dbvi czpakqyu bfnslrve erbzfgwu rnxos jutia eoda

No, Ohio redistricting won't be as bad as Texas, especially since Dems will control some of the posts on the Redistricting Board (maybe the majority of them!!), unlike 2001 when we had none. Which resulted in a map that gave us 12 Republicans and 6 Democrats out of a state whose aggregate House vote tends to stay close to 50-50. Ohio is going to lose another House seat in 2010, and the redistricting battle will be crucial. The Ohio House is 53-46 Republican right now, and I think if we can pick up the 4 seats we need to return to majority status it would also help us with redistricting.

CDs 1, 3, 14, and 15 can and should easily be made more Democratic (though if Space and Bocceri are incumbents, shoring up 16 and 18 will obviously take precedence). The 6th and 18th districts are monstrous gerrymanders that need to be fixed. To a lesser extent, the 9th and 13th too. Between the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th, 7th, and 8th; it should be easy to throw 2 Republicans in the same district together.

Ms./Mr. Ramierez:

This is a nation full of bigoted individuals. Some of them are obama supporters. Some of them are Clinton supporters. Some of them are McCain voters. You should vote for the candidate that speaks truth to the issues you care about. You should NOT base your vote on the racist and ingnorant views/comments of one person who supports a candidate, and then extrapolate those views to every other person who supports that candidate. That would be a mistake. I will say this about Obama. I found his views on illegal immigration to be similary to McCain's. Specifically, he rejected the use of this issue as a wedge between ethnic groups. He and McCain support a humane dialogue that respects the rule of law, the principles of America, and the brotherhood of man. It was Clinton, who in the debate, attempted to drive a wedge bewteen blacks and latinos, by stating that illegal immigrants were taking jobs away from "hard working blacks". Obama rejected this comment as an attempt, by Clinton, to scapegoat illegal immigrants and flame tensions. I believe Obama had the better position on this issue, and I believe it is based on his own PERSONAL experience. His father was an immigrant who came to america from a third world country, worked hard to educate himself, and live the American dream. It seems to be a viewpoint perhaps shared by many who seek that dream for themselves.

Ms./Mr. Ramierez:

This is a nation full of bigoted individuals. Some of them are obama supporters. Some of them are Clinton supporters. Some of them are McCain voters. You should vote for the candidate that speaks truth to the issues you care about. You should NOT base your vote on the racist and ingnorant views/comments of one person who supports a candidate, and then extrapolate those views to every other person who supports that candidate. That would be a mistake. I will say this about Obama. I found his views on illegal immigration to be similary to McCain's. Specifically, he rejected the use of this issue as a wedge between ethnic groups. He and McCain support a humane dialogue that respects the rule of law, the principles of America, and the brotherhood of man. It was Clinton, who in the debate, attempted to drive a wedge bewteen blacks and latinos, by stating that illegal immigrants were taking jobs away from "hard working blacks". Obama rejected this comment as an attempt, by Clinton, to scapegoat illegal immigrants and flame tensions. I believe Obama had the better position on this issue, and I believe it is based on his own PERSONAL experience. His father was an immigrant who came to america from a third world country, worked hard to educate himself, and live the American dream. It seems to be a viewpoint perhaps shared by many who seek that dream for themselves.

Milbrooks, you stated my intentions accurately, but you weren't specific about my reasons. Clinton actively supported war until Howard Dean demonstrated that Americans weren't as supportive as the pundits thought.

She has supported or refused to repudiate every attempt by Bush to evde the Constitution, including the search provisions of the Patriot Act and the NSF/KBG.

I sent mail to Congress people and Howard Dean, promising not to support any of those who did this damage to our sacred values, and I will keep that promise.

RESPONSE TO: Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 5, 2008 01:02 PM

Allow me to speak for my-self. I was an undecided voter until today. If mibrooks27 is speaking for millions and millions of Obama supporters let me just tell you that with your posting you just lost my support. I am one of those "Mexicans" you refer to and thanks to this you rest assure I will donate and do all in my power to make sure that we "Mexicans" now how "millions and millions of Obama supporters" feel about us. Please tell me how in the world we are racist. Please enlighten me. When in Texas 86% of African Americans that voted were for Obama. Don't be upset because we vote based on facts and not just listen to a silver tongue. If it is about intelligence over stupidity then I guess you are screwed! I am not one to name call, but this did get my blood boiling! I have friends that are pro-Hillary and some that are pro-Obama. Unlike we are adults and feel no need to belittle anyone. I must thank you for making up my mind. Maybe this was the sign I was waiting for---- HILLARY in 2008.

Most of you are missing what I have been saying for months. Anyone with any knowledge of politics KNOWS the weakest opponent is the one you want to run against. I see this every day coming from Repubs that support Obama in an effort to stop Hillary, and this is so simple I cannot see how so many of you are missing what is actually happening. The votes Tuesday for Obama in Ohio and Texas were approximately 25% Repubs and Indies that would never vote for him in the GE in Nov., should he be the Dem nominee, which is not going to happen. The stop Hillary at any cost/price has failed, even as The Media continues their all out effort to do so.

"The Canadian Press -- Canada's domestic equivalent of the AP -- is reporting ... Hillary as the candidate whose people were reassuring Canada that the anti-trade rhetoric was all just campaign talk."

http://tpmelectioncentral.talkingpointsmemo.com/2008/03/report_naftagate_leaker_said_h.php

BSimon,

you take an excerpt of what I wrote and twist it just like most of the sorry Washington Post columnists and most of the media that has been Hillary bashing:

Here is your partial excerpt of what I wrote:

cheersdk writes
"Bill Richardson is a former Clintonista, un-grateful and dis-loyal after Bubba put him on the map."

Here is BSimon's comment:

"That says a lot. Shouldn't people like Bill Richardson be deciding on whom to endorse based on who they think is best for the country - rather than repaying past favors? Posted by: bsimon | March 5, 2008 04:35 PM

-------------
My full comment below, as you can see BSimon just like the media that has been twisting for many weeks has done the same re: my comment. All I was saying is that Americans are not quitters and there was still enough delegates left to fight for in a virtually tied race and Bill Richardson of all people who has benefitted from the Clinton's had no right to tell Hillary to quit like the rest of the media in what is a very competitive and hard-fought race. True, I go on to bash Bill Richardson, but, that is because he is a quitter, he sits on the fence waiting to see which candidate will prevail to endorse, take a stance based on policies and qualifications and do so early, not wait to see how you will benefit, that to me is a sell-out and should have been worthy of a LOSER spot in this article!

-----
My original post:

Posted by: cheersdk | March 5, 2008 04:28 PM

You left out in your LOSER section: BILL RICHARDSON. What a ZERO, pandering for a V.P. position, staying quiet to endorse either candidate till he thought Obama would prevail, then, calling for Hillary to quit the race before the people had a chance to speak yesterday in Texas and Ohio when it was still virtually tied.

Zero because Bill Richardson picked up all of ZERO delegates when he bowed out of the race just before his state's (New Mexico) caucus, because he did not want to be embarrassed in his own state. He didn't have the "cojones" to continue, Hillary does, she wears the "Pant-Suit"!

Bill Richardson is a former Clintonista, un-grateful and dis-loyal after Bubba put him on the map. Nobody wants him as a V.P., because being overweight, he is only good to occupy latitudes and longitudes on that map that Bill C. put him on!

Richardson is a wannabe latino (one could not tell from his name) who started to market himself as one after it became fashionable to be "livin' the vida loca"! I wonder if he can even speak the language (Spanish) properly?

Who was he to tell her to quit the race when there was still "time left on the clock"? Americans are not quitters, it's just not the American way.

Hillary is an American, she is tough and she certainly is not a quitter and now she is on her way to the Presidency!

Posted by: cheersdk | March 5, 2008 04:28 PM

jon everyone in Ohio should pray that their redistricting is nowhere as ugly as Tom Delay's here in Texas

You listed Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones as a winner from last night. Fair enough. But according to the Columbus Dispatch website, her district was one of 4 (out of 18) Obama won. The others, 1, 3, and 12 (there's a strange one!) are held by Republicans. Yet Tubbs Jones is the only Ohio Democrat in Congress who endorsed in this race.

Ironic.

I'd love to see a post here sometime on estimates for the 2010 reapportionment--who's likely to control the redistricting process in which states and how it will affect the Electoral College map for 2012, 2016, and 2020.

As far as the media and the discussion surrounding the roles of super-delegates is concerned, Dick Gregory pushed it to the limits this morning on the Today Show during his interview with Senator Obama--wondering whether Senator Clinton intended to "steal the nomination" if she tried to get superdelegates to support her. To his credit, Senator Obama did not agree with the "stealing" part of the question. Here is part of the transcript:
GREGORY: All right, so you just heard Senator Clinton. She said unequivocally that's not how the process works, that there are pledged delegates but the superdelegates should be independent, should be able to vote how they want. So let's be clear on what your position is. If she tries to get the superdelegates to come over to her side, even if she trails in the pledged delegates, would you consider that, in effect, stealing the nomination?
Senator Obama: No, I don't think it would be stealing the nomination. She can try to persuade the superdelegates to support her. I think that most Democrats are going to feel like whoever has won the most delegates in these primaries and caucuses will end up being the nominee. That's why we have primaries and caucuses; otherwise, the superdelegates could just go into a smoke-filled room...
GREGORY: Do you think the party would stand for that?
Senator Obama: ..and make those decisions. But...
GREGORY: Would they stand for her trying to persuade those superdelegates, or would they think it's just patently unfair?
Senator Obama: I think it is perfectly within her rights to try to persuade them, but keep in mind what's happened over couple of weeks, David. We've picked up scores of superdelegates. She hasn't. She's lost superdelegates. And so we feel confident that as long as we just keep talking about the issues that really matter to the American people, talking about how we're going to make health care more affordable, college more affordable, how we can end the war in Iraq in an honorable way and make us more safe and focused on al-Qaeda and Afghanistan, if we talk about those issues...

GREGORY: Right.
Senator Obama: ...then we're going to do well and ultimately we'll be the nominee.
That much for the objectivity of the media.
What are super-delegates really for? Read:

http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/02/what-are-super.html

http://www.reflectivepundit.com/reflectivepundit/2008/03/15--58-100.html

John Lewis a loser? To suggest that he felt political pressure is absurd. I used to live in his district in Atlanta. The Republicans often did not even put a contender against him. One time they even tried to trick voters by putting up a candidate named "Jack (John) Lewis" - he was blown out.

John Lewis enjoys such strong support that is above politics. I suspect he had a sincere change of heart after seeing the behavior of the Clinton Machine.

"You Obamaphiles think you know your candidate, but there is much yet to be revealed. Only time will tell if he lives up to his promise."

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

LOL.

Oh the drama!

Leichtman supports his candidate with passion and intelligence, if not much good humor.

svreader, on the other hand, circles purgatory, representing Sen. Clinton by attacks on the child who became Sen.Obama, a youth who soon redeemed his teen errors as a young adult.

In fact, leichtman would find svreader a distasteful ally, I suspect.

mibrooks27,
Since you and Michelle Obama won't be able to vote for Hillary, perhaps you can console each other. The pendulum is swinging back, and it is about time it does. The MSM was taken to task for its outrageous adulation of Obama and its misogyny toward Hillary, and finally, we are getting a look at what this man does when faced with a challenge.

As an Illinois resident, I have seen my fill of David Axelrod campaigns. He is an old hand in Chicago, and we know what we are getting with one of his efforts. I also know that Obama has led a charmed public life in adulthood, and really has not faced a public challenge the likes of what he would see in a presidential race.

So, hopefully not too late, the American electorate will get a chance to see what he can deliver besides oration. Hillary, we know what we are getting, and frankly, I will stick with her.

You Obamaphiles think you know your candidate, but there is much yet to be revealed. Only time will tell if he lives up to his promise.

Ted Strickland is beloved in Ohio and has great appeal to rural voters and religious voters, which would be a plus for Hillary and the nation as her vp but a definite huge loss to the citizens of Ohio who have waited so long for his leadership.

Obama's history of drug abuse will sink his campaign. The vast majority of Americans will not elect someone who has repeatedly abused "hard drugs" like cocaine or heroin.

Most Americans don't know about Obama's history of repeatedly abusing cocaine.

McCain and the Republicans will make sure that voters know his real history.

To paraphrase Huey Lewis, Obama is "simply unelectable"

No person who has a history of abusing "hard drugs" like cocaine or heroin should be President of the United States of America.

Its a major moral failing.

Electing Obama would send the wrong message to our children.

Rejecting him because of his cocaine abuse sends the right messsage to our kids, namely that there are serious consequences of using hard drugs like cocaine or heroin, even if the person isn't caught at the time, so don't try them in the first place.

I don't see this as a win for Hillary. This was the contest she'd been waiting for all month, and it was arguably her best shot at making up pledged delegates on Obama. While she got the nominal wins, she only gained five or ten pledged delegates on Obama -- a gain that he'll make back comfortably in Wyoming and MIssissippi while she's preening her feathers and asking him to "meet me in Pennsylvania".

The Clinton campaign has now essentially acknowledged that their only path to the nomination lies in having the superdelegates pick her in spite of the choices made by voters. In the unlikely event of that happening, it would do incredible damage to the Democratic Party, and, by extension, to the values and principles that Democrats stand for.

You forgot menacing winner, and I'm loathe to ever call him a winner, but its Comedian Rush Limbaugh. his push to have Repubs cross over and vote for hillary in TX worked and this is clearly not getting enough press. There was an 8% crossover in republican votes in TX and, according to many exit polls, a large majority voted for Hillary Clinton. This exit polling data flies in the face of all conventional wisdom up to this point regarding trends of Republican and Independent cross over voters. The trending has been to Obama and the results in TX can only be attributed to the Comedian Rush Limbaughs horrid tactics.

actualy anthony you were quoting some racist called millbrook who apparently is the offender, not you again my mistake

anthony I apologize if it was not you who made that absolutely disgusting racist post earlier but anyone who reads it should know that those and the sexist remarks here need to end and not be a part of any political discussion in the 21st century.

If it weren't impolite I would gloat, just the tiniest bit. over Hillary's wins, especially in Texas, which the pundits had put away for Obama. The people who voted for her were a mixed demo-graph - rural, urban, Hispanic, Caucasian, school educated and life educated, middle class, and poor to name a few. Everyone who supports her, believes and expects that she
will not forget us middle Americans, and will fight to put this country back on its feet.
I don't think it was just one thing that changed a lot of minds, rather a multitude-not the least of which is her experience, determination, and willingness to listen, listen, listen. It doesn't hurt
that she is a classy lady, who would hold
her own on the world stage where I've no doubt she would be accepted as a peer, and whose intelligence would be a big asset for
America. It all comes down to who, in your heart of hearts, and your best reasing, can best represent all of America.
I think Obama showed another facet
of why so many of us don't like, or trust him, when he made his little speech about Hillary's wins. He was overtly mellifluous as per usual,and covertly having a hard time keeping his temper under check(maybe not so covertly) by launching into why he was still the winner. Why does this person have such a hard time being the least bit gracious. THANKS HILLARY.

"The racist comments were made by someone called Anthony who claims he is an Obama supporter who hates hispanics. I am waiting for either an apology or an explanation of your twisted logic that is one of the Clinton supporters that made that post. Again that suggestion is truly offensive.

Posted by: leichtman | March 5, 2008 06:26 PM"

I think you have mixed various posts. As far as I kinow, I am the only 'Anthony' on this blog today, and I can confirm that:

1 I support HRC, but believe that both candidates are capable people;

2 I do not hate Hispanics. For that matter nor do I hate Afro-Americans, older women, white males or any of the other groupings the media are seeking to break the Democratic supporters into.

So, before pointing to a name, please ensure you have the correct post. What I did (as you can verify above) was to quote another post-er, whose views I found totally repugnant.

However like you I found the suggestion that the one I quoted was a Clinton 'troll' as derogatory as the original posting I was objecting to.

I thought we were leaving the un-civil comments to GOP supporters...

her vote for the war was a mistake, you know that I know that and so does she know that, but her vote was exactly the same as John Kerry's, John Edwards and Joe Biden, people I have the utmost respect for. And please tell us about all of the speeches and all of the votes that B.O. has subsequently made to completely cut off funding for the war and set a timetable for withdrawl.

You might want to seriously examine Obama's vote on S. Bill 4442 written by John Kerry. This 2006 roll call shows that Senator Obama from Illinois voted nea. And so how is his voting record on Iraq pure. I don't see his yea vote next to Feingold and Durbin as a yea vote. I will wait for your perplexing response.

Amendment Number: S.Amdt. 4442 to S. 2766
Statement of Purpose: To require the redeployment of United States Armed Forces from Iraq in order to further a political solution in Iraq, encourage the people of Iraq to provide for their own security, and achieve victory in the war on terror.
Vote Counts: YEAs 13
NAYs 86
Not Voting 1

Your Kucinich argument does not hold water because (a) he was in the House and (b) you did not support Kucinich over Clinton.

a. So what Kucinich difference does that make that Kucinich is in the house and has consistantly been against the war, something you totally ignore and b. I have not always been a Clinton supporter.

One more time, had B.O. voted against the war as a US Senator and voted consistantly to cut off funding and set a date for withdrawl, many of us including me, would be supporting and working for B.O. today. We honestly see no difference in their position about Iraq, and sincerely feel that she may in fact get the troops out more expeditiously and more quickly. Did you also notice B.O. play for the conservative vote in the last debate in his answer at the debate about quickly sending troops back into Iraq if the circumstances dictate.

But these repeated post attributing racist
antihispanic remarks by someone claiming to be a B.O. supporter as obviously being a Hillary supporter is the apitomy of paranoia. Have you thought that maybe this person might either be an out of control B.O supporter or some troll who is actually nuts. And have you read the dispariging sexist comments here call Hillary a hag and needing a stripper poll. Perhaps you think one of her supporters would be making such inappropriate remarks as well.

I don't know", he immediately followed up with, "what I do know is that the case wasn't made to me, in my judgment."

How is that any better an explanation of how he would have voted. The answer I would have taken as the kucinich answer would have been hell no I never would have cast that vote period. The case wasn t made to me, right b/c you were in the cozy confines of the Illinois State Senate. Sorry I just don't buy his purity about the war, either you voted against it consistantly or you took the Kerry/Edwards/Biden/Clinton position. His position is clever by half.

"

The unethical Rove-style tactics of the Clintons is the very reason she/he appeals to a limited Dem base of lower-income-uneducated democrats (beer drinker democrats), many of whom seem racist and bigoted, given the comments I've heard and read this past week from Ohioans and Pennsylvanians. McCain would easily defeat HC as the nominee because he is viewed by many as more politically independent than Ms. C. Not to mention Clinton baggage. OMG!

I think there have been out-of-line comments by so-called supporters of every candidate. Be an adult. Just ignore them.

I think some comments by Obama [claim to be] supporters are way out of line. I urge everyone to support whoever they want and try and do their best to provide their best ACCURATE information. We all have opinions and should express them without the "Hate" that is so prevalent by many.

If this is the way Hillary wants to win the nomination, I think it will be a horrendous.

It's time for the Democratic leadership to let the Clinton campaign know that her negative campaign is destructive and unacceptable. Senator Clinton's teardown approach will only come back to haunt the party whether Obama is the nominee or she is. While I have no problems with a vigorous campaign for the nomination, it is entirely counterproductive to set up arguments that will be used against Democratic candidates in the fall.

If this is how the Clinton campaign envisions winning the nomination, they will end up alienating a large number of potential Democratic supporters in the process, not just for the Presidential election in the fall but for many other elections. I can say for myself that if Senator Clinton continues a destructive campaign, and if she wins the nomination in this way, I will not be supporting her and I will no longer be supporter of the Democratic leadership that stands by idling and allows the party to implode. I know of many other life-long Democrats who have very similar misgivings about the strongly negative approach that the Clinton campaign has used at various times (prior to the South Carolina campaign and most recently in Ohio and Texas). It will be a truly costly win for Hillary Clinton if that's the road she plans to take. On the other hand, an aboveboard discussion of issues is entirely appropriate and should be that path towards the nomination.

Okay, everyone seriously shut up with the "no one can get to 2025 without superdelegates" crap. No one has ever said that.

Obama will win the pledged delegate count. He'll also win the popular vote count. No one cares if he gets to 2025 with pledged delegates. The original purpose of the superdelegates was to push the leader over the edge in a race that is close, such as this one.

Superdelegates are going to side with the person who gets the most pledged delegates. Once Obama reaches a point where Hillary can no longer overtake him, she needs to step aside. I believe that time has come. No matter what Hillary does in the remaining contests, barring some insane scandal, can she regain the needed ground on him. All she's doing now is living her pipe dream, not yet realizing that she's going to devastate the momentum and pride of her party by doing so.

Go away Hillary. You've lost.

Sorry for the multiple posts, I am having difficulty getting through.

leich, I said in my comments the offensive statements were "perhaps" from a Clinton or McCain supporter. Certainly some people try to use clever disinformation to discredit the supporters of another candidate. This has definitely happened in some campaign and by some governments. You said the person claimed to be a supporter of Barack, but this could be a ruse by either a Clinton supporter or somewhat more likely a republican who wishes to see the Democrats as divived as possible.

There are definitely some persons who vote for Hillary who will not vote for an African American for high office. Polls show this to be true and the percentage of racists is likely higher than these results suggest.

leich, I said in my comments, the highly offensive statements I cited, were "perhaps" from a Clinton or McCain supporter. A few persons use disinformation, to try to smear the supporters of a candidate. This has been used in some campaigns and by governments in their foreign policies.

Some persons who voted for Hillary will not vote for an African-American for president. This has been demonstrated in polls, but largely ignored by the media.

There is some media bias, but the media is not monolithic in its coverage. "The New York Times" seems to have had a transparent bias for Clinton and against McCain. The biggest media bias is covering conflict, sensationalism and trivial stories. The media generally wants to see Senators Obama and Clinton continue their campaigns until the convention because it is a big story to them. Many in the media would also like to cover a bitterly contested convention because this has very seldom happened in fifty years.

leich, I said in my comments, the highly offensive statements I cited, were "perhaps" from a Clinton or McCain supporter. A few persons use disinformation, to try to smear the supporters of a candidate. This has been used in some campaigns and by governments in their foreign policies.

Some persons who voted for Hillary will not vote for an African-American for president. This has been demonstrated in polls, but largely ignored by the media.

There is some media bias, but the media is not monolithic in its coverage. "The New York Times" seems to have had a transparent bias for Clinton and against McCain. The biggest media bias is covering conflict, sensationalism and trivial stories. The media generally wants to see Senators Obama and Clinton continue their campaigns until the convention because it is a big story to them. Many in the media would also like to cover a bitterly contested convention because this has very seldom happened in fifty years.

no problem, leichtman.

I respect your position on MI and FL. As for Obama's statement, "I don't know", he immediately followed up with, "what I do know is that the case wasn't made to me, in my judgment." It is unfair to simply parse out the "i don't know" from the rest of the statement, as it was made in the same breath. The entire statement taken in context expresses the idea that there might have been additional information presented to the Senators, that obama was not privvy to. But he was steafast and clear on the fact that the case for war was unconvincing. Certainly, that does not excuse Senator Clinton's vote for the war. What is your explanation for excusing her vote? Why did she vote for the war? Why did she vote against the Levin Amendment?

Your Kucinich argument does not hold water because (a) he was in the House and (b) you did not support Kucinich over Clinton.

The biggest winner of all: AMERICAN DEMOCRACY which is clearly alive and well.

sorry about that multiple post

the only person I trust on the Iraq war vote is Dennis Kusinich who has not endorsed anyone.

Simple question: If B.O. 's position on the war is so pure why when asked after being elected to become Illinois US Senator, how he would have voted on the war answered, I don't know. That should have been a slam dunk if his position was so pure, which it was not.

Had he made that speech on the US Senate floor and voted in the US Senate like Kusinich I doubt this issue would be arguable and many of us would be working on your campaign today. Unfortunately for your candidate we are not so gullible, as to not fully appreciate the difference. Senator you are no Dennis Kusinich. his supporters should understand that.

the only person I trust on the Iraq war vote is Dennis Kusinich who has not endorsed anyone.

Simple question: If B.O. 's position on the war is so pure why when asked after being elected to become Illinois US Senator, how he would have voted on the war answered, I don't know. That should have been a slam dunk if his position was so pure, which it was not.

Had he made that speech on the US Senate floor and voted in the US Senate like Kusinich I doubt this issue would be arguable and many of us would be working on your campaign today. Unfortunately for your candidate we are not so gullible, as to not fully appreciate the difference. Senator you are no Dennis Kusinich. his supporters should understand that.

the only person I trust on the Iraq war vote is Dennis Kusinich who has not endorsed anyone.

Simple question: If B.O. 's position on the war is so pure why when asked after being elected to become Illinois US Senator, how he would have voted on the war answered, I don't know. That should have been a slam dunk if his position was so pure, which it was not.

Had he made that speech on the US Senate floor and voted in the US Senate like Kusinich I doubt this issue would be arguable and many of us would be working on your campaign today. Unfortunately for your candidate we are not so gullible, as to not fully appreciate the difference. Senator you are no Dennis Kusinich. his supporters should understand that.

King of Zouk, since you have all the answers...

So you believe the Iraq war was designed to fight the terrorists?

Wasn't the reason for the war to find WMD? Did Bush EVER mention fighting the terrorists, or bringning Democracy to Iraq as his justifications for the war during his State of the Union or Declaration of War speech?

Why did he proclaim that the mission was accomplished, and that major combat operations were complete?

If we went there to fight the terrorists, who were Al Quaeda, why did Bush himself admit there was no connection between al-Quaeda and Iraq?

Isn't it true that Osama bin Laden HATED Sadaam Huessein, but was supported by the Saudis, Bush's best friends?

But most importantly, name the Republican politician who has, in your opinion, given the best description of what the situation on the ground will look like, in order for us to declare victory in Iraq? In short, how will we know that we have won? And once we have "won" what do we do next?

Why is Kerry supporting Obama and not Clinton?

I disagree that the Iraq war vote of 2002 is a dead issue. As long as we are fighting the war on terror, that decision is relevant because it shows how a candidate will make decisions as commander in chief. Will they stand up and do the right thing for America, or will they cave to craven political pressure (as Clinton did, who voted for the war so that she would not be perceived was weak when she ran for president in 2008).

clawrence:
It seems as if your argument is not that Obama is inexperienced, but rather, that he is a fraud. That is the only conclusion I can draw from your "antiquated political machine" discussion. I'm not sure I follow the connection between that and voter apathy nationwide (certainly, Chicago is not the only place were voters are apathetic, and I don't think you are suggesting a cause and effect relationship between voter apathy in Chicago and the antiquated political machine system there) Obviously, Obama, more so than any other candidate, has demonstrated an ability to inspire traditionally apathetic voters. Despite what you think about his ability (or willingness) to deliver, he deserves some degree of credit.

I am not well educated on the history of obama's rise in Illinois, but it seems like you are alluding to the fact that Obama opposed efforts to reform the system after he was elected. Can you provide more details on that? I think that would be relevant to your claim that he is not who/what he says he is... Certainly, you cannot blame him for succeeding as a candidate in a system by outmanuevering opponents who had to operate by the very same rules as he did. In fact, that seems to contradict the argument that he is naive and inexperienced and unable to deal with conflict or crisis.

As for your claim that obama is unqualified because "he has no history of implementing those ideas - of working across party lines to confront the most difficult issues. His lack of experience within our national government, lack of knowledge concerning our State Department, Military, Intelligence apparatus, among many other governmental functions, should be of major concern."

That is an intelligent reason to not support a candidate. I think that standard should be applied to all candidates. My point is that experience is selectively used as a criteria for president. For example, no one on this post has applied that standard to Hillary Clinton, and listed specific examples where she has demonstrated "an ability to work across party lines to confront the most difficult issues". She's never done so, not on anything controversial. Obama, at least in the Illinois senate, worked to engineer bi-partisan action on death-penalty reform and racial profiling, two very important and controversial issues.

As for experience with national government, intelligence apparatus, etc., neither Bill Clinton, Ronald Reagan or GW Bush had experience in those areas, but voters chose them over people who did. And much deeper and superior knowledge in those areas. What is Hillary's experience? The Senate Armed Service committee? Some vague, nebulous, undefined experience as first lady, visting countries and giving speeches about womens' rights? You act as if Hillary's got loads of experience in this area, relative to obama, which simply, isn't true (other than conclusory statements by the media and other Hillary supporters). Give Obama some credit for working on the loose nukes with Sen. Lugar...

As for John Kerry, he had a track record not only including his war service (decision to volunteer which goes to his character, a quality that also serves McCain well) but his experience on many levels of government...as a prosecutor who managed an office, tried cases, and implemented novel programs, such as a Domestic violence unit, and his many years as a US Senator...his record DWARFS that of Hillary Clinton and George Bush, and Senator Obama, for that matter. But what is the point of experience if it does not tell you something about the way people will make decisions and approach solving problems.

That is why the Iraq war vote is important. Obama stood up against a war that was ill defined at a point in time when it was very unpopular to do so. A few others stood up at that time. Senators Graham and Kennedy stand out. They deserve credit because not only does it show something about their JUDGMENT. It shows something about their CHARACTER. Obama's stand on that issue tells me that he will evaluate all the facts, listen to the arguments for and against, and make a decision based on what is right, as opposed to what is politically convenient. We are still feeling the effects of this 2002 decision, and it will impact where we go from here an how we do it. How will they decide to deal with Iran? Afghanistan? North Korea? Russia? To claim that the Iraq War vote is irrelevant is completely disingenous.

The Rezko deal is only important if it shows that Obama did something wrong. Obviously, neither Clinton or McCain are immune from charges about misjudgments in their personal finances. If we want to go there, should we re-visit Whitewater, and Travel-gate, and the Keating Scandal for those who are too young to remember? Just in the name of fairness, just focus on all of the personal screw ups of the candidates...
I think that would be a tremendous waste of time. Far more relevant are their public stances.

lets just agree that these types of statements are over the top and should not be associated with either candidate or their supporters

-----------

In an anonymous blog? Come on!
Just ignore them like most of us do.

You mean the Washington Post isn't sending Mr and Mrs Fix to Guam to cover that all-important primary?!

lets just agree that these types of statements are over the top and should not be associated with either candidate or their supporters

The racist comments were made by someone called Anthony who claims he is an Obama supporter who hates hispanics

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

Please.

As if this poster is anything worthy of paying attention to. Sounds like a Rove/Rush Republican to me...or just another IQ challenged anonymous troll.

yes I agree with JD why doesn't everyone in the country vote on the same day in a primary? That would eliminate problems like states moving up their election dates to have greater impact on the vote. And other bizzarre things like the Tx election where you have to vote for your candidate in a primary and then reappear a few hours later to caucus.

And caucases are arcane. No technology is used. Hundreds of people stood in long lines in TX for hours to sign their name on a sheet of paper.

"United States Supreme Court, in effect making Bush president in 2000."

no that was the voters that did that. confirmed by numerous studies after the fact. even those commies at the NYTimes had to agree. but not you loony Libs,

when will you Libs move on and accept your defeat. It's only been 8 years. Maybe a different defeat would satisfy you? Perhaps an ignominious loss in the November election.

I think we can accomodate you.

but forget about forcing a defeat in Iraq. we're not budging on that one. even the Dems have backed off now. Only the Reid dead-enders still think this way. Oh and Obamam supporters, who can't carry a single blue state.

He carries the states that are so used to losing that they vote for the biggest loser when given the chance. I think Idaho liberals should elect the next candidate. all sorts of psychological issues with that one.

"The highly offensive comments by mibrooks above are so extreme they are perhaps an attempt by a supporter of Clinton or McCain to smear the supporters of Obama"

what is offensive is your associating the above posted racist campaign to Hillary and her supporters.

The racist comments were made by someone called Anthony who claims he is an Obama supporter who hates hispanics. I am waiting for either an apology or an explanation of your twisted logic that is one of the Clinton supporters that made that post. Again that suggestion is truly offensive.

Don't kid yourself: the automatic delegates absolutely will be including the Florida voters in their evaluation of the *popular vote*.
They rightly know that to get a complete picture of the *popular vote*, one cannot pretend that the votes of hundreds of thousands of Democrats do not exist.
Sorry.

================

Sorry? No need to be sorry.

Has nothing to do with pretending. Has to do with rules and fair play. And they all know it...why else would both parties be discussing re=do both primaries? Which looks inevitable now.

None of it really matters.

What DOES matter is how not to alienate either Hillary's followers or Obama's followers. They are essentially tied in all categories and have won the hearts of half the electorate.

Diss Obama and you lose African-Americans and young voters. Diss Hillary and you lose women and senior citizens.

I still think flipping a coin is best way to save the Dem party and the general election.

No kidding!

I think the other loser of the evening was the myth of a post-racial America. Another loser was the myth that the Democratic party is a progressive party, when its party leadership and its membership failed to renounce blatantly racist campaign tactics.

Obama himself may be able to move beyond race, but it is not clear the rest of America is even close.

The Hispanic vote which gets lots of press as one of Hillary's bases (and which Chris declared a 'winner' above) in many ways reflects the persistent racial prejudice of that community. (What's disturbing is that no one is talking about it; I can assure you if a democratic candidate in the '60's was pandering to get the KKK vote, there would be serious repercussions).

But a bigger sign of that myth was the Clinton's campaign relentless willingness to exploit race to their electoral advantage.

To alluding on CNN that Obama is a Muslim, to spreading photos of him in a turban, to the complete silence of the MSM to the fact that Hillary appeared on a national comedy sketch program in which her opposing candidate was portrayed in black face, not once, but twice. Then there are the robocalls by her campaign that repeat "Barack Hussein Obama" over and over again. Of course that alone is not sufficient, apparently even the attack ads were not sufficient, as Kos reports today that HRC's campaign intentionally made Obama blacker than he is real life in her recent attacks ads.

A casualty of the Clinton campaign, I think will be a serious reevaluation of future African-American participation in the Democratic party. I think this will provide an opening that I believe in the long-run will yield gains for Republicans.

No longer is there any doubt that even a (new) 'democrat' presidential candidate is willing to exploit race to win an election.

HRC it seems got her lessons from Malcom X ("by any means necessary") while Obama got his from MLK ("turn the other cheek"). In that case, one succeeded because of the other, but in this instance this will not be the case.

When race becomes a political tool to manipulate votes, the Democratic party joins with the Republicans in the politics of annihilation, and the distance between them in the end really becomes quite minute.

If HRC is the nominee she will not my vote. I call on true progressives to make the same statement, failing to do so only perpetuates the subtle acceptance that racist campaign tactics are an appropriate and acceptable part of the public discourse.

The highly offensive comments by mibrooks above are so extreme they are perhaps an attempt by a supporter of Clinton or McCain to smear the supporters of Obama.

As to the role of superdelegates, each individual should be free to make up his or her own mind who to vote for, without being unduly influenced by the primary results in their district or state. However, if the majority of superdelegates override the popular will of the majority, as expressed in elected pledged delegates, this would be undemocratic, far worse than the United States Supreme Court, in effect making Bush president in 2000.

The Democratic party would also then hardly be democratic and in fairness should change its name. No president is likely to be as good as Lincoln or FDR, regardless of their experience.

However, I want a president who has integrity, good judgment, would appoint good advisers who will be listened to, is well informed, is inspirational and can unify as much of the country as possible. Hillary and Barack are both well-informed and would probably appoint mostly capable advisers. However, Hillary, with her flip flopping over Iraq, display of poor managerial skills in presiding over the health care reform fiasco in 1993-1994, use of fearmongering, allowing some of her aides to use McCarthyism, "guilt by association" tactics, shows less integrity and good judgment than Barack.

actually Bush and Cheney are such a joke that we will gladly leave it up to the right to attack them. We are thrilled to see that you and the rest of the 19% of the country still supporting W/Cheney find it entertaining to still defend them. We don't need to waste our time attacking them any longer, believe me there are millions of right wing Republicans who can't stand them and we certainly wouldn't want to get in their way. We are truly hoping that W and Cheney travel the country this summer campaigning for McCain. It will make Goldwater's loss look like a close election.

one cannot pretend that the votes of hundreds of thousands of Democrats do not exist.

Sorry.

Posted by: jpm321 | March 5, 2008 06:13 PM

Only Al gore could pretend that all those votes from overseas military don't exist. Maybe he can peel himself away to demogogue on this now.

cchapoval:

Don't know if you're still reading, but if you are, thanks for your suggestion that I learn some math. Actually, though, I think the problem was on your end. Your popular vote totals were coming from a CNN page that didn't include popular vote numbers for caucus states. That's partly because there are no official numbers for those, but Real Clear Politics does have good estimates of popular vote totals for caucus states, and, including them, Obama is still ahead of Clinton, even if you include Florida. This is the link:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_vote_count.html

Regards,
Beren

wpost4112:

Don't kid yourself: the automatic delegates absolutely will be including the Florida voters in their evaluation of the *popular vote*.

They rightly know that to get a complete picture of the *popular vote*, one cannot pretend that the votes of hundreds of thousands of Democrats do not exist.

Sorry.

Dems best strategy....flip a coin in Denver. Heads gets P, tails gets VP. Any other scenario and the party splits..losing either the female vote or the African-American vote.

Doesn't get as American as that.

Libs - I realize your first instinct after my last post is to hope for an attack - just so you can shove it in Bush's face and win the argument.

And that is precisely what is wrong with the left in america today.

"We were defending an ally"

so this was a good thing back then, but no longer - right?

"Bush went on the offensive in the wrong place, at the wrong time and against the wrong enemy." Yet no attacks on the homeland since then. Hmmmm, must be a strange coincidence. If attacking the wrong place at the wrong time is so effective, I say keep up the good work.

Or more plausible, it was the right place at the right time and the right enemy resulting in - no attacks on the homeland.

now which makes more sense?

actually Carter was close friends with the Shaw of Iran that Mosideck overtook.

I hate to say it, but I have to go now. No more posts today.

I'll finish by saying, even if we "win" in the old, conventional, 20th century, manner of military victory in Iraq, the Islamic Extremists will fight on.

It will not be "over" -- not by a long shot.

Be prepared for a LONG struggle...

B.O. did not stand up against the swiftboaters nor do I remember his lifting a finger for Kerry unlike Hillary in 2004. As an out of state volunteer co-ordinator for Kerry his support for B.O. does not sit well, although it is perogative to support B.O. Maybe he see B.O. as different then his failed campaign, but he must be shaken to the core to have seen the Obama campaign collapse in Ohio, the state Kerry lost by a mere 80,000 votes.

Senator Barack Obama's most senior military advisor, retired General Merrill McPeak, blames President George Bush for Iran's anti-Americanism. This is a shocking statement by any standard and provides people with even greater reasons to have qualms about Barack Obama's qualifications to be President. Does McPeak remain unaware of any of these aspects of history:

forgot all about Jimmy Carter again.

Not just House Republicans as losers, actually. Looking at voter choices, it seems highly likely the Senate Republicans up for election are in serious trouble, as most of their states had more voters vote for the runner up Dem candidate than the total GOP vote.

And the Bush Kiss of Death for Sen McCain put the Scarlet (R) after his name and killed off any bump he got from Tuesday.

The other thing it showed was:

Winner: Strategy
Loser: Tactics

Obama won Texas, after all the delegate dust was settled today. Can't win if you don't get the delegates.

sorry, Zouk, you've got the facts wrong.

We fought the Japanese at Coral Sea because they were moving to invade Australia. We were not "attempting to distract them" as you say. We were defending an ally. Those battles -- Midway and Coral Sea -- were a month apart by the way.

And when you say "winning" in Iraq, are you under the delusion that we can prevail in this struggle against the Islamic Extremists by subduing Iraq? Do you think it would be "over" if Iraq were "vanquished"?

Bush did go on the offensive -- you're right about that -- but against a government that did not attack us, did not have WMD and did not have any ties to 9/11. To say he "took his eye off the ball" is a Gross Understatement.

Bush went on the offensive in the wrong place, at the wrong time and against the wrong enemy.

You are also mistaken in identifying me as a Liberal (although I do not think that is a derogatory term). I am much more fiscally conservative than George W Bush and the Republican Congresses of 2000-2006.

Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) is facing renewed criticism regarding his national security policies as he continues his campaign for his party's presidential nomination. In a YouTube video Obama made for a liberal pacifist organization last year, the senator called for major cuts in defense spending, slowing the development of future combat systems, and cutting investments in America's ballistic missile defense program.

is this Jimmy carter redux? how will you go on the offensive like this Adrick?

clawrence, I'm not a big fan of superdelegates either. I'm willing to deal with the system as it is, but it might be something the party wants to consider getting rid of (along with the Texas Two-Step) for the next election.

What I was responding to was your question about Obama getting the required number of delegates from the pledged delegates alone. I don't think that's a reasonable bar to set for either of the candidates, since the two thousand-odd delegates required to win was established taking the supers into consideration. One has to assume that *all* supers would vote against a candidate to ask them to get the required delegate total from pledged delegates alone.

Other than that point and the idea of winner-take-all primaries (which I'm not a fan of), I think we agree on the rest. I'm happy to have the American people decide the rest of this.

ussamsarmy - "If you want to vote for a guy because he was a war hero, then cool, I respect that. I'm sure you voted for John Kerry on that basis."

I not only voted for John Kerry, I campaigned for him when I returned from Iraq. I stood up the "swift boat" liars. I did so because I believed that Senator Kerry was correct in advocating for adding an additional 40,000 personnel to the active duty Army. Because he was advocating for a change in strategy in Iraq so that we were not fighting this war on the cheap (essentially the surge that McCain advocated for). Because he was insisting on leadership among our generals and demanding some accountability for the lack of command and control that led to Abu Graid. (a leader like General Petreus who was supported by the vast majority of the Democratic senators because he was one of the few commanders, of the 101st, who had been critical of our actions within the first two years). Because he was showing the courage to do the right thing, not slinking away like Obama when it came time to stand up to the liberal left when they called this fine man a traitor.

Obama wants to revive an argument and debate from 2002. It is time to move on. Change is not an idea.

"Assuming that is true, why did the party nominate Reagan over George H.W. Bush, who had MORE foreign policy experience as the head of the CIA, and an ambassador?"

that election had different issues. when one of the candidates has zero experience, the issue of experience emerges, naturally. even committed Libs can only ignore this for so long, although it seems it can be ignored longer than is recommended.

The total popular vote in the Democratic primaries at this point is a virtual draw:

13,522,829 for Obama and
13,234,833 for Clinton.

==============

nope. that includes FL, which is not in play however much Clintonistas say it is.

The correct vote totals are 600,000 apart...which can still be considered a tie. Still leaves Barack ahead in delegates.

The strongest argument now is Clinton's win in Ohio. Combined ticket is the path to Dem victory.

Contrary to the spin imparted by all of the Barack supporters, I believe that Hillary is now in a very good position to win the nomination. She will win PA. She would likely win any re-votes in MI or FL. in the event that they occur. Though she may not ever win the lead in the pledged delegates, the SDs will put her over the top at the convention.

I hope that this fractious party can get it together to beat McCain in Nov. or I am afraid that we are in for at least 4 more years of the Republican Nightmare.

I say this reluctantly, as I am an Obama supporter from day 1, and I hope that he can pull it off, but he is now the underdog.

He needs to hammer back at Hillary the way she has hammered at him. Tax records, White House diaries, Rose Law firm billing records (this is a stinker..dredge it up) Whitewater the list is as long as my arm. Does being the wife of the President count for experience? (Then Laura Bush or Cindy McCain HAHAHA could be pres.) These are the kinds of things that he needs to bring up to show that his talons are sharper than hers. If he does not fight back harder he will loose.

I am disappointed that there is no substantiative discourse in this country. We should be talking about burgeoning debt, a disastrous war, unfair tax codes, health insurance, the loss of manufacturing, and and a whole raft of issues that confront us, rather than middle names and who answers the phone in the middle of the night.

Adrick - the question is not how do we get out, it is how do we win?

when the Japs were moving on Midway, we were attempting to distract them in the coral sea. they also moved on the alutiens. War is not concentrated in a single spot, especially today. Our enemies can be found in many places, although since Bush went on the offensive, they have not been found to be destructive in NYC again. We are not "occupying" a country - your terminology exposes your ignorance or your agenda but it is not accurate.

We now have the only insurrection fighting force in the world, NATO is a pitiful shell with no success in Afghanistan.

why weren't you Libs this outraged when clinton invaded bosnia? as usual, you make no sense beyond electoral politics.

Re: Winning ugly

From today's "Head of State"
http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

"Wednesday, March 05, 2008
Après lui, le déluge

The kitchen sink runneth over.

The fact that many would fall prey to such a desperate, Rovian grab-bag of distortion and misrepresentation brings home a truth that, now more than ever, must be recognized--a truth about us.

As long as we remain susceptible to negative campaigning--as long as we allow inchoate fear and primitive doubt to overwhelm our capacity to understand and check the facts--we will get the winners we deserve--namely, those who win ugly.

Democracy takes more than participation--a goal we have yet to achieve--it also takes a willingness to apply thought over fear.

We have been trained to respond to fear appeals aimed at the pursuit of electoral success very well over the past 7 years--and at this point, we should begin to become inured to them. In plain speaking: we should wise up.

The Clinton camp has discovered a formula that, at least in the days of its brief burst of novelty, has worked. We can expect a deluge of such tactics in the coming weeks.

However, despite a sink that will likely fill to bursting--paired, of course, with the conciliatory words that are meant to justify and allow further attacks--we now have time to adjust and evaluate.

We can and should do so.

A campaign that wins in adversity by the use of distortion and fear will govern in adversity in the same manner.

This is the true "red phone" lesson, one that we should remember over the coming weeks. Overcome vague appeals to fear. Pursue their reality. In the face of appeals to induced doubt, unproven "experienced", and dark insinuation, tenaciously get--and vote--the facts."

Cite:
Head of State

http://headofstate.blogspot.com/2008/03/aprs-lui-le-dluge.html

To milbrooks27: If you cannot allow the American people to choose a candidate -- regardless of whether it is your candidate -- without going on a bigoted thoughtless rant, then perhaps you should abstain from the process altogether. Those of us who support Hillary Clinton believe that she is a better candidate than Barack Obama. Your visceral reaction towards Hillary Clinton is not surprising. Many people have strong feelings about public personalities. But to dismiss Hillary Clinton as evil, stupid and greedy just shows that you do not put much thought into your rants. And your characterization of Latinos/Hispanics as a "racist little pocket of nutjobs" just shows that your own thinking is clouded by your own character flaws. If you feel that McCain/Bush/Republicans are a better choice than Hillary, then cast your vote for the Republican party come November. The rest of us will be voting Hillary into the White House!

Yea, I wish Obama would hurry up and win so we can all take a vacation.

so B.O. is now Abraham Lincoln? Clinton unlike W left his state and nation with a budget surplus. W squandered our Texas rainy day 2 billion dollar fund and a $200 billion surplus Clinton left him. Again he was a succesful gornor thought of so highly by 49 other governors to be the head of the governor's association, can you say that about B.O. Clinton also began his political experience in 1972 running the state of Texas presidential and senate campaigns of Ralph yarborough. i am sure you knew that.But why do you disbelieve B.O. himself when he said on You Tube that he was not qualified for national office? The office of texas Governor is the weakest in the country, Arkansa's just the opposite.

The total popular vote in the Democratic primaries at this point is a virtual draw:

13,522,829 for Obama and
13,234,833 for Clinton.

Note that a significant portion of Obama's votes come from red states that the Democrats will not win in November.

Assuming that is true, why did the party nominate Reagan over George H.W. Bush, who had MORE foreign policy experience as the head of the CIA, and an ambassador?
==============

Why, they were being "prudent."

"Kerry volunteered for a dangerous mission in Vietnam and Bush did not.

Kerry was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts."

I never said bush was a war hero so the comparison is moot.

Kerry threw his silver star over the WH fence (or some facsimile of it) and testified falshoods about his fellow sailors. this cancels any hero attributes. he also falsely claimed medals he didn't deserve and ran away with an early release based on this fraud. to this day he still hasn't released his full military record.

the voters understood this and reacted accordingly.

Just like the voters understand that Obama is unqualified and are beggining to act accordingly.

the president can't unite a country which harbors a bunch of liberals who think america is downright evil and deserves to lose a war for political gain.

As Obama supporters continue to bash Clinton, I hope they understand how much effort and money she has been putting into getting fellow Democrat's elected over the years. The GOP might still be in power in congress if not for her.

She has been a champion of the party and a tireless advocate for all Americans for decades.

Try not to let your crush on Obama to cause your brain to disengage. No one likes a moron.

rpy1 - I believe in one man, one vote. Each of these 'super-delegate' had the same opportunity as you and I to vote in their home state. I also believe in the principle of majority rule - and if you win a state by one vote, you should be awarded all their delegates. The idea that in NV you can win the popular vote, and then lose the delegate count is fundamentally undemocratic. That TX two-step was ridiculous.

I have no problem with the winner of the popular vote winning the nomination. I think that Clinton needs to get out there and campaign in MS and WY and stop conceding so many of these states that no Democrat is going to carry in the general. I think she can win it.

Obama is counting on not counting the millions of voters in MI and FL. He doesn't have a clear lead, and the voting isn't over yet. Let the American people decide.

"Carter failed at foreign policy"

Assuming that is true, why did the party nominate Reagan over George H.W. Bush, who had MORE foreign policy experience as the head of the CIA, and an ambassador?

next time Tom Delay, Jack Abramoff or Richard Scrushy needs a trial attorney to keep them out of jail I will remind them of your complaint about trial lawyers.

You are absoluetly right we need to end Social Security and put the elderly back on the streets; that is a Republican philosophy that should make you proud and I agree with you we should have 0 taxes and pay for the military, Iraq, and the roads and bridges you drove to work on today on a RNC credit card. Zero taxes for America that should be the RNC calling. And incidentally Kerry volunteered to go to war, he wasn't drafted, we would like to know what war you and your kids have volunteered for. Likely the same war the Romney kids have volunteered for, fighting to defend their trust fund.

no, no, no, Zoukie. It is the battle of 2008: namely, what to do now? Bush and Cheney have led us into quicksand and the question of 2008 is, how best do we get out?

McCain's answer, "let's stay in the quicksand" is not a good solution.

Taking our troops out of Iraq is not about surrender and losing the war. It is about "re-deploying" our troops in a more intelligent fashion.

It is about using our finite resources more expeditiously. What are we getting for our $12,000,000,000 a month investment into Iraq?

In WWII, when we were fighting the Japaneze in the Pacific, and the Japaneze were moving on Midway Island, would you have deployed our troops to, say, the Galapagos Islands? No, Zouk, you would not. The same concept applies here.

This war will not be won in the conventional fashion with 160,000 men occupying a country. We have to use our fighting forces much more smartly than that.

This war will be fought across borders. Obama was right to say we would hit inside Pakistan if that is where our enemy was.

Above all we need to dry up the funding of our enemy.

This leads to Saudi Arabia. Uh-oh...

...and also back to us, because we ultimately fund Saudi Arabia (albeit with borrowed money).

I know this is not pleasant to ponder, nor is it nice and easy, black and white. It is complicated. It's not like fighting Nazi Germany where the enemy had clear front lines and wore uniforms we could easily identify.

But fight them we must -- because they want to kill us. bin-Laden in a Fatwah directed his followers to kill Americans, both civilian and military.

So... no, I do not advocate retreat and surrender -- quite the opposite -- I suggest getting out of Iraq and going on the Offense.

Ussamsarmy - you are absolutely correct that politics are about 'ideas' and governing is about implementing those ideas. All three of the presidents that you listed above (Regan, Clinton, and Bush) had been governors who had a list of accomplishments that they believed represented their ability to implement their respective ideas. My problem with Obama is not that he is using his oratory abilities to advance what ever idea (if 'change' is an idea) or that he has inspired so many to get involved in our democratic process, it is that his history of involvement in Chicago and IL politics does not live up to his rhetoric.

Your contention that Senator Obama is, in your words, "... "idea" that Obama is running on is that apathy is destroying the American political system." The truth is much more complex than many of the political establishment want to truly examine. Obama was elected to his first position by knocking off all his opponents using the 'old' political tricks of antiquated ballot access rules in Chicago, and deepening the apathy in America's political system by denying voters a choice. His stated claim that he is transparent simply doesn't hold up with the Rezko case. His consistent endorsement of the corrupt political machine in Chicago and Cook County should be questioned by the national press - if he is unwilling to fight for the reform candidates who want to implement those ideas that Obama is supposedly a champion of, why should we have faith he is going to fight for it at the national level?

Look, the reason he is unqualified is that he has no history of implementing those ideas - of working across party lines to confront the most difficult issues. His lack of experience within our national government, lack of knowledge concerning our State Department, Military, Intelligence apparatus, among many other governmental functions, should be of major concern.

wpost: That was Will's best column in eons.

bsimon - "He's been clear on the topic. Their plan is to retain the lead in the popular vote & pledged delegate count & convince the superdelegates they shouldn't overturn the people's choice."

That is no better strategy to getting there than HRCs. If SDs were supposed to follow the "people's choice", there would be no need to have SDs - they could be pledged instead. Without FL and MI, it will not be the peoples choice because not all the people will have representation (for whatever reason). I can certainly see the merits of this arguement and think he should continue to make it but I don't think that it is materially better than HRCs.

kingofzouk

if your ideas are superior, answer the questions without the sarcasm...

as for your belief that John Kerry was NOT a war hero, 2 things that are irrefutable:

Kerry volunteered for a dangerous mission in Vietnam and Bush did not.

Kerry was awarded a Silver Star for his efforts.

Now, if you want to get into a game of crediting/discrediting the war service of brave Americans based on their political views, then have at it. I am of the opinion that anyone who serves our country is worthy of our honor and respect. Republicans cannot defeat the terrorists alone. But Americans united can. You don't seem to want a united america. I think a united america is an idea worthy of a presidential campaign. The president is in a singular position to send that message. The current president seemed to think so back in 2000...

iraq-- every day in every way, getting better and better...

BAGHDAD - Two former Health Ministry officials cleared of helping Shiite death squads celebrated their release with friends and family Wednesday while outraged Sunni politicians called it a black day that showed just how dysfunctional Iraq's judicial system is.

TIKRIT, Iraq (Reuters) - The United States may be forced to halt planned troop withdrawals from Iraq unless Iraqi authorities move faster to create jobs and improve basic services, a top U.S. general said on Wednesday.

ARBIL, Iraq (AFP) - Turkish warplanes and artillery fired on targets inside the Kurdish region of northern Iraq on Wednesday, a spokesman for the Kurdistan Workers' Party (PKK) said.

Clinton was a 2-3 term governor.....

===============
So was Bush. Not much of an argument.

George Will dealt with the experience argument quite definitively:

The president who came to office with the most glittering array of experiences had served 10 years in the House of Representatives, then became minister to Russia, then served 10 years in the Senate, then four years as secretary of state (during a war that enlarged the nation by 33 percent), then was minister to Britain. Then, in 1856, James Buchanan was elected president and in just one term secured a strong claim to being ranked as America's worst president. Abraham Lincoln, the inexperienced former one-term congressman, had an easy act to follow.

We can't even manage to run the congress, the senate or even our own nominating process. but let us take a crack at the presidency. We can muck that up beyond recognition too.

signed = the Libs

Koreen - "Unless Barack says he will not be vice-president under Hillary, her chances of unfairly and undemocratically winning the nomination will be increased."

How? Since the definition of a super delegate is partly to be able to vote for whomever they want for whatever reason they want, how is this unfair? I will agree it is undemocratic but that is the way the DNC set up this fiasco. The whole idea of superdelegates is undemocratic but nothing HRC says or does will change that.

foreign crisis tested Carter

tested and failed - utterly. we could do no worse.

Posted by: kingofzouk | March 5, 2008 05:09 PM

I take that back - Obama could be worse. the similarities are striking.

Please continue to beleive in Obama's experience. It should fit right in with all your other beliefs:

Gore won the election
Kerry was a war hero
raising taxes stimulates the economy
teachers unions look out for children
trial lawyers look out for you
social security needs to be saved
health insurance is a right and the rich should pay
america can do no right
War is always wrong and we deserve to lose
hillary is honest
surveillance is more deadly than killers

Santa is bringing me a new toy

when are these types of racist and sexist statements going to be stopped either by the moderator or disavowed?

Mr. and Mrs. Fix don't need a passport to go to puerto rico...cover that race.

Clinton was a 2-3 term governor and A.G. and elected as the leader of the Governor's Association. As far as experience curious if you have viewed the Youtube statement by Obama himself in 2005 where he admitted that he was unqaulifed. Personally that clip needs to be run as a commercial. I take B.O. at his own word. I have seen nothing monumental in his 3 years in the US Senate that proves otherwise. other than ducking out when there is a difficult vote to take. Not what I would think proves him to be the visionary he claims.

foreign crisis tested Carter

tested and failed - utterly. we could do no worse.

executive experience

Allow me to speak for millions upon millions of Obama supporters right now - we would rather see the Party shattered, loose every single seat in the House and Senate, the Democratic Party utterly extinct, before that woman is allowed even close to the White House. If you really don't think we will desert you en mass. you're just being stupid, because we will. And don't count on those "Latino" voters", that racist little pocket of nutjobs advocating the return of the Southwest to Mexico, to bail you out of this one. Clinton will pander to them, as she will pander to anyone, bu the will turn on her (and the rest of us) like a pack of rabid dogs. The Democratic Party is toast. A joint ticket wont cut it for me or any other Obama supporter I can think of either. It about good versus evil, intelligence versus abject stupidity, patriotism versus unfettered greed, and Cltinon and her folk are on the wrong side on every one of these. Cltinon supporters are a new third party, one worse than the Bush Republican's. They are the enemy of every decent Amercian.

Posted by: mibrooks27 | March 5, 2008 01:02 PM

Well, gee this MAY not be representative of all, most or even many BHO supporters... But the fact that it is said shows exactly why those of us who support HRC stand bemused by the contradiction between the rhetoric of hope and reconciliation BHO states and the actuality of members of his support teams.

A message