Upon my initial review of the previous comment, I detected six obvious spelling errors. Do we need another GW? I don't think so. As a PA voter, Hillary recent alignment with the Republicans clarifies any doubt about who I will vote for on April 22nd (I now intend on driving 8 hours total roundtrip to make that vote happen). One would think a poster would at least review their comments for grammatical accuracy (There are many programs that are now available to perform this type of task for the unintelligent). At least do that much, but, of course, the points offered are so baseless that these type of simple errors make sense. However, it should be noted that when one displays that kind of lack of intelligence, it completely refutes their argument. Hillary's lack of foresight in her recent arguments equates herself with this type of stupidity as well. She would rather endorse John McCain than ever admit any type of defeat (Her comments the other day were absolutely absurd). That, in and of itself, is enough of a turnoff. Her supporters doing the same only add to the overall baseless ness and silliness of their arguments. I really wish that blogs of this type were restricted to intelligent comments only.

Great points! One thing I'd like to emphasoze is that the Democratis delegate allocation ststem is antything but denocratic.
Exlude FL and MI, voters cast 25.4 million votes between Clinton and Obama (source=Real Cleae Politics.com.)
Simple math shows that:

13.0 M votes for Obama
12.4 M votes for Clinton

2588 delegares allocated as of 3/6

15/25.4 x 2588 = 1324.5 Obama

12.4/25.4 x 2588 - 1263.5 Clinton

So, for rounding purpose, I'll add .5 to Obaba's total and add in the superdelegates who've announed so far:

1325
+208
____
1533 total Obama delegates

1263
+249
____
1512 total Clinton delegates

So, Obama is ahead by 21 total delegates. The race is even.

But we hear all the time that Obama is ahead by over "150" delegates. He is actually ahead by 60 pledged delegates (21 all together) in a system riddled with unfair caucuses, something that is anything but democratic.

Clinton wins Texas but Obama wins the most Texas delegates?

Overall, Cinton is behind by 21 total delegares (pledged and unpledged.

Either the race is based on ptoportional delegates (i.e. on "fairness") or it's not.

Great points! One thing I'd like to emphasoze is that the Democratis delegate allocation ststem is antything but denocratic.
Exlude FL and MI, voters cast 25.4 million votes between Clinton and Obama (source=Real Cleae Politics.com.)
Simple math shows that:

13.0 M votes for Obama
12.4 M votes for Clinton

2588 delegares allocated as of 3/6

15/25.4 x 2588 = 1324.5 Obama

12.4/25.4 x 2588 - 1263.5 Clinton

So, for rounding purpose, I'll add .5 to Obaba's total and add in the superdelegates who've announed so far:

1325
+208
____
1533 total Obama delegates

1263
+249
____
1512 total Clinton delegates

So, Obama is ahead by 21 total delegates. The race is even.

But we hear all the time that Obama is ahead by over "150" delegates. He is actually ahead by 60 pledged delegates (21 all together) in a system riddled with unfair caucuses, something that is anything but democratic.

Clinton wins Texas but Obama wins the most Texas delegates?

Overall, Cinton is behind by 21 total delegares (pledged and unpledged.

Either the race is based on ptoportional delegates (i.e. on "fairness") or it's not.

I think that a video posted on youtube says it better than any script I have read. The music is by a singer/songwriter who campaigned with Bobby Kennedy and marched with the Rev. Martin L. King. It is the real message of hope to a country falling in to a deep recession. Where poverty is growing and rich bankers take homes from working families. Where greed has put more and more money in to the pockets of the mega wealthy.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lN7QMLRRMp4

This is the message that the American people should be listening to.

It is truly amazing that people are saying that Barack is going negative. Can you please define "negative," he simply requested documents that every American has a right to know about. When Clinton makes her negative comments or take a small issue and blow it way out of proportion her supporters thinks it nothing at all. How can they not see? Well, I guess it is like the Bible state: The Blind leading the Blind, and they will both fall into a ditch!

I do not see where Obama's is going negative, I see him as being pushed to become as negative as possible so that she can say, "see, I told you so." She is more than a monster, she is a real B I T C H! She would be the death of us with her fighting spirit. Imagine that fight against Iraq because she is mad that they don't do what she wants. We would be giving our lives to the most temperamental, demanding dictator, self centered witch you have ever seen. She will always do something to prove she is cocky, strong, a fighter just because she is a woman and the world will have to pay for that! Her supporters can look back and see that they have essentially put George Bush back into the chair.

This has been an interesting discussion. I don't know how much is true. I live in Ohio and I worked the phone bank for Hillary and we did not bash Obama, although I admit that I wanted to. I did my own adlib in the phone bank by pointing out that Hillary is the only candidate that specifically mentions the needs of women and children, McCain is always about security and Obama is giving diatribes about hope, change, yes we can, blah, blah. I don't like his arrogance and he looks mean underneath that tight smile, no warmth there. For those of you who label Hillary supporters as the "uneducated," I am her supporter and I have multiple degrees and licenses. It is insulting for you to infer that we somehow don't see the whole picture, we are the true hard working democrats, the salt of the earth types, not the flamboyant blue blood eastern dems who use the working class as their power bases while they sail their yachts - they are the ones who have adopted Obama. Didn't you study in your history books about carpet baggers? Doesn't Obama's campaign resemble that? She is a fighter, thank the Lord, otherwise, Dems would have to accept this arrogant novice as the nominee. Right now, to use the Obama boy's own words, we still have hope.

THE ESTABLISHMENT IS BACK?

Following the campaigns, I was as surprised by the Obama phenomenon as much as perhaps 'THE Establishment' in this country was. The genie of populism was out of the bottle when they only intended it to bring some respect and legitimacy to the political processes after 8 years of public disenchantment with politics and Washington. However, you will see how the establishment is roaring back in a series of attempts to reign in populism (read obamamania). Mark it, Clinton is going to be the democratic nominee even at the cost of more potentially fatal bruising to the credentials of Democratic Party and the public trust in the electoral process in particular. I will give some instances where if one tries to read between the lines may identify a particular streak in recent days and weeks.

1. The first attempt was to soften-up the mainstream media. A barrage of accusations were leveled against the media over its dealing of Obama' s campaign and the candidate himself. This despite the shamelessly lazy job of the media in not clearing the false rumors surrounding obama about him being a Muslim, being black enough or too black.

2. Blind projection of pick-up lines to discredit the main arsenal of the populist approach, i.e. oratory, is another such attempt. It has started looking as a negative than a positive considering how one can bash someone for coherent expression that connects with the masses. Please draw your own parallels from history on how many policy nuances have been laid out threadbare in stump speeches by candidates who made it to the White House. It only became an issue when a populist approach went beyond the 'accepted' acceptance.

3. Now bring in the issue of media getting tough on Obama. Does getting tough on Obama mean getting loose on Clinton? If not, how come only Obama's 'message' to the Canadians makes the airwaves and not Clinton's to the Canadian PM Office? Is it not an issue that deserves more attention knowing the role it played in deciding a key primary? Add to the list the lack of disclosure on the part of Clinton's records on tax, Clinton papers and contributions to the presidential library. It definitely is all quite on those fronts.

4. Add the media frenzy on Rezko where Obama is not directly indicted and compare it to the indictment proceedings against Clinton in Peter Paul's case. As for other instances from Clinton's history, the less said the better.

I have my doubts about Obama proving an outstanding leader and bringing about meaningful change in the way things work but what I know for sure is how 'the establishment' wants to play it safe by having Clinton and McCain face-off in November. The pattern of dislodging a populist individual is so blatantly obvious it is hard not to jolt anyone who wants to go beyond the headlines. As a test, watch Samantha Powers' comments holding the headlines in the coming days and none of Clinton's Canadian 'wink wink', and disclosures.

There is a simple, fair solution to the Michigan-Florida Confusion: http://roadkillrefugee.wordpress.com/2008/03/07/a-simple-fair-soluton-for-florida-and-michigan/

Check out this detailed report - and ponder these questions
Source: http://www.houstonpress.com/2008-02-28/news/barack-obama-screamed-at-me/full

1. So how much credit goes to Obama for the bills that were passed by the democrats after they regained majority in Illinois Senate? All of it? None of it? Some of it? How about all the other Democrats who fought long and hard on the exact same bills fruitlessly against the Republicans who controlled the legislature in IL till 2004 and endured all kinds of resistance only to see their king maker Majority leader make Obama the beneficiary and in his words 'Make me a Senator'.

2. How come Obama was not able to get ANYTHING passed when Republicans ruled the roost? So there appears to be little proof/evidence of his claimed post partisan political skills?

3. He dissed the original African American woman who invited him to run first and legally outgunned her when she tried to get back on the ballot? So this is not political backbiting of the worst kind?

If this article is not true then Obama should give evidence why it is incorrect or untrue otherwise we can and should conclude his 'magical' post partisan claims are just that - wishful thinking and clever political posturing by a guy who gives steak (or pork) back to his main beneficiaries. How is that for a 'new kind' of politician?

Finally his surrogates call Hillary a monster. How new is that?

Think again folks - check out the emperor's new clothes.

Turns out Hillary uses the same dirty technique that my older brother used to try to use on me. He used to accuse me of stealing from my senior citizen parents while he was trying to get them to sign over the farm on a quit claim deed. Accuse Obama of being the heart of NAFTA while anybody who was an adult in the 1992 campaign will remember that it was Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush arguing for the passage of NAFTA and Ross Perot adamantly against it.It was Bill Clinton and his wife Hillary who were celebrating victory when Bill signed NAFTA into law in 1993. Maybe some people can't remember that , but I do. I also remember that Hillary voted for the Iraq war resolution and the resolution to give Bush a green light on Iran.

When Hillary answers that phone at 3AM it will probably be Gennifer Flowers with a G, Paula Jones, Kathleen Willey, or Monica Lewinsky saying "Is Bill there?" Or maybe it will be the gangsters from the Ukraine and Kazakhstan asking for a favor in return for the money they paid Bill in late 2007. Is this why Hillary and Bill won't release their tax returns.Sounds like an IRS audit is in order here. What is a former president doing hanging around with these characters while his spouse is running for president. In fact, why should a former president be hanging around characters like these people at all. They are connected to the criminal underground in those nations.

I want to see Hillary's and Bill's tax returns from 2000- 2007, even if they are Xerox copies. I want to see her White House papers, even if they are Xerox copies.

Chris Mathews in his American Irish-Catholic élan vital to redefine T.V. News commentary and invent a twenty-first century neophilia news hegemony hucksters his show "Hardball" with the same resignation held by P.T. Barnum to his listeners et sec: "There is one born every minute!"

He brings to his show a hidden white male misogynistic bias of Hillary shared cloyingly by his male compeers at N.B.C.! The disguised ribaldry begins in earnest when his secret surreptitious screed to elevate Obama to the immaculate pure of heart black man that articulates in holy historic rhetoric of canonized black saints; such as irreplaceable Martin Luther King et al! Ironically he and N.B.C.'s inept entourage of money hungry book pushers pullulated the spark in Iowa and New Hampshire that we as Americans were witnessing an historic social revolution that would forever solve and ameliorate race relations in our American modus vivendi! He conviently forgot to frame the theretofore dominant American social issue of femenism;more specificaly womens civil rights! This is ans was a somewhat minor mistake that will eculate in proporation to Hillaries new found zietguest with the acceptence of the sencecent Great American majority!

Well the best made plans of mice and men sometimes go astray! Chris remember you can always resort to articulations that inspire forgiveness and ultimate dispensation -you know feelings after your caught and go to confession! Sorry Chris the Super Delegates are not among the the ones born every minute!

The pledged delegate and caucuses rules of the Democratic Party for the Democratic primary are not democratic! To put it mildly it is a big disgrace! If the Party had followed the rules as per the national presidential elections, Hillary would have been nominated on Super Tuesday. Hillary has already won New York, New Jersey, California, Ohio and Texas. If all the pledged delegates from these states are given to Hillary which she rightly deserves, there would have been no mess! DNC should have at least followed the same rules followed by the Republican Party so that all the candidates would have the same playing field during the primaries.

DNC made a mistake in not having some compromise before the election with Michigan and Florida regarding pledged delegates as was done by the RNC. Now, without making further complications they should accept the result. In Michigan they should give all the blank votes to Obama because, if his name was in the ballot he might have got those votes. In Florida the result should be accepted. Obama's complaint that if he had campaigned in these states, he would have got more votes is not correct. None of the other candidates campaigned there either. He campaigned more vigorously in Texas and Ohio and still did not win them

Sen. Obama's decision to go explicitly negative suggests that he is unable to make an affirmative case for his candidacy beyond ad hominem attacks. Why isn't he discussing the hearings that he held on the Foreign Affairs subcommittee that he chairs? Why isn't he talking about his travel through Latin America? Why isn't he briefing the public on his comprehensive plan to address the foreclosure crisis now? Why isn't he stumping on his universal plan health care plan? Because he can't and so he is advancing a campaign strategy premised on process and personal attacks.

Hillary is not fit to clean my cat's letter box. She is as likeable as a rattlesnake, and at least the rattlesnake gives warning. She actually makes my stomach churn, and I have to switch channels or hit the mute button and grab a magazine while I am waithing for her to just shut the h*** up. She is causing so much friction among Democrats, and enjoys appearing "Experienced". She needs to be aware that the Clinton Amnesia may start to wear off, and voters will wake up and remember the Catastrophic Clinton Crap. Hillary claims she was "co-President" during Bill's two terms in the W/H. "They" are after a third term. Bill has too many ties to other nations for his "charities", so why isn't it ruled a conflict of interest? Don't non-profit organizations need to provide yearly returns with donors, donation amounts, payments, payees and amounts? RED FLAG: The charitable "donations" from foreign countries, but no disclosure. Red flags, in triple, for these ventures. Hillary often demonstrates her self-centered arrogance that "rules" only apply if she benefits. She proved while in the W/H how deadly she could be with "revenge" as her weapon. She has no soul, and tries to crush any opposition using any available means. When will the Clintons provide complete documentation of her years in the W/H? This time, will a lie detector test be required to guarantee that no documents were removed? RED FLAG: Sandy Berger had unrestricted access to highly classified terrorism documents at the National Archives. Failure to follow extremely strict security guidelines was a bonus for Berger, he was a familiar figure. He was eventually accused of stealing documents, but claimed that he borrowed a few copies to study, which he later returned. At his trial, the DOJ let Berger off on a misdemeanor charge and surrender of his license. He didn't even submit to a lie detector test. RED FLAG, RED FLAG: It was later learned that the top- secret original NSC documentation, with hand-written notes (no inventory, no copies existed) covering the Clinton Administration handling of the terrorism threats were "missing" from the National Archives. The entire 9/11 Commission report was a waste of time and money, due to incomplete data. RED FLAG: We will never know the full truth about how 9/11could have/should have been prevented. Guess whom Hillary has picked to be on her National Security Team? Give that man a cigar! It's Sandy Berger. Now, does that make you feel secure?

It is truly amazing to me how stupid Americans are when it comes to voting for Hillary Clinton. What did they base their decision on?? The 3 am call ad just does not hold water...Nobody knows how she or anyone else would react to a crisis in the position of Commander-in-Chief. I spent most of my military career in Command and Control. We as Emergency Action Controllers received instructions from the Joint Cheifs of Staff(both "Real World and Exercise) relating to release of nuclear weapons. In this 24 hour operation, on rotating shifts, the stress was at times,
unbelievable both physically and psychologically. Multiply that many times over and then you have and then you begin to understand the extraordinary pressures of the Commander-in-Chief. Are Americans so ignorant to think that Hillary Clinton is any more qualified to handle these stresses than Barrack Obama?? Being President is a tremendous responsibility and no one is really prepared for the scenarios that can and will develope...they can only train based on theory and intelligence information...and that is just the tip of the iceberg relating to the military.

The Economy--no one is prepared to forsee the future unless of course they are clairvoyant. Clinton, guaranteed will have to make some tough choices when it comes to budget cuts and cannot guarantee anything in this uncertain world...not to mention, if she is elected, she will be inheriting a massive budget deficit that she helped elicit by giving Bush a blank check for an ill-advised and immoral war in Iraq.

Bubble Burst--Personally I am not sure any of these candidates is prepared to march into this uncertain future...however, I would say that Barrack Obama's heart and mind are in the right place and he has integrity; and the outright audacity to instill hope over fear. Clinton's message is really nothing new and in my estimation is a message of fear of the unknown. She caters to an electorate of mostly uneducated, ignorate, and feminate bigots...yes I said bigots...because let's
face it many of you WASPS are not ready for; God-forbid a half breed!! Don't tell me that's just not true if you are a Hillary supporter...don't forget; first I spent 12 plus years in the military; met people from all walks of life, from around the world and I have observed all to frequently the "Ugly American".

Conclusion; I am not telling you how to vote, however, I am telling you to get over youself and examine your real motivation(s) for the choices you make when you go to the polls!!

BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA IS DISHONEST

HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
HE IS THREATENING TO ATTACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUDE WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.

WAKE UP

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA IS NOT TO BE TRUESTED. he IS A LIER.

If you vote for him you will regret like a lot of Illinois residents. Give us their comments. If there would be a way to take their vote back they would do it with no doubts.

B. Hussein Obama's record dictates that he has CHANGED his rhetoric and his mind. He speaks whatever way he thinks the audience wants.

B. Hussein Obama is not qualified for the office of president. He is as qualified for president as a medical school senior would be for brain surgery (NOT).

He is a liar.
HE IS NOT SOMEONE TO TRUST.
HE LIES, HE TWISTES EVERITHING,
HE IS RADICAL.
HE IS AN INSTIGATOR.
TREACHEROUS
DISHONEST

1. HE MAILED FALSE FLIERS INFORMATION ABOUT MS. CLINTON.
2. NOW HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.
3. HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

LOOK AT HIS ATTITUD WHEN HE SPOKE THE NIGHT OF MAR. 4TH. AFTEER HE LOSE OHIO. THAT LOOK ON HIS EYES WAS SHOWING A LOT OF HATE.
HE WAS THROWING FIRE HIS LOOK EXUDES HATE.

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA DECLARING FALSE INFORMATION

HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.

HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

B. HUSSEIN OBAMA DECLARING FALSE INFORMATION

HE IS DECLARING FALSE VOTERS TO WIN THE TEXAS CAUCUS.

HE IS THREATENING TO ATACK MS. CLINTON.

IS THIS SOME ONE TO TRUST?

The Clintons have gone too far with that negative 3 a.m. ad, more like the Republicans/Rove that what I expect from the Dems. Made me think of the LBJ ad that was in such bad taste, it was immediately pulled. Remember the little girl with the flower and H bomb scare, same deal with Clinton. Make no mistake, they will stop at nothing. Fortunately with the LBJ ad people were offended, guess we prefer the scary/negative stuff these days, guess it worked in Texas.

Democratic Party Missteps Lead to McCain Landslide

By Jim Barone
Editor, National Media Consortium
Wednesday November 5, 2008

Senator Hillary Clinton's presidential bid came to a screeching halt last night after being unceremoniously crushed by a well organized and well managed Republican juggernaut. While watching the election returns in the company of her family, a stunned Clinton was so overcome with emotion and disappointment that she fainted and had to be rushed to a nearby hospital for observation. A family spokesperson who declined to be identified said that the loss of 40 states to Senator John McCain probably proved to be too much for the tenacious, but devise former First Lady.

After wresting the Democratic Party nomination from her former rival Barack Obama through a hotly contested series of political arm-twisting and what many say were unethical and illegal maneuvers, her campaign seemed to flail helplessly in the wind as John McCain zeroed in on a decisive victory. At fault for the entire fiasco were not only herself and her campaign, but the Democratic Party and very likely millions of voters who were duped into believing that she and not Barack Obama was the best candidate who could defeat the Republicans.

With the Democratic Party torn apart and virtually every Obama supporter thoroughly disillusioned, her campaign stood little chance of success - a possibility that she adamantly refused to acknowledge. For some odd reason, her selfish and narcissistic attitude combined with an ill-advised mantle of self- entitlement, spelled nothing but doom. Sadly, she lost the support of many progressive-thinking white voters, minorities; women and the like because her reckless and unwise attacks on Obama proved to be extremely effective tools that were used by the McCain organization with great precision.

Reflecting on her downward spiral, those lower educated white male blue-collar workers (i.e., the Joe Six-Pack pick-up truck crowd) that she won over from states like Ohio and Pennsylvania (with false and misleading attack ads) ended up to be the biggest losers of the night. Even more disheartening, after reports had surfaced that she had been courting a broad group of voters who would cast their ballot against Obama just because of his race, she quickly lost the vision and focus that she needed to succeed and was headed towards certain failure. This was most likely because Barack Obama actually had the "good judgment" to know that winning the so-called "big states" in the Democratic primary race would not translate into a Democratic win in the general election. He knew that only a very broad coalition of voters from all races, ethnicities, socioeconomic segments, educational and religious backgrounds and so forth could defeat the McCain machine.

As the Clinton campaign progressed throughout the fall, there was growing evidence that it had lost the affection and support of key constituencies such as white women over 50, Latinos, some Asians and others. Unfortunately, it wasn't until after she had torn down and nearly destroyed Barack Obama's call for change, hope and a new direction that those constituencies had finally realized their mistake; however that realization came too late. Unfortunately for the Clintons and the Democratic Party, their legacies may simply end up being remembered as nothing more than a pile of narcissistic rubbish in a putrid political landfill, trumped by a nation's desire for "real" change. Hindsight is 20-20. As America goes, so goes the future.

© Copyright National Media Consortium 2008 All Rights Reserved

Is this story a peek into the future? The Democrats should certainly hope not.

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

CHRIS, ARE YOU GOING TO COVER THIS? THIS IS HUGE!

From NBC's Domenico Montanaro
Per the Toronto Globe and Mail, in a story that was the lead on the paper's front page today, that call to the Canadian embassy was actually from the Clinton campaign, not Obama's:

"Mr. [Ian] Brodie, [PM Harper's chief of staff], during the media lockup for the Feb. 26 budget, stopped to chat with several journalists, and was surrounded by a group from CTV. The conversation turned to the pledges to renegotiate the North American free-trade agreement made by the two Democratic contenders, Mr. Obama and New York Senator Hillary Clinton.

"Mr. Brodie, apparently seeking to play down the potential impact on Canada, told the reporters the threat was not serious, and that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign had even contacted Canadian diplomats to tell them not to worry because the NAFTA threats were mostly political posturing. The Canadian Press cited an unnamed source last night as saying that several people overheard the remark.

"The news agency quoted that source as saying that Mr. Brodie said that someone from Ms. Clinton's campaign called and was 'telling the embassy to take it with a grain of salt.'

"The story was followed by CTV's Washington bureau chief, Tom Clark, who reported that the Obama campaign, not the Clinton's, had reassured Canadian diplomats.

"Mr. Clark cited unnamed Canadian sources in his initial report. There was no explanation last night for why Mr. Brodie was said to have referred to the Clinton campaign but the news report was about the Obama campaign."

*** UPDATE *** The Clinton campaign responds: "Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from. The Obama campaign has given a variety of misleading answers to the press and the public about its top economic adviser's contacts with the Canadian government and should come clean about why they did so," writes campaign spokespman Phil Singer.

CNN reported today that NAFTA COMMENTS IMPLICATED CLINTON CAMPAIGN, NOT OBAMA's

Posted CNN.com: 02:20 PM ET 5/6/2008

CLINTON CAMPAIGN DENIES CANADIAN REPORT ON NAFTA COMMENTS

Link to article: http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/06/clinton-campaign-denies-canadian-report-on-nafta-comments/

(CNN) - Hillary Clinton's campaign is denying a Canadian report Thursday that suggests her campaign called representatives of that nation's government to re-assure them that despite campaign rhetoric, they would not seek changes to NAFTA - an allegation they used against Barack Obama's campaign in the days leading up to Tuesday's critical primary votes.

"Unlike the Obama campaign, we can and do flatly deny this report and urge the Canadian government to reveal the name of anyone they think they heard from," Clinton spokesman Phil Singer said in a statement.

Shortly before the Ohio primary, the Canadian network CTV broadcast a report that Obama economic adviser Austan Goolsbee had told officials with the Canadian consulate in Chicago that the campaign would not look to alter the trade agreement, even though the Illinois senator had pledged to do so.

That report became a lightning rod on the campaign trail in Ohio, where NAFTA is deeply unpopular.

The Canadian government has said it is investigating the source of the leak. The Canadian Press reported Thursday that the comment that sparked the original story may have come from Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper's chief of staff, Ian Brodie - and that hisremark had implicated Clinton's campaign, not Obama's. The Thursday story also said CTV's Washington bureau had initially decided to report on Clinton. The New York senator was mentioned in the final report, but it focused on Obama's aide.

The Canadian Press said government officials did not deny the conversation took place, but that Brodie denied discussing either candidate.

Earlier this week, the Obama campaign admitted Goolsbee and consulate officials had spoken, but not under the direction of the campaign, and said that a leaked Canadian government memo implying otherwise had mischaracterized the substance of the discussion.

On Monday, the Canadian Embassy in Washington issued a statement on the controversy that "there was no intention to convey, in any way, that Senator Obama and his campaign team were taking a different position in public from views expressed in private, including about NAFTA."

-CNN Associate Political Editor Rebecca Sinderbrand

Anyone who still believes in Obama should see this clip:

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

Obama said that he lost Ohio, Texas, and Rhode Island because the people were testing him. He really thinks everything is about him. With such conceit, no wonder he's running for president with so little experience. He really believes he can do it and he's convinced a lot of people.

Some years ago a teenage boy convinced his parents and neighbors that he knew how to fly a plane. Since he'd been taking classes, they believed him and got into the plane. Every one of them died when he crashed into a barn.

Actually, he'd never flown before, but listening to the instructor describe it, he thought it sounded easy.

Sounds like Fla butterfly ballots all over. Fla repubs and probably Jed and Harris crafted that fiasco and the Fla Dem party didn't do their job and see or stop the butterfly ballot.

Posted by: leichtman

Let me state this one more time - the Florida butterfly ballot was in one county only - Palm Beach County. The ballots are designed by elected County Supervisors of Election. It is a county matter entirely and the state government is not involved. The Palm Beach County Supervisor of Elections in 2000 was a DEMOCRAT. She thought she was doing the elderly voters a favor with this design. She became a pariah in the Democratic Party over this and lost her bid for re-election. Google florida butterfly ballot palm beach county 2000 and see for yourself. Jeb and Katharine Harris had nothing to do with that fiasco and it is that fiasco which cost Gore the election and saddled us with Bush Lite for 8 years.

Florida Recount 2008

It's ironic that the King of the Caucus, the grass roots organizer par excellence, mined our nation's prairies and suburbs nationwide for energized new growth, despite the obvious pitfalls, eliminating the elderly, the immobile, the working class, not his demographic?

An election thrown open to the vast hinterlands with a piece meal assortment of voting options, undemocratic, some say, lacking ethical voting requirements or equal protection, like the elections we ridicule in third world nations.

Yet, some are still enamored, perhaps for the result, not for the principles.

Op Ed columnist Gail Collins of the New York Times relays one story from the Texas primary minus the glitz of a win for one candidate, the ambivalence of a loss for the other: while caucus goers waited for more than two hours at one elementary school to open the doors and commence voting, there weren't enough convention packets, there were lines, than there was the rule that no one takes charge until the event begins ....who decided these rules?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/06/opinion/06collins.html?_r=1&hp&oref=sl...

More piece meal voting may be in store to seat Florida and Michigan delegates and give voice to those states' voters. Remember the recount of 2000? Is the underlying impetus for 2008, which no one is talking about, is that we learned votes must be counted? The irony is that these states broke the rules, but despite that, there are those who want the votes counted and those who do not. Imagine the audacity to want your vote to count?

CNN referred to Caucus rules as arcane in January, "The arcane rules governing Thursday's Iowa Democratic caucuses will test even the most organized campaign, but mastery of the process could launch a candidate on a path to the White House."

"Supporters of candidates making up less than 15 percent of the vote in a particular precinct will have the option of making their vote count by voting in the second tally for a "viable" candidate --one who got at least 15 percent of the vote on the first tally. "

The ability of a candidate's supporters to use the persuasion period to win over second-choice voters could be a key factor deciding who comes out on top Thursday night."

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/01/03/iowa.caucuses.101/index.html

A vote via coercion, not by individual choice, that sounds Democratic! Surviving this political jungle, as of today, no one has come out with a bestseller, how to...yet. And no one is talking about it either; it's not reverberating, as it should be, over the airwaves or the internet; CNN seems to have forgotten all about it; and the Obama camp contends that their caucus wins carry more weight, but they're not gung-ho about counting votes and seating Florida and Michigan delegate.

Two-thousand all over again?

The Fact Checker: Truth in Politics
www.edenprairienews.com

It's 3 a.m. Hillary answers the phone. It's another bimbo on the line asking for Bill.

harry4: If Obama carries PA and other states, no one is going to stop him. The super delegates will select the candidate based on the momentum at the time of convention. There is no question whether FL and MI delegates will be seated in some form in the convention. The DNC is not going to deny them their electoral rights without creating a convention spectacle. So get ready to accommodate them, whether you like it or not. We will support a winner in the convention, and not because some one has more delegates he has accumulated in states which never vote democratic. Let the convention decide for the democrats.

no they don't bruce. The dnc already made it's ruling. No changing the game at half-time.

It's a risk/reward game. I respect yoru posts in the past. think about the risks and the rewards. I know it's fun to destroy a party, I'm been doing to the gop for years now. justifyably so. :)

Beware for chaging the game at half time. the democrats should not want to break this movement. the fact some do, is amazing to me. corruption, in it's many forms. Many democrats like the old way just liek many gop'ers do. Screw them, I say.

One of our problems is carrer politicains. We need representatives again. People who represent us. not people who are carrer politicains out to make as much money as possible defrauding the government. If you or i do that it's a federal crime.

To the topic at hand. Regardless of what russert and cnn and fox and msnbc say. the dnc has to do nothing. they made their decision. to those that want to cahnge the rules at half-time. They should pay for it. Clinton crist and the gop'ers. they want it, pay for it. And only is all parties included, obama and the dnc, agree. this is not the ussr. you people cannot strong arm the system and change the rules whenever you want.

the gop picked their candidate. now they want to pick the 'opposition' ticket. If dean is a wise man he will say it's done.

And for anyone saying this means florida and mi will vote 100% for the gop due to disenfrancisement, your wrong. Republicans will vote for mccain. Clinton supporters will vote mccain, but they would anyway as they are now republcains.

It's over. She has zero chance of winning the nom. She lost. Give it up. Stop standing side by side with the fascst propogandists and pick a side for pete's sake

Funny, I noticed that All the Obama supporters can't spell worth anything, and the Hillary supporters are the incompetent ones HAHAHA!!!

Posted by: CommonSense12 | March 6, 2008 08:12 PM

I agree. The only problem is money. Elections are expensive. So, either someone finds some money, or the redos are caucuses.

I suggest that the two campaigns ask the FEC to allow them to jointly and equally finance the redos. Heck, they have too much money already.

Hillary Clinton is making a "big show" that she is "prepared" to be Commander in Chief. That is garbage. She is not more "prepared" than her opponent. The Clintons, in their desperation, have adopted the "Roveian" tactics of fear and destruction, not discussion of issues. That is truly sad because it denotes not only unscrupulousness on their part, and for such people I have absolutely nor respect. "Win at any cost" indicates to me that they have their priorities totall "screwed up." That puts their personal ambitions ahead of the interests of the Democratic Party and the country. If the Democrats lose the 2008 presidential election it will be in large part to the use of such unscrupulous tactics by the Clinton campaign. They have already disgraced themselves enough without dragging down the entire party and this country with them.

If he falters, the democratic party will not sacrifice this election in the name of supporting a movement that can not deliver or close a deal.

Posted by: vaidyatk | March 6, 2008 07:55 PM

You, like many commentators and the Clinton campaign fail to recognize one very salient fact. (BTW, you make some other excellent points.) That fact is that primaries and general elections are unrelated. One cannot predict the other. If so, then McCain will win in a walk and Democrats might just as well give up!

It's all "democratic." States decide how to choose delegates. If, like MI and FL, they decide to break the rules, then they choose empty air. If, like IA and NV, they choose caucuses, then that's fine because big brother can't tell them what democracy is. They get to decide. If you don't like caucuses, then get the state parties to change them. The system we have is the system we have. However imperfect, we must work with it as best as we can.

You may not like delegate math, but it's what we have. Obama's lead in pledged delegates will be even further above 100 in another week. More super-delegates are supporting him.

Also, don't forget that all three candidates have no real experience as chief executive of our country and throughout our history, only incumbents did.

Do you wish to count years in elective office. Then, the ranking is McCain, Obama, Clinton. Democrats should not go there!

How about years of service? McCain still wins.

How about judgment? You get to decide.

FLORIDA AND MICHIGAN MUST COUNT!

Florida and Michigan Must Be Allowed to Vote?

Notice I say "being allowed to vote". The "vote" that occurred earlier was really a "non-vote". It was a fake vote. There was no vote. It counted for nothing. There was no vote ---in accordance with the intent of our constitution.

Our national constitution says the people in these two states have the right to vote and have their voices be heard and be counted, and so do the respective state constitutions of both Florida and Michigan. The fact that the individual state democratic party committees of both states made decisions not in accordance with the national democratic committee is something that the individual voters never agreed to nor voted upon. These state committees can't deprive their own party members from voting and having a "say". They can't do that. That's it.

So let's schedule those democratic party primary elections in Florida and Michigan, and let's do it right away....or "someone" or some group is forcing unconstitutional behavior on the registered democratic party voters in these two states..... and excuse me please.... but now we're talking.... bring out the lawyers. Thank you. That's all we need is more work for the lawyers, but I see that as a high possibility.

Common Sense - Bruce

Super-delegates can do as they please, and many already have.

Saying they should vote as the people do is not so clear. If one candidate wins by 0.1%, do all super-delegates from that state vote that way. Or, should a super-delegate vote according to the constituency: Congressional district, state (for senators and governors), country (for DNC people), city (for mayors), etc. What a mess!

Super-delegates were created to prevent a repeat of the McGovern debacle. I love George, worked for his election, sent him lots of money, and so on (after all I was fighting Nixon). The super-delegates are there to stop a popular phenomenon from nominating an unelectable candidate.

Based on polling, both candidates are electable. If you believe the polls, Obama is a bit more so than Clinton. If one candidate wins most pledged delegates, most states, and most popular votes, and that candidate appears to be more or less as electable as the alternative, then the super-delegates are supposed to go along with that choice. Indeed, if the most pledged delegates and nothing else go to one candidate, then that one should not be overturned by the supers -- if you believe in the role of these unchosen overseers of the nominating process.

Unless someone can convincingly make the case the Hillary can win against McCain and Obama cannot, then it looks a lot like the nomination is already over. In nomination terms, Hillary is "dead woman walking."

The Michigan primary is clearly nonsense as Hillary was on the ballot and Barack was not.

The Florida primary is suspect because the voters who bothered to show up for a beauty contest knew it was a beauty contest and paid an appropriate amount of attention.

One way to finance a redo is to split the costs between the two campaigns. Perhaps, the FEC will have to give special dispensation, but it would work.

By sometime in May, we'll know if any of this hot air is worth the calories required to heat it.

I think it is time people realized that Caucuses are capricious events and donot give a verdict of the people at large, but simply of a limited number of people who can find enough time to chat for a few hours in a cafeteria. It is not a proper democratic election because of the limited number of participants in the caucuses and the lack of proper control in the process. Therefore the super-delegates should weigh the results of the primaries rather than the caucuses in their overall judgment of popular sentiment. If Obama can win some important battle ground primaries, he will be a winner. He hasm't done that yet. He should try to win in the remaining major primeries like Pennsylvania before asking to become the nominee for the democratic party. Winning republican states like Wyoming, Kansas, Utah etc. adds a few delegates for your delegate math, but doesn't add to electibility in national elections. He can still demonstrate his popular appeal in the primaries in Pennsylvania, which is a true battle ground state. If he can't win in the democratic base in Pennsylvania, he is not electible in November. So let us see how Pennsylvania votes. Any attempt to muzzle the delegat math to pressure the super delegates is likely to cause disaster in November polls. He already had a golden chance to show that he is more electible in the crucial state of Ohio, but the people didn't buy into it. Delegate math is not going to protect him from competition and momentum. He still can win Pennsylvania and get back the momentum. He can also promote the idea of new primaries in Florida and Michigan and defeat Hillary there. His delegate math without the super-delegates and Florida-Michigan delegates is not going to give him the nomination of the democratic party. If he sees racism in Ohio, Pennsylvania or Texas, I have news for him. He will have to confront racism by the Republican right in its true manifestations in the contest prior to November just as it found expression in the monolithic black votes for him in the primaries and caucuses. He may be satisfied being a nominee for the democratic party, but the democrats want a winner in November. So the nominee should be a winner in battle ground state contests in which Hillary is now the leader. Let Obama show that he can win in crucial states like Pennsylvania, Indiana, Florida, Michigan etc.. If he fails, he has to move over for Hillary, and accept the VP spot. If he wins especially in the crucial test case state of Pennsylvania, he should be the nominee. I hope he accepts his challenge and confronts Hillary head on in Pennsylvania, and demonstrate that he is a winner.
Some people say that Hillary won democratic states like NY, CA, NJ etc., where every democrat has a chance to win. That is what McGovern thought with his anti-war movement during the Vietnam war. Movements typically energize young people, but the voting groups are special interest groups, and in a vast and diverse country like this this will remain so. The latinos want their piece of the pie, the black want theirs, the senior want theirs and women want their share of power. The youths may not see these divisions in their support for Obama, but these are real drivers in the election dynamics. Obama is fine if he is the nominee with the momentum during the convention; he can not get the support of super delegates unless he regains his momentum in Pennsylvania and other battle ground states. The excitement in his rallies is great. He had his excitement in CA, MASS etc., and look what happened. With all the money he has generated, with the vast youth network of support, with the oratorical gift that is unmatched, with a parade of high impact endorsements at crucial moments of election cycle, he should have won in all these states. The reason he lost is because well-meaning people want to see a record of accomplishments before they vote for a candidate. Obama's record is minimal. His two major issues against Hillary carry no conviction. The NAFTA trade issue was a trick, as the canadians have disclosed. The Iraq issue is even less convincing. Mr. Obama gave a great speech in 2004 in the democratic convention praising John Kerry, the nominee. Kerry's Iraq vote was exactly the same as Hillary's. How did it become a bad judgment for Hillary, but not for Kerry? And, what else did he do to oppose the war, other than an anti-war speech in 2002? Why didn't he support the real anti-war candidate Howard Dean in 2004? We need answers, not empty rhetoric. It was childish of Obama to bring the NAFTA issue the way he brought it into Ohio. Look, we all want to see the better candidate win. Hillary has her strengths and flaws, Obama has his. Let us not allow a movement called Obamamania to hijack the destiny of the democratic party in 2008. If he can win it fair and square with demonstrated momentun for super delegates to side with him, then we will support him. If he falters, the democratic party will not sacrific this election in the name of supporting a movement that can not deliver or close a deal.

I think Brad1 posting at 12:02 says it all about Rush Limbaugh .He did more damage to Obama then Hillarys 3:00 am commercial.

"Will the Democrats' extended fight for the presidential nomination help or hurt their party?
Help 29% 9160
Hurt 71% 22832
Total Votes: 31992 "

And a cnn poll no less. clinton news network. wow. YEt they and the rest of the media fight for her. makes ya think

If i didn't mispell words the internet police and authoritarian anti-free speech police would ban me in a second. By mispelling words people like you feel less threathened by me. Also, I don't want to sacre you republcains away. It's not us liberals holding up progress. Me preching to them is preaching to the converted.

I draw the gop in, to help them grow and get out of the 50's and 60's. So they can attack and mock me. you/they can't touch my posts with a ten foot poll. I must sacrafice my ego. otherwise I get banned or the gop runs in fear.

understand. It's not always abou tyou tough guy. sometimes when you win, you really lose. Sometimes when you lose you really win.

I'm just trying to effect chance in a small way. mental change cannot come without mental conflict. make no mistake I will never bow to the authoritarian's. Not the gop's and not the old school dem's. To allow you to chang eme is to give you my power. something I will never do. not as long as we still live in a "free" country.

But only the gop has free speech. the rest of us pay for what we and they say. I must sacrafice my ego. It's a small price to pay for the chance to save people. And effect change. Still haven;'t changed cc I see. Maybe I reach one person. Maybe that person is the person who does big things.

We all have a role to play in the grand sceme of things. Allow me to play my part. you play yours

Army Infantry 11B for obama

Clinton's strategy: Destroy the DNC.

This TRAITOR needs to be kicked out of the Democratic party:

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

I must be good. If your only grip is spelling everything I say must be fact.

i misspell to give you gop'ers something to attack. you can't touch my posts. In playing authoritariam elementary school games you show your face.

also I open this site up. I am more left than anyone here. this opens people up to be free to say what they really think. i know that is scary for you gop. I know freedom is yoru enemy. I know I am a boogyman.

Do you tough guy. Let the histroy books and non partisan independant thinkers decide is correct.

If all you can do is mock. Lie spin and discredit, YOU SHOW YOUR FACe.
Do you. I'll definatly do me. If i am lying call me on it. If I'm wrong (wouldn't be the first time) call me on it.

To play elementary school games shows YOUR authoritarian gop face. It has nothing to do with me. Work on you. you gop'ers can control you. you no longer can control us.

Now. the substance of your post.

"You say Super-delegates should have to follow the popular vote in their state"

When did I say that? If it's on this blog please reproduce. I never said that and do not believe it. SOME obama supporters may or may not have. We are not the gop clone borg. We don't think as a block. We are all free, until you goper's

"means they can throw their support to Obama OR Clinton. Get it? "

Then we're in agreement. What's you beef?

I merely say if obama wins the delegates up to the convention, if he's leading, the supers should not overturn the people. If clinton is leading with delegates she shoudl be the nominee. I think your confused. I just have a problem with the old style clinton freinds negating the will of the voters.

Please produce my post that says I think the supers should vote with their state. I never said that. your embarressing yourself.

JKrishnamurti,

STOP! DO NOT START RESPONDING UNTIL YOU HAVE READ MY POST THOROUGHLY. If you still have trouble comprehending what I have written, then show them to someone who understands words and their meanings before typing out your spew (and not well, I might add - once again, computers programs come with spellcheck for a reason, tough guy).

You say Super-delegates should have to follow the popular vote in their state. I say please do, because if that is the case, Clinton wins the nom. But, if you had actually read and understood (a bit more difficult than walking and chewing gum at the same time for you I guess), you would have noticed I said "Super-delegates, as the system in the DNC is set up now, are free to vote for any candidate they see fit". That means they can throw their support to Obama OR Clinton. Get it? Understand how it works? I am not advocating anything except, in this election, letting them do whatever they feel is the right thing to do. THEIR DECISION. Ok Tough Guy?

Oh, and if you feel the need to flee the country because there is a chance someone you don't agree with COULD (read, not will, but could) get elected, please do go.

Obama's movement existed before he did. He tapped into it. A ground up movement. From the bottom up. if obama doesn't represent us, we do not represent him.

tha tis the differance between this movement and the monarchy gop cult. they are top down. Slaves to their propogandists and "leaders". that is not america. that is why they cannot win, anymore.

ALL POWER BACK TO THE PEOPLE

"Conservatives love to claim that Obama supporters have excess reverence for their candidate and see him as some sort of transcendent messiah figure. There is a small minority of Obama supporters -- as is true for most candidates and political movements -- who probably expect more from Obama than it is healthy to expect from political leaders generally.

But listening to this objection from the right-wing movement is the ultimate irony. There has not been a political figure in a long, long time who was revered, worshiped and transformed into a grotesque Icon of Transcendent Greatness the way the Commander-in-Chief, George W. Bush, has been. For years and years, the Right sustained itself as little more than a glorified Cult of Personality around the Great, Conquering War Hero.

And here is how they spoke of him:

It must be very strange to be President Bush. A man of extraordinary vision and brilliance approaching to genius, he can't get anyone to notice. He is like a great painter or musician who is ahead of his time, and who unveils one masterpiece after another to a reception that, when not bored, is hostile.
And:
I had the opportunity this afternoon to be part of a relatively small group who heard President Bush talk, extemporaneously, for around forty minutes. It was an absolutely riveting experience. It was the best I've ever seen him. Not only that; it may have been the best I've ever seen any politician. . . . .

The conventional wisdom is that Bush is not a very good speaker. But up close, he is a great communicator, in a way that, in my opinion, Ronald Reagan was not. He was by turns instructive, persuasive, and funny. His persona is very much that of the big brother. . . .It was, in short, the most inspiring forty minutes I've experienced in politics.

And, George Bush is "one of the most decisive, successful, and in the US at least, popular leaders of our time." Not only that, but the invasion of Iraq was "the gift George W. Bush has given to the world" and he is the "best presidential speaker since Franklin Delano Roosevelt."

Bush's election was divine, mandated by God:

"This was Providence . . . . Anybody looking at the 2000 election would have to say it was a miraculous deliverance, and I think people felt it again this year." By allowing Bush to stay in office, God is "giving us a chance to repent and to restore some moral sanity to American life."
When introducing the Commander-in-Chief at the 2004 GOP Convention -- that Orwellian orgy of unprecedentedly creepy, relentless hero worship -- Gov. George Pataki said: "He is one of those men God and fate somehow led to the fore in times of challenge." The righteous Gen. Boykin said: "The majority of Americans did not vote for him. He's in the White House because God put him there for a time such as this." Rudy Giuliani added: "I say it -- I say it again tonight -- I say it again tonight: Thank God that George Bush is our President."

And here is how they dressed up the Great War Hero when he addressed us all at the Convention:

In 2006, even Bill Kristol acknowledged to The New York Times that the "conservative movement" had become little more than a Bush-revering cult of personality: "Bush was the movement and the cause." And this is to say nothing of their ongoing canonization of the God-given Patron Saint of Freedom and Goodness, Ronald Wilson Reagan. He brought Morning to America.

But remember: what Rich Lowry and his friends find "scary" about the Obama campaign is simply that they think it's unhealthy to venerate a political leader too much. They're really against doing that.

-- Glenn Greenwald
"

http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/

Pick a side clinton supporters. please. If your republicans, fine. Be honest.

"And there are no set of rules governing the Florida and Michigan situation. These were decisions made by the DNC and can be reversed, refined, or left alone. Basically, as with the Super-delegates, the decision on what to do is up to the DNC as they see fit."

And they made their decision. Why won't you people live with it? Why is the media like cc here and all the news running with this nonsense? Money. that's why. They want to prolong the fight so they can make money off reporting it. if the american people can't see that. We deserve the gop again as we are a lost cause. Mccain could have his world war. i am now a christian man. i will be fleeing persecution FROM this country, like my ancestors did when they fled TO this country

"JKrishnamurti ,

And what exactly are the rules you and others keep talking about? It seems it is the Obama supporters are the ones trying to change the rules. Super-delegates, as the system in the DNC is set up now, are free to vote for any candidate they see fit.
"

Right. like kerry and kenneddy supporting obama, unlike their state. Who's trying to change the rules tough guy? He's getting supers and she is.

People take issues with those superdelegates over ruling the will of the people. Justifiably so. No one on my side is changing the rules. though we do think the will of the people should not be overturned by old sytle politicans and back room deals. If hillary wins more deleagtes then the supers shold vote for her. more power to ya. good luck. I read she will have to win 97% in the remaining states. If she can do that she should be the nominee. If she cannot win 97% of the remaining votes (WHICH IS IMPOSSIBLE UNLESS OBAMA GOES TO JAIL) she shoudl drop out.

Change the rules? Enlighten me as to who and how on my side is doing that.

Good night and Good Luck...come April 15th you better have some answers!

First lady papers...tax returns...guess who called out the vetting dog.

"AMEN--and leichtman--1st order of business by the DNC should be some standards and standardization of the primary process.

Posted by: chadibuins | March 6, 2008 05:44 PM
"

Great idea. LEt's fix it after obama wins. Not in the middle of the process when your candidate is losing. Obama will fix the process. just like he will put bribery on front street, by making bribe takers famous. though i would prefer 30 years each for bribery. their names on the web is plenty for me. I would also like to see as far as endoremenets who got paid, or who got favors.

Baby steps. We can't change the world overnight or in the middle of the porcess. Who started, in washington, this new change washington movement? clinton? hahahah

now everyone is on the change bandwagon. Let the man you stood strong when he was needed and started the message bring it. hillary with her "yes we will", is second bananda. riding his coattails. She needs to stop the sabtoage.

How does it feel to be standing by and fighting along side with rush fox and ann coulter clinton supproters? I woudl never know. I've been fighting them for years. do you feel guilty fighting with them, as the rest of your party is fighting agaisnt them?

its still unbelievable 'Floridians' tolerated that but we see how the Jed Bush/Harris machine worked.

Chris, you didn't leave anything out. You, as always, did a good, objective job (rather rare for the media these days.)

Against all odds Senator Clinton again rose to the top. Senator Obama is an astute politician who, perhaps until now, has gotten a free pass from the press.

As James Carville said 15 years ago, "It's the economy stupid." It is also national security; not in the scare fashion of the current administration, but it is a factor that needs to be acknowledged.

Mr. Obama's turn will come in about eight years. Right now we need the experience and judgment of a seasoned professional - Senator Hillary Clinton.

I do not understand the vitriolic hate that spews out agains Mrs. Clinton. Hey guys. Hate is not a redeeming quality.

no she won 3 states and 12-25 more delegates as many are still undecided until state conventions. B.O. won Missouri right? And that was a blow out in delegates for b.O. in Mo as well right? Not. So now every Clinton supporter is a Republican. nice touch.

As to 2000 if Republicans were so convinced they won why did they go to the Supreme Ct and fight it. W won by maybe 500 votes in Fla, maybe the AP research says otherwise and says Gore's actual vote was 90,000 higher. I can't imagine a vote for local dogcatcher being as close as 500 disputed voted and not getting a recount in 2000, its still unbelievable that Republicans tolerated that.

BUT ONE MORE TIME--NO ONE IS ASKING FOR A RECOUNT IN FLA-- Why don't you seem to understand that?

"And yes, those Republicans sure are screwed up using such an unfair system like winner-take-all. My lord, what an insane thing to do, award all the delegates to the candidate who wins the popular vote in that state. Seriously, where do they come up those crazy ideas?

Posted by: mamiller35Post | March 6, 2008 05:30 PM
"

iF YOUR A REPUBLAIN, be proud. support your party. Don;t come in here and sabotage. be proud of who and what you are. Quit being a cartoon. an evil james bond villian spy. :)

I saw your post later down the line tough guy. EASY. they dont go by those rules, and are not going to. So your 'exercise" is noting. Just another bogus attempt to justify you and clinton detroying the opposition ticket. We see you people now. You need not pretend you are not republcains. The question becomes, who are the american people with. the gop and the their moderates sell-out sabotuers in the democratic party. Or are the american people with the people fighting them.

According to polls, votes and money raise the american people are not with you sabotuers. Majority rule remember. Please stand down

Again...just a reality check for you Hillary folks. Go drink a bunch of whiskey or take some really good drugs then go to CNN.com and play the delegate game. No matter how outrageous you set the numbers the answer is the same...Hillary loses and the American people win!

Yeah America!

I believe that the primary and caucus process as well as the date to hold them are decided in conjunction with the Republican state party on a certain date. The dnc can not dictate how each states conducts their primary or caucus but certainly they should have a large say in them and their needs to be consistancy from state to state. We should never be put in a position where Dems are attacking Dems b/c the delegate vote is virtually a tie. Dean should have seen this train wreck coming when he decided how to mishandle Fla and Michigan and he needs to fix this mess, now and fairly to both sides.

"jkrish B.O. outspending his opponent 3 to 1 and losing one state by 95,000 votes and Ohio by 200,000 votes is a win? Sounds delusional but if that is what you want to believe, go for it."

It's nto about money. that's what you republcains never understand. money is just a means to an end. It is not the end all say. Spin a voctory if you wish. clinton's chances (% wise) went down after she "won" texas and ohio. Less delegates for her means less change to overtake him

I asked what the delegate "win" she got was. I heard it was a net gain of 4. that's 4 delegates. conversly obama won 9 in little washington dc. Learn about the democratic process. I know you are playing by your parties (republcain) rules. But the republcain rules do not apply. you can talk about "what if's" all day long. What is the delegate count? If she won, by how many delegates? 4? 8? 12? WOW.

She's down by over 100%. And texas was a big state. HAHAHHA

Propogate on miss

I agree that Obama needs to bone up on his ability to respond to lies, fear, and rumor. This is the GOP game plan that Hillary is trying to copy and he needs to look at this as a two for one opportunity...the chance for some great practice before the general and the chance to give it to Hillary just the way she wants it.

"leichtman

One more thing, the Miami Herald and the NYT funded a "recount" of disputed ballots to see what the impact on the results would have been with a more liberal interpretation of ballot marks. They found that Bush still would have won if "arguable" ballots were accepted (an analysis of the chads). It also