sure it didn't happen.

feastor famine, IF this is true "This ongoing fallacy that Obama had ANYTHING to do with a revote not happeing in FL or MI is sooo flat out wrong."

then why was the Michigan State Rep interviewed by Wolfe Blitzer(self identified as an Obama steering commitee member) on Friday claiming that it was in his candidate's political interest to block a revote. He was being honest about it, your's and the Obama campaign claiming otherwise is nothing but partisan spin.

NEO-CONS FOR HILLARY !!!

a. pretend that you are a Democrat (a Hillary supporter)

b. throw the latest smear-du-jour at Obama:
1. he's white
2. he's black
3. he's a Muslim (put his middel name in CAPITAL letter)
4. he's a racist

(never talk about issues...only his pastor, his wife, his kindergarden papers, etc.)

c. then pretend that if Obama wins the nomination, you won't vote Democratic in Nov.*

*
well, actually that's the truth, unless it's between Hillary & McCain...in which case, it doesn't matter; we'll get the wars that we want with either of those two candidates.

To hispana: I noticed the FREQUENCY and
the HYSTERIA LEVEL of your shrill postings
and attempted bashings of Barack Obama.
They seem pathetic but then it occurred to me that you may be a political operative
from the desperate Clinton camp. Your
user name hispana seems faux - I believe
you could be a male or non-Hispanic just
as well. Whatever your gig is - no vale nada. Your candidate has failed.
Failed in large measure because of under-handed tactics by her campaign.

Obama supporters have a pentient for hyperbole, not facts:

The MI revote was trounced because Obama dragged his feet until the MI Legislature voted the revote down on a pro-Obama vote.
Obama was also lukewarm to a revote in FL and so were his supporters. The DNC left it up to the two camps to negotiate, which was obviously not a wise choice. Whether a neutral observer exists at this point is doubtful.

Time said, "Dean has consistently argued that the integrity of party rules is at stake. But that seemingly principled stand rests on shaky ground. In a New York Times op-ed article this week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the DNC, pointed out that one of the perennially pampered primary states, New Hampshire, also broke newly established party rules last year by defensively moving its own primary to an earlier date -- and the DNC allowed it. Even discounting that apparent hypocrisy, Florida Democrats insist that the moves by their state and Michigan should have indicated to the DNC that the rules were antiquated and flawed, and therefore required some flexibility."

Posted by: vammap | March 31, 2008 07:04 PM

-----------------------------------------
This ongoing fallacy that Obama had ANYTHING to do with a revote not happeing in FL or MI is sooo flat out wrong. Look i LOVE Hillary but i call 'em like i see 'em. Obama negotiated the entire time for a revote in both those states. Obama said "I want the Michigan delegation and the Florida delegation to be seated. And however the Democratic National Committee determines we can get that done, I'm happy to abide by those rules." It was the STATES that decided not to revote. It was the DNC that decided to punish those two states in the first place. Do you really think Obama would not want a revote? Even if Hillary won in those states the margin would be minimal and still would not get her ahead in the delegate count. Please do the math.
I would like to inject a sense of realism into a passionate and often ugly debate that rages here on Wapo blog boards on a daily basis. Truth is truth, and math does not lie. In order for Hillary to win the nomination she MUST win ALL the remaining 10 states by a margin of at least 10 percentage points (60%) and then she must win 60% of the superdelegates. All this talk back and forth cannot change the math. Hillary's efforts to get the nomination will be an exhaustive uphill battle. Before all you Hillary folks start to jump down my throat you should know i LOVE Hillary. I am constantly pleading for unity within the Dem party. I do not have a bias. What i have is a calculator, and a willingness to add things up the way they are, not the way i want them to be. Use this delegate calculator below and do the math yourself. Adjust the slider to 60% wins from here on out and see what you get. The delegate count used is the same as MSNBC and CNN
http://www.slate.com//id/2185278/

Thank you Amy and Claire!! Yesssss!!!
Thank you Texas!! Yessssss!!!

Obama: Yessssss!!!

Obama supporters have a pentient for hyperbole, not facts:

The MI revote was trounced because Obama dragged his feet until the MI Legislature voted the revote down on a pro-Obama vote.
Obama was also lukewarm to a revote in FL and so were his supporters. The DNC left it up to the two camps to negotiate, which was obviously not a wise choice. Whether a neutral observer exists at this point is doubtful.

Time said, "Dean has consistently argued that the integrity of party rules is at stake. But that seemingly principled stand rests on shaky ground. In a New York Times op-ed article this week, Michigan Senator Carl Levin and Debbie Dingell, a Michigan member of the DNC, pointed out that one of the perennially pampered primary states, New Hampshire, also broke newly established party rules last year by defensively moving its own primary to an earlier date -- and the DNC allowed it. Even discounting that apparent hypocrisy, Florida Democrats insist that the moves by their state and Michigan should have indicated to the DNC that the rules were antiquated and flawed, and therefore required some flexibility."

mark: CNN interviewed Michigan state reps who opposed the Michigan revote. One african american rep in Michigan proudly announced he was on an Obama steering commitee and boldly but honestly stated it was not in his candidates' political interest to have a revote. At least that state rep was honest about the Obama motives in blocking a revote. I mentioned the Firehouse primary that was recommended by Sen Obama and then when the HC campaign said fine, the Obama campaign refused to approve Howard Dean's inquiry. Its pure hypocrisy ofr the Obama campaign to just acknowldge the obvious they don't want a revote regardless how it is structured.

"I care about healthcare and the economy too. Obama's approach is reasoned"

Not to the doctors and hr experts that I have spoken with mark. His plan favors being uninsurred and antiselection. You are welcome to support whoever you want but calling us blind and trying to hijack the election is ridiculous. And the $50 billion dollar plan you talk about was originally a $30 billion HC that Sen Obama tried to get into a bidding war over. As to opposing a cap on adjustable mtgs, that sounds pretty much as the McCain plan. Are you now suggesting that Sen Obama is now mimicking Sen McCain's non mtg plan.

Do you not understand mark. I have already voted for, contributed money to and done volunteer work for HC's Texas campaign. Good try but just telling every HC supporter they are wrong and must support Sen Obama is silly and avoiding what I posted earlier, asking why your campaign refuses to make any type of overture to the HC 13 million voters. By refusing to do so you are proving my point that this campaign is far from over.

I care about healthcare and the economy too. Obama's approach is reasoned and likely to get through congress. HRC's plan will not as was demonstrated in 1994, all that "fight, fight, fight" notwithstanding.
Her plan to give away $50 billion to people who don't keep up with their bills does not sit well with the rest of us that do and the have to pay the taxes to supported this plan, which is really just a political ploy to Penn. voters.
I am not trying to bully anyone. It just seems HRC people are blind to her trying to hijack this election. She blames Obama for FL and MI, although she agreed with and signed documents saying she supported the DNC policy. This is unethical. She then says that all delegates are free to vote for whoever they want, disenfranchising everyone else. If you are shot at, you do not forget. She "misspoke" about this gross exageration 3 times.
She layed a political game in MI organizing a revote that would be paid for by her supporters, a conflict of interest to say the least.
Then she responds to the "no" she knew was coming by saying he held up the revote in MI.
Aren't you people tired of these games and doublespeak?

Time to retire Hillary to some institution....

....where the staff calls her "Madame President" just to keep her calm. Tell her that she won't be able to leave the confines of the "White House" because of the danger of sniper fire. And put a red colored phone in her room and call her every now and then with important announcements about Bingo and Tapioca in the day room.

vammap, what votes did Obama thwart? FLA and MI were thwarted by their own legislatures. Why do HRC supporters keep parroting this false accusation?

incidentally are the HC supporters who you claim are threatening Ms. Pelosi, morally obligated to give more money to the DNC? Personally I am holding back any additional contributions to the DNC until I view how they deal with Fla, Michigan and the 13 million HC supporters. Are you suggesting that we have an obligation to give money to the DNC and our refusal to do so as you described is a threat. No its not a threat its a promise.

31st March 2008

The Editor
The Washington Post

Dear Sir,

"You see things; and you say, 'Why?' But I dream things that never were; and I say, 'Why not?'" [George Bernard Shaw]. So what's the big deal about Hillary Clinton embellishing her account of her 1996 visit to Bosnia with a little fantasy, a little dreaming? After all, the good Senator wasn't exactly on a Mickey Mouse trip to Disneyland and one could suspect that prior to her visit, she would have been advised by security personnel of the potential dangers on the ground. As it happens, there were reports of snipers in nearby hills, adjacent to the airstrip in Tuzla, but no shots were fired at the aircraft. In any event, hasn't she exuded millions of words on the election trail and isn't it only humanly possible for her to make an inconsequential slip of the tongue in her reminiscence of past events? So to all you decent folk I say, give the good lady Senator a break and let her engage in a little 'misspeak' and tell it as it really was, with guns and drums and canon balls and a smidge of sniper fire, thrown in for good measure.

Most of us tell lies; we tell lies or 'misspeak', naturally. The difference amongst us humans is in the frequency, target, and degree of those lies. Politicians lie, they lie through their dentures and they lie very naturally. In fact, we all tell porkies from time to time to conceal facts, avoid undesirable situations or even enhance our reputations. Sometimes, we tell whoppers when little ones would do and tell little white lies when the truth would be more credible and less complex. There is a reason why you are asked in court to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth. It is because most of the time that is not what people do. Certain animals in the wild use colour change as a camouflage to avoid detection and in some instances to protect their very existence. Humans on the other hand are equally creative and adaptable, but instead use deception to protect their hides or save their bacon. In other words, they tell lies; skinny ones, fat ones and ones in between. So why are we so sensitive to, or even repulsed by, a little picturesque 'misspeak' from others and more particularly from our politicians? Well it may be more to do with our moralistic prejudices or even our pervasive psychological attributes, which prompt subliminally, intense emotional reactions. Even though we can be adept at air brushing the occasional fib, and we are not too disturbed by entertaining a certain level of creative yarn spinning, it is quite a different matter when we are confronted by the compulsive or pathological liar. A pathological liar is someone who frequently exaggerates his or her stories in a way that he or she believes will impress his or her audience. It may well be the case that the pathological liar unlike the normal liar, believes at the time the lie he or she is telling to be true and may even create a labyrinth of fact and fantasy within the narrative. Senator Clinton has told us, of dodging sniper fire in Bosnia and of her Hillary connection with the conqueror of Mount Everest and other colourful bedtime fables besides. These are not serious peccadilloes, but small potatoes which provide no evidence to suggest that she is any different to us 'occasional fibbing' mortals or for that matter that she is a pathological liar.

More importantly, our focus should be on the narrator who intentionally omits factual specifics relating to their business associations or private liaisons, in order to engage or deceive the listener. In this respect, I do not consider Senator Obama to be a dishonest person or an inveterate liar, but he is guilty of the sin of omission and has shown his deftness at occasional, if not serial evasiveness, when questioned directly on relevant personal issues. I refer to Senator Obama's personal links with the Chicago developer Mr. Antoin Rezko, who is facing federal corruption charges. Notwithstanding the fact that, Mr. Rezko has to date not been found guilty by the courts and remains innocent, until proven otherwise, of the current charges, it remains unclear the extent of the Senator's associations with this business gentleman or whether he is a beneficiary of this gentleman's appreciation of aspiring politicians. Furthermore, Senator Obama has declined to clarify his reasons for his apparent unequivocal support for the embittered Rev. Jeremiah Wright. We can only assume that in the course of his 17 years of religious indoctrination that the Senator protested in silence, if not demonstratively, with the insidious and non patriotic diatribe of this respected pastor and that he remains uninfluenced by this profound lifetime experience?

The contest for the Democratic nomination between the two Senators will inevitably be decided by the Super delegates. Let us hope that both candidates emerge with honour and that in the process, irrevocable damage is not inflicted on the Democratic Party through lies, dam lies or even omissions.

Yours truly,

John Shortall

It was John Heilemann's account..I think the point was that the perception had always been that Edwards was leaning towards Obama, but evidently he may have started out that way, but ended up changing his mind.

I think it's admirable that he didn't come out supporting either of them, allowing them to fight it out for themselves. I would like to imagine that's what Edwards' motivations were?

I'm not sure his endorsement would have made a difference, since the electorate is so cut up already..

The onslaught of endorsements from pro-Obama supporters are nothing more than an attempt to thwart Hillary going further. And it must be understood by Obama supporters, that Obama, himself, has full knowledge of this.

So, not only did he thwart votes being counted, he is now thwarting her continuing the race, even though he overtly verbalizes his support for her to continue...his surrogates are telling her to get out....it's a classic marketing ploy, bait, switch...

the 51%-49% is an aproximation of the 13.6 million for Obama vs 13 million for Hillary (w/o counting Fla or Michigan) that is where it came from.

I care that bullets were not flying in Bosinia, why? that Hillary like Biden and Kerry flew into a country at war to support our troops is somehow immoral or just doesn't fit your narrative. Exactly where was Sen Obama when Hillary was helping Bill with Bosnia and the Irish peace talks; likely teaching a course in law school. And as much as you don't care I don't want my Presid associating with a minister who damns America and makes antisemetic references. Again sorry that doesn't fit your narrative mark.

I care about my healthcare and economy and find Sen Obama woefully lacking in both plans. I know it is hard for such a purist as yourself to believe anyone has a brain or has bothered to read these plans, but that is how I decided to support HC not by being bullied by niece or newphews who are too intelligent to try that.

Somehow you think that you can come to a blog site and try and bully opponents to agree with you and your candidate. Sorry that doesn't work. Again my querry to all Obama supporters who insist that the nomintion is over. If it is why do you continue to antagonize those HC Dems who you will need, IF you are the nominee in Nov? Your silence to this question makes me believe that your campaign understands otherwise.

I truly admire John Edwards who I previously supported, for standing on the sidelines.

bsimon: Your 5:10PM Post shows exactly what I have been saying for months and you cannot accept these FACTS.--"The Repubs have been giving money to the Obama campaign and even changing their Registration to vote for Obama in the NON X-Over states. Just goes to show how ACCURATE/CORRECT I have been all along.

bsimon: I keep trying to Post where I think you are wrong, but am not able to.

I thought for sure you guys would flame me!!!

Did I "silence the Sadducees"?

Where's the response from Mike, Zoukie or Proud?

vammap, why hasn't Edwards endorsed Clinton? Joe is a Clinton supporter and is not shy about it.

The one endorsement Obama won't get...

Joe Klien wrote in Time, "John Heilmann has an interesting account of the efforts by Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton to woo John Edwards...and guess what? Clinton was far more effective than Obama. Here's the key section:
Speaking to Edwards on the day he exited the race, Obama came across as glib and aloof. His response to Edwards's imprecations that he make poverty a central part of his agenda was shallow, perfunctory, pat. Clinton, by contrast, engaged Edwards in a lengthy policy discussion. Her affect was solicitous and respectful. When Clinton met Edwards face-to-face in North Carolina ten days later, her approach continued to impress; she even made headway with Elizabeth. Whereas in his Edwards sit-down, Obama dug himself in deeper, getting into a fight with Elizabeth about health care, insisting that his plan is universal (a position she considers a crock), high-handedly criticizing Clinton's plan (and by extension Edwards's) for its insurance mandate.
This flies in the face of Obama's public image: the natural politician, whose emotional intelligence is off the charts, whose first instinct is conciliation. Not good news for Dr. O...and all the more reason why he's going to have to (re)prove himself in settings other than arena rallies. He needs to re-establish his ability to make a one-on-one human connection, especially with working class voters. He has a Pennsylvania bus tour coming up this week...and perhaps we'll see more from him then."

USMC_Mike mentioned reading up on Petty Officer Monsoor, the latest (posthumous) Medal of Honor recipient.

I'd like to remember Lieutenant Michael Murphy as well, another SEAL (and a Penn State grad) who was posthumously awarded the Medal of Honor for his heroism in Afghanistan.

I'm thankful that we have young men such as these two -- among many others -- who are willing to put themselves in harm's way for us.

leichtman, where are you getting this 51% number. The truth is,after the convention the vast majority of democrats will vote for the nominee.
Let me ask you this, how can you vote for Hillary after the Bosnia debacle? Three times she repeated the same story. How can you vote for this candidate who has her supporters threaten the speaker of the house?

Enough is Enough. I applaud ALL Dems who are just as bewildered and confused over this hatred for one Dem against another. I realize you ardently support your individual candidate but I will NEVER understand your vile mud-slinging belligerent posts about fellow Democrats. I applaud all Dems who see the need for UNITY within the party, who understand to vote for POLICIES. The policies of Obama and Hillary are almost identical. Either would make an excellent president. McCain's policies are night and day compared to either Hillary OR Obama. For any Dem to consider voting for McCain i ask you this: How do you feel about the appointment of conservative judges to the bench to overturn Roe V Wade? How do you feel about the Privatization of Social Security? How do you feel about the prospect of a war with Iran? How do you feel about stringing the Iraq war out for years and years on end? How do you feel about even greater corporate and special interest control of our democracy? I could go ON and On with this list. WAKE UP. The ONLY way McCain can win the general (Given the 2 to 1 voter turnout of Dems over Repubs the ENTIRE election cycle) is if you act like a cry babies because YOUR candidate didnt get the nomination. Realize that their POLICIES are almost identical, and vote for the reasons you should be voting for. Policies plain and simple.

my argument mark that Sen Obama can not win a general election with 51% of the Democratic party vote is condesending according to you.OK you are right mark, continue to push aside the HC supporters. You do not need nor want our votes in Nov and you can win if you are the nominee with 13 million less votes. The rest of my argument is that if the nomination is truly over, as you scream at us every day, then your campaign would begin reaching out to HC supporters. I have not heard that and I am sure patrick has not either. OK good luck with 51% of your base, that should get your campaign to the McGovern electoral numbers.

"That's only if your mother taught you "you broke it you buy it", which I doubt liberal's mothers ever do"

of course he's really that nasty, bsiimon. the overriding purpose of every con's life is to hate democrats. they are consumed with hatred of democrats they can't post a single 'thought' that doesn't include an insult.

and of any of you think you can teach this cro-magnon anything, forget it. his species in incapble of learning.

To: shirleylim | March 31, 2008 04:38 PM

Anyone that believes the GOP on face value needs a good lesson in Rovian strategy:

But really, "Clintons' blood-filled kitchen-sink, " is a bit over the top: the new hate-speech of the Liberal side of the Democratic party continues to overwhelm this blog....

If the media would stop showing Obama bowling and swooning over Pastor Wright we might learn some fact about Obama, one being that he's a lot less honest than he would like us to think.

For instance his ties to oil money to the tune of hundreds of thousands in campaign donations, that exceed Hillary's; he just doesn't explain that "it is illegal for corporations to give money to politicians. Corporations, however, they do have political action committees that collect voluntary donations from employees and then donate them to candidates." So, though he says he doesn't get money from oil interests, the fact is, he does.

Your post reminds me of the piece in the Rolling Stone this month; the picture shows Hillary being scourged on a cross for mere nothings, allegations against her, so irreconcilable with the facts, as to be sadly reminiscent of the comparisons they allude to...that she is responsible for self martyrdom.

I haven't seen her campaign, her supporters or her surrogates, come close to this kind of filthy aspersions....

I thought that the super delagates were not to do anything until the convention. I wonder why the pressure to get all the delegates now? What if something dreadful was to come out of the trial in Illinois against Rezko and we have senator Obama as our candidate, are we then stuck with a candidate who would have no chance of winning just for the sake of getting the contest between the two over? We have to face facts: The public was not aware of senator Obamas' ministers hatered for whites and for America earlier on in this campaign. If they were I do not believe that he would have gotten the votes that he did.
I live in Pennsylvania and I can tell you after reading Sunday's paper that many of the people are upset by his pastors' sermons and wonder how the senator could possibly bring everyone together when he stayed for 20 years and never took the minister to task for any of his statements? Many people are turned off by the fact that his minister has said that we created the aids virus to kill blacks. How can you overlook something like that? Plus senator Obama lied and said he did not hear the worst statements, read an article that said his press and his secret service was there and wanted him to comment on the hate that they heard. They had no comment but the next day, Obama made his famous race speech to save his prsidency. I'll leave with an article I found on Politico, punch up the video that a republican made and see what is in store for us if senator Obama is our candidate. He will never win the general election when this one comes out more and you better believe it will. He will be swift boated with his own words. He lied and they have it on tape, plus other items.
http://www.politico.com/blogs/jonathanmartin/0308/AntiObama_video_crafted_by_talk_radio_producer.html

You see, Mike: you, Proud, Zoukie, McCain, Bush, Cheney, Wolfowitz and the neo-cons are operating from an obsolete paradigm.

Just as many leading politicians and generals did not make the transition when the industrial revolution descended on mankind (and the Old Regime began to disappear), many of America's leaders are behind the curve on this transition. The World has changed. Much of our military thinking has not.

The enemy we now face does not think in terms of countries or borders. There is no "winning" in Iraq like the sort of winning as you understand it. These are not the Nazis or the Commies. This enemy thinks in terms of generations not months or years. Unless we understand what is really happening, and dramatically change our tactics, this enemy will be trying to kill our great, great grand children.

What did Sun Tzu say in the "Art of War", Mike? He said, "above all, know your enemy".

Do we know our enemy, Mike? Do you understand the Islamic Extremist movement? Do you know how, where and why they originated? Do you think McCain does? McCain is still utilizing a Cold War mentality. Like many errant generals and political leaders of days gone by McCain is fighting the previous war.

This "war" in Iraq is like throwing water on a grease fire. Do you know what happens when you throw water on a grease fire?

This is not about fighting an "American-style" war as you called it. We could wipe Iraq off the map in a plethora of mushroom clouds and that would actually EMBOLDEN this enemy. That would create a thousand Osama bin-Ladens. I know you are not advocating going nuclear, but my point is that this "war" in Iraq is not winnable in the same way you could win against Hitler or Stalin.

This new age, requires new thinking, new tactics, and a new global strategy.

Leichtman, your condescending tone suits a Hillary supporter. She thinks she is smarter than everyone else and her arrogance has cost her this campaign. Not just my thought, Time magazine.
Neither candidate will have the 2024 delegates needed and will rely on super delegates, many of which have already decided but have not declared (again Time magazine). Even if Hillary wins convicingly in Pennsylvania she would have to win the remaining states by a 70% to 30% margin and have the super delegates willing to thwart the will of the people, which Nancy Pelosi by is sticking to dispite open threats by Hillary supporters with Hillary's support. One by one national democratic leaders are publicly supporting Obama to send a message to the HRC campaign. Aditionally, her threatening backfired, bigtime.

"Count the Votes in The Dem primaries, not the X-Overs."

That's kindof idiotic. If the Dems want to win, they should nominate the candidate that is most likely to attract the swing voters, which are, by definition, cross-overs. If you want to lose, nominate the candidate that will lose the swing-voters to McCain.

Of course, I lack your ability to read minds, and therefore cannot determine the motivations of voters who participated in the Dem primaries as non-Dems. Though I would think it particularly interesting to look at who crossed over while the Repub race was still active - only people disillusioned with the Repubs would cross-over to the Dem race, indicating a willingness to cross party lines in the general.

I was in from 94'-07.

I was very proud to serve my Country.

I have my beliefs as well, but I know the public isnt ready for them.

Taxi-man, I like it.

I think every man and woman needs to serve a minimum of 3 years in the military. You cant appreciate, what you cont understand.

I am all for war, as long as it is for a right and just cause.

Night all.

bsimon: Count the Votes in The Dem primaries, not the X-Overs.

mark you must have very few friends:
" no one I know will vote for Hillary, her constant lies and the tone of her campaign have done he in."
I have friends, neighbors, and family on both sides who I openly and courteously disguss the campaign with, who are generally more open minded and less dogmatic then apparently you and your friends.

Again if the Obama supporters have convinced themselves that they have 2,024 delegates you might want to start to be a little more courteous to your HC opponents. The fact that we still hear vitriol from your side convinces me otherwise. If Sen Obama is already the nominee, as you delusionally want to believe,why in the world would your supporters want to continue to insult voters like patrick and myself who you will obviously need in Nov.?If somehow your campaign believes they can win in Nov with support of 51% of Democratic primary voters, good luck, that will surely be a losing strategy according to any political scientist.

from Mike: at the Naval War College they have been taking a second look at an insurgency we defeated in the 1901 era, Phillipines."

Hey Mike, I'm just curious... what do you think the U.S. gained by defeating the Filippino Insurrection?

We need to at times pull ourselves back and realize that both of these candidates will say what they think we want to hear.

Leichtman, I am sure you have seen that it is both sides that are more than ready to beat their opinion into you. It isnt just Obama people it is Hillary people as well. This is what happens when you have two groups who really believe in their candidates, which is great.

But to be a Democrat and truly want this war to end, which I assume is still a huge topic, to say you would vote for McCain if your candidate loses, is plain ridiculous.

There are alot of spiteful people on these forums. that is why I created SVREADER Jr.
That poster was just ridiculous in his fanatic beliefs and stereotyping of people.

Someone needed to be on here to counter the hate.

NC's house reps had formerly all declared for John Edwards (except for Butterfield, who pledged to Obama early, before Iowa). Like many superdelegates, they indicated an early preference, and there is nothing wrong with that - especially since North Carolina's primary hasn't been meaningful in determining a Democratic nominee any time in the last 20 years. To complain that the Reps should not be able to declare their support for Obama now is just silly, given that this essentially amounts to their second endorsement - and given that Obama is projected to win the state by a large margin anyway. If they waited to endorse him until after the state voted, there would be just as many who accused them of "jumping on the bandwagon" at that point.

It seems there is no way gracious way to handle such objections except to say that the voters of each state should be able to petition their superdelegates to behave in the manner most in line with their constituents' wishes. As a long time supporter of Representative David Price (NC-4), I know that many in his district are indeed voicing their appeals for a quick and resounding endorsement of Senator Obama.

bsimon: The vote total in the Primaries that do not have X-Overs show Hillary with an overwhelming lead in the Popular Vote. The states that allowed X-Over voting, [Anywhere from 10 to 25% were Repubs for Obama] are figured in my calculations as well. Pa., the next Primary shows about 80 to 90K Repubs have changed their Registration to Vote for Obama in their all out effort to stop Hillary, because they KNOW they cannot beat her in the GE.

"My general feeling is summed up by the charming expression "[Defecate] or get off the pot." "

Hah. I've always liked that phrase. Charming indeed!

I'm not sure how it [ought to] apply in war; a war I see as a necessary part of our survival, but...

I'm gonna jet - read about Petty Officer 2nd Class Michael A. Monsoor when you can.

Mike

Hey taxi-man,

We'll have to pay either way.

They're going to fight us one way or the other.

We beat the Nazis, the Communists, and now we face the Jihadists. We'll beat them too, it's just a matter of how, when, and where. (I choose now)

When were you in?

jnoel must agree with the Obama spokesman who said on Blitzer that its OK to Punish Fla and Michigan voters. As someone who I would presume is hoping that Sen Obama carries these states in Nov(if he is the nominee), that argument sounds pretty naive.

Posted by: leichtman | March 31, 2008 04:33 PM

That might be the first thing you have been right about today. I do agree Michigan and Florida should be punished.
What happens when we break rules Leichtman? If you are speeding on the highway and a policeman pulls you over gives you a ticket do you cry foul?

You aren't arguing they didn't break rules, or that they didn't know there was a punishment if they moved their primaries(this basically means you have no argument). All you are saying is it sucks for those in FL/MI that their votes in the primary didn't count(not because of anything Obama or Hillary did). And if you remember correctly Hillary was sporting those "victories" as wins. So, she says she has already won them, why do we need to revote?
You (and Hillary) are just looking for ways to make her candidacy more viable; it's totally political. And everyone knows she doesn't care about voters in MI/FL, she cares about becoming President. It shows in the delegate count...

On to November

"what relative price are we paying now? What is the urgency?"

I don't understand the questions.

My general feeling is summed up by the charming expression "[Defecate] or get off the pot."

svre that is the $64,000 question:
"The question is, When the winner is decided, where will the other nominees backers go?"

Personally I am more likely to support Obama if he is the nominee if I totally ignore the hate thrown at me by his supporters here and get beyond what I see as Obama's arrogance and differences I have over his policy positions especially his weak healthcare proposal. Call me undecided but leaning towards voting straight D and passing on the Pres. ballot. That will depend on the VP choice, if its Biden I'm in if its Richardson no way.

Even if I were to agree with the majority of your post (which I don't), it *still* would not provide a good enough reason to withdrawal.

"We are NOT controlling the countryside"

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, can't.

"This is NOT winning the hearts and minds."

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, can't.

"The uprising against foreign fighters has largely been due to an independant decision on thier parts."

How lucky for us.

--------------------------------------
I addressed your points in your last posting. I will take the time to do so again. Why should we widhraw?
3 TRILLION dollars borrowed from China to finance this war. Economics impact featured here.
http://www.nationalpriorities.org/costofwar_home
Next is the fact the war is not really part of the larger more important war on terror. State department estimates that violence from foreign fighters and Al-Qaeda amounts to less than 2% of the total violence.
Next reason: Again i will say it...The notion we can "win" (Define that please)and resolve a struggle between different religious factions that has been ongoing for hundreds of years within ten years at the end of a bayonet is absurd. That would be on par with jumping into the middle of the Gaza strip with ground troops thinking we could solve that conflict. In fact that is an excellent example of what is happening now. I understand your willingness to win this war but winning in a conventional sense is not remotely possible. We are merely referees in a war waged long before we got there.
Next reason for withdrawing...
Nobody seems to know or even aknowledge why Osoma Bin Laden issued a fatwa against the US in the first place...from the fatwa:
"First, for over seven years the United States has been occupying the lands of Islam in the holiest of places, the Arabian Peninsula, plundering its riches, dictating to its rulers, humiliating its people, terrorizing its neighbors, and turning its bases in the Peninsula into a spearhead through which to fight the neighboring Muslim peoples." Osama Bin Laden. 1998 Fatwa
Our very presense in the region is faanning the lfames of radical Islam. It HURTS our war on terror. It has increased the recruiting power of radical Islam.
Lastly widhdrawing is a good idea because of fantastic people like you who serve in our military they deserve objectives they can meet. They deserve a war that can be won. They also do not need to sacrafice 4,000 more to justify the 4,000 already fallen. My sacrafice is already felt for me. My sister was wounded in Iraq, and i lost relatives in Vietnam. I am not a tree gugging anti-war at all costs guy. I am a realist.

My A$$ Rides In Navy Equipment.

Sit back and enjoy the ride Marine...Hooo-Rah

I am a vet as well, no one likes to lose, but this war will end like Russia and Afghanistan, a war of attrition. That is precisely what is happening now. I hope you have saved a ton of money for your kids or grandkids. Because if we continue like you suggest, we will bleed ourselves out.

Senator Amy Klobucher speaks to the national ideology that has made the US a shining beacon to the world. With Bush, this light has dimmed. Unlike Obama's suporters, Gov. Rendell of Pennsylvania, in pushing Hillary's campaign, has been speaking out against the UNITED States of America and for a DISUNITED States, divided by race, gender, age, class, etc, because that is all that Hillary will be able to produce. She will disunite us all. What solutions will be possible then? Eight more years of paralysis and the death watch for our beloved nation, with the Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton dynasties. Wake up, superdelegate patriots, and help Senator Klobucher turn the page for US all. The UNITED States forever!

Posted by: feliciaczin | March 31, 2008 03:08 PM

JKallen001....Did you really say "Shut up" to Hispana? What kind of a person are you, anyhow? You are so much like the other Obama bloggers I read and who are as a group illiterate, abusive, out of conrol, and unreasoned

*******************************
JKallen, if you did, I salute you...between the screaming victimization/attack posts and "Hillary win" scenarios that seem require moons alligning and Mars in Venus' home, it takes the patience of Job. It is hard to respond to unreasonable bitterness and repetitions of RNC talking points by people you would think know better.

bsimon -- fair enough, but what relative price are we paying now?

What is the urgency?

Hey leichtman, Hillary the Sniper Dodger cannot catch Obama. This realization and her ability to turn off voters by exagerating just about everything has the voters realizing she is done, thus the 10 percent lead. As scientific as you and Patrick seem to represent all of America, no one I knwo will vote for Hillary, her constant lies and the tone of her campaign have done he in.

Hillary may have been up 7 percent in that poll, but she was still behind in delegates, he is up 10 and well ahead in delegates.
Obama is not a dirty campaigner like Hillary and Caraville.

Hillary "won" the popular vote in Texas by 100,000, the same number of Republicans who crossed party lines, egged on by Rush Limbaugh, to vote for Mrs. Clinton and keep the Democratic party mired in the Clintons' blood-filled kitchen-sink. These same Limbaugh-Democrats-for-the-day did not participate in the caucuses. This explains Senator Obama's final victory in the Lone Star State. The Clinton dynasty wishes to win by hook and by crook--hooking us with their lies about sniper fire to show commander-in-chief experience--the same experience that voted for the war in Iraq--and by crooked means like smearing Senator Obama and his supporters, like the first and only Hispanic governor in these United States, Bill Richardson. Hillary as the Messiah, Richardson as Judas. Which American patriot will buy that fantasy? Not even for a bad Hollywood movie. No wonder Lady Hillary Macbeth is having a harder time finding blue-collar women to pay off her 5 million dollar investment for her.

Yawn.....

This is a pretty tired conversation. Both sides are here to convince the other they are right. Neither side will back down so the result is childish bickering and personal opinions being shoved down each others throat.

The question is, When the winner is decided, where will the other nominees backers go?

Hillary cant win without Obama's backers

Barack cant win without Hillarys backers

So where are we now?

"Tell me, what price have YOU paid?"

Its not about the price individuals pay, its about the price the country pays. For instance, we're not willing to just nuke Iraq because the price is too high. Not the financial price, obviously, but the price to our credibility, among other things. Of course, if we'd resumed the draft in 2002, we could have invaded with overwhelming force, but the political price that politicians would have paid would have been too high.

feastorafamine --

Even if I were to agree with the majority of your post (which I don't), it *still* would not provide a good enough reason to withdrawal.

"We are NOT controlling the countryside"

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, can't.

"This is NOT winning the hearts and minds."

Doesn't mean we shouldn't, can't.

"The uprising against foreign fighters has largely been due to an independant decision on thier parts."

How lucky for us.

jnoel must agree with the Obama spokesman who said on Blitzer that its OK to Punish Fla and Michigan voters. As someone who I would presume is hoping that Sen Obama carries these states in Nov(if he is the nominee), that argument sounds pretty naive.

USMC_Mike, what price did we pay? How about a trillion dollar pricetag on that war? This is money we do not have and is being made up for by large investors in China and Saudi Arabia. The abilty of the US to have control over her financial future is rapidly eroding. Our loss of stature in the world by invading a country pre-emptively (first time in US history) while telling the world about WMD that did not exist has diminished our influence in the world that others such as China and Iran are taking advantage of.
What exactly do you propose doing to "fix" it? Do you understand the politics or the history of the area?

Posted by: USMC_Mike
I'll take your journalist's recurring dream to imply that you believe a counter-insurgency is impossible.

Although it is difficult, and the insurgents have the advantage, it is not unwinnable.

In fact, at the Naval War College they have been taking a second look at an insurgency we defeated in the 1901 era, Phillipines.

It's the same premises layed out by General Petreyus, which include controlling the countryside, winning hearts and minds, convincing the locals that cooperation with the enemy is less preferable than cooperation with the US, etc...

It took too long to get to this point, and mistakes were made, but that's not a reason to withdrawal. If anything, it's a reason to stay and do the job right. That's only if your mother taught you "you broke it you buy it", which I doubt liberal's mothers ever do (more like, "you broke it, it's ok, not your fault, the government will buy it for you, then send you an additional rebate for time and suffering").

---------------------------------------
We are NOT controlling the countryside. We are controlling the urban areas of Bagdad ONLY. We concentrated our surge forces in the capital city by large percentage.
If we are winning hte hearts and minds then why do Iraqi's want us out by collasal numbers? Nearly three-quarters of residents polled said they would feel safer if U.S. and other foreign forces left Iraq, with 65 percent of those asked favoring an immediate pullout, according to State Department. This is NOT winning the hearts and minds.
Your statement that we are convincing Iraqi's that US cooperation is preferable to aiding Al-Qaeda is fairly accurate. Except that "we" have little to do with that. The uprising against foreign fighters has largely been due to an independant decision on thier parts.
As for the pottery barn analogy of "You broke it you fix it" That would be an applicable analogy if the pot could be fixed. Again its an absurd notion that we can solve sectarian/religious rifts that have been ongoing for hundreds of years within ten years at the end of a bayonet.

markmdr: I join patrick along with dozens in my precinct who have told me the exact same thing as patrick reports being totally turned off by the Obama campaign, don't try and convince yourself it is isolated to patrick. That Gallup poll is only one poll you gloat over. 10 days ago Hillary was up in that same poll over Sen Obama by 7% points I doubt you were calling for Sen Obama to quit then.I read another poll it may be Qunipiac that had it as a 2% difference. I am sure you remember the Dukakas poll showing him up 18% points over George H, so I wouldn't get to worked up over 72 hours in polling.

I think Clinton lost the superdelegates when she and her supporters threatened the DNC leadership. A very heavy-handed move that pissed-off a lot of powerful people.
Maybe Hillary could star in "Godfather 4."

"Nothing is unwinnable. The question is whether Iraq is winnable at a price we are willing to pay."

That's the spirit!

Tell me, what price have YOU paid?

"USMC_Mike, when you wrongly meddle in others affairs and make things worse you do not stay longer to make it right."

Yes, you do.

If you trample your neighbor's lawn, you fix it. You don't just drive off and hope someone else fixes it. Unless you're a liberal.

The longer Clinton stays in the harder it will become for Obama to defend and defeat...

Andrew Gumbel of the LA Times says, "Given Clinton's determination to keep fighting in the face of seemingly insurmountable electoral arithmetic makes a lot more sense."

The math attests to parallel wins without any candidate reaching the necessary delegate threshold. Yet, Obama supporters continue to try to push her out.

Both FL/MI delegates/votes will have to be reconciled, so even if they were split, superdelegates would still have to weigh in.

It's an incontrovertible fact: the DNC is ditching votes, forfeiting millions in future contributions from Fl/MI donors, and facing the very real eventuality of losing key supporters...

Anyone who called themselves a true Democrat before certainly could never consider themselves one now..

USMC_Mike, when you wrongly meddle in others affairs and make things worse you do not stay longer to make it right. This administration had no justifiable reason and no plan for war. We are strengthing Iran's hand everyday we are there. Our staying or leaving will not change the outcome, just the timing of that outcome.

"Although it is difficult, and the insurgents have the advantage, it is not unwinnable."

Nothing is unwinnable. The question is whether Iraq is winnable at a price we are willing to pay.

Florida and Michigan RE-VOTES matter because without these 2 states this election could become one that will be tainted as illegitimate, undemocratic and worse than Bush's win.
Posted by: Hispana | March 31, 2008 04:11 PM

Florida/Michigan revotes aren't going to happen because they broke the rules.
This election would be illegitimate if they did a re-vote. Residents of FL/MI have only their state parties to blame.
No one was claiming fraud/disenfranchisement/illegitimate before the primary season kicked off.

I'll say it again:
On to November...

"That's only if your mother taught you "you broke it you buy it", which I doubt liberal's mothers ever do"

Are you really so hateful that you have to resort to such insults? Did your mother teach you to do that?

Hey Patrick in NYC, did you see the polls today, Obama up to a 10% lead nationally, up from 8% last week and the largest margin by either candidate? Just who is Obama turning off? People who supported a flawed candidate who ran a poor campaign and then blamed everyone when she did not get her way?

bsimon - I'll take your journalist's recurring dream to imply that you believe a counter-insurgency is impossible.

Although it is difficult, and the insurgents have the advantage, it is not unwinnable.

In fact, at the Naval War College they have been taking a second look at an insurgency we defeated in the 1901 era, Phillipines.

It's the same premises layed out by General Petreyus, which include controlling the countryside, winning hearts and minds, convincing the locals that cooperation with the enemy is less preferable than cooperation with the US, etc...

It took too long to get to this point, and mistakes were made, but that's not a reason to withdrawal. If anything, it's a reason to stay and do the job right. That's only if your mother taught you "you broke it you buy it", which I doubt liberal's mothers ever do (more like, "you broke it, it's ok, not your fault, the government will buy it for you, then send you an additional rebate for time and suffering").

and of course brandk you complimented Richardson, Kerry and Kennedy for following the will of their voters as well? A little consistency please. Superdelegates can support whoever they wish regardless on how wrong their judgment might be. Those are the dnc rules fair and square.

Your friends care more about what random Obama supporters say than the candidate himself? They care so much th